Heartless,evil post

[keepthefaith]

Think he'll ever distinguish between the government taxing people to fund government operations, and the government taxing people simply for wealth redistribution?

 

Libs will understand the difference and support both.

 

If the wealthy have an obligation to support the unproductive, what obligation do the unproductive have to support themselves?

[MattM]

My reply to you was respectful in every way, so not sure if you were referring to my reply with this specific point I put in bold above, but nothing I wrote was intended to be disrespectful to you or your opinnion. Although, I did find it interesting that you found it necessary to take end that very same post with a dig on my screen name.

 

As far as the recruiter story, you didnt really answer the queston, you just pointed out that recruiters dont pitch rich kids. How does the lack of a recruiter in your school provied that student with a specific "advantage" in life and make their path to success easier? Honestly, think about that...if a recruiter showed up at a rich kids school those kids in the school are not going to suddenly have a tougher path to success, so I don't follow the logic that the lack of one somehow translates into an advantage and easier path.

 

And this is my point with the whole recruiter thing...sometimes things are just different, doesnt always have to translate as advantage or disadvantage...just because one has different experiences does not always mean they actually had a "easier" path or advantage to finding their own success. This county has become a soceity of excuse makers and everyone always wants to find fault elsewhere rather than look at themselves. This is a major problem in this country.

 

If you go back and read what I wrote, I am not denying that there are people on both ends of the spectrum that have a harder path or an easier path. My issue is not within that statement and I am not arguing that. What I have an issue with is the massive over use of this excuse to validate the lack of achievement in what ever it is people feel they are lacking.

 

Again, I know there are many examples on both ends of this spectrum where some unfortunate kid never had a chance from the start (aka the movie Precious) and some rich pompous kid had his daddy's help to achieve what they want (see the Bush Administration)...but that doesnt mean that every rich kid has things handed to them and that every poor kid didnt have opportunity for success.

 

As far as your dig on my screen name...its not what you think it is. It literally was a term used in a leadership program I did as a reminder to stand as a leader in your own life and the community...to make things happen rather than watch things happen. Thats where it came from and why I use it...

 

PS: Again, I point out that this continued conversation about rich kids is mostly irrelevant in the context of this discussion as the vast majority of the heirs in estates are people 50 and above who are already who they are in life...

 

First off, nothing personal meant--my comment on your screen name was, however, how I felt at the time I wrote it. As I stood ready to write more, it occurred to me that in some cases folks are just not likely to "get" the arguments I was trying to make based on their pre-existing mindset. Reflecting on your screen name brought me to that point, perhaps incorrectly. If so, I apologize. BTW, that comment was aimed more at the other Greek chorus of conservative voices (they know who they are) than at you.

 

This is one of my first forays into the PPP board (I come to this site for football, where this thread started, not politics) and unfortunately it seems like a microcosm of our national political debate--people shouting the same things over and over again past each other, trying to score points with put downs out of Jr. High, saying in some cases shrill things I'd bet they'd never dare say to people face to face. (On a related topic, if you want to get really scared for our democracy I suggest you read the comments on Yahoo! sometime after a political story. I did that yesterday on a story about Michelle Obama--someone all reasonable people should be able to agree overcame a lot to become the successful person she was even before marrying her husband--talking to a HS graduating class and tearing up thinking about the sacrifices her parents made to help her and her brother and was stunned at the viciousness, racism, distortions and lies of many of the comments.)

 

In terms of the topic at hand, I'm sorry but it's a fact that being born into an upper middle class family creates an easier path to material success. I don't think that's something that anyone can really argue against. As noted way above, an old sociology professor of mine once said that according to numerous studies your parents' socio-economic status had the highest correlation to a kid's socio-economic status later in life, higher than other measurables, including IQ (which is probably the closest measurable proxy we can have to other things folks think might equate to success, since one can't really measure persistence or gumption or the desire to work hard in any meaningful way.) I'm too lazy to google more recent studies, but I'd be absolutely shocked if they found anything different.

 

The recruiter point was meant to illustrate that sacrifice in the form of military service is asked and expected much more from the working class than the elites in this society--again, no reasonable person can really argue that one either in my view. I always found it ironic that those who have the most are asked to sacrifice the least for our and their freedom, but that may just be me who grew up in a neighborhood that sent more than its fair share to places like Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan. I get your point about 90 plus percent of inheritances going to adults and not kids, but will reiterate the point that kids growing up in households where they will stand to pay the inheritance tax in a meaningful way most likely benefited quite measurably from living in an upper middle class household in terms of life chances.

