Barney Frank: Double-Dip Estate Tax Not Punishment Because Heirs Didn’t do Anything to Deserve It

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by le roi

Unless you think an inheritance from your "long lost wealthy uncle" is the best strategy for poor and working Americans to build wealth, then it is safe to say that wages are the basis of class mobility.

Of course it's not the best strategy. Most of us don't have rich relatives to make us rich when they die. But how does that make it ok to punish those who do? You think it's important that we facilitate DOWNWARD economic mobility through governmental theft?

Wages are not the basis of class mobility either. Motivation, work ethic, determination, intelligence, initiative & perseverance are much more responsible. Those who expect to get rich working for an hourly wage will be sorely disappointed, while those who display the above characteristics can start with the same hourly wage as someone else and step up from there to far better opportunities. I say this from personal experience. Without going into specific detail, I started with literally NOTHING. I'm not rich by anyones standards, but I am a few steps above where I started, and I didn't count on either an hourly wage or the governments theft of someone elses money

[le roi]

FTR I cannot stand barney frank. But I did just watch the video.

"Taxation is not a punishment," was one statement by Frank, in response to the Money Honey's statement that taxation is a punishment. Frank does not support this statement with anything other than his opinion.

"Heirs did not earn it", was a second statement, which was in response to the Money Honey's claims that the inheritor "worked hard and achieved success." That is an accurate statement by Frank. Inheriting money does not mean you worked hard and achieved success.

So, the title of this thread, and of the article, are both incorrect.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

Of course it's not the best strategy. Most of us don't have rich relatives to make us rich when they die. But how does that make it ok to punish those who do?

Because I believe it is good for both economic prosperity, and the quality of life of 90%+ of Americans.

I believe that competition is key to economic prosperity, and that the U.S. Government has an interest in maintaining competition in all markets. When more members of society are able to build wealth, that is a more competitive environment than when a few members of society are able to build extreme amounts of wealth.

You think it's important that we facilitate DOWNWARD economic mobility through governmental theft?

If by "downward economic mobility" you mean "prosperity of 90% of Americans", and by "government theft" you mean "progressive taxation of wealth", then yes.

Wages are not the basis of class mobility either. Motivation, work ethic, determination, intelligence, initiative & perseverance are much more responsible.

I disagree. There are plenty of quality people in the working and middle class, who have failed to build a significant amount of wealth.

I'm not rich by anyones standards, but I am a few steps above where I started, and I didn't count on either an hourly wage or the governments theft of someone elses money

Oh no? I guess you didn't ever attend public schools, or drive on the highways. All those things would have been paid for by the government's theft of someone else's money, for YOU to utilize.

You must not have enjoyed the protection of military, and police and fire and property rights, that allowed you to build the wealth you have.

And as a real estate agent, I'm sure you've never benefited from the U.S. government monetary policy, which perpetually erodes our currency and purchasing power, for the sake of ever-higher asset prices and real estate values. That is the true "theft of someone else's money" that the wealthy Americans are stealing from the nonwealthy.

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by le roi

Because I believe it is good for both economic prosperity, and the quality of life of 90% of Americans.

I believe that competition is key to capitalism, and that the U.S. Government has an interest in maintaining competition in all markets.



If by "downward economic mobility" you mean "prosperity", and by "government theft" you mean "progressive taxation of wealth", then yes.



I disagree. There are plenty of quality people in the working and middle class.



Oh no? I guess you didn't ever attend public schools, or drive on the highways. All those things would have been paid for by the government's theft of someone else's money, for YOU to utilize.

You must not have enjoyed the protection of military, and police and fire and property rights, that allowed you to build the wealth you have.

Now you're digressing into silly arguments. Let's clear up a few things.

When I say downward economic mobility, I don't mean prosperity. If I had meant prosperity, I'd have said prosperity. What I saod was downward economic mobility, and htat's what I meant. When the government takes a huge chunk of the estate that was left to a person or a family, they are moving that person or family DOWNWARD on the economic ladder. And when I say government theft, I don't meange progressive taxation (of which I'm also not a huge fan, but that's another discussion) I mean the arbitrary decision by the government to take a huge chunk of wealth from a family because one of it's members died.

