jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (190 posts)

Is it ethical to have an inheritance tax?

  1. andrew savage profile image60
    andrew savageposted 3 years ago

    I feel that if we truly lived in a free market society taxes would be extremely low, inheritance tax would be non-existent and there would not be a minimum wage law. I feel that taxes and minimum wage laws hurt the economy as they prevent the accumulation and distribution of capital.

    I feel that too many people, who may be great at social adaptation but poor in intellectual growth, desire a world that is socialized, or communist, in nature as too many people desire a free lunch- welfare, free education, the removal of the second amendment, restrictions of the first amendment and security of state controlled monopolies.

    Do we Americans live in a free market society (capitalism), a socialist (mixed economy), or under a state controlled economy (communism)?

    How does state control of the economy effect your own personal American Dream?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think the inheritance tax is unethical!    It's hard enough now for a person to actually acquire property that's paid for when they die.    The inheritance tax makes it almost impossible for heirs to afford to obtain the property that's been bequeathed to them.    Something's wrong with that law.

      Taxes in general, though, are necessary I believe.   We do gotta actually support society as a whole, which includes ourselves.   But I do know that there's too much fraud and unnecessary spending and wrong application of those taxes by our government.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

      2. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I view the inheritence tax as a disservice to Americans who desire to build and distribute capital and jobs that provide real wages. It is hard enough to maintain a business and equity after the heir's predecessor has passed over, and taxing them on money and equity that was previously taxed is double jeopardy. Inheritence tax is a prime example of how organized crime, or the rule of the mob, is retarding the economic growth of our national, and perhaps international, economies.
        I can't believe the inheritence tax survived after the Bush administration- oh how little our officials serve.

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think inheritance tax is fine, the person is receiving that money did not labor for it. Gifts are taxed and inheritances should be too.

      We live in a mixed system as does all of the first world, we do because we had a pure capitalist system and we (the people of the first world) as a collective decided that was awful and changed it. All round the world, in every first world country. That is what I call consumer demand, you capitalists should understand it tongue

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        When my father died, his house sold for about four times what he had paid for it, well above inflation.
        My sister and I happily paid inheritance tax and ended up with a large lump of unearned money to boot.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And because it was not earned by sweat and hard work (of the new owner, anyway - the first owner DID sweat for it and pay taxes on it already) the rest of the world is entitled to a portion of it.

        A very, very different way of thinking from my own.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do you know the first owner sweated for it?
          My father did absolutely nothing to earn the money that we received from the sale of his house.

          1. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Really? He did nothing? Then how did he make the original purchase?

            Are you saying that the increase in estate value is bad when it generates incomes and distribution of wealth?

            If we are to have taxes at all, maybe they should be based on IQ scores rather than income.

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think we knew we would think about it differently tongue

          But since we are doing our little touch of propaganda I'll do mine.

          Because the person about to receive the funds did not work for them, did not earn them, I think a portion can be taxed to help others who do not have the fortune of being left something or having people to leave them something.

          We should do that so as to not continue a cycle of inherited wealth leading to an inevitable wealthy aristocracy based on bloodline rather than labor and the massive problems associated with precisely that which history has demonstrated so many times.

          That money should be used to create opportunity for others so that we may be a land of opportunity rather than the lowest opportunity nation in the first world. Where the born poor die poor and the born rich die rich more than any other state in the first world.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            LOL Yes, we both knew the thinking would be different, didn't we?

            The owner of the money is dead, and to you that means you think you have a claim on it to do with as you wish.  In this case, give it to a third party rather than the person who the dead willed it to.

            But you don't need fancy reasons to do that.  You don't need the rationalizations that it will create opportunities for someone else, that accumulation of wealth from a blood relative is not right or that the intended recipient didn't work for the money and therefore doesn't deserve it.

            You simply need the might to enforce your opinion.  Coupled with the greed of the person you will give it to, you have that might and might always makes right.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As we all know might does not equal right, and society certainly does not do anything it can so no justification is required, you can disagree with the justification if you will but it's not a sinister conspiracy of might vs right.

              As I usually cover with this very tired argument. Liberals (in the US anyway) are the greatest supporters of the inheritance tax, statistically liberals are the wealthiest political demographic in this country 7% wealthier than conservatives. So actually rather than it being people imposing might to take from others it's voting to take from themselves to give to others when they pass away.

              So I'll say you were factually wrong in that sense and it really wasn't greed.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't see the money going to rich liberals, although I suppose that it could.

                I think the biggest problem is that I simply disagree that specific individuals need to pay more than others (on a percentage basis of income) do.  Add in that this money has already been taxed (at least) twice and it simply does not make sense to tax it a third time because the owner died.

                No, it is viewed as "free" money by the tax and spend group.  Another way to get taxes from a small group of people that do not have the power to fight back.  Much like other "specialty" taxes (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) that are levied on small groups of people that end up paying extra (meaning more than other people) into the general fund simply because they can be forced to do so.  They haven't the power to fight back, and the majority (always wanting more money and to lower their own tax bill at the same time) very much takes advantage of it.

                Basically, I am unable to cobble together any rational reason that an inheritance should be taxed at all.  It is, at the root, no different than a savings account, and IRA or any sum of cash sitting there.  It was worked for and Uncle Sam's required portion already given over.  That the owner has died and wished it to go to a child, relative or other loved one should not have anything to do with the tax code.  It just doesn't turn it into free money to be grabbed for by the legislature.  (Of course, I feel the same way about a gift tax.)

                1. andrew savage profile image60
                  andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you!

          2. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A thousand years ago the Norman French invaded my country and divided up the land amongst the aristocracy. Now let's suppose that there was no inheritance tax or redistribution of wealth once the owner has died, the UK would be a country ruled by a handful of super wealthy individuals who had been holding the wealth for a thousand years (that's if peasant revolution hadn't happened in the meantime of course).

            Wealth accumulates wealth. A kid born into riches has opportunity to make vast wealth. A kid born into poverty has nothing to invest in the first place, and what gains they could make over an incredibly long time could never rival the rich kids. Without some form of wealth redistribution, all wealth migrates upwards with increase socio-economic stratification. That is not good for any country; history tells us this leads to social unrest, and in many instances revolution. Ever wondered how communism got started?

          3. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Those Normans were pretty dumb people if your country now belongs to you. I would have put your ancestors to work on farms, mills, and shops. Not only that, I would have only put the land up for very low rent and I never would have sold a thing, other than my managerial services.
            The UK ought to belong to France to this day- after all, fifty percent of the English vocabulary belongs to the French. Try learning English with half a dictionary.

            You owe France. We all owe France. For starters, they taught us how to dismember kings and queens.

            "A kid born into poverty has nothing to invest in the first place, and what gains they could make over an incredibly long time could never rival the rich kids" I used to think that way when I was a poor kid, but somewhere along the line I figured out that I had myself to invest into whatever work I undertook. Soon thereafter the revelation, I began getting noticed for good work and conduct around school and the workplace. I graduated with honors, and I make 40k (USD) a year which is not bad for a single man with zero dependents. As happy as I am with such a salary, I am not allowing myself to be idle in such a state of mild prosperity. I am pursuing larger dreams and I plan on sharing the wealth through distribution of wages and I will avoid taxes as much as possible through the law itself.

            Communism got started with taxing the rich to death.
            Taxing dead people is only going to lead to a more totalitarian society and is going to continue to destroy the market in the US. A lot of people would like to use their inheritance to start a business, but if you take so much from them, they end up figuring it best to by a home, and settle down with a less inspiring job.

