Heartless,evil post

[Magox]

Sage advice from a guy who's been talking to him for 3 days about oil price fluctuation.

That's cuz I didn't know. Duhhhhhh

[John Adams]

Only accused

This is classic. It amazes me what people will tell strangers on the internet.

 

I stand by my post in that thread repeated below...and again, I'd forgotten he was the choker. I can't keep the inmates straight.

 

You keep bringing up the fact that you choked out your female co-worker...but if you'd never admitted it, no one would ever know. This, after all, is an anonymous message board. Second, and I find this odd, you changed usernames and thus most people here (including me) probably had no idea that you were the choker until this thread, and yet here you are admitting to the choking yet again. That's weird and creepy and serial.

[Magox]

I've got a new rule for the tards on this board.

 

Considering that over 50% of the public don't pay income taxes, which the vast majority of the tards fall in this category, you are not allowed to B word about the "rich" not paying enough taxes if you happen to fall in this 50% group, without getting utterly humiliated and smacked down.

[birdog1960]

No-- "simply because they have it"is exactly your rationale for taking the money. I ask you this. What right do you have to take my money at gunpoint? Your argument is that you can take my money at gunpoint for no other reason than "it's not fair" that I have money. Doesn't matter how I made it. Doesn't matter what I do with it. The mere fact that I have money and in your eyes this is "not fair" gives you the right to point a gun at me and take my money. Is that about right?

not gunpoint but via representative, uncorrupted legislation that actually benefits the majority. it does matter how the money is made if it's through monetary influence that perpetuates further monetary influence in a vicious cycle.

[3rdnlng]

but it's not taking from them "simply because they have" it's taxing the unfair, unequal advantages that mattm so clearly illuminates. if someone can spend $100000 to play one hole of golf, how much do you surmise they can spend on shaping public policy to further and maintain their wealth despite the inheritance tax or any other taxes (especially with the recent supreme court decision on contributions)? I believe it morally wrong for the top 1% of the country to hold equal wealth to the bottom 60%. How do you suppose it got that way and continues to worsen? this is not coincidence or divine providence...the game is rigged and the golden rule is in full effect. how some can knowingly support this is beyond me.

 

I'm still waiting for the link to this story but I can almost guarantee you that the money went for charitable purposes if the story is true. Those rich, greedy bsatards are up to no good again, eh?

[John Adams]

not gunpoint but via representative, uncorrupted legislation that actually benefits the majority. it does matter how the money is made if it's through monetary influence that perpetuates further monetary influence in a vicious cycle.

 

No, it's gunpoint. If I don't pay my taxes, I'm arrested at gunpoint and put in jail at gunpoint. Make no mistake. You vote to use force to take my money every time you want more taxes on me. EVERY vote to spend is a vote to take my money without permission.

 

Subjugation of the minority by the majority is not moral authority. So far your arguments in support of taxing the rich just because they have money are:

(1) it's not fair that they have money

(2) they may use the money unfairly (no mention of all the ways the rich may use money for good but whatever)

(3) the majority wants the money

 

What I asked was your moral basis for taking my money at gunpoint for the simple fact that I HAVE money. So far you can't provide any.

 

Imagine I'm rich. What gives you, birdog, the right to steal what I've earned or that's been given to me?

[Chef Jim]

How has that gain been taxed? His yearly operational profits were taxed but not the gain on his investment. That's not taxed until it's sold. I've sold stocks and bought stocks and I only pay taxes on the gains when I sell. This is a very similar thing. So explain to me the double taxing of the teams value, please.

 

It's not a double taxation it's excessive taxation. Instead of paying a cap gains tax of 15% (for now anyway) it's an estate tax of 55%.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

A few thoughts:

 

1. You and RF seem to be tilting at different windmills--you don't like the fact that relatively small businessmen may have their inheritance taxed. He's talking about the multigenerational whale wealth. A fix would be to set the exclusion level at a point where most small to mid-sized businesses don't get hit or don't get hit hard. One can argue as to where that point is.

 

2. I won't bother with the double taxation argument, as it's been discussed many times before, but you don't seem to get it (maybe because it undercuts your point). Again, it applies much more to the whale level wealth, but also to any business. Wealth and businesses get taxed upon transfers to third parties--the difference here is that family transfers get an exemption from this and are treated somewhat differently (they get a large initial exemption, but are taxed at higher rates than normal capital gains at the higher end). Again, one can argue about the relative fairness of the relative rates.

 

3. I'll explain where I'm coming at this from--I grew up a blue collar kid in a blue collar town (as a Roch guy, Mr. WEO might be familiar with my hometown of East Rochester). I then spent four years at Columbia and three at Harvard Law School. I didn't see many people of my kind at either institution. I've lived and worked in corporate law/finance in NYC ever since and live in a nice suburb of NYC. Again, don't run into too many of "my kind" here either. To further the point, my wife grew up in an upper middle class suburb of DC and attended Yale and Wharton. As couples do, we periodically reminisce about our childhoods and pasts--the differences in certain experiences is very stark (her middle school never got the "the best thing you can do for your country is die for it" speech that the American Legion or some such gave my middle school, complete with a local CMH winner, for ex., that I got in 4th grade, and her HS never had perma-recruiters from the military in their lunch room cafeteria like mine did, among many other differences). I don't say this to pat myself on the back, but to point out that unlike I suspect a lot of the posters on this topic, I've lived in both worlds and seen how the world works. I believe that if working class people understood the advantages that rich and upper middle folks have in our society and how those folks view them, they'd be a heckuva lot less likely to be voting Republican (if there wasn't an outright class revolution). It's laughable to think that those folks don't have a massive leg up in the world upon birth. I think many of them don't like to acknowledge this since their worldview is based on the fact that they got where they are at the top of the heap because we are a fair society--evidence to the contrary doesn't register to them--and is some kind of justification for letting the world work just the way it is without any attempt to change things that are unfair.

 

4. As you might guess, the estate tax may in fact affect me via my wife's family her father, who was interned as an "enemy combatant" as a child, worked hard and did well for himself and his family. That said, I don't mind paying it, as my wife and I have made our own way in the world. I don't think he minds paying it either, but I could be wrong about that. Similarly, depending on where the level is set, it will probably be an issue for my kids, too, but, again, if they can't make it in the world with all the advantages they're likely to have, then that's on them. I don't have a problem paying the tax, again, depending on where it's set. So be careful before calling other people hypocrites. I don't mind paying my share (or even more) of the taxes, since I remember the 4-year old me growing up in public housing in Roch before our move to ER and the ways I've been helped myself over the years. When paying my taxes I think about people like my mom and dad, who worked hard their whole lives and the benefits they get from things like SS and Medicare, for ex., or things like HeadStart that help kids who need it. Not all govt spending is good, but it's not all bad, either.

 

5. I'm not a "soak the rich" guy as you try to paint your opponents here, nor am I a NIMBY on this issue. In my view the rich should pay their fair share of taxes (to my mind the rollback of the Bush tax breaks is about the right level), but not the entire burden. I think what NYS did was ridiculous in raising the top rate and think their idea of a "millionaire's tax" on incomes over $1m is counterproductive and unfair. I also think Obama's pledge to not tax people over $250k was not wise--if there's pain to be felt, all should feel it, if in different degrees. (As you might imagine, one will affect, but the other may not--even so, I don't think it's fair.)

 

Time to get back to work.

 

 

thanks for your thoughts.

 

I'm a blue collar kid who has never run in the circles you have apparently run in, but i've danced on the fringes with some people who have some money. not crazy money, likely, but the $2m-$10m net asset base. At the same time, i've taken the lessons i was taught by my very hard working parents and tried to go just a little bit farther than they did (my job is to help my kids reach just a bit farther than i did, and so on).

