Originally posted by MelanerpesDon't simplify my argument for rhetorical dramatics. Nothing in my argument ran counter to the idea of people determining their own success, but stealing in the name of social justice is an abomination. It's not a coincidence that all the pious, moral people are those who want the money!
[b]This is indefensible on moral grounds
actually, its very defensible. Its the very moral concept that a person's standard of living and success should be based on their OWN efforts, and not just because some people happened to be born with a more valuable spoon in their mouth than others.
but it does conflict with another moral principle - tha ...[text shortened]... asis of most political debate. But both sides have a legitimate moral ground for their beliefs.[/b]
I'm not against all taxes, and I'm certainly not against creative, effective solutions to augment peoples opportunities who otherwise wouldn't have.
You can't look at it from the children's perspective and say it's unfair they're receiving it; the government has no right to take 100% inheritance based on the fact that it's inheritance! A tax is a tax, but this would be shameless theft. It should be mentioned that no serious person in any government anywhere is pursuing this action, just Kazet.
Tell me, if you were able to quantify other things parents pass on and give freely like love, advice, or emotional support, would you take this from their children and give it to those whose parents didn't amply supply them? Would you take the love poor parents provided for their son and give a share to some wealthy kid whose parents were working all their life?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's not "luck" that your parents are your parents! They worked hard to bring you here! It's the opposite of luck. You are a direct result of thousands of years of an evolutionary chain.
I don't "attack" parents. I'm just saying society is better off if talent rather than luck is rewarded - to the highest degree practically possible. But apparently, you don't agree.
If it were possible to make parents better parents in terms of love, teaching morality etc. by using a tax then I would support that. This is not the case, so this is irrelevant to the debate.
The fact that you believe people just randomly pop out of "some" woman is funny to me.
Originally posted by The Dude 84So you worked hard to be born?
It's not "luck" that your parents are your parents! They worked hard to bring you here! It's the opposite of luck. You are a direct result of thousands of years of an evolutionary chain.
The fact that you believe people just randomly pop out of "some" woman is funny to me.
Originally posted by generalissimoSociety would also be better off if people weren't punished for their luck.
[b]I don't "attack" parents. I'm just saying society is better off if talent rather than luck is rewarded
???
so you don't attack parents but you still want their (usually) hard-earned money to be taken away after they die.
Society would also be better off if people weren't punished for their luck.[/b]
So, what are you saying? We should reward luck?
Originally posted by kmax87Ah, the famous socialist conceit: "we know far better (than you morons) how to spend your money." Sounds great as a theory, but it's never been shown to work -- that's the problem.
As long as they were giving it back in increased infrastructure/quality of learning and universally accessible health systems, I would say the people would be doing very well thank you!
I think there are many reasons socialism is less efficient than capitalism. Take the length of the feedback cycle where shorter is better because providers have a huge incentive to give customers what they want. With capitalism, the loop is as short as possible:
provider <--> customer
Now compare to the socialist model:
provider <--> agency <--> parliament <--> customer
There is also the issue of collective responsibility -- best seen through a little thought experiment: take a group of people, tell them XYZ is their collective responsibility, then come back later and ask, "Who is doing XYZ?" The collective shrug will be instructive. Again, this is how governments tend to work in contrast to the mindset of the single entrepreneur.
Originally posted by spruce112358So your solution, when you have an issue of collective responsibility, is the collective shrug? I don't understand your point here. And don't you think you can do better than the simplistic socialism/capitalism dichotomy?
Ah, the famous socialist conceit: "we know far better (than you morons) how to spend your money." Sounds great as a theory, but it's never been shown to work -- that's the problem.
I think there are many reasons socialism is less efficient than capitalism. Take the length of the feedback cycle where shorter is better because providers have a huge inc ...[text shortened]... his is how governments tend to work in contrast to the mindset of the single entrepreneur.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIf everyone can freely allocate their property then no one will be able to pay any taxes. Employers can freely allocate their resources to their employees then, for example. So no, it's not protected by law under all circumstances. Fortunately it isn't.
The disposition of their property is protected by law and must be allocated according to their will.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, it is not fair to tell people that they will get new benefits (health care) and have just one segment (the people the government decides are wealthy) to pay for it. We should all contribute if we want new benefits or better yet keep our money and purchase what we want. Besides being unfair it is just dumb, wealthy people should be encouraged to work (they already pay taxes at a higher rate on their higher base) not discouraged. It is times politicians tell people that the middle class keeps demanding more than they had 30 years ago and then complaining when they can't pay for necessities. Perhaps if everyone did not think it was an entitlement to have flat screen TVs, cel phones, black berries, cable tv, recreational computers, Wii, ipods (and countless other new inventions) the average american could pay their fair share of taxes and we would not have idiotic proposals like a 100% tax on inheritance.
"Their fair share" is the topic here. What is their fair share?