Heartless,evil post

[Rob's House]

This business of estate tax being the equivalent to a capital gains tax is a weak, narrow, one minded point of view. Whereas someone's property may be worth more $$ than it was when they were originally taxed, there is no compensation to them for the value their money has lost via inflation over their lifetime.

 

That inflation is primarily due to Government watering down the money supply by spending money it doesn't have. It's a hidden tax in itself, which is what's taking place right now. If you jack up people's tax rates they get upset. If you spend a ton of money you don't have, you still get the money from the population, only instead of directly taxing it you devalue their accumulated wealth.

 

Even though the fiat money becomes worth less, the government's share of it becomes proportionally higher which is all that is significant because it reflects the government's holding of the accumulated production (wealth) of private citizens and companies. (Kind of a convoluted way of saying the government still owns a higher % of the total than before)

[birdog1960]

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.

sure, the recruiters are lining up to sign them up at hotchkiss, deerfield and exeter. there offering helicopter pilot jobs and reminding them of prince william.

[MattM]

sure, the recruiters are lining up to sign them up at hotchkiss, deerfield and exeter. there offering helicopter pilot jobs and reminding them of prince william.

 

Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. I'm not a Michael Moore fan at all, but I must admit that he nailed that one right in Fahrenheit 911--the recruiters talking on the record about how they "don't go to the fancy mall in the rich part of town, because....well....we don't too well over there" or the incredulous looks on the Congressmen's faces when he asked them if they had kids serving or if they were going to talk to their kids about serving in the military. About 20% of the guys in my high school class were in the service within one year of graduation. I read in my local paper a year or two ago here in my Westchester town that they had 3 kids join the service out of a class of 350. Before I get jumped on about being anti-military, there's obviously nothing wrong about being in the service, but once again, the working class is asked/pushed to serve, while the upper middle class and wealthy generally are not. BTW, my wife is a fairly astute woman--I think it's much more likely that she didn't see them because they weren't there for the same reason that the two recruitersin F911 talked about not going to the "good mall". Want to get really depressed? Do some reading on the number of men killed in Vietnam who were Ivy League graduates versus the general population, or better yet, urban, inner city high schools much smaller in size......

 

I'd like to thank Timmo above for the polite nature of his response--we can disagree on some things, but that doesn't mean people have to get nasty and personal in their attacks. Something that seems to be forgotten all too often on these boards and in society.

 

Alphadawg, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm not sure you read all of my posts based on your responses. I find it a little tough to say "it's their fault for not growing up "winners"" when you're applying it to many people who never had a chance to start with--compare the case of a kid with poor, uneducated parents who don't know any better for their kids living in a place that doesn't exactly inspire hope or a sense that they can better themselves, with no role models to point the way towards sucess with your typical upper middle class kid living in a stable home, with educated, connected parents, who can teach the kid the right way to succeed and who can provide a successful role model. I'm not saying it's impossible to succeed in the former case, but it's a heckuva lot harder to do so than it is in the latter case, but I often find latter case folks blaming the poor for their own ills, when they've never experienced those situations themselves. Who are they to judge is usually what I think in those cases, but oddly enough that doesn't stop them from judging.

 

I could go on, but I suspect I'm barking up the wrong tree looking for empathy for others from someone who's self-chosen the name "Alphadawg"......

[birdog1960]

Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. I'm not a Michael Moore fan at all, but I must admit that he nailed that one right in Fahrenheit 911--the recruiters talking on the record about how they "don't go to the fancy mall in the rich part of town, because....well....we don't too well over there" or the incredulous looks on the Congressmen's faces when he asked them if they had kids serving or if they were going to talk to their kids about serving in the military. About 20% of the guys in my high school class were in the service within one year of graduation. I read in my local paper a year or two ago here in my Westchester town that they had 3 kids join the service out of a class of 350. Before I get jumped on about being anti-military, there's obviously nothing wrong about being in the service, but once again, the working class is asked/pushed to serve, while the upper middle class and wealthy generally are not. BTW, my wife is a fairly astute woman--I think it's much more likely that she didn't see them because they weren't there for the same reason that the two recruitersin F911 talked about not going to the "good mall". Want to get really depressed? Do some reading on the number of men killed in Vietnam who were Ivy League graduates versus the general population, or better yet, urban, inner city high schools much smaller in size......

 

I'd like to thank Timmo above for the polite nature of his response--we can disagree on some things, but that doesn't mean people have to get nasty and personal in their attacks. Something that seems to be forgotten all too often on these boards and in society.

