Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you can't directly cite sources to back up your statements, the allegations are worthless. Even if a handful of people did say something, it doesn't mean that all or even most of the people on their side agree with them.
Some right-wingers say that homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed. Does that mean all right-wingers think that way? No, it does not.
Sure some "right-wingers" might think homosexuals should be killed or executed if you want to use stormfront as a right-wing source...most sane people won't but whatever. As you may be aware of I frequent right wing blogs also and as of yet to hear right-wingers say that, but again whatever.
But You are right, without any links to back it up I really don't have anything do I? All I can say is that you should try taking a look at those left-wing blogs, (dailykos, democratic-underground, thinkprogress, etc) and try to search the forums with keywords like, wealth, rich, inheritance, etc. and read through them. And I can assure you it won't be a "handful" of them. Most are Top rated comments with tons of people in agreement.
But I will back off for you are right, I have no links and if you don't won't to look for yourself, oh well, doesn't change anything really.
Why would I? Money is not a big deal to me like it is to you I guess.
Plus the article says that the gay son is a judge in NY. He has enough money and if I were him I wouldn't even fight the case and let my bitter dead dad keep his measly piece of 180K.
It is too bad that you - Bideshi - care so much about money that you would spend your own money to fight for someone else's money who obviously doesn't even like you. That is pretty dumb and childish IMO.
Really? left-wingers never made a distinction about the amount of money before, now trying to say "oh but its only 6 figures so that doesn't count" isn't going to fly and I spent too much time on left-wing blogs to believe its a "minority opinion".
Bull.
The estate tax ONLY applies(d) to approximately 1-2% of ALL estates.
CONSERVATIVES want to eliminate estate taxes, despite the warnings of our founding fathers about the dangers of inherited aristocracy. THAT's where the conflict comes in the mainstream debate. TAXATION of inheritance, not whether or not it should be allowed at all.
There has never been any serious or even half-hearted discussion about doing away with INHERITANCE in general. No one but the most ardent Marxists would suggest as much! And unfortunately for the paranoid people who see commies and Marxists behind every tree like it's 1953 again.... the "no inheritance" perspective is one held by a very very small minority. I don't care how many "left wing blogs" you think you've read.
YOU are trying to create a false conflict or correlation between people who would be for gay marriage, but against inheritance. Clearly, you would have us believe you have to be a Marxist crazy left wing loon to believe in equal rights! You failed. Move on.
I thought all a will could do, is offer to pay some amount, if a living person CHOOSES to do (or not do) something.
In some states (Washington comes to mind), even that is called "controlling from the grave", and is not enforceable. In others it may be, the laws vary from state to state.
The estate tax ONLY applies(d) to approximately 1-2% of ALL estates.
CONSERVATIVES want to eliminate estate taxes, despite the warnings of our founding fathers about the dangers of inherited aristocracy. THAT's where the conflict comes in the mainstream debate. TAXATION of inheritance, not whether or not it should be allowed at all.
There has never been any serious or even half-hearted discussion about doing away with INHERITANCE in general. No one but the most ardent Marxists would suggest as much! And unfortunately for the paranoid people who see commies and Marxists behind every tree like it's 1953 again.... the "no inheritance" perspective is one held by a very very small minority. I don't care how many "left wing blogs" you think you've read.
YOU are trying to create a false conflict or correlation between people who would be for gay marriage, but against inheritance. Clearly, you would have us believe you have to be a Marxist crazy left wing loon to believe in equal rights! You failed. Move on.
Quote:
CONSERVATIVES want to eliminate estate taxes, despite the warnings of our founding fathers about the dangers of inherited aristocracy. THAT's where the conflict comes in the mainstream debate. TAXATION of inheritance, not whether or not it should be allowed at all.
