MATH

[Sky Blue Lou]

I really can't understand how you can possibly owe the State (or "society" if you prefer that word -- likening one to the other defines socialism though) once you die, after a lifetime of being cheated by them at every turn. I stand for a single income tax, no bracketing, with deductions for single-income families and freelance/self-employed. Maybe also a sales tax, but not as high as the current one. The whole system is way too convoluted as it is.

Socialism is just a word. If that's what you want to call it go ahead. It doesn't hurt anyone.

Being "cheated at every turn" implies that the system as it stands is unfair. I agree with this. It is important to remember that in the context of my argument for an estate tax it would be part of an overhaul of the entire tax system not just a stand alone addition to the code.

Deductions for single-income and self employed are brackets as you define it no?

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

Does anyone here know what the estate tax is now? What it has been in the past? What it will be in 2025?

 

[Slouching Raymond]

Hmmm? Perhaps you're right. Mick Jagger is worth 500 mil, and he's not leaving any of it to his kids. Undoubtedly, the government will put the 500 mil to good use.

Wanna bet? They'll squander it on HS2.

 

[Slouching Raymond]

"The trouble with socialists is that eventually, they always run out of someone else's money" - Margaret Thatcher.

 

[leddy]

"The trouble with socialists is that eventually, they always run out of someone else's money" - Margaret Thatcher.

That’s true, but on the opposite side our current system is like a game of monopoly where eventually, one person will have everything and everyone else will be broke. We are on an unsustainable trajectory. What now?

 

[JAPOV]

"The trouble with socialists is that eventually, they always run out of someone else's money" - Margaret Thatcher.

And that "great divide" between the haves and have-nots is always a sure sign...

"Greed..."

It occurs to me that both capitalism and socialism would work... if only the rich would quit trying to own everything.

 

[brassplyer]

brassplyer said:
You're not, I see.

When you use the word "confiscatory" what does that mean to you?

I know exactly what it means.

How about instead of playing semantics games and the gotcha tear down competition you try answering the questions I asked you? Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion or not? Is it all hit and run, seek and destroy or does there lurk some constructive thought in that dark psyche of yours?

Do you believe social stratification is increasing and does it constitute a problem? Do you believe wealth distribution is fair as it currently stands or is there a potential social problem with the ratio? Do you have any thoughts on possible solutions to these problems if you do in fact believe they are problematic?

First let's get you to clarify exactly what you mean - you keep denying that your meaning is what it sounds like to me what your intent is.

You say you believe in a confiscatory inheritance tax. Sounds to me like the obvious train of logic is if someone builds wealth that given how you want it they'll be doing so with the understanding that some large portion of that is going to be confiscated instead of being distributed in a way that they see most fit. You said it and advocate it so explain how this doesn't mean you're perfectly comfortable with this?

Of course you say this along with class envy rhetoric about how their heirs "do nothing to contribute to society".

Besides not clarifying your terms you also don't get around to clarifying what the justification for this confiscation is - the path to this confiscation that somehow doesn't mean what it sounds like you intend it to mean.

So go ahead and clarify what the confiscation part of confiscatory tax means *to you* and what you think the fundamental justification is since you claim I'm misstating it.

I believe it is society's right to make use of the fruits of the labors of those who have built that wealth

What is this supposed "right" based on?

after they have passed and can no longer use it.

You are aware that someone can pass wealth on to their heirs before they die? But of course still waiting to hear your basis re: "society's right".

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

Tell you what Horatio, I will humor you and play this game one more round for the sake of getting something from you in return - an answer to the questions I have asked you twice now. Put up or shut up from here.

Confiscate means to take with authority. Authority does not mean boldly it means with force of law. Most people - myself included - consider most taxes confiscatory by definition. I intended my use of the word to mean a little more tax than at standard rates. A little more rapacious if you will. (Don't even think of asking me to define that. Look it up.) Also, as you likely know, the US estate tax has a long and fluctuating history and is currently on hiatus. Don't get yer hopes up it's coming back in 2025.

