And the Rich get Richer!

[my-rifle]

I could care less about cars and such. I'm talking about powerful families which become dynasties. It dangerous. They tend to control the government....get preferential treatment...get drunk....drive cars over bridges killing girls...and walk. And that's just one example.

Furthermore...Those who benefit the most in this country and become Bill Gates or Steve Jobs...Or Walmart do owe a debt to the country. Walmart could never have built that Empire in any other country. Only in America.

Walmart is a direct beneficiary of our Tax system....Food Stamps....Interstate system...electrical grid...etc.
When its time to pay for those things which make this country great...do you really think a family which already earned 25% of this countries wealth....should continue to benefit from our infrastructure...and our food stamp and welfare system.....and not have to pay to maintain this countries infrastructure. If they aren't taxed...who is going to pay for it. YOU ? Me ?

It ain't going to be the person who has nothing who is getting Medicaid and food stamps. So who should pay ?

You are exactly right.

Reading another thread on this board tells me I'm a 2%-er. To Fred_G I'll say a couple things. 1) Anyone who thinks you get rich from hard work is either not rich or lying. You get rich by either being lucky or by being prepared when opportunity knocks. 2) Inheritance taxes are not a tax on people who get rich. They are a tax on their descendants who don't work, and who get handouts from someone who did. Sound familiar? You sure you don't want to back inheritance taxes?

And by the way other than my income I'm an average liberal.

 

[Fred_G]

You are exactly right.

Reading another thread on this board tells me I'm a 2%-er. To Fred_G I'll say a couple things. 1)

Anyone who thinks you get rich from hard work is either not rich or lying.

You get rich by either being lucky or by being prepared when opportunity knocks. 2) Inheritance taxes are not a tax on people who get rich. They are a tax on their descendants who don't work, and who get handouts from someone who did. Sound familiar? You sure you don't want to back inheritance taxes?

And by the way other than my income I'm an average liberal.

Henry Ford was lucky, Bill Gates was lucky, the Apple people were lucky. How do you know the descendants of rich people do not work, and if money is taxed, and legally passed down, how is that a handout, while welfare and income redistribution are called normal?

No, I am totally against any inheritance taxes. And no, I won't get any massive inheritance.

It has been shown time and time again, that wealth redistribution, or socialism, does not work. Capitalism is not perfect, but it is much better.

Anyone who thinks you get rich from hard work is either not rich or lying.

I know rich people. I am not rich, but I work for a rich person. Pays better than working for a homeless guy. I work for a rich person that will gladly get their hands dirty trying to fix a printer, same man years ago replaced the timing chain on the truck I was driving.

Sure, I know folks that don't have to work for their money, because they inherited it. But that is not 'our' money, it is their money. They earned it, paid taxes on it, and should be able to do what they want with it. Give it away, burn it, spend it or pass it on to their children.

What is gubment's record on wealth redistribution? Have we won the war on poverty yet?

 

[my-rifle]

I know rich people. I am not rich, but I work for a rich person. Pays better than working for a homeless guy. I work for a rich person that will gladly get their hands dirty trying to fix a printer, same man years ago replaced the timing chain on the truck I was driving.

Sure, I know folks that don't have to work for their money, because they inherited it. But that is not 'our' money, it is their money. They earned it, paid taxes on it, and should be able to do what they want with it. Give it away, burn it, spend it or pass it on to their children.

What is gubment's record on wealth redistribution? Have we won the war on poverty yet?

If you think that inheriting wealth is the same thing as earning it then you are a bit delusional.

 

[Fred_G]

If you think that inheriting wealth is the same thing as earning it then you are a bit delusional.

If you think the gubment should own someone's inheritance you are a bit delusional.

 

[Fred_G]

17) Households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would bring in about $1.9 trillion. That would keep Washington running for 190 days, but there’s a problem because there are 175 more days left in the year.


The profits of the Fortune 500 richest companies come to $400 billion. That would keep the government running for another 40 days, to mid-July.
America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. If Congress fleeced them of their assets, stocks, bonds, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry, it would get us to at least late fall.


