Thread: The imitaors!

Originally Posted by JMS

You really do work as a government employee, don't you?

That's in incomprehensible statement.

I've been working for the government for about four years. Prior to that, I was in the private sector, and was CEO of my own small company for a number of years. I was put out of business by a Canadian firm that competed with me with subsidies from their government.

Fair is fair, though. What is it that you do?

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

That's in incomprehensible statement.

I've been working for the government for about four years. Prior to that, I was in the private sector, and was CEO of my own small company for a number of years. I was put out of business by a Canadian firm that competed with me with subsidies from their government.

Fair is fair, though. What is it that you do?

j

As you are not enjoying my poking a little fun at you, I will stop! As for what I do for a living, I fix bakery and deli equipment!

Originally Posted by JMS

As you are not enjoying my poking a little fun at you, I will stop! As for what I do for a living, I fix bakery and deli equipment!

I think government workers have been demonized for too long by politicians trying to score cheap points against people who can't really defend themselves. We work hard and get zero credit. In fact, we mainly get insulted for our pains. Thus my sensitivity.

Usually I can take a joke, though.

j

The guidelines for posting are to be "civil *and* respectful." Once you've written a post, read it as if it were addressed AT you. If it's not civil and respectful, don't hit that "Post Quick Reply" or "Post Reply" button.

Just a friendly reminder from your friendly moderator team. Thanks!

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

And Orange, this proposal doesn't, strictly speaking, redistribute wealth, it distributes it. Redistribution involves taking wealth from someone who has wealth and giving to to someone who doesn't. When you die, you don't own your stuff anymore. So, strictly speaking, nobody has that wealth. Furthermore, since it's divided absolutely evenly amongst all citizens, it's not given to just those that don't have wealth, but to those that do as well.

Well sure you do (or at least can) own your things after death. You can legally live on through a will or estate and have your things taken care of according to your wishes. If I work hard through this life, it's not for every American citizen to get a paycheck when I die, it's to assure a place in the world for my kids and grandkids.

Besides, how long would it take before this utopian tax starts to erode away? Instead of 100% going back to the citizens, it'll be 98%, then 95%, and so on. It's the way that Federal income tax started, surely it would happen again to this.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

The essence of communism is Marx's dictum "To each according to their need, from each according to their capabilities." An inheritance tax like the one I propose is not communist because it is not progressive. It is absolutely flat. Furthermore, it doesn't even tax people, just the estates left behind when people die. The payout to each citizen, which you might call the "Citizen's Inheritance" is not indexed to need or to any other quality. Everybody gets exactly the same thing. From that point, merit takes over. Those who make more will be those who worked for it, and thus deserve it. That's the point of capitalism and democracy, together they're supposed to form a meritocracy. But as long as you allow people to transfer the vast bulk of their wealth and power upon their deaths to those who did not earn it, you put a serious obstacle in the way of merit being the determining factor. You'll notice that I said nothing about common property, or the common Marxist position that, after the Revolution, all property will be common property. I find that notion to be nonsense at best. Confiscating the vast bulk of someone's estate after they die and then dividing it absolutely evenly amongst all citizens does not make private property common property. The wealth that is divided is still in private hands, and can be used for private ends.

And Orange, this proposal doesn't, strictly speaking, redistribute wealth, it distributes it. Redistribution involves taking wealth from someone who has wealth and giving to to someone who doesn't. When you die, you don't own your stuff anymore. So, strictly speaking, nobody has that wealth. Furthermore, since it's divided absolutely evenly amongst all citizens, it's not given to just those that don't have wealth, but to those that do as well.

It won't work. You know why? Because people will spend every thing they got, BEFORE they die.
Even the filthy rich will probably trade away everything in exchange for being able to live their lives, paid for by those who got their money.
It'll all be done officially and by contract, and no inheritance will EVER pass to the state.
As a result the government will get 0$ per year and the US crumbles to dust.

That is what will happen.
It's a nice idea, in theory, but it doesn't take into acount the ingeniousness of people wanting to hang on to what is theirs by right, and rightfully so.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It won't work. You know why? Because people will spend every thing they got, BEFORE they die.
Even the filthy rich will probably trade away everything in exchange for being able to live their lives, paid for by those who got their money.
It'll all be done officially and by contract, and no inheritance will EVER pass to the state.
As a result the government will get 0$ per year and the US crumbles to dust.

That is what will happen.
It's a nice idea, in theory, but it doesn't take into acount the ingeniousness of people wanting to hang on to what is theirs by right, and rightfully so.

huge +1. if I knew all the money I'd worked my whole life to accumulate wasn't going to help my kids in the slightest, I would have zero incentive to save any of it. spend my whole retirement on beer and hookers since it wouldn't matter if I saved it.

