How's the shrubbery? (An assessment of Bush)

[mtnbkr]

Why should Bill Gates be able to give his kids all his wealth tax-free?

Because it's his to give. The govt didn't do anything to earn it. The welfare cases it'll be redistributed to didn't do anything to earn it. If he wants to set his descendents up for a comfy lifestyle, that's his right to do with the money he earned through his life's work.

Who are YOU to demand otherwise? What did you do to deserve a say in another man's affairs?

Chris

 

[FirstFreedom]

It's not HIS affairs. He's DEAD (when the tax law becomes applicable). He is incapable of having any affairs. It is then ONLY the affairs of his kids/devisees, relative to other kids out there who are equally hardworking, equally intelligent, but did not get the silver spoon ivy league education - I believe that in a meritocracy, we must level the playing field once the parents DIE. BTW, rich parents don't usually die when someone turns 18-22 and leaves the nest - they typically live many many more years, and give huge inter vivos gifts to their kids during their adult lives, for their kids to start businesses with, etc., which already creates more and more and more wealth - after all, Donald Trump's dad was a millionaire real estate man. So, the kids get the finest upbringing and university, not to mention all the "it's who you know" connections, as well as millions upon millions during thier adult lives with which to start businesses, and they transform the character of the profits earned from a gift, into the kids' own money, which already protects it from the inheritance tax. But I think we have to draw the line at, in addition to all the above, ALSO giving millions or billions more to kids that may or may not be contributing members of society, upon the death of the parents, and instead use it for funding the government (RATHER than the income tax - and the gov't will thus be MUCH smaller in total size). I guess we just have an irreconcilable, fundamental difference of philosophy on the issue. I respect y'alls opinion, since you're consistent - as long as you're willing to apply your philosophy/opinion to the richest of the rich, without exception, then you DO understand the issue - it's just a difference of philosophy. I just think that we need to completely eliminate the federal income tax altogether, so that one can use one's money that one earns during his/her life. But when you die, that's it. The kids will stand or fall in the meritocracy, based on their hard work and intelligence, or lack thereof. This will enable our society to tap into the genius of poor kids our there that otherwise won't have the resources to get their ideas out and implement them, because even the brightest of the bright will end up in menial jobs/manual labor if the death tax is eliminated. Not only is it not fundamentally unfair (IMO), but it also harms society by not allowing exposure to the genius and hard work that some poor kids eventually give - it harms the American dream - that if you work hard, you'll be rewarded.

To extend your logic, the gov't didnt' do anything to earn the money you and I earn everyday - but they sure as hell tax it, dont' they? So which makes more sense - taking your money while you're ALIVE, that YOU have just worked hard to earn? Or taking money when you're DEAD, when you're utterly incapable of giving a rip what happens with it? The gov't needs to be funded at SOME level correct? IOW, you're not advocating anarchy are you? OK, then, it makes far more sense to have a small limited gov't funded by NO income tax and only a few miscellaneous tax here and there, notably the death tax, than to steal our money while we're LIVING before we can enjoy it!

 

[Marko Kloos]

When Bill Gates is dead, he's DEAD. No longer living. He has NO use for his money while in that coffin. So why should his progeny be rich beyond belief for several generations until its squandered, without lifting a single solitary finger to contribute to society and the economy?

Because it's his property. He earned it, and he is free to dispose of it. What kind of difference does it make whether his children get to keep it, or whether you get to distribute it to other people who also didn't do a thing to earn it?

Right. Exactly. That's why the income tax should be eliminated. But when you're DEAD, it is by definition, no longer YOURS. You're dead, and thus incapable of owning anything, because ownership means dominion and control, and being worm food, you cannot exercise control, nor enjoy your money.

That's why we have wills, so I can pass ownership of that money on to a person of my choice while I am alive. That way, I get to exercise control over my rightful property even past the date of my demise.

So the question is, do we have a meritocracy, where we stand on our own 2 feets after we leave our parents' nest - and the playing field is level for all kids, rich and poor, once they reach the workplace?