The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite.
http://townhall.com/columnists/john...uotes-from-walter-williams-n1621952/page/full

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income.
http://townhall.com/columnists/john...uotes-from-walter-williams-n1621952/page/full

3) What's just has been debated for centuries, but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well, then, tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?
http://townhall.com/columnists/john...uotes-from-walter-williams-n1621952/page/full

Walter seems to know what is right.

 

[my-rifle]

If you think the gubment should own someone's inheritance you are a bit delusional.

The government doesn't. The people of the United States who paid for the infrstructure that allowed such greatness to flourish does own it.

 

[tupperware9mm]

It is five in the morning and I don't really feel like doing the leg work right now but I don't think their numbers are right. What I did do is go to you tube and click on the references for the video and this is where the numbers came from,...
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealt...
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/...

Category

Nonprofits & Activism
Whenever Mother Jones and Think Progress are involved you are looking at totally made up socialist BS

 

[JWG223]

I...just don't understand...how is it that people who make intelligent decisions and reap the rewards of them...continue to make smart decisions on a bigger and bigger scale and reap larger and larger rewards!? Something must be corrupt!

 

[SeventhSon]

The government doesn't. The people of the United States who paid for the infrstructure that allowed such greatness to flourish does own it.

So what you are saying is, I bust my butt to build a successful company. I give up personal time to build that company into something successful. I invest money in that company to make it successful. I pay taxes, fees, etc. And now that my company IS successful, it REALLY belongs to "the people"? Where in that scenario did "the people" invest in me or my company? You say that I was only able to build that company because of the infrastructure. Didnt my taxes pay for that, just like yours did, and that other guy, and that other girl? Why didnt THEY build a company? Why are THEY entitled to the hard work of others? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal.

 

[my-rifle]

So what you are saying is, I bust my butt to build a successful company. I give up personal time to build that company into something successful. I invest money in that company to make it successful. I pay taxes, fees, etc. And now that my company IS successful, it REALLY belongs to "the people"? Where in that scenario did "the people" invest in me or my company? You say that I was only able to build that company because of the infrastructure. Didnt my taxes pay for that, just like yours did, and that other guy, and that other girl? Why didnt THEY build a company? Why are THEY entitled to the hard work of others? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal.

Can you say "tax credits"?

How about "infrastructure"?

Also I didnh't say they owned it. I said they owned part of it - and only after you die.

 

[SeventhSon]

Can you say "tax credits"?

How about "infrastructure"?

Also I didnh't say they owned it. I said they owned part of it - and only after you die.

You didnt say they own PART of it, you said they owned it.

The government doesn't. The people of the United States who paid for the infrstructure that allowed such greatness to flourish does own it.

Plus, the business owner pays taxes as well for that infrastructure. Should they not be able to use what they helped to pay into, or paying twice is "fair".

 

[tim9lives]

I see many of the points I made in my previous posts are actively being debated. Some say "I keep what I earn...you keep what you earn"

OK....then let me ask all of you who want to pay no taxes. Should we immediately dissolve the United States Military? The US Military is by far one of the largest portions of the US Budget. The largest expenses of the United States historically has been wars.

We are still paying for the debt run up during WW-II.

Wars are insanely expensive....and once a nation goes to war...that debt must be paid back. If a nation does not pay that debt...then the nations currency will collapse. So...we can stop taxing Americans tomorrow. Everyone can keep their money.

The result will be that you might as well wipe your ass with those 100$ bills....because even though you have all of them you earned....they are as valuable as toilet paper.
=====
But...that is just taxes in general. And Inheritance Taxes are a fairly small part of the overall budget. But I do still think it is an important part of the equation. Personally....I do not believe that every estate should get highly taxed when a person dies. The bottom 90% can probably be immune to an inheritance tax.

And by the way...we are not talking about a small business owner. No body wants to prevent a family from inheritting the family farm or the family business.

We are talking about companies like Walmart. Not a single Walmart Heir would suffer financially by forgoing 50% of their inheritance. Their lives would be identical.

