The Republican Mythology

[rstrong]

I'm with Supsalemgr on this one. So long as there is proper tax on income AND on capital gains*, then wealth should be handed down from one generation to the next largely untouched.

* Bush I's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was about defeating a pending capital gains tax, which would affect mostly rich people. Once it was defeated, there were indeed new taxes for everyone else.

[Stinger]

What is the problem with a family keeping their wealth within the family? I have four grandchildren and sure as hell want them to receive any leftover wealth I have when I meet my Maker than to have it sent to Washington. Make it optional and all the libs can designate their leftover wealth to the government than to heirs. Ready to sign on Vrede?

Why would you have to send it to Washington? Up to $5 million can be passed as inheritance without tripping the inheritance/estate tax.

[billy.pilgrim]

What is the problem with a family keeping their wealth within the family? I have four grandchildren and sure as hell want them to receive any leftover wealth I have when I meet my Maker than to have it sent to Washington. Make it optional and all the libs can designate their leftover wealth to the government than to heirs. Ready to sign on Vrede?

Why would you have to send it to Washington? Up to $5 million can be passed as inheritance without tripping the inheritance/estate tax.

he fancies himself as a billionaire

[billy.pilgrim]

I'm with Supsalemgr on this one. So long as there is proper tax on income AND on capital gains*, then wealth should be handed down from one generation to the next largely untouched.

* Bush I's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was about defeating a pending capital gains tax, which would affect mostly rich people. Once it was defeated, there were indeed new taxes for everyone else.

not so to the inheritance tax. too much of accumulated wealth stems from luck or being able to take advantage of rules and regulation or just plain buying law for gain - and offers an opportunity to pay a little back to the society that helped get you there

when the money is paid to heirs, they owe tax just like people who actually work for a living.

suckermanager and spouse can give 26,000 a year to all their children and grandmanagers and still hand over 5 million at death

methinks the suckermanager doth complain too much

[Supsalemgr]

What is the problem with a family keeping their wealth within the family? I have four grandchildren and sure as hell want them to receive any leftover wealth I have when I meet my Maker than to have it sent to Washington. Make it optional and all the libs can designate their leftover wealth to the government than to heirs. Ready to sign on Vrede?

Why would you have to send it to Washington? Up to $5 million can be passed as inheritance without tripping the inheritance/estate tax.

he fancies himself as a billionaire

As of 1/1/2013 the exemption goes down to $1M and the tax rate goes from 35% TO 55%. I am not a billionaire, but fortunately this change does affect me. Washington is not entitled to my funds as I have paid all appropriate taxes. No one has answered why the government is more entitled to my property than my heirs.

[Stinger]

What is the problem with a family keeping their wealth within the family? I have four grandchildren and sure as hell want them to receive any leftover wealth I have when I meet my Maker than to have it sent to Washington. Make it optional and all the libs can designate their leftover wealth to the government than to heirs. Ready to sign on Vrede?

Why would you have to send it to Washington? Up to $5 million can be passed as inheritance without tripping the inheritance/estate tax.

he fancies himself as a billionaire

As of 1/1/2013 the exemption goes down to $1M and the tax rate goes from 35% TO 55%. I am not a billionaire, but fortunately this change does affect me. Washington is not entitled to my funds as I have paid all appropriate taxes. No one has answered why the government is more entitled to my property than my heirs.

You haven't answered why you're worried about it. Washington is NOT entitled to your funds because you don't have enough to be bothered with.

[O Really]

If I have nothing, and somebody gives me $100,000, how is this not "income"? If I have no cash and sell my services for $100,000, how is that not income? If I buy a house for $100,000 and sell it for $150,000, how is that not income? If I win $100,000 in the lottery, how is that not income? If I receive a gift of $100,000 from an anonymous donor, how is that not income? If my neighbor dies and leaves me $100,000 because I was nice to him and his friend in his old age, how is that not income? If that neighbor is my relative, how is that not income?

[rstrong]

Why? The moral implication of "should" means less to me than the effect of enormous familial, semi-monarchical disparities in wealth not being consistent with democracy

Note: I agree with that the 2% aren't even remotely the job creators that Republicans make them out to be. And I agree with taxes on the 2% being higher than what they've dropped to over the last decade or so.

But once having paid an appropriate level of taxes, Supsalemgr is correct when he says:

I am not concerned with how the 1% accumulated their wealth. If they have not been convicted of any crimes we must accept their wealth came from legitimate means. So tell me why these folks are not entitled to their wealth?
[...]
My wealth is "mine" and I have paid taxes on it. Why should I not be able to direct where it goes? That is our basic disagreement. I do not believe the government has a right to my property if I have paid all applicable taxes.

If I'm part of the 2%, then I should have already been taxed accordingly on my income and capital gains. What's left shouldn't be taxed again just because I died.

Tax transactions when I purchase things. Tax transactions when I sell things. Tax services - including an entire life-time of property taxes (indirectly if you live in an apartment, but you're still paying it) to cover essential services.

