People should be able to live and spend their own money as they choose. It is not up to others to determine what their needs are and how much they should or should not have. They may be heartless pricks and choose to hoard their earnings, but that doesn't mean they're breaking the law or are evil. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a rational, non-emotion based argument as to why a government should have a senior claim over someone's immediate family to a his or her estate after he/she dies. Just because you're jealous that they have so much more than you is simply not an argument. Maybe you should spend more time worrying about yourself and less time worrying about what Joe Schmoe has.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and again, nowhere have i stated that that its illegitimate! but to argue that "anyone can use them" is to miss the point quite a bit.

Why? Would it help if I said anyone who qualifies can use them? You don't have to make a ton of money to qualify for many, if not most, of the deductions that many people, rich and average, utilize to lower their taxable income.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka People should be able to live and spend their own money as they choose. It is not up to others to determine what their needs are and how much they should or should not have. They may be heartless pricks and choose to hoard their earnings, but that doesn't mean they're breaking the law or are evil. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a rational, non-emotion based argument as to why a government should have a senior claim over someone's immediate family to a his or her estate after he/she dies. Just because you're jealous that they have so much more than you is simply not an argument. Maybe you should spend more time worrying about yourself and less time worrying about what Joe Schmoe has.

Nobody has ever made the argument that rich people should hand over their money to the government because they are jealous. That is simply an argument you yourself have invented to give extra weight to your opinion. In fact, I don't even think people are saying that the government should take people's money, again, that is another strawman created by yourself. Another strawman created by yourself is that everyone should hand over all their money.

The argument is that every member of society has a collective responsibility to that society to ensure it operates securely and efficiently. Nobody, yourself included, believes it should be a free for all, or anarchy. The fact is, there are a hell of a lot of services that are vital to the security and efficiency of society and people living in that society should pay for them. Some people can afford to pay more than others, and if they are left with more than enough for their hollywood lifestyles then I don't really see the problem.

If you really want to live in a crime ridden society where the majority cannot read or write, then fine, but I think you'd be insane to suggest that that kind of society is somewhere most people would be happy to live in...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Nobody has ever made the argument that rich people should hand over their money to the government because they are jealous. That is simply an argument you yourself have invented to give extra weight to your opinion.

I based my argument on you whining about what's "fair" and have concluded that much of this is likely due to wealth envy.

quote:

In fact, I don't even think people are saying that the government should take people's money, again, that is another strawman created by yourself. Another strawman created by yourself is that everyone should hand over all their money.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry but when somebody has been able to acquire that much wealth throughout their lifetime then it has been at the expense of others and the society they live in, and the economic model it supports, has allowed that to happen. They owe society BIG time

Then perhaps you're sending mixed signals. You're harping on about differentiating between society and government, yet you don't give credit to those rich people that donate billions to foundations, charities and other social causes because you're angry that they haven't paid more taxes directly to the government. Is the government not an agent of society? The government is the only entity with a monopoly on the use of force and therefore your best hope at forcibly extracting a "fair" amount back from those rich folks.

quote:

The argument is that every member of society has a collective responsibility to that society to ensure it operates securely and efficiently.

This "collective responsibility" argument is one in which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Not to sound overly selfish, but what do I owe society? How has society enriched me? I believe most of my success has come on the heels of my own hard work and anything I have taken from society has been duly paid for. It comes back down to your support of socialism and my complete disdain for it.

I don't even know what kind of pie in the sky ideal you're talking about as far as operating securely and efficiently. That sounds like a lot of fluffy bs to me. You're never going to eliminate crime, you're never going to somehow flatten the bell curve.

I believe that people, allowed to act in their own self-interest are better off and that their actions are more likely to be better for society as a whole than if you have big brother waiting around every corner to make sure that nobody is able to have too much more than the next guy.

quote:

Nobody, yourself included, believes it should be a free for all, or anarchy. The fact is, there are a hell of a lot of services that are vital to the security and efficiency of society and people living in that society should pay for them. Some people can afford to pay more than others, and if they are left with more than enough for their hollywood lifestyles then I don't really see the problem.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should or that it would be more "fair" to have them do so. What is "fair," George? That the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. essentially subsidize the bottom 20% as far as public goods go? Apparently that's just not fair enough for you.

quote:

If you really want to live in a crime ridden society where the majority cannot read or write, then fine, but I think you'd be insane to suggest that that kind of society is somewhere most people would be happy to live in...

Last I checked crime exists in every society. Furthermore, the last I checked the literacy rate in the U.S. is among the highest in the world.


Can we take this argument back to the merits of the death tax? I'll repeat my initial position:

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Bottom line: The government did not create the wealth, it should not be the government's place to arbitrarily take possession of that wealth just because someone has passed on. The rights of the creator to pass the fruits of his/her labor on to those of his/her choosing should always supercede the will of the government to attempt to forcibly steal that wealth for its own coffers in any true democracy based on individual rights and justice. Furthermore, the amount of wealth is irrelevant in this argument as it is the principle of the "death tax" that is being debated, not how it should be applied to those in the highest income brackets. Everything else is simply wealth envy.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I based my argument on you whining about what's "fair" and have concluded that much of this is likely due to wealth envy.