 

In rereading your post, in some ways I don't disagree with you and you acknowledge what I seek to have my conservative friends (and I have quite a number) acknowledge--namely that the system is not fair. That's all that I can ask. Some of us seek to lessen the amount of unfairness in society, while others don't (often, I've found, since the unfairness inures to their benefit).

 

One last word to the Greek chorus--most of the arguments you make seem to be applicable to regressive taxation in any form. Thankfully if you're truly against that, you're in a pretty small minority fringe as a practical matter. But if you are, you should remember that part of what the rich buy for their increased share of taxes is social peace and the perception it helps create of a fairer society that in turn legitimizes such society in the eyes of its citizens. Be careful what you wish for--if you got the libertarian, dog-eat-dog, Hobbesian society that you seem to want, you should understand that what may likely go with it is increased crime and social unrest if folks no longer have a social safety net and people can recognize more clearly that their life chances truly are somewhat more rigidly set at birth. Is that really the world you want? One where the rich need to hide behind walls and hire armed security to protect them, because taken to extremes, I suspect that's where we'd end up. Look no further than places like Latin America for society's that have those problems.

 

PS To Messr. Adams--to my eyes, my struggle to get where I am proves not so much that poor kids can make it with some luck and hard work, but that we should try to remove the obstacles that poor and working class kids have to overcome to "make it", both for fairness reasons and for society's benefit overall. Isn't that better for society overall, to use the developable skills in people, or are you afraid of the increased competition?

[birdog1960]

First off, nothing personal meant--my comment on your screen name was, however, how I felt at the time I wrote it. As I stood ready to write more, it occurred to me that in some cases folks are just not likely to "get" the arguments I was trying to make based on their pre-existing mindset. Reflecting on your screen name brought me to that point, perhaps incorrectly. If so, I apologize. BTW, that comment was aimed more at the other Greek chorus of conservative voices (they know who they are) than at you.

 

This is one of my first forays into the PPP board (I come to this site for football, where this thread started, not politics) and unfortunately it seems like a microcosm of our national political debate--people shouting the same things over and over again past each other, trying to score points with put downs out of Jr. High, saying in some cases shrill things I'd bet they'd never dare say to people face to face. (On a related topic, if you want to get really scared for our democracy I suggest you read the comments on Yahoo! sometime after a political story. I did that yesterday on a story about Michelle Obama--someone all reasonable people should be able to agree overcame a lot to become the successful person she was even before marrying her husband--talking to a HS graduating class and tearing up thinking about the sacrifices her parents made to help her and her brother and was stunned at the viciousness, racism, distortions and lies of many of the comments.)

 

In terms of the topic at hand, I'm sorry but it's a fact that being born into an upper middle class family creates an easier path to material success. I don't think that's something that anyone can really argue against. As noted way above, an old sociology professor of mine once said that according to numerous studies your parents' socio-economic status had the highest correlation to a kid's socio-economic status later in life, higher than other measurables, including IQ (which is probably the closest measurable proxy we can have to other things folks think might equate to success, since one can't really measure persistence or gumption or the desire to work hard in any meaningful way.) I'm too lazy to google more recent studies, but I'd be absolutely shocked if they found anything different.

 

The recruiter point was meant to illustrate that sacrifice in the form of military service is asked and expected much more from the working class than the elites in this society--again, no reasonable person can really argue that one either in my view. I always found it ironic that those who have the most are asked to sacrifice the least for our and their freedom, but that may just be me who grew up in a neighborhood that sent more than its fair share to places like Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan. I get your point about 90 plus percent of inheritances going to adults and not kids, but will reiterate the point that kids growing up in households where they will stand to pay the inheritance tax in a meaningful way most likely benefited quite measurably from living in an upper middle class household in terms of life chances.

 

In rereading your post, in some ways I don't disagree with you and you acknowledge what I seek to have my conservative friends (and I have quite a number) acknowledge--namely that the system is not fair. That's all that I can ask. Some of us seek to lessen the amount of unfairness in society, while others don't (often, I've found, since the unfairness inures to their benefit).

 

One last word to the Greek chorus--most of the arguments you make seem to be applicable to regressive taxation in any form. Thankfully if you're truly against that, you're in a pretty small minority fringe as a practical matter. But if you are, you should remember that part of what the rich buy for their increased share of taxes is social peace and the perception it helps create of a fairer society that in turn legitimizes such society in the eyes of its citizens. Be careful what you wish for--if you got the libertarian, dog-eat-dog, Hobbesian society that you seem to want, you should understand that what may likely go with it is increased crime and social unrest if folks no longer have a social safety net and people can recognize more clearly that their life chances truly are somewhat more rigidly set at birth. Is that really the world you want? One where the rich need to hide behind walls and hire armed security to protect them, because taken to extremes, I suspect that's where we'd end up. Look no further than places like Latin America for society's that have those problems.