      3. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No dear, consumer demand can only be met by voluntary exchange. Government actions cannot come into this because they are inherently in-voluntary. If society voluntarily decided that they wanted to give some of their inheritance to an institution that would use it to wage war, spy on people and then maybe when they've done with that, feed some children, there would be absolutely no need for it to be enforced.

        How do you tell when an action is involuntary? Look for the gun.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yup consumer demand is created by consumer pressure, i.e. what most consumers want, citizens of a nation are the consumers of their governmental system and by democratic means indicate what they want changed and what the want to stay the same.

          The difference of course is that in a democratic system everyone gets one vote in a purely monetary one people have more sway based on their available capital.

          The people all around the first world, democratically, without a single exception with all sort of variation made it very clear what they didn't want, libertarian policies, indeed what they wanted was a rapid move away from unrestricted capitalism. Never in human history has there been such a global consensus of political movement.

          The unfortunate byproduct however is a generation lucky enough to be born in the first world and to be sheltered and protected from the cradle, a generation which has never lived under such a system, has no idea what it is like, some of them are then tempted by the same failed idea.

          1. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Voting is at best the most outrageously inefficient way of indicating demand there is. Only about 20% of the population of the US voted for Obama in the last election, and you can hardly say they all agreed with every single policy his administration has up to now. Being kind, most of them voted on the basis that they thought Romney would be worse. Yet, according to your theory, Obama enforces the cast-iron will of the populace, and is the accurate representation of what America is and stands for. By every conceivable measure, this is glaringly inaccurate. I just want to point this out, because it seems mind-bogglingly obvious to me that what you do with your dollar every single day is a much better indication of your will than putting an X next to some guy's name who roughly agrees with you, every 4 years or so. How is it even possible that the will of a people, with all of their wonderful and unique lifestyles and views, can be split between 2 or at most 3 groups of people, who are not all that different anyway? It's absurd!

            The emperor is not wearing any clothes!

            Applying this to the topic: if the whole world largely agrees that giving away a portion of your inheritance is a good thing, why don't they just do it? Cut out the middle-man. The fact that government aggression is necessary proves that it, or the way it is done, is not desirable to the populace. Otherwise, why the need to enforce it?

            If you and your friends want to go out to a party, you just go, you don't need to threaten them, take a portion of their money for a 'party fund' and say that they need to vote for a party-arranger every four years to decide where they go.

            We need to question these things. I've told you this before, but you seem to be basing your argument on "what is, must be". Government declares that it is the will of the people, so therefore, it is!

            What you're saying is that I don't really oppose the drug war and the drone programs - I have a vote so that means I chose for them to happen! Come on.  It doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As I have told you before I somewhat agree, our voting system is pretty light on numbers, in Australia voting is compulsory, turnout is 98.5% or some such. Do you prefer that?

              As I said dollars are not indicative of as population they are indicative of people with the most dollars. Which means in the US 3% of the population has more sway in such a system than 50% which is a whole lot less representative.

              There is no cause for two or three groups that are quite similar you know, you can create a political party, anyone can, hell I voted third party which was actually like 8th party. Voting socialist party int he US is not a winning move tongue  The reason two or three dominate is because they represent the cross section of belief that most people in the electorate hold.

              Ah there is the rub though, people don't agree that just them giving away a portion of their inheritance is a good thing, they agree (in general) that everyone giving away a portion of their inheritance is a good thing.

              No what I am saying is that people have very clearly demonstrated in mass what they want, that can of course change so what is does not have to be at all. Feel free to attempt to change their minds on the issue. Until you mange to change their mind people will continue to vote to administrate the system as they see fit, which is what they have done.

              I am arguing that people have a way of seeing and deciding what is good and what is not, particularly for themselves. If people live under a communist system and most hate it and want to change it then it's not a good system. Similarly when the whole world decided it really did not like unrestricted capitalism at all and changed it it's because that was a bad system and like any bad product it is discontinued. Systems of governance are just products and votes are the currency in which they (in democratic systems) compete. But as noted one person one vote, not dependent on who has the most money.

              1. innersmiff profile image80
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I would rather nobody vote at all, but I do expect that if something claims to be the will of the people, it shows at least the majority of the population in agreement as evidence. I'm sure that even in Australia, nobody in the whole country agrees with every single one of Rudd's policies, therefore making the majority in disagreement with one thing or another. What compounds the problem is when politicians don't do what they were elected to do, examples include Gillard, Obama and Cameron/Clegg. 3 heads of super-powerful states elected on less than half of the popular vote, who don't even do what they were elected to do. Power to the people!

                Oh yeah, and let's create a government so these super-rich people can buy it and make policy further benefit them.  At least in the market, corporations have to find ways to provide goods and services in order to survive. With the guaranteed bail-outs, subsidies, tax-breaks and regulatory favouritism that comes with government, there's less need for all that 'persuasion' business. They just need to make sure they fund two or three parties that won't question it, and pay the media to persuade everyone that voting for anyone else would be a wasted vote. Power to the people!

                But let's say for the sake of argument that government is the will of the people, or at least the majority. Its still wrong to steal from people. It may be your opinion that everyone should give a portion of their inheritance away, but if you encountered someone who didn't want to, would putting a gun to their head be justified? If not, why is it OK for the government to do it on your behalf?

                I have the right to change your mind about putting a gun to this person's head. It's still wrong. You should not be doing it. I'm not too interested in your fantastical notions of 'consent'. Just because you've declared your sovereign right doesn't make it so, and this person doesn't need to give away anything.

                If people have a way of seeing what is good for themselves, why in the world do we need to decide for them?

                Since all capitalism is is property rights and voluntary exchange, if the populace decided that they didn't like it, they would simply stop. Let me try and drum this into you one more time: if everyone agrees, violence is not necessary. You only need to exercise a monopoly of force when a large section of the populace would not consent, making government inherently involuntary.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes but everyone agreeing is unfeasible and running a country on the basis of the tastes of every individual is impossible. So we do it by majority.

                2. andrew savage profile image60
                  andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps we should send non-voters to concentration camps after they reach the age of forty. If you are still not voting after age forty you are a waste of space and have no stake in the undertakings of free men and women.

                  The absence of voting is a vote for tyranny. Vote or pipe down.

            2. andrew savage profile image60
              andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It should be compulsory to vote.

      4. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The point is that someone did labour for the wealth, and who are we to collectively rob the dead of their right to give the fruits of their labours to whomever they **** please. If we were to be a collective democracy as you have demonstrated in your thoughts then the first rule of such a club would be that the mob rules. Thank god we are not a democratic republic, and their is still time for the federation to repair itself from such unethical laws in which the dead are treated like a the tar that paves the streets. If we were a society of free men we would respect the unadulterated wishes of the dead without the collectives of leeches spawning over the passing on of the legacies and bloodlines that made this nation great, prosperous, free and safe. Simply because we are a democracy does not mean we should be granted, nor should we use, the right to give rise to a Total-Institution in which the state robs the dead and their families. We who live with a love in our heart for a peaceful and free homeland cannot allow the government to blind and tax us for a government apparatus that uses more resources than necessary to solve our private and common desres and problems- which is why we cannot feed into the myth in the infallability of public government. We must first learn to govern ourselves privately free of the burdens of a confused and inefficient public (government). The more they raise the taxes, the more inefficient they will become as they become used to running at the same level of inefficiency. They will continue to waste more cash on needless programs, and they will only pressingly ask for more of our money. If you died, having paid your dues, why would you believe in a system that did not pay its own dues? The system, since its inception has been blessed with the flow of cash charities and taxpayers, and especially blessed with the blood, itself, of patriots. The system will forever remain in debt to such people. So why must the people suffer its unethical and thoughtless taxes?
        Please note that I am not anti-tax, I am against theft under the guise of the right. If it were right it would not be a rule of the mob.
        Inheritence taxes are robbing the middle class of the chance to continue to develop all american, local, companies in all industries.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Could you please paragraph that a bit? It's a bit hard to read in it's current format.