Please, the only debate that comes into play is "whaa, my parents didn't leave me anything so its not fair yours can" (do liberals not whine endlessly about "fairness"?) or some other envious crap and please do explain the "dangers of inherited aristocracy"
LOL, so you don't want to take into account what many left-wingers have said and advocated on the most popular left-wing blogs because you personally don't like it? Sorry, you may not like it or agree with it, doesn't change anything really. You can't sweep aside the majority of those opinions on the left because it doesn't live up to your narrative. but nice try though.
And I didn't take any stance on gay marriage or the topic itself, that it was just funny that any other time liberals would be generally against inheritance but now all of of sudden for it when it suits them. Pay attention.
And I didn't take any stance on gay marriage or the topic itself, that it was just funny that any other time liberals would be generally against inheritance but now all of of sudden for it when it suits them.
I've certainly known lots of liberals in my life, and I've never heard one of them say they're against inheritances. I believe you're making an assumption about all liberals based on the words of a few.
I do believe that many liberals are against the ability to pass on enormous estates tax-free, but that's quite a different situation.
Please, the only debate that comes into play is "whaa, my parents didn't leave me anything so its not fair yours can" or some other envious crap and please do explain the "dangers of inherited aristocracy"
Have fun learning some history:
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''
LOL, so you don't want to take into account what many left-wingers have said and advocated on the most popular left-wing blogs because you personally don't like it? Sorry, you may not like it or agree with it, doesn't change anything really. You can't sweep aside the majority of those opinions on the left because it doesn't live up to your narrative.
And I didn't take any stance on gay marriage or the topic itself, that it was just funny that any other time liberals would be generally against inheritance but now all of of sudden for it when it suits them. Pay attention.
Fail. Again. Liberals are not against INHERITANCE. Perhaps you need to pay attention a bit better when you're perusing these "left wing blogs" --- the issue is INHERITANCE TAXES.
I did a google search on a variety of ways to say, "do away with inheritance".... and guess what? NOTHING. If it was SUCH a mainstream "liberal" perspective, any number of your phantom blogs would pop up like crazy.
Want to know what DID pop up? TONS of results on the inheritance tax DEBATE.
This man's 180k estate isn't even CLOSE to being a part of that debate.
"The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency.?I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats], of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society."
Look, I am tired of arguing with you, I know whats on those very popular left-wing blogs, been reading them for years. Trying to claim that its a minority position is just silly, but have at it.
"The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency.?I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats], of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society."
Good god, you just proved my point.
Jefferson's "natural Aristocracy" was an Aristocracy based on PERSONAL achievement. From your link:
But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction. [Natural Aristocracy]
As opposed to the Artificial Aristocracy:
There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class.
Moving on:
At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independence, we passed a law abolishing entails [limitations on the inheritance of property to a specified succession of heirs]. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture [the eldest child's exclusive right of inheritance], and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy.
And had another which I prepared been adopted by the legislature, our work would have been complete. It was a bill for the more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing, and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive, at the public expense, a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at a university, where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts?.
Jefferson himself advocating a FREE EDUCATION and training! A level playing field where children of any station are given opportunity to prove themselves.
Jefferson sounds like an outright Marxist in this regard! Certainly unlike anything a modern American conservative would support!
A true meritocracy FRIGHTENS the wealthy. For in such a situation, their own, often useless and less deserving progeny would find themselves sweeping streets while the sons and daughters of janitors would ascend in prominence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricGold
Look, I am tired of arguing with you, I know whats on those very popular left-wing blogs, been reading them for years. Trying to claim that its a minority position is just silly, but have at it.
You're still full of it, and/or you're conflating minority opinions with prevailing or even popular opinion, based on "very popular left wing blogs." Yet you cannot cite to a single poll, a single study... ANYTHING to back your assertion that those with liberal viewpoints want to abolish inheritance alltogether. Repeat after me: The real debate is about ESTATE TAXES. The real debate is about ESTATE TAXES. The real debate is about ESTATE TAXES.
Yeah, I'll just trust you bro. After all, you've proven to be so aware of what's going on around you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