 

PS To Messr. Adams--to my eyes, my struggle to get where I am proves not so much that poor kids can make it with some luck and hard work, but that we should try to remove the obstacles that poor and working class kids have to overcome to "make it", both for fairness reasons and for society's benefit overall. Isn't that better for society overall, to use the developable skills in people, or are you afraid of the increased competition?

awesome post. unfortunately, i'm playing right into the mutual admiration tactic of the greek chorus but really...well said. your final point regarding the hobbesian society always makes my think of the health care debate. even the most staunch liberterian must want deadly communicable diseases treated (even in those unable to afford care) and managed by a central organization for the simple purpose of self preservation but maybe that won't be considered until it happens. when a truly virulent organism emerges and threatens millions, the liberterians should all refuse the government stockpiled antimicrobials and vaccines on principle.

[Rob's House]

awesome post. unfortunately, i'm playing right into the mutual admiration tactic of the greek chorus but really...well said. your final point regarding the hobbesian society always makes my think of the health care debate. even the most staunch liberterian must want deadly communicable diseases treated (even in those unable to afford care) and managed by a central organization for the simple purpose of self preservation but maybe that won't be considered until it happens. when a truly virulent organism emerges and threatens millions, the liberterians should all refuse the government stockpiled antimicrobials and vaccines on principle.

 

I don't think you understand the libertarian philosophy very well.

[birdog1960]

I don't think you understand the libertarian philosophy very well.

so it's not really "keep the government's nose out of my business and hand out of my pocket....until i need them"?

[ExiledInIllinois]

so it's not really "keep the government's nose out of my business and hand out of my pocket....until i need them"?

 

During the New Deal and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps)... Many depised Franklin yet, they loved the work that was being done. Probably your classic "what's in it for me" libertarians.

 

Hey gov't stay out of my life... But come and do some work for me!

 

[Rob's House]

so it's not really "keep the government's nose out of my business and hand out of my pocket....until i need them"?

 

Sorry, No. To put it generally, libertarians typically want federal government to be involved in the most basic and necessary functions to protect the society.

 

There is a subtle difference between stockpiling vaccines to protect against an epidemic, and providing every single person in the country with unlimited access to the most advanced medical technology known to man.

[Alaska Darin]

Sorry, No. To put it generally, libertarians typically want federal government to be involved in the most basic and necessary functions to protect the society.

 

There is a subtle difference between stockpiling vaccines to protect against an epidemic, and providing every single person in the country with unlimited access to the most advanced medical technology known to man.

Differences, schmiffrences. Everything I needed to learn about libertarians I learned from soundbytes on MSNBC and FoxNews.

 

America, land of the "informed" moron.

[LeviF]

Sorry, No. To put it generally, libertarians typically want federal government to be involved in the most basic and necessary functions to protect the society.

 

There is a subtle difference between stockpiling vaccines to protect against an epidemic, and providing every single person in the country with unlimited access to the most advanced medical technology known to man.

Details like this just weigh us down, man.

[IDBillzFan]

Differences, schmiffrences. Everything I needed to learn about libertarians I learned from soundbytes on MSNBC and FoxNews.

 

America, land of the "informed" moron.

In fairness, I've been following John Stossell's reports on Fox News pretty closely since he got his new gig, mostly because he professes to be an unabashed Libertarian and is often talking openly from the Libertarian viewpoint (he usually prefaces comments with "Most libertarian's believe...") and he has done a pretty fair job of helping me understand the Libertarian take on things. In fact, I don't mind admitting that the more I look at the Libertarian position on many topics, the more I find myself attracted to that "party." Or maybe I should say I find myself less aligned with Republican views than I originally thought.

 

Not to oversimply it, but it is lately reminding me of growing up Catholic. I went to Catholic church, was baptized, did the Holy Communion thing, and as I went out on my own, I was somehow surprised to suddenly realize that religion was not exclusively "You're a Catholic or a Jew, and you ain't a Jew." Libertarians were always like the crazy uncle everyone ignored, but I'm starting to think that the Obama administration is, quite possibly, one of the best things that ever happened to the Libertarian Party.

 

And even Libertarian isn't really the answer for me. I find myself looking to start the Chinese Menu Party. I'd like THIS from Group A, THIS from Group B, etc.

 

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Stossell is intriguing because I didn't think anyone could pull off that porn 'stache any more.

[ExiledInIllinois]

In fairness, I've been following John Stossell's reports on Fox News pretty closely since he got his new gig, mostly because he professes to be an unabashed Libertarian and is often talking openly from the Libertarian viewpoint (he usually prefaces comments with "Most libertarian's believe...") and he has done a pretty fair job of helping me understand the Libertarian take on things. In fact, I don't mind admitting that the more I look at the Libertarian position on many topics, the more I find myself attracted to that "party." Or maybe I should say I find myself less aligned with Republican views than I originally thought.

