I thought our taxes were not going up?!?!?!?

[teamosil]

I am sorry, but did those with wealth somehow not earn that wealth?

Not really. To become wealthy on that kind of scale is basically just an effect of the quirks of our economic system. For example, Bill Gates worked very hard. VERY hard. And he is very smart and innovative. Definitely. Probably a stronger combination of hard work and innovation than anybody I know if real life. Maybe even 10, or even 100 times, as productive as the average worker per year. But that doesn't even come close to explaining his wealth. He doesn't have 100 time as much wealth as the average worker. He has a MILLION times as much wealth as the average person. That can't be explained by hard work and innovation. Microsoft isn't just Bill Gates, it's 100,000 people many of whom work just as hard and are just as innovative as Bill Gates but who have net worths that Bill Gates wouldn't even bother to pick up if he saw them lying on the ground. He just happened to be the guy in the right place at the right time, so his "earnings" got multiplied a million times over.

How much wealth somebody has is a complex equation. It's not exclusively the result of the inputs that come from a person. How wealthy you are born, how smart you are born, when and where you are born, how educated your parents were, what kind of environment your parents provided for you, what company happened to be hiring at the time you were looking for work, how the economy as a whole fared, whether the technology the company you work for happened to appeal to consumers more than the competitor's, etc, are all variables that are out of your control, but they all play a massive role in how much wealth you get. So, a portion of the wealth you have can be directly traced back to your own actions- ie you earned it- but a portion is traced back to random occurances. When you get up into the billionaire category, the portion of that which you earned through your own actions is basically irrelevant. At that point it is all about the random luck.

But, that's the tougher case to see that in. Take the Wal-Mart family. There are five of them, each worth $20 billion or so. They inherited the business from their father and likely hardly ever had to work a day in their lives, yet they're all five amongst the top 20 richest people in the world. In their case virtually none of their wealth was earned.

 

[NolaMan]

Not really. To become wealthy on that kind of scale is basically just an effect of the quirks of our economic system. For example, Bill Gates worked very hard. VERY hard. And he is very smart and innovative. Definitely. Probably a stronger combination of hard work and innovation than anybody I know if real life. Maybe even 10, or even 100 times, as productive as the average worker per year. But that doesn't even come close to explaining his wealth. He doesn't have 100 time as much wealth as the average worker. He has a MILLION times as much wealth as the average person. That can't be explained by hard work and innovation. Microsoft isn't just Bill Gates, it's 100,000 people many of whom work just as hard and are just as innovative as Bill Gates but who have net worths that Bill Gates wouldn't even bother to pick up if he saw them lying on the ground. He just happened to be the guy in the right place at the right time, so his "earnings" got multiplied a million times over.

How much wealth somebody has is a complex equation. It's not exclusively the result of the inputs that come from a person. How wealthy you are born, how smart you are born, when and where you are born, how educated your parents were, what kind of environment your parents provided for you, what company happened to be hiring at the time you were looking for work, how the economy as a whole fared, whether the technology the company you work for happened to appeal to consumers more than the competitor's, etc, are all variables that are out of your control, but they all play a massive role in how much wealth you get. So, a portion of the wealth you have can be directly traced back to your own actions- ie you earned it- but a portion is traced back to random occurances. When you get up into the billionaire category, the portion of that which you earned through your own actions is basically irrelevant. At that point it is all about the random luck.

Apparently you are "rich" in this country if you make $250,000 or more per year. That is entirely doable based on talents alone in my opinion.

But, that's the tougher case to see that in. Take the Wal-Mart family. There are five of them, each worth $20 billion or so. They inherited the business from their father and likely hardly ever had to work a day in their lives, yet they're all five amongst the top 20 richest people in the world. In their case virtually none of their wealth was earned.

Their father earned every penny of that by revolutionizing the industry. His decision with his money was to pass it on to his children. The money was still earned somewhere along the line.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I am sorry, but did those with wealth somehow not earn that wealth?

It all depends how you define earn. There are lots of wealthy trust funders who never worked a day in their lives.

Now, coal miners and doctors for example earn it.

 

[NolaMan]

It all depends how you define earn. There are lots of wealthy trust funders who never worked a day in their lives.

Now, coal miners and doctors for example earn it.

Even if a trust fund baby does not work a day in their life and has a ton of money, that does not address the point that somewhere a long the way, that money was earned by their father, grandfather whatever. Since their father earned the money, and then chose to give it to them, it does not mean that the money was never earned.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Even if a trust fund baby does not work a day in their life and has a ton of money, that does not address the point that somewhere a long the way, that money was earned by their father, grandfather whatever. Since their father earned the money, and then chose to give it to them, it does not mean that the money was never earned.

That's a point that the aristocracy used to justify their existence.

 

[NolaMan]

That's a point that the aristocracy used to justify their existence.

I don't see how one can argue that the children of someone who earned a ton of money have no rightful claim to it, but somehow the government (which played no role in earning that money) does.

