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.
No reverence, just realism. The only way to prevent oppression is to prevent the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few.
You view such government confiscation as justified retaliation against an individual who has amassed wealth, and a check on the rights and powers of individuals, but you're okay with the concentration of power in the hands of the institution of central government and its efforts to enrich itself.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,476,351 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
For the record, sweatshops are the best option for those people. Ms. Hilton is doing them a favor, believe it or not. Blame the economic conditions of their country rather than the person bringing them jobs. They choose the sweatshop over their alternatives.
So I take it that you don't support the Cheeto's protectionism plans then?
You view such government confiscation as justified retaliation against an individual who has amassed wealth, and a check on the rights and powers of individuals, but you're okay with the concentration of power in the hands of the institution of central government and its efforts to enrich itself.
You must have missed the memo. When people start doing government work, they lose all self-interest and are simply there to serve everyone. The piece of paper says so.
Capitalism does not benefit everyone. There are things in capitalism that are zero sum, like housing, people's biggest expense.
Sure it does. I can choose to buy, or rent. i can choose to spend as much as I want on my house. I can rent a house for $950 a month, or $600 a month. Or I can buy a house outright. But the price is depending on what the market allows. I can choose to live in an expensive area, or buy a bigger or smaller one. It gives me choice.
The landlord can choose to fix up the house and rent it for more, or he can choose to not to fix it up and make less. He can even choose to pay someone to fix it up, thereby creating a job.
No matter how you spin it though, no economic system is as fair as capitalism. Communism certainly isn't fair, nor is socialism. They don't benefit anyone but the ruling class.
Who any longer pays attention to a little man who represents a tiny state with a population less than the size of Austin, earned $1 million dollars last year from his anti-Capitalism book royalties (not free and available for $27 each), and isn't even a member of one of the two major parties? He was never a statesman and certainly is no leader in the Congress. He is irrelevant.
It shouldn't. But whoever inherits it should pay taxes on it. They didn't earn it.
so you think that when someone inherits the family farm, WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED ON ALL ITS EARNINGS, they should pay 55% to the government PLUS another percentage to the state, just for the privilege of inheriting that family farm or business or home??
No actually, the money has not been taxed if the earnings have not yet been realized.
I oversee quite a bit of money that my father left. My mother is still alive, but she doesn't touch this money. It has been accumulating over the past 15 years, since he died, and has probably doubled in that time. When She dies, the money passes to her heirs at its "stepped up value" - In other words, if my dad paid $15 per share of a stock, and it's now worth $30 a share, when he dies and it passes to me, my "purchase price" is $30 per share.
With no estate tax, if I sell it for $30, I pay no taxes. It was worth $30 when I got it and when I sold it. But the "estate" doubled its money during the interim with no taxes paid on the increased value.
The same with real estate. If she bought her home for $50K and when she died it was worth $300K, I can sell it for $300K with no taxes. The "estate" earned $250K that was never taxed.
That is the purpose of an estate tax. To capture tax on the earnings of the "estate" that was never realized during the lifetime of the decedent.
Also, the farmer's estate isn't taxed again on it's Earnings, but on the value of the farm - which has increased during the lifetime of the person who died and is realized by the person who will inherit it. The other option would be for the person who inherits the property to have to claim the decedents purchase value as the cost basis and declare the profit over this as income instead of paying a flat % for an estate tax. That would be an alternate way to tax an estate.
has put away in his retirement fund 750k (about 1500 a month for 40 years) which with TAXED interest is now about 1.5m
so you are saying as his only son, who is TRAINED to run the business that my father started from nothing, I should pay 55% of the estates worth to the federal government??? (luckily cali got rid of its estate tax in 02).....btw this is an example. I live in NY not cali (NYS estate tax is currently 16% on an estate over 4m....this is PRE federal numbers (NY takes its money first))
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.