Originally Posted by jockeys

huge +1. if I knew all the money I'd worked my whole life to accumulate wasn't going to help my kids in the slightest, I would have zero incentive to save any of it. spend my whole retirement on beer and hookers since it wouldn't matter if I saved it.

Damn, when you get ready to die, give me a call

Sorry for having neglected this thread for so long, life intervenes.

Let me address your concerns one at a time.

First is the notion that everyone would spend everything they own before they die, so as not to pay the tax. Economically speaking, this would have much the same effect as a distribution of that wealth by the government. By trading that wealth for goods and services, these individuals would spur economic growth, creating jobs and a higher demand for workers, increasing their pay. As for the problem of government being unfunded, this would only happen if everyone who had to pay the tax upon their deaths did what you propose. Experience with the income tax shows that this is unlikely to happen. You can avoid the income tax by working for cash only, "under the table" as it were. Indeed, some people do make their living this way, but not enough to matter, because avoiding the tax requires a lot of time and effort. Some might take that time and effort, but most would not. One tax I would not be prepared to abandon would be the tax on gifts above a certain amount, to prevent these individuals from simply giving away their wealth moments before they die.

Second is the notion that this would prevent you from passing on valuables to your children as their inheritance. Remember, I did not claim that such a tax would take everything you possessed at the moment of your death, merely everything above and beyond $2million, with exceptions for family farms and businesses. This is so you can pass things down to your children, whether it be family heirlooms or cold hard cash. For the average American family with 2 kids, this amounts to a million dollars apiece. If that's not enough to secure their futures, then no amount would be.

Third is the worry that, as time progresses, government would encroach more and more on the amount of money they reserve for themselves. Rather than be content with 10% of the take, they would seek to increase it. I worry about this as well, but there are a number of possible remedies. One would be a constitutional amendment establishing this as the limit. Another could be setting the bar for increasing the take government can get as high as it is for constitutional amendments, that is, that it would require agreement by both House and Senate, as well as 3/4 of the states, and requiring that there always be a sunset provision in the increase that expires in 5 years or less. I would prefer the second, as emergencies might arise that might require government to have access to more resources, such as another World War or devastating environmental destruction from hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes or fires.

As for the idea that you can in fact continue to own things after your death and even live on through your estate, this is nothing but legal hogwash. Once you die, you cannot change your mind about what your money or business is to be used for. Circumstances may change, and those circumstances may have changed your mind, were you still alive. Consider Sam Walton. As the man who made big box stores possible, he was an economic and retail genius. Indeed much of the growth experience by the US in the 80's can be attributed to the actions of Wal-Mart. But not least of this was because Walton made it a point to buy from American based manufacturers whenever possible. The savings he was able to pass on came largely from being able to make large bulk purchases, and not so much by squeezing the manufacturer for every dime he was worth. Since his retirement and death, Wal-Mart has shifted manufacturing to China, and in effect, impoverishing the middle class by denying them the higher-paying manufacturing jobs and making them abandon saving in order to continue to afford to buy at Wal-Mart. It is doubtful that Walton would have approved of the direction his company has taken since his death. But, guess what, he's dead and can't do crap about it. Once you die, the trajectory of your estate is as set as if it were written on your tombstone. With the living, nothing is set. The dead want for nothing, need nothing, and own nothing.

Finally, the notion that if you can accumulate great sums of wealth you don't owe that accumulation to anybody else is far too narrow and selfishly individualistic. No wealthy man has ever accumulated his wealth without the contribution of others, often others long dead or very remote. Wal-Mart could not have accumulated the fortune for the Walton family that it did without the existence of interstate highways, which we all paid for. Bill Gates could not have developed the Windows operating system without the work of programmers prior to him, without scientists and researchers, or without a basic education provided by the public school system. That they accumulated such wealth is a tribute to their genius, no doubt, and while they live they deserve to fully enjoy the benefits such genius brings them. At the time of their death is the most natural and moral time to tax them, as they can no longer be deprived of anything by the tax. And a tax that prevents the passing on of exorbitant fortunes to those that didn't earn them, that have not show that they possess the genius it took to accumulate and maintain that fortune, nor that they posses the moral character to use such fortune well, is the best way to prevent oligarchic dynasties which are the most pernicious threat to a meritocratic democracy possible. The only other option is to allow these dynastic oligarchies to continue until they so corrupt our government and our economy that we have no choice but to revolt and kill them all.

Warren Buffet describes the abolition of the estate tax as turning control of the country over to people who have done no work for the privilege.

j

"I, Mark Twain, being of sound mind, have spent everything."