It is just a fundamental difference. If a family earns a ton of money and generations can survive off of that money, it makes the money no less earned.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I don't see how one can argue that the children of someone who earned a ton of money have no rightful claim to it, but somehow the government (which played no role in earning that money) does.

It is just a fundamental difference. If a family earns a ton of money and generations can survive off of that money, it makes the money no less earned.

We need higher inheritance taxes when the inheritance is too much. One good reason for this would be Paris Hilton.

Then the money collected from this tax could be recycled into the economy and make a better world.

 

[NolaMan]

We need higher inheritance taxes when the inheritance is too much. One good reason for this would be Paris Hilton.

Then the money collected from this tax could be recycled into the economy and make a better world.

Multiple studies have concluded that the biggest entity hit by increasing the estate tax is small business.

A report by the American Family Business Foundation argues that the elimination of the Estate Tax could:

• Create 1.5 million jobs
• Increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion
• Increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent
• Increase payrolls by 2.6 percent
• Expand investment by 3 percent

Additionally, the Heritage Foundation calls for the elimination of the Estate Tax. They argue that the tax punishes hard work, undermines job creation, is a drag on the economy, and hurts family owned businesses.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that at current rates only 0.2% of deaths trigger an estate tax. Additionally, this tax will raise around $14 billion in 2009. Going by these numbers, the best economic outcome would be the complete elimination of the Estate Tax.

HR 4154 was going to see it be increased as it is. Also, even if someone is a trust fund baby, their money is held by a bank, which in turn loans that money out to people.

What exactly do you want to do with it to "make it a better world"?

 

[Ockham]

Even if a trust fund baby does not work a day in their life and has a ton of money, that does not address the point that somewhere a long the way, that money was earned by their father, grandfather whatever. Since their father earned the money, and then chose to give it to them, it does not mean that the money was never earned.

Apparently that doesn't count and that money is forefit or something close to that. Never mind those who don't pay taxes at all.

 

[samsmart]

last I checked the limit is 2200 or 2300 dollars.

that is a silly argument given everyone has an equal vote and powerful interests win elections by pandering to the majority of voters

But they only connect to voters by outspending their opponents in campaigns, which they need campaign funding for, which is why the pander to the wealthiest for donations.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Multiple studies have concluded that the biggest entity hit by increasing the estate tax is small business.

A report by the American Family Business Foundation argues that the elimination of the Estate Tax could:

• Create 1.5 million jobs
• Increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion
• Increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent
• Increase payrolls by 2.6 percent
• Expand investment by 3 percent

Additionally, the Heritage Foundation calls for the elimination of the Estate Tax. They argue that the tax punishes hard work, undermines job creation, is a drag on the economy, and hurts family owned businesses.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that at current rates only 0.2% of deaths trigger an estate tax. Additionally, this tax will raise around $14 billion in 2009. Going by these numbers, the best economic outcome would be the complete elimination of the Estate Tax.

HR 4154 was going to see it be increased as it is. Also, even if someone is a trust fund baby, their money is held by a bank, which in turn loans that money out to people.

What exactly do you want to do with it to "make it a better world"?

The banks have recorded recorded record profits since the bail out but are not lending out any money. It's not about lack of money, it's about lack of lending.

 

[TurtleDude]

We need higher inheritance taxes when the inheritance is too much. One good reason for this would be Paris Hilton.

Then the money collected from this tax could be recycled into the economy and make a better world.

class envy is a disease that must be stamped out. The death confiscation tax was pushed to remedy the fact that there was no federal tax on income of any consequence. Now that there is-the death tax should be abolished. ANd its the uber wealthy who are benefited by the estate taxes-especially new Uber wealthy for several reasons

1) old money was often landed. If your wealth is liquid assets and you have a ton, the death confiscation tax is easier to remedy and it doesn't disrupt your lifestyle. If your wealth is a large estate that doesn't generate income-such as a big family farm or a stately manor, the estate tax causes you to sell it to pay the taxes. The estate tax thus frees up desireable property that normally would never be on the market-thus allowing the Buffetts, the LeBron James and the Gates to buy stuff

2) The estate tax kills off the competition of the uber wealthy. It is particulary brutal on early deaths-say your parents die in 2000 and you and your wife are killed in a crash 2 years later-the children of yours see huge confiscation of what normally they would inherit

3) the estate tax is essentially unfair--if the reasoning for it is the heirs didn't "earn it" then why not apply it to everyone> because the dems use it to pander to the envious

4) the estate tax discourages thrift and long term planning

5) social engineering is not a proper constitutional function either.

