Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wealth Inequality and disaster

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 10:01:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.policymic.com...

Apparently, if we don't redistribute the wealth, society collapses. Thoughts?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 10:22:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:01:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
http://www.policymic.com...

Apparently, if we don't redistribute the wealth, society collapses. Thoughts?

Not exactly what it says. It says that wealth inequality is one major aspect that leads to the collapse and that reducing the inequality is one of the keys (the other being on resource consumption, which they showed is also tied to the inequality). There is more than one way this can be done without straight out redistribution.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 10:28:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's one principle difference between now and previous civilizations and that is that all Christians will be raptured up just before the breakdown of civilization. And of course the remaining people on the earth will be of no importance as the hell fires start to burn.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:01:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.

Explain why there should be no inheritance.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 1:33:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:01:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.

Explain why there should be no inheritance.

I can't argue for no inheritance (well, I could do devil's advocate), but I do support a heavy inheritance tax. Though not a simple flat rate, the real world is too complex for that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 1:45:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 1:33:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:01:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.

Explain why there should be no inheritance.

I can't argue for no inheritance (well, I could do devil's advocate), but I do support a heavy inheritance tax. Though not a simple flat rate, the real world is too complex for that.

I can understand argument for and against death taxes, but not a 100%. I haven't put too much thought into it, but I largely am opposed to them, especially since it is unfair to the rich. (no need to delve in here)
Also, do you support an estate tax, inheritance tax, or both?
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 1:47:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This senseless bickering back and forth on total inheritance tax and none is serving a good cause. It's a clear indication that all Americans are aware that something needs to be done about the income inequality that's destroying their country.

Well, at least destroying it for the majority while the wealthy have never had it so good. Alas, with the hate for a black president there's little can be accomplished until the object of the people's hate is gone.

Then, action will be swift as the teabaggers suddenly redirect their hate in another direction for lack of racist hate. That will inevitably be, toward those who are claiming the whole pie!

The only question is: Can three more years of Obama hate fatally destroy the US economy? Or more correctly, the American way which has historically given the people a leg up? Will America just become another Mexico?
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 1:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 1:45:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:33:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:01:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.

Explain why there should be no inheritance.

I can't argue for no inheritance (well, I could do devil's advocate), but I do support a heavy inheritance tax. Though not a simple flat rate, the real world is too complex for that.

I can understand argument for and against death taxes, but not a 100%. I haven't put too much thought into it, but I largely am opposed to them, especially since it is unfair to the rich. (no need to delve in here)
Also, do you support an estate tax, inheritance tax, or both?

Inheritance tax is the estate tax. Estate tax is a tax on property transferred upon death.

I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:00:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 1:54:32 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:45:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:33:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:01:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.

Explain why there should be no inheritance.

I can't argue for no inheritance (well, I could do devil's advocate), but I do support a heavy inheritance tax. Though not a simple flat rate, the real world is too complex for that.

I can understand argument for and against death taxes, but not a 100%. I haven't put too much thought into it, but I largely am opposed to them, especially since it is unfair to the rich. (no need to delve in here)
Also, do you support an estate tax, inheritance tax, or both?

Inheritance tax is the estate tax. Estate tax is a tax on property transferred upon death.

They are similar, but the issue is who pays them.
An estate tax is paid by the estate, and what is left is bequeathed.
An inheritance tax is paid by the heir, regardless of any estate tax. So, if I inherited my home, I would have to pay tax on the $200K or so it was worth.
Both of these taxes can exist, and I think they do exist. in some states. Federal is only estate, IIRC.

I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

The core issue is that presumably, I have already paid taxes on my earnings, thus my worldly possessions are all post-tax (income tax, sales tax, etc.). Why should my death be a taxable event? Further, why should there be a cap, especially in America, where so many people don't pay taxes at all?

I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
How do you inherit poverty in this context?
You don't inherit the bills.
My work here is, finally, done.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:01:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
http://www.policymic.com...

Apparently, if we don't redistribute the wealth, society collapses. Thoughts?

I am an advocate of wealth distribution to an extent.

