Heartless,evil post

[Steely Dan]

You do realize that the profit of 1B that you speak of is already taxed right? It doesn't sound like you get that.

 

On top of taxing that, when RW dies and tries to give what's left to his kids--that money gets taxed a second time because it's passing to his kids.

 

You bring up this aristocracy/meritocracy BS. Part of what makes this a meritocracy is that if I die with a few million in the bank, I die happy to be able to give what I earned to my children. That, in my mind, being one of the greatest things I can do with the money I earned. But instead of doing that--the government, which already grabbed 40+% of my money as I made it, taxes me just because I've died. It's ridiculous and has nothing to do with merit/aristocracy and everything to do with a money grab.

 

But I know that we're overrun with trust fund babies right? That's one of the best lines ever!

 

I love how the least meritorious people always B word about the lack of meritocracy. While you're whining about other people's money, others are actually out showing off their merit and funding all the people who provide little to no value.

 

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.

[Mr. WEO]

Is it your belief that they don't receive any benefits from being born wealthy before their 50's and 60's? It is possible that Paris Hilton could survive that long.

 

Our fundamental difference here is that it seems you believe that being born wealthy gives someone little advantage over the rest of society and I believe it gives them a great advantage. You are for an Aristocracy and I'm for a Meritocracy. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

Coming from you I take that as a complement. Cheers masochistic egomaniac.

How is the inheritance tax going to alter the fact that some people are born rich?

 

If not, why not advocate for the gov't just taking more money BEFORE daddy dies--like a marginal rate of 80-90%, for instance? That would eliminate the advantage those kids have and would make them work for their money. In fact, it would eliminate the entire advantage of being rich.

 

You would have to agree to this given your logic displayed to this point.

[Steely Dan]

How is the inheritance tax going to alter the fact that some people are born rich?

 

If not, why not advocate for the gov't just taking more money BEFORE daddy dies--like a marginal rate of 80-90%, for instance? That would eliminate the advantage those kids have and would make them work for their money. In fact, it would eliminate the entire advantage of being rich.

 

You would have to agree to this given your logic displayed to this point.

 

No I wouldn't have to agree to that idiotic misinterpretation. Do the math dude it's not the same.

[Mr. WEO]

No I wouldn't have to agree to that idiotic misinterpretation. Do the math dude it's not the same.

How can you disagree?? You clearly said you are against the advantages afforded to those who are born into money. How should you have the government fix this? How is the inheritance tax going to change this?

 

These are simple questions that derive from your posts.

 

Go on....

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

By your definition the government isn't entitled to any money from people and I believe they are. I want them to protect me with a strong military and local police force. I want the FBI to have the best crime busting technology available to man. I like smooth roads to drive on, I want to make sure that there is an institution that sets guidelines and safety requirements for airplanes, I want my streets cleaned, I want smooth traffic flow, I want good schools, I want to be sure that the food I eat is safe and there are a lot of other things I pay the government to do for me. I want those things so they are entitled to some of my money to pay for them. If you like those things too then realize somebody pays for them.

 

Also, why do you want this country to become an aristocracy and not a meritocracy?

 

I love how easy it is for people to deny the huge advantages the wealthy have over everybody in society.

 

 

 

 

Now that I've spelled it out for you you do.

 

What's really funny is that you don't seem to know what communism is.

 

Since they haven't accomplished any of these things for us with our money, now what do you say? Oh yeah, take even more.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

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.

 

An asset that has grown from an equity perspective cannot be taxed until it's sold. otherwise your house could be taxed as it increases in value. If Ralph passes the asset to his family without selling it, there's NO justification for it being taxed.

[Steely Dan]

How can you disagree?? You clearly said you are against the advantages afforded to those who are born into money. How should you have the government fix this? How is the inheritance tax going to change this?

 

These are simple questions that derive from your posts.

 

Go on....

 

How can I disagree with a strawman argument made by a dimwit? I don't know.

[MattM]

First off...that what they got TAXED for when they EARNED the money in the first place...double taxation is total BS...the government needs to stop spending money like its going to go stales on bull **** like make believe wars and they wouldnt have to steal money they dont deserve from when people pass on.

