How will Obama v. Democrats v. Republican Battle Play Out?

[chrisdfw]

I think one problem is how many writeoffs corporate executives and business owners make. For example, I know many CEO's and business owners that buy thousands of dollars of alcohol for themselves and write it off to the company, take personal vacations and write it off, and a host of other loop holes that end up taking money away from paying down the deficit. So I think there needs to be some fairness on both sides, both the rich and poor.

Business expenses are deductible, which decreases the taxes paid, but isn't nearly so egregious as the flat out handouts our government gives to businesses.
Look at how much money has just been handed out to businesses in this last "economic crisis". Make no mistake, when I see the title "Obama vs democrats vs republicans" what I see is thieves vs other theives versus even more theives. They all are in the pocket of big business. Who really benefits from the oppresive taxes and regulations? Those who are already rich and companies that already made it, because it stifles their competition with regulations they can't possibly afford to comply with.
Who suffers? The rest of us who aren't rich and companies that are small.

I don't believe we give people tools to get back on their feet, mostly we give them just enough to keep them from being motivated to work. I don't care if those on welfare are in poverty, they should be, as a matter of fact, I believe we treat them too generously, but it isn't me that suffers the most, sure they steal a lot of my money, but it is the poor who suffer the most. We think we are helping, but we are just enablers.

As long as we have a welfare system and rampant immorality we will see a decline continue. The stigma of having children without being married is gone. The stigma of being a leech on the back of society is gone. We are rapidly sinking to the lowest common denominator.

Adam smith believed capitalism and morality had to go together. We can't have a successful economy without morality.

[helpme2010]

I agree about the thieves stealing from the thieves stealing from the thieves. Your Adam Smith line makes me think about everything I studied about the invisible hand and how the invisible hand is supposed to make capitalism work, yet it only partly makes things work and that is also where government is supposed to stand in where needed and that often doesn't work. I can appreciate all angles of arguments here. I also was really pissed when the courts allowed the recent unlimited contributions to government officials by corporations as I saw this open our country up to becoming the United Corporations of America.

I think we are going to travel much further down the steep road leading to the cliff before we finally hit the brakes and realize the brakes will only slow us down but we will be heading off the cliff regardless. We will eventually throw an anchor that stops us from completely dying at the bottom, so we will be hanging most of the way off the cliff and will have one hell of a nasty and slow climb to get back to the top of the cliff again (many years from now).

[jacko]

Its really interesting that everybody really focuses on the source of the money and who should be taxed, but we never really consider why we have to pay for such a bloated federal government. Do I have an obligation to pay for your medical care? Should I have to bear the costs of feeding another child for a welfare case? You tell me where it ends.

Can you be specific which parts of the federal gov't is bloated? The system is set up were the ones with health insurance and the ones who can pay cash for care will always subsidized the ones who do not have the means. Hospitals could not stay open if they could not cost shift.

The government has no business acting like robin hood. I should not have to pay for other people's personal choices. The fact is in this country if you do just a few simple things you can reduce your chances of ending up in poverty by 99%.
1. Don't be a criminal, it ruins your job opportunities.
2. Don't do drugs, they cause lots of problems, and see #1
3. Don't have children with people you are not married to.
4. If you get married, stay married.

Easy for you to say. Life's not perfect.

If you do these things you reduce your chances of being in poverty by 99%. If everyone did these things, I bet the people who ended up poor due to injury, illness, or misfortune could be taken care of by charity. But since people make bad choices, our government feels the need to subsidize those people by stealing money from other productive people.

Oh puleaze.


The federal government has a few legitimate functions, coining money, defending us (even our borders). If it stuck to those things we wouldn't have to talk about all these taxes. The states can handle other functions as they see fit. Let california be a welfare state, let texas have free markets, let massachusetts have gay marriage, let new york be a section 8 ghetto. See which states prosper and then the other states can decide to adopt those policies. We really need to shift government back to the states so we can see some innovation in government. When one state makes a mistake, it doesn't have to be repeated in 49 others.

If it weren't for Calif, NY, NJ, MN, CT tax payers, much of the southern and plain states could not keep their lights on.

Texas doesn't have much to show since they raced to the bottom on taxes and regulation.


I hate seeing money taken out of my pocket so that I have to support others who are not working. No society can survive on the back of the productive few supporting many who are unproductive. There is no reason social security recipients can't contribute. they know things and have value, they need not be relegated to leaches on the backs of society. Welfare cases can work, and should work, I need someone to scrub my floors, but unfortunately they don't have to scrub my floors to get my money, all they need to do is demand that the government take the money from me and give to them... and my floors are still dirty. When the government takes my money and gives it to welfare cases and section 8 housing recipients I get nothing in return. Those people should have to do work in order to earn their benefits, that way I can get something for my money. Everyone ends up better off.... you know what we call that... work. Jobs. If people didn't have the opportunity to steal from me, they would have to get jobs.

Nobody is stealing from you. But your asking your gov't for financial relief from your creditors if and when you have filed for BK.

When they had jobs they would pay taxes and we would all be better off.