 

Your position is admirable. Given your education, it's probably safe to assume you're a pretty intelligent guy. My issue still comes back to the notion of what constitutes 'fair share' when dealing with a government that consumes like a pig at the trough 24x7x365. I'd gladly pay my fair share of the tax rate if equity in the system was even on the horizon. The way I see it, it's like working hard to carve out your little slice of the world just to give a large part of your money away to help good old Uncle Joe, only to find out Uncle Joe likes the ponies a bit too much, and on the way to the track he swings by the local bar and buys drinks for everyone before hitting the blackjack table.

 

Additionally---your opinion aside, I'd bet there are contemporaries of yours (maybe your father-in-law, maybe not) who feel differently. In a perfect yet admittedly far-fetched world, the government would not be demanding the vig on your life's work day-in, day out, but certainly would let sensible, kind-hearted people like you gift your money on a scale you felt appropriate. Instead, they seize it, blow it to some large degree, and try and convince us all it's about fair share.

And, frankly, it sure seems to catch up a lot of small to moderate sized familes, and I simply don't believe that's a coincidence.

 

 

 

In Poz We Trust!

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 15,036

Joined: 12-January 07

Member No.: 8,989

 

############

 

QUOTE (timmo1805 @ Jun 9 2010, 11:20 PM)

i asked in an earlier post and might have missed it---but how much extra did you send uncle sam last year for the greater good?

 

l

 

 

I didn't, but I'm not a millionaire. If I won the lottery I wouldn't take any tax deductions because I think the current rate for the uber wealthy is about right where it should be, without deductions. You are trying to twist my words to make it look like I support the government taking ALL of somebodies estate. I don't.

 

You might as well just cut the checks directly to the poor souls rather than go on a political initiative to have the government bill you for it. It seems your distaste for government doesn't include them raising your taxes in order to give the top 2% a significant tax break. Assuming you're one of the 98%.

 

So how much are you sending to the kids of the uber rich who've suffered the loss of money due to the estate tax?

 

##########################

rfey--i wasn't trying to twist your words, just trying to get a better picture of where you were coming from. and i never suggested in the least that you were for government seizure of all assets, nor do i think that you are. i think you're simply misguided on this issue, but that's only because i disagree with you. i do think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and i do think it's a reasonable question when you suggest that others need to do more---what else are you doing?

 

sorry, not a 2%er, just an average middle class American trying to make it through the world. to directly answer your question, i sent zero money to wealthy families who lost money due to estate tax. i don't recall asking you to do so, either. i didn't call out for a subsidy or an entitlement program to keep the wealthy in their bentleys. i do, however, contribute to causes i feel are just and worthy, that touch my heart, or that move me in some way. i think that's fundamentally different than the government taking a substantial percentage of my estate--should i be fortunate to be able to have one---and wasting most of it under some absurd notion that it's all for the greater good.

 

as for what you would do if you won the lottery (hint: save your money a little bit at a time, invest wisely and regularly in your own future, and build your own brand of wealth over time--the odds of success are better than the pick 6), who can really say? i don't want to insult you because i don't know you--but who's to say you don't glom onto every penny you can using the theory "i finally got mine."

[birdog1960]

No, it's gunpoint. If I don't pay my taxes, I'm arrested at gunpoint and put in jail at gunpoint. Make no mistake. You vote to use force to take my money every time you want more taxes on me. EVERY vote to spend is a vote to take my money without permission.

 

Subjugation of the minority by the majority is not moral authority. So far your arguments in support of taxing the rich just because they have money are:

(1) it's not fair that they have money

(2) they may use the money unfairly (no mention of all the ways the rich may use money for good but whatever)

(3) the majority wants the money

 

What I asked was your moral basis for taking my money at gunpoint for the simple fact that I HAVE money. So far you can't provide any.

 

Imagine I'm rich. What gives you, birdog, the right to steal what I've earned or that's been given to me?

the right is the constitution and the ability provided by it to our elected representatives to enact tax laws...by living in the USA, you give that permission. the morality of that is not salient to the discussion but i can't see how it could be considered immoral.

[DC Tom]

the right is the constitution and the ability provided by it to our elected representatives to enact tax laws...by living in the USA, you give that permission. the morality of that is not salient to the discussion but i can't see how it could be considered immoral.

 

It's moral because Congress has a legal right to the fruits of my labors, because I exist?