          I do not want a simple or direct democracy as you claim, I firmly believe in constitutional limitation. On the other hand we simply disagree on where those limitations should be.

          Me, I just prefer systems that work best and I DO believe in the right of a populace to dictate how it is to be governed to a greater extent than you do.

          Many tyrants have said they were taking away democratic rights for the good of individual freedom, they were all liars.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image62
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            To wage war on poverty you first have to wage war

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That might have worked if I had said war on poverty tongue

              Here look I'll say it now so your "witty" one liner works.

              War on poverty.

              Well now it's the wrong way round but still. I do what I can big_smile

              1. gmwilliams profile image86
                gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                YES, COMRADE JOSAK!  YOUR AVATAR SAYS IT ALL!

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah unfortunately the bottom of my avatar got cut off hmm kinda messes up the joke.

                  Still not a communist though tongue I'll let you know if that changes.

              2. Silverspeeder profile image62
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It wasn't meant to be a witty one liner however if you see it that way so be it.

                If you think you can defeat poverty by the pen then go ahead but defeating the ruling classes and all they have to lose will be difficult with a few strokes of your Biro.

                Attitudes will not change just because you think they should, the only way to change things is to rid the world of those who seek to exploit others, would you be prepared to rise up and fight? Or more importantly would the poor?

                Taxation isn't the answer when only a small amount is used for the purpose of assisting those who have nothing. There will always be a refuge for the rich somewhere, some country that doesn't like your thinking or some dictator who thinks your wealth will aid their power.

                So to aid a war on poverty you must first start a war.

                1. andrew savage profile image60
                  andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Attitudes will not change just because you think they should, the only way to change things is to rid the world of those who seek to exploit others, would you be prepared to rise up and fight? Or more importantly would the poor?"

                  Ja, mein Führer. Wie kann ich Ihnen dienen? Heil dem Führer!

                  "If you think you can defeat poverty by the pen then go ahead but defeating the ruling classes and all they have to lose will be difficult with a few strokes of your Biro."
                  What made this nation a free nation started by what the pen bled onto the pages that became our law- the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Patriot Act... maybe not the Patriot Act, but you know what I mean.
                  "Taxation isn't the answer when only a small amount is used for the purpose of assisting those who have nothing."
                  Taxes ought to used as public sector industry start up money. Any politician who says otherwise is wearing his ass as a hat. Period.

                  "to aid a war on poverty you must first start a war." To end poverty you need a productive public sector that produces goods to be bought and sold on the free market. Such is the way of a mixed economy. Called it whatever you want- I guarantee that it will work to lower taxes and unemployment.

          2. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think that the free market is the ultimate way to decide upon how one is governed. But I believe that one of the most effective ways to drive out corruption is to create a public sector that produces goods and services that will cause taxes to lower and unemployment to reach zero.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Unemployment would never be allowed to reach zero because that is not good for the economy. Zero unemployment implies that workers would be free to walk of of their jobs to another employer. What government or corporation would ever tolerate that? As long as there are unemployed, then the threat of unemployment is real which keeps workers obedient and hard working, and enables said corporations to depress salaries.

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
                Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The government couldn't prevent 0% unemployment, even if it were possible on more than just a theoretical level. Incidentally, unemployment is what prevents companies form depressing wages and salaries, since workers have the option of finding new jobs if they don't like their compensation; full employment would remove this option, essentially trapping people in their current job.

                The reason 100% employment would be a bad thing is because it would completely freeze the workforce. There would be no new businesses, existing businesses wouldn't be able to expand, and anyone leaving the workforce (illness, injury, retirement, or death) would seriously disrupt the ability of their company to function.

                As a practical matter, full employment is impossible due to new workers entering the workforce everyday.

    3. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are succinctly correct. There are many people who decry wealth, ambition, and success.  These are the same people who glorify the poor, feeling that these people are such through no fault of their own.  Yes, there are those in this society who want handouts because they refuse to take responsibility for their individual lives.  They live in a world of self-gratification without thoughts of their future. These are the same people who unthinking act upon their baser desires.  Need I say more!

      I definitely beieve that it is EGREGIOUSLY UNETHICIAL to have an inheritance tax.  Why should people pay taxes on what their parents and/or grandparents worked and saved for.  There is an entitlement mentality among many poor people in this society.  THEY want to live the good life but they are UNWILLING to sacrifice and work for it.  THEY would rather indulge in their self-gratifications and present moments than to assess and plan for their futures.  I agree with your premise that welfare needs to be scrapped, except for the mentally, emotionally, physically, and psychologically handicapped and the elderly.  All who are ABLE-BODIED should be mandated to work.  If they DON'T work, well.......too ------------ bad!  Tough love is needed to reform welfare.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Whoa!  Tough talk and without a care for being PC - wish I'd said it. smile

        For you've got it right, right down the line.  (except, of course, for the "UNETHIIAL" part... smile )

      2. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1
        You can have my vote.

  2. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    Sure it's ethical to have an inheritance tax.

    Here's another question:

    Is it ethical for capitalist pigs to be allowed to accumulate gross amount of wealth while millions starve?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image62
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When has taxing the capitalist pigs ever stopped millions starving?

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who knows. it's never been done,has it?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image62
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Its been tried many times but the leaders of the starving millions are to busy buying themselves expensive presents out of it.

          1. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What do you do with such corrupted power?

        2. andrew savage profile image60
          andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps we ought to go back to paying the churches- times were better than, no?

      3. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. Taxes do not feed people, but wages do.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          However taxes do feed the unwaged.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image62
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think he was talking about the real starving John.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You'll have to run that past me again!

              What people without food are not starving?

              1. Silverspeeder profile image62
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Around thirteen to eighteen million men, women and children per year from starvation.(not including malnutrition). Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of starvation. In Asia, Africa and Latin countries it is said that 500 million people live in absolute poverty. One third of the world is well fed, one third of the world is underfed and, one third of the world are starving.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, his statement was "Taxes do not feed people, but wages do."

                  The fact that there aren't millions starving to death in the western world is because they are fed by taxes, not wages.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image62
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    janesix wrote:

                    Sure it's ethical to have an inheritance tax.

                    Here's another question:

                    Is it ethical for capitalist pigs to be allowed to accumulate gross amount of wealth while millions starve?


                    This is the post I first replied to John and I stick by my statement.

                    "When has taxing the capitalist pigs ever stopped millions starving?"

                  2. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So you don't think that's because the western world has had, historically, the most liberalised economy, no?

                2. Disappearinghead profile image88
                  Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Which clearly tells you that unrestrained capitalism without some redistribution of wealth doesn't actually work for the benefit of humanity.

                  1. andrew savage profile image60
                    andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That depends on what your definition of humanity is. Some people are content with living as borderline beasts that make lower wages overseas.