I in no way consider pure socialism to be a good system of economics, but I do believe that a proper mix between socialism and capitalism is the best way to achieve a maximum standard of living alongside maximum economic growth. I believe that the US wealth disparity is choking our economic growth however, as the consumer spending power of the middle class that once drove economic growth is now disappearing. The empiric evidence shows that there is a optimum amount of wealth disparity that maximizes economic growth and the standard of living. Too little disparity, and there is no room to excel and thrive, and therefore no incentive to innovate. Without innovation, there is no room for economic growth. The exact same circumstance occurs when economic disparity is too high.

I believe that we must work to achieve a more optimal economic disparity level.

My personal ideal tax system would be a flat income tax somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%. Estate taxes would simply be a low 10%, but a maximum inheritance cap of something like 50 million dollars. I would eliminate sales taxes entirely, and raise property taxes.

I'd also put an end to "straight cash" welfare, and focus on Keynesian (infrastructure) welfare.

I don't think simply throw checks and tax breaks to the poor is the best way to achieve effective economic distribution. Infrastructure development helps alleviate poverty in two ways: Jobs, and services. I think that is a much more effective form of redistribution.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:09:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:00:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:54:32 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:45:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:33:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:01:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.

Explain why there should be no inheritance.

I can't argue for no inheritance (well, I could do devil's advocate), but I do support a heavy inheritance tax. Though not a simple flat rate, the real world is too complex for that.

I can understand argument for and against death taxes, but not a 100%. I haven't put too much thought into it, but I largely am opposed to them, especially since it is unfair to the rich. (no need to delve in here)
Also, do you support an estate tax, inheritance tax, or both?

Inheritance tax is the estate tax. Estate tax is a tax on property transferred upon death.

They are similar, but the issue is who pays them.
An estate tax is paid by the estate, and what is left is bequeathed.
An inheritance tax is paid by the heir, regardless of any estate tax. So, if I inherited my home, I would have to pay tax on the $200K or so it was worth.
Both of these taxes can exist, and I think they do exist. in some states. Federal is only estate, IIRC.

Ah, I did not know that. Thanks! I would only advocate the estate tax. I believe, though, that states should only levy taxes on income and property.


I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

The core issue is that presumably, I have already paid taxes on my earnings, thus my worldly possessions are all post-tax (income tax, sales tax, etc.). Why should my death be a taxable event? Further, why should there be a cap, especially in America, where so many people don't pay taxes at all?

Valid point. Simply because tax is an essential aspect of the social contract. In America, your life is for yourself first, but for the country second. I believe that an estate tax of 10% before the cap would be more appropriate.

Death should be a taxable event because I believe that once you are dead, you do not need your wealth anymore. Based on my belief that you do not deserve to inherit all of your parents wealth or debts, the money (upon your death) ought to be used for the social good. I suppose an alternative to having the government collect it as tax would be for you to donate it to the charity or charities of your choice.


I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
How do you inherit poverty in this context?
You don't inherit the bills.

Actually, IRRC if your parents die in debt, you inherit those debts...

But you "inherit" poverty in the sense that being born in a poor family and impoverished situation makes in incredibly difficult for you to become successful, as the opportunities that you are given are few and far between. Once one is born poor, it is very difficult for them to become wealthy.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:13:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:01:43 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:01:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
http://www.policymic.com...

Apparently, if we don't redistribute the wealth, society collapses. Thoughts?

I am an advocate of wealth distribution to an extent.

I in no way consider pure socialism to be a good system of economics, but I do believe that a proper mix between socialism and capitalism is the best way to achieve a maximum standard of living alongside maximum economic growth. I believe that the US wealth disparity is choking our economic growth however, as the consumer spending power of the middle class that once drove economic growth is now disappearing. The empiric evidence shows that there is a optimum amount of wealth disparity that maximizes economic growth and the standard of living. Too little disparity, and there is no room to excel and thrive, and therefore no incentive to innovate. Without innovation, there is no room for economic growth. The exact same circumstance occurs when economic disparity is too high.

I believe that we must work to achieve a more optimal economic disparity level.

My personal ideal tax system would be a flat income tax somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%. Estate taxes would simply be a low 10%, but a maximum inheritance cap of something like 50 million dollars. I would eliminate sales taxes entirely, and raise property taxes.

I'd also put an end to "straight cash" welfare, and focus on Keynesian (infrastructure) welfare.