I am morally against taxing the rich if we use it for redistribution. Especially to wealthy bankers as has been the custom under Bush and Obama. We have too much taxes in this country not too little. We need to reduce spending, and we need to start with social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, section 8, welfare (if you are on these programs I don't blame you, its the voters that vote to steal from me to provide these things that I blame, the recipients are just acting rationally to the incentives we give)

I support in letting the tax cuts expired to reduce the deficit. Should of not happen in the first place.

Social Security surpluses have been financing the defense budget for decades. Where would you make that up?

Welfare is pittance when it comes to gov't spending. Its a safety net. With out it, people will do desperate things like stealing in order to survive which will result in jail time at up to $30,000 per year. Welfare is cheap compared to prison time. Ask how Calif three strikes have worked out for them? Prisons account for 10% of Calif state budget. And people were criticizing midnight basketball.


From there we can get rid of federal control over education, school lunches, healthcare, etc and return the power to the laboratories of innovation known as the states. Let the competition determine the winners. Those who invest in productivity will prosper, those who steal and invest in welfare will end up broke, as all welfare states are inevitably doomed to be.

You are referring to the southern and plain states right?

[chrisdfw]

You are referring to the southern and plain states right?

all states, if NY wants to become a haven for people who make bad choices, then let them try it. If MN doesn't want to , let them try.

Many many states are crippled by medicaid costs because the federal government forces them to spend money that they may otherwise choose not to. I think here in Texas we could keep out lights on just fine, we exported power to california when they couldn't keep their lights on. We still have manufacturing here too. But that is not the point.

I don't really care that welfare is a pittance or cheaper than prison time, because prisons would be pretty cheap if we didn't have do gooders crying over the prisoners treatment. How about some tents in the desert and some hard physical labor. People might not go back. Trust me, I can run a prison for far less, high fences, cheap food, no air conditioning, and hard labor. AT some point criminals get the quick death penalty, or society arms themselves and when you break in you get shot.

Welfare is only cheaper than prison in our current screwed up system where we think it is kind to prolong poverty and punish success.

The southern and plain states... you mean the ones with low crime, low unemployment, that produce the food that most of the country consumes. The ones forces to pay the medical bills for illegals because the federal government won't enforce the border... yes those.

So specifically what is bloated
Social security
medicare
defense (except for our own border)
department of education
department of the interior
Pretty much all of them... there is no reason for a federal department of education, every state already has one.
Same for the interior, we have similar departments in the states.
Defense is too high, because we refuse to fight wars properly. Kill people and get it over with. That is how to end
a war. But we spend a lot of our money defending other countries which they need to pay for or do themselves.
All welfare... no need for this at a federal level... pretty much all states have departments that handle the same functions.

[chrisdfw]

I think we are going to travel much further down the steep road leading to the cliff before we finally hit the brakes and realize the brakes will only slow us down but we will be heading off the cliff regardless. We will eventually throw an anchor that stops us from completely dying at the bottom, so we will be hanging most of the way off the cliff and will have one hell of a nasty and slow climb to get back to the top of the cliff again (many years from now).

So you must be an optimist... I am not that hopeful.. I rather think we may go off the cliff.

[tobee43]

It is not confusing or unclear at all. Why don't you just turn OFF the television and radio, and try reading about the bill? Why do you think the TV talking heads understand what they are talking about? They are not attorneys or lawmakers or economists - they are more like circus performers. The details of the Obama/Republican agreement were clearly stated from the start. They never changed. All you had to do is to READ about the details from a reputable source.

And BTW, all of my posts are "great".

LOL!!! first I HATE TV....but i do have another half that LOVES to listen all day....i personally prefer silence.......do NOT SAY a word....but i do...

i read tons....and each writer has it's own interruption of what is being said. additionally, even IF you read the bill, each person sees it say a different meaning using the same words....(i understand that well working in a field that law was twisted to service whom it was that could afford the best verbal twister of the law to meet whatever criteria needed at that moment).

and ok....MOST all your posts are great...LOL!!!! at the VERY least they do invoke SOME (of course excluded ME), to think and react...it's mostly a good thing...mostly...

[helpme2010]

LOL!!! first I HATE TV....but i do have another half that LOVES to listen all day....i personally prefer silence.......do NOT SAY a word....but i do...

i read tons....and each writer has it's own interruption of what is being said. additionally, even IF you read the bill, each person sees it say a different meaning using the same words....(i understand that well working in a field that law was twisted to service whom it was that could afford the best verbal twister of the law to meet whatever criteria needed at that moment).

and ok....MOST all your posts are great...LOL!!!! at the VERY least they do invoke SOME (of course excluded ME), to think and react...it's mostly a good thing...mostly...

I would love to read this bill. I have read many of the previous ones related to UE. I was a little lazy and didn't research to find it (and probably would just cry after reading it).

