NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/28/minimumwage.ap/index.html

What the hell is wrong with our congress? In other words, you poor people can have an extra couple of bucks an hour (now youll make 15,000, well above the poverty line of 9,800!) as long as the people who really count, the rich people, get their inheritance tax cut.

And before you people start bitching about how rich people worked hard for their money:

http://socialitelife.com/2006/07/27/nicky_hilton_poolside_with_brandon_davis.php

Yeah, working very hard! Please repeal the inheritance tax, otherwise these lowlives will have to ration their Cristal!

And the fact that the Republicans SOMEHOW combined it with increasing minimum wage is disgusting. Congress should be fired. All of them.

I think it was tacky to attach the inheritance tax cut to the minimum wage bill. I also think that it was stupid of the GOP to push for this, since it's perceived as a direct insult by many working class voters (who the GOP have a good shot at attracting via social conservativism).

A wonderful strategy and a marvelous poiltical ploy. But then it could backfire especially if it dies in the Senate and those up for re-elect vote against it.

There of course should be no price floors (minimum wage) nor inheritance (birthday gift) tax.

While I am for the minimum wage increase I am also for inheritance tax reform as well … I guess being fucked over like that will do that to you.

Painful to see your parents inherit the well more then 100 year old farm that besides the land has no money attached to the estate. But because of the wording of the will requires that the land be sold off, but before we can get done fighting with the county and the township inheritance taxes kick in and bleed my parents dry to the point we cant even think about getting a loan for the crazy amount the land is going for in this area now.

We ended up having to sell the farm and it pushed my parents retirement back at least another 6 years at best (though both of them like to work so not the biggest issue)

A wonderful strategy and a marvelous poiltical ploy. But then it could backfire especially if it dies in the Senate and those up for re-elect vote against it.

Well, ultimately what they are trying to do is get Dems to vote against it, in hopes that people are dumb enough to believe the "he was for it before he was against it" bullshit.

There of course should be no price floors (minimum wage) nor inheritance (birthday gift) tax.

No price floor? So you wouldnt have a problem being hired for $2/hr?

No price floor? So you wouldnt have a problem being hired for $2/hr?

Umm... if you're a waitress, or a car salesman, you're paid less than minimum wage by your employer on the "assumption" that you'll make a lot of money in tips and commissions.

When I was in college, I worked as a car salesman during the summers.

I was paid 2.50 an hour for "draw", but I made roughly 8000 dollars a month after taxes from commissions.

Go figure. There were also "salesmen" at the same dealership who, because they couldn't close a deal, ended up making next to nothing.

I guess you'll say that we should have all shown solidarity, and shared the commissions amongst all the salesmen...

Well, ultimately what they are trying to do is get Dems to vote against it, in hopes that people are dumb enough to believe the "he was for it before he was against it" bullshit.

As I said, it was a brilliant political move. The democrats in this case are, and please pardon my language, Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As I said, it was a brilliant political move. The democrats in this case are, and please pardon my language, Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Not really all that brilliant it was too transparent not even the talking heads are not as up on their soapboxes about it as they normally would.

This move also pissed off about ever conservative family farmer in the Midwest piggy backing these things in the hope that they get defeated for apolitical point… way to transparent

Umm... if you're a waitress, or a car salesman, you're paid less than minimum wage by your employer on the "assumption" that you'll make a lot of money in tips and commissions.

When I was in college, I worked as a car salesman during the summers.

I was paid 2.50 an hour for "draw", but I made roughly 8000 dollars a month after taxes from commissions.

Go figure. There were also "salesmen" at the same dealership who, because they couldn't close a deal, ended up making next to nothing.

I guess you'll say that we should have all shown solidarity, and shared the commissions amongst all the salesmen...

And for people that DONT get tips? In other words, how about the majority of the population that DONT fit the technicality?

(now youll make 15,000, well above the poverty line of 9,800!)
You know, I doubt a family of four could live happily on 15k a year.

It helps to watch Oprah.. sometimes..:p

And wont they have to pay more taxes?

And for people that DONT get tips? In other words, how about the majority of the population that DONT fit the technicality?
Well, in my town, the minimum wage is rather meaningless.

You can get a job as a day laborer for 17 dollars an hour (and you don't even have to speak English or be able to read and write).

You can get a job as a clerk in just about any small shop or gas station in the same town for the same wages.

If you're working for minimum wage around here, you're pretty stupid. Really.

Not really all that brilliant it was too transparent not even the talking heads are not as up on their soapboxes about it as they normally would.

This move also pissed off about ever conservative family farmer in the Midwest piggy backing these things in the hope that they get defeated for apolitical point… way to transparent

I guess we will have a difference of opinion here because I do think it was brilliant and no one is screaming UpwardThrust because of the fact that it is an election year and they do not want to be seen opposed to such things as Estate Tax Reform and a Minimum Wage increase. Some dems have been screaming their heads off about this.

Also remember that there is a more important issue going on right now that is overshadowing this. If the Middle East Crisis was not going on, I am sure that we would be hearing more and more from the "talking heads".

Im possibly the only person in the country who is vehemently for a higher minimum wage AND for abolishing inheritance tax. Go figure.

Im possibly the only person in the country who is vehemently for a higher minimum wage AND for abolishing inheritance tax. Go figure.

I'd vote for that.

Still, like I said, the minimum wage is utterly meaningless in Herndon.

I guess we will have a difference of opinion here because I do think it was brilliant and no one is screaming UpwardThrust because of the fact that it is an election year and they do not want to be seen opposed to such things as Estate Tax Reform and a Minimum Wage increase. Some dems have been screaming their heads off about this.

Also remember that there is a more important issue going on right now that is overshadowing this. If the Middle East Crisis was not going on, I am sure that we would be hearing more and more from the "talking heads".
Naw with their willingness to sell out to push their political pets I think they are rightly justified in worrying about a backlash from this.

this is just a political move/one sided compromise. Though I'm glad that the minimum wage issue is on the table.

Im possibly the only person in the country who is vehemently for a higher minimum wage AND for abolishing inheritance tax. Go figure.
I tend to fall along similar lines … at least good strong reform of inheritance taxes (reason stated earlier in this thread)

Naw with their willingness to sell out to push their political pets I think they are rightly justified in worrying about a backlash from this.

Both sides should.

Both sides should.
Why because of rights obvious ploy? Ehhh I have a feeling less so.

Surprising this is the first time I have yet heard a peep out of the hardcore right farmers in this area… and its not looking good for the right lol

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/28/minimumwage.ap/index.html

What the hell is wrong with our congress? In other words, you poor people can have an extra couple of bucks an hour (now youll make 15,000, well above the poverty line of 9,800!) as long as the people who really count, the rich people, get their inheritance tax cut.

And before you people start bitching about how rich people worked hard for their money:

http://socialitelife.com/2006/07/27/nicky_hilton_poolside_with_brandon_davis.php

Yeah, working very hard! Please repeal the inheritance tax, otherwise these lowlives will have to ration their Cristal!

And the fact that the Republicans SOMEHOW combined it with increasing minimum wage is disgusting. Congress should be fired. All of them.

Yeah, damn those evil rich people. :rolleyes:

Class jealousy really gets you nowhere. Not rich? Do what you can to get rich. I've managed to pull myself up several rungs on the socio-economic ladder by working my ass off. You might try the same. It's better to spend your effort on bettering your situation than to waste it on whining that some people are wealthier than you are.

Yeah, damn those evil rich people. :rolleyes:

Class jealousy really gets you nowhere. Not rich? Do what you can to get rich. I've managed to pull myself up several rungs on the socio-economic ladder by working my ass off. You might try the same. It's better to spend your effort on bettering your situation than to waste it on whining that some people are wealthier than you are.

Indeed.

Worked for me quite well.

The primary obstacle to becoming more wealthy in the US seems to be not wanting to do it.

Tax: from the cradle to the grave.

Indeed.

Worked for me quite well.

The primary obstacle to becoming more wealthy in the US seems to be not wanting to do it.

And wasting your time bitching about people who have more money (for whatever reason).

Yeah, damn those evil rich people. :rolleyes:

Class jealousy really gets you nowhere. Not rich? Do what you can to get rich. I've managed to pull myself up several rungs on the socio-economic ladder by working my ass off. You might try the same. It's better to spend your effort on bettering your situation than to waste it on whining that some people are wealthier than you are.

I agree with this statement.

I agree with this statement.

Frankly, anyone who doesn't is a lazy, whiny waste of protein.

Im possibly the only person in the country who is vehemently for a higher minimum wage AND for abolishing inheritance tax. Go figure.

There are at least 2 of us.

I am all for a higher minimun wage, and completly against any inheritance tax....

When my father-in-law passed away..after all the taxes were paied (Local,State and Federal) the estate was taxed at 68.8%. Now think about it openly for a second..This money (the estate) was already taxed time and again..Taxed when he made it, taxed when he spent it, taxed as income each year, investments taxed as capital gains again each year and then taxed to death after hid death.....how many times shoul you tax the same money????? From my calculations each dollar my father-in-law mad it was taxed 6 times.......

No price floor? So you wouldnt have a problem being hired for $2/hr?
That's about standard for waitstaff around here. Now then, if someone thinks another job is worth (to them) only $2/hr, and everyone thinks it's more, the first person will have a very difficult time finding someone to do the job, won't that person?

I am all for a higher minimun wage, and completly against any inheritance tax....

When my father-in-law passed away..after all the taxes were paied (Local,State and Federal) the estate was taxed at 68.8%. Now think about it openly for a second..This money (the estate) was already taxed time and again..Taxed when he made it, taxed when he spent it, taxed as income each year, investments taxed as capital gains again each year and then taxed to death after hid death.....how many times shoul you tax the same money????? From my calculations each dollar my father-in-law mad it was taxed 6 times.......


That final tax is predicated on the idea that the government will somehow make a better use of the money than you or your fellow inheritors.

Any theory that starts with "the government knows better than you do" is fundamentally flawed from the start. When you hear it come out of a politician's mouth, it's time to vote them out of office or impeach them.

Indeed.

Worked for me quite well.

The primary obstacle to becoming more wealthy in the US seems to be not wanting to do it.

Yeah, it's not as if there's a job for every American on the board of an oil giant, is there?

Most millionaires in the US are not board members of anything. Most are homeowners and 401K holders.

That final tax is predicated on the idea that the government will somehow make a better use of the money than you or your fellow inheritors.

Any theory that starts with "the government knows better than you do" is fundamentally flawed from the start. When you hear it come out of a politician's mouth, it's time to vote them out of office or impeach them.

So very true.......If we sat her and started count all the useless government programs,grants, projects and wasted money we would be here for months....I wish i could run my check book like the government spending money I don't have and then force others to pay for it.

Most millionaires in the US are not board members of anything. Most are homeowners and 401K holders.

Looks we're running a different definition of wealthy then. However, the fact still stands that the desire to be wealthy doesn't immediately make you wealthy.

Looks we're running a different definition of wealthy then. However, the fact still stands that the desire to be wealthy doesn't immediately make you wealthy.
Nope some of us work our fingers to the bone to make a decent living … I did it, most people could if they wanted to

A wonderful strategy and a marvelous poiltical ploy. But then it could backfire especially if it dies in the Senate and those up for re-elect vote against it.

on the contrary.. thats what the GOP hopes for.. GOP members already faced critizism that they were against a minimum wage hike by democrats. Now democrats will vote against this measure in their opposition to the interitance tax, and in turn kill minimum wage. So that issue becomes difused come election time, because dare they bring it up.. the 30 second political ads will scream, "Democrats vote against minimum wage".

Looks we're running a different definition of wealthy then. However, the fact still stands that the desire to be wealthy doesn't immediately make you wealthy.

No, just because I want to be as rich as Bill Gates doesn't mean it will happen.

But a LOT of Americans go from zero to over a million dollars the regular route - they educate themselves (as I did, without help from my parents, without scholarships, grants, or loans), and they work hard and use their brains to accumulate wealth.

It's called the American Dream, and it's only dead to those who think that the American Dream is the government giving you the money for the education, a free pass to get into the school even if you can't do the coursework, a job from the government even if you didn't end up with a degree, and retirement money if you were too stupid to save any of that money the government was giving you - then they expect those people to go to the polls and vote against "the rich" - which in the government definition is anyone who made the money on their own.

Yeah, it's not as if there's a job for every American on the board of an oil giant, is there?

Ever read the book "automatic Millionaire" .. In reality, if you manage your money, its very easy to become wealthy quite quickly (and anyone can do it, you dont even need to be educated)... people are able to emass millions of dollars on incomes as low as 50k a year. Its a matter of wanting it and doing it.

the reality is.. the overwhelming majority of people in this country are extremely irrisponsible with their income, and so rely on the government to fill their gaps. Of course theese are the people who will be just scraping by pay check to paycheck.

then they expect those people to go to the polls and vote against "the rich" - which in the government definition is anyone who made the money on their own.

I find it slightly erronious to label all rich as people who "made the money on their own" especially when we are talking about an inheritance tax here.

While I'm against such a tax, as I feel it's taxing money that's already been taxed, let's recognize there are people in this country, and this world, who have money simply by the nature of being born with it, not from any amount of hard work.

No, just because I want to be as rich as Bill Gates doesn't mean it will happen.

But a LOT of Americans go from zero to over a million dollars the regular route - they educate themselves (as I did, without help from my parents, without scholarships, grants, or loans), and they work hard and use their brains to accumulate wealth.

It's called the American Dream, and it's only dead to those who think that the American Dream is the government giving you the money for the education, a free pass to get into the school even if you can't do the coursework, a job from the government even if you didn't end up with a degree, and retirement money if you were too stupid to save any of that money the government was giving you - then they expect those people to go to the polls and vote against "the rich" - which in the government definition is anyone who made the money on their own.

I have now gotten 5 degrees (One BA two BS and two MA’s) Not a cent of actually tuition paid by anyone but myself. It took 6 years of working 72 hours a week to do it but I did it, by myself.

Though to be fair I have had the pleasure of working with some people where the grants and loans they the USG offered allowed them to do absolutely amazing work in school and went on to do some impressive things

Ever read the book "automatic Millionaire" .. In reality, if you manage your money, its very easy to become wealthy quite quickly (and anyone can do it, you dont even need to be educated)... people are able to emass millions of dollars on incomes as low as 50k a year. Its a matter of wanting it and doing it.

the reality is.. the overwhelming majority of people in this country are extremely irrisponsible with their income, and so rely on the government to fill their gaps. Of course theese are the people who will be just scraping by pay check to paycheck.


If you have an income as "low" as 50k a year you are not only better off than the majority of this country (where the average income still sits at around 30ish) but you are also WELLLL above governmental assistance.

on the contrary.. thats what the GOP hopes for.. GOP members already faced critizism that they were against a minimum wage hike by democrats. Now democrats will vote against this measure in their opposition to the interitance tax, and in turn kill minimum wage. So that issue becomes difused come election time, because dare they bring it up.. the 30 second political ads will scream, "Democrats vote against minimum wage".

Not just against minimum wage but against inheritence tax reform as well. As I said, brilliant. They give the dems what they wanted, a minimum wage increase, and toss in what they wanted, in heritence tax reform. So why are the dems screaming bloody murder? Because of Inheritence Tax reform that they oppose. If it gets filibustered, then the Republicans can use that against the Democrats come November. It was a brillant move.

I find it slightly erronious to label all rich as people who "made the money on their own" especially when we are talking about an inheritance tax here.

While I'm against such a tax, as I feel it's taxing money that's already been taxed, let's recognize there are people in this country, and this world, who have money simply by the nature of being born with it, not from any amount of hard work.

irriguardless of if those people are attaining that money through no work of their own.. someone worked for it.. and shoudn't it be our right to pass the money we worked for onto whoever we want, and not have the government double dip ?

Im possibly the only person in the country who is vehemently for a higher minimum wage AND for abolishing inheritance tax. Go figure.

No. I feel the same way. just tax the super-wealthy more... just add a new "Uppest" tax bracket. For those like Bill Gates and that guy who gave Bill's charity $31B... I solve everything... except the Middle East problem :(

:mp5: Guess who?

irriguardless of if those people are attaining that money through no work of their own.. someone worked for it.. and shoudn't it be our right to pass the money we worked for onto whoever we want, and not have the government double dip ?

Read what I said, I am AGAINST inheritance tax because it IS double dipping.

However it is not intellectually honest to say people are rich because THEY worked for it, especially in the context of inheritance, which for many people, is a way to become rich without ever working for it.

Yeah, working very hard! Please repeal the inheritance tax, otherwise these lowlives will have to ration their Cristal!



Why do you feel that you're entitled to steal from people?

Read what I said, I am AGAINST inheritance tax because it IS double dipping.

However it is not intellectually honest to say people are rich because THEY worked for it, especially in the context of inheritance, which for many people, is a way to become rich without ever working for it.
And some like my family take another massive blow because of that same inheritance tax. God forbid we be able to keep the land that has been in our family for 3 generations

Not just against minimum wage but against inheritence tax reform as well. As I said, brilliant. They give the dems what they wanted, a minimum wage increase, and toss in what they wanted, in heritence tax reform. So why are the dems screaming bloody murder? Because of Inheritence Tax reform that they oppose. If it gets filibustered, then the Republicans can use that against the Democrats come November. It was a brillant move.

The problem is many republicans may see this either as using an issue they do care about (inheritance tax) as a political move JUST SO the bill gets cut down. In other words, many republicans may see that this issue, which they actually want to see passed, is being used in a way specifically so that it will NOT be passed.

And if it DOES get passed, they have to sacrifice something they don't want (a wage hike).

Additionally, if it does go that way, the democrats are equally able to say that the republicans voted for yet another tax cut on money that could have done things like....repair levies in lousianna fund more disaster relief, or buy better body armor for our soldiers.

In this era where a crisis in the budget is starting to become apparent, and the president is asking for even MORE money to fund a war that should have been over by now according to his staff's estimates, and we're seeing an old infrastructure no longer being responsive to natural disasters, voting FOR a tax cut may be just as damaging as voting AGAINST a wage hike.

And the dems could neutralize thise decently enough by voting against the rider bill, then replacing it with a min wage proposal, without the rider, which they then vote for it in force.

And some like my family take another massive blow because of that same inheritance tax. God forbid we be able to keep the land that has been in our family for 3 generations

Another reason to be against it, but I believe your situation to be fairly uncommon.

All I'm saying is, let's not say that EVERY rich person in this country is rich because THEY worked for it, that is not true, and should be quite obvious in a discussion about inheritance.

The problem is many republicans may see this either as using an issue they do care about (inheritance tax) as a political move JUST SO the bill gets cut down. In other words, many republicans may see that this issue, which they actually want to see passed, is being used in a way specifically so that it will NOT be passed.

And if it DOES get passed, they have to sacrifice something they don't want (a wage hike).

Additionally, if it does go that way, the democrats are equally able to say that the republicans voted for yet another tax cut on money that could have done things like....repair levies in lousianna fund more disaster relief, or buy better body armor for our soldiers.

In this era where a crisis in the budget is starting to become apparent, and the president is asking for even MORE money to fund a war that should have been over by now according to his staff's estimates, and we're seeing an old infrastructure no longer being responsive to natural disasters, voting FOR a tax cut may be just as damaging as voting AGAINST a wage hike.

And the dems could neutralize thise decently enough by voting against the rider bill, then replacing it with a min wage proposal, without the rider, which they then vote for it in force.

No one wins... except the 3rd Parties!

And Stephen Colbert **WHAT??!!!**

If you have an income as "low" as 50k a year you are not only better off than the majority of this country (where the average income still sits at around 30ish) but you are also WELLLL above governmental assistance.

that number only served as an example of how you can emass wealth on what is realitivly a small amount of money. If people, no matter what their income were more responsible with their money... they wouldn't be in nearly as poor shape as they are otherwise. There is no doubt there are plenty of impoverished people who are litteraly on the verge of starvation or what have you.. but this is hardly representative of the overwhelming majority of middle class and even some upper lower class families. With a country whose national savings rate was in the negative last year... i think its difficult to refute this. Or you could try to make the excuse that some how the US impoverished have it worse off then the rest of the world (where they are able to save) :rolleyes:

Another reason to be against it, but I believe your situation to be fairly uncommon.

All I'm saying is, let's not say that EVERY rich person in this country is rich because THEY worked for it, that is not true, and should be quite obvious in a discussion about inheritance.
Not particularly uncomon in this area at least

That may be tainting my view but there are now big agro farmers around here ... the biggest farm (by far) in our entire county is a 1500 acre (still) family owned farm

Ours was closer to 300 acre ... which is about the average for this county

And slowly as they get older one by one the farms are having to be sold off, they never made big bucks and not enough for the next generation to pay the taxes associated with inharatence I can name 10 farms that have gone that way in the last 5 years in just our small town of like 1000 people

Another reason to be against it, but I believe your situation to be fairly uncommon.

All I'm saying is, let's not say that EVERY rich person in this country is rich because THEY worked for it, that is not true, and should be quite obvious in a discussion about inheritance.

why should it matter if they worked for it or not.. the point is SOMEONE worked for it.. whether it be a parent or realitve.. why should the government have the opprotunity to come in and retax monies that were already taxed?!.

Another reason to be against it, but I believe your situation to be fairly uncommon.

All I'm saying is, let's not say that EVERY rich person in this country is rich because THEY worked for it, that is not true, and should be quite obvious in a discussion about inheritance.

The point is, someone worked in some way to accumulate that wealth, and already paid taxes on that money.

Why give it mostly to the government? Is the government all-wise, and guaranteed to spend that money well?

Would you prefer the government take the money, and buy bombs, and blow people up, or whatever random thing that the government will think of, or do you think that the inheritors might do something with it?

why should it matter if they worked for it or not.. the point is SOMEONE worked for it.. whether it be a parent or realitve.. why should the government have the opprotunity to come in and retax monies that were already taxed?!.


Will someone for the love of god read what I wrote before trying to argue with me on a point I already made, and stated I agree with?

one more time, I AGREE WITH YOU, ok, I do, scroll up, you'll see. I'm only saying that NOT EVERY PERSON with wealth in this country got that wealth by their OWN efforts, and one obvious way to see how someone could get wealth even though they didn't work for it should be obvious in a discussion about inheritance. That's it. That's all.

The point is, someone worked in some way to accumulate that wealth, and already paid taxes on that money.

Why give it mostly to the government? Is the government all-wise, and guaranteed to spend that money well?

Would you prefer the government take the money, and buy bombs, and blow people up, or whatever random thing that the government will think of, or do you think that the inheritors might do something with it?

Again read what I have said, rather than what you think I said without actually reading it.

I DO NOT LIKE INHERITANCE TAX, because I think that the money has ALREADY been taxed, it's already gone through the system. I merely point out that, through inheritance, people are able to accumulate wealth that they, personally, did not work for.

The problem is many republicans may see this either as using an issue they do care about (inheritance tax) as a political move JUST SO the bill gets cut down. In other words, many republicans may see that this issue, which they actually want to see passed, is being used in a way specifically so that it will NOT be passed.

And if it DOES get passed, they have to sacrifice something they don't want (a wage hike).

Additionally, if it does go that way, the democrats are equally able to say that the republicans voted for yet another tax cut on money that could have done things like....repair levies in lousianna fund more disaster relief, or buy better body armor for our soldiers.

In this era where a crisis in the budget is starting to become apparent, and the president is asking for even MORE money to fund a war that should have been over by now according to his staff's estimates, and we're seeing an old infrastructure no longer being responsive to natural disasters, voting FOR a tax cut may be just as damaging as voting AGAINST a wage hike.

And the dems could neutralize thise decently enough by voting against the rider bill, then replacing it with a min wage proposal, without the rider, which they then vote for it in force.

Sad thing is.. the public will be more concerned with a wage hike, because it directly effects them.. when an inheritance tax will not. They will look more poorly on the idea of voting against a minimum wage hike then for or against an inheritance tax. Of course democrats will cry we are stoping another tax cut for the rich.. but at the end of the day, working families will only see their wage not going anywhere and blame the people who voted against it. Such is the wonderful world of politics ~_^. this is a win win for republicans.

The point is, someone worked in some way to accumulate that wealth, and already paid taxes on that money.

Why give it mostly to the government? Is the government all-wise, and guaranteed to spend that money well?

Would you prefer the government take the money, and buy bombs, and blow people up, or whatever random thing that the government will think of, or do you think that the inheritors might do something with it?
Not sure if this makes a difference in your opinion all but it WAS homesteaded rather then “Payed” for

(I told you its been in the family a long time)

To me it makes it just that much more precious after putting well over a 100 years of blood and sweat into that land it is now having houses built on it


Not to mention they taxed us right away but because of a fight between county and township we could not sell it off to pay those taxes till almost 4 years later

The township said no smaller then R40 … the county said anything larger then R5 was bad planning for the area and would not allow it. They BOTH said because of new feedlot rules that lakeside property like that would not be approved for A40 or bigger either.

So we had to sit and fight for years as we were taxed to death

The Republicans moved on the minimum wage to neutralize a potential campaign issue for democrats in the Autumn. They also decided to eliminate the inheritance tax in the same stroke.

What's fascinating about these two actions is how few people they will have an effect on. There's a meager million and a half people on minimum wage in the entire US, and the vast bulk of them are teenagers bagging groceries. Meanwhile, the inheritance tax cut will have a bit more of an impact, but still not that large. It impacts not only the rich and famous, but average people (like my family) as well. When my great-grandmother died, the inheritance money, which totalled some $200,000 had to be split. The government took a huge chunk of it, leaving something like $110,000 left for the family. My great-grandparents were not wealthy folks. My great-grandfather worked as a milkman until the depression hit, at which point he moved into town and got a job at Hercules Motors on the assembly line, which he had until he retired. My great-grandparents were incredibly thrifty, that's where they got their money. And for all of their scrimping and saving, they got to give a good $90,000 dollars to the government when they died. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Sad thing is.. the public will be more concerned with a wage hike, because it directly effects them.. when an inheritance tax will not. They will look more poorly on the idea of voting against a minimum wage hike then for or against an inheritance tax. Of course democrats will cry we are stoping another tax cut for the rich.. but at the end of the day, working families will only see their wage not going anywhere and blame the people who voted against it. Such is the wonderful world of politics ~_^. this is a win win for republicans.

Yes it is.

this is a win win for republicans.

Unless they start pissing of their base by doing what that base thinks is a compromise of the basic republican principles.

Which is exactly what's starting to happen. The fact is a lot of republicans are starting to get very, very mad at their own party, and to think that this will not have a negative effect on the polls is silly.

The Republicans moved on the minimum wage to neutralize a potential campaign issue for democrats in the Autumn. They also decided to eliminate the inheritance tax in the same stroke.

What's fascinating about these two actions is how few people they will have an effect on. There's a meager million and a half people on minimum wage in the entire US, and the vast bulk of them are teenagers bagging groceries. Meanwhile, the inheritance tax cut will have a bit more of an impact, but still not that large. It impacts not only the rich and famous, but average people (like my family) as well. When my great-grandmother died, the inheritance money, which totalled some $200,000 had to be split. The government took a huge chunk of it, leaving something like $110,000 left for the family. My great-grandparents were not wealthy folks. My great-grandfather worked as a milkman until the depression hit, at which point he moved into town and got a job at Hercules Motors on the assembly line, which he had until he retired. My great-grandparents were incredibly thrifty, that's where they got their money. And for all of their scrimping and saving, they got to give a good $90,000 dollars to the government when they died. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Though an increase in minimum wage tends to push the bottom up on a lot of the lower end wages that are not quite rock bottom, have to attract workers somehow.

