If you were a politician...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2024, 02:49:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  If you were a politician...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: ...would you try to end the estate ("death") tax?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Undecided
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 105

Author Topic: If you were a politician...  (Read 5031 times)
Rooney
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2014, 12:03:52 PM »

Yes, a kid can't help who their parents are. Let them have the cash.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2014, 12:03:23 AM »
« Edited: May 28, 2014, 12:06:37 AM by Redalgo »

Yes, though I would prefer any sum of money gifted or inherited be considered part of the recipient's income for that year and taxed accordingly. Land and buildings are examples of things that would not be privately owned if I had my way, mind you, so the state could revoke individuals' management privileges of them (or sharply increase taxes on them) if the properties are not satisfactorily used for production. The estate tax does little to obstruct inter-generational transmission of privileges and competitive advantages.
Logged
Kushahontas
floating_to_sea
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,627
Kenya


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2014, 08:46:19 AM »

No. I would lessen the threshold (probably by half) and make it more progressive overall..
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,076
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2014, 05:45:19 AM »

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.
No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

I'm saying I find it unfair that some have to work hard for little while some don't have to work at all. Do you find that fair?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2014, 05:13:29 PM »

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.
No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

I'm saying I find it unfair that some have to work hard for little while some don't have to work at all. Do you find that fair?

"Fairness" alone does not merit a policy proposal. Any system that prevents one from bequeathing his earnings to the people of his choice is unjust.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,253


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2014, 02:08:58 PM »
« Edited: May 30, 2014, 02:13:53 PM by asexual trans victimologist »

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.
No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

I'm saying I find it unfair that some have to work hard for little while some don't have to work at all. Do you find that fair?

"Fairness" alone does not merit a policy proposal. Any system that prevents one from bequeathing his earnings to the people of his choice is unjust.

What's 'unjust' is that one person can end his or her life the proud owner of a dozen mansions while another ends it under a highway overpass. No one human being is somehow worth that much more to the world than any other.

It's not that your children deserve that money less than you do or less than strangers do. It's that you didn't 'deserve' that kind of money in the first place, because nobody does. I don't think anybody here is seriously proposing imposing confiscatory estate taxes on just enough of an inheritance for your children to take a few nice long-ish vacations and pay off a house and a car.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,058
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2014, 05:56:09 PM »

I wonder how many of the "Yes" votes would change to "No" votes, if they knew as many trust fund babies as I know. The young tend not to thrive knowing that there is a big inheritance in their future. And that is an understatement.
Logged
GaussLaw
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,279
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: May 30, 2014, 08:21:36 PM »

Only for farms and small businesses.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: May 30, 2014, 09:13:04 PM »

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.
No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

I'm saying I find it unfair that some have to work hard for little while some don't have to work at all. Do you find that fair?

"Fairness" alone does not merit a policy proposal. Any system that prevents one from bequeathing his earnings to the people of his choice is unjust.

What's 'unjust' is that one person can end his or her life the proud owner of a dozen mansions while another ends it under a highway overpass.

I find it intriguing that most leftists seem to find both individuals living under a highway overpass to be a preferable alternative. What is missing here is the context regarding what would be the alternative arrangement, as despite the best efforts of egalitarians, social statistics such as income will naturally assort itself into a Pareto distribution. The only difference between those that believe in property rights and redistribution advocates is that the former prefer that the distribution be fluid and determined by productive economic output, whereas the latter prefer that the distribution be rigid and determined by political clout.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whomever paid that human being the salary over many years necessary to acquire that level of wealth would beg to differ.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This point would only further solidify the idea that favoring inheritance taxes is motivated by envy more than anything else. In any case, the logical conclusion of your argument that "no human being is worth that much" would be not an inheritance tax, nor even a maximum income, but a maximum estate, whereby the government would confiscate any additional income a person acquires after achieving a fixed maximum wealth. If such a regime were in place, what incentive would there be for anyone who has achieved said wealth ceiling to continue providing useful goods and services to anyone besides his immediate family? One could point to the example of multibillionaires such as Gates or Buffett would give substantial portions of their estate to charitable efforts, but such a rebuttal would only illustrate my point. I doubt they would be as charitable if armed bureaucrats were in charge of redistributing their wealth instead of charities they deem to be reputable charities
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,253


