Conquer Club

bedub1 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:By the way, this doesn't "Level the playing field". Instead, it is "After the game is over, we take the prize from the winner and distribute it amongst the losers."

So what, my friend, is the difference between someone being on welfare and someone living off of dead daddy's money? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Doesn't that also invalidate you any time you make any comment about "working hard" or "working towards the American dream?"

Living off welfare is forcing the entire population to pay your bills. Living off daddy's money is living off money that was willingly and purposefully given to you. Can't you tell the difference?

Nope. It's the same thing to me.

As a person who has to work hard, Paris Hilton and her ilk are offensive to me and offensive to true capitalists everywhere.

Dear god help us all. If you can't see a difference between stealing money and giving money....I have no way to help you are argue with you. I really do feel sorry for you....

No, you see, in my mind, people like Paris Hilton are actually stealing money. People on welfare are on welfare because they cannot work. People who receive money from their parents are on parental welfare because they will not work. Those people are actually stealing money.

Frankly, I feel sorry for you and your feudalistic tendencies.

Who is Paris Hilton stealing money from? Her dad? But he is giving it to her voluntarily....

too dumb; regrettably read.

don't make my mistake...

khazalid wrote:too dumb; regrettably read.

don't make my mistake...

You da man!

No, seriously, you're awesome. Your vast intelligence and use of semi-colons overwhelms my feeble brain. We all long to be like you, but, barring that, we all long to be in your company. Hopefully you will continue to grace us with your witty, insightful, and genius remarks in future threads.

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:By the way, this doesn't "Level the playing field". Instead, it is "After the game is over, we take the prize from the winner and distribute it amongst the losers."

So what, my friend, is the difference between someone being on welfare and someone living off of dead daddy's money? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Doesn't that also invalidate you any time you make any comment about "working hard" or "working towards the American dream?"

I'm an American. My dream was for my dad to die when he was rich as shit (he never made it past "shit"). So I missed my American dream.

I like when I can say I wholeheartedly, 100% agree with GreekDog, so I like this thread. Concentrating wealth dynastically works against free markets, not with them, and not even in the way I'd like. While I may love my Kennedys, the fact that they're all sitting pretty because Grandpa Joe made a killing (probably in more than one sense of the word) bootlegging irks me.

Or hell, bedub, let's play hypotheticals. I've inherited $20 million from my dear gran-gran, who won the lottery in 1965. We live in the same town. You run a shoestore. You work hard, get the respect of the townspeople by selling good shoes at honest prices. I am a drunk. (Hypothetically). However, one drunken night I get the idea to use a small part of my inheritance to open a ShoeMart in town, more or less as a plaything (think Roman Abrahamovich and Chelsea, if those words make any sense). Do you think this would end well for you, even if I don't expend one tenth the effort you put into your shoestore? Is this what our country is all about?

With a 100% Estate Tax, wouldn't this give certain elements within the government the HUGE incentive to kill certain Americans through clandestine means? It may be challenging, but with enough investment, a certain agency could pull it off; and the reward would be well worth it. It's been done before, and we still can't prove it, so what's really stopping them? Hah, in addition to this, their offspring's efforts in launching a full-fledged investigation would be severely limited due to the immediate lack of funds. A win-win scenario!

Who's to say the fat cat CEO who was a spoiled brat, received his education (and therefore position) through his parents' stature, wealth, and pure privilege, and is making $300 billion a year is any more deserving than the child who actually gets the estate handed straight to them? Neither earned it, they were both just over privileged and born at the right place and time to the right person.

spurgistan wrote:...

Or hell, bedub, let's play hypotheticals. I've inherited $20 million from my dear gran-gran, who won the lottery in 1965. We live in the same town. You run a shoestore. You work hard, get the respect of the townspeople by selling good shoes at honest prices. I am a drunk. (Hypothetically). However, one drunken night I get the idea to use a small part of my inheritance to open a ShoeMart in town, more or less as a plaything (think Roman Abrahamovich and Chelsea, if those words make any sense). Do you think this would end well for you, even if I don't expend one tenth the effort you put into your shoestore? Is this what our country is all about?

Isn't it? The founder of Wal-Mart, Sam Walton, started with very little money, and now has create this monster that has created many detrimental effects to small businesses and local cultures. As much as some people may protest, this country is all about that; it's not fair, but it's legal and acceptable by the majority (who indirectly pledge their support by buying from the very same stores).

Sure, it doesn't seem right for someone to just suddenly have all this money and start investing it, while some other guy works hard and then gets knocked from the shoe market; however, this situation can still happen regardless of whether or not the money was inherited.

(perhaps, this question is for thegreekdog) If there was 100% estate tax, this situation of the hard-working individual being ruined would still be unavoidable, right? The large businesses would lose their founder/co-founder, but that founder's shares wouldn't really go to the government, would it? If those shares don't, then the company can resume knocking out small businesses, and if so, then depending on the amount of shares that may go to the government, that business can still resume beating down small local businesses and wreaking havoc on local cultures.