[Rob's House]

the right is the constitution and the ability provided by it to our elected representatives to enact tax laws...by living in the USA, you give that permission. the morality of that is not salient to the discussion but i can't see how it could be considered immoral.

 

The bulk of what federal taxation goes to fund is not provided for anywhere within the constitution. Nor is the current incarnation of the 16th amendment remotely similar to that which was intended and discussed prior to its passage in 1913.

[birdog1960]

It's moral because Congress has a legal right to the fruits of my labors, because I exist?

from your posts i presumed you were pretty intelligent ...if existence is equivalent to residing in the US and vice versa then i guess you're right. the morality thing..well i guess its easier to be smart than correct

[DC Tom]

from your posts i presumed you were pretty intelligent ...if existence is equivalent to residing in the US and vice versa then i guess you're right. the morality thing..well i guess its easier to be smart than correct

 

From your posts, I was never under such misapprehension.

 

Really, your argument is a ridiculous mash of nonsense masquerading as sone moral/legal philosophy - from what I gathered, you said stealing was morally justifiable (without providing any sort of justification yourself), AND Congress has the legal right to do so on your behalf. My post was just distilling it to it's most succinctly absurd.

[3rdnlng]

I'm still waiting for the link to this story but I can almost guarantee you that the money went for charitable purposes if the story is true. Those rich, greedy bsatards are up to no good again, eh?

 

 

 

Birdog, are you going to answer the above or just ignore it because you don't have an answer?

[birdog1960]

From your posts, I was never under such misapprehension.

 

Really, your argument is a ridiculous mash of nonsense masquerading as sone moral/legal philosophy - from what I gathered, you said stealing was morally justifiable (without providing any sort of justification yourself), AND Congress has the legal right to do so on your behalf. My post was just distilling it to it's most succinctly absurd.

i don't know about misapprehension but you're damned good at misrepresentation

[John Adams]

the right is the constitution and the ability provided by it to our elected representatives to enact tax laws...by living in the USA, you give that permission.

 

Actually no, I don't give that permission any more than I give permission for the US government to wage dumb wars in Iran and Afghanistan.

 

And whether the Constitution gives the right to tax is certainly debateable. Before the 16th Amendment's enactment, the income tax was found unconstitutional more than once and even since its enactment, the Supreme Court has not always been united in its Constitutionality.

 

By living in the USA, I chose to live in the USA. That does not mean I permit the government to do whatever it wants.

 

the morality of that is not salient to the discussion but i can't see how it could be considered immoral.

 

The morality of laws is certainly relevant to any discussion of laws. If your only justification is "I want your money because you've got lots of it" than you're no better than a 4th grade bully in your moral stance. Sorry but to me, it matters that our laws register on the good/evil scale. "I want what you have BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE OF IT" is not a moral argument. I earned my money. What gives you the right to take it from me by force?

[Mr. WEO]

the right is the constitution and the ability provided by it to our elected representatives to enact tax laws...by living in the USA, you give that permission. the morality of that is not salient to the discussion but i can't see how it could be considered immoral.

There was no such "right" in the Constitution. It was amended to it over 100 years after it was written.

[DC Tom]

i don't know about misapprehension but you're damned good at misrepresentation

 

Imagine I'm rich. What gives you, birdog, the right to steal what I've earned or that's been given to me?

 

he right is the constitution and the ability provided by it to our elected representatives to enact tax laws...by living in the USA, you give that permission. the morality of that is not salient to the discussion but i can't see how it could be considered immoral.

 

It's not misrepresentation. You were specifically asked what gives you the right to steal others earnings, you answered with Congress' authority to tax, for which we "give permission" by our very existence inside US borders, and specifically stated that the morality of it is neither relevant nor questionable.

 

THAT is a complete hash of bull **** you've constructed. I'm not even arguing about whether you're right or wrong...I'm arguing that you're too damned confused to be either.