While I'll admit I don't earn very much now it's not like I've come from an unprivalaged background (in so far as my parents being able to afford to send me to uni). The argument that people only support taxing rich people and corporations being down to jealousy simply does not exist. For a start, I'm sure there are plenty of wealthy people who support socialist ideals. You really need to work hard on producing a coherent argument to back yourself up because every time you invent an argument to argue against it just makes your point of view seem even less valid than the last time you said it.

quote:

Then perhaps you're sending mixed signals. You're harping on about differentiating between society and government, yet you don't give credit to those rich people that donate billions to foundations, charities and other social causes because you're angry that they haven't paid more taxes directly to the government. Is the government not an agent of society? The government is the only entity with a monopoly on the use of force and therefore your best hope at forcibly extracting a "fair" amount back from those rich folks.

Billionaires that give to charity should of course be comended, however, that's just no good. You are right the government is the agent of society and they are the ones people elect (in our countries anyway) to bare the responsibility of providing stability to society. They are the ones we elect to come up with policies to that end, not charities (no matter how good they are). But when you say "handing over money to the government" you are not saying to be spent on social policies, you are quite obviously implying, or are under the impression that, revenues collected by the government stay remain with the government, as if they will spend it on themselves (which no doubt happens in some countries!)

quote:

This "collective responsibility" argument is one in which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Not to sound overly selfish, but what do I owe society? How has society enriched me? I believe most of my success has come on the heels of my own hard work and anything I have taken from society has been duly paid for. It comes back down to your support of socialism and my complete disdain for it.

Society has provided you with an environment in which you were able to "enrich yourself". It has provided law and order and stability without which you simply would not have been able to make a success out of yourself. I don't know if you have to pay for basic education in America (might explain a few things if you did!) but if education is free until college, then society has paid for that.

But the real argument is simply a matter of basic economics in the societies we live in. In order for corportations and even small businesses to be successful, they require x% of the population to work for them for low wages. Of course, that's better than being unemployed, but if these people cannot afford to go to university etc or cannot afford health care, how can you say that these people, who elements of society that have been able to make a success on the back of their work, should be denied the basic opportunities to make a success out of their lives?

I'm lucky. I went to uni and have a degree. I consider myself to have had all the opportunities everyone should have. What I do from here in my life is down to me. I can work hard and progress through jobs, or I could be lazy and do nothing, and that's be my own fault. But what about people who are unable to afford that? They will forever be kept down, but at the same time they will be contributing to making whichever rich people richer.

I think the people who have got rich, because capitalist societies require a majority of people to work for low wages, owes society and the people below them so that they can have the same opportunities most of the rich were born with...

quote:

I don't even know what kind of pie in the sky ideal you're talking about as far as operating securely and efficiently. That sounds like a lot of fluffy bs to me. You're never going to eliminate crime, you're never going to somehow flatten the bell curve.

Do you think that anarchy would be the best kind of society to live in? No laws and no state protection from criminals?

quote:

I believe that people, allowed to act in their own self-interest are better off and that their actions are more likely to be better for society as a whole than if you have big brother waiting around every corner to make sure that nobody is able to have too much more than the next guy.

Here you go again, another strawman

quote:

Just because they can doesn't mean they should or that it would be more "fair" to have them do so. What is "fair," George? That the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. essentially subsidize the bottom 20% as far as public goods go? Apparently that's just not fair enough for you.

Seeing how that 1% probably gained all their wealth through the work of that bottom 20% that'd probably be fair

quote:

Last I checked crime exists in every society. Furthermore, the last I checked the literacy rate in the U.S. is among the highest in the world.

The fact that neither of our countries can boast a 100% literacy rate speaks volumes. Do you think its right that there are millions of people in America that cannot read or write? And yes, crime exists in every society. However, the amount of crime varies considerably. I don't know whether this is true cos I don't have the figues, but I think America is supposed to have the highest crime rate in the developed world, yet it is the richest country. But it also has the most right wing economic system. Also, the USSR had practically 0% crime, as do many other countries that have a centrally planned (for the most part) economy. Altho I'll be the first to point out that these countries are authoritarian in nature so the comparison is only something to consider in the back of your mind, and not a suggestion that these kinds of societies are preferable

quote:

Can we take this argument back to the merits of the death tax? I'll repeat my initial position:

Like I said, anyone having amassed over $2million will have done so with the assistance of the country's poorest. Why shouldn't they get some of their hard work paying dividends in the form of social services?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Like I said, anyone having amassed over $2million will have done so with the assistance of the country's poorest. Why shouldn't they get some of their hard work paying dividends in the form of social services?

All of that other nonsense aside, it comes down to this: What gives you the right to demand it? Maybe it would be nice of them to do it but why should they be legally and forcibly obliged to do so?

Did Bill Gates make billions by exploiting software engineers and kicking their asses in the salt mines?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka All of that other nonsense aside, it comes down to this: What gives you the right to demand it? Maybe it would be nice of them to do it but why should they be legally and forcibly obliged to do so?