 

Secondly, I am just being honest here, it sure sounds like you want to make excuses for not being wealthy or something. You act like because people dont come from financially succesful families cant make it in life and that people who come from financially succesful families get an unfair advantage because their families found financial success. People who sit their and point fingers at people with money saying they only have it because they had it easier are usually people just trying to justify where they are in their own lives saying we had it too hard...we didnt have the same advantages and crap...well bullsh*t...a person makes their own advantages.

 

One of the wealthiest friends I have came straight from South Central LA and a broken home with a dead beat dad who left him and a mom who was a junkie. He didnt let that stop him...he decided thats not the life he wanted, worked his ass off and now runs a very succesful company in Los Angeles and he is only 32 years old. He is in negotiation to sell it for 8 figures...so what should do once he has all that money? Give it away so self righteous people like you dont judge his kids because their dad did well for himself? I mean WTF...

 

So spare us the pity the poor crap and screw the rich as if providing for your family is some kind bad thing. You and I both know dam well that if you were one of the people inheriting money like this and had to give 55% of it to the government that you would be in an uproar.

 

I also love how you carefully select which posts to reply to and complete ignore the ones that destroy this theory of yours, like the one I put up pointing out that its NOT YOUNG ADULTS or KIDS getting the inheritance in most cases as most of the people passing on this kind of wealth are pretty old and are leaving to people in their 50's and 60's who already have carved out their own lives in the first place.

 

 

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.

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

A few thoughts:

 

 

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.

 

Where you're wrong is that non wealthy people don't vote Republican because they believe they are the party most likely to allow them to get "rich", and that we are misinformed about a "fair society". I'm a republican, my wife and I earn decent wages, and have a blessed life. I don't vote republican to get rich, i vote republican for many other reasons. But in regards to the rich, I believe in sticking up for them when the wrong thing is done, just as I would anyone else. You assume we stick up for the rich for personal gain, not true. We believe it to be morally wrong for the government to take from them simply because they have. We also understand that taxing the rich has huge implications on them spending their money or investing it in their businesses, which directly or indirectly effects all of us.

 

I want the Government to stop taxing the man that owns the company I work for. Not because I think I'll ever be rich, but because he will keep investing in his company, which will increase my ability to earn more money. The more tools he gives me to take care of my customers, the greater the possibility is that I can earn more commission. Leave this man alone, you're not hurting him you're hurting me.

[Mr. WEO]

How can I disagree with a strawman argument made by a dimwit? I don't know.

It's not a straw argument. These are your arguments.

 

Is it your belief that they don't receive any benefits from being born wealthy before their 50's and 60's? It is possible that Paris Hilton could survive that long.

 

Our fundamental difference here is that it seems you believe that being born wealthy gives someone little advantage over the rest of society and I believe it gives them a great advantage. You are for an Aristocracy and I'm for a Meritocracy. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

Answer the question, or just say "I don't know".

[John Adams]

An asset that has grown from an equity perspective cannot be taxed until it's sold. otherwise your house could be taxed as it increases in value. If Ralph passes the asset to his family without selling it, there's NO justification for it being taxed.

 

Thank you. My point is nto that it has been taxed to date but that taxes account for the "1B" that Steely is bitching about.

 

The reason RW hasn't paid taxes on that 1B is that no one has yet realized any gain from it.

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Ben Franklin

[Ramius]

9 pages, and all i've gotten out of it is that Steely/Feynman thinks that its wrong and immoral for "rich" folks to just "hand" their money to their own kids, but somehow its perfectly ok and logical for those same rich folks to just hand their money to his kids.

 

Should rich folks also be required to pay for healthcare of people who have gotten fired for choking a female co-worker?

[birdog1960]

Where you're wrong is that non wealthy people don't vote Republican because they believe they are the party most likely to allow them to get "rich", and that we are misinformed about a "fair society". I'm a republican, my wife and I earn decent wages, and have a blessed life. I don't vote republican to get rich, i vote republican for many other reasons. But in regards to the rich, I believe in sticking up for them when the wrong thing is done, just as I would anyone else. You assume we stick up for the rich for personal gain, not true. We believe it to be morally wrong for the government to take from them simply because they have. We also understand that taxing the rich has huge implications on them spending their money or investing it in their businesses, which directly or indirectly effects all of us.