But....In order to prevent an Obscene concentration of power by so few people...I do believe that when a person such as Sam Walton dies...Yes, his estate should be heavily taxed. If we as a nation allow wealth to get that concentrated and we do away with inheritance taxes...then within the next 50 years....You will see a very few families which own a hugely insane amount of the wealth AND POWER in this country. What we will end up with is Royalty. We will have a very few number of people...probably less than 1000 in total number....who are controlling all public policy. They decide which laws get passed....which judges get nominated....what gets reported in the media.

Because the fact remains...Money is power. And when 500 people own 95% of the wealth of a nation...then they will obviously force that government to protect their interests.

So...for example...if you have a certain family which owns all of the bannana plantations in a Central American Nation....and they don't like the way that said country is taxing their bannanas....they then get the good old USA to send troops over there and overthrow the military. But guess what...Americans die whenever military action is needed.

So...if you want a very few select people deciding when to go to war....and where to send your children and grandchildren in uniform to die... to protect the assets which Buffy inherited from daddy....Then by all means...do away with the inheritance tax.

This nation has always had a high inheritance tax. And that tax does prevent families from accumulating too much wealth. It also encourages philanthropy. Look at the Carnegie Foundation...the Ford Foundation...etc.

Those guys built massive empires...and donated a vast portion of their wealth setting up non-profit foundations which live off of the interest of the capital donated by the men who built the empire.

By the way...when the inheritance tax was initiated....I think it was set at a million dollars. And back in the 1920s and 30s...a million bucks was a lot of fricking money.

You could buy a brand new Ford for 800.00
You'd build a huge house on Napoleon Avenue for @ 20k

So...a million was a good round number back then. In this day and time...I would say the threshold could be set at a billion bucks. And maybe 20% tax on the first billion..25% on the second....30% third....and so on.

No one would suffer.

 

[SeventhSon]

So...for example...if you have a certain family which owns all of the bannana plantations in a Central American Nation....and they don't like the way that said country is taxing their bannanas....they then get the good old USA to send troops over there and overthrow the military. But guess what...Americans die whenever military action is needed.

People keeping the money they earned and being able to pass it down to their kids will cause military men and women to die fighting over bananas in a central american country...



Bit of a stretch, but ok.

 

[tim9lives]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet on taxes....and how the wealthy are paying less now than 50 years ago.



========
===========

More wise words from Buffett in the video below. He starts to get to what we are discussing at the 3:30 point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdYxVx3PHxk

 

[tim9lives]

People keeping the money they earned and being able to pass it down to their kids will cause military men and women to die fighting over bananas in a central american country...


Bit of a stretch, but ok.

It might be a bit of a stretch...but if you look back at the history of the United Fruit Company....you'll see a prime example of the USA government stepping up to the plate to protect the interests of a select few people.
By the way...it is also the basis of the term...Bannana Republic-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic


The history of the first banana republic begins with the introduction of the banana to the USA in 1870, by Lorenzo Dow Baker, captain of the schooner Telegraph. He initially bought bananas in Jamaica and sold them in Boston at a 1,000 percent profit.[6] The banana proved popular with Americans, as a nutritious tropical fruit that was less expensive than fruit grown locally in the U.S., such as apples. In 1913, for example, twenty-five cents bought a dozen bananas, but only two apples.[7] Its popularity among Americans was also spurred by the American railroad tycoons Henry Meiggs and his nephew, Minor C. Keith, who in 1873 began establishing banana plantations along the railroads they built in Costa Rica to produce food for their railroad workers. This experience led them to recognize the potential profitability of exporting bananas for sale, and they began exporting the fruit to the Southeastern United States.[8]

In the mid-1870s, to manage the new industrial-agriculture business enterprise in the countries of Central America, Keith founded the Tropical Trading and Transport Company: one-half of what would later become the United Fruit Company (Chiquita Brands International, created in 1899 by corporate merger with the Boston Fruit Company and owned by Andrew Preston.) By the 1930s, the international political and economic tensions of the United Fruit Company had enabled it to gain control of 80 to 90 per cent of the U.S. banana trade.[9] Nonetheless, despite the UFC monopoly, in 1924, the Vaccaro Brothers established the Standard Fruit Company (Dole Food Company) to export Honduran bananas to the port of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico coast of the U.S. The fruit exporters were able to keep U.S. prices so low because the banana companies, through their manipulation of the producing countries' national land use laws, were able to cheaply buy large tracts of prime agricultural land for banana plantations in the countries of the Caribbean Basin, the Central American isthmus, and the tropical South American countries—and, having rendered the native peoples landless through a policy of legalistic dispossession, were therefore able to employ them as low-wage workers.[8]