The playing field will never be level, despite the best efforts of people who think like you. Some people will always be smarter, better-looking, or harder working than others. A forced "level playing field", where a family's wealth resets to zero after the main breadwinner dies, only takes away any incentive for success, and creates a society of equally distributed mediocrity. What kind of incentive does anyone have to start a business under such a system? Your system would penalize success and reward failure...even worse, it would do so based on the actions of your parents.

And why stop there? Why not have everyone's paychecks deposited into the U.S. treasury, and then have the government decide what kind of distribution is fair? You know, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

The kids will stand or fall in the meritocracy, based on their hard work and intelligence, or lack thereof.

No, they won't. According to your philosophy, the ones that fall based on their own lack of ability can just lay claim to someone else's wealth, in the name of fairness.

I guess we just have an irreconcilable, fundamental difference of philosophy on the issue.

Yes, we do. I believe that man has the right to live for his own sake, and that he has the right to undisputed ownership of the fruits of his labor. You believe that a man's labor ultimately belongs to society, and that "society" has a right to take his wealth if it is deemed that he has too much of it.

Your screen name is ironic for a person with opinions like yours. The "First Freedom" is not the right to bear arms, or even the right to speak your mind freely. The first, and most important freedom of a human is to command and dispose of the fruits of his own labor freely. Everything else is window-dressing: if I do not own what I produce, I am not free. If a man doesn't control the output of his productivity, he does not control his life; he is a slave to whatever or whoever does.

 

[Steve499]

Inheritance tax? If it's fair to tax at the upper levels, it's fair to tax at any level. Say you have your great-great Grandpa's original, mint Ferguson flintlock which he had from his great-great Grandpa and you decide you want your son to have it in his turn. Trouble is, it's now worth a bunch more than it was originally. The Government steps in and says for him to keep it, he's got to give them $1000.00 or so. Fair?

My mother-in-law has quite a bit of land she and her deceased husband accumulated over the years when he was farming. The value of that land today puts her in the "rich" catagory by some standards, yet she has no easier time, financially, than when they were struggling to pay the farm off. She decides she wants her children to have the place and the Government steps in and says for them to keep it, they've got to pay $100,000.00 or so. Fair?

Bill Gates wants his children to build on what he's started. The government steps in and says they gotta pay a bazillion dollars. Fair?

They are all the same to my way of thinking. If it's O.K. to tax Bill Gates' legacy to his decendants, it must be O.K. to tax your legacy to your decendants, too.

 

[novus collectus]

I'll read the rest of the last three posts later (there's alot) but I fell as if I have to point this out befor I finish reading them.
Without some kind of tax the government would have no money to operate. If Bill gates gave the money to his kids while he was alive it would be taxed as income. From what I've read so far it seems like the last few posts are almost diapodes of the argument. I beleive in a compromise where the taxes should be less than income tax but still be taxed. The whole purpose for most of us, before anything else, is to care for our families even after were dead. I feel that if I could have my kids and my kids' kids grow up with a silver spoon in their mouths then I have succeded (at the same time as teaching value of hard work). I dissagree with income tax (as well) but recognise the need for it since we have nothing else to replace it with right now. A version of capitalism is to have the government participate in the market in order to make the money to operate but this is unfeasible. So the alternative that has been reached (IMHO) is to have a government that is OWNED by the people and to have everyone pay a price for owning it. Making money uses the system in a way, and Bill Gates has used the system and should pay his proportional share of it. After all there is only so much money in a system and it will no longer work if only one guy has all of it (hypothetically).

 

[Steve499]

I don't even pretend to be an economist, even a little bit, but if there is only so much money in a system, then new wealth can't be created, right? Does that mean we have the exact amount circulating we had in, say 1800? All the wealth associated with the computer industry must have been taken from the out of work blacksmiths, I guess.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Marko, you guys are trying to make this into an all or nothing, black or white situation. You didn't READ what I wrote, did you? Unless you're advocating anarchy, then there must be some government.