But taxing what I gift to my children is crossing the line. My family is a unit. What I've earned, I've earned for my family, and frankly been taxed as a family. As long as that money stays with the family, it shouldn't be taxed again just because someone died. Chances are the kids will eventually spend much of that money, and it'll be taxed yet again then anyway. If I leave them a mansion they'll be paying property taxes, and for taxable services like power and insurance.

Providing for one's family is one of the biggest motivations to work. Saying "we'll take it away when you die", makes me wonder way I'm working so hard.

If I want to leave my mansion to my kids, it shouldn't be taxed away any more than a middle-income house (which also shouldn't be taxed away.)

And note: I'm not so much arguing against tax laws as they are. I'm arguing against the following statements:

Because enormous semi-monarchical disparities in wealth, often inherited rather than earned, are not consistent with democracy. We choose democracy and the work ethic, you don't.

A few vastly wealthy citizens do not harm society. You WANT a few vastly wealthy citizens, because while the image of them being job creators is largely mythical, so is the image of them being largely parasites.

Sure, not all of them have something like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but a lot of them DO invest in things - from medical technology to SpaceX - that otherwise would never get funded.

Likewise all those Renaissance painters and astronomers would have been unknown farmers and cobblers if the super-wealthy of the time hadn't paid their food and lodging while they painted and worked out celestial mechanics.

That 2%'rs kids and grandkids inherit their estate does not harm or oppose democracy and the work ethic, as you strongly imply. See more regarding inherited wealth somehow being opposed to the work ethic, below.

What is the problem with a family keeping their wealth within the family?

Ask the founders that revolted against familial rule and implemented a democratic republic instead.

Again, passing your wealth - already taxed - to your kids does nothing to oppose democracy or the republic.

Just make sure that everyone has the same rights, and one vote each. No royalty, beyond the impression that family heir Paris Hilton is royalty.

For all their spending, the recent election showed that the Koch brothers couldn't buy an election. Paris Hilton still did jail time.

I have four grandchildren and sure as hell want them to receive any leftover wealth I have when I meet my Maker than to have it sent to Washington.

That's nice, but their boon as a result of being born to a lucky womb has nothing to do with earning a thing.

No, it doesn't. But whether it's a lucky womb or a lottery win, a windfall isn't evil or wrong, and it isn't grounds to take that money away. If I could pass on enough wealth to my kids that they barely had to work, I certainly would do so. But here's where the assumption that - with evil overtones - inherited wealth means not earning a living, hits a nerve....

If you'll pardon me for Godwining the topic, the arguments presented here sound uncomfortably like, without the religion, Economic Antisemitism:

Derek Penslar writes that there are two components to the financial canards:
a) Jews are savages that "are temperamentally incapable of performing honest labor"
b) Jews are "leaders of a financial cabal seeking world domination"

Abraham Foxman describes six facets of the financial canards:
1) All Jews are wealthy
2) Jews are stingy and greedy
3) Powerful Jews control the business world
4) Jewish religion emphasizes profit and materialism
5) It is okay for Jews to cheat non-Jews
6) Jews use their power to benefit "their own kind"

Substitute "The 2%" for "Jews" and the complaints are there: Incapable of performing honest labor. Stingy and greedy. Materialism. Cheating everyone else. Using their power to benefit "their own kind."

I've been one of the most vocal here in saying that the 2% have had their taxes slashed too much over the last couple decades, to the detriment of the middle class. But I only want them to pay a bit more and close loopholes. I certainly don't want to tax them out of existence, and I think they should have the right to pass their wealth on to their kids. I see nothing evil about being wealthy in a one-person-one-vote Bill of Rights constitutional democracy.

[Stinger]

No, it doesn't. But whether it's a lucky womb or a lottery win, a windfall isn't evil or wrong, and it isn't grounds to take that money away.

Lottery winnings get taxed.

With the exception of farmers who are "land rich" but "money poor," you're not preventing anyone from living off their inheritance. The estate tax doesn't destroy family functions or prevent children from living off their inheritances -- it's the childrens' spending habits and work ethic and poor investment strategies that destroy the family fortune.

[O Really]

I'm not opposed to some amount being passed along as inheritance, but it does defy logic, at least for descendants who are adults.

[rstrong]

No, it doesn't. But whether it's a lucky womb or a lottery win, a windfall isn't evil or wrong, and it isn't grounds to take that money away.

Lottery winnings get taxed.

Sorry. Here in Canada they're not taxed.

On the other hand, one can't write off $100 hospital lottery tickets as a charitable donation.

[rstrong]

I don't buy the double taxation argument. All income has been taxed before and inheritance is income to the recipient.

I disagree. My family is a unit. What I've earned, I've earned for my family, and frankly been taxed as a family.

Even though kids have no significant income, parents will spend 18+ years paying taxes on their food, shelter, toys, school supplies, medical and dental, etc. They should be able to pass their remaining money on to their kids. The government will still get to tax it when the kids spend it.

After a reasonable amount tax free - $5M is way too much! - it should be taxed as income.

It *already* has been taxed as income.

Otherwise, it's national policy to penalize (in comparison) people who actually worked for their money.

There it is again.