 

[TurtleDude]

The banks have recorded recorded record profits since the bail out but are not lending out any money. It's not about lack of money, it's about lack of lending.

how does that respond to the poster you quoted noting that the death confiscation tax hurts small businesses?

why don't you just admit that envy and spite is what motivates those who whine about the rich not getting screwed over enough

 

[LiberalAvenger]

class envy is a disease that must be stamped out. The death confiscation tax was pushed to remedy the fact that there was no federal tax on income of any consequence. Now that there is-the death tax should be abolished. ANd its the uber wealthy who are benefited by the estate taxes-especially new Uber wealthy for several reasons

1) old money was often landed. If your wealth is liquid assets and you have a ton, the death confiscation tax is easier to remedy and it doesn't disrupt your lifestyle. If your wealth is a large estate that doesn't generate income-such as a big family farm or a stately manor, the estate tax causes you to sell it to pay the taxes. The estate tax thus frees up desireable property that normally would never be on the market-thus allowing the Buffetts, the LeBron James and the Gates to buy stuff

2) The estate tax kills off the competition of the uber wealthy. It is particulary brutal on early deaths-say your parents die in 2000 and you and your wife are killed in a crash 2 years later-the children of yours see huge confiscation of what normally they would inherit

3) the estate tax is essentially unfair--if the reasoning for it is the heirs didn't "earn it" then why not apply it to everyone> because the dems use it to pander to the envious

4) the estate tax discourages thrift and long term planning

5) social engineering is not a proper constitutional function either.

You call it class envy and social engineering I call it fairness and laws.

Looks like we have a failure to communicate.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

how does that respond to the poster you quoted noting that the death confiscation tax hurts small businesses?

why don't you just admit that envy and spite is what motivates those who whine about the rich not getting screwed over enough

Don't worry about it. I gotten screwed by the rich more than I have screwed the rich.

Actually, i have never had the desire to be rich but only to live adequately from week to week.


Greed is not one of my virtues.

 

[TurtleDude]

You call it class envy and social engineering I call it fairness and laws.

Looks like we have a failure to communicate.

libs always justify oppression and government predation by claiming its "fairness"

is it fair that tiger woods wins more money than the golfers ranked 50-1000 combined?

or that roger Federer and Rafa Nadal have won more majors in the last 7 years than all the other men on the planet combined?

life isn't fair but when the government tries to enforce fairness, we have untold horrors

 

[TurtleDude]

Don't worry about it. I gotten screwed by the rich more than I have screwed the rich.

Actually, i have never had the desire to be rich but only to live adequately from week to week.


Greed is not one of my virtues.

I'd say ambition is not one of your virtues. But I understand where your envy of the rich comes from.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

libs always justify oppression and government predation by claiming its "fairness"

is it fair that tiger woods wins more money than the golfers ranked 50-1000 combined?

or that roger Federer and Rafa Nadal have won more majors in the last 7 years than all the other men on the planet combined?

life isn't fair but when the government tries to enforce fairness, we have untold horrors

Some people get the elevator, some people get the shaft. Some people win the lottery. Some people get run over by a bus.

That doesn't mean that we should live in chaos. Without law there is anarchy. What would you prefer, a dog eat dog world, or a hot dog world, full of chicken rapers?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I'd say ambition is not one of your virtues. But I understand where your envy of the rich comes from.

I am too beautiful to need ambition. I'm a chick magnet and I'm satisfied with that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Some people get the elevator, some people get the shaft. Some people win the lottery. Some people get run over by a bus.

That doesn't mean that we should live in chaos. Without law there is anarchy. What would you prefer, a dog eat dog world, or a hot dog world, full of chicken rapers?

Monte carlo doesn't have anarchy nor did the USA in the pre death confiscation tax period

Laws should be to protect rights and property, Not to increase dependency and parasitic behavior

SOME IS RICH, AND SOME IS POOR
THAT'S THE WAY THE WORLD IS
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN LYING BACK
SAYlN' HOW BAD YOUR LUCK IS


John Mellor (RIP)

 

[TurtleDude]

I am too beautiful to need ambition. I'm a chick magnet and I'm satisfied with that.

LOL-a love sponge

always use protection

 

[NolaMan]

The banks have recorded recorded record profits since the bail out but are not lending out any money. It's not about lack of money, it's about lack of lending.

I am not sure I follow this logic...

We should bypass potential economic benefits for small business and job creation because banks have tightened credit requirements?

Or are you focusing solely on the comment that banks loan out money? Certainly banks have tightened credit to an extent, but they are still lending, that is a big way they make money.

 

[NolaMan]

You call it class envy and social engineering I call it fairness and laws.

Looks like we have a failure to communicate.

How is it "fair" for the government to take money that they did not earn under the argument of "the other people did not earn it either?"

 

[NolaMan]

Don't worry about it. I gotten screwed by the rich more than I have screwed the rich.

Actually, i have never had the desire to be rich but only to live adequately from week to week.

Greed is not one of my virtues.

That is all fine and well, but don't seek to punish those who have other ambitions for going after them.

 

[TurtleDude]

How is it "fair" for the government to take money that they did not earn under the argument of "the other people did not earn it either?"

libs whine about wealth being concentrated in the hands of say a million families

so their solution is to concentrate it in the hands of a few hundred politicians