I don't think simply throw checks and tax breaks to the poor is the best way to achieve effective economic distribution. Infrastructure development helps alleviate poverty in two ways: Jobs, and services. I think that is a much more effective form of redistribution.

Good for you! You're coming to the realization that America's brand of capitalism is corrupted. You're talking about a new form of capitalism which would be more similar to Canada's. It's called socially responsible capitalism.

And it most assuredly includes universal health care for all the people. If you don't hate all the Hispanics and black people then you'll have no trouble with the concept. If you do hate them then you'll be holding back the change.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:15:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:13:02 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:01:43 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:01:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
http://www.policymic.com...

Apparently, if we don't redistribute the wealth, society collapses. Thoughts?

I am an advocate of wealth distribution to an extent.

I in no way consider pure socialism to be a good system of economics, but I do believe that a proper mix between socialism and capitalism is the best way to achieve a maximum standard of living alongside maximum economic growth. I believe that the US wealth disparity is choking our economic growth however, as the consumer spending power of the middle class that once drove economic growth is now disappearing. The empiric evidence shows that there is a optimum amount of wealth disparity that maximizes economic growth and the standard of living. Too little disparity, and there is no room to excel and thrive, and therefore no incentive to innovate. Without innovation, there is no room for economic growth. The exact same circumstance occurs when economic disparity is too high.

I believe that we must work to achieve a more optimal economic disparity level.

My personal ideal tax system would be a flat income tax somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%. Estate taxes would simply be a low 10%, but a maximum inheritance cap of something like 50 million dollars. I would eliminate sales taxes entirely, and raise property taxes.

I'd also put an end to "straight cash" welfare, and focus on Keynesian (infrastructure) welfare.

I don't think simply throw checks and tax breaks to the poor is the best way to achieve effective economic distribution. Infrastructure development helps alleviate poverty in two ways: Jobs, and services. I think that is a much more effective form of redistribution.

Good for you! You're coming to the realization that America's brand of capitalism is corrupted. You're talking about a new form of capitalism which would be more similar to Canada's. It's called socially responsible capitalism.

I believe it's also been branded "guided capitalism" in Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

And it most assuredly includes universal health care for all the people. If you don't hate all the Hispanics and black people then you'll have no trouble with the concept. If you do hate them then you'll be holding back the change.

Please don't deteriorate my concept with this nut-ball garbage. People who are against single-payer medicine aren't necessarily racists.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:22:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 1:45:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:33:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:01:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:48:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:47:49 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/20/2014 4:39:56 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Solution: a 100% estate tax.

Nonsense.

Do explain your rejection.

Explain why there should be no inheritance.

I can't argue for no inheritance (well, I could do devil's advocate), but I do support a heavy inheritance tax. Though not a simple flat rate, the real world is too complex for that.

I can understand argument for and against death taxes, but not a 100%. I haven't put too much thought into it, but I largely am opposed to them, especially since it is unfair to the rich. (no need to delve in here)
Also, do you support an estate tax, inheritance tax, or both?

I don't see a big difference between the two, heck they are often used interchangeably. But my views are closer to an inheritance tax than an estate tax. But I'd have the exact same tax for gifts so that the loophole of giving everything away 7 hours before one passes isn't there. I'll go more into it when I get home and am on a computer.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:25:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:15:15 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:13:02 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:01:43 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 10:01:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
http://www.policymic.com...

Apparently, if we don't redistribute the wealth, society collapses. Thoughts?

I am an advocate of wealth distribution to an extent.

I in no way consider pure socialism to be a good system of economics, but I do believe that a proper mix between socialism and capitalism is the best way to achieve a maximum standard of living alongside maximum economic growth. I believe that the US wealth disparity is choking our economic growth however, as the consumer spending power of the middle class that once drove economic growth is now disappearing. The empiric evidence shows that there is a optimum amount of wealth disparity that maximizes economic growth and the standard of living. Too little disparity, and there is no room to excel and thrive, and therefore no incentive to innovate. Without innovation, there is no room for economic growth. The exact same circumstance occurs when economic disparity is too high.

I believe that we must work to achieve a more optimal economic disparity level.

My personal ideal tax system would be a flat income tax somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%. Estate taxes would simply be a low 10%, but a maximum inheritance cap of something like 50 million dollars. I would eliminate sales taxes entirely, and raise property taxes.

