Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical argument for a death tax.

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 2:14:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

They also like to tax life as well!
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 2:49:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

What legitimate claim does the government have on any of your money? The justification for the death tax is the same as the justification for any other tax.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 2:54:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When I die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that I love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

All that I can say is Noblesse oblige.

I'll leave the answering to the great Andrew Carnegie;
"...The amassing of wealth is one of the worse species of idolatry. No idol more debasing than the worship of money." "...the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
"Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth."

For simplicity's sake (and since I'm at work), I merely got the above from Wikipedia. However I am an admirer of Mr. Carnegie and would have otherwise quoted the above from a book or two.

Andrew Carnegie's Gospel on Wealth > http://en.wikipedia.org...
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:00:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 2:54:18 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When I die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that I love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

All that I can say is Noblesse oblige.

I'll leave the answering to the great Andrew Carnegie;
"...The amassing of wealth is one of the worse species of idolatry. No idol more debasing than the worship of money." "...the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
"Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth."

For simplicity's sake (and since I'm at work), I merely got the above from Wikipedia. However I am an admirer of Mr. Carnegie and would have otherwise quoted the above from a book or two.

Andrew Carnegie's Gospel on Wealth > http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's a justification for the rich giving their wealth away--not for the government robbing them.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:02:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Death tax is an utterly disgusting concept and should be abolished.

On a related note the state pension in the UK is similarly twisted. Should you die your spouse gets only a fraction of your money. Which is not right, the state pension is not charity, it is not social welfare, it is pension plan into which you are coerced into joining. It is your money, it is not the states place to dictate how much of it gets passed onto your spouse.

PS: Someones probably going to tell me that private pensions work the same way, but at least with a private pension you signed a contract to that effect.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:05:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:02:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Death tax is an utterly disgusting concept and should be abolished.

On a related note the state pension in the UK is similarly twisted. Should you die your spouse gets only a fraction of your money. Which is not right, the state pension is not charity, it is not social welfare, it is pension plan into which you are coerced into joining. It is your money, it is not the states place to dictate how much of it gets passed onto your spouse.

PS: Someones probably going to tell me that private pensions work the same way, but at least with a private pension you signed a contract to that effect.

Same for life tax!
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:06:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

Playing devil's advocate:

Perhaps a 100% death tax would eliminate the need for any other kind of tax. It's not like you'll be complaining about it when you're dead.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:08:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:00:45 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 2:54:18 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
Andrew Carnegie's Gospel on Wealth > http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's a justification for the rich giving their wealth away--not for the government robbing them.

Only partially correct. Either read the link or when you have time and money look for a book on Mr. Carnegie's philosophy.
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:09:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:06:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

Playing devil's advocate:

Perhaps a 100% death tax would eliminate the need for any other kind of tax. It's not like you'll be complaining about it when you're dead.

A 100% death tax wouldn't raise very much money. Everyone would just not earn as much money, or spend it all before they died. No one's going to keep working to earn money just so they can give it to the government.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:11:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:02:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Death tax is an utterly disgusting concept and should be abolished.

On a related note the state pension in the UK is similarly twisted. Should you die your spouse gets only a fraction of your money. Which is not right, the state pension is not charity, it is not social welfare, it is pension plan into which you are coerced into joining. It is your money, it is not the states place to dictate how much of it gets passed onto your spouse.

PS: Someones probably going to tell me that private pensions work the same way, but at least with a private pension you signed a contract to that effect.

Double post, sry.

I don't think private pensions, at least those I've seen, work like that. And if UK's state pensions work like that; then something is wrong b/c that is pretty messed up. Even in my book.
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:14:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:08:48 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:00:45 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 2:54:18 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
Andrew Carnegie's Gospel on Wealth > http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's a justification for the rich giving their wealth away--not for the government robbing them.

Only partially correct. Either read the link or when you have time and money look for a book on Mr. Carnegie's philosophy.