There IS a line to be drawn, somewhere, at some point, on all issues. So it's disingenuous (utterly) to say "why not just go ahead and deposit your paycheck into the gov't coffers?" A person as intelligent as you should be ashamed of yourself for offering such a red herring, when clearly, I wasn't advocating any such communistic principle, and in fact denounced the EXISTENCE of the income tax system more than once above - IF I think there should be NO income tax, then what would make you think that *I* think we should all give all of our money to the fedgov?

Right now that point where the line is drawn is $600,000.00 of wealth is able to be passed down to your kids, which is PLENTY of money and then some for 1000 family muskets and the family small business - this is not even COUNTING all the inter vivos gifts, tax-sheltered gifts, etc., given during life. We can and should argue about whether we ought to raise that tax-free amount to 800K, 1 million even, etc., before the death tax rate is applied. But to talk of eliminating it, so that 5 generations of Bill Gates progency can suck on the free tit of the 27 BILLION of the patriarch without contributing to society is insane. You're wrong in that MY idea is fairer; MY idea is the meritocracy; MY idea is freedom; YOUR views lead to a class society, WITHOUT REGARD to merit, hard work, and brains - that's why all the Roman emporer familys were inbred idgits; that's why the French Revolution occured. YOUR views are anti-thetical to the idea of rewarding hard work and the American dream; YOUR ideas are opposed to what America is all about; not mine. Read again (or for the first time) what I wrote above - it amply demonstrates my superior philosophy:

To extend your logic, the gov't didnt' do anything to earn the money you and I earn everyday - but they sure as hell tax it, dont' they? So which makes more sense - taking your money while you're ALIVE, that YOU have just worked hard to earn? Or taking money when you're DEAD, when you're utterly incapable of giving a rip what happens with it? The gov't needs to be funded at SOME level correct? IOW, you're not advocating anarchy are you? OK, then, it makes far more sense to have a small limited gov't funded by NO income tax and only a few miscellaneous tax here and there, notably the death tax, than to steal our money while we're LIVING before we can enjoy it!

Now come on, go ahead and say what you're thinking - tax NEITHER. But then how is shrub gonna fund his wars, to be a smart alec. To be more precise, how will the fedgov fund accomplish its enumerated powers of national defense etc.?

Having said all that, it definitely appears that I'm in the minority on this issue; the majority of Americans, I think, buy into the Repub "keep the fat cats fat" philosphy, so by all means, let's change the law to eliminate the death tax - there is certainly popular support for it. It's precisely issues like this, and stuff like the Patriot act, that drives away in droves "moderates" like myself from the Repub. Party, for better or worse for that party.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

FF-
Why do people work, build and continue to take risks after they have accumulated more than they are spending? (Not talking the Bill Gate's here; rather the factory owner, farmer or small business owner). The answers are complicated, but certainly a primary one is "To provide for my children".

Take the incentive away and I think you'll find the creativity, risk-taking and job-making goes with it.

Additionally, when you state a number that is "fair" to pass on, whether it be $600K, $800K or $3MM, you're insisting that society accept YOUR value judgment of how much is enough. That just doesn't wash.

And why be concerned about heirs inheriting fortunes? There's only two things they can do with that wealth:
1) Spend it....in which case it flows to the "meritocracy" and builds jobs
2) Invest it.....in which case it also flows to the meritocracy and builds jobs

Giving it to .gov, OTOH, removes those dollars from control of all free market forces and only hastens the creation of the Class System you reject.....class based, not on what your Granddad built, but what poli-pogue you bribe.