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: May 30, 2014, 09:41:06 PM »
« Edited: May 30, 2014, 09:58:43 PM by asexual trans victimologist »

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.
No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

I'm saying I find it unfair that some have to work hard for little while some don't have to work at all. Do you find that fair?

"Fairness" alone does not merit a policy proposal. Any system that prevents one from bequeathing his earnings to the people of his choice is unjust.

What's 'unjust' is that one person can end his or her life the proud owner of a dozen mansions while another ends it under a highway overpass.

I find it intriguing that most leftists seem to find both individuals living under a highway overpass to be a preferable alternative.

That's a completely specious assertion and I hope you either know it or are stupid because all other alternatives are so unpleasant to contemplate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It could be argued that the output of an economy as a whole is by definition not very 'productive' if it doesn't have mechanisms in place to ensure that all or almost all of its members are at the very least not at risk of dying of exposure, starvation, or easily treatable diseases. The actual outcome is that distribution is semirigid and determined by the vagaries of chance at best and at worst the interests of people who benefited in previous rounds of distribution and used that to build for themselves an unjustifiably secure edifice. And again, asserting that (mainstream) leftists want distribution of wealth to be determined by 'political clout' is such a gross and obvious calumny that I honestly hope you're speaking in either insincerity or ignorance when you say it. You can claim, with some justification in some cases, that that's the result, but if you're going to say that it's what we 'prefer', allow me to assure you that you are wrong.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whomever paid that human being the salary over many years necessary to acquire that level of wealth would beg to differ. [/quote]

Do you sincerely believe that most people who are that wealthy become so by being paid salaries? Even if that were the case, does the worry ever strike you that the people who make these determinations--the employers, the owners, the people who struck various motherlodes in previous rounds of the half-random, half-rigged distribution game--might be on occasion mistaken about the worth of the people around them?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This point would only further solidify the idea that favoring inheritance taxes is motivated by envy more than anything else.[/quote]

'Envy' is a disingenuous way to describe it. Concern for people who go through life without many resources, and relative lack (not complete lack) of concern for people who would be very well-heeled in all but the most radically redistributionist systems imaginable (in other words, who would remain rich under any policy politically possible to institute in any Western country) is more like it. Even if we accept that 'envy' is an even remotely fair characterization of this concern, it's far from immediately obvious that a very poor person is inherently unjustified in being envious of a very rich person.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the extent that that's a fair question to ask about a capitalist class not composed primarily of sociopaths--which, okay, fine, that's somewhat unfair, I get that not everybody is ruled by their better angels all or even most of the time--it's part of the reason why estate and income taxes are better ideas than maximum estate, so the rhetorical question at the end of this quoted section partially answers the objection that you raise at the beginning of it.
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So your argument is essentially that we can't redistribute wealth because rich people are petulant hostage-takers who will take their ball and go home if we try, thereby crashing the entire economy. I can certainly see how one would come to that conclusion, although I doubt it's the one you were trying to reach.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: May 30, 2014, 11:58:17 PM »

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.
No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

I'm saying I find it unfair that some have to work hard for little while some don't have to work at all. Do you find that fair?

"Fairness" alone does not merit a policy proposal. Any system that prevents one from bequeathing his earnings to the people of his choice is unjust.

What's 'unjust' is that one person can end his or her life the proud owner of a dozen mansions while another ends it under a highway overpass.

I find it intriguing that most leftists seem to find both individuals living under a highway overpass to be a preferable alternative.

That's a completely specious assertion and I hope you either know it or are stupid because all other alternatives are so unpleasant to contemplate.