I'm familiar with The Gospel of Wealth. He does say that the rich ought to have their estate's taxed, I was just saying that he just doesn't give much of a justification for it.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:15:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:05:58 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:02:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Death tax is an utterly disgusting concept and should be abolished.

On a related note the state pension in the UK is similarly twisted. Should you die your spouse gets only a fraction of your money. Which is not right, the state pension is not charity, it is not social welfare, it is pension plan into which you are coerced into joining. It is your money, it is not the states place to dictate how much of it gets passed onto your spouse.

PS: Someones probably going to tell me that private pensions work the same way, but at least with a private pension you signed a contract to that effect.

Same for life tax!

True, but we are dealing with degrees of offensiveness here.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:15:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:11:01 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
And if UK's state pensions work like that; then something is wrong b/c that is pretty messed up. Even in my book.

Unfortunately they do.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:16:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:09:03 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:06:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

Playing devil's advocate:

Perhaps a 100% death tax would eliminate the need for any other kind of tax. It's not like you'll be complaining about it when you're dead.

A 100% death tax wouldn't raise very much money. Everyone would just not earn as much money, or spend it all before they died. No one's going to keep working to earn money just so they can give it to the government.

Bill Gates alone owns more than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. The death of Bill Gates or people of his caliber would definitely be able to satisfy the tax system upon their death. (lol, I just realized that gives a big incentive to kill rich people)
And do most people know when they are going to die?--only upon their death bed. Death bed transactions could be outlawed.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:20:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:16:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:09:03 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:06:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

Playing devil's advocate:

Perhaps a 100% death tax would eliminate the need for any other kind of tax. It's not like you'll be complaining about it when you're dead.

A 100% death tax wouldn't raise very much money. Everyone would just not earn as much money, or spend it all before they died. No one's going to keep working to earn money just so they can give it to the government.

Bill Gates alone owns more than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. The death of Bill Gates or people of his caliber would definitely be able to satisfy the tax system upon their death. (lol, I just realized that gives a big incentive to kill rich people)
Bill Gates won't pay any estate taxes when he dies. Only the moderately rich pay taxes intended for the rich--the super-rich can avoid them.

And do most people know when they are going to die?--only upon their death bed. Death bed transactions could be outlawed.
They don't know when they're going to die, but they know they're going to die some day, so they won't bother having as much savings. They'll either work less or consume more. People would either avoid the tax somehow, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will, or simply never amass that much wealth, since they'll never need all of it.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:20:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:16:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

And do most people know when they are going to die?--only upon their death bed. Death bed transactions could be outlawed.

That would be legally and morally absurd. It would in effect mean that as soon as you are diagnosed with a terminal illness you are no longer a full human being. You could live for months or even years afterwards, you could even recover. It's just obscene and unworkable.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:21:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There's definitely ways to get around estate taxes. In fact, I'm pretty sure they were annulled in the United States since this year.

That said, another reason why they're messed up is because they're money earned, so it's money that has already been taxed before.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:27:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:20:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:16:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:09:03 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:06:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

Playing devil's advocate:

Perhaps a 100% death tax would eliminate the need for any other kind of tax. It's not like you'll be complaining about it when you're dead.

A 100% death tax wouldn't raise very much money. Everyone would just not earn as much money, or spend it all before they died. No one's going to keep working to earn money just so they can give it to the government.

Bill Gates alone owns more than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. The death of Bill Gates or people of his caliber would definitely be able to satisfy the tax system upon their death. (lol, I just realized that gives a big incentive to kill rich people)
Bill Gates won't pay any estate taxes when he dies. Only the moderately rich pay taxes intended for the rich--the super-rich can avoid them.

That's true but it's a red herring. I'm speaking in a hypothetical situation where everyone's wealth would become a public asset when they die.

And do most people know when they are going to die?--only upon their death bed. Death bed transactions could be outlawed.
They don't know when they're going to die, but they know they're going to die some day, so they won't bother having as much savings. They'll either work less or consume more. People would either avoid the tax somehow, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will, or simply never amass that much wealth, since they'll never need all of it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:30:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:20:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:16:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

And do most people know when they are going to die?--only upon their death bed. Death bed transactions could be outlawed.