Bad Idea.
Rich

 

[FirstFreedom]

Not talking the Bill Gate's here; rather the factory owner, farmer or small business owner

But see, you're trying to change the subject, because the we ARE talking about Bill Gates here - THAT is the proposal the repukelicans have laid on the table - a complete repeal of the death tax. It's a total red herring to talking of the farmer or small business owner - read what I just wrote:

Right now that point where the line is drawn is $600,000.00 of wealth is able to be passed down to your kids, which is PLENTY of money and then some for 1000 family muskets and the family small business - this is not even COUNTING all the inter vivos gifts, tax-sheltered gifts, etc., given during life. We can and should argue about whether we ought to raise that tax-free amount to 800K, 1 million even, etc., before the death tax rate is applied. But to talk of eliminating it, so that 5 generations of Bill Gates progency can suck on the free tit of the 27 BILLION of the patriarch without contributing to society is insane.

(emphasis added) You see? The republicans don't want to raise it from 600K to TEN TIMES THAT AMOUNT for example, or $6 million passable tax-free; they want to eliminate it, which in the case of someone who has say $6 Billion to pass, that's increasing the tax-free amount by 10 to the 4th power, or TEN THOUSAND times the current amount - is that the kind of radicality we want to apply to our tax system (which will drive up income taxes for the REST OF US with that loss of revenue)? If the repubs actually offered a sensible bill that raised the limit let's say, to twice as much (1.2 million), then we'd have a nice debate on our hands. As it stand, they've just shot themselves in the foot by proving to me and many others with this and other actions that they truly are what the Dems accuse them of, the party of protecting the very rich at all costs.

I'm concerned about people not working and contributing to society, because our standard of living is based on the sum total synergy that is built from the sum of the WORK performed by those in society, coupled with the technology & ingenuity applied.

Rich if the current system of the death tax is the "bad idea", then you must therefore advocate a change of the status quo, or a repeal of the death tax, correct? Then where do you suppose the revenue-starved spendthrifts in Congress are gonna get their pork money, if and when they eliminate the death tax? Do you actuality think the government will shrink under ANY administration (given that the current Repub one has taken us to unprecedented depths of deficit spending?). It's gonna come from YOU and ME. Not the Bill Gateses of the world - they've got plenty o' tax shelters.

And it's got nothing to do with MY value judgment Rich. It's society's - it's yours, mine, everyone's - so tell us, what line do YOU think is fair... 1mil, 2mil, 3mil, 5 mil 10mil, 100mil, 1BIL, 2BIL, what? There's an infinite number of possibilities to draw the line, and debate same - but is your answer really no limit at all? To me, the current limit or maybe up to 2 mil is about right, to ensure that the family heirlooms, homestead, and small business can passed down tax-free, but I guess we keep coming back to the fundamental philosphy difference, which is a true "redistribution of wealth" debate, I'll admit - this is one redistribution I think should happen, for the reason given in my first couple of posts (fairness to the meritocracy/american dream ideals of the poor kids being on a level playing field with the rich) - but this difference of opinion is pretty well irreconcilable it appears. And again folks, don't misunderstand this issue - once you draw the line, the law does NOT state you forfeit all (100%) of the wealth above and beyond that - far from it - it ONLY states that the wealth over and above the floor is TAXED at a certain percentage or tax rate - there is still an assload of wealth passed down that is NOT subject to the tax rate - the question is only, *how much is passed down tax-FREE*?

 

[20cows]

FirstFreedom

Yeah, Marco read it. Just didn't agree with it.

 

[USP45usp]

Right now, I'm not too happy with him.

He has done nothing for us gun owners who put him back into office and I don't like his open boarders plan (that's what I call it). And, he hasn't told the UN where they could go and what to do when they get there.

Also, I'm not happy with the Republicans in general for being wussies and backing down to a Democrat minority instead of telling them where they can go and what to do when they get there.

Right now, if elections were tomorrow, I wouldn't vote for either of the "two parties". There's three more years to go, let's see what happens in that time.

Wayne

 

[novus collectus]

Steve499,
I meant only so much money at a given moment. Can't take money from the future. If there's $13 trillion and someone has $12.99999 trillion of it in a system then we would all be working for his benefit (exrtremely hypothetical). It would seem like a Duke and his serfs in medeival times. Not an economist either or a philosopher. Just speaking my layman mind.