If they do not hold such a view, then the entire premise of their argument is flawed. If wealth inequality is assumed to be such an evil that a decrease in aggregate wealth is considered an acceptable consequence of bridging that inequality, then logically one must also oppose Pareto efficiency if it results in an uneven distribution of wealth.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It could be argued that the output of an economy as a whole is by definition not very 'productive' if it doesn't have mechanisms in place to ensure that all or almost all of its members are at the very least not at risk of dying of exposure, starvation, or easily treatable diseases.[/quote]

I would challenge the premise. As the history of the world since the Industrial Revolution has shown, the best way to ensure that members of society are not at risk of those archaic illnesses is through a market economy. In any event, you are posing a non sequitur to distract from the issue at hand, namely that those that produce goods and services valued by the populace (including those used to treat famine and disease) are compensated monetarily in the market economy. While a world in which farmers, doctors, and scientists solved those problems out of an intrinsic desire to alleviate the human condition sounds superficially ideal, human nature dictates that providing them with great personal reward is a better incentive toward that end. even if the compensation is greater than what you deem to be "more than anyone deserves"

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A few generations of fools would be sufficient to undermine even the securest of edifices. To the extent that the currently wealthy can use their influence to safeguard their "earnings," it is through using political influence to erect barriers to competition against would-be market rivals.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely you must concede that that is the desired outcome among those that possess the political clout to benefit from such a system. As for the rest, either they are useful idiots for the former group in not being able to foresee that an institution with the expressed purpose of taking wealth from productive members of society and dispensing on the people of their choosing will dispense that wealth upon those with political influence, or they covertly desire the expropriation of the wealth of productive members of society, regardless of the beneficiaries.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whomever paid that human being the salary over many years necessary to acquire that level of wealth would beg to differ. [/quote]

Do you sincerely believe that most people who are that wealthy become so by being paid salaries? Even if that were the case, does the worry ever strike you that the people who make these determinations--the employers, the owners, the people who struck various motherlodes in previous rounds of the half-random, half-rigged distribution game--might be on occasion mistaken about the worth of the people around them?[/quote]

Unless said individual is independently self-employed, then chances are they are making a salary from the company which they are employed with, even if it is most likely a management position. Certainly you don't believe that the wealthiest individuals run mom-and-pop businesses? If said company is compensating their management positions in excess of their contribution to the company, then certainly that is eating into their profits and investments, and thus will be punished in the market. Of course, you will reply that such lavish salaries for management are common practice in the business world, but I would aver that this is more a consequence of large regulatory barriers to competition rather than an intrinsic feature of a true capitalist system.

Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: May 30, 2014, 11:58:50 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This point would only further solidify the idea that favoring inheritance taxes is motivated by envy more than anything else.[/quote]

'Envy' is a disingenuous way to describe it. Concern for people who go through life without many resources, and relative lack (not complete lack) of concern for people who would be very well-heeled in all but the most radically redistributionist systems imaginable (in other words, who would remain rich under any policy politically possible to institute in any Western country) is more like it. Even if we accept that 'envy' is an even remotely fair characterization of this concern, it's far from immediately obvious that a very poor person is inherently unjustified in being envious of a very rich person.[/quote]

If envy were not a motivating factor behind redistributionism, then mentioning the hypothetical man with a dozen mansions as a juxtapositon to the man living under an overpass would be a non sequitur. Since you chose to mention the former in a rather condescending way, one would interpret that as a sign that the disparity in between them was somehow a motivation for robbing him of some of his possessions, rather than anything inherently undesirable about the latter's state. If one is solely motivated by "concern" for the lowest class, then why must only those above an arbitrary amount of wealth be responsible for their well-being? Surely if that is "society's" responsibility, then all members of society should be expected to "contribute".

