| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 estate tax"What's *just* has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn *belongs* to you – and why?" – Walter Williams so, leaving aside all the other questions this brings up about capitalism vs. other economic systems, does that mean that walt and you both think that there should be a 100% estate tax? everything that you earn belongs to you, not your kids. when you die, where does it go? the government? your kids (they did not earn it)? should we just destroy all your net worth when you croak? please elucidate. |
||
|
imoutofpeanuts 23-Aug-06, 12:46 |
But Heaven ain't close in a place like this Anyways, I think the way Id answer that is the earner has the right to chose where he places his cash, not someone else. This quotation doesn't necessarily advocate that income is tied to the person only, but instead states that the earner ought to be the directer of cash. If that earner decides to give his cash to his children willingly, then that is his right. Just like it is his right if he choses to direct the cash to a charity of his chosing. It is the coercement of income redistribution that is the problem, not that wealth can be transferred. Also, I should state that I only speak for my view on this quotation, not Walter's. Still, he is quite the brilliant scholar so my assumption is that he wasn't saying that property must remain with the earner. Now, I want to say two things about the quote and about the estate tax. First, I obviously don't follow the quotation to the T. I am not an anarcho-Capitalist ala David Friedman. I do think that somethings are necessary for the government to attend to. This would include roads, defense, and education just to name a few. And these are due to purely equality purposes since I believe the private sector should be increased in all three of those to increase efficiency, decrease cost, and improve quality. The second thing is the estate tax. Even on my road to becoming capitalist, I held onto the principle that the estate tax should be high. Ive slowly changed my thinking on the issue for the same reason Ive changed my thinking on monopolies and high income taxes on the rich; there needs to be an incentive for the top wage earners to work. Bill Gates, love him or hate him, is an incredible visionary and an extremly productive worker. If we had huge income taxes on him and prevented him from passing on his wealth to those he loved, why would he continue working? He probably wouldn't. And its devastating to lose someone that productive. The same problem exists within so-called monopolies. I remember reading that in the 1950s, General Motors had policies advocating reducing their market share in order to avoid possible government attention. Imagine that, a company that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs (including my divorced, single wage grandmother at the time) purposely becoming less efficient! Perhaps thats one of the many reasons why our motor companies are in the state they are in? I think the estate tax grips people because they hear stories of Paris Hilton and the likes living extravagently without deserving it. Does it make us wage earners angry? Of course. But when you begin to think of the hours the elder Hilton's worked, their right to spend their earnings, and the amount of jobs that would've been lost had they scaled back their work (not to mention the higher costs that the consumers would've paid)... you begin to understand the negatives of the estate tax. |
||
|
I have a question . . . |
||
|
estate tax jd, knowing your economic ideas, this is probably anathema to you! |
||
|
wealth? what is the fundamental underlying reason? is it her fault she was born rich? is it your fault she was born rich? is it the poor's fault she was born rich? (after this I'll try in dive in and quit being so obtuse) |
||
|
fault? is that how it should be? born rich! good for you. born poor? too bad...your life sucks! that is always how it has been...is there no better way? |
||
|
some folks is rich some folks is poor - is that how it's supposed to be? life sucks and that's that's the way it always will be? Pretty much . . . I'm still not hearing any underlying fundamental reason for this theft of wealth, outside of the emotional dislike of the thought of people obtaining wealth they didn't earn. Here's the thing, you bring up the small business of the farmer, but then prompty dismiss them like it's no big deal. That's EXACTLY the big deal, which I will get to. The estate tax will never touch Paris - the Uber-rich have their stuff so squirreled away in the right places that the transference of wealth is no biggie. Alot of the big money families have their "trusts" which happen to own everything, and they collect a modest salary, say 50,000 a year, for watching over the billions in the trust, pay their income tax on that modest salary, laugh all the way to their winter chalet. Your estate tax doesn't affect the people you want it to, but destroys the legacy of the poeple who have worked hard all their life to build something for the next generation only to have most of it taken away. What needs to be protected is the ability to jump classes, and Laissez-faire economics is the BEST way for the "little guy" to get ahead. With your real estate tax the next generation of farmers or small buiness owners will have to start again from scratch, not exactly a good way to champion the little and industrious folks, is it? Your estate tax hurts those you should be actively encouraging and does