          2. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps society would be better if the unwaged found jobs or starved to death. I have run across a lot of unwaged citizens in America who I felt sorry for until I realized how much more of an animal than a person they were/are. Some people are just naturally bred to be losers and there is no saving such beasts. It is sad, but if you interact with people on a daily basis you will eventually find a beast in human clothing here and there. Perhaps it is genetic or perhaps such people are broken.
            The complaints about the economy are typically coming from non college graduates or non science majors. The world we live in is becoming more technocratic every day and eventually the only way to prevail in the economy will be to have a fundamental understanding of the technology surrounding and effecting us. This is why it is so important for people to go to college for science degrees. Well paying labor careers have, for the most part, left this nation to stimulate the rising middle class throughout the rest of the world. This is unlikely to reverse and from the perspective of the American labor proletariat it will always be like this until they decide to go back to college for a degree that is pertinent to our current economic needs.

          3. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If unchecked, taxes also prevent middle class business owners from providing decent wages.

          4. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The unwaged are unwaged because they failed too many tests and continue to fail to start up an enterprise.

      4. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Continuously, we have millions of people fed of taxes in this country. You certainly had many people starving in England during the industrial revolution etc. I notice you don't now.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image62
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But the capitalist pigs don't pay the most taxes, the workers do.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well first off that is not true, but even if it were that would be fine, everyone has a duty to contribute what they can to the country and society that in turn helps them. That is most certainly not restricted to the rich.

            1. andrew savage profile image60
              andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ah the evils of altruism.

          2. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What workers?

          3. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Capitalist pigs? If I were to own capital would that make me a bourgeois capitalist pig? Or would I simply be a freeman with invested interests?

        2. andrew savage profile image60
          andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We needed the industrial revolution to get to where we are now, and whether or not people were really starving during the acculamtion of capital which brought about the I.R. is debateable. You cannot believe everything that your parents tell you about how hard their lives were; it's often hyperinflated dialogue to keep you on the straight and narrow with a job and home... not that having such an inventory is a bad thing.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The industrial revolution was a good thing, the conditions during it were not. It's not a matter of stories from people there but raw statistical fact. Children dying in factories at age 9, work houses just to have somewhere to put the masses of indigent, 18 hour work days seven days a week, reduced life expectancies etc. etc. it's all a matter of public record.

            1. andrew savage profile image60
              andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              An event with much good to learn from.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have worked 7-18's before; it is not something that can be sustained by the human body for more than a few days.  Don't believe everything you read.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I have done similar 6 days a week when I was a teen. It kills you slowly but it can be done. Hence the reduced life expectancy. This is not something I just saw somewhere it's part of the sworn testimony of thousands of workers and church leaders which lead to introduction of the first maximum work hour day in the UK  which I believe was 15 hours. 14 for children under 12.

                Trust me it can be done when it is that or starve.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Trust me, 7-18's canNOT be maintained.  There wasn't a single person in our 50+ man crew that managed to make even 6 weeks of it without time off.  Lunch time (1/2 hour) always saw multiple people not coming back after a week or so - good intentions, but asleep in their car.  I know - it happened to me.

                  6 hours per day to eat, sleep, commute and take care of daily necessities cannot be done for more than a couple of weeks or so.  If starvation is the result, then people will starve.  No one can maintain a work schedule of 126 hours per week plus living necessities at home.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Look I have done it but I can't prove I have, there is plenty of sworn testimony from hundreds of people and community/church leaders but I guess it's possible they are all lying, they do have some cause to since they are pushing for a 14 hour limit.

                    The human body is capable of a whole lot of things one can't imagine it is when it needs to be.

                    I can't imagine there is any value to arguing it further if no one can prove their point.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image86
                    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, you are talking logic to a person who is-----------.  Best to ignore!  Man is living in Utopia and NOT in real society! Leave it at that.

    2. andrew savage profile image60
      andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps those starving millions should have worn condoms. Perhaps they should have had to earn a license to breed.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is disgusting. You have no soul.

        1. andrew savage profile image60
          andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Regardless as to whether or not I have a soul- those millions of others who you referred to brought on themselves.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Prey tell, if the starving millions can't afford food, how would they afford condoms?

            1. andrew savage profile image60
              andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There are plenty of groups out there who give away condoms for free to the developing and undeveloped world. the problem is that the belief systems- the religions and other superstitions condemn the use of condoms because religions such as Islam and Hinduism in such regions believe that such practices of safe sex create female promiscuity. Also, what are poor people doing having sex in the first place? Sex should be regarded as a luxury reserved only for those with wealth. If we need to add to the (overpopulated) labor force any time soon we could always make the perfect genetic specimen for intensive labor provided by the miracles of science.

          2. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, they did not.

            1. andrew savage profile image60
              andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am 100 percent sure that they did. If their lives ever meant anything to anyone, especially themselves, they would fight for a change.
              And please don't add countries like Egypt, Iran, or Greece to the mix- they are already developed nations and they are demonstrating themselves the way freemen ought to demonstrate themselves in the face, and behind the back, of tyrants.

          3. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No really they did not in the slightest, particularly and most simply (you should be able to grasp this) the children.

            1. andrew savage profile image60
              andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If a child is not able to spot something as out of place as starvation then there is absolutely no hope that the child will become an able bodied revolutionary force in future democratic actions involving altruism. Evil exists in the world not simply because good people stand by while evil people run amok, but also because sometimes good people fail to pull the plug on neutral and evil people.

  3. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Inheritance tax, like all taxes, is legalised theft and nothing more. Just as you wouldn't personally point a gun at someone demanding that they share their inheritance with the poor, you should not vote for a politician to do it instead.

    1. andrew savage profile image60
      andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well put- most politicians are nothing more than thugs behind bullet proof glass here to scare and shake the masses down. I bet that if the government disappeared, politically, for four years America would still be running herself- perhaps even more efficiently.

  4. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    The inheritance tax works out well for the fascist "corporate race" that controls the government.   Being immortal, the "corporate race" never needs to take part in this taxation!

    1. andrew savage profile image60
      andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What exactly do you mean by race?

  5. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8219325_f248.jpg

    If it's too small to read:
    It seems as though government spending on welfare programs has done very little to lift people out of poverty.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah my guess is you are using the woeful American welfare system, probably the most right wing first world nation,  how about you have a look at the first world nations with the biggest welfare states and a list of nations with fewest people under the poverty line and you will see remarkable "coincidence".

      Also try economic mobility and generational mobility.

      1. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The disparity between the efficiency of each nation's social programming probably has something to with the mentality of certain employees. Unfortunately there are too many lazy or dumb people.
        Unfortunately euthanasia of such individuals is not yet legal.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ah eugenics. Perhaps you should look up what happened the last time a group decided that euthenising such people for the same reasons was a good idea. The dumb, the lazy, the criminal, the disabled, people with learning disabilities...

          Hint it happened in Germany circa 1940s.

          1. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One word for you, "SPARTA." Think about it.
            Nazis also had sex and marriage- I do not see anyone condemning those acts. Just because the NAZIs did it, does not mean it was bad.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah Sparta was probably the first fascist state. I honestly doubt you would like to live in such a system.
              Massed forced military service, no freedom of speech no personal property. How would you feel about the compulsory homosexuality btw? Popular culture often ignores that titbit tongue

              1. andrew savage profile image60
                andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                To state that Sparta was fascist would imply that there was a marriage between the Spartan state and corporations- there were no such corporations married to the state, thus your choice of the word fascism is skewed and one can only presume that you were using the word fascism in a derogatory fashion.
                Fascism has only worked or been implemented, to my recollection, once in recorded history- Italy under the rule of Mussolini. 