Should the wealth creators wish to see a lesser amount of their hard-earned gains go to the whims of the authorities they may reduce it prior to death by putting it to other uses which they deem appropriate. (Remember as well that the devilish details can include offsets for charitable contributions & etc...)((Also remember that we have not established a threshold yet - it is or will be $13.6 million of estate. I would start well north of that.))

The "right" of society should be obvious. The right is what the government asserts and the people put up with. The right given to the government by a free and franchised public in a democracy (or democratic republic if you prefer). Not so much for other places. Might makes right.

 

[JAPOV]

Brass, Sky...
I guess I'm kinda' stuck somewhere between you two lol. As I mentioned previously, there needs to be a set "standard" to end inflation and stabilize the economy. No government/corporation should be able to monopolize the basic necessities of life purely for profit. Everyone needs water, food, clothing, and shelter... so, the cost of these things should be set in stone and never subject to change. Essentially, they should be considered "common property". Farm land and produce for example; Why has every government throughout history insisted upon the authority to control farmers and their land? The answer is just as obvious as the massive difference between the rich and poor that has always defined "progressive society". The rich profit from the needs of the poor...

However, for the cumulative poor to claim a right to the wealth of the rich when they die...? That may seem like poetic justice lol, but it doesn't change anything; It doesn't solve the original problem.

I like the idea of "common property" as long as it's limited the basic necessities. On the other hand, a man's ability to profit from his own ingenuity and enjoy the fruits of his labor shouldn't be limited.

I believe the issue of inheritance ultimately resolves itself. Inheritors either maintain the integrity of their profitable benefactors, or they don't.

 

[Serendipity Records]

Deductions for single-income and self employed are brackets as you define it no?

They don't seek to impede rich people, they help poor people.

 

[Serendipity Records]

That’s true, but on the opposite side our current system is like a game of monopoly where eventually, one person will have everything and everyone else will be broke. We are on an unsustainable trajectory. What now?

That is not possible, because as long as you allow competition, someone will come up with a cheaper and/or better product.

Windows and Mac are a great example of competition, with a few new boutique computer manufacturers coming out now for more specific applications.

 

[Serendipity Records]

rich would quit trying to own everything.

Rich socialists try to own everything. Rich capitalists know that it's easier to make more money if you're willing to compete.

Brass, Sky...
I guess I'm kinda' stuck somewhere between you two lol. As I mentioned previously, there needs to be a set "standard" to end inflation and stabilize the economy. No government/corporation should be able to monopolize the basic necessities of life purely for profit. Everyone needs water, food, clothing, and shelter... so, the cost of these things should be set in stone and never subject to change. Essentially, they should be considered "common property". Farm land and produce for example; Why has every government throughout history insisted upon the authority to control farmers and their land? The answer is just as obvious as the massive difference between the rich and poor that has always defined "progressive society". The rich profit from the needs of the poor...

However, for the cumulative poor to claim a right to the wealth of the rich when they die...? That may seem like poetic justice lol, but it doesn't change anything; It doesn't solve the original problem.

I like the idea of "common property" as long as it's limited the basic necessities. On the other hand, a man's ability to profit from his own ingenuity and enjoy the fruits of his labor shouldn't be limited.

I believe the issue of inheritance ultimately resolves itself. Inheritors either maintain the integrity of their profitable benefactors, or they don't.

Well said, thank you.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

They don't seek to impede rich people, they help poor people.

I don't seek to impede rich people. They will be dead.

 

[leddy]

That is not possible, because as long as you allow competition, someone will come up with a cheaper and/or better product.

Windows and Mac are a great example of competition, with a few new boutique computer manufacturers coming out now for more specific applications.

I’m not saying a monopoly is possible, just the same outcome of the game where all the wealth gets concentrated and everyone else is broke. That is the direction we are headed. The market is getting cornered on capital itself.