Nope some of us work our fingers to the bone to make a decent living … I did it, most people could if they wanted to

I agree..I did not grow up in a well off family. But I worked hard for years, and I amnow completly retired at the age of 45. I have not worked a day in over a year now.I busted my but saved and invested all I could and now i am well off and my fanily does not have to worry about anything...even if i died tomarrow..... This is the USA you can make it if you work hard, keep your goal in sight, and work work work.....I also did not go to colladge after high school i worked, but while I was working i then went to colladge, I hold 5 degrees, 2 masters and 2 BA degrees....It is all up to the person and the choices they make...I did it on my own with very little help from anyone else.

Work hard and you can get a head...I for the most part do not feel sorry for anyone that uses excuses for there situation,,,I never finished high school, I can from a poor family, I am a minority and was never given a chance, boo hoo.....If you don't work for it and always blame others or the government or socioty (sp) you will never get a head. Take respocability for you decisions and mistakes get over it and move on.

Another reason to be against it, but I believe your situation to be fairly uncommon.

All I'm saying is, let's not say that EVERY rich person in this country is rich because THEY worked for it, that is not true, and should be quite obvious in a discussion about inheritance.

Who fucking cares who worked for it? It was earned at some point. You don't want to leave your children something to live on? Yeah, what a horrid goal. You wanna discuss inheritance? Think about people who continue to work into their later years, with an eye towards making the lives of their children better. We should penalise those children for having hard-working parents, right? Those assholes. How dare they. :rolleyes:

Can your class jealousy. There's always going to be someone with more than you. Get over it.

Oh and one thing to remember about the minimum wage, rase it, and prices also go up...so in the end the poor that the rase is targeted to help in reality just keeps them where they are..The make more but costs also go up.

Unless they start pissing of their base by doing what that base thinks is a compromise of the basic republican principles.

Which is exactly what's starting to happen. The fact is a lot of republicans are starting to get very, very mad at their own party, and to think that this will not have a negative effect on the polls is silly.

In reality i dont belive it will have a significant effect.. because though conservatives are against minimum wage hikes.. they strongly feel inheritance taxes are wrong.. its compromise. And with a majority of the country being behind minimum wage hikes, any hit in the polls with the base will be worth it in the long run if its passed, as republicans will effectivly have made minimum wage "their issue"

Oh and one thing to remember about the minimum wage, rase it, and prices also go up...so in the end the poor that the rase is targeted to help in reality just keeps them where they are..The make more but costs also go up.

Oversimplistic and not necessarily true. People who make more money buy more, recovering the costs spent on increasing the wage.

Who fucking cares who worked for it? It was earned at some point. You don't want to leave your children something to live on? Yeah, what a horrid goal. You wanna discuss inheritance? Think about people who continue to work into their later years, with an eye towards making the lives of their children better. We should penalise those children for having hard-working parents, right? Those assholes. How dare they. :rolleyes:

Can your class jealousy. There's always going to be someone with more than you. Get over it.

Hi, 5th person to tell me I've said something that I didn't.

Here's an idea, why don't you go back and READ WHAT I HAVE SAID, multiple times now. Until you demonstrate the capacity for reading comprehension, I feel no need to bother to try to explain what I've said...again.

Who fucking cares who worked for it? It was earned at some point. You don't want to leave your children something to live on? Yeah, what a horrid goal. You wanna discuss inheritance? Think about people who continue to work into their later years, with an eye towards making the lives of their children better. We should penalise those children for having hard-working parents, right? Those assholes. How dare they. :rolleyes:

Can your class jealousy. There's always going to be someone with more than you. Get over it.
Um they stated they were AGAINST the inheritance tax as it is "double dipping"

Another thing about inheritance tax is this...i have a friend a farmer, I hunt on his land and over the years we have talked. This farm has been in his family for 4 generations, when his great grand father died, his father had to pay the inheritance tax, and in the end had to sell off some of the land to pay it, as well as having to pay tax on the land sale itself. This man (his father) also paied taxes on the land every year, as well as income tax on what he made and so on, like all of us. When his father died my friend had to do the very samething, to pay the tax he had to sell more land, his 2 sons and1 daughter would have to do the same when he dies, but rather then have that happen he had devided the land up and gave each for his childern a chunk of it to do what they will with it when he dies, thus it is a gift and the gift tax is way less then the inheritance tax. Things like this happen all the time people having to sell things off just to pay the inheritance tax, and it is not right..There should be NO inheritance tax.

Another thing about inheritance tax is this...i have a friend a farmer, I hunt on his land and over the years we have talked. This farm has been in his family for 4 generations, when his great grand father died, his father had to pay the inheritance tax, and in the end had to sell off some of the land to pay it, as well as having to pay tax on the land sale itself. This man (his father) also paied taxes on the land every year, as well as income tax on what he made and so on, like all of us. When his father died my friend had to do the very samething, to pay the tax he had to sell more land, his 2 sons and1 daughter would have to do the same when he dies, but rather then have that happen he had devided the land up and gave each for his childern a chunk of it to do what they will with it when he dies, thus it is a gift and the gift tax is way less then the inheritance tax. Things like this happen all the time people having to sell things off just to pay the inheritance tax, and it is not right..There should be NO inheritance tax.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11476571&postcount=5

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11477424&postcount=53

Oversimplistic and not necessarily true. People who make more money buy more, recovering the costs spent on increasing the wage.

Not really, it is basic ecconomics. Look at the major employers of minimum wage workers, fast food, WalMart and so on, they are not going to take a profit loss. If they Have to pay employees more they will just increase prices to cover, and not take a loss, thus customers will pay more, the only other way they could not take a loss would be to cut the number of employees..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11476571&postcount=5

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11477424&postcount=53


LOL...sorry missed your posts on the subject........:eek:

Not really, it is basic ecconomics. Look at the major employers of minimum wage workers, fast food, WalMart and so on, they are not going to take a profit loss. If they Have to pay employees more they will just increase prices to cover, and not take a loss, thus customers will pay more, the only other way they could not take a loss would be to cut the number of employees..

Look at where a lot of minimum wage people spend their money.

I bet "walmart" is top of that list. If you make more money, you spend more money. Much of the increased cost in employing people could be offset by those people SPENDING MORE.

It impacts not only the rich and famous, but average people
...with estates worth over $1,500,000 or so

Look at where a lot of minimum wage people spend their money.

I bet "walmart" is top of that list. If you make more money, you spend more money. Much of the increased cost in employing people could be offset by those people SPENDING MORE.
Yep, and price floors for milk help the economy because the farmers will get more money to spend on their communities causing economic growth and improvement.:D

No matter who gets the money it will be spent, it may be spent differently but we can take it to be true that people use their money to fulfill their desires so long as it is not put under their bed it is out there somewhere.

...with estates worth over $1,000,000 or so

Having an estate worth $1,00,000 is not hard to have now days, the estate includes all assets, homes/s car/ house hold goods/investmenst/bank accounts/retierment accounts and all..

If I added up all my meterial assets and accounts, and my retierment holding I would fall into that catagory, and my net income from my retierment account is just a bit ver $30K per year.If i was not smart about how I set up my assets and money when i died my kids would have to pay out about 1/2 of my total net worth in taxes.

Yep, and price floors for milk help the economy because the farmers will get more money to spend on their communities causing economic growth and improvement.:D

No matter who gets the money it will be spent, it may be spent differently but we can take it to be true that people use their money to fulfill their desires so long as it is not put under their bed it is out there somewhere.
We don’t get to spend much on the community to be honest other then silage some years and seed and such

Most of the time we barely have enough to plant the next year.

Yep, and price floors for milk help the economy because the farmers will get more money to spend on their communities causing economic growth and improvement.:D

No matter who gets the money it will be spent, it may be spent differently but we can take it to be true that people use their money to fulfill their desires so long as it is not put under their bed it is out there somewhere.

Not really..again it is basic ecconomics...The overhead cost would go up for the farmer, fuel,feed,power,labor,transpertation and so on, this cost increase would be passed on up the supply chane from the farmer and increase as it went (basic profit/loss comes into play) if each segment of the supply chain did not increase ther price they would be on the loss end and eventiauly go out of buisness, so in the end the price of all goods and services will go up.

...with estates worth over $1,500,000 or so
You kidding you know what 300 acres of farm land (rough dirt poor family farm is around here) goes for around here? Specially when it is on the lake? Our land is worth a little over 4 million

Not that we can sell it right now because of the township and the county … so my parents had to empty their retirement funds to pay for the tax cause the estate had NO cash whatsoever to go with it.

You kidding you know what 300 acres of farm land (rough dirt poor family farm is around here) goes for around here? Specially when it is on the lake? Our land is worth a little over 4 million

Not that we can sell it right now because of the township and the county … so my parents had to empty their retirement funds to pay for the tax cause the estate had NO cash whatsoever to go with it.


Once again your 100% right here. Land/realestate is skyrocketing...I just bought 15.5 acres of farm land ant the price was well over $3000 per acre, and for land that was "dirt cheep". many farmers can not sell there land off quickly because of zoning rules or ordanances. If it is designated as farm land in a rual area, they can not sell it untill the land classifacation gets changed, to oh lets say industrial/resadentil or any such thing so the y are stuck holding the bag.....And can lose a large part or all of it if they can't come up with the money..

Having an estate worth $1,00,000 is not hard to have now days

which explains why something like less than 3% of people have to even file for any estate taxes at all, and even less have to pay anything...

If i was not smart about how I set up my assets and money when i died my kids would have to pay out about 1/2 of my total net worth in taxes.

only if your estate was so massive that that big ol' exemption was comparatively pocket change.

Once again your 100% right here. Land/realestate is skyrocketing...I just bought 15.5 acres of farm land ant the price was well over $3000 per acre, and for land that was "dirt cheep". many farmers can not sell there land off quickly because of zoning rules or ordanances. If it is designated as farm land in a rual area, they can not sell it untill the land classifacation gets changed, to oh lets say industrial/resadentil or any such thing so the y are stuck holding the bag.....And can lose a large part or all of it if they can't come up with the money..
No kidding and tax law takes it at its max value which is higher then what it is actually worth because we are stuck in a fight between county and township over zoning rights.

(to put it in perspective the 1 acre lot next to my parents house (bout ½ mile from the farm on the same lake) went for 130,000 undeveloped)

You kidding you know what 300 acres of farm land (rough dirt poor family farm is around here) goes for around here? Specially when it is on the lake? Our land is worth a little over 4 million

sounds like it's about time to get out of the farming business and go into something else with a better return on capital (maybe land speculation, perhaps). that land value puts your family into the top 5% of the population.

Not really..again it is basic ecconomics...The overhead cost would go up for the farmer, fuel,feed,power,labor,transpertation and so on, this cost increase would be passed on up the supply chane from the farmer and increase as it went (basic profit/loss comes into play) if each segment of the supply chain did not increase ther price they would be on the loss end and eventiauly go out of buisness, so in the end the price of all goods and services will go up.
I KNOW it is basic economics. I was taking that issue and comparing it to another issue which less people are likely to support. The ideas that are going around are like saying that breaking windows improves the economy. I put a smiley there for a reason because I know the proposal will hurt everyone involved but I made it sound good.

which explains why something like less than 3% of people have to even file for any estate taxes at all, and even less have to pay anything...

Go back to 2003...That was the year that the estate tax was changed...It went from estates of 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 and above would be taxex at 47% 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 would be taxed at 52% and estates of 5,000,000would be taxed at 63%.. Note this is averaged over the total value of the setate in other words the first sum is taxed at that rate, the next sum is taxed at that percent and so on to get the total tax.
For tax year 2004 the estate tax does not kick in untill the estates total value is 1,500.000 or abovem but the tax rates on the estate have also been resed.


only if your estate was so massive that that big ol' exemption was comparatively pocket change.

Pocket change, not really..At the current estate tax rates (the percentages are very high..starting at 39%) so it does come out to a large portion of the total estate. Again the estate is not just the money in the estate but the current market value of an assets of the estate. Another reason there are less people paying this tax is because they are protecting there assets, but having co-owners such as upon the death or the primary owner it is automatily transfered to the co-owner in whole and thus not an inheritance. Like if i would have my house in my name and my dayughters name, when I die because she is already an co-owner she get full ownership and pays only the normal property tax and not the inheritance tax as well. 401Ks and other accounts can be done in that way as well...There are always ways to beat the tax if you do your home work...I want what i worked for to go to my family and not the government to give to people that are to lazy to work for it..or for them to spend or usless things like welfare.

No kidding and tax law takes it at its max value which is higher then what it is actually worth because we are stuck in a fight between county and township over zoning rights.

(to put it in perspective the 1 acre lot next to my parents house (bout ½ mile from the farm on the same lake) went for 130,000 undeveloped)

I grew up on a farm..my family still farm the land in northern Wisconsin...Here is another new twist on land taxes..Land values have gone up (price per acer), because the land around the farm has been re-zoned for resadential use, farm land is not taxed at the average PPA with in the general area, thyus we all know that resadential land is much more costly (on average 400% higher in value then farm land) with the new formula, the farm land is now asvalubale as resadential land, but the farm is still zoned as "farm land" whos getting screwed here....

So what can the farmer do??? He/She has to try to sell produce at a higher price or hold it to force the price to go up..and then the whole supply thing kicks in and prices again go up.

the farm land is now asvalubale as resadential land, but the farm is still zoned as "farm land" whos getting screwed here....

so the problem with federal estate taxes is local zoning ordinances?

so the problem with federal estate taxes is local zoning ordinances?