 

Alphadawg, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm not sure you read all of my posts based on your responses. I find it a little tough to say "it's their fault for not growing up "winners"" when you're applying it to many people who never had a chance to start with--compare the case of a kid with poor, uneducated parents who don't know any better for their kids living in a place that doesn't exactly inspire hope or a sense that they can better themselves, with no role models to point the way towards sucess with your typical upper middle class kid living in a stable home, with educated, connected parents, who can teach the kid the right way to succeed and who can provide a successful role model. I'm not saying it's impossible to succeed in the former case, but it's a heckuva lot harder to do so than it is in the latter case, but I often find latter case folks blaming the poor for their own ills, when they've never experienced those situations themselves. Who are they to judge is usually what I think in those cases, but oddly enough that doesn't stop them from judging.

 

I could go on, but I suspect I'm barking up the wrong tree looking for empathy for others from someone who's self-chosen the name "Alphadawg"......

thanks..not a michael moore fan either but i do like rachel maddow

[Magox]

thanks..not a michael moore fan either but i do like rachel maddow

Of course you do...

[birdog1960]

Of course you do...

'

yep, its one of those "convert the tragically mistaken" things..sorta like this thread

[ExiledInIllinois]

Bump... Facts suck:

 

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. (It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservatives behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.)"

[John Adams]

Bump... Facts suck:

 

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. (It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservatives behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.)"

 

And again the only moral rationale you or birdog argue is that you want the money because there's lots of it. Not much above 3rd grade morality there.

[birdog1960]

And again the only moral rationale you or birdog argue is that you want the money because there's lots of it. Not much above 3rd grade morality there.

3rd grade at the country day school or walt whitman elementary?

[ExiledInIllinois]

And again the only moral rationale you or birdog argue is that you want the money because there's lots of it. Not much above 3rd grade morality there.

 

No. But I will play along. That "3rd grade morality" is better than your corrupted morality. I gotta admit, you are doing a hell of a job defending a corrupted morality that justifies oligarchy. I would have never guessed it about you JA.

[ExiledInIllinois]

3rd grade at the country day school or walt whitman elementary?

 

[DC Tom]

And again the only moral rationale you or birdog argue is that you want the money because there's lots of it. Not much above 3rd grade morality there.

 

I thought the morale rationale was that they want the money because only a few people have it?

[John Adams]

No. But I will play along. That "3rd grade morality" is better than your corrupted morality. I gotta admit, you are doing a hell of a job defending a corrupted morality that justifies oligarchy. I would have never guessed it about you JA.

 

My corrupted morality that says you have no right to steal from me at gunpoint? That I have the right to share my money with who I choose, in particular the people I love most, at my death. As usual Eric, you're in the flat out wrong on this.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I thought the morale rationale was that they want the money because only a few people have it?

 

No. Wrong again, but I will play.

 

 

Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population.

 

I see the pedantic, supercilious anal orifice in you is risinig to the top again Tom.

 

It isn't about "having money." It is about NOT creating a power structure that only benefits 1% of the population. You think the gov't is bad now being controlled by the few... Do you actually want it to be worse?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

And sorry Tom if you are just here stirring the pot and don't actually take the side I am against.

 

[Jim in Anchorage]

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.

Is there a war I don't know about?

[John Adams]

Is there a war I don't know about?

 

I was getting ahead of myself...that one's our next dumb war.

[3rdnlng]

that's kinda the point...you and the rest of the unwashed masses aren't meant to know about it or at least aren't considered rich enough to need to know ..until they dole out the percentage of gate they collect and congratulate each other very publicly...then they want everyone to know. google "the olde farm".

 

 

I'm part of the "unwashed masses"? I think you need to wash the self created bullschit off. Golfing events such as you quoted with legends such as those involved are invariably set up for charity reasons. The fact that some apparently wealthy people donated large sums and the legends donated their time for charity is reason for you to bash the wealthy people because they have money? Nice try, comrade.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

Who are they lobbying? The "Save the Tat Tas" Foundation?

[John Adams]

that's kinda the point...you and the rest of the unwashed masses aren't meant to know about it or at least aren't considered rich enough to need to know ..until they dole out the percentage of gate they collect and congratulate each other very publicly...then they want everyone to know. google "the olde farm".

 

I have no idea what car Bill Gates drives or how many houses he has. And I don't know where Warren Buffett ate last night. And I don't know how many planes or boats Paul Allen owns.

 

And I don't care because unlike you, I'm not jealous and obsessed with other people's money. It's theirs and they can do what they want iwth it--charitable frivolous or miserly. It's none of my business unless it's criminal.

 

One of these days, you'll provide your moral justification for taking people's money at gunpoint. Or not.