That would be legally and morally absurd. It would in effect mean that as soon as you are diagnosed with a terminal illness you are no longer a full human being. You could live for months or even years afterwards, you could even recover. It's just obscene and unworkable.

Perhaps then, reversing any transactions made within 24 of them dieing, upon it being proved that they knew they would die or were entering a dangerous situation.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:30:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:27:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:20:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:16:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:09:03 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:06:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
I have yet to hear a cogent logical argument that can justify a government's claim on a dead man's money. Because it's there, or because there may be a lot of it, isn't a reason why the government has any claim to the money that may exist. When i die, should not my will, that is my personal decision as to the disposition of my assets be a private affair, and be somewhat sacred as a final reconciliation with life and those that i love? What legitimate claim, other than the fact that they can, does a government have on these assets?

Playing devil's advocate:

Perhaps a 100% death tax would eliminate the need for any other kind of tax. It's not like you'll be complaining about it when you're dead.

A 100% death tax wouldn't raise very much money. Everyone would just not earn as much money, or spend it all before they died. No one's going to keep working to earn money just so they can give it to the government.

Bill Gates alone owns more than the bottom 40% of the American population combined. The death of Bill Gates or people of his caliber would definitely be able to satisfy the tax system upon their death. (lol, I just realized that gives a big incentive to kill rich people)
Bill Gates won't pay any estate taxes when he dies. Only the moderately rich pay taxes intended for the rich--the super-rich can avoid them.

That's true but it's a red herring. I'm speaking in a hypothetical situation where everyone's wealth would become a public asset when they die.
It doesn't matter. As I said before, there just wouldn't be very much wealth for the government to steal. There's no incentive for people to save very much money--people would only save for things they'd want to buy in their lifetime, like a child's college education.

And do most people know when they are going to die?--only upon their death bed. Death bed transactions could be outlawed.
They don't know when they're going to die, but they know they're going to die some day, so they won't bother having as much savings. They'll either work less or consume more. People would either avoid the tax somehow, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will, or simply never amass that much wealth, since they'll never need all of it.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:33:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 2:54:18 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
Andrew Carnegie's Gospel on Wealth > http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's a justification for the rich giving their wealth away--not for the government robbing them.

Only partially correct. Either read the link or when you have time and money look for a book on Mr. Carnegie's philosophy.

I'm familiar with The Gospel of Wealth. He does say that the rich ought to have their estate's taxed, I was just saying that he just doesn't give much of a justification for it.

Then I misinterpreted your meaning. Again, I don't have access to much from where I'm at so bear with me (and wikipedia).

"Carnegie based his philosophy on the observation that the heirs of large fortunes frequently squandered them in riotous living rather than nurturing and growing them. Even bequeathing one's fortune to charity was no guarantee that it would be used wisely, since there was no guarantee that a charitable organization not under one's direction would use the money in accordance with one's wishes. Carnegie disapproved of charitable giving that merely maintained the poor in their impoverished state, and urged a movement toward the creation of a new mode of giving which would create opportunities for the beneficiaries of the gift to better themselves. As a result, the gift would not be merely consumed, but would be productive of even greater wealth throughout the society."

"In Wealth, Carnegie examines the modes of distributing accumulated wealth and capital to the communities it originates from. He preached that ostentatious living and amassing private treasures was wrong. He praised the high British taxes on the estates of dead millionaires, remarking that "By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction." His "gospel of wealth" earned much praise, but did not win many converts. Carnegie made it clear that the rich were best suited for the recirculation of their money back into society where it could be used to support the greater good, given that they are presumed to have a penchant for management of capital. However, he shunned aristocratic chains of inheritance and argued that dependents should be supported in moderation, with the bulk of excess wealth to be spent on enriching the community. In cases where excess wealth was held until death, he advocated its apprehension by the state on a progressive scale: "Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the State, and by all means such taxes should be grated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, at least The other half Comes to the privy coffer of the State. He claimed that, in bettering society and people here on earth, one would be rewarded at the gates of Paradise."