In our society people are allowed to give gifts. ESPECIALLY to our children. Building a better life for our children is a primary motivation for working harder than absolutely necessary.

I worked many extra hours - lowering my standard of living - so that my kids could have a higher standard of living. Not only did I pay income tax on those extra hours, but it pushed me into a higher tax bracket.

No one is saying take it all away when you die. Most of a paycheck is not taken away, either.

As I mentioned, (And note:...) I'm not so much arguing against tax laws as they are. I'm arguing against the statements that followed. They gave a different picture.

I understand that vastly wealthy people can invest in or donate to good things, but so can governments and other collections of individuals.

And....? That statement goes both ways. Governments and other collections of individuals can invest in or donate to good things, but so can wealthy people.

Why should we give a few the power to decide what is "good"?

Because once earned and taxes, it's their money to decide what is "good." That applies equally to middle and low income families too.[/quote]

I want there to be as little of a ruling class as possible instead of sitting back and hoping it's benevolent. Just because the Kochs didn't win doesn't mean that they didn't have an effect.

That's why democracy and rule of law are so important. One person, one vote is one hell of a counterbalance to the wealthy. It doesn't matter if they have a hundred times the wealth and pay a hundred times the taxes; they still only get one vote.

And yes, that can make no difference in a corrupt state. Which is why the rule of law is so important, preventing bribery, etc. And with the internet and new alternatives to the mainstream media, keeping tabs on what the folks like the Koch brothers are up to is easier than ever before.

Your Jew comparison is inappropriate and offensive.

It certainly was unfortunately offensive. But more unfortunately it was appropriate.

I haven't talked in terms of evil, and all your other epithets are straw men relative to what I've posted.

Again, I disagree based on what I quoted.

Rather, it's about what's best for the most. Healthy economies are built on a strong middle class, not an oligarchy, and healthy democracies are built on somewhat equal sharing of power and responsibilities, in all their forms.

Well sure. But a strong middle class does not preclude a few super wealthy. As I pointed out in my previous post, there is much that would rarely get funded without super wealthy investors.

To add to that, so much new technology depends on early adopters buying horribly expensive, unreliable new technology like the first automobiles and televisions, or more recently, the first cell phones and HD flat-screens. And that usually means the rich buying them, which pays for initial production, works out the bugs, and lowers prices to the point where the middle class can buy them.

Finally, no one is imagining the extinction of the wealthy - another straw man. There were plenty of them before we began our 30+ year transfer of wealth from the middle class to the uber-rich.

Agreed. As I mentioned, I'm not so much arguing against tax laws as they are. I was arguing against the statements that followed.

In my wildest dreams I don't foresee during what's left of my lifetime our returning to the greater balance we had in the 1970's. I'd just like to see us start moving in that direction.

Agreed.

[Stinger]

No, it doesn't. But whether it's a lucky womb or a lottery win, a windfall isn't evil or wrong, and it isn't grounds to take that money away.

Lottery winnings get taxed.

Sorry. Here in Canada they're not taxed.

On the other hand, one can't write off $100 hospital lottery tickets as a charitable donation.

Everyone here but you is talking about the United States, where lottery winnings are taxed.

With the exception of farmers who are "land rich" but "money poor," you're not preventing anyone from living off their inheritance. The estate tax doesn't destroy family functions or prevent children from living off their inheritances -- it's the childrens' spending habits and work ethic and poor investment strategies that destroy the family fortune.

[Supsalemgr]

None of the libs have provided a solid argument as to why the government is more entitled to a person's wealth than a family member.

[Stinger]

None of the libs have provided a solid argument as to why the government is more entitled to a person's wealth than a family member.

None of the cons has provided an argument on why the government shouldn't tax an income windfall of $5 million or more.

[Supsalemgr]

Stinger just doesn't get it. He believes the government has a right to confiscate a private citizen's property. Have a good day comrade.

[billy.pilgrim]

Stinger just doesn't get it. He believes the government has a right to confiscate a private citizen's property. Have a good day comrade.

The Constitution of the United States of America

Article 1, Section 8

but little facts don't bother the suckermanager

[Supsalemgr]

So tell me where in the constitution does the government have right to double taxation?

[billy.pilgrim]

rstrong


I agreed - absolutely - unequivocally -

up to a point


up to the point of consequences, the consequence of establishing a ruling class.

this may not be the natural consequence of no inheritance tax, but the lack of an inheritance tax, along with all the other preferential treatment the rich have taken in their class war has almost destroyed our middle class and has forced many into poverty and left the wealthy to make the rules their way

maybe this is a battle out of place, but the middle class didn't start this war, I support the inheritance tax on all estates over 1 or 2 million dollars at the same rate as the money would be taxed if income

so what if the poor little rmoney has to pay tax on the 1/2 billion or so daddy leaves him - he walks with 2/3 of 1/2 billion + the billions daddy has stashed in the caymens


waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[billy.pilgrim]

So tell me where in the constitution does the government have right to double taxation?

since "double taxation" is something you seem to have made up, that would be

The Constitution of the United States of America

Article 1, Section 8