 

I want the Government to stop taxing the man that owns the company I work for. Not because I think I'll ever be rich, but because he will keep investing in his company, which will increase my ability to earn more money. The more tools he gives me to take care of my customers, the greater the possibility is that I can earn more commission. Leave this man alone, you're not hurting him you're hurting me.

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.

[John Adams]

9 pages, and all i've gotten out of it is that Steely/Feynman thinks that its wrong and immoral for "rich" folks to just "hand" their money to their own kids, but somehow its perfectly ok and logical for those same rich folks to just hand their money to his kids.

 

Should rich folks also be required to pay for healthcare of people who have gotten fired for choking a female co-worker?

 

Wait a second...Rfeynman is the guy who choked the woman he worked with?

 

Bwahahaha. Yeah, always the victim.

 

I learned that we're being overrun by trust fund babies.

[Magox]

How can you disagree?? You clearly said you are against the advantages afforded to those who are born into money. How should you have the government fix this? How is the inheritance tax going to change this?

 

These are simple questions that derive from your posts.

 

Go on....

Just remember that you are talking to Steely. I hope this clears things up for you....

[John Adams]

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.

 

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?

[John Adams]

Just remember that you are talking to Steely. I hope this clears things up for you....

 

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

[Jim in Anchorage]

Wait a second...Rfeynman is the guy who choked the woman he worked with?

 

Bwahahaha. Yeah, always the victim.

 

I learned that we're being overrun by trust fund babies.

Only accused

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

[MattM]

Where you're wrong is that non wealthy people don't vote Republican because they believe they are the party most likely to allow them to get "rich", and that we are misinformed about a "fair society". I'm a republican, my wife and I earn decent wages, and have a blessed life. I don't vote republican to get rich, i vote republican for many other reasons. But in regards to the rich, I believe in sticking up for them when the wrong thing is done, just as I would anyone else. You assume we stick up for the rich for personal gain, not true. We believe it to be morally wrong for the government to take from them simply because they have. We also understand that taxing the rich has huge implications on them spending their money or investing it in their businesses, which directly or indirectly effects all of us.

 

I want the Government to stop taxing the man that owns the company I work for. Not because I think I'll ever be rich, but because he will keep investing in his company, which will increase my ability to earn more money. The more tools he gives me to take care of my customers, the greater the possibility is that I can earn more commission. Leave this man alone, you're not hurting him you're hurting me.

 

Personally, I think that many (but by no means all) folks vote Republican because the Republicans have been very effective in using cultural issues (abortion, church and state, gay marriage, etc.) to get non-wealthy or even middle class people to vote Republican/conservative even if it's against their own economic self-interest. You'll find few libertarian/economic conservatives, who have generally run the party, who care about those cultural issues (in fact the position taken on these issues by the cultural conservatives sometimes goes against the freedom arguments libertarians make) but know they need them to get votes in order to progress their economic agenda. JMO.

 

On your last point, I agree that taxation is about incentives, both positive and negative, and those need to be kept in mind in making tax policy. I think we disagree in terms of where those lines should be drawn. As you'll see in the part of my post you chose not to highlight, I'm not a far-left bomb thrower on this issue, but am fairly moderate actually. I just happen to believe that for policy (fear of oligopoly, incentives to be productive) and fairness reasons we do indeed still need an inheritance tax of some kind--where we set it is open to debate. Similarly, as I noted above, I'm not a "soak the rich" guy--we all need to pay our fair share of taxes. Again, what fair is is open to debate. I'm against the "millionaire tax" in NYS and think that if we have a huge federal hole to get out of and need to raise taxes, it should be done more broadly than solely on the backs of people making over $250k/year.

 

In terms of your argument about lowering the taxes on your boss in order for that to "trickle down" into the economy, I must admit that I always wondered why people never seem to support "trickle up" policies. Seems to me that poor folks are much more likely to spend extra money than rich folks are, being closer to the bone--perhaps it's the difference in how they're spent, but in terms of "bang for the buck" in getting money into the economy, I would anecdotally at least think that trickle up has a better chance of working as an economic stimulus. Again, that may just be me......