Some drunkard inheriting $20 million is just one scenario that can't justify the 100% estate tax in order to correct any perceived injustice that may occur from such inheritances, since these perceived injustices would occur regardless of the fact. Perhaps they may be lessened, but with all the current large businesses already around, not much would change.

thegreekdog wrote:So, I've been thinking about this for a couple of months based on something a friend said about the post-colonial United States. Essentially, my friend was under the impression that part of the purpose of the United States was that it would not be a feudal society (at least in the sense of people passing their castles down to their sons). However, it is pretty common knowledge that before they die, rich people in the United States can pass their estates to their children (or anyone else) virtually tax free (with proper planning).

Therefore, in order to close the gap between rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots, I propose that we set a no loophole 100% estate tax. When someone dies, 100% of their liquid estate (cash and intangible investments) goes to the government. All tangible personal property and real property can still be passed down except for investment property, which goes to the federal government and is sold at auction with the proceeds going to the federal government.

I suspect that this type of system would rid us of people like the Kardashians and the Hiltons, while providing our government with much needed cash.

Thoughts?

I though that you were a Libertarian.....

Burrito wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:So, I've been thinking about this for a couple of months based on something a friend said about the post-colonial United States. Essentially, my friend was under the impression that part of the purpose of the United States was that it would not be a feudal society (at least in the sense of people passing their castles down to their sons). However, it is pretty common knowledge that before they die, rich people in the United States can pass their estates to their children (or anyone else) virtually tax free (with proper planning).

Therefore, in order to close the gap between rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots, I propose that we set a no loophole 100% estate tax. When someone dies, 100% of their liquid estate (cash and intangible investments) goes to the government. All tangible personal property and real property can still be passed down except for investment property, which goes to the federal government and is sold at auction with the proceeds going to the federal government.

I suspect that this type of system would rid us of people like the Kardashians and the Hiltons, while providing our government with much needed cash.

Thoughts?

I though that you were a Libertarian.....

I am a registered Libertarian, yes. Based on my somewhat limited knowledge of the Libertarian Party, I would assume there would be a conflict between the dynastic (thanks spurgistan) theory of passing down one's wealth to one's children and a 100% tax on an estate; however, I believe that in the spirit of free markets and competition, a Libertarian would be supportive of the tax.

Off topic for the thread, but what we need to do to get the debt some relief is legalize online gambling and then tax the shit out of it.

Woodruff wrote:Off topic for the thread, but what we need to do to get the debt some relief is legalize online gambling and then tax the shit out of it.

Or drugs....

Burrito wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Off topic for the thread, but what we need to do to get the debt some relief is legalize online gambling and then tax the shit out of it.

Or drugs....

drugs, and prostitution. good call.

thegreekdog wrote:
No, you see, in my mind, people like Paris Hilton are actually stealing money. People on welfare are on welfare because they cannot work. People who receive money from their parents are on parental welfare because they will not work. Those people are actually stealing money.

Frankly, I feel sorry for you and your feudalistic tendencies.

The wealthy kids I grew up with were raised more or less like everyone else, except that the vacation to the beach was perhaps a penthouse suite on Maui, etc. Ironically, the ones who were often more spoiled were those who's parents were not truly wealthy, just "well off".

On the other hand, I have never seen any real connection between a person's hard work, intelligence or any other positive quality and income. Some recent studies bear this out. We like to think that the US is an achiever's society. In reality, success is far, far more about luck than anything else.

I voted for it being a terrible idea. I'm against forcing people to be economically equal. Whatever you achieve or earn during your life, you should have the right to pass it on to whoever you want.

PLAYER57832 wrote: I have never seen any real connection between a person's hard work, intelligence or any other positive quality and income. Some recent studies bear this out. We like to think that the US is an achiever's society. In reality, success is far, far more about luck than anything else.

... You really believe this?

... I know people who have become wealthy through nothing but hard work. Luck had nothing to do with it.

...

A 100% estate tax would:
1. Destroy small businesses the moment the founder/owner dies. Few would have the cash to purchase their share or be able to obtain a loan to do so. Since only those who've accumulated enough money are likely to be very old, who would purchase the business or their share? If government, then we're not talking about capitalism anymore. If existing corporations, that goes directly against your goal of avoiding the Wal-Mart's and Microsoft's of the world.

2. Lead to an even more consumer and possession-oriented society. Why let it go to the government when you can live large and spend it today? It's detestable that 2/3 of the U.S. economy is driven by consumers and this would only raise that figure.

3. Grow government to such a size that the 100% estate tax economy would suffer from incredible waste and corruption. More control, more ineffective programs made possible by political jockeying for these masses of assets.