Moreover, by the late 19th century, three American multinational corporations — the United Fruit Company, the Standard Fruit Company, and the Cuyamel Fruit Company — dominated the cultivation, harvesting, and exportation of bananas, and controlled the road, rail, and port infrastructure of Honduras. In the northern coastal areas near the Caribbean Sea, the Honduran government ceded to the banana companies 500 hectares (1,235.52 acres) for each kilometre of railroad laid, even though there was still no passenger or freight railroad to Tegucigalpa, the national capital city. Among the Honduran people, the United Fruit Company was known as El Pulpo, the Octopus, because its influence had come to pervade their society, controlled their country's transport infrastructure, and sometimes violently manipulated the national politics of the Republic of Honduras.[10]
In the middle of the 20th century, during the 1950s, the United Fruit Company convinced the governments of U.S. presidents Harry Truman (1945–53) and Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) that the popular, elected government of President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán of Guatemala was secretly pro–Soviet, for having expropriated unused "fruit company lands" to landless peasants. In the Cold War (1945–91) context, of the pro-active anti-Communism of the Senator McCarthy era of U.S. national politics (1947–57), such a geopolitical consideration, about the "security" of the Western Hemisphere, facilitated President Eisenhower's ordering and authorising Operation PBSUCCESS, the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état (1954), by means of which the Central Intelligence Agency deposed the elected Government (1950–54) of President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, and installed the pro-business government of Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas (1954–57), which lasted for three years, until his assassination by a presidential guard.[2]

A mixed history of elected presidents and puppet-master military juntas were the governments of Guatemala in the course of the thirty-six-year Guatemalan Civil War (1960–96). However, in 1986, at the twenty-six-year mark, the Guatemalan people promulgated a new political constitution, and elected Vinicio Cerezo (1986–91) president; then Jorge Serrano Elías (1991–93).[16]

 

[SeventhSon]

So taxing 50%+ of the inheritance would have stopped that, how? We are talking about two different things here. You are pointing to a company having a monopoly (or at least a large chunk of the market) and thereby having massive sway in the governments. How is taxing what they can pass on to the families going to stop that? Unless you are hinting toward artificially keeping a business "in check" and thereby controlling their power by taxation.

 

[my-rifle]

You didnt say they own PART of it, you said they owned it.

You are right. I did say that. I'm working on a proposal right now, so this thread has only a part of my attention. My apologies.

Plus, the business owner pays taxes as well for that infrastructure. Should they not be able to use what they helped to pay into, or paying twice is "fair".

No one is saying the business owners should pay twice. The inheritors pay the second time on the income they receive for which they did not work.

 

[SeventhSon]

No one is saying the business owners should pay twice. The inheritors pay the second time on the income they receive for which they did not work.

So should welfare and food stamp recipients get taxed 50% of the money they receive? After all, they receive income which they did not work for as well.

 

[JadeRaven]

Gross more socialists.

Yeah the death tax is great. Who would want families to be able to keep their family business, family farm, family home after mom and pop pass away? These things shouldn't remain in a family, they should be taken and redistributed by the man.

 

[tupperware9mm]

A little off the topic but if you are interested in distribution inequities and such you will really like this You Tube that shows basically the history of money. The video explains the hidden meaning of the book the wizard of Oz. What's the Movie About?
It is well known in economics academia that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz written by L. Frank Baum in 1900 is loaded with powerful symbols of monetary reform which were the core of the Populist movement and the 1896 and 1900 president bid of Democrat William Jennings Bryan.

The yellow brick road (gold standard), the emerald city of Oz (greenback money), even Dorothy's silver slippers (changed to ruby slippers for the movie version) were the symbol of Baum's and Bryan's belief that adding silver coinage to gold would provide much needed money to a depression-strapped, 1890s America.

We believe Baum's symbols represent the only solution to relieve the growing economic hardship here in America -- and the rest of the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g