No the whole setate tax is unfair...Why sould someone have to pay a death tax on something that has already been taxed over and over. You pay a tax when you make it, you pay a tax when you spend it, you pay another tax at the end of the year on what you earned, you pay a tax on your investmenst and savings, then when you die you have to pay another tax on it all..once again. Just one tax to many...

Inheritance taxes are awful. Those heirs DID work for their money; they convinced their dying elders to give it to them.

That's sales. That's work.

so the problem with federal estate taxes is local zoning ordinances?
Not really its like taxing you on not only your real income but your future expected income…

Its not money you have and its not money that you are guaranteed to be able to get yet you are being taxed for it.

Why sould someone have to pay a death tax on something that has already been taxed over and over.

because we want to limit social stratification and wealth inequality in favor of a slightly more egalitarian society

Not really its like taxing you on not only your real income but your future expected income…

Its not money you have and its not money that you are guaranteed to be able to get yet you are being taxed for it.

do you object to property taxes too?

do you object to property taxes too?
Not in theory when it is estimated at reasonable market value … but there is way too big of a gap between the Agricultural price which is like or actual earnings (which we can be reasonably be sure to get if we had to sell it) and residential zoned land property values which is not a sure thing at ALL.

because we want to limit social stratification and wealth inequality in favor of a slightly more egalitarian society

typical liberal/democratic answer...Redistribut the welth...Penialize hard working, self motivated people and give it to the under/uneducated bottom feaders of scocioty.....With few exceptions if you work hard don't drop out of school you can make it and provide for your family.. It is not my responcability to provide for some high school drop out and his/her family.

do you object to property taxes too?

No as long as they are fair and reflect the real value of the property..Same goes for sales tax and income tax...No real problem with either

No as long as they are fair and reflect the real value of the property..Same goes for sales tax and income tax...No real problem with either
Agreed … taxing me on my land valued 6 or more times more valuable then the actual land is ridiculous.

typical liberal/democratic answer

i'm neither

Penialize hard working, self motivated people

penalize?! for fucks sake, you've got over a million fucking dollars of net wealth if you have to even file. sign me up for all the penalties you can dish out.

Agreed … taxing me on my land valued 6 or more times more valuable then the actual land is ridiculous.

so it's really an issue of the valuation of the land, which in this case is apparently bound up in a bunch of stupid local zoning issues?

i'm neither

Sorry if it offended you.But that is the normal lib/dem answer.

penalize?! for fucks sake, you've got over a million fucking dollars of net wealth if you have to even file. sign me up for all the penalties you can dish out.

Yes it is a penality..i worked my ass off for years. And yes i do have to file, but then again all working people in the USA have to file, it is the law. But back to the point...I don't worry about the inheritance tax yet, i am not that old and hop to live another 30 or so years, but my assets are protected so my kids will not have to worry about it either. But taxes nickel and dime me to death every year, and I get audeted about every other year, and get this i even don't really mind paying more in taxes them a lot of people make in a year, but thats not the point.The death tax is unfair.

so it's really an issue of the valuation of the land, which in this case is apparently bound up in a bunch of stupid local zoning issues?
No it is bound up in usage … the decision is made locally yes but these are standardized usage valuations.

They tax (for inheritance not land tax) based on residential value, but we are zoned agricultural. If we were even able to rezone residential we would no longer be allowed to farm so there goes our income. The problem is not with the local decisions (well in my particular case some of the issue was with them but that is not the norm)

Basically its allowing the government to say whatever price it wants to tax me on regardless of actual land value which is stupid

Yes it is a penality..i worked my ass off for years.

and had you lived in some other society, you'd have nowhere near what you do. estate taxes are just another cost of benefitting as much as you have from the institutions of the society you live in.

and since you have no real claim to anything you owned after death except in so far as society allows, its actually more of a gift from society that you are allowed to pass on anything at all. it would be just as just to ceremonially burn everything you had when you died. perhaps slightly more just, actually.

i'm neither



penalize?! for fucks sake, you've got over a million fucking dollars of net wealth if you have to even file. sign me up for all the penalties you can dish out.
It is value we are NOT able to sell as is, and generates next to no net profit. Its not like I had a million dollar estate in cash, we got handed a dirt poor 100 year old homesteaded barely big enough family farm. Which they were allowed to evaluate and tax based on some arbitrary non realistic value that we will never see.

We have sense sold this … all said and done my parents LOST about 20 thousand dollars AFTER the sale and that money being split between the siblings.

How the fuck does that work? I call that a penalty

They tax (for inheritance not land tax) based on residential value, but we are zoned agricultural. If we were even able to rezone residential we would no longer be allowed to farm so there goes our income.

that's just one of the standard problems of the stupid system of zoning in common use (it also leads to a whole host of other conflicts and stupid outcomes - like suburbia). that is what should be abolished.

Basically its allowing the government to say whatever price it wants to tax me on regardless of actual land value which is stupid

indeed. if there is to be a land value based tax, it should at least resemble actual land values.

They tax (for inheritance not land tax) based on residential value, but we are zoned agricultural. If we were even able to rezone residential we would no longer be allowed to farm so there goes our income.
There are so many people breaking the law around here...

and had you lived in some other society, you'd have nowhere near what you do. estate taxes are just another cost of benefitting as much as you have from the institutions of the society you live in.

Yout right that is why this is such a great nation. You can work hard and get a head. I have not as you say "benefited for and institutions of scocity, never been given a grant for school had to pay my way, never recived food stamp,welfair or any such thing wht i have I worked for and earmned.

and since you have no real claim to anything you owned after death except in so far as society allows, its actually more of a gift from society that you are allowed to pass on anything at all. it would be just as just to ceremonially burn everything you had when you died. perhaps slightly more just, actually.

Worng this is not socialisum, and that is what you are talking about. You are sort of right when I dei i own nothing, but my family will and they shouyldnot have to pay taxes on something that has been taxed already. It is in no way a gift..I worked for it and earned it with my blood and sweat. Burn it when I die not that is a dumb idea, i want my family to benifit from my labors.

that's just one of the standard problems of the stupid system of zoning in common use (it also leads to a whole host of other conflicts and stupid outcomes - like suburbia). that is what should be abolished.



indeed. if there is to be a land value based tax, it should at least resemble actual land values.
Ok that I understand … all we really asked for was a reasonable tax based on the actual value of the land as it exists in reality.

Then we might have managed a loan to off the bat buy that land back from my aunts and uncles (my dad while executor of the will has 7 brothers and sisters) we have fought and got back most of the non lake shore land sense then but that’s only because we all worked like 3 jobs to help.

We managed to get the 100+ year old house too … eventually

There are so many people breaking the law around here...
They see that big expensive equipment out here you WILL get busted

You are sort of right when I dei i own nothing, but my family will

only if you give it to them before you die. and the state already taxes and regulates large transfers of wealth. after you die, you have no claim on anything at all, except in so far as society allows it. what with the being dead and all.

It is in no way a gift..I worked for it and earned it with my blood and sweat.

and you routinely steal the things you give as birthday gifts?

Burn it when I die not that is a dumb idea, i want my family to benifit from my labors.

and i want a pony. sfw?

because we want to limit social stratification and wealth inequality in favor of a slightly more egalitarian society
Egalitarianism, as Murray Rothbard said, is a revolt against nature.

And if you are at all consistent, as I have pointed out time and again, you must wish to prevent or tax all gifts--for that is what an inheritance is: A GIFT. Tax birthday gifts. Tax wedding gifts. Tax retirement gifts. Tax Valentine's Day gifts. Tax all gifts. That is the ONLY consistent thing to do.

Otherwise, you're just special pleading.

and since you have no real claim to anything you owned after death except in so far as society allows, its actually more of a gift from society that you are allowed to pass on anything at all.
Blatant reification fallacy, and utterly collectivistic. Revolting. As if we need permission from the collective to even breathe.

Resistance is not futile. Assimilation will not happen.

Egalitarianism, as Murray Rothbard said, is a revolt against nature.

murray rothbard said a lot of silly things

murray rothbard said a lot of silly things
That's nice. Now please address the post. Thank you. Here--I'll repeat it for you:

And if you are at all consistent, as I have pointed out time and again, you must wish to prevent or tax all gifts--for that is what an inheritance is: A GIFT. Tax birthday gifts. Tax wedding gifts. Tax retirement gifts. Tax Valentine's Day gifts. Tax all gifts. That is the ONLY consistent thing to do.

Otherwise, you're just special pleading.

only if you give it to them before you die. and the state already taxes and regulates large transfers of wealth. after you die, you have no claim on anything at all, except in so far as society allows it. what with the being dead and all.

Already been taken care of.:D


and you routinely steal the things you give as birthday gifts?

Nope I buy or make them.:)


and i want a pony. sfw?

Good for you go out and buy one.:eek:

That's nice. Now please address the post. Thank you. Here--I'll repeat it for you:

And if you are at all consistent, as I have pointed out time and again, you must wish to prevent or tax all gifts--for that is what an inheritance is: A GIFT. Tax birthday gifts. Tax wedding gifts. Tax retirement gifts. Tax Valentine's Day gifts. Tax all gifts. That is the ONLY consistent thing to do.

Otherwise, you're just special pleading.

and back here in non-strawmanland the object is to mitigate some problems of the current system, therefore the consistent thing is to take steps that do mitigate those problems. gift giving in general is not one of those problems.

As if we need permission from the collective to even breathe.

no, but you do need such permission when it comes to owning, using, and disposing of 'property'. well, permission or enough weapons and hired goons to make society accept whatever it is you want to do.

and back here in non-strawmanland
You mean where I am.


the object is to mitigate some problems of the current system,
No, the object is to punish. Don't you dare for one second try to pull the wool over people's eyes with your newspeak.


therefore the consistent thing is to take steps that do mitigate those problems. gift giving in general is not one of those problems.
But one certain class of gift giving is, right?

Got two words for you: Special. Pleading.

no, but you do need such permission when it comes to owning, using, and disposing of 'property'.
Only in Fantasyland do you.

and back here in non-strawmanland the object is to mitigate some problems of the current system, therefore the consistent thing is to take steps that do mitigate those problems. gift giving in general is not one of those problems.
And I don’t see those of us trying to pass on a barely floating family farm as causing an undo amount of social stratification.

Unless social stratification means 14 hour work days and a 4 am rize time

Only in Fantasyland do you.

the rules regarding who can own what and what they can do with it are socially constructed rules. if your claim to own something is not in accordance with the social rules, nobody is going to back you up on it, and they will take it away from you if they can.

the rules regarding who can own what and what they can do with it are socially constructed rules. if your claim to own something is not in accordance with the social rules, nobody is going to back you up on it, and they will take it away from you if they can.
Yet that has exactly nothing to do with needing to say "Mother may I" when you want to do something with your property.

And I don’t see those of us trying to pass on a barely floating family farm as causing an undo amount of social stratification.

Unless social stratification means 14 hour work days and a 4 am rize time
We've always been at war with Eastasia, you know.

And I don’t see those of us trying to pass on a barely floating family farm as causing an undo amount of social stratification.

Unless social stratification means 14 hour work days and a 4 am rize time

maybe not. though if the land value of said farm has gotten so high, it really probably is time to move on to greener pastures.

maybe not. though if the land value of said farm has gotten so high, it really probably is time to move on to greener pastures.
The residential land value … agricultural which is what it is and used for has not changed much over the years which is why I really have no problem with the land taxes as are.

The land is about the same … the income is about the same and the work is about the same. Its not easy but not much changes

But the inheritance when it passed on cause of other land values skyrocketed just the tax which is not reflective of the ACTUAL situation.

There of course should be no price floors (minimum wage) nor inheritance (birthday gift) tax.

Tell me, have you ever tried living on minimum wage, huh? Living on 5.15 an hour isn't exactly pretty. I can't imagine someone working at a lesser wage and still being able to support themselves.

Yet that has exactly nothing to do with needing to say "Mother may I" when you want to do something with your property.

?

"the rules regarding what you can own and what you can do with it are socially constructed"

"sure, but that is no reason why i can't do whatever i like"

"um, yes, it is"

I don't just hate inheritence taxes, I hate the tax system in general. It's set up in such a confusing way that people need accountance, a very expensive college education, or computer software just to figure out how much they fucking owe the government. It's a beauacratic hell designed to get the most money from Joe and Jane taxpayers through weirdass tax loopholes and penalty fees.

Taxing Joe taxpayer to death is not how the economy gets better, contrary to what the socialist/communist richhaters want us to believe. Know what's the real problem? The government handles money just like your average kid/teen/young adult. As soon as they get it, they spend it. The government needs fiscal responsibility. It's not "low" taxes, it's pork, pork, and more pork. Both parties spend money like dollars kill. At least the Republicans have it half right: Don't increase the amount of spendable money.

Bill Gates didn't get rich by having Fairy Poorhater wave her wand. He got it through taking advantage of an opportunity(the growing computer industry). Rich people are not the problem. Poverty is. The fact that there are poor people is. Of course, what do I know. Spending money responsibly is spending it conservatively(look it up. Conservative is not always a political term) and conservative is now a four-letter-word.

The residential land value … agricultural which is what it is and used for has not changed much over the years which is why I really have no problem with the land taxes as are.

i find this situation just strange - i'm sure it's fairly common, simply because the state sucks. the idea that the same piece of land should have two different values is a little weird, and this one comes down to stupid zoning laws which distort everything (often for downright stupid reasons and leading to other terrible outcomes). but the idea that some land could be assessed at a value that the legal distortions have rendered it incapable of attaining is just wrong on the face of it.

Tell me, have you ever tried living on minimum wage, huh?
Most people don't, actually. Most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home.

But you don't want to let facts get in the way of your righteous cause.