As for tobee saying you don't like tv, I love tv (I was raised by a tv). ahahahahah

I also watch a lot of tv, because the more they talk about this on tv, the more the politicians will listen and take action, as many watch the cable news channels and take action from those commentators. The commentators represent the people (something congress is supposed to do but doesn't always do). Angry screaming commentators demanding 99er help will represent the voice of millions and can help our cause.

[banca rotta]

So you must be an optimist... I am not that hopeful.. I rather think we may go off the cliff.

I am pretty hopeful. I am an optimist. I feel that once we get to the cliff and hit the brakes the folks that are dependent on the government services such as the recipients of the public pensions, the free healthcare crowd, the bailout crowd and the rest of the bunch that depends on the bankrupt government will fly right off the cliff while the rest of us will take our time and build a strong bridge to the future.

We will have a lot of hard work but it will be done. As for the rest of you that want your big govt giveaways I say happy landings!

[chrisdfw]

I am pretty hopeful. I am an optimist. I feel that once we get to the cliff and hit the brakes the folks that are dependent on the government services such as the recipients of the public pensions, the free healthcare crowd, the bailout crowd and the rest of the bunch that depends on the bankrupt government will fly right off the cliff while the rest of us will take our time and build a strong bridge to the future.

We will have a lot of hard work but it will be done. As for the rest of you that want your big govt giveaways I say happy landings!

I don't think they will give up their giveaways, not until they have voted to use the force of government to take everything from those that have more. They have gotten pretty close in the past. 55% estate taxes, income tax rates up to 90%. There are many who would vote to kill the rich to take what they have. They already want to financially rape the rich to pay for their food stamps, section 8, tanf, etc.

The mentality of many is that they don't care what they have to do, they will kill to take what you or I may have.

I think it may get rather nasty when the harsh financial reality sets in that we can't afford to keep supporting the massive entitlements that many depend on. We can't afford to finance 30 years of medical care and social security for people who can still contribute. We can't afford to continue to encourage immorality and sloth. It may get ugly indeed. Within 20 years at our current course the interest on the debt will consume the entire federal budget. What then? 80% tax rates, no more goodies, both?

I worry about our country, too many people depend on the government to take money from others to support them.

[msm859]

I don't think they will give up their giveaways, not until they have voted to use the force of government to take everything from those that have more. They have gotten pretty close in the past. 55% estate taxes, income tax rates up to 90%. There are many who would vote to kill the rich to take what they have. They already want to financially rape the rich to pay for their food stamps, section 8, tanf, etc.

The mentality of many is that they don't care what they have to do, they will kill to take what you or I may have.

I think it may get rather nasty when the harsh financial reality sets in that we can't afford to keep supporting the massive entitlements that many depend on. We can't afford to finance 30 years of medical care and social security for people who can still contribute. We can't afford to continue to encourage immorality and sloth. It may get ugly indeed. Within 20 years at our current course the interest on the debt will consume the entire federal budget. What then? 80% tax rates, no more goodies, both?

I worry about our country, too many people depend on the government to take money from others to support them.

Here you go if you want to balance the budget:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Contrary to your individual belief. Welfare is not the major problem. Nor are high taxes. Look at history, our taxes are too low to sustain the government. We are simply destroying our country and our children's future with these unsustainable deficits.

[msm859]

And as to the sensitivity to the inheritance tax some history again would be beneficial:

Adam Smith was a vigorous proponent of the Inheritance Tax. Though primary sources (other than those quoted) are rare. Secondary sources from his students abound from his numerous lectures at Glascow. The one phrase that is directly his is "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." Implicit in that statement is the difficultly lies in its lack of existence.

Thomas Jefferson enumerates this far more clearly in his infamous letter to Madison now titled, the Earth belongs to the Living. His opening argument (emphasis his):

Quote:
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct* to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

*Usufruct is the legal right to own/use/benefit from property. (Mimirswell)
Jefferson holds a very clear view, the same as Smith but more fervently said and expanded upon. The Dead have neither power nor right of usufruct. Jefferson, like Smith believes it is neither a natural right or one reserved by the people. Instead, he goes on in the very next line to say:

Quote:
The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.
Inheritance should revert to society. He continues:

Quote:
If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants.
Only after government should consideration be showed to any heirs.

Smith holds a similar albeit more nuanced view:

Quote:
“The death of a father, to such of his children as live in the same house with him, is seldom attended with any increase, and frequently with a considerable diminution of revenue, by the loss of his industry, of his office, or of some life-rent estate of which he may have been in possession.

That tax would be cruel and oppressive which aggravated their loss by taking from them any part of his succession.
Distancing himself from Jefferson, Smith starts with a caveat. It would be cruel and unfair to deny children not yet adults. He however makes his position clear though unassuming (as is his tendency in the Wealth of Nations):

It may, however, sometimes be otherwise with those children who, in the language of the Roman law, are said to be emancipated; in that of the Scotch law, to be forisfamiliated; that is, who have received their portion, have got families of their own, and are supported by funds separate and independent of those of their father. Whatever part of his succession might come to such children would be a real addition to their fortune, and might therefore, perhaps, without more inconveniency than what attends all duties of this kind, be liable to some tax[/quote