 

[FirstFreedom]

No he clearly didn't read all of it. And he can defend himself quite well, thank you. Doesn't need your help. What argument do YOU have to offer? Didn't think so, so shut up if you don't have an actual cogent argument, 20 cows. And have the courtesy to spell his name right.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

when clearly, I wasn't advocating any such communistic principle, and in fact denounced the EXISTENCE of the income tax system more than once above - IF I think there should be NO income tax, then what would make you think that *I* think we should all give all of our money to the fedgov?

Seems to me that you are not "advocating" communistic principle because what you are advocating is that you pay no taxes (do away with income tax) and raise the estate tax so make sure you don't ever have to pay it either, but the "rich" people can be taxed even more to pay for the government.

In case you are not aware, the democrats draw the "rich" line at $100,000. So why don't we "lower" the estate tax threshold to $100,000? That just might get some of your "wealth" when you die. Don't you want to help out the poor folks?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

It's a total red herring to talking of the farmer or small business owner

Actually, no it's not. It is not at all unusual to amass $8-10 Million in a lifetime of risk-taking hard work.....of course, to do so, you've already paid $1.6-4 Million in taxes just on the money earned to get you that kind of porfolio. To pay the government a second tax on the first is a bit over the top.

It leads, inexorably, to one endpoint: The IRS will eventually own (or own and sell) every privately owned business in the economy.

Then where do you suppose the revenue-starved spendthrifts in Congress are gonna get their pork money, if and when they eliminate the death tax?

And your point is...Unfair taxation is OK, so long as it's not MY Ox getting gored? Double taxation is double taxation. Wealth Redistribution is the job of socialists; wealth accumulation is the job of capitalists.

but is your answer really no limit at all

Yes. If a man better than me accumulates more wealth than me, I've no right or even any "need" to plunder his childrens' family home upon his death. I did nothing to contribute to his wealth; I have no reason to expect a share of it....whether he's alive or dead. That's the plea of a Welfare Citizen; I'd rather stand on my own hind legs.

To me, the current limit or maybe up to 2 mil is about right, to ensure that the family heirlooms, homestead, and small business can passed down tax-free

After accounting for the home and heirlooms, lets say you're left with $1.2 Mill. Most successful farms, factories and other small business are worth well in excess of that....off to the auction with them. Let's just keep the marginal ones safe.
???

Didn't think so, so shut up if you don't have an actual cogent argument

Kindly tone it down, FF. Now.
Rich

 

[Marko Kloos]

After all there is only so much money in a system and it will no longer work if only one guy has all of it (hypothetically).

With all due respect, read up on economics. Wealth is created, not looted. There is no "fixed pie", and if Bill Gates makes 500 million bucks next year, it doesn't mean that he gets all the pie and we have to eat the box.

FirstFreedom,

first of all, I have to note that you didn't address any of the points I made in my last response. Now to your reply:

Marko, you guys are trying to make this into an all or nothing, black or white situation.

That's because it is a black or white situation. I either have control over my productive output, or society has a right to control it for me. If you accept the latter, it doesn't matter one bit whether we're talking a 1% inheritance tax, or the aforementioned deposit of one's entire paycheck into the treasury so that society may distribute it fairly. Once you accept that society has that right, then all else is a matter of degree and majority consent. You are arguing degree, which is irrelevant once you conceded the principle.

There IS a line to be drawn, somewhere, at some point, on all issues.

By whom, by what right, and at whose expense? What gives you the right to tell me how much money I may earn, and what I may do with my life savings? If you don't have that right as a person, you certainly don't have it by proxy, by designating some Congressional kleptocrats to do it on your behalf, all for the sake of societal benefit.

Forget the abstracts behind which to hide. There is no "society", no mystical entity whose welfare stands above all property rights. Society is you and me. How about I get to keep all the money I make, and you get to keep all the money you make? If that's not acceptable to you, then tell me how much of my paycheck belongs to you, and why.