I don't just hate inheritence taxes, I hate the tax system in general. It's set up in such a confusing way that people need accountance, a very expensive college education, or computer software just to figure out how much they fucking owe the government. It's a beauacratic hell designed to get the most money from Joe and Jane taxpayers through weirdass tax loopholes and penalty fees.

that's because it was written by and for the elites, with the occassional bone thrown to everyone else to keep the situation from spiralling off into dangerous (to said elites) territory.

Tell me, have you ever tried living on minimum wage, huh?
Most people don't, actually. Most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home.

But you don't want to let facts get in the way of your righteous cause.

Most people don't, actually. Most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home.

But you don't want to let facts get in the way of your righteous cause.

You apparently have never lived in Montana. At least a third of my home town work at minimum wage or just above it. These are people with families, not teenagers living at home.

Most people don't, actually. Most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home.

But you don't want to let facts get in the way of your righteous cause.
I believe that 60% of those on minimum are teens. Now, if you don't like complicated math, ignore this. 60% means 60 out of every 100. 100-60=40. Now, that means 40% of everyone on minimum wage are NOT teens. Who are not teens? I know. I know. Adults are not teens. Since minimum wage does not apply to babies, toddlers, kids, or preteens, that 40% has to be for the only remaining group(dead people don't count): adults. If you have 1 million people earning minimum wage, about 400,000 of those people are adults. These are people who are trying to stay in college. These are people who have families to feed. Yes, some of these are single, but not every adult is single.

Well, in my town, the minimum wage is rather meaningless.

You can get a job as a day laborer for 17 dollars an hour (and you don't even have to speak English or be able to read and write).

You can get a job as a clerk in just about any small shop or gas station in the same town for the same wages.

If you're working for minimum wage around here, you're pretty stupid. Really.

Very different around here. If you make more than $7.00 an hour you're doing pretty well. Why do people live here? 'Cause they have family or can't afford to move. Or, like me, are disabled and can't afford to live anyplace else. Oklahoma is one of the few places you can make it on $8,000 a year.

I was at the gas station this morning and mentioned how crowded the grocery store had been. The cashier said that it was because it was the 1st and everybody had gotten their food stamps. He said that's why he didn't use his until the fourth or fifth. He works full time and is still eligible for food stamps. So are most folks in this town

I believe that 60% of those on minimum are teens. Now, if you don't like complicated math, ignore this. 60% means 60 out of every 100. 100-60=40. Now, that means 40% of everyone on minimum wage are NOT teens. Who are not teens? I know. I know. Adults are not teens. Since minimum wage does not apply to babies, toddlers, kids, or preteens, that 40% has to be for the only remaining group(dead people don't count): adults. If you have 1 million people earning minimum wage, about 400,000 of those people are adults. These are people who are trying to stay in college. These are people who have families to feed. Yes, some of these are single, but not every adult is single.
To be fair not even on campus food service jobs pay minimum here and we are in a poor area of Minnesota. (small town Minnesota) College students even on this small campus start at 7.50 an hr (paid for by the corporations such as BK not the campus)

?

"the rules regarding what you can own and what you can do with it are socially constructed"

"sure, but that is no reason why i can't do whatever i like"

"um, yes, it is"
Welcome to Strawmanland.

You apparently have never lived in Montana. At least a third of my home town work at minimum wage or just above it. These are people with families, not teenagers living at home.
Notice how I said most of the minimum wage earners. And the statistics bear out my claim. As to those in Montana--it's part of Canada anyway (as I like to tease one of my friends who lives there).

I believe that 60% of those on minimum are teens.
More than that.

More than that.
Certainly not around here.

I believe that 60% of those on minimum are teens. Now, if you don't like complicated math, ignore this. 60% means 60 out of every 100. 100-60=40. Now, that means 40% of everyone on minimum wage are NOT teens. Who are not teens? I know. I know. Adults are not teens. Since minimum wage does not apply to babies, toddlers, kids, or preteens, that 40% has to be for the only remaining group(dead people don't count): adults. If you have 1 million people earning minimum wage, about 400,000 of those people are adults. These are people who are trying to stay in college. These are people who have families to feed. Yes, some of these are single, but not every adult is single.
Right and of course you cannot pay a worker more than he is worth, so while some will be happy at the wages, others will become unemployed by them. Because the lowest skilled and least experienced of workers have greater difficulty getting a toe-hold on a career to learn skills and get experience you in effect make things worse for them. Essentially, minimum wage jobs are the bottom rung, and are a step on the path to better things. We shouldn't make them particularly appealing because we need to encourage people to do what is necessary to get up to this higher step and improve everything for everyone. It is noted that high school drop-out rates increase as a consequence of the artificially high wages.

Certainly not around here.
Of course not, money goes further where you live. This means that the increased minimum wage will only create problems because money there goes much further than it does elsewhere.

Notice how I said most of the minimum wage earners. And the statistics bear out my claim. As to those in Montana--it's part of Canada anyway (as I like to tease one of my friends who lives there).
They wish. If those working poor in Montana were to move just a bit to the north they'd find themselves in Alberta, a place with wages so high they're driving down the highschool completion rate.

There's plenty of good work around. You just have to be willing to go find it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/28/minimumwage.ap/index.html

What the hell is wrong with our congress? In other words, you poor people can have an extra couple of bucks an hour (now youll make 15,000, well above the poverty line of 9,800!) as long as the people who really count, the rich people, get their inheritance tax cut.

And before you people start bitching about how rich people worked hard for their money:

http://socialitelife.com/2006/07/27/nicky_hilton_poolside_with_brandon_davis.php

Yeah, working very hard! Please repeal the inheritance tax, otherwise these lowlives will have to ration their Cristal!

And the fact that the Republicans SOMEHOW combined it with increasing minimum wage is disgusting. Congress should be fired. All of them.

Your example makes about as much sense of my example of why poor people deserve to be poor;

http://www.killsometime.com/Pictures/images/RedNeck3.jpg

The facts, however - don't support either argument. The majority of weathy people are that way because they made themselves that way. A slim majority of people born into poverty do not stay in poverty for their entire life. Neither position is predetermined or permanent.

Confiscating property will do noting to help the plight of "Toilet Tom". Nor would a raise in minimum wage have any impact. The only person who could help "Toilet Tom" is himself. Until them I could give a shit - obviously so could he.

You apparently have never lived in Montana. At least a third of my home town work at minimum wage or just above it. These are people with families, not teenagers living at home.

Proove it. I seriously doubt that the majority of Montanianians (Montanaites?) work for minimum wage. You sir are full of shit.

I believe that 60% of those on minimum are teens. Now, if you don't like complicated math, ignore this. 60% means 60 out of every 100. 100-60=40. Now, that means 40% of everyone on minimum wage are NOT teens. Who are not teens? I know. I know. Adults are not teens. Since minimum wage does not apply to babies, toddlers, kids, or preteens, that 40% has to be for the only remaining group(dead people don't count): adults. If you have 1 million people earning minimum wage, about 400,000 of those people are adults. These are people who are trying to stay in college. These are people who have families to feed. Yes, some of these are single, but not every adult is single.


So what?

Right and of course you cannot pay a worker more than he is worth, so while some will be happy at the wages, others will become unemployed by them. Because the lowest skilled and least experienced of workers have greater difficulty getting a toe-hold on a career to learn skills and get experience you in effect make things worse for them. Essentially, minimum wage jobs are the bottom rung, and are a step on the path to better things. We shouldn't make them particularly appealing because we need to encourage people to do what is necessary to get up to this higher step and improve everything for everyone. It is noted that high school drop-out rates increase as a consequence of the artificially high wages.

Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is worth significantly less now than it was in, say, 1999, when unemployment was significantly lower than it is now. So it seems fair to say that either a) unemployment and the minimum wage have no statistically significant correlation, or (as seems more likely) b) the minimum wage is so low that raising it would have virtually no effect on employment.

In point of fact, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that one excellent way of slowing illegal immigration is to increase unemployment. That would, ceteris parabus, increase the number of legal workers competing for jobs with illegals. Unless, of course, we were to assume that all things in the business world are not equal. . .

Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is worth significantly less now than it was in, say, 1999, when unemployment was significantly lower than it is now. So it seems fair to say that either a) unemployment and the minimum wage have no statistically significant correlation, or (as seems more likely) b) the minimum wage is so low that raising it would have virtually no effect on employment.

In point of fact, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that one excellent way of slowing illegal immigration is to increase unemployment. That would, ceteris parabus, increase the number of legal workers competing for jobs with illegals. Unless, of course, we were to assume that all things in the business world are not equal. . .
I'd say that there are other factors in the entire matter. Unemployment rates have to do with restrictions to the job market and they have to do with the health of the economy. To say that the economy was equally good in both situations would probably be false.

Well, we can get rid of immigrants by going into a recession, however, that is a bad idea as most people do not like recessions. Increasing unemployment through regulation is also a bad idea, unless the argument is that both Americans and immigrants will work under the table jobs.

I'd say that there are other factors in the entire matter. Unemployment rates have to do with restrictions to the job market and they have to do with the health of the economy. To say that the economy was equally good in both situations would probably be false.

Well, we can get rid of immigrants by going into a recession, however, that is a bad idea as most people do not like recessions. Increasing unemployment through regulation is also a bad idea, unless the argument is that both Americans and immigrants will work under the table jobs.

True, true, but you are missing the larger gist of my thinking: if we have to effectively import workers from other countries to work all the jobs we have, surely there is both enough of a market for jobs to survive a wage increase and enough of a market for labor to deserve such a wage increase in the free and open market. To say, then, that raising the minimum wage will hike unemployment is more than a bit fishy.

Minimum wages raise the unemployment rate for those would-be employees whose marginal product will not cover the costs associated.

Minimum wages raise the unemployment rate for those would-be employees whose marginal product will not cover the costs associated.

This is indeed accurate.

But one certain class of gift giving is, right?

Got two words for you: Special. Pleading.

yet another logical fallacy you know the name of but have no clue what it means?! your amazing powers never fail to impress.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

Welcome to Strawmanland.

hmm, let's go over this again:


and since you have no real claim to anything you owned after death except in so far as society allows, its actually more of a gift from society that you are allowed to pass on anything at all.
Blatant reification fallacy, and utterly collectivistic. Revolting. As if we need permission from the collective to even breathe.
no, but you do need such permission when it comes to owning, using, and disposing of 'property'.
Only in Fantasyland do you.

the rules regarding who can own what and what they can do with it are socially constructed rules. if your claim to own something is not in accordance with the social rules, nobody is going to back you up on it, and they will take it away from you if they can.Yet that has exactly nothing to do with needing to say "Mother may I" when you want to do something with your property.

if society gets to make the rules, then you do in fact have to have permission to do something with 'your property'. you could deny that they do in fact get to make the rules, i suppose, but that won't stop them from locking you up over it.

yet another logical fallacy you know the name of but have no clue what it means?!
Except that I do. Your amazing proclivity to lie never fails.

if society gets to make the rules,
Reification fallacy.

Maybe you should read this: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm

True, true, but you are missing the larger gist of my thinking: if we have to effectively import workers from other countries to work all the jobs we have, surely there is both enough of a market for jobs to survive a wage increase and enough of a market for labor to deserve such a wage increase in the free and open market. To say, then, that raising the minimum wage will hike unemployment is more than a bit fishy.
Well, if we remove all illegal immigrants then the price of labor will go up anyway. The market could survive whatever screwing with it we do, however, this does not mean that screwing with the market is good. Minimum wages do raise unemployment, just take a supply demand curve and draw a line over equilibrium, less of our good is consumed than the market would normally allow and it isn't too hard to figure that labor is a good. Of course, everything that depends on labor will go up as well due to the labor costs.

Wait! So the Republicans muster up the strength to fight to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25! And yet are called the bad guys, for also trying to lower a morally repugnant tax....

Wow! :| x100

Wait! So the Republicans muster up the strength to fight to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25! And yet are called the bad guys, for also trying to lower a morally repugnant tax....

Wow! :| x100

Ironic is it not?

Reification fallacy.

Maybe you should read this: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm

so you would prefer that i use english in an unnatural way? fine.

if the individual people that make up the collective group refered to as 'a society' get to in some fashion collectively create the rules governing various interactions between individuals and things inside of that collective group typically called 'society' (which is in fact the case), then you do in fact require permission from 'society' for whatever it is that you wish to do with 'your property'. otherwise the various unique and special individuals that go by the collective name 'the police' with try to stop you.


hey look, my point still stands, even with the extra words needed to fill out the naturally occurring metaphors and shorthand of the english language. imagine that...

Most people don't, actually. Most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home.

But you don't want to let facts get in the way of your righteous cause.

No, you don't.

* The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from an analysis of the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.
* An estimated 1,395,000 single parents with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008. Single parents would benefit disproportionately from an increase — single parents are 9% of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 7% of the overall workforce. Approximately 3.9 million parents with children under 18 would benefit.
* Adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase: 80% of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008 are adults (age 20 or older).
* Over half (54%) of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

Minimum wage should be increased, and inheritance tax should be eliminated all together. the government shouldn't get a cut when people give money to their families. I'm all for the rich paying higher taxes but inheritance tax is a step too far.

so you would prefer that i use english in an unnatural way? fine.
I would prefer that you learned not to use fallacies, especially when you accuse me of using them.


if the individual people that make up the collective group refered to as 'a society' get to in some fashion collectively create the rules governing various interactions between individuals and things inside of that collective group typically called 'society' (which is in fact the case), then you do in fact require permission from 'society' for whatever it is that you wish to do with 'your property'.
Two words: Non. Sequitur.

Except that I do. Your amazing proclivity to lie never fails.

then explain the special pleading involved in the concept of an estate tax. show me where it's advocates ever try to exclude anything on unreasonable or unconnected grounds, rather than on grounds that are perfectly consistent with the intended purpose of an estate tax. demonstrate the irrelevantness of the distinction made between the privileges of the living and the dead when it comes to property. or the distinction between the elite and the non-elite. go on.

