Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis makes so little sense I am wondering if you are actually serious.
X is a function of wealth disparity. It is a natural response to rich people who violate others' right to earn property by withholding resources from them.
Wealthier people pay taxes poor people don't pay (half of americans owe zero federal taxes) at a higher rate on a higher level of income. They provide more directly and indicrectly. The hire more people and provide more jobs indirectly. You just seem to hate wealthy people the way the KKK or Nazis hate groups and merely assert you are morally entitled to take others possessions.
3 edits
Originally posted by quackquackYou just seem to hate wealthy people the way the KKK or Nazis hate groups and merely assert you are morally entitled to take others possessions.
This makes so little sense I am wondering if you are actually serious.
Wealthier people pay taxes poor people don't pay (half of americans owe zero federal taxes) at a higher rate on a higher level of income. They provide more directly and indicrectly. The hire more people and provide more jobs indirectly. You just seem to hate wealthy people the ...[text shortened]... KKK or Nazis hate groups and merely assert you are morally entitled to take others possessions.
No, I've put quite a lot of time into this and formed my belief by studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and the rights theorists who influenced them. You can read what I've come up with so far here:
http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/01/right-to-own-property.html
For example,
"This term [property] in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage...
...That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where...monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called."
James Madison
March 29, 1792
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=57
Madison is widely believed to be an elitist; but here he is claiming that the rich may not deny the poor the means of acquiring property!
Here's another related entry in which I discuss the fact that half of all the wealth in the USA was passed on from previous generations. The argument that progressive taxes punish people for working hard ignores this fact.
http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2009/11/libertarian-to-liberal-inheritance.html
Inheritance is a weasaly way that money is laundered over long periods of time, and it provides half of that wealth that you're championing as the fruits of an individual's hard work. There are families which got rich off of slaves and still are rich. It's not hidden; they'll admit it in some cases. There are families which are poor because their family was enslaved and still are poor. These patterns come up way too often to be dismissed, but most free market people want to sweep all this under the rug for some reason.
2 edits
Why do so many people assume there's no reasoning behind claims? Instead of "why do you think that?" they go "you just seem to hate like the KKK and merely assert..."
Then when I ask "why do you think that?" people get all defensive when all I want is to understand their perspective - not because I'm criticizing it. I don't get it.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn my democratically elected country they just passed a harmonized sales tax, meaning what used to be only general sales tax (GST) is now also Provincial Sales Tax (PST). Property tax has risen, land transfer tax has risen, and so have many others.
Good job at not getting the point. Presumably you want low taxes. Even then, you have to make choices as to what to tax and who to tax. You can put heavy taxes on inheritance to make taxes for the average Joe lower - even if you want only "small government". This is the only aspect of this debate - whether or not government should be "big" or "small" is ...[text shortened]... lt - so your fear that governments will always aim at high taxes is rather absurd, really.
Even if the government stops taxing temporarily it's because it's not politically expedient to do so, it's never because they have all the tax money they need!
It's NOT a question of "who" to tax, just how much and how can they justify it while causing the smallest amount of scandal.
Heavy taxes on inheritance are ridiculous if for no other reason then people would pass on their money before they died. If that's the only aspect of this debate, it's a stupid debate!
1 edit
Originally posted by The Dude 84You're still not getting the point. Even if all politicians are liars and cheaters who just want to raise taxes (while still magically running a deficit), the question is what do YOU think is good policy? Do YOU think it would be a good policy to tax inheritance as highly as possible in order to reduce taxes for ordinary working folks? Because that's what we're debating here.
In my democratically elected country they just passed a harmonized sales tax, meaning what used to be only general sales tax (GST) is now also Provincial Sales Tax (PST). Property tax has risen, land transfer tax has risen, and so have many others.
Even if the government stops taxing temporarily it's because it's not politically expedient to do so, i money before they died. If that's the only aspect of this debate, it's a stupid debate!
Originally posted by KazetNagorrayou don't know any? seriously?
Which society respects the property of dead people? I don't know any.
then why are even debating this? since according to you there are no societies respecting the property of dead people, the concept of "inheritance" should be totally alien, and yet it isn't. how strange.