Inheritance Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 08:57 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 08:42 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:24 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As always your post is way too logical for this forum.
If that's how you feel about the forum, why are you still here?
That was a really bitchy statement. Who do you think you are, Trainwreck?

Bitchy? It's a light-hearted compliment. If you tell your Starbucks barrista she's way too hot for a coffee shop and should be a super-model, that's not meant to be a bitchy attack on coffee shops. It's just a compliment. Jeez, you can't pay someone a compliment without getting attacked for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 09:07 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 08:56 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  What Minimalist said. It is an attempt to keep the country from turning into an oligarchy. The thinking goes that multiple family generations amassing wealth would soon create an unstable republic.

Wow, for once we agree. I like the idea of an inheritance tax way better than an income tax because, on the surface, it seems to support the ideal that Thomas Jefferson espoused: "All men are created equal", with equal opportunity to accomplish great things. Even Milton Friedman said the inheritance tax, in principle, sounds like a fair tax, but the problem is that the only to prevent the accumulation of wealth is to discourage its creation, and income and inheritance taxes have all sorts of unintended and disastrous consequences as people change their behavior to avoid the penalty. He pointed out that most of us strive not for our own gain, but rather the gain of our family. Parents make all sorts of personal sacrifices for their children. Parents of little means will work overtime and live modestly so they can save money for their child's education, to give them a better life. As you take that away, so that parent's hard work no longer yields something to leave for their children, many parents work less hard, and those that don't are more likely to squander their wealth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
In the way I read it, it didn't sound complimentary at all. If I was wrong, I apologize.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
16-05-2014, 09:23 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 09:08 PM)Anjele Wrote:  In the way I read it, it didn't sound complimentary at all. If I was wrong, I apologize.

You're not wrong. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-05-2014, 09:25 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 09:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  You're not wrong. Drinking Beverage

Weren't you the guy who said something like 'stop claiming you know what I'm thinking and what my intentions are'? Hmm. Must have been another Chas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 09:47 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 09:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:56 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  What Minimalist said. It is an attempt to keep the country from turning into an oligarchy. The thinking goes that multiple family generations amassing wealth would soon create an unstable republic.

Wow, for once we agree. I like the idea of an inheritance tax way better than an income tax because, on the surface, it seems to support the ideal that Thomas Jefferson espoused: "All men are created equal", with equal opportunity to accomplish great things. Even Milton Friedman said the inheritance tax, in principle, sounds like a fair tax, but the problem is that the only to prevent the accumulation of wealth is to discourage its creation, and income and inheritance taxes have all sorts of unintended and disastrous consequences as people change their behavior to avoid the penalty. He pointed out that most of us strive not for our own gain, but rather the gain of our family. Parents make all sorts of personal sacrifices for their children. Parents of little means will work overtime and live modestly so they can save money for their child's education, to give them a better life. As you take that away, so that parent's hard work no longer yields something to leave for their children, many parents work less hard, and those that don't are more likely to squander their wealth.

I don't even begin to think I can foresee all the side effects of something like this, but I also don't see that the limit on accumulation of wealth necessarily precludes the things you mention. It might instead spread wealth among generations more evenly instead of the trend toward hoarding wealth for old age which would be lost if they died early. It is possible we would see more blended and intergenerational cooperation with parents helping children with education and building their own own businesses and careers and home improvement and such instead of simply continuing working and saving on their own and assuming the kids will inherit it someday if they don't need it. People might not buy such big houses and expensive RVs and such that would go to the government when they died and might settle for not much more than they actually needed.

However, as I said before, I really think this makes the spread between individuals and corporations even wider as there aren't equivalent resets for the accumulation of wealth and power by corporate entities.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 10:00 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 10:06 PM by Chas.)
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 09:25 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  You're not wrong. Drinking Beverage

Weren't you the guy who said something like 'stop claiming you know what I'm thinking and what my intentions are'? Hmm. Must have been another Chas.

You took a clear swipe at the forum members with your comment. "As always your post is way too logical for this forum." There is no misunderstanding it.

Fuck you, you lying cunt.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-05-2014, 10:08 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 10:12 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 09:47 PM)djhall Wrote:  I don't even begin to think I can foresee all the side effects of something like this

I suspect we can agree that nobody can foresee all the intended consequences, therefore the best we can do is have a system that doesn't use force to make people comply so that different people try different things so the ones that work out best will become more and popular while the bad ideas fade away. Thus you have a dynamic system that constantly evolved and improves. Once you set something in stone with a law where anybody who doesn't like it gets hauled off to jail, unintended consequences become inescapable, as generations grow up knowing nothing but that one flawed system.