No, you don't.
Actually, I do.

The so-called "facts" you presented are, in fact, not entirely true.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm

"According to Current Population Survery estimates for 2002, some 72.7 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.6 percent of all wage and salary workers. (footnote saying it excludes the self-employed) Of those paid by the hour, about 570,000 were reported earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.6 million were reported with wages below the minimum. (footnote to the effect of essentially saying that most of those are waitstaff) Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

then explain the special pleading involved in the concept of an estate tax.
You've never sufficiently explained why it is such a different type of gift that it needs to be taxed. Ergo: special fucking pleading.

So show me why it's such a different type of gift. G'won.

Two words: Non. Sequitur.

and he goes for the trifecta!

You've never sufficiently explained why it is such a different type of gift that it needs to be taxed. Ergo: special fucking pleading.

So show me why it's such a different type of gift. G'won.

'cause the giver is fucking dead?

and he goes for the trifecta!
You're the one committing the fallacies. If you stop committing them, I stop letting you know about them. I think that's pretty reasonable--don't you?

'cause the giver is fucking dead?
Irrelevant.

Explain why it's such a different type of gift that it needs to be taxed.

Actually, I do.

The so-called "facts" you presented are, in fact, not entirely true.

I don't think that quote contradicts anything I posted.

Let's read what the article actually said (a portion which, incidentally, was irrelevant to the point I was making):

An estimated 14.9 million workers (11% of the workforce) would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2008. Of these workers, 6.6 million workers (5% of the workforce) currently earn less than $7.25 and would be directly affected by an increase. The additional 8.3 million workers (6% of the workforce) earning slightly above the minimum would also be likely to benefit from an increase due to “spillover effects”.

Now, the article you posted points out that only 3.0% of the workforce earns at or below minimum wage - but the article isn't talking about the workers earning at or below minimum wage, it's talking about the workers earning less than $7.25.

Try again.

What the hell is wrong with our congress? In other words, you poor people can have an extra couple of bucks an hour (now youll make 15,000, well above the poverty line of 9,800!) as long as the people who really count, the rich people, get their inheritance tax cut.

And the fact that the Republicans SOMEHOW combined it with increasing minimum wage is disgusting. Congress should be fired. All of them.
What do you propose then? More taxing of the rich to redistribute income?

'cause the giver is fucking dead?Irrelevant.

hah!
life, death, what's the difference?

are you trying to sound crazy?

I don't think that quote contradicts anything I posted.

don't mind baawa, he's a troll. it's fun to poke him from time to time - it often winds up with him getting forumbanned for a bit eventually.

Minimum wage should be increased, and inheritance tax should be eliminated all together. the government shouldn't get a cut when people give money to their families. I'm all for the rich paying higher taxes but inheritance tax is a step too far.
While it's true that accumulation of capital is necessary for investment in business and other ventures, when the accumulation into a few hands is excessive, society winds up as an economic oligarchy. SOME inheritance tax is necessary to prevent this from happening.

I don't think that quote contradicts anything I posted.
It was to show how few people really do make at or below the minimum. Now, if you read the stats I posted, you'd see that what I said (that most of those earning min. are young) is correct.

Try again.

don't mind baawa, he's a troll. it's fun to poke him from time to time - it often winds up with him getting forumbanned for a bit eventually.
Ah yes--the lament of the troll. Poor you.

hah!
life, death, what's the difference?

are you trying to sound crazy?
You still haven't shown why it's relevant that the giver is dead. You had your chance. Therefore, you've conceded.

Have a nice life in stupidity.

While it's true that accumulation of capital is necessary for investment in business and other ventures, when the accumulation into a few hands is excessive, society winds up as an economic oligarchy. SOME inheritance tax is necessary to prevent this from happening.
Then we must tax birthday gifts, etc. And you need to demonstrate that bit about "excessive", especially since you have no objective standard by which you can make that claim.

There's absolutely NOTHING special about an inheritance which requires that it be taxed. NOTHING.

It was to show how few people really do make at or below the minimum. Now, if you read the stats I posted, you'd see that what I said (that most of those earning min. are young) is correct.

Try again.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and slightly more than one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, 10 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. However, among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 5 percent.

"About half... were under age 25" is not the same thing as "most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home."

Furthermore, it doesn't contradict the article I posted, which is more relevant because it's talking about all the people whose wages will be raised by the increase to $7.25, not merely those currently making $5.15 an hour or less.

You were wrong. Admit it.

only if you give it to them before you die. and the state already taxes and regulates large transfers of wealth. after you die, you have no claim on anything at all, except in so far as society allows it. what with the being dead and all.



and you routinely steal the things you give as birthday gifts?



and i want a pony. sfw?
I believe the vast majority of Americans feels the same way: that they should have the power to designate where their accumulated wealth should go at their death. That wealth will go somewhere - why should it go to the government? Why shouldn't I be able to send it all to The Church of the Boneless Chicken if I so desire?

I believe the vast majority of Americans feels the same way: that they should have the power to designate where their accumulated wealth should go at their death. That wealth will go somewhere - why should it go to the government? Why shouldn't I be able to send it all to The Church of the Boneless Chicken if I so desire?

Why should it go to anyone who didn't earn it? All eliminating the inheritance tax does is permit those lucky enough to have been born to rich families to become even more privileged at the expense of everyone else.

the rules regarding who can own what and what they can do with it are socially constructed rules. if your claim to own something is not in accordance with the social rules, nobody is going to back you up on it, and they will take it away from you if they can.
Unfortunately for you, however, the prevailing "socially constructed rules" here in the USA value individual ownership and property rights. Overwhelmingly, even lower- and middle-class Americans despise the death tax. By your own definition, then, the estate tax should be repealed.

"About half... were under age 25" is not the same thing as "most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home."
Yet they mostly are.

Now then, do you have anything to show that an increase in the minimum wage is a good thing? Seriously. Do you have ONE SHRED of data showing that it will help everyone? Remember: you can't just look at one section and say "It will help them, therefore it's good". You have to, as Henry Hazlitt pointed out, trace the consequences for all groups. That is the One Lesson. And it is a lesson all whiners who want to increase the minimum wage have never learned.

Now kindly admit that you're quite wrong-headed about the whole thing and begone before I throw some more economics on you.

Why should it go to anyone who didn't earn it? All eliminating the inheritance tax does is permit those lucky enough to have been born to rich families to become even more privileged at the expense of everyone else.
You miss the point - it's not who it goes to, it's who gets to decide where it goes to. Pardon the dangling participle. Why should the government, who rules in America by the consent of the governed, get to decide, especially when the vast majority of American citizens despise it?

Why should it go to anyone who didn't earn it?
You didn't do anything to earn a birthday gift. After all, just existing for another year isn't really doing anything to earn anything.

Or is it?

Similarly....(I'm hoping you can take it from here. Otherwise, I'll have to really question your intellectual acumen.)

Yet they mostly are.

Even the article you posted contradicts that notion. "Slightly more than one-fourth" were 16-19, not "most." Stop making things up.

I find it amusing that you've asked me to provide evidence when you have provided none except an article that contradicts your flawed assertions.

While it's true that accumulation of capital is necessary for investment in business and other ventures, when the accumulation into a few hands is excessive, society winds up as an economic oligarchy. SOME inheritance tax is necessary to prevent this from happening.
And your evidence that economic oligarchy WILL result if we don't have an inheritance tax is?

Why is the estate tax the only answer to your hypothetical problem? What about mandating it all go to the charities of your choice? Or a percentage to your heirs and to charity?

Why is the government the best repository for your inheritance?

I submit that the more money you give the government, the more you risk a totalitarian government.

You miss the point - it's not who it goes to, it's who gets to decide where it goes to. Pardon the dangling participle. Why should the government, who rules in America by the consent of the governed, get to decide, especially when the vast majority of American citizens despise it?

Because I'd rather have the government put it to some productive use than leave it to unequalize opportunities and entrench class privilege.

You didn't do anything to earn a birthday gift. After all, just existing for another year isn't really doing anything to earn anything.

That particular practice actually has mystified me for a long time... who cares if someone's lived through another revolution of the Earth around the sun?

That aside, yes, I would support taxing gifts of large monetary value.

The inheritence tax is a way to make lazy rich kids work, that's all. It's not actually there to make any money for the government, because it fails miserably at that task. The idea is to make rich folks invest in their business (capitalize) and get their Junior's, III's, and IV's in an office somewhere making a worthwhile decision in between 3 martini lunches. It's a very old idea, and a very American one.

Money is taxed when it moves from one hand to another. You work, pay income tax and payroll tax on the wages, and pay sales tax to buy anything with it. A lazy, permanent overclass of Paris Hiltons living all their lives on dividends and interest is a sure way to kill this American Republic. It's important to make the rich involved in this country, its economy and affairs, which is exactly what the inheritance tax is designed to do, not by stripping them of their birthright, but by involving them in the business that earned them that birthright in the first place.

So here come these Republicans, ready to wreck that tradition in order to win brownie points for an election at which they find themselves disadvantaged for mishandling national defense and security so incompetently. Somehow my heart doesn't bleed for these Washington Timeservers.

Even the article you posted contradicts that notion.
But it doesn't. I'd appreciate if you stopped lying.

I find it amusing that you refuse to provide the evidence requested. Must be that you have none.

Because I'd rather have the government put it to some productive use
Rather than someone else using it the way they want? My my--you think that those in Government Know Best? You're quite delusional.


than leave it to unequalize opportunities and entrench class privilege.
It doesn't do the former, and there's no such thing as the latter.


That particular practice actually has mystified me for a long time... who cares if someone's lived through another revolution of the Earth around the sun?
So do you support taxing birthday gifts?


That aside, yes, I would support taxing gifts of large monetary value.
Why?

But it doesn't. I'd appreciate if you stopped lying.

Most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home.

About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and slightly more than one-fourth were age 16-19.

You're laughable.

I find it amusing that you refuse to provide the evidence requested. Must be that you have none.

The only claim I have made in this thread regarding the minimum wage is that your assertion that "most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home" is false. I have justified this claim quite fully, posting an article which pointed out that most of those whose wages would be raised under the minimum wage increase were adults (80%), and pointing out how the article you posted in your defense contradicted your own assertion.

The article I posted, incidentally, did cite empirical evidence not coinciding with the oft-repeated claim that minimum wage increases increase unemployment:

* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

But that is irrelevant. You keep on repeating a falsehood, even though I've demonstrated quite clearly that it's a falsehood. Admit it.

Rather than someone else using it the way they want? My my--you think that those in Government Know Best? You're quite delusional.

You think passing it on to people who don't deserve it is "best"? I don't believe that "those in Government Know Best," no, but I would prefer the money be in the hands of at least a marginally democratic entity than in the hands of an elite attempting to strengthen privilege by birth.

It doesn't do the former, and there's no such thing as the latter.

Giving people who have already been significantly advantaged by luck of birth even more advantages is indeed "entrenching class privilege" and most definitely makes opportunities less equal.

So do you support taxing birthday gifts?

That aside, yes, I would support taxing gifts of large monetary value.

Why?

Because I think it's unfair that morally arbitrary aspects of a person should privilege her over others without any overall benefits to society.

The inheritence tax is a way to make lazy rich kids work, that's all. It's not actually there to make any money for the government, because it fails miserably at that task. The idea is to make rich folks invest in their business (capitalize) and get their Junior's, III's, and IV's in an office somewhere making a worthwhile decision in between 3 martini lunches. It's a very old idea, and a very American one.

Money is taxed when it moves from one hand to another. You work, pay income tax and payroll tax on the wages, and pay sales tax to buy anything with it. A lazy, permanent overclass of Paris Hiltons living all their lives on dividends and interest is a sure way to kill this American Republic. It's important to make the rich involved in this country, its economy and affairs, which is exactly what the inheritance tax is designed to do, not by stripping them of their birthright, but by involving them in the business that earned them that birthright in the first place.

So here come these Republicans, ready to wreck that tradition in order to win brownie points for an election at which they find themselves disadvantaged for mishandling national defense and security so incompetently. Somehow my heart doesn't bleed for these Washington Timeservers.
Proof?

You think passing it on to people who don't deserve
Don't deserve it? Who the fuck are you to determine that? Trying for Dictator of the World?

IOW: Deserve is subjective. Value is subjective. It's. Not. Your. Place. To. Say. Who. Does. And. Who. Doesn't. Deserve. That. Which. Is. The. Property. Of. Someone. Else. Stop. Trying. To. Be. A. Dictator.


Giving people who have already been significantly advantaged by luck of birth even more advantages is indeed "entrenching class privilege" and most definitely makes opportunities less equal.
No, it most certainly does not, and there is no such thing as "class privilege".


Because I think it's unfair that morally arbitrary aspects of a person should privilege her over others without any overall benefits to society.
I think it's unfair that I don't have a million dollars. Someone should provide me with it.

IOW: what you think is fair or unfair isn't relevant unless it specifically regards you. In this case: it doesn't. Stop. Trying. To. Be. A. Dictator.

You're laughable.
And yet you've offered nothing.

btw, you still need to remember the One Lesson.

Don't deserve it? Who the fuck are you to determine that? Trying for Dictator of the World?

IOW: Deserve is subjective. Value is subjective. It's. Not. Your. Place. To. Say. Who. Does. And. Who. Doesn't. Deserve. That. Which. Is. The. Property. Of. Someone. Else. Stop. Trying. To. Be. A. Dictator.

By the same line of reasoning, it's not your place to question the government's decision to tax inheritance.

No, it most certainly does not, and there is no such thing as "class privilege".

Repeating yourself is not an argument.