TL:DR version;
"The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them. As a result, the wealthy entrepreneur must assume the responsibility of distributing his fortune in a way that it will be put to good use, and not wasted on frivolous expenditure."

And while written at the turn of the 19th century, the issues that Mr. Carnegie saw and recorded are just as abundant and now far far worse then they were during his time. At the beginning and throughout the Great Depression, some of the wealthiest people in the United States spent tens of billions of dollars in their own wealth to assist the greater portion of the people alongside the US government. In the latest fiasco the same group (albeit younger generation), held out their hands to be offered free wealth from the government which they received, this time living the masses to suffer.

I'm definitely not one to throw a hat to the government or any government, they are as easily corruptible and incompetent as any other human institution. However it is much easier for a single individual who has no oversight to be corrupted then it is a large organization with oversight. And any truely fair estate tax would only be placed on the top 10%, so the average member of the masses wouldn't hav to worry about their children not being able to fend for themselves after they are gone.

(It also all depends on how said tax is actually set up. The current US tax system is broken three-ways from Sunday no matter how to look at it so trying to fit or simply reform it into productivity is a wasted effort.)
Noblesse Oblige
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:36:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:30:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:20:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:16:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

And do most people know when they are going to die?--only upon their death bed. Death bed transactions could be outlawed.

That would be legally and morally absurd. It would in effect mean that as soon as you are diagnosed with a terminal illness you are no longer a full human being. You could live for months or even years afterwards, you could even recover. It's just obscene and unworkable.

Perhaps then, reversing any transactions made within 24 of them dieing, upon it being proved that they knew they would die or were entering a dangerous situation.

Fvck that. Just abolish all death tax. Stick a tax on coffins if you must.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:43:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:30:46 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It doesn't matter. As I said before, there just wouldn't be very much wealth for the government to steal. There's no incentive for people to save very much money--people would only save for things they'd want to buy in their lifetime, like a child's college education.

I would like to see where the logic behind this is though. I understand the original statement was turned due to someone else suggesting removing all taxes excet for an estate tax, however the general logic behind "there wouldn't be much wealth because there would be no incentive to save very much wealth since it would be taxed after death", simple due to the fact that this has been proven wrong historically over a hundred years ago.

Taxes on the wealthy between 1870 and 1930 were as high as they had ever been for people in that bracket in the United States. Yet not only did individuals amass enormous amounts of wealth (far FAR wealthier then any super-rich person in the modern age could dream of), but they maintained their wealth unto their death bed and passed it onto their heirs after they died.

So the idea that if there was a 100% death tax would mean people would stop amassing wealth, is just a blatant fallacy. (Ignoring Mr. Carnegie's system which doesn't stipulate a complete 100% tax).
Noblesse Oblige
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:47:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:43:56 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:30:46 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It doesn't matter. As I said before, there just wouldn't be very much wealth for the government to steal. There's no incentive for people to save very much money--people would only save for things they'd want to buy in their lifetime, like a child's college education.

I would like to see where the logic behind this is though. I understand the original statement was turned due to someone else suggesting removing all taxes excet for an estate tax, however the general logic behind "there wouldn't be much wealth because there would be no incentive to save very much wealth since it would be taxed after death", simple due to the fact that this has been proven wrong historically over a hundred years ago.

Taxes on the wealthy between 1870 and 1930 were as high as they had ever been for people in that bracket in the United States. Yet not only did individuals amass enormous amounts of wealth (far FAR wealthier then any super-rich person in the modern age could dream of), but they maintained their wealth unto their death bed and passed it onto their heirs after they died.

So the idea that if there was a 100% death tax would mean people would stop amassing wealth, is just a blatant fallacy. (Ignoring Mr. Carnegie's system which doesn't stipulate a complete 100% tax).

Is there seriously not an edit option? *sighs* Anyway, this being a real double post.