I'd also put an end to "straight cash" welfare, and focus on Keynesian (infrastructure) welfare.

I don't think simply throw checks and tax breaks to the poor is the best way to achieve effective economic distribution. Infrastructure development helps alleviate poverty in two ways: Jobs, and services. I think that is a much more effective form of redistribution.

Good for you! You're coming to the realization that America's brand of capitalism is corrupted. You're talking about a new form of capitalism which would be more similar to Canada's. It's called socially responsible capitalism.

I believe it's also been branded "guided capitalism" in Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

And it most assuredly includes universal health care for all the people. If you don't hate all the Hispanics and black people then you'll have no trouble with the concept. If you do hate them then you'll be holding back the change.

Please don't deteriorate my concept with this nut-ball garbage. People who are against single-payer medicine aren't necessarily racists.

If they're not racists and they understand that your brand of capitalism is all fukked up, then they're not offereing any other explanation for why they don't want universal health care. I think the real cause for the right is that they don't consider that the haves should be paying to provide health care to the have nots. That's putting it succinctly, without wasting a lot of time on detailed explanations of why.

And then, we look at the facts and we see that the poor without health care are mostly Hispanics and blacks.

So let's take it a step further. Do the people who oppose universal health care also oppose withholding lifesaving care for white babies too?

I don't expect any of the selfish and greedy swine to acknowledge the truth but at least serves the purpose in letting them know the truth has been exposed!
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:30:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:25:43 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:15:15 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
Please don't deteriorate my concept with this nut-ball garbage. People who are against single-payer medicine aren't necessarily racists.

If they're not racists and they understand that your brand of capitalism is all fukked up, then they're not offereing any other explanation for why they don't want universal health care. I think the real cause for the right is that they don't consider that the haves should be paying to provide health care to the have nots. That's putting it succinctly, without wasting a lot of time on detailed explanations of why.

And then, we look at the facts and we see that the poor without health care are mostly Hispanics and blacks.

So let's take it a step further. Do the people who oppose universal health care also oppose withholding lifesaving care for white babies too?

I don't expect any of the selfish and greedy swine to acknowledge the truth but at least serves the purpose in letting them know the truth has been exposed!

Ah ah ah. Hanlons Razor. Never attribute to malice, that which can be attributed to stupidity.

People are against single-payer healthcare because they are misinformed, not because they recognize the system as broken.

You are attributing malice where there is none. The opposition isn't evil, they simply don't understand.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:46:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:09:49 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:00:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

The core issue is that presumably, I have already paid taxes on my earnings, thus my worldly possessions are all post-tax (income tax, sales tax, etc.). Why should my death be a taxable event? Further, why should there be a cap, especially in America, where so many people don't pay taxes at all?

Valid point. Simply because tax is an essential aspect of the social contract. In America, your life is for yourself first, but for the country second. I believe that an estate tax of 10% before the cap would be more appropriate.

Death should be a taxable event because I believe that once you are dead, you do not need your wealth anymore. Based on my belief that you do not deserve to inherit all of your parents wealth or debts, the money (upon your death) ought to be used for the social good. I suppose an alternative to having the government collect it as tax would be for you to donate it to the charity or charities of your choice.
So, why should the poor be exempt from it?
Or your children and/or spouse excluded from it (or part of it)?
Further, the charities would/should also feel the hit of the estate tax, shouldn't they?


I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
How do you inherit poverty in this context?
You don't inherit the bills.

Actually, IRRC if your parents die in debt, you inherit those debts...

99% sure you are wrong.
The estate needs to cover any outstanding debts, but if it cannot, then the debts go away. You cannot force your child to pay your debts. I am less sure about spouses, but I think even they are exempt from paying debts that are solely their spouses (not co-sign).
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:51:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:30:45 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
Please don't deteriorate my concept with this nut-ball garbage. People who are agai
You are attributing malice where there is none. The opposition isn't evil, they simply don't understand.

You are also forgetting those who fight it on principle, and those that fight it out of fear.
My work here is, finally, done.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:57:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:46:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:09:49 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:00:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

The core issue is that presumably, I have already paid taxes on my earnings, thus my worldly possessions are all post-tax (income tax, sales tax, etc.). Why should my death be a taxable event? Further, why should there be a cap, especially in America, where so many people don't pay taxes at all?