Moreover, if concern for the lowest tier is the sole motivating factor for redistribution, then what state of the lowest tier would you find acceptable to concede a lack of need for redistribution? Even the poor vagrant which you described lived a much better life in a relatively capitalist country then many denizens of the Third World, which has been more willing to implement policies targeting the wealthy. I suspect that so long as there are individuals who make thousands of times more than the lowest common denominator that there will continue to be cries for redistribution, even if the lowest common denominator lived a lifestyle equivalent to the upper-middle class today. If that is the case, then there is no sense in denying that "coveting thy neighbor's goods" is a motivating factor for such a policy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the extent that that's a fair question to ask about a capitalist class not composed primarily of sociopaths--which, okay, fine, that's somewhat unfair, I get that not everybody is ruled by their better angels all or even most of the time--it's part of the reason why estate and income taxes are better ideas than maximum estate, so the rhetorical question at the end of this quoted section partially answers the objection that you raise at the beginning of it.[/quote]

Do you not see that such half-measures provide the same incentive structure only with greater subtlety?
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So your argument is essentially that we can't redistribute wealth because rich people are petulant hostage-takers who will take their ball and go home if we try, thereby crashing the entire economy. I can certainly see how one would come to that conclusion, although I doubt it's the one you were trying to reach.
[/quote]



Reaching the rather obvious conclusion that imposing a maximum estate disincentivizes economic contribution once one's estate approaches said limit requires no assumptions of malicious intent on the part of the economic actors. Rather, my point was that even if an economic actor is ostensibly not acting out of self-interest but rather acting for charitable reasons, allowing said individual to give to the charity of his choosing provides greater incentive to continue to provide valuable economic output, as he is invested in the effort and can hold the donors accountable. On the other hand, he cannot hold the IRS accountable if they are much less efficient at providing his estate to the needy.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,253


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: May 31, 2014, 12:23:05 AM »
« Edited: May 31, 2014, 12:34:50 AM by asexual trans victimologist »

I was going to address this in some detail once again but I realized that my responses to pretty much all of the points that you raise--except the last, which I concede, to some extent, although I'd counsel that if you're concerned about people drawing such conclusions from what you are saying you should perhaps do more to anticipate that not everybody gives capitalists the benefit of the doubt to the extent that you do, and also quit making up ridiculous straw-men of your own--were just variations on pointing out that (mainstream) leftists, apparently unlike you, are concerned with matters of degree (which includes marginal utility, a concept with which this installment of your argument for the idea that redistributionist politics is motivated by envy illustrates you have particular difficulty) and think such matters are a relevant series of considerations in this sort of discussion. This is what makes it disingenuous to claim that we want to have everybody live under a bridge or to make policy based emotively on envy or to completely destroy the profit motive (we may or may not wish we could do the latter, but we by and large recognize that it isn't possible to do so) or whatever else. Some consequences are acceptable and some are not. The motivation for leftist sentiment is believing that an economy that could be argued to be structurally somewhat moribund and an upper class that grumbles about not being respected in its rights to property that morally speaking it doesn't really deserve all of anyway is a more acceptable set of consequences than an underclass that can't reliably afford to live its life when there is manifestly enough money available in the economy to fix that. That's all. Clearly you don't share that belief and I despair of convincing you to respect it, but at least be aware that flippantly reducing it to a straw man based on a shallow definition of covetousness has the effect primarily of making you look like something of a presumably unintended self-caricature.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2014, 06:27:32 PM »

Probably.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2014, 07:37:28 AM »

Of course not. While I do support exemption up to a certain point, it should also be progressive. I could see leaving something like the first $2-5 million untaxed (or maybe something like 10-20%). After that, estate values would be subject to at least 40%. The most extreme wealth would be subject to something like 75%.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2014, 05:32:18 PM »

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.
No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money? Should people be able to not work a day in their lives because of their rich parents while others work two jobs just to get by?
Should your hard-earned money all be taken away by the government simply because you made "too much" to share with your family?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 15 queries.