                Was city-state, Sparta, a Total Institution? The answer maybe a "perhaps." Then again, it may have been warranted to be so, as it existed during hard times when Sparta was constantly threatened by the imperial conquest of powers such as the Ancient Persians.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Have you forgotten Hitler? The worst fascist of them all!

                  1. andrew savage profile image60
                    andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My friend, hitler was not a fascist- although he did ally himself with fascists. The last time I checked the abbreviation, Na.Zi., stood for what translates into Nation Socialist. Hitler lived and died as a NAZI. A major difference between the two ideologies is that all, or most, enterprises or industries become owned by the  state under a national socialist regime, whereas all, or most, government work is outsourced to private contractors under fascism.

  6. Mitch Alan profile image83
    Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago

    If we had a federal government that was run in accordance with it's Constitutional limits, including, but not limited to, the 10th amendment, then we would not need to have punitive taxes including the"death" tax.  I also agree, and have written on, the need to abolish the minimum wage. Well posed question, Andrew.
    The best scenario, and one I think was envisioned by the founders, would be the Constitutional Republic they set up and one that embraces Capitalism, not to be confused, as often is, with Corporatism.

    1. andrew savage profile image60
      andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you. I agree for the most part, but I am not sure if corporations in general are bad as not all corporations are as massive as their stigma causes the masses to believe. I know of plenty of small corporations. It is important to note that not all corporations pave the road to tyrannies in the likeness of fascism, but that all fascisms put the corporations to work paving the roads of tyranny.

      I am content with mixed economics that permit the growth of capital through the means of laissez faire, so long as everyone has an equal opportunity to become an educated individual within society. While we may need taxes for certain things to work, I feel it is time that the government lowered taxes, relinquished a couple more of its duties to private institutions under careful regulations, and did away with arbitrary laws regarding minimum wage limits which are preventing many small businesses from accumulating enough capital to provide for their workers and the desires of consumers. Of course some minimum wages would be too low at first, however as the accumulation of capital continued the businesses would be able to provide more for the consumers and higher wages. And of course people have a right to assembly and peaceful protest which would cause unions to naturally form among men and women to boost wages if need be. However, I believe that unions should only last as temporary entities that fade out once the needs of the worker are matched. Unions, like any other power become corrupted with the transitioning of power, which is why workers should amass and disperse- unionize and then settle for what they feel they have earned. Power tends to concentrate as it matures if you allow it to stagnate- eventually you end up with a pool of bloodthirsty insects if the pool is not distributed among the garden in a reasonable amount of time.

  7. Sustainable Sue profile image91
    Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago

    Inheritance tax is for the ultra-rich, to make sure they don't amass empires to hold in their family and pass down generation to generation (which is what they're trying to do now . . . and can by our new laws that some of them passed, while in office recently). The tax doesn't apply to people who have small holdings. Even the majority of farmers in the grain belt of our country have said they don't apply to the land they hold. And some of the ultra-rich say we SHOULD have estate taxes (i.e. inheritance/death taxes) - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, for example.

  8. andrew savage profile image60
    andrew savageposted 3 years ago

    People should be allowed to be as wealthy as they want. What have we become in the days that we assemble together to take a share of the weath from men and women who earned it? What are we other than a mob when we rob the graves of dead men for their buried and invested treasures? What are we but a covenant of vampires siphening off the wealth of bloodlines that are accumulating capital within our homeland? What crime is there in passing the flame on to the next generation and the people that you trust to continue pumping cash through the arteries of our economy?

    The inheritence tax hurts the middle class and impoverished class just as much as it hurts the wealthy. It stifles the growth of local, state and national capital, as it trusts statist bureaucrats moreso than the libertarian free thinking men and women who give this nation its tenacity and innovation.

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000 !

  9. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Are we really supposed to believe that somebody paying tax of 40% on an estate of $5 million + is going to suffer! And in case you miss that, $5 million and then 40% of everything over $5 million.

    I'm sure that somebody inheriting only $5 million is really going to be impoverished!

    Hurting the impoverished class! You're having a laugh.

    1. andrew savage profile image60
      andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      40% of any man or woman's income is more absurd than the kind of taxes that were imposed upon the colonies of Brittain. When any man is threatened with having 40 cents on the dollar taken away from him you live under the rule of the collective mob. Who am I to tell someone that they cannot inherit a legacy that was already taxed onto the death of the previous owner? Whether it is is five thousand or five billion dollars, taking forty percent away- taking one per cent away- from previously taxed dollars is robbery no matter how you frame it. You cannot allow the collective to rob the individual of his grave and legacy after said individual already did his part and shared his income with the collective, via living taxes while he lived and worked.

      Death taxes are as absurd as serfdoms and monarchies in that they rob people from a decent chance to stimulate the economy of the living.

      Let sleeping corpses rest in peace tax free.
      Obviously such idealism is an absurdity in the mind of the statist who operates on blind faith to failing bureaucracies that rob all classes of their security and liberty.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But an inheritance is not somebodies income, it's a gift.
        And what is all this about being taxed to the death of the previous owner!
        When my father died he left quite a few pounds, We happily paid inheritance tax and still had a big lump of money that we had done nothing to earn. The lump that we received was mostly made up of the proceeds from the sale of his house and a good 75% of that was made up from property inflation, he didn't work for it and had paid no taxes on it.

        And why does that tax not stimulate the economy? It isn't taken out of circulation burnt or any thing like that. It is spent and spending stimulates the economy, unlike money sitting in somebodies bank account.

        1. andrew savage profile image60
          andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A gift? Please.

          If it were okay to tax gifts half of all presents handed out around the menorah or Christmas tree would be confiscated by the Feds each year and distributed throughout the ghettos of America.

          Giving away 40 percent of your families' estates is an injustice if I have ever heard of an injustice. Americans have the constitutional right to not quarter soldiers, so why do we quarter bureaucrats?

          That 40 percent is not stopping the growth of poverty, it is lining the pockets of politicians who have invested political interests which feed off of the fear of their base- the lower castes. It is not the government's place to regulate not stimulate an economy. If it were, we would all have began speaking German after the last world war.

          Private property does not belong to the state simply because the owner passed over. It belongs to his legacy- his heirs.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Nobody gives away 40% of an estate. Remember, the first $5 million is free of tax.

            1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
              Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Is anyone paying attention to the shenanigans so many ultra-rich play in order to get that money in the first place? Seldom are they above-board. They set up nominal headquarters in other countries, so they can avoid their fair share of income taxes. They pay big bucks for accountants to go through the tax code for every loophole they can possibly take advantage of, whether or not it was intended to apply in their situation - and most weren't. They even reorganize their companies to avoid paying taxes. Yet they consume more of the services provided by those taxes than any of the millions of people in the middle or lower classes. So who's paying for the public services they use? This is some of what the estate tax is attempting to recover.

              I would venture to say, actually, that those ultra-rich who support the estate tax, seeing it's value to society and themselves using their money to benefit society, are people who played fewer shenanigans than the ones who pay politicians to eliminate estate taxes. Think of Bill Gates. What? You laugh? He played shenanigans, didn't he? The others play many more, but keep them well hidden.

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
                Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                First of all, the top 1% of wage earners in this country pay for 30% of this country. Just something to think about the next time you want to start accusing people of "not paying their fair share".