[birdog1960]

Birdog, are you going to answer the above or just ignore it because you don't have an answer?

see line #160 of this thread... also can check bristol herald courier via tricities.com. 6/8/2010 ...I was misinformed according to the paper but my info came from someone who planned on playing. its $100000 per group of 3 per hole but that doesn't change the argument..it's still 1 year or more of financial existence for many US households and still implies the ability to buy significant lobbying power.

[Alphadawg7]

A few thoughts:

 

1. You and RF seem to be tilting at different windmills--you don't like the fact that relatively small businessmen may have their inheritance taxed. He's talking about the multigenerational whale wealth. A fix would be to set the exclusion level at a point where most small to mid-sized businesses don't get hit or don't get hit hard. One can argue as to where that point is.

Its not just multigenerational whale wealth...anyone over $3 million is affected. If I leave my family $3 million dollars and the govt takes 55% of it, then what is left (and more than likely being divided amongst multiple people) is not very much money and an amount that can be lost very very easily. Its not going to be their ticket to easy street. They will need to work hard to make that money last or make that money grow. If I leave $10,000,000 to 5 people, then they will each get less than $1,000,000. To people who have never had a million dollars that sounds like easy street...well let me tell you that is not very much money and won't just allow someone to be on easy street for the rest of their lives as the money would be gone before they knew it.

 

More importantly, that money was more than like taxed already (and in some cases double taxed if you own a business and get self employment tax). To sit here argue what to do with very few instances where generational wealth is being passed on is silly becuase the VAST majority of the people affected by this are not passing on multi generational wealth, but an amount of money where a 55% tax dramatically impacts it.

 

2. I won't bother with the double taxation argument, as it's been discussed many times before, but you don't seem to get it (maybe because it undercuts your point). Again, it applies much more to the whale level wealth, but also to any business. Wealth and businesses get taxed upon transfers to third parties--the difference here is that family transfers get an exemption from this and are treated somewhat differently (they get a large initial exemption, but are taxed at higher rates than normal capital gains at the higher end). Again, one can argue about the relative fairness of the relative rates.

 

Already addressed this above...but basically, when you are dealing with the majority of people affected by this topic, you are talking about people who more often than not have been taxed, and in some cases taxed twice.

 

3. I'll explain where I'm coming at this from--I grew up a blue collar kid in a blue collar town (as a Roch guy, Mr. WEO might be familiar with my hometown of East Rochester). I then spent four years at Columbia and three at Harvard Law School. I didn't see many people of my kind at either institution. I've lived and worked in corporate law/finance in NYC ever since and live in a nice suburb of NYC. Again, don't run into too many of "my kind" here either. To further the point, my wife grew up in an upper middle class suburb of DC and attended Yale and Wharton. As couples do, we periodically reminisce about our childhoods and pasts--the differences in certain experiences is very stark (her middle school never got the "the best thing you can do for your country is die for it" speech that the American Legion or some such gave my middle school, complete with a local CMH winner, for ex., that I got in 4th grade, and her HS never had perma-recruiters from the military in their lunch room cafeteria like mine did, among many other differences). I don't say this to pat myself on the back, but to point out that unlike I suspect a lot of the posters on this topic, I've lived in both worlds and seen how the world works. I believe that if working class people understood the advantages that rich and upper middle folks have in our society and how those folks view them, they'd be a heckuva lot less likely to be voting Republican (if there wasn't an outright class revolution). It's laughable to think that those folks don't have a massive leg up in the world upon birth. I think many of them don't like to acknowledge this since their worldview is based on the fact that they got where they are at the top of the heap because we are a fair society--evidence to the contrary doesn't register to them--and is some kind of justification for letting the world work just the way it is without any attempt to change things that are unfair.

 

Too often in this thread, mostly by RF, I have seen "advantages" being talked about as if unfair or undeserved. Truth is, some people will have a tougher path and will have to work harder than others, thats a given and I am not disputing that. But by no means does that mean someone having a more financially succesful family isnt going to still have to work their ass off to carver their own way in life. There will always be exceptions to everything, like when some powerful rich dad flexes his wallet to help their kid skate through school, but that does not make it the norm.