I think it's unfair that I don't have a million dollars. Someone should provide me with it.

IOW: what you think is fair or unfair isn't relevant unless it specifically regards you. In this case: it doesn't. Stop. Trying. To. Be. A. Dictator.

Large quantities of property are inherently society's business, and society has the right to regulate them as it sees fit.

By the same line of reasoning, it's not your place to question the government's decision to tax inheritance.
Actually, it is, because my line of reasoning says the opposite. My line of reasoning, applied to the government, says it's not the government's place to tax inheritance because it's not the government's property.

But you just keep digging yourself in deeper.


Large quantities of property are inherently society's business,
Wrong.


and society has the right to regulate them as it sees fit.
Wrong, and reification.

Why should it go to anyone who didn't earn it?
Exactly. Exactly how did the government "earn" it?

The only person who earned it is the one that is dead, or his/her previous ancestor who passed it down.

It seems logical that the person who did earn it should have the say in how it gets passed down.

Once again, why should the government be the one to get it?

Actually, it is, because my line of reasoning says the opposite. My line of reasoning, applied to the government, says it's not the government's place to tax inheritance because it's not the government's property.

Why isn't it the government's place? That notion requires a value judgment - but the whole basis of your argument is that we can't impose value judgments.

Wrong.

Property not essential to a person's personal freedom is perfectly legitimate to regulate.

Wrong, and reification.

Would "representatives of society" suit you better?

By the same line of reasoning, it's not your place to question the government's decision to tax inheritance.

Since we are talking about the US government, it most certainly is his place. Though not always in practice- it is his civic duty to challenge what he thinks is unjust; unless Government=Majority, Which seems to be what you are suggesting.

Large quantities of property are inherently society's business, and society has the right to regulate them as it sees fit.
Why?

Why isn't it the government's place?
Not their money. Not their place.


That notion requires a value judgment - but the whole basis of your argument is that we can't impose value judgments.
Only if you ignore the context that I placed it in, which you certainly are doing.


Property not essential to a person's personal freedom is perfectly legitimate to regulate.
Prove it.


Would "representatives of society" suit you better?
No. Society doesn't actually exist.

Exactly. Exactly how did the government "earn" it?

Once again, why should the government be the one to get it?

As I wrote in reply to BAAWAKnights:

"I don't believe that "those in Government Know Best," no, but I would prefer the money be in the hands of at least a marginally democratic entity than in the hands of an elite attempting to strengthen privilege by birth."

The only person who earned it is the one that is dead, or his/her previous ancestor who passed it down.

It seems logical that the person who did earn it should have the say in how it gets passed down.

Why? Most likely, she will pass it to those who don't deserve it, namely her family.

Why? Most likely, she will pass it to those who don't deserve it, namely her family.

How is that your's to decide? Do you have any evidence to back up these assertions? Who says they dont deserve it?

As I wrote in reply to BAAWAKnights:

"I don't believe that "those in Government Know Best," no, but I would prefer the money be in the hands of at least a marginally democratic entity than in the hands of an elite attempting to strengthen privilege by birth."
And that, of course, is an ad hominem fallacy.


Why? Most likely, she will pass it to those who don't deserve it, namely her family.
Why don't they deserve it? How is it that you know more about "deserve" than the person who owns the property?

Since we are talking about the US government, it most certainly is his place. Though not always in practice- it is his civic duty to challenge what he thinks is unjust; unless Government=Majority, Which seems to be what you are suggesting.

I think it's his place. I also reject his line of reasoning.

Why?

Because I support democracy over the elitist domination of the rich. If society can't regulate concentrated property, those who control the most property will dominate society.

Not their money. Not their place.

Why does it rightfully belong to the owner to the degree that her right to it is inviolable?

As I wrote in reply to BAAWAKnights:

"I don't believe that "those in Government Know Best," no, but I would prefer the money be in the hands of at least a marginally democratic entity than in the hands of an elite attempting to strengthen privilege by birth."



Why? Most likely, she will pass it to those who don't deserve it, namely her family.
How do you know that he/she will pass it on to those "who don't deserve it"? Who are you to judge?

Why do you believe that government would be better at handling my estate than members of my own family?

You say you worry about wealth going into the hands of an elite.

I would say you are being elitist - as evidenced by your assumption that no family member "deserves" to receive an inheritance.

How is that your's to decide?

It's not. It should be decided by society, democratically.

Do you have any evidence to back up these assertions?

Which ones?

Who says they dont deserve it?

The fact that a person is born into a rich family doesn't entitle her to any more wealth than a person born into a poor family. It's the luck of birth, like someone being born white or black, as opposed to being based on actual merit.

I think it's his place. I also reject his line of reasoning.
No--you created a strawman.


Because I support democracy over the elitist domination of the rich.
False dichotomy, and democracy is the tyranny of the majority.


If society can't regulate concentrated property, those who control the most property will dominate society.
Nonsense.


Why does it rightfully belong to the owner to the degree that her right to it is inviolable?
Oh, it can be violated, but that's of course wrong. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S PART AND PARCEL OF PROPERTY.

I would say you are being elitist - as evidenced by your assumption that no family member "deserves" to receive an inheritance.

I don't think any family member "deserves" to receive an inheritance by virtue of being a family member, no. It has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with luck.

I have answered your other questions in reply to others.

I think it's his place. I also reject his line of reasoning.



Because I support democracy over the elitist domination of the rich. If society can't regulate concentrated property, those who control the most property will dominate society.



Why does it rightfully belong to the owner to the degree that her right to it is inviolable?

You keep saying "Society", what does that even mean? If we cant designate ourselves by government, are you suggesting we designate ourselves by proximity values? The only thing I see down that road is mob-rule based upon "Moral superiority".

"Society" as you are using it seems to be: The prevailing attitude at the time". I am an individual before I am a citizen.

And that, of course, is an ad hominem fallacy.

four-peat, four-peat!

It's not. It should be decided by society, democratically.
So everyone should vote on where it goes? Tyranny. Of. The. Majority.


Which ones?
All of your blatantly megalomaniacal ones.



The fact that a person is born into a rich family doesn't entitle her to any more wealth than a person born into a poor family. It's the luck of birth, like someone being born white or black, as opposed to being based on actual merit.
Ah, so you think it's all one big unfair cosmic lottery.

Get over yourself.

four-peat, four-peat!
Poor little troll.

I don't think any family member "deserves" to receive an inheritance by virtue of being a family member, no. It has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with luck.
Prove it.

Because I support democracy over the elitist domination of the rich. If society can't regulate concentrated property, those who control the most property will dominate society.
It seems to me you support wealth going into the hands of the government elite, rathern than into the hands of those I wish to pass it down to.

Let's say that I accept your premise that it matters who my wealth goes to (I don't).

What if I gave my whole fortune to the Red Cross? Or Doctors Without Borders?

If the government takes over half that money, that is 55% less money that could be used to help the less fortunate. Don't try and tell me that the government's 55% wouldn't, in great measure, be wasted in administrative costs and mismanagement.

The government controls, taxes, and regulates all my wealth while I am alive. Why should they get to do it again when I die?

No--you created a strawman.

So what was your actual claim? How else can you move from "value is subjective" to "the government can't interfere"?

False dichotomy, and democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Nonsense. See? I can do it too.

Nonsense.

Property gives the owner power. Vast inequalities in property, and therefore in power, lead to the demise of democracy.

Oh, it can be violated, but that's of course wrong. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S PART AND PARCEL OF PROPERTY.

"Part and parcel of absolutist private property rights," to be more precise. Which I reject.

It seems to me you support wealth going into the hands of the government elite, rathern than into the hands of those I wish to pass it down to.
After all, Government Knows Best, despite the denials.

I love people like Soheran--engaging in performative contradictions.


Let's say that I accept your premise that it matters who my wealth goes to (I don't).

What if I gave my whole fortune to the Red Cross? Or Doctors Without Borders?

If the government takes over half that money, that is 55% less money that could be used to help the less fortunate. Don't try and tell me that the government's 55% wouldn't, in great measure, be wasted in administrative costs and mismanagement.
But Government Knows Best.

I don't think any family member "deserves" to receive an inheritance by virtue of being a family member, no. It has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with luck.

I have answered your other questions in reply to others.
Ah, now you qualify your statement. Then do me the privilege of qualifying my question: Is there no family member that deserves to receive an inheritance for any reason except "by virtue of being a family member"?

What if my daughter cared for me in my last ten years of life, putting off her career or family ambitions? Why should I not be able to leave whatever I have left, w/o losing over half of it to the government?

Keep in mind, however, I am not conceding that it matters what the virtues of the inheritance recipient are.

You keep saying "Society", what does that even mean?

I'm using it as shorthand for "the individuals who comprise society."

If we cant designate ourselves by government, are you suggesting we designate ourselves by proximity values? The only thing I see down that road is mob-rule based upon "Moral superiority".

I don't think that everything is subject to societal regulation. I do think that property primarily in the social sphere - that is, businesses, large transfers of money, etc. - can be regulated by society.

Unfortunately for you, however, the prevailing "socially constructed rules" here in the USA value individual ownership and property rights. Overwhelmingly, even lower- and middle-class Americans despise the death tax. By your own definition, then, the estate tax should be repealed.

that 'should' doesn't appear to be justified by anything i've said. 'could', sure, but not 'should'.

and 'despises' is an awfully harsh term - any evidence to back that up? all the polling i've seen that doesn't give a misleading or outright false description of the estate tax has shown broad support for it as a concept, at the very least.

So what was your actual claim? How else can you move from "value is subjective" to "the government can't interfere"?
*sigh*

Re-read what I wrote. You are trying to place an objective value on something that isn't yours. The government officials would be doing the same to something that isn't theirs. Now if you can't see the fucking similarities, then you're just utterly gormless.


Nonsense. See? I can do it too.
You can, but you're doing it because you have no idea what you're talking about.


Property gives the owner power.
Do you own a car? Doesn't that give you power?


Vast inequalities in property, and therefore in power, lead to the demise of democracy.
GOOD! Down With Democracy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html)


"Part and parcel of absolutist private property rights," to be more precise. Which I reject.
Then you can be beaten and such without any recourse. After all, private property rights aren't absolute. You can have things stolen and you have no recourse. After all, private property rights aren't absolute.

See where your stupid ideas get you?

Then you can be beaten and such without any recourse. After all, private property rights aren't absolute. You can have things stolen and you have no recourse. After all, private property rights aren't absolute.

wow

we need to collect your greatest hits sometime

So everyone should vote on where it goes? Tyranny. Of. The. Majority.

As opposed to an elite deciding its allocation? Absolutely.

All of your blatantly megalomaniacal ones.

Most of them have been moral, it's difficult to justify those empirically.

Ah, so you think it's all one big unfair cosmic lottery.

No, I think inheritance in societies with high class inequality amounts to "one big unfair cosmic lottery."

Ah, now you qualify your statement. Then do me the privilege of qualifying my question: Is there no family member that deserves to receive an inheritance for any reason except "by virtue of being a family member"?

No.

What if my daughter cared for me in my last ten years of life, putting off her career or family ambitions?

Then she might deserve a share for that - but not simply by virtue of being your daughter.

Why should I not be able to leave whatever I have left, w/o losing over half of it to the government?

Do you think it is only the daughters of rich people who care for their parents in the last ten years of life? She should be compensated somehow, but the estate tax hardly prevents you from compensating her.

It seems to me you support wealth going into the hands of the government elite, rathern than into the hands of those I wish to pass it down to.

Let's say that I accept your premise that it matters who my wealth goes to (I don't).

What if I gave my whole fortune to the Red Cross? Or Doctors Without Borders?

Those should count as deductions. Incidentally, I believe they do.

I'm using it as shorthand for "the individuals who comprise society."



I don't think that everything is subject to societal regulation. I do think that property primarily in the social sphere - that is, businesses, large transfers of money, etc. - can be regulated by society.

Yet, the individuals who comprise those business do not want their transactions dominated by society, at what majority do they have the right to refuse it? Or, is the fact that they're wealthy the reason they must be regulated at all, which means they will never have as much self-determination or political power as the "rest of society" as long as they stay "rich"?

And thank you for answering my previous questions, I can see youre quite busy out there :D

Why isn't it the government's place? That notion requires a value judgment - but the whole basis of your argument is that we can't impose value judgments.



Property not essential to a person's personal freedom is perfectly legitimate to regulate.



Would "representatives of society" suit you better?
1. We're talking about the (capitalist) US.


2. The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


3. Samuel Adams - 20 Nov. 1772

“Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature!”

wow

we need to collect your greatest hits sometime
Poor little troll. Reduced to whining from the sideline. Poor poor little troll.

As opposed to an elite deciding its allocation? Absolutely.


The intrinsically elite anyway, however the politically elite are a class by themselves because "society" doesnt pay much attention to how and how much they accumulate.

If I created a party that recieved 51% of the electorate...im king?

As opposed to an elite deciding its allocation?
What makes them elite?


Most of them have been moral,
No, none of your assertions have been moral. They have all been immoral. You believe it is fine to steal. That is immoral.


No, I think inheritance in societies with high class inequality amounts to "one big unfair cosmic lottery."
IOW: you're jealous.


No.
So just because you can't think of any other reasons--there aren't any? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Do you think it is only the daughters of rich people who care for their parents in the last ten years of life?
Irrelevant. Answer his question.


She should be compensated somehow, but the estate tax hardly prevents you from compensating her.
It prevents him from compensating her how he would like to. That is immoral.

Those should count as deductions. Incidentally, I believe they do.
So only if the money is given to whatever organizations YOU approve of should it not be messed with--is that what you're telling us? If not, please clarify so that you do not continue to sound like a wannabe-dictator.

*sigh*

Re-read what I wrote. You are trying to place an objective value on something that isn't yours. The government officials would be doing the same to something that isn't theirs. Now if you can't see the fucking similarities, then you're just utterly gormless.