 

Not to oversimply it, but it is lately reminding me of growing up Catholic. I went to Catholic church, was baptized, did the Holy Communion thing, and as I went out on my own, I was somehow surprised to suddenly realize that religion was not exclusively "You're a Catholic or a Jew, and you ain't a Jew." Libertarians were always like the crazy uncle everyone ignored, but I'm starting to think that the Obama administration is, quite possibly, one of the best things that ever happened to the Libertarian Party.

 

And even Libertarian isn't really the answer for me. I find myself looking to start the Chinese Menu Party. I'd like THIS from Group A, THIS from Group B, etc.

 

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Stossell is intriguing because I didn't think anyone could pull off that porn 'stache any more.

 

There are many different types of libertarians.

 

Like this one:

 

Left Libertarian

 

[Rob's House]

There are many different types of libertarians.

 

Like this one:

 

Left Libertarian

 

 

Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. A socialist can call himself a "left-libertarian" just as easily as a man can call himself a duck, but he is no more a libertarian than the man is a duck.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. A socialist can call himself a "left-libertarian" just as easily as a man can call himself a duck, but he is no more a libertarian than the man is a duck.

 

Wrong.

[Rob's House]

Wrong.

 

Awesome post.

[birdog1960]

Sorry, No. To put it generally, libertarians typically want federal government to be involved in the most basic and necessary functions to protect the society.

 

There is a subtle difference between stockpiling vaccines to protect against an epidemic, and providing every single person in the country with unlimited access to the most advanced medical technology known to man.

therein lies the problem: the definition of basic and necessary. is it necessary and basic to treat poor people (and afford them access to a primary care doc) for communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis, aids or even garden variety influenza and to immunize them for preventable diseases? if they don't have access, how do they get it when an epidemic/pandemic hits? health care is just one example...there's a plethora of slippery slopes here.

[Jim in Anchorage]

How much the tax is has nothing to do with whether or not the Bills stay in Buffalo. That decision will be made by the new owners. Ralph's family is selling the team when he dies and nothing will change that.

 

As for the inheritance tax, Ralph bought the Bills for $25,000 and they are now worth almost a billion. He hasn't paid any tax on that gain. When he dies the family will be expected to pay taxes owed. By getting rid of the inheritance tax the country would be losing all of the tax revenue it would get at all. There is nothing wrong with that tax.

 

(I don't really believe that all of somebodies goods should be taken away when they die I'm illustrating a hypocrisy.)

 

I find it laughable how some people cry about the inheritance tax in one breath and then proclaim that only people who work hard make it. Well then, I say take it all away from their kids and let their kids work hard to make it. They'd be starting at a much higher level than the vast majority of people by having private school educations, expensive college degrees and a social networking tree that the vast majority of Americans could only wish for. Oddly though nobody seems to be for that idea. I guess working hard to get it all isn't that an attractive idea to the richest who espouse it.

 

BTW, I think this thread belongs in PPP. JMO

Get back to me when you understand the difference between estate/inheritance tax's and capital gains tax's.

[Chef Jim]

Get back to me when you understand the difference between estate/inheritance tax's and capital gains tax's.

 

And also when he understands that with estate, cap gains and income taxes due at death there can be 70-80% loss of the value of an estate.

[ExiledInIllinois]

And also when he understands that with estate, cap gains and income taxes due at death there can be 70-80% loss of the value of an estate.

 

Can is the key word here.

 

Now for my childish reply: Don't like it? Don't want the full backing of the United States and all that it brings/has to offer? Move to another country and/or do business there. I am sure there are plenty of of countries that will treat you better. The door swings both ways... Don't let it hit you in the ass.

[meazza]

And also when he understands that with estate, cap gains and income taxes due at death there can be 70-80% loss of the value of an estate.

 

It's not losing value, it's just transfered to the government who will transfer it to crappy programs that don't get anyone anywhere.

[Chef Jim]

Can is the key word here.

 

Now for my childish reply: Don't like it? Don't want the full backing of the United States and all that it brings/has to offer? Move to another country and/or do business there. I am sure there are plenty of of countries that will treat you better. The door swings both ways... Don't let it hit you in the ass.

 

Let me ask you a question. If your parents died with an estate worth $100k and in the end you had to split $20k with your siblings how would you feel about that? Or how about you dad ran a very successful business that he wanted to pass on to you but you had to liquidate it to pay the estate tax and the business folded.

 

And do you really think that the goverment needs all that money they get or are they wasting a good portion of it?