Valid point. Simply because tax is an essential aspect of the social contract. In America, your life is for yourself first, but for the country second. I believe that an estate tax of 10% before the cap would be more appropriate.

Death should be a taxable event because I believe that once you are dead, you do not need your wealth anymore. Based on my belief that you do not deserve to inherit all of your parents wealth or debts, the money (upon your death) ought to be used for the social good. I suppose an alternative to having the government collect it as tax would be for you to donate it to the charity or charities of your choice.
So, why should the poor be exempt from it?

If you are inheriting 50-100 million, you are not poor.

Furthermore, I would argue that under the cap amount you should still be subject to a 5-10% estate tax.

Anyway the poor are still subject to the cap. If you live in poverty, but your parents are super wealthy, you will still inherit no more than the cap amount.

Or your children and/or spouse excluded from it (or part of it)?

Wait I don't understand exactly what you mean by this?

Further, the charities would/should also feel the hit of the estate tax, shouldn't they?

No. Charities act in the social interest only, and therefore donating to them is an action worthy of tax exemption.



I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
How do you inherit poverty in this context?
You don't inherit the bills.

Actually, IRRC if your parents die in debt, you inherit those debts...

99% sure you are wrong.
The estate needs to cover any outstanding debts, but if it cannot, then the debts go away. You cannot force your child to pay your debts. I am less sure about spouses, but I think even they are exempt from paying debts that are solely their spouses (not co-sign).

http://www.foxbusiness.com...

If the estate doesn't cover it, then the children inherit the debt.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:58:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:51:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:30:45 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
Please don't deteriorate my concept with this nut-ball garbage. People who are agai
You are attributing malice where there is none. The opposition isn't evil, they simply don't understand.

You are also forgetting those who fight it on principle, and those that fight it out of fear.

Exactly.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 3:07:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:57:06 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:46:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:09:49 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:00:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

The core issue is that presumably, I have already paid taxes on my earnings, thus my worldly possessions are all post-tax (income tax, sales tax, etc.). Why should my death be a taxable event? Further, why should there be a cap, especially in America, where so many people don't pay taxes at all?

Valid point. Simply because tax is an essential aspect of the social contract. In America, your life is for yourself first, but for the country second. I believe that an estate tax of 10% before the cap would be more appropriate.

Death should be a taxable event because I believe that once you are dead, you do not need your wealth anymore. Based on my belief that you do not deserve to inherit all of your parents wealth or debts, the money (upon your death) ought to be used for the social good. I suppose an alternative to having the government collect it as tax would be for you to donate it to the charity or charities of your choice.
So, why should the poor be exempt from it?

If you are inheriting 50-100 million, you are not poor.

Furthermore, I would argue that under the cap amount you should still be subject to a 5-10% estate tax.

Anyway the poor are still subject to the cap. If you live in poverty, but your parents are super wealthy, you will still inherit no more than the cap amount.

Yes, so the middle class leaves less behind. That is a regressive tax, as they call it, is it not, given the greater effect?

Or your children and/or spouse excluded from it (or part of it)?

Wait I don't understand exactly what you mean by this?
You tax the estate, then inheritances are paid.
The estate tax weakens the estate before it is split.

Further, the charities would/should also feel the hit of the estate tax, shouldn't they?

No. Charities act in the social interest only, and therefore donating to them is an action worthy of tax exemption.
But, not family through gifts?



I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
How do you inherit poverty in this context?
You don't inherit the bills.

Actually, IRRC if your parents die in debt, you inherit those debts...

99% sure you are wrong.
The estate needs to cover any outstanding debts, but if it cannot, then the debts go away. You cannot force your child to pay your debts. I am less sure about spouses, but I think even they are exempt from paying debts that are solely their spouses (not co-sign).

http://www.foxbusiness.com...

If the estate doesn't cover it, then the children inherit the debt.

I skimmed, but it appears the CC's tried to put a lien on the house. Given the wording, it sounded like the parents' house. The estate goes to pay the bills. The kids assuming the house assume the debt that was otherwise not paid.
"One credit card company, which repeatedly called Boesen trying to negotiate a payment, ended up putting a lien on the house. "
The house, not her house, to me, implies the house was the parents'.