                Second, the bottom 20% of wage earners in this country actually have a negative tax burden. That means that they receive more from the Federal Government than they pay in.

                It sure is popular to criticize the wealthy, these days isn't it? As a business owner, and member of the 1% myself, I've gotten used to it, it sorta comes with the territory. Perhaps though- just perhaps, if more people spent less time vilifying others for being successful, and a little more time working on becoming successful, then perhaps there wouldn't be such huge disparity in income levels.

                But hey, what do I know, I'm one of those "evil 1%'ers". cool


                Sources: The Tax Policy Center

                1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
                  Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I figured you were. So do you pay social security taxes? No? You must earn more than $87,000 per year? That's when the social security taxes are no longer required. So anyone earning more than that doesn't have to give money away to the government. They get to invest it themselves and earn income from it. And social security taxes have been going up since 1983 for those who earn less than $87,000 per year.

                  So you say that the upper 1% pays 30% taxes? Are you talking income taxes? After business deductions, right? Which decreases their income to almost nothing, the way they arrange things. 30% of that, then?

                  With estate taxes (back to the original topic) according to what I understand, the actual rate paid is more like 4.9% for the upper 1%, whereas the statutory rate is 35-55%. Who covers for these missing taxes? The middle class.

                  Then there's all the income top executives defer, so they don't have to pay taxes on it. They invest it instead or, in most cases, take it in stocks options, rather than salary. That's a permanent tax deferral, for those who can afford to get paid lower salaries, while they meanwhile are "earning" interest on their tax free investment. So are those the estate taxes the upper crust is trying to avoid paying?

                  Source: Perfectly Legal

                  1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
                    Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're confused on how Social Security taxes work. Everyone pays Social Security taxes (even us evil 1%'ers cool ) on the first $114k of income. I also have to pay Medicare tax on everything.



                    The top 1% pays 30% of all Income Tax in this country. (Source cited in previous comment).



                    I'm not sure who's teaching you economics, but you need to fire them immediately if they're telling you that stocks are a "permanent tax deferral".

                    There is a simple reason why the wealthy hire accountants and lawyers to handle their taxes, at least for me there is: I'm a fairly well educated man, I have degrees in Marketing and Economics from the University of Florida (go Gators!), and if you held a gun to my head, I still wouldn't be able to do my taxes by myself.

                    I hire people to do my taxes, not because I'm looking to dodge paying (although believe me, I don't want to pay a penny more than I have to), but because that shit reads like something out of Star Trek. And the IRS isn't exactly known for being the most understanding branch of the Federal Government when it comes to mistakes (just ask Willie Nelson and Wesley Snipes).

              2. andrew savage profile image60
                andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why do the captains of free enterprise need to be above board all the time when they have people they pay handsomely to do the work?

                Fair share of taxes? Please. Taxes should not have to exist in the first place; unless the there exist state and federal emergencies. The public sector should be generating its own income to curb unemployment and lower taxes.

                Loop holes exist for a very good reason, they serve to make the fabric of society all the more impermeable.

                The estate tax is unjust because it steals land, money and other assets of possession from the dead. The dead paid their fair share while they were living and it is nothing more than robbery by the rule of the mob when an enterprise is commandeered by an organized mob that preaches that its actions are on behalf of the people.

                Stop the estate tax, lower all taxes, create a self-sustaining public sector, and then maybe I wont consider taking my enterprise with decent salaries overseas.

                You used the term, ultra-rich, as if it were derogatory- as if it were bad to be someone with great wealth.

                I too am calling shenanigans against you and all people who are in your likeness. Shenanigans to the people who want the government to be propped up like a cane for the lazy and weak.

                I was lazy once, but I woke up when I heard the alarm.
                I too was weak once, until I worked out my mind and body, then I joined the US department of defense which made me stronger. At the end of my term, I enrolled in a college where I strengthened my mind- my soul.

                I am above this pseudo-Christ mentality that the rich do not deserve wealth and happiness like everyone else. If ever a prophet in the likeness of Sustainable Sue turned me away at the Pearly Gates because I made some worth out of my life on Earth, I would drag them all the down to the fiery pits to where they unjustly condemn me.

                Do you want the private sector to consume less services from the public sector? Then start up a free enterprise to provide such services to other such private enterprises.

                Do you want the federal or state government to lower taxes? Then open public tax free commissaries that have goods produced in the US, more importantly: by government employees itself.

                The solution is never to go to some distant neighbor's estate (ie Mr Gates) and take forty percent of his belongings and income (dead or alive). When you follow down that path you may as well be wearing a swastika or ski mask on a warm summer night.

                Would you strip a cadaver of their clothing and other possessions simply to add to your wardrobe? Would you dig up a cemetery to loot the treasuries of the dead? How long do you think such a practice would last?

                I would rather have all of my estate burnt to ash than allow one penny to go to support a non-productive and inefficient system that feeds itself by taking a portion of the freeman's earnings. When you pay off a debt to society, you do not have to continue paying for it after you died. When you do a service to society by leading a productive enterprise that generated livable wages, you should not bear the punishment of having to pay into a pyramid scheme.

                Make the public sector produce goods. Have drive competition in the market. This is how a mixed economy is supposed to function. Taxes are only this high when you live under a totalitarian regime in the likeness of fascism (welfare of the corporations) or socialism (welfare of the people).

  10. Mitch Alan profile image83
    Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago

    John, you stated the "We happily paid inheritance tax",  which is basically a non sequitur, as you had no choice but to pay it. Now if you had been given the opportunity to keep it all or give some or all of it to the government, then your statement would have weight.
    Secondly, regardless of how you father earned it, whether through the sweat of his brow, ingenuity or simple "good fortune" by way of making a good real estate transaction, it was HIS money to give to who HE decided.
    Finally, the money that is taken by way of confiscatory means does not have the same economic (in real economics) effect as those dollars spent and invested by individuals and businesses. Bureaucracy eats up to much and it is usually misspent as well.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Happily as in we didn't have to squawk about how unfair it was and how it was really our money, even though we had no hand in the acquiring of it.

      My father consistently made bad real estate transactions. House inflation was right outside his remit.

      In what way does money spent by a bureaucrat behave any differently to money spent by a none bureaucrat?

      1. Mitch Alan profile image83
        Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        SO, if I give you a birthday present, you should pay tax on that? What difference does the "event" or size matter? You say he did nothing to earn the money (except invest)...what did the government do to earn it???
        If you take a dollar from someone who earns it and send it to Washington (or fill in any central government) it must be whittled away to pay for those in power to administer it. The salaries, expenses etc of the bureaucracy all go towards reducing each dollar that is confiscated before it is spend. Add to that the utter mismanagement of most, if not all, government spending and you have your answer. If you, on the other hand, as the one who earned the dollar spend it yourself, then the entire dollar goes directly into the marketplace. It is simply economics 101.
        John, at point does your money become yours and not the property of the State?

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The salaries, expenses etc of the bureaucracy are spent in the market place and stimulate it.
          I don't get this idea that (a) spending money stimulates the economy but (b) spending exactly the same amount of money doesn't stimulate anything!