"Isn't yours" means one of two things. Either it means "something you don't have" in the descriptive sense, in which case it is meaningless because even you would admit that lots of people "have" what they don't deserve (say, thieves), or it means something that rightfully does not belong to me, in which case you are trying to impose a value judgment on me.

Maybe I think it belongs to me. Why shouldn't I, simply by virtue of the fact that according to the law, it belongs to someone else?

You have to advance an actual argument here if you want to be convincing - you have to argue that the property is the rightful property of the owner, and that her right to that property implies that no one else (me, the state, whatever) can interfere with it.

Otherwise, you are just spewing nonsense.

You can, but you're doing it because you have no idea what you're talking about.

No, I did it because the main point there was better replied to later in the post. But I do find your "argument" style funny enough to imitate.

Do you own a car? Doesn't that give you power?

Yes, it does give me power.

GOOD! Down With Democracy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html)

You advocates of absolutist property rights have never been fans of freedom for those denied it by inequalities of property; your loathing of democracy is merely an expression of that fact.

Then you can be beaten and such without any recourse. After all, private property rights aren't absolute. You can have things stolen and you have no recourse. After all, private property rights aren't absolute.

See where your stupid ideas get you?

Slippery slope.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/28/minimumwage.ap/index.html

What the hell is wrong with our congress? In other words, you poor people can have an extra couple of bucks an hour (now youll make 15,000, well above the poverty line of 9,800!) as long as the people who really count, the rich people, get their inheritance tax cut.

And before you people start bitching about how rich people worked hard for their money:

http://socialitelife.com/2006/07/27/nicky_hilton_poolside_with_brandon_davis.php

Yeah, working very hard! Please repeal the inheritance tax, otherwise these lowlives will have to ration their Cristal!

And the fact that the Republicans SOMEHOW combined it with increasing minimum wage is disgusting. Congress should be fired. All of them.


inheritance tax is bullshit...the deceased allready paid taxes on his earnings..according to the tax code..now it is taxed again..bullshit.

change the tax code for the earner if you dont think people can make lots of money..but to tax it twice is crimminal.

if i work hard all my life and save money to give to my children(that i allready paid taxes on)and the gov wants to grab more of it...thats a bunch of crap.

geez...lets go back to the sheriff of nottingham days.

i thought we lost alot of lives fighting against taxation back in the day?

and dont pull the we have rep's...cause we dont..they rep themselves..not the average guy.

and i am way leery of handing anyone a gold card they dont have to pay back,and just raise my rates when they overspend.

taxes are total crap created by lazy shits that dont work for a living,and want to suck off the gov teet...

i'll admit...the gov needs income...but puhleeze...a town of 20,000 does not need 300 cops,nor does the gov need to employ a kazillion people doing nothing but shuffling paper...of coarse the paper shufflers want to have their jobs...but thety dont create/fix/add to the economy..they only create an appetite for more gov.

you know..i wish i had a civil service job..lol...grow a pair and work or make something.

damn taxes piss me off,and i am poor.

Those should count as deductions. Incidentally, I believe they do.
Looked it up and found you are correct. I stand corrected.

Those should count as deductions. Incidentally, I believe they do.

yeah, you can typically give as much as you like to tax-exempt charities and deduct it all

"Isn't yours" means one of two things.
It means "something that isn't yours".


Either it means "something you don't have" in the descriptive sense, in which case it is meaningless because even you would admit that lots of people "have" what they don't deserve (say, thieves),
No, it wouldn't be meaningless then. Try again.


or it means something that rightfully does not belong to me, in which case you are trying to impose a value judgment on me.
Nope. I would be making a statement of fact. And you're not grasping the whole value-judgement thing, so please stop making a fool of yourself.


Maybe I think it belongs to me.
Then you would have to have a reason to do so. And other than "because you want to think that way", you don't have any other reason. And "because you want to think that way" isn't a valid reason at all.

Now please stop acting like a spoiled little brat.


Why shouldn't I, simply by virtue of the fact that according to the law, it belongs to someone else?
That according to reality, it belongs to someone else.


You have to advance an actual argument here if you want to be convincing
You're the one who has to convince me that property rights aren't absolute. Otherwise, you're just spewing unsupported assertions.


No, I did it because the main point there was better replied to later in the post.
No, you did it because you don't know what you're talking about and you only wish you could be as concise in wording as I am.


Yes, it does give me power.
Power = bad, right?


You advocates of absolutist property rights have never been fans of freedom
You advocates of non-absolute property rights are hypocrites. You don't want your things taken without your consent. You're a hypocrite.


Slippery slope.
Nope. It's the logical extension of your ideas.

Yet, the individuals who comprise those business do not want their transactions dominated by society, at what majority do they have the right to refuse it? Or, is the fact that they're wealthy the reason they must be regulated at all, which means they will never have as much self-determination or political power as the "rest of society" as long as they stay "rich"?

No, they will have the same self-determination and political power as the rest of society. What they will lack is excessive power by virtue of their wealth.

The intrinsically elite anyway, however the politically elite are a class by themselves because "society" doesnt pay much attention to how and how much they accumulate.

I'm not particularly a fan of the political elite, either. I do think the government, even in the current elitist centralized state model, is more democratically accountable than the economic elite; that is because we still have elections, even if the choices aren't very meaningful.

If I created a party that recieved 51% of the electorate...im king?

No. I would put rather strict limits on the capability of governments to restrict individual rights, actually. I just don't think an absolutist notion of property rights counts.

*snip*

So? I'm not much of a fan of arguments from authority.

As opposed to an elite deciding its allocation? Absolutely.

You keep worrying about wealth concentrating into the hands of an elite.

What group of people is more "elite" than those in positions of power in the US government?


Most of them have been moral, it's difficult to justify those empirically.

Finally! As I believe it is morally repugnant to allow the government to take anyone's wealth upon their death.


Then she might deserve a share for that - but not simply by virtue of being your daughter.

Do you think it is only the daughters of rich people who care for their parents in the last ten years of life? She should be compensated somehow, but the estate tax hardly prevents you from compensating her.

Well, how gracious you are about allocating MY wealth, allowing me to pass a "share" of it to my devoted daughter.

You still haven't answered my question. Why is the government deserving of any portion of it?

Anyway, in reference to the original thread topic, I do believe it is good strategy for the GOP to combine the 2.

While the big business lobby part of the GOP is against increasing the minimum wage, the core base is not so dead-set against it.

Most conservatives I know are far more energized against the estate tax, than oppose minimum wage increases.

The Dems have a strategy in the 2006 mid-term elections to put minimum wage increases on as many state ballots as possible, to increase their voter turnout.

If the Repubs could get a minimum wage increase passed, coupled with the repeal of the estate tax, they both take away a Dem strategy and appeal to their base.

What makes them elite?

Their wealth.

No, none of your assertions have been moral. They have all been immoral. You believe it is fine to steal. That is immoral.

Moral or immoral, they are assertions concerning morality; that is, moral assertions.

IOW: you're jealous.

Not particularly, no. But ad hominems do tend to be more convenient than actually responding to what I was arguing.

So just because you can't think of any other reasons--there aren't any? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I think it's morally arbitrary for a family member to be privileged because she is a family member. The reasons I think so I have already explained.

Irrelevant. Answer his question.

No, it's not "irrelevant." It's the point I've been making all along. Inequalities are inequalities, however you cut it. If rich parents should be capable of compensating their children with multi-million dollar estates for caring for them, poor parents should be capable of doing so as well.

It prevents him from compensating her how he would like to. That is immoral.

Yes, and I can't compensate myself the way I would like to, either. So?

It means "something that isn't yours".

How tautological of you.

No, it wouldn't be meaningless then. Try again.

So you think thieves, by virtue of having something, are entitled to it?

Nope. I would be making a statement of fact.

"Rightful" implies a value judgment.

And you're not grasping the whole value-judgement thing[/quoperty rights aren't absolute. Otherwise, you're just spewing unsupported assertions.

I've already explained the reasons for my position - permitting unrestricted inheritance privileges people on the basis of morally arbitrary characteristics. You argued against it on the basis of absolute property rights. If you want to refute my argument, you have to actually argue for absolute property rights.

No, you did it because you don't know what you're talking about and you only wish you could be as concise in wording as I am.

Yeah, you know my motives much better than I do, of course. Who the fuck am I, anyway? I barely know me.

Power = bad, right?

No. Inequalities in power = bad.

You advocates of non-absolute property rights are hypocrites. You don't want your things taken without your consent. You're a hypocrite.

It depends on the circumstances, actually. And what I want and what should happen do not necessarily coincide.

Nope. It's the logical extension of your ideas.

Sorry, a denial of absolute property rights is not a denial of any kind of right to property, or an assertion that any transfer of property not consented to by the legal owner is perfectly acceptable. It merely denies that in all circumstances, a person's private property is morally inviolable.

One last question Soheran.

does Society = Government?

-If it does, then everything must be legislated, and the right to my wealth does not yet exist.

-If it doesn't, Then why is the government chosen to allocate it?

You keep worrying about wealth concentrating into the hands of an elite.

What group of people is more "elite" than those in positions of power in the US government?

If they were giving the wealth to themselves, that would be a legitimate concern.

Finally! As I believe it is morally repugnant to allow the government to take anyone's wealth upon their death.

Why?

Well, how gracious you are about allocating MY wealth, allowing me to pass a "share" of it to my devoted daughter.

You still haven't answered my question. Why is the government deserving of any portion of it?

Because your right to property is not inviolable. Democratically-elected governments have the legitimate right to tax in order to serve the common good.

One last question Soheran.

does Society = Government?

No. A democratic government is a legitimate representative of society, however.

-If it does, then everything must be legislated, and the right to my wealth does not yet exist.

No. Society does not have the right to oppress the individual. I don't think rejecting absolutist property rights amounts to oppressing the individual, chiefly because the decisions leading to the accumulation of wealth are (or can be legitimately expected to be) made with knowledge of the estate tax.

Their wealth.
Ah. So you're just jealous.


Not particularly, no.
Yes, you are quite jealous of those who have more than you. It's evident.


I think it's morally arbitrary for a family member to be privileged because she is a family member.
And yet you keep insisting that's the only reason that the person would be given the property. Even though there are others.

Anyway, there's nothing morally arbitrary about it, despite your unsupported claim.


No, it's not "irrelevant."
Absolutely it is.


It's the point I've been making all along. Inequalities are inequalities, however you cut it.
I can't sing for shit. Does that mean we should compensate me? After all, it IS an inequality.


If rich parents should be capable of compensating their children with multi-million dollar estates for caring for them, poor parents should be capable of doing so as well.
So you're going to rob the rich.


Yes, and I can't compensate myself the way I would like to, either. So?
SO STOP YOUR DAMNED WHINING.


How tautological of you.
You're the one not grasping English.


So you think thieves, by virtue of having something, are entitled to it?
What a wonderfully irrelevant conclusion and strawman. How did you ever come up with something so irretrievably stupid?


"Rightful" implies a value judgment.
You keep equivocating on "value judgement".


I've already explained the reasons for my position -
They aren't valid reasons.


permitting unrestricted inheritance privileges people on the basis of morally arbitrary characteristics.
It's not morally arbitrary.


You argued against it on the basis of absolute property rights. If you want to refute my argument, you have to actually argue for absolute property rights.
I do not have to refute that which has not been demonstrated.


Yeah, you know my motives much better than I do, of course. Who the fuck am I, anyway? I barely know me.
Yeah, and you claim to not want to be a dictator, either. Yet your words betray your motives, as it is for all collectivists.


No. Inequalities in power = bad.
Why?


It depends on the circumstances, actually.
So theft is ok sometimes? What. The. Fuck.


Sorry, a denial of absolute property rights is not a denial of any kind of right to property,
Yes it is.

There is a line from an episode of ST:TNG (The Drumhead) which is quite appropos: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." IOW: when you trod on property rights, you harm everyone and you destroy the very concept of property rights. It's like destroying the village in order to save it.

or an assertion that any transfer of property not consented to by the legal owner is perfectly acceptable.
Yes it is.

Because your right to property is not inviolable. Democratically-elected governments have the legitimate right to tax in order to serve the common good.
Taxation is theft. No one has the legitimate right to steal.

No. A democratic government is a legitimate representative of society, however.
No. Only the individuals can represent themselves. Governments are an unnecessary evil.


No. Society does not have the right to oppress the individual.
Then why are you advocating for the oppression of individuals? Yes, you are. Don't act suprised. Don't get defensive and whine. You're advocating that government officials know better than anyone else how to properly spend everyone else's money. That's elitist, and advocating the oppression of the governed.

So? I'm not much of a fan of arguments from reality.
Fixed. ^

If they were giving the wealth to themselves, that would be a legitimate concern.
Ever heard of government corruption? Both direct and indirect? Earmarks, by which the government can concentrate its power by funneling money for pet projects to their respective Congressional districts?

Why? (do I believe it is morally repugnant for the government to take from the dead?)
Because America was built on the concepts of self-determination and limited government. The estate tax violates both those principles.



Because your right to property is not inviolable. Democratically-elected governments have the legitimate right to tax in order to serve the common good.
Actually, my rights to my property are far stronger than those of the government according to our Constitution:
Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..."
(Many believe, myself included, that the estate tax is an unreasonable "seizure").

Amendment V:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Though this has, admittedly, been stretched to the limit by recent SCOTUS rulings.

And my favorites:

Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Like retaining my right to designate where my estate goes.

Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So even if it weren't already spelled out, seems to me I should be able to retain my power to designate my heirs.

You're advocating that government officials know better than anyone else how to properly spend everyone else's money. That's elitist, and advocating the oppression of the governed.
I believe that statement gets to the heart of the matter. Good argument.