nothing to those you are so emotionally upset about. A little personal story, if you will. My father, a farm kid from middle of nowhere Dakota, who went to college on a GI Bill after serving his country as an enlisted person and later as a military physician, began a medical practice from scratch in small midwestern town under-represented by his particular specialty. Showed up with nothing but his family and was given a no-down payment loan by the local bank for set-up of practice and housing. He bought a modest house, and a modest building for his practice and the equipment necessary for the practice. After 20 years, and living life simply he now owns free and clear both his house and his practice and building, and has since began the project of his own out-pt surgery center. I am a physician in training pursuing my father's same specialty and interested in going bakc to the same small under-represented town to continue the practice, which will become a family business. And it seems that instead of trying to help someone who came from nothing and built something, you'd rather take all that back and the next person star all over again, namely me. Why shouldn't my father's legacy live on through my work, and why should I not be able to give to me and mine what I will build on top of that? What is the fundamental underlying principle that states that the little guy should always have to be trying again? I don't think you have one, and it sounds a bit like class envy to me. So yeah, when you so nochalantly brush aside those "farmers and small buiness" people remember you're actually brushing aside the regular folk. |
||
|
jd According to a report last year from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, an incredibly tiny number of family farms are actually impacted by the estate tax. If the current $2 million threshold existed in 2000, as many reform proposals would have allowed, only 123 farms per year in the entire country would have owed estate taxes. The report further estimated that the number of family farms impacted would have dropped to a mere 65 farms nationwide with an exemption of $3.5 million ($7 million per couple), the level the exemption will be in 2009. (Yes, the first $3.5 million of an estate – double it if married – will be tax free in 2009.) This is yet another piece of evidence that the rhetoric concerning the impact of the estate tax on family farms is just a myth. (www.ombwatch.org" target="_blank">-> www.ombwatch.org ) finally, even a partial repeal will cost a huge amount. The center on budget and policy priorities estimates that it would cost the treasury $612 billion between 2012 and 2021. |
||
|
jeff and as I understand your argument, since only few people get screwed its ok? estate tax as it stands today is much better than it was before Bush's tax cuts - perhaps the only thing he's done that I like - but still hurting some people. Am I worried about the top 2%? Yes, I plan to hang out there someday. |
||
|
jd 1) why would you want to be a rich man? 2) wouldn't we be doing a favor to rich kids by relieving them of some of their burdonsone wealth? 3) isn't it christian to use surplus wealth to help the needy? |
||
|
jeff the pursuit of Christian apologetics, it is never allowed by the nontheist for any Biblical material to be brought up, but more often than not the nontheist likes to use the same material he will not allow the theist to use against the theist - dirty pool ol man. Anyway, you've got the quote about right. The point was not that men should not be rich or wealthy, but that having such things as wealth could be a hindrance on the wealthy man because he would have less of a need for God if his wealth is providing for him. This is a truism. God is not antiwealth. For instance, Abraham was extremely rich relative to others in his time. Job was a rich man who lost everything to eventally have it all returned. 1) Why would I want to be wealthy? a) security and b) perks (you win the powerball you going to cry about it jeff?) furthermore, I will never be "rich" like a hilton - the top 2% spans a lot of incomes. 2)wouldn't we be doing the rich kids a favor by relieveing them of their money? No. it's not our money to be taking it 3)is it Christian to help the needy? yes, but this begs the question of what *you* mean by help the needy. Christianity is interested in the *personal* use of the money to help the needy. there is no mandate to give that money to a government to allow the government to do the job for you. in fact Christianity is not interested in the government at all. |
||
|
jd btw, a friend of mine, some 25 years ago said something that stuck with me: 'the lottery is the only voluntary tax we have. i choose not to play it.' i abide by that, and NEVER play the lottery...i have won about the same amount as my friends who play, and lost a hell of a lot less! as robert heinlein said, 'there are more optimists playing poker than mathmaticians. |
||
|
|
||
|
leo_london 25-Aug-06, 16:43 |
|
||
|
claim on anything else. |
||
|
alexwilson 29-Aug-06, 02:04 |
The fact is that the rich swim through society like the rest of us, and the reason they have such an easy go of it, is because they are members of society also. If you don't believe me, move to a deserted island with all of your cash and see if there is anyone to wait on you or take care of your lawn or flip your burger. Its not unreasonable for the rich pay for a little of what they enjoy. |
||
|
here in washington seattlepi.nwsource.com" target="_blank">-> seattlepi.nwsource.com |
Log in 