          In many parts of this country if you die intestate the Crown takes 100% of your estate however large or small. That is bad.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image83
            Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When did I say it was an all or nothing? I did not say that the confiscated fund do not effect the economy, just not to the extent that the same dollar, without the cost of bureaucracy, would have. Because it is NOT the same amount of money.
            Again, take the dollar, then take out the costs associated with administering it though a government bureaucracy, and you are left with less money to invest in Product A or Service B in the private sector.  If spend $100 at Store A, the government would have to confiscate more than that from me to spend the same amount in Store A.
            And again, what right does the government have to take your money to give it to someone else? Regardless of efficiency, it is a matter of understanding the right of ownership. What % of YOUR money should you be allowed to keep? Give me an actual %... Federal expenditure, here in the States and according to the Constitution, it was supposed to be limited and only for things that affected the Common good, meaning something that was for everyone. Such things as common defense etc. It was never meant to spent the way it is now, nor was it meant to go up to the federal level and then fought to be brought back to individual States.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              How can a $100 not be a $100?

              Of course it's the same amount of money.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image83
                Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                John, let's say you spend $100 on a WidgetXL. Now, let's say the federal government decides it should be purchasing a WidgetXL for the guy down the street. In order for the federal government to purchase anything, it must first confiscate those funds. Since the bureaucracy to confiscate the funds and to spend those funds cost money it would need to take MORE than the $100 to make the same purchase. If you have a department of WidgetXL procurement, then you have salaries and expenses associated with that department. It is really that simple.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So what you are saying is that government spends much more effectively than private enterprise.

          2. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "The salaries, expenses etc of the bureaucracy are spent in the market place and stimulate it."
            Just whose market place are you referring to? I see a lot of federal and state employees driving in cars from overseas. What happened to shop locally and think globally? We pay taxes and they pay foreign nations to make their goods before they pay us.

            If a crown took one penny of my estate after I died, I would come back from the dead and start a blood soaked revolution and kill off every last one of their family members like an exterminator on the march to destroy roaches. How can you tolerate any person who declares theirself the king over mankind who is not Christ? What childish antics is this that you speak of?

            I think that the US Revolution should have ended with US ships on British shores and a full out regime change. Still to this day monarchies blemish the face of the Earth? Such is a fatal error on the behalf of the American revolutionaries.

  11. andrew savage profile image60
    andrew savageposted 3 years ago

    Taxes are not made to stimulate the economy- they are there to make sure the cracks in the streets are paved over and the military stays on its feet. A man's investments, capital growth, and distribution of wealth via the supplication of wages are what stimulate the economy. When you rely on the government for stimulating an economy you start to go down the slippery slope of fascism or socialism in which big business and big government own what free men earned through investments, work, inheritence, etcetera.

    Simply because you were happy enough with having a partial and previously taxed accumulation of wealth, you have proven nothing other than your statist views and simplification of a complex issue that pits laissez faire principles against ineffective bureaucracies. If a man had paid hid debts to society in life, are we not doing a disservice when we take a means to the acclamation of capital and distribution of wealth? The death tax does not stimulate the economy, nor does it effectively keep the roads paved. It lines the pockets of a corrupt legislature with the treasuries of the dead. What kind of person strips the dead of half their possessions after men and women have passed over? Do the dead not have the right to give their wealth wholy to the parties that they wish to in order to stimulate the growth of business and wages. Taxes are meant to be temporary solutions to treat the symptoms that plague society- they do not solve problems as they only throw money at the problems whilst enlisting the ranks of people who can only continue to stay employed if they neglect cures and implement treatments.
    If you inherited a small business worth five million dollars you should be allowed to take its reigns entirely tax free initially until you begin generating an income. If you inherit five million dollars from a small business that was sold by an owner who passed over and was already taxed then you should be able to inherit all five million dollars free of the burden of unwarranted taxes as that money will only generate an income through further investments- which then can be taxed. If you take away from the money inherited for taxes then you are left with less money which means that the stimulation of the free market will be hindered as it is not the government's job to stimulate the free market economy. Anything that the government takes away from the people is suppose to be allocated toward maintaining the public sector for all people of the nation to enjoy and utilize- such as paved roads, public schools, a department of defense and homeland security. Why are taxes so high in an alleged free market society? Do you trust a stranger more so with a portion of your inheritence than you trust your own working hands and mind? Do you not see that the death tax stunts the accumulation of capital and distribution of wages?
    If the death tax is left unchecked, how long do you think it will be before we nationalize the industries that gave us the surplus of wealth and capital within our homeland? Eventually the owners of airlines, railways, utility companies, etcetera will pass over. When they do, the government will inherit a portion of their means to capital and production, which will slowly lead to a less than free market and an over bureaucratized collective. When has nationizing the industries driving the progression of the free market ever worked? Our free market and low taxes are part of what made it possible for the USA surpass former nations like the USSR, China, Korea, and the rest of the world for decades by measure of a high quality of goods, skilled labor, and decent wages.
    The creation and raising of taxes will only continue to stunt the free market- businesses, and drive out private capital growth, as such taxes only create a state more dependent on free men- servants to the free market. How self-sustaining do you think the economy of the government is? When has the government ever generated revenue and capital growth without bearing its weight on the people?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Governments frequently generate revenue and capital growth to the benefit of the people.

      1. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If the government generated capital growth where is it? Typically when capital is growing it is also generating employment. If the government were truly generating capital there would be zero unemployment as the demands of the people can be summed up in one word "jobs." So, where are the jobs? Why is unemployment terrifyingly high as of the present?

        The belief that the government is currently generating capital growth is a myth, as it is proving itself to be ineffective and inefficient at supplying enough jobs and competing with the free market.

        Lastly, if the government were to generate its own capital then it would have no need to tax the people, especially not the dead. The dead paid their dues while they were alive like the rest of us, taking any more after they are dead is a quality of a raider- a thug, a mobster, a criminal with zero consideration toward life and death.

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you inherit $5 million in the US you pay exactly nil inheritance tax on it.



      It is actually designed to slow down the accumulation of capital, to prevent the situation like we had in the UK where the royal family ended up with all the money.
      As for distribution of wages - how can they be stunted when the tax, according to some, is spent entirely on bureaucrats wages?

      1. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        While I am not for market monopolies, just as much as I am not for the over centralization of power in state. The market requires rules just as much as government officials require obedience to the US constitution.

        While bureaucrats may be provided wages, in what way is the government growing its capital? In what way is it generating wages for the work force? And in what way is the government earning its keep when it is neglecting to yield to the sovereign power of our constitution while unemployment remains above zero? If the public sector competed with the private sector, generated capital growth, and provided livable wages for all of its workers then there would be no reason to have taxes, with the exception of states of emergency, as the government would be self sustaining.

        I work for a federal agency myself, and nearly all of the goods that I see my agency purchasing are being made from overseas... It sure looks like a hole in the ship to me. A hole that bureaucrats dug all the way to China.

        1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
          Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The government is generating debts. Bureaucrats, pushed by their rich donors, have changed the rules so the rich don't pay enough taxes anymore for the government to function properly. They're no longer paying for their fair share of the benefits that helped them get rich in the first place. They've taken advantage of the many loopholes they got Congress and the White House to open up for them, and now they pay approx. 16% in taxes (if that), instead of the 35% they're supposed to pay by law. That's income taxes over and above the estate taxes they're also trying to renege on.

          Where is the government supposed to get it's money to function? From thin air? So now the lower and middle classes are supposed to service the interest on debts the government has been accruing due to the ultra rich bailing out? AND we're supposed to make up for the taxes they're not paying? We don't have the money to do that. They have it all.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image83
            Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The bigger problem is the fact that the federal government is SPENDING too much and on things it is not supposed to be involved with. If the federal government was run by the constraints of the Constitution, there would be more than enough confiscated funds going to Washington.