 

[leddy]

double post

 

[leddy]

Rich socialists try to own everything. Rich capitalists know that it's easier to make more money if you're willing to compete.

Rich capitalists know that competition shrinks margins. Innovators might seek to compete because they have an edge. Capitalists, if they aren’t innovating, often seek to exploit.

Example:
Hedge funds buying up single family homes like crazy. Drives up real estate prices so their assets grow and they can charge higher rents. What are they doing besides manipulating a market?

 

[brassplyer]

C'mon man! What is it with you fuckin guys that don't read the posts? I won't have anywhere near large enough an estate to be affected by this tax proposal should it miraculously come to be before I pass.

At least you admit it's about resentment born of class envy for you.

Tell you what Horatio, I will humor you and play this game one more round for the sake of getting something from you in return - an answer to the questions I have asked you twice now. Put up or shut up from here.

Confiscate means to take with authority. Authority does not mean boldly it means with force of law. Most people - myself included - consider most taxes confiscatory by definition. I intended my use of the word to mean a little more tax than at standard rates. A little more rapacious if you will. (Don't even think of asking me to define that. Look it up.) Also, as you likely know, the US estate tax has a long and fluctuating history and is currently on hiatus. Don't get yer hopes up it's coming back in 2025.

Should the wealth creators wish to see a lesser amount of their hard-earned gains go to the whims of the authorities they may reduce it prior to death by putting it to other uses which they deem appropriate. (Remember as well that the devilish details can include offsets for charitable contributions & etc...)((Also remember that we have not established a threshold yet - it is or will be $13.6 million of estate. I would start well north of that.))

The "right" of society should be obvious. The right is what the government asserts and the people put up with. The right given to the government by a free and franchised public in a democracy (or democratic republic if you prefer). Not so much for other places. Might makes right.

If we're going to derisively allude to characters from literature I'm going to start calling you Wesley - as in Wesley Mouch.

The "right" of society should be obvious.

Yeah those profound words of Thomas Jefferson -

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and receiving confiscated wealth created by others...

Might makes right.

Every statist dictator says the same thing.

You lied about what you aren't comfortable with but at least you admit that besides your class envy your notions are rooted in a collectivist thug mentality.

Wesley you're pro-capitalism as much as you're Bigfoot's cousin.

So the lowlife criminal is entitled to mug the old lady, if I feel like it I can beat you to a bloody pulp and take your stuff. Gotcha.

You talk about stratification and these supposed "rights of society" but I haven't seen you clarify who it is you envision as the beneficiaries of the confiscated estates and whether they're in marginal circumstances because of entirely optional behavior on their part.

Or does it go to gender studies nonsense somewhere in the world or something like Henry "Ibram X. Kendi" Rogers' "Antiracist research" crapfest, or to bankers and war contractors and kickbacks to politicos to fund and supply whatever bullshit war the government decides to get involved in that doesn't benefit the US?

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

...I haven't seen you clarify who it is you envision as the beneficiaries...

You weren't looking. Your eyes and mind are closed. I haven't seen you say anything.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

If we're going to derisively allude to characters from literature I'm going to start calling you Wesley - as in Wesley Mouch.

This bit is actually kinda funny. I'm not sure where you get the idea that calling you Horatio, as in Horatio Hornblower, is derisive. Other than being a direct play on yer nom de keyboard it is a reference to an heroic literary figure. Sure he had a dark side of self-doubt and such but that wasn't the image I was considering.

 

[brassplyer]

This bit is actually kinda funny. I'm not sure where you get the idea that calling you Horatio, as in Horatio Hornblower, is derisive. Other than being a direct play on yer nom de keyboard it is a reference to an heroic literary figure. Sure he had a dark side of self-doubt and such but that wasn't the image I was considering.

Sure you were thinking of a heroic figure.