My favorite example which I keep bringing up is public transport. Back in the 1920's and 30's politicians THOUGHT they were doing the public a service by regulating the fares on the 1200 various metro systems in the US. "What's wrong with that? It just helps folks get to work cheaper, right?" Who could have foreseen that this would result in less investment in mass transit, leading to less satisfaction, paving the way for the oil and auto industry to get the 1935 law passed that forced all the electric mass transit systems to be liquidated, which forced everybody to drive their gas-burning, polluting vehicles, which lead to 'urban flight' since, without convenient mass transit, people have to spread out more in the suburbs with big huge freeways, which led to long commutes to work so we end up spending years of our life stuck in traffic, and led to millions of deaths, and, as this change occurred globally, created greenhouse gases and global warming as well as a dependence on foreign oil which funded terrorists in Saudi Arabia who killed Christians, which then inspired terrorists in Nigeria to kidnap hundreds of girls, and........ It's the chaos effect. A butterfly flaps its wings setting into motion a chain of events that ultimately leads to a hurricane. And, just like nobody will accept that this massive hurricane wouldn't have formed were it not for a butterfly in Africa, similarly people think you're crazy when you show the ripple effect that the decision to regulate train fares in the 1920's had. If you could go back in time and tell those politicians that by regulating fares it would lead to hundreds of girls in Nigeria being kidnapped, they'd think you're just as crazy as pointing to butterfly and saying 'that's going to lead to a hurricane', even though, unlike with the butterfly, the effects of the transit change are not so complex so that anybody with an open mind can connect the dots and see that the regulation 90 years ago has had a profound impact. Yet, it's the only system people know, so people can't imagine anything different. They'll think that were it not for government roads we'd all be walking everywhere, unaware that we'd probably be zipping around at hypersonic speeds in our mag-lev vac-tube transport system, which at this rate will NEVER get invented until government gets out of the way again and lets entrepreneurs start innovating again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 10:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  You took a clear swipe at the forum members with your comment.

Wrong. It was first and foremost a compliment to djhall, and only an indirect swipe at a handful of forum members who, every time you make a good point, give you negative reputation and reply:

(16-05-2014 10:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Fuck you, you lying cunt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 10:08 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:47 PM)djhall Wrote:  I don't even begin to think I can foresee all the side effects of something like this

I suspect we can agree that nobody can foresee all the intended consequences, therefore the best we can do is have a system that doesn't use force to make people comply so that different people try different things so the ones that work out best will become more and popular while the bad ideas fade away. Thus you have a dynamic system that constantly evolved and improves. Once you set something in stone with a law where anybody who doesn't like it gets hauled off to jail, unintended consequences become inescapable, as generations grow up knowing nothing but that one flawed system.

My favorite example which I keep bringing up is public transport. Back in the 1920's and 30's politicians THOUGHT they were doing the public a service by regulating the fares on the 1200 various metro systems in the US. "What's wrong with that? It just helps folks get to work cheaper, right?" Who could have foreseen that this would result in less investment in mass transit, leading to less satisfaction, paving the way for the oil and auto industry to get the 1935 law passed that forced all the electric mass transit systems to be liquidated, which forced everybody to drive their gas-burning, polluting vehicles, which lead to 'urban flight' since, without convenient mass transit, people have to spread out more in the suburbs with big huge freeways, which led to long commutes to work so we end up spending years of our life stuck in traffic, and led to millions of deaths, and, as this change occurred globally, created greenhouse gases and global warming as well as a dependence on foreign oil which funded terrorists in Saudi Arabia who killed Christians, which then inspired terrorists in Nigeria to kidnap hundreds of girls, and........ It's the chaos effect. A butterfly flaps its wings setting into motion a chain of events that ultimately leads to a hurricane. And, just like nobody will accept that this massive hurricane wouldn't have formed were it not for a butterfly in Africa, similarly people think you're crazy when you show the ripple effect that the decision to regulate train fares in the 1920's had. If you could go back in time and tell those politicians that by regulating fares it would lead to hundreds of girls in Nigeria being kidnapped, they'd think you're just as crazy as pointing to butterfly and saying 'that's going to lead to a hurricane', even though, unlike with the butterfly, the effects of the transit change are not so complex so that anybody with an open mind can connect the dots and see that the regulation 90 years ago has had a profound impact. Yet, it's the only system people know, so people can't imagine anything different. They'll think that were it not for government roads we'd all be walking everywhere, unaware that we'd probably be zipping around at hypersonic speeds in our mag-lev vac-tube transport system, which at this rate will NEVER get invented until government gets out of the way again and lets entrepreneurs start innovating again.

Your understanding of your favorite example is flawed. Tram systems worldwide disappeared during the mid-twentieth century. That had nothing to do with U.S. law or GM.

And some survived, including in the U.S.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: