Bernie Sanders: The wealthiest family in America gets a $52 billion tax break

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Explain why what someone has worked for their entire life should go to the government upon their death. That wealth has already been taxed.

When someone has a net worth of, say, $100 million at the time of their death, there are a few things we can know with virtual certainty:

1) The person did not "earn" the majority of that money all by themselves purely by the sweat of their own brow. 100s and probably 1000s of people contributed their own labor toward the creation of that wealth. In many cases most of that money depended on the exploitation of cheap labor - many people working many hours, sometimes at considerable health risks that were not discovered until many years later. Personally, I'd like to see most of the taxed portion of the inheritance go to former employees and their families. (Yes, of course most of them have pensions, etc., and most of the labor was done by contracts, not slave labor, but this doesn't change my central point: The person who ended up with the 100 million depended on a great many people in order for those vast sums to become a reality.) Realistically, the best that former "grunt labor" employees can hope for are some community advantages like libraries, better public schools, better roads, etc. - and all the government "hand-outs" that conservatives hate with such a passion.

2) Most super-wealth can, in principle, be tracked back to a considerable amount of environmental pollution that was never realistically accounted. There is no free lunch with most of this. Eventually we all pay for this pollution in one way or another, but most of us do not share a proportionate amount of the wealth that eventually gets inherited.

3) In most cases, the people who stand to inherit vast wealth did not necessarily play much, if any, direct hand in earning it themselves. Aside from the historical momentum that comes with the concept of family inheritance, there is virtually no other sense in which these people "deserve" to inherit the wealthy. They are, for the most part, simply lucky enough to be born into the right family. This is the standard social/political structure that tends to keep most wealth in the hands of a relatively small portion of the population who are lucky enough to be in a privileged class. The "neo-American dream" of "I can be a multi-billionaire" serves to corrupt and - for many people - destroy the deeper and more meaningful American Dream of "Even if I start out in the deepest poverty, I can work hard and get to a point where I can provide a comfortable life and some prosperity for myself and my family."

[videobruce]

Originally Posted by roadrat

Really, Sanders just got paid a million dollars on his new book, and along with royalties and government pay check he is in the top 4 percent.
That sounds alot like a capitalist to me.

But, he isn't a "dictator" making selfish, self centered illogical, get even with the Democrats decisions (if you can even use that term)!

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

why not get rid of the income tax, the estate tax, the luxury taxes, and the corporate tax...and replace it with a consumption tax...???

Personally, I would be in favor of a sliding-scale consumption tax. I would, however, put "sliding scale" in scare quote because, realistically, there is probably no way to implement that tax at the check-out register, but poor and low-income people could get a tax refund, thus the net effect would be like a sliding-scale tax. I would also be sure there is no tax on basic needs (food, modest housing, etc.). I would also want to make sure that "consumption" includes the buying of shares of stock, etc. And I would still favor a high inheritance tax. (I would be curios to know how conservatives, in general, feel about consumption taxes and, currently, is any "sales tax" paid on the buying/selling of stocks?)

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

It seems to follow from this basic principle that property rights are worth more than human life. E.g., If a child is dying, you would not forcibly take anything from a rich person, even if it were absolutely the only option available to save the child because, in principle, the rich person's property rights are a higher priority than the child's life. Is that essentially correct?

Originally Posted by T0103E

Short answer, yes, sort of. It's a dishonest example though, because (aside from using children to appeal to emotion over reason) there are no situations where stealing is the only way to help someone.

Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad

The "dying child vs. wealthy citizen" dog whistle is a canard, logically speaking, since we have a vast array of healthcare programs to assist the dying child, to which the wealthy citizen is already contributing, and likely has been for years.

And yet, in reality a great many people, including children, do in fact die because of impoverished conditions.

"In the first comprehensive analysis of the contribution of social factors to US mortality, researchers found that poverty, low levels of education, poor social support and other social factors contribute about as many deaths in the US as such familiar causes as heart attacks, strokes and lung cancer."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0616193627.htm

In any case, what I'm trying to do is point out the bottom-line principles involved. Many people (mostly conservatives) do, in fact, rank property rights higher than human life. Frankly, the reality of life is that poor people are disposable. Wealthy and middle-class Americans are uncomfortable admitting this stark reality, but the logic is clear and unavoidable. If you are a champion of "the rich should keep their wealth because they earned it" then you are essentially saying that "Robin Hood" has no moral right to rob the rich, even if it is the only way to save the lives.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad

As to the "why," I think we'll both agree that John Adams encapsulated the issue very well in 1787 in his timeless remarks on property rights that still serve to enlighten and edify us even today:

[...]The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shall not covet," and "Thou shall not steal," are not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

It's as if John Adams foresaw the rise of the kleptocratic state 200 years ago, and wished to impart his warning about that future development. Truly a visionary intellect.

I agree with John Adams to a degree, but most good principles can become absurd if it pushed to extreme limits. The government certainly does need to protect property rights, and property rights should be a high priority. But there can be limits beyond which the protection of property becomes absurd. When one-tenth of one percent of the population controls a majority of the wealth, this is a good indication that the basic principle of protecting private property has been pushed beyond reasonable limits and is being abused to the point where people are literally dying for no good or morally acceptable reason.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The question is why you feel you are entitled to other people's money.

It is not a question of "entitlement"; it is a question of basic principles and values. Should property be valued higher that human life? If "yes" then, obviously, government should protect the wealth of the super-wealthy even if this priority leads to wide-scale death and suffering. If the answer is "no" then this introduces the concept of "reasonable limits" to the right to own property. It follows from this that some forms of taxation that tap the rich to help the poor (or, at least, tap the rich to provide a stable society) becomes reasonable and justifiable. In this case, the questions become questions of smart economic policies that yield the greatest value to society in the long run. If you accept the principle that human life should have higher value than property, then the questions become empirical: How much, and in which ways, can wealth be redistributed in order to yield the greatest overall national security, social stability, and "life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness" for the greatest number.

The problem with empirical questions is that they have to be answered in terms of verifiable facts, rather than "alternative facts" and, frightfully, this has lately become a major problem in itself.

I'm going to predict that this tread will now suffer one of two fates: (1) Quick death because no one wants to seriously engage in thoughtful debate over core issues or (2) it will degenerate into countless pages of mostly meaningless sniping and random quips by people who have clearly not read the posts on this page (or they can't think of any thoughtful responses, so they toss out snippy quips so that the real issues get buried in drivel and thus can be conveniently ignored).

[Jobster]

Bernie Sanders is going to talk himself to death if he's not careful.

[maverick5575]

Originally Posted by Jobster

Bernie Sanders is going to talk himself to death if he's not careful.

Good. Sooner rather than later

[Pretzelogik]

Good for them, better than handing it over to the swamp people.