The right the government has to "demand" any kind of tax. Because if they didn't have the threat of "force" to back up their "demands" (going along with your deliberatley provokative buzz words) then very few people would actually pay taxes would they?

quote:

Did Bill Gates make billions by exploiting software engineers and kicking their asses in the salt mines?

I have no idea about the computer industry or Microsoft. However, lets take your typical retail store. There will be one owner and several CEOs. Below them will be the senior management. However, the people physically making the money will be the store assistants earning low wages and they will make up the vast majority of the workforce of that company. That's fine as long as those privilaged few in the upper echelons of the company pay something back to society so those at the bottom of the ladder at least have the basic opportunities in life to better themselves. The owner and the CEOs/senior management were more likely than not born with those opportunitiesm hence their position in society in the first place. I've never argued for income equality. All I want is an equal playing field for people to make a success out of themselves

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The right the government has to "demand" any kind of tax. Because if they didn't have the threat of "force" to back up their "demands" (going along with your deliberatley provokative buzz words) then very few people would actually pay taxes would they?

Please don't mix general taxes with the specific concept of the death tax we're talking about here.

quote:

I have no idea about the computer industry or Microsoft. However, lets take your typical retail store. There will be one owner and several CEOs. Below them will be the senior management. However, the people physically making the money will be the store assistants earning low wages and they will make up the vast majority of the workforce of that company. That's fine as long as those privilaged few in the upper echelons of the company pay something back to society so those at the bottom of the ladder at least have the basic opportunities in life to better themselves. The owner and the CEOs/senior management were more likely than not born with those opportunitiesm hence their position in society in the first place. I've never argued for income equality. All I want is an equal playing field for people to make a success out of themselves

1: There is 1 CEO, not many.
2: If positions were static that would be one thing but most companies I've ever looked at provide ample opportunity for advancement and to "climb the corporate ladder." Sure, not everyone will be able to reach the top as there is simply not room for 10,000 CEOs, but the opportunity is generally there for those that want advancement to advance. CEOs don't get into their positions by being fuckups with no ambition.

Is there a large gray area in all of this? Sure, but we're supposed to be arguing a black and white issue of the merits of the death tax.

It's a tax like any other tax. Same arguments and opinions, sorry but this isn't a special case

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It's a tax like any other tax. Same arguments and opinions, sorry but this isn't a special case

Sure it is. You just don't want to deal with it. If the person had not died, the government wouldn't lay it's hands on one red cent. Why is death a taxable event?

quote:

I think the people who have got rich, because capitalist societies require a majority of people to work for low wages, owes society and the people below them so that they can have the same opportunities most of the rich were born with...

This is what your entire argument is based on George...and it is a terribly flawed statement.

Capitalism is nothing more than a lack of coercion...a lack of force. It requires nothing...and doesn't force anybody to do anything. In any free economy, there is going to be a bell curve as Shakka says. Not everyone can become a millionaire, and the majority of people are going to end up on the middle and lower end of the spectrum. It isn't because they were "held down" or required to stay there by evil/rich/greedy corporations. It is because this is the natural order of things in any free society.

As far as taxes go...I would argue that a flat tax with an exclusion for poverty-level wages is the most fair way to make people "give back" to society. A flat tax of 20% for all income above say $15k is both fair and progressive. Someone making $15k pays 0% in taxes. Someone making 20k pays 5%. Someone making $30k pays 10%. $40k = 12%, etc. A person making a million will pay $197k+ to the government...$2 million = $399,000+, etc. The more you make, the closer you end up to the 20% rate.

Taxing people proportionally based on their income is the only truly "fair" method of taxation. This idea of constantly raising rates and confiscating a larger percentage as people become more successful completely warps the incentive system. It becomes a system of punishment and social engineering, rather than simple revenue collection. This is what we find objectionable..not the idea of taxation itself.

I believe that in George's eyes, there is essentially a pot of wealth of fixed size that should be controlled by the government. Everybody will take something out of this pot over the course of their lifetimes, some taking far more than others. Therefore, those that take out more should have some sort of moral imperative to put back into the pot because they've taken more than their "fair" share.

Of course I subscribe to none of this. I don't believe governments should control wealth. I don't believe that governments created the wealth or that there is a fixed supply of it. I believe in individuals' rights to pursue as much or as little as they desire provided they do it in an honest and ethical manner. That which they are able to secure for themselves is theirs alone to do what they want with. Sure, the government will get its hands on a piece of that over time as we all pay dues to live in a free country that allows us to pursue self-actualization. However, the concept of a death tax is baseless. It is nothing more than governments trying to strong arm their way into people's wallets and take more of something that has most likely already been taxed anyway. When I die, I don't believe I owe society anything.

It's like when Hillary Clinton was preaching about oil companies' profits. She said (paraphrasing): "when I am president I want to take those profits and mash them around in my pussy until it feels good." At least the first half of the sentence is a direct quote. And she couldn't be any more wrong. That mentality is dangerous and simply has no place in this country (though maybe it would be good in Venezuela).