Re: Three States Propose Massive Tax Cuts For Millionaires, Tax Hikes for Middle Clas
Peace. Thanks for responding. You said a lot and I appreciate it. I think you got some of my points confused or maybe ignored them mistakenly. The first part about the double taxation is that the money is the person who earned its money and they should be able to do with it as they choose. The government officials have no legitimate claim to it. If you transfer money into your children's account while you're alive, the government doesn't say it's going to take more of it because the kids didn't "earn it." While you're alive, you set the terms of your estate and who you wish to have your assets. That you've chosen for them to get it after you've passed doesn't legitimize dudes with a government job getting their hands on it.
The part about the Mannings wasn't about who earned it, it was a response to your claim that children shouldn't receive all of their parents estate even if the parent chooses simply because "they won the genetic lottery." If winning the "genetic lottery" is a problem to be addressed, then I think my example clearly shows just another example of the unfairness of the "genetic lottery" and what the federal government could do if people really viewed genetic inheritance as a legitimate issue to be undertaken by government. The fact you responded with your view that the Mannings "earned" their way into the NFL, seems to enforce the conclusion I had about your original statement, that the money shouldn't go to someone who hasn't earned it. So now I ask, do you feel like money should go to someone who's earned it or not? Once that person has earned it, where do government officials derive the right to deny the citizens their right to choose who they give the money to or how much? Is it more moral for government officials to lay claim to its citizens inheritance?
You say that "it costs to live here...". It's a gross understatement to say the federal government takes in far more than enough for this country to be "livable". They take in far more than enough to enforce laws that protect our life and property and prosecute against fraud. So we all, including the wealthy, pay enough for whatever material gain we earn. The rest goes to things you may or may not like. For example, the millions being spent each day to fight in Libya, our third current middle east war. Or money to subsidize oil companies. None of those activities are legitimate and I strongly oppose them. But neither is the manipulation of taxes and each group trying to fix it so the money is taken from this group of people to fund activities for another group of people. It's simply theft. Legal theft, but theft all the same. Corruption breeds corruption; there is no other way.
I view the tax code as immoral because it has been made to where everyone is picking everybody else's pockets through tax breaks, reductions, credits, so and so forth. We agree that most of these actually end up going to the wealthiest people. Why would anyone expect anything different? They're the ones that can afford to get the tax lawyers and lobbyists to put in the items that will benefit them; the average person will never be able to do that. But I have no problem with someone being wealthy. Not all people with estates over a million dollars to $5 mil or whatever can afford that. Those people in earning $200k save in order to have million dollar estates and pass it on to their children. Their not necessarily CEOS and they're certainly not all evil people with no concern for the "working class". Those simply characterizations really dampen the illectual rigor necessary for such an important debate. I have a major problem with people not all having to play by the same rules; whether they are wealthy or not. Obviously through government involvement, the wealthy are increasingly not having to play by the same rules as the rest of us (Wall Street bailout, GM bailout, healthcare waivers, endless subsidies, tax breaks for particular behavior, etc.).
Taxing in this way is not moral because it gives another person crippling control over another person's life and property. My belief is that each person is entitled to their life and property and they should be able to exercise their maximum freedom as long as they do not directly agress against another person's life or property. The US Constitution spells out legitimate government functions (and them some); all this other stuff the government in our country does is not legit if you respect the principles I just named and they certainly aren't necessary for this to be a first world country. Instead they establish the grounds for the trampling of our civil liberties, dependency on government instead of self-reliance and the means to be self-reliant, and widening of the classes. The wealthy who have the means to communicate directly and then influence the political class and those who do not have these means. The fact is the true upper-class and the political class are starting to become indistinguishable. The other "classes" will never be able to have that type of influence and as long as the scope and influence of the central government continues to expand they will even less so. All the while they'll continue, as we see today, to call for more government intervention (not realizing that the government is being handled by the wealthiest and most powerful among us).
I know I wrote a book and strayed off topic a bit but I believe it all comes back to the principles and that's what people need to realize. We may never agree on a lot of the stuff I've said. But I can guarantee, as long as the majority of this country's citizens don't respect the principles of property and individual liberty vs government control of our lives, it'll get better for "the rich" and worse for rest of us.
Oh, and we both think Reagan was wack. Good stuff. Peace cat.
That's not really my point. My point is the defense used by many that estate taxes are double taxation aren't valid. The money was tax when it was received by the person who earned it but this money is now a separate windfall for someone who did not and, in effect, has not been taxed at all.
That wasn't a good analogy at all. Peyton Manning didn't get into the NFL because his dad was in it. He got in because he earned his way in.
I see nothing wrong with taxes or immoral about the tax code in and of itself. It costs to live here and have this be a first world nation just like it costs everywhere else. The more you make the more you are clearly benefitting from being here and enjoying the advantages of this country. The only morality problem I have is how it's used to redistribute wealth from the poor and working classes to the wealthy, as proposed by Republicans all over the country and in DC.