I never said or suggested that there are not "quality people" in the working and middle class. What I said is that motivation, work ethic, intelligence, etc, will have a far greater impact on ones ability to be economically upwardly mobile than ones hourly wage. I have no idea how you leapt from that to "quality people."

Yes, I did attend public schools, and drive on public roads, and enjoy the protection of our great country by our armed services. These things are all paid for by all of us, including me. But I never looked for or received any sort of handout from the government, or wanted the government to take someone elses wealth from them to give to me.

And your first statement is the most egregious. You believe that it's right for the government to punish the minority for the benefit of the majority? To attack the most successful and take from them that which they have managed to accumulate just because they aren't numerous enough to defend themselves from the overwhelming majority? Where does that line get drawn? What's acceptable in that line of thinking? Have you ever followed that thought process out to it's conclusion, to see where it leads? What happens to the country when you can always punish the top 10%, taking what's theirs because the rest need it? Are you striving for a society that rewards mediocracy and punishes success?

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

And when I say government theft, I don't meange progressive taxation (of which I'm also not a huge fan, but that's another discussion) I mean the arbitrary decision by the government to take a huge chunk of wealth from a family because one of it's members died.

That's progressive taxation.

I never said or suggested that there are not "quality people" in the working and middle class. What I said is that motivation, work ethic, intelligence, etc, will have a far greater impact on ones ability to be economically upwardly mobile than ones hourly wage. I have no idea how you leapt from that to "quality people."

Your comment was silly, obtuse, and attempting to frame the issue in a way that we've already established that I disagree with.

You named all these intangible qualities as the basis of building wealth. You can't go into a car dealership and exchange your intelligence for a new Toyota. You can't exchange your work ethic for a place to live. Motivation is not convertible into the ownership of stocks and bonds.

Yes, I did attend public schools, and drive on public roads, and enjoy the protection of our great country by our armed services. These things are all paid for by all of us, including me. But I never looked for or received any sort of handout from the government, or wanted the government to take someone elses wealth from them to give to me.

Oh, so it is fine that you USED the "stolen wealth" of the rich for your education, transportation, etc., as long as you never ASKED for it. The big sin in your book, is pointing it out... now that you've already had your fill off the government trough. Right, whatever.

And your first statement is the most egregious. You believe that it's right for the government to punish the minority for the benefit of the majority?

No, I simply believe that it is not right for the minority to steal from the majority. I see wealth taxes as a way of correcting the existing problems we have with regulatory capture, tax sheltering, ZIRP, too big to fail, quantitative easing, and the billions in purchasing power that we all lose, every year, attempting to support the asset prices of the handful of people who are extremely wealthy.

To me, the proof is in the pudding. For years, the rich have been getting richer, while the real incomes of the other ~80-95% of Americans have gone nowhere. America's wealth demographics now resemble that of a Latin American banana republic-- the sort where they go around devaluing the currency.

If the rest of America was keeping pace with the wealth and income growth of the ultra-rich, then you wouldn't see me advocating higher taxes on wealth (estate taxes and capital gains). If the labor markets looked as good as the stock markets, and if the rest of America was keeping pace with the ultra-rich, yeah, I'd be right in line with the "morality" of your argument, that we shouldn't "penalize" the rich.

To attack the most successful and take from them that which they have managed to accumulate just because they aren't numerous enough to defend themselves from the overwhelming majority?Where does that line get drawn? What's acceptable in that line of thinking? Have you ever followed that thought process out to it's conclusion, to see where it leads? What happens to the country when you can always punish the top 10%, taking what's theirs because the rest need it? Are you striving for a society that rewards mediocracy and punishes success?

My opinion is that you have the typical neoconservative blind spot, where you obsess over the progressiveness of the tax system while you ignore the regressiveness of the monetary system.

[Willsson]

Hopefully this quack will be re-districted out of a job next year.