I went back and saw that the original above quote wasn't at me but at Freedo.

Anyway, correcting myself, no a strict 100% estate tax would be ridiculus, however the reasons for it not being able to work isn't because everyone would just stop trying to earn any wealth, at least not the very first or close to the first reason anyway.
Noblesse Oblige
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:47:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:30:46 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It doesn't matter. As I said before, there just wouldn't be very much wealth for the government to steal. There's no incentive for people to save very much money--people would only save for things they'd want to buy in their lifetime, like a child's college education.

Pardon my simplicity but....so?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:52:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:47:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:30:46 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It doesn't matter. As I said before, there just wouldn't be very much wealth for the government to steal. There's no incentive for people to save very much money--people would only save for things they'd want to buy in their lifetime, like a child's college education.

Pardon my simplicity but....so?

Because without a solid amount of money generated, the government wouldn't be able to operate its related functions. Though why it keeps being called stealing, I have yet to figure out 9the above wasn't the first time in this thread).

Makes me wonder what people actually think the government does with their money...
Noblesse Oblige
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:56:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:52:50 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Makes me wonder what people actually think the government does with their money...

Mostly blows-up sh1t.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:00:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:56:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 3:52:50 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Makes me wonder what people actually think the government does with their money...

Mostly blows-up sh1t.

*scratches head* I guess so. Makes me appreciate all the charitable work police and firemen do seeing as I guess they don't get paid.

*As the above is going off topic, I created a related topic on it in the same forum.*
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:07:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 3:33:47 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 2:54:18 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 1:53:51 PM, innomen wrote:
Andrew Carnegie's Gospel on Wealth > http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's a justification for the rich giving their wealth away--not for the government robbing them.

Only partially correct. Either read the link or when you have time and money look for a book on Mr. Carnegie's philosophy.

I'm familiar with The Gospel of Wealth. He does say that the rich ought to have their estate's taxed, I was just saying that he just doesn't give much of a justification for it.
TL:DR version;
"The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them. As a result, the wealthy entrepreneur must assume the responsibility of distributing his fortune in a way that it will be put to good use, and not wasted on frivolous expenditure."

And while written at the turn of the 19th century, the issues that Mr. Carnegie saw and recorded are just as abundant and now far far worse then they were during his time. At the beginning and throughout the Great Depression, some of the wealthiest people in the United States spent tens of billions of dollars in their own wealth to assist the greater portion of the people alongside the US government. In the latest fiasco the same group (albeit younger generation), held out their hands to be offered free wealth from the government which they received, this time living the masses to suffer.

I'm definitely not one to throw a hat to the government or any government, they are as easily corruptible and incompetent as any other human institution. However it is much easier for a single individual who has no oversight to be corrupted then it is a large organization with oversight. And any truely fair estate tax would only be placed on the top 10%, so the average member of the masses wouldn't hav to worry about their children not being able to fend for themselves after they are gone.

(It also all depends on how said tax is actually set up. The current US tax system is broken three-ways from Sunday no matter how to look at it so trying to fit or simply reform it into productivity is a wasted effort.)
A problem with this is that it assumes that the government can use the money better than heirs would. The government is not "as easily corruptible and incompetent as any other human institution"--they are far more so than any private organization. One of two things would happen. Either the heirs would have spent all the money--then, with the government taking it instead, the result will be very similar, although with the government spending it, there'd be far more money going to corruption. Or, the heirs would have saved it. If that would have happened, then the government's theft would cause even more damage to the economy. Money saved and invested grows the economy in the long run, and estate taxes, which divert this money from savings to consumption (government spending), hurt this growth.

Another problem is that it assumes the government's right to the money that individuals earned and saved their whole lives. Carnegie argues that the rich shouldn't have all that money, that they ought to give it away--and maybe he's right. But that isn't an argument that the government ought to, or even has the right to, take it away from them to stop them from spending it foolishly--aside from the point that the government is more likely to waste the money anyway.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.