I do agree that those in that 200k range work for their money but they aren't subject to the estate tax in the first place. It starts at $5m and much of that money isn't earned through working but through investments and in the case of more and more CEOs, through bonuses and stock options, all while cutting pay and jobs for working class people.
I also took that same time for introspection and realized I had been sucked in by Reagan and his charm while not seeing how his policies were tearing apart lower economic classes.
Everyone has political/social biases. I can talk and debate with anyone respectfully (even taming my naturally sarcastic, condescending nature) when I feel the other person is debating honestly. You and Lamarr do that but some of these other cats.
Peace. Thanks for responding. You said a lot and I appreciate it. I think you got some of my points confused or maybe ignored them mistakenly. The first part about the double taxation is that the money is the person who earned its money and they should be able to do with it as they choose. The government officials have no legitimate claim to it. If you transfer money into your children's account while you're alive, the government doesn't say it's going to take more of it because the kids didn't "earn it." While you're alive, you set the terms of your estate and who you wish to have your assets. That you've chosen for them to get it after you've passed doesn't legitimize dudes with a government job getting their hands on it.
The part about the Mannings wasn't about who earned it, it was a response to your claim that children shouldn't receive all of their parents estate even if the parent chooses simply because "they won the genetic lottery." If winning the "genetic lottery" is a problem to be addressed, then I think my example clearly shows just another example of the unfairness of the "genetic lottery" and what the federal government could do if people really viewed genetic inheritance as a legitimate issue to be undertaken by government. The fact you responded with your view that the Mannings "earned" their way into the NFL, seems to enforce the conclusion I had about your original statement, that the money shouldn't go to someone who hasn't earned it. So now I ask, do you feel like money should go to someone who's earned it or not? Once that person has earned it, where do government officials derive the right to deny the citizens their right to choose who they give the money to or how much? Is it more moral for government officials to lay claim to its citizens inheritance?
You say that "it costs to live here...". It's a gross understatement to say the federal government takes in far more than enough for this country to be "livable". They take in far more than enough to enforce laws that protect our life and property and prosecute against fraud. So we all, including the wealthy, pay enough for whatever material gain we earn. The rest goes to things you may or may not like. For example, the millions being spent each day to fight in Libya, our third current middle east war. Or money to subsidize oil companies. None of those activities are legitimate and I strongly oppose them. But neither is the manipulation of taxes and each group trying to fix it so the money is taken from this group of people to fund activities for another group of people. It's simply theft. Legal theft, but theft all the same. Corruption breeds corruption; there is no other way.
I view the tax code as immoral because it has been made to where everyone is picking everybody else's pockets through tax breaks, reductions, credits, so and so forth. We agree that most of these actually end up going to the wealthiest people. Why would anyone expect anything different? They're the ones that can afford to get the tax lawyers and lobbyists to put in the items that will benefit them; the average person will never be able to do that. But I have no problem with someone being wealthy. Not all people with estates over a million dollars to $5 mil or whatever can afford that. Those people in earning $200k save in order to have million dollar estates and pass it on to their children. Their not necessarily CEOS and they're certainly not all evil people with no concern for the "working class". Those simply characterizations really dampen the illectual rigor necessary for such an important debate. I have a major problem with people not all having to play by the same rules; whether they are wealthy or not. Obviously through government involvement, the wealthy are increasingly not having to play by the same rules as the rest of us (Wall Street bailout, GM bailout, healthcare waivers, endless subsidies, tax breaks for particular behavior, etc.).
Taxing in this way is not moral because it gives another person crippling control over another person's life and property. My belief is that each person is entitled to their life and property and they should be able to exercise their maximum freedom as long as they do not directly agress against another person's life or property. The US Constitution spells out legitimate government functions (and them some); all this other stuff the government in our country does is not legit if you respect the principles I just named and they certainly aren't necessary for this to be a first world country. Instead they establish the grounds for the trampling of our civil liberties, dependency on government instead of self-reliance and the means to be self-reliant, and widening of the classes. The wealthy who have the means to communicate directly and then influence the political class and those who do not have these means. The fact is the true upper-class and the political class are starting to become indistinguishable. The other "classes" will never be able to have that type of influence and as long as the scope and influence of the central government continues to expand they will even less so. All the while they'll continue, as we see today, to call for more government intervention (not realizing that the government is being handled by the wealthiest and most powerful among us).
I know I wrote a book and strayed off topic a bit but I believe it all comes back to the principles and that's what people need to realize. We may never agree on a lot of the stuff I've said. But I can guarantee, as long as the majority of this country's citizens don't respect the principles of property and individual liberty vs government control of our lives, it'll get better for "the rich" and worse for rest of us.
Oh, and we both think Reagan was wack. Good stuff. Peace cat.