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If the public sector was to compete with the private sector you would be screaming "socialism".

          Think about things like early computers and the space program, did they not generate a lot of work?

          1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
            Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A fair point, although I believe if the private sector had been in charge of the Space Program, we'd have a colony on Mars and we'd be vacationing on the Moon.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And no doubt living off the green cheese that the moon is made of.

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
                Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Mmmmmm green cheese..."

                smile

          2. andrew savage profile image60
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "If the public sector was to compete with the private sector you would be screaming "socialism".
            I disagree. As I watch tax payer dollars purchase billions of dollars in goods from foreign nations each year to keep federal offices stocked, I should be screaming "stupidity." So long as there is a public sector, there should be a revenue generated by, zero unemployment, competition between it and the private sector- socialism? statism? No. This is how a mixed economy is supposed to function, rather than saying that we live in a laissez-faire economy, or statist economy, I say that we live in a broken version of both. Not only has the private sector outsourced so many jobs overseas, but the federal government is doing the same thing when it makes purchases from nations other than our own, especially nations with poor human rights and standards of living.

  12. Sustainable Sue profile image91
    Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago

    I want to have a strong educational system that works. It used to, when we (our government) had the funds. I want to have peace in this land and get out of all the wars we keep putting ourselves into. I want to have functional, modern transportation systems nation-wide that don't trash the earth. I want to have skilled and equitable health care, i.e. treatment for diseases and accidents that is accessible to all. I want to have laboratories and research facilities that function primarily for the public good, not for profit first.

    I want to have a well functioning government at all levels that looks out for the well being of society - that prevents rape of all kinds, whether sexual or monetary, and makes sure everyone has an equitable chance to create the life of their dreams. This takes a certain amount of money.

    I'm ok with taxation, but it has to be fair and it has to be spent well. Neither of those situations are the case now, although I suspect government officials would like it. We need to start from scratch and devise some kind of income for the government that works better than what they have now.

  13. Sustainable Sue profile image91
    Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago

    This article isn't specifically about taxation, but it is about our broken-down system and is, in a way, relevant to our discussion. It was written by Peter Buffet, son of Warren Buffet, who lives maybe in a similar position to you, Shawn.
    The Charitable-Industrial Complex

    1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
      Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is the same kind of "rich guilt" that I hear from friends every day. Maybe it's a product of upbringing, most of them, like Peter Buffett came from money; I however, did not. I didn't grow up in poverty, but I was definitely from the lower part of "lower middle class".

      My upbringing is one of the reasons I decided to get the 2nd degree, and why I'm so partial to the Austrian School of economics. I'm a strong believer in the free market, and personal responsibility, and I firmly believe (and the evidence backs me up on this) that if the government would get the hell out of the market, it could correct itself, without interference or intervention, no matter how well-intentioned.

      1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
        Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Are you saying we wouldn't have a government? Cause if we have a government of any size with any kind of duty/ies, it will have to have an income of some sort, from somewhere. And I, for one, would not in the least trust Big Business to run the government. There are too many people out there with too much greed and competition to be able to trust their impartiality (or even true public concern) . . . not that politicians, in general, are all that trustworthy. I've worked for the government, alongside the government, with private enterprise, and with nonprofits, and I've met good people everywhere. But private enterprise is what I'd trust least - because the focus in that arena is on personal gain, not the public good.

        1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
          Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You can still have a government and have a free market, the two are not mutually exclusive. 

          As for your distrust of business, it's the same distrust I have for politicians. At least with business, you know what you're getting, you know it's motivations, and you know how it will more than likely react in any given situation. With politicians, the exact opposite is true.

          I seem to remember someone running on a platform of "Hope & Change" a few years ago, the he got elected and it was just more of the same. Like the Who said: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

          As it happens, acting for personal gain is not automatically contrary to the public good:

          "...and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
          ~Adam Smith from "The Wealth of Nations"

          1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
            Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yep, I noticed that too, especially with regards to war, and have been disappointed so far. I actually agree with all you've said here. I don't think that's what's actually happening in many cases, though. I think there's a lot of shortsightedness, with execs taking far too much of "their share" and ignoring the fact that well treated employees are also loyal employees, and that employees with money actually buy goods.

            Maybe it was an economic "accident" or "carelessness" that taxes for the wealthy were reduced, then social security taxes were increased to make up for the shortfall (looking at actions, not words) - and have continued being increased over the years. That hurts the lower classes much more than the upper classes. We do have an economic mess in the government, which hopefully someone or several are working to straighten out.

            1. Shawn McIntyre profile image85
              Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The problem is, we already know what to do to fix the economy, but it would be political suicide for any politician to even propose it, much less support it.

              Until politicians are willing to do what's in the best interests of the country, and not what's most likely to get them reelected, then we're just going to keep bouncing from one disappointment to another in the White House.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image62
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The problem is
                Governments are in the business of taxation, they thrive on it, grow fat and then need more taxation to oil the wheels.
                Politicians only need charisma and the entrance fee to join their exclusive club.

                Tax
                The means by which the ruling elite stay in power.

                1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
                  Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Interest.
                  The means by which banks stay in power (incl. credit cards).

                  Not much difference, is there? Both are taking off the top and demanding it as a right. And now insurance companies have got into the act. The results we see may be one reason that Arab countries ban usury. And the US politicians/bankers/economists hate that.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image62
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Therein lies another problem
                    Banks are in the business of making money, government are in the business of spending it.
                    It doesn't make a blind bit of difference what the economy is like the government will find new ways of collecting tax and spending it.

          2. Sustainable Sue profile image91
            Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Here's a politician I trust (one of the few). Check out this video:
            Awww. SNAP! One Congressman Tries Living on Food Stamps

  14. BigJulesMags profile image88
    BigJulesMagsposted 3 years ago

    The fruits of a generations labor are given to the following generation, and are a powerful incentive to keep the owners of capital innovating and producing.  People often continue to work hard in order to give to their children.  This leads to job growth and higher production, which create infinitely more wealth than the gains from taxation, bureaucratic processing, and redistribution.  I have no idea whether inheritance tax is constitutional or not, but it is definitely not economically viable.  Deadweight loss occurs whenever taxation is used, resultantly, true public goods such as freeways or national defense are the only tax funded programs that do not cause a drain of wealth.

    1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
      Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      These are some of the tricks I've been talking about:
      Fighting Back Against Wretched Wages

    2. Sustainable Sue profile image91
      Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree, BigJules. If you'd said freeways and education, I could agree. But war is the biggest drain there is. And that's what our "national defense" has been doing with itself since VietNam.

    3. andrew savage profile image60
      andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How long do you think it will be before most heirs to American capital-owners leave the USA?

      1. Sustainable Sue profile image91
        Sustainable Sueposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Never. They have too good a deal going here.

  15. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

    Attributed to John Maynard Keynes

    1. andrew savage profile image60
      andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      May the most wicked man live.

    2. Mitch Alan profile image83
      Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Considering the source of the quote of Keynes...it does not hold much weight.  Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services at an agreed upon rate of exchange. How is the prospect of me growing a tomato and selling it to you at agreed upon price not a good system?

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nothing wrong with that at all. It all breaks down when you manipulate the market so that you are the only supplier of tomatoes and sell them at your price, not at a mutually agreed price.

        Can't remember the last time I haggled over a pound of tomatoes, I've always been told "that's the price, take them or leave them".

 
working