Am I wrong?
My work here is, finally, done.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 3:20:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 3:07:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:57:06 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:46:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:09:49 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:00:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

The core issue is that presumably, I have already paid taxes on my earnings, thus my worldly possessions are all post-tax (income tax, sales tax, etc.). Why should my death be a taxable event? Further, why should there be a cap, especially in America, where so many people don't pay taxes at all?

Valid point. Simply because tax is an essential aspect of the social contract. In America, your life is for yourself first, but for the country second. I believe that an estate tax of 10% before the cap would be more appropriate.

Death should be a taxable event because I believe that once you are dead, you do not need your wealth anymore. Based on my belief that you do not deserve to inherit all of your parents wealth or debts, the money (upon your death) ought to be used for the social good. I suppose an alternative to having the government collect it as tax would be for you to donate it to the charity or charities of your choice.
So, why should the poor be exempt from it?

If you are inheriting 50-100 million, you are not poor.

Furthermore, I would argue that under the cap amount you should still be subject to a 5-10% estate tax.

Anyway the poor are still subject to the cap. If you live in poverty, but your parents are super wealthy, you will still inherit no more than the cap amount.

Yes, so the middle class leaves less behind. That is a regressive tax, as they call it, is it not, given the greater effect?

I wouldn't call it a regressive tax. To be regressive, it would have to tax the poor heaviest by percent. It taxes all incomes fairly with a 10% tax, and the 50-100 million dollar cap applies equally to all people (but obviously affects the wealthy to most.


Or your children and/or spouse excluded from it (or part of it)?

Wait I don't understand exactly what you mean by this?
You tax the estate, then inheritances are paid.
The estate tax weakens the estate before it is split.

I'm sorry but I still don't seem to understand your point here. Sorry if I am being thick.


Further, the charities would/should also feel the hit of the estate tax, shouldn't they?

No. Charities act in the social interest only, and therefore donating to them is an action worthy of tax exemption.
But, not family through gifts?

I don't see how giving gifts to your family is acting in the social interest.




I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
How do you inherit poverty in this context?
You don't inherit the bills.

Actually, IRRC if your parents die in debt, you inherit those debts...

99% sure you are wrong.
The estate needs to cover any outstanding debts, but if it cannot, then the debts go away. You cannot force your child to pay your debts. I am less sure about spouses, but I think even they are exempt from paying debts that are solely their spouses (not co-sign).

http://www.foxbusiness.com...

If the estate doesn't cover it, then the children inherit the debt.

I skimmed, but it appears the CC's tried to put a lien on the house. Given the wording, it sounded like the parents' house. The estate goes to pay the bills. The kids assuming the house assume the debt that was otherwise not paid.
"One credit card company, which repeatedly called Boesen trying to negotiate a payment, ended up putting a lien on the house. "
The house, not her house, to me, implies the house was the parents'.

Am I wrong?

"If there's no money left, credit card companies write off the debt. "If it's a lot of money, nobody will give up," says Ken Rubinstein, a partner at the New York City-based law firm Rubinstein & Rubinstein. "But if the debt is less than $25,000, it's ancient history.""

So if the debt is small after the estate has been drained, then it is erased, but if the debt is large after the estate is drained, there is a bit of a standoff.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 3:36:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:01:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
http://www.policymic.com...

Apparently, if we don't redistribute the wealth, society collapses. Thoughts?

Airmax and I were talking about raising the minimum wage last night, actually... and there's something to be said for the social risks of a really wide inequality gap.

I sent him this article:

http://www.bloombergview.com...

It's not directly relevant, but it speaks to the issues you're talking about.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 3:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 3:20:34 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 3:07:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:57:06 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:46:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:09:49 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:00:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I've always admired the Kingfish policy on estate tax. Inheritance caps at 1 million. Obviously, we would need to increase that to more like 50 to 100 million due to inflation since the kingfish died. That number would also need to change every 5 or 10 years to reflect inflation.

The core issue is that presumably, I have already paid taxes on my earnings, thus my worldly possessions are all post-tax (income tax, sales tax, etc.). Why should my death be a taxable event? Further, why should there be a cap, especially in America, where so many people don't pay taxes at all?