 

And here is an even uglier truth...the quality of school is just and excuse...I have been in both...you can get good grades in both schools, you can earn scholarships from both schools, etc etc. People who come from lower end schools have the same opportunity if they choose to accept it to go to college and make something of themselves. The problem is with those schools is the dynamic of the people in them, many of them choose rougher and tougher paths...but MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT...that was THEIR CHOICE.

 

They choose to neglect school...they choose to struggle...they choose not to go to college. Their teachers didnt make that choice...the average test score of the school didnt make that choice...they did. Its always EASIER to sit back and just accept where you are then to go out and do something about it. People are afraid to admit this or even say this...of course, there will always be extreme examples on both sides of the coin, but people like RF make too many excuses for those of less fortune, and that is a big problem in our country.

 

Nothing was handed to me...I didnt have a financially easy life, but I also didnt accept that for myself. I paid my way through college, I worked hard to get into to college, I worked my ass of since college to the point I can retire in a few years and I am only 33 years old. One of richest kids during my time in high school is now an assistant manager at a Jiffy Lube for $14 an hour...

 

So while you can argue that not having to worry about the power bill being paid or food being on the table can make life more comfortable, but it does not mean those kids of poverty didnt have he same opportunity to apply themselves to the best of their ability at school and make a better life for themselves and their future kids.

 

And I don't get your story about recruiters at your school and not hers as some kind of indication of advantages she had at her school that your school didnt or as some kind of indication of the quality of the schools. I will bet good money her school was visited by recruiters and she either doesnt remember or just didnt know they were there.

 

Too often cultural differences are viewed as disadvantages or advantages when sometimes they are just merely different. There will always be extremes that come into play where you can say this person really had an advantage over this person...but its also way over used and often used to justify lack of effort, dedication, and hard work to get the things in life one wants for themselves. Too often they point the finger at others and say "If I only had what they had, I would have made it too" and that is more often than not a convenient excuse to validate the decisions in life they made.

 

4. As you might guess, the estate tax may in fact affect me via my wife's family her father, who was interned as an "enemy combatant" as a child, worked hard and did well for himself and his family. That said, I don't mind paying it, as my wife and I have made our own way in the world. I don't think he minds paying it either, but I could be wrong about that. Similarly, depending on where the level is set, it will probably be an issue for my kids, too, but, again, if they can't make it in the world with all the advantages they're likely to have, then that's on them. I don't have a problem paying the tax, again, depending on where it's set. So be careful before calling other people hypocrites. I don't mind paying my share (or even more) of the taxes, since I remember the 4-year old me growing up in public housing in Roch before our move to ER and the ways I've been helped myself over the years. When paying my taxes I think about people like my mom and dad, who worked hard their whole lives and the benefits they get from things like SS and Medicare, for ex., or things like HeadStart that help kids who need it. Not all govt spending is good, but it's not all bad, either.

 

I can respect that above, but I also feel like you are coming from a different place than RF who clearly has an attitude of screw the rich.

 

5. I'm not a "soak the rich" guy as you try to paint your opponents here, nor am I a NIMBY on this issue. In my view the rich should pay their fair share of taxes (to my mind the rollback of the Bush tax breaks is about the right level), but not the entire burden. I think what NYS did was ridiculous in raising the top rate and think their idea of a "millionaire's tax" on incomes over $1m is counterproductive and unfair. I also think Obama's pledge to not tax people over $250k was not wise--if there's pain to be felt, all should feel it, if in different degrees. (As you might imagine, one will affect, but the other may not--even so, I don't think it's fair.)

 

Time to get back to work.

 

As I originally stated, its not so much the inheritance tax, its the 55%. It should be capped at 15% like capital gains tax, especially given that a lot of what they are taxing has been taxed before (and yes, I get there are exceptions to the rule at the multi generational wealth levels, but the vast majority of who this affects are not at those levels).

 

Most important thing I want to convey as well...most of what we are discussing isnt that relevant to the topic on hand. You, and RF as well as others frequently reference kids in this topic of iheritance when the vast majority of the heirs to this kind of money are 50 and above, not kids...people who already carved they place in life.