4. Put the disabled and disadvantaged children under government control rather than being able to leave them with income to have some sort of independence.

5. Create a disincentive to work later in life or any point beyond which you have just enough to live happily til you die. That takes a major chunk of the workforce away and stifles economic growth.

I think I could keep going but you probably understand my position on this by now. The basic idea of capitalism is private control rather than public (government) control. Without the possibility of fulfilling dream (as has been stated in this thread), there is no incentive to go beyond doing the bare minimum to get by. A 100% estate tax is a slippery slope that once we head down would likely result in further advances towards another form of government....one that has proven quite unsuccessful in the past. I can see the benefits you propose but those would be fleeting after the idea's novelty wears off and people really understand what is happening.

Nobunaga wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: I have never seen any real connection between a person's hard work, intelligence or any other positive quality and income. Some recent studies bear this out. We like to think that the US is an achiever's society. In reality, success is far, far more about luck than anything else.

... You really believe this?

... I know people who have become wealthy through nothing but hard work. Luck had nothing to do with it.

...

I don't think "luck" necessarily means "drunk who wins lottery." There are a lot of circumstances that determine how successful we are that are completely divorced from us, i.e. how old we are, what time period we live in, where, etc. Somebody who was lucky enough to be a computer genius at the perfect time stood to make a lot of money by working really hard. Somebody who was a computer genius 10 years earlier or later... not so much. Generally, in order to succeed we need to work hard. But, if working hard was enough...

And yeah, this was cribbed from Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

You want to destroy America, this would do it. Have you ever heard of a family farm? Passed down through the generations, from father to son etc? If you made a 100% estate tax, then the kid could never afford the farm. So it would be sold. Guess who would buy it? A HUGE CORPORATION. So congrats, you just made everybody a slave to massive corporations, and destroyed every small business in the country. Just admit your ideas are terrible, your brain is mush, and you have no concept of reality.

bedub1 wrote:You want to destroy America, this would do it. Have you ever heard of a family farm? Passed down through the generations, from father to son etc? If you made a 100% estate tax, then the kid could never afford the farm. So it would be sold. Guess who would buy it? A HUGE CORPORATION. So congrats, you just made everybody a slave to massive corporations, and destroyed every small business in the country. Just admit your ideas are terrible, your brain is mush, and you have no concept of reality.

Sultan, is that you?

I admittedly did not think about small businesses.

thegreekdog wrote:

bedub1 wrote:You want to destroy America, this would do it. Have you ever heard of a family farm? Passed down through the generations, from father to son etc? If you made a 100% estate tax, then the kid could never afford the farm. So it would be sold. Guess who would buy it? A HUGE CORPORATION. So congrats, you just made everybody a slave to massive corporations, and destroyed every small business in the country. Just admit your ideas are terrible, your brain is mush, and you have no concept of reality.

Sultan, is that you?

I admittedly did not think about small businesses.

you might want to think about them considering:

With more than one million new businesses each year, America’s economy depends on small businesses for its vitality and growth. According to the 1997 report of the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s 17 million small, non-farm businesses constituted 99.7 per cent of all employers, employed 52 percent of private workforce and accounted for 51 percent of the nation’s sales. Small business-dominated industries provided 11.1 million new jobs between 1994 and 1998, virtually all of the new jobs created during that time period. Small businesses are most likely to generate jobs for young workers, older workers and women, provide 67 percent of first jobs and produce 55 percent of innovations.

Thousands of people with disabilities have been successful as small business owners. The 1990 national census revealed that people with disabilities have a higher rate of self-employment and small business experience (12.2 percent) than people without disabilities (7.8 percent). The Disabled Businessman’s Association estimates that 40 percent of home-based businesses are operated by people with disabilities.

http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/ek00/small.htm
Department of Labor webpage....

Tell me you were just trolling with this thread, greekdog.

HapSmo19 wrote:Tell me you were just trolling with this thread, greekdog.

Seriously, I wouldn't know trolling if it hit me in the face. I suspect trolling is just posting stuff to try to get a reaction; I don't really do that.

I really wanted to see what people thought of a 100% estate tax, especially guys like you who preach competition so much. Like I said, I didn't consider small businesses, so I'll have to rethink things.

bedub1 wrote:You want to destroy America, this would do it. Have you ever heard of a family farm? Passed down through the generations, from father to son etc? If you made a 100% estate tax, then the kid could never afford the farm. So it would be sold. Guess who would buy it? A HUGE CORPORATION. So congrats, you just made everybody a slave to massive corporations, and destroyed every small business in the country. Just admit your ideas are terrible, your brain is mush, and you have no concept of reality.

a) why would big corporations necessarily want to buy a shop, or farm, or w/e? If the corporation wanted to own a shop in midtown, wouldn't it likely already have one?

b) for another thing, every estate tax, ever, has included a minimum that is much higher than you think. what if we just capped inheritances at, say, $1 million?