In one respect, you're like the right-wingers you despise. All you do is substitute "the will of God" with "the good of society", both being conveniently vague and usually defined to suit someone's purpose. Once again: there is no mythical entity called "society" whose welfare overrides all other consideration. Society is a group of individuals, and when you say that Bill Gates or Marko Kloos need to contribute some of their money to the "good of society", you mean "the good of some people". You are saying that some members of the group have more of a right to a paycheck than the person who actually put in the labor for that check.

You're wrong in that MY idea is fairer; MY idea is the meritocracy; MY idea is freedom; YOUR views lead to a class society, WITHOUT REGARD to merit, hard work, and brains

Your idea is pure socialism, not a meritocracy. Laissez-faire capitalism is a meritocracy. Your concept would trample on everyone's property rights and make the industrious and productive people slaves to the lazy and unproductive ones. Your argument is not new, and I cannot believe that anyone besides nineteen-year old college coffeehouse Trotskyists still think that "redistribution of wealth" is a moral or workable principle. It's been tried for eighty years, and the only result has been abject misery and a complete negation of personal freedoms for the people subjected to the experiment. But, alas, there are still plenty of people in this country who think that "the only reason wealth redistribution hasn't worked is because we haven't been in charge".

In short: You don't have the right to determine what other folks do with their own money. Period. It doesn't become moral when you have someone else do it for you, and it doesn't become moral when it's done in the name of a lofty goal like "the benefit of society". Like I said, society is you and me, and I'd suggest you keep your hands to yourself, out of my wallet, and out of my son's future inheritance. I'll extend the same courtesy to you and your kids. How's that for meritocracy?

 

[johnbt]

I'm against estate taxes. I don't think the government has any right to any part of a man's life savings. It's bad enough to tax the income from the nest egg without stealing some or all of the nest egg. He earned it and it's his to pass on as he sees fit.

And this talk of haves and have nots, level playing fields, and the redistribution of wealth sounds suspiciously like a lot of what was said by many '60s radicals.

John

 

[novus collectus]

Marko Kloos,
Respect appreciated. 35 yr old college freshman here. I will take an economics class next semester just so I can keep up with you guys and maybe someday join the discussion. (seriously and with absolutely no sarcasm).
btw- both you and (most of) the others are making good points. Don't agree with most of them but can't justify my disagreements with words....yet. I respectfully bow out.

 

[seeker_two]

Bush on Gun Control...

1. He stated that he WOULD sign a new asssault-weapons bill if presented to him. No bill was ever presented. And we should consider this supportive of gun owners HOW?

2. He supports NCIS checks on firearms purchases. In fact, he wants to add the "terrorist watch list" (a list of names not available to the public where a person's name can be added simply at the discretion of Homeland Security even without any proof of terrorist connection & without recourse for appeal) as a criteria to rule out gun purchases. And we should consider this supportive of gun owners HOW?

3. Name one gun law, ATF regulation, or Parks & Wildlife policy that Bush has repealed, limited, or even criticized? And we should consider this supportive of gun owners HOW?


Bush prefers to spend his time kow-towing to Mexican dictators, fighting land wars in Asia, and pushing free prescription drugs to senior citizens rather than reducing the size and imposition of government, protecting our domestic borders, and preserving the life & civil rights of a woman being murdered on live television.

Hope you Bush-ies are enjoying you "buyers remorse". I voted for Peroutka.

 

[cuate]

An assesment of Bush of past Presidents

I felt like Bush had my interests at heart in 2002, I also decided to stop President bashing, I became weary of bashing the former one. Bush represents all Americans not just conservative little me. To do so he must say and do things I absolutely abhor.

In his favor is the fact that he was the best Texas Governor we had in ages. We were embarassed but the mouthy, joke cracking harpie who preceeded him.

I wondered why he would leave Austin to get in the midst of some of the most degrading politicos and media in the world in Washington?

He has went against the grain with his lack of interest in the illegal invaders from Mexico and the hullabaloo about Social Security.

Than Almighty GOD for him rather than Kerry!