Valid point. Simply because tax is an essential aspect of the social contract. In America, your life is for yourself first, but for the country second. I believe that an estate tax of 10% before the cap would be more appropriate.

Death should be a taxable event because I believe that once you are dead, you do not need your wealth anymore. Based on my belief that you do not deserve to inherit all of your parents wealth or debts, the money (upon your death) ought to be used for the social good. I suppose an alternative to having the government collect it as tax would be for you to donate it to the charity or charities of your choice.
So, why should the poor be exempt from it?

If you are inheriting 50-100 million, you are not poor.

Furthermore, I would argue that under the cap amount you should still be subject to a 5-10% estate tax.

Anyway the poor are still subject to the cap. If you live in poverty, but your parents are super wealthy, you will still inherit no more than the cap amount.

Yes, so the middle class leaves less behind. That is a regressive tax, as they call it, is it not, given the greater effect?

I wouldn't call it a regressive tax. To be regressive, it would have to tax the poor heaviest by percent. It taxes all incomes fairly with a 10% tax, and the 50-100 million dollar cap applies equally to all people (but obviously affects the wealthy to most.

Since when do people make that distinction with that term, huh?
I was referring to it hurts the poor more, as it has a bigger effect.


Or your children and/or spouse excluded from it (or part of it)?

Wait I don't understand exactly what you mean by this?
You tax the estate, then inheritances are paid.
The estate tax weakens the estate before it is split.

I'm sorry but I still don't seem to understand your point here. Sorry if I am being thick.

You are aware that, generally, the estate goes to next of kin outside of a will.
So, if I die and leave behine a $300,000 house, my wife has to come up with $30,000 to pay for it, since I assume she will still want to live there. Then, when she dies (assuming we have kids), the house will be sold to come up with the $30K again, and the $270K will be split.


Further, the charities would/should also feel the hit of the estate tax, shouldn't they?

No. Charities act in the social interest only, and therefore donating to them is an action worthy of tax exemption.
But, not family through gifts?

I don't see how giving gifts to your family is acting in the social interest.
Well, it protects them, right?
Also, tell me why society is entitled to my assets? Why not, before I die, just take all my stuff out of the country? What then?




I am for the estate tax because I do not believe that you deserve to inherit the wealth or the poverty of your ancestors.
How do you inherit poverty in this context?
You don't inherit the bills.

Actually, IRRC if your parents die in debt, you inherit those debts...

99% sure you are wrong.
The estate needs to cover any outstanding debts, but if it cannot, then the debts go away. You cannot force your child to pay your debts. I am less sure about spouses, but I think even they are exempt from paying debts that are solely their spouses (not co-sign).

http://www.foxbusiness.com...

If the estate doesn't cover it, then the children inherit the debt.

I skimmed, but it appears the CC's tried to put a lien on the house. Given the wording, it sounded like the parents' house. The estate goes to pay the bills. The kids assuming the house assume the debt that was otherwise not paid.
"One credit card company, which repeatedly called Boesen trying to negotiate a payment, ended up putting a lien on the house. "
The house, not her house, to me, implies the house was the parents'.

Am I wrong?

"If there's no money left, credit card companies write off the debt. "If it's a lot of money, nobody will give up," says Ken Rubinstein, a partner at the New York City-based law firm Rubinstein & Rubinstein. "But if the debt is less than $25,000, it's ancient history.""

So if the debt is small after the estate has been drained, then it is erased, but if the debt is large after the estate is drained, there is a bit of a standoff.

Just because they don't give up, doesn't mean they are liable.
Ka-Pow!!
"One bright spot: Heirs usually won't have to pay off your credit card debt if it's solely in your name. The estate takes care of what is paid, and only your named executor handles the estate, including toting up debts, selling off assets and settling outstanding debts. "How they fall comes down to a probate process," says Coghill, noting that it varies by state."
My work here is, finally, done.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 4:01:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well better start working out for when the time comes that I have to eat my fellow man to survive.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 4:07:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 10:28:29 PM, monty1 wrote:
There's one principle difference between now and previous civilizations and that is that all Christians will be raptured up just before the breakdown of civilization. And of course the remaining people on the earth will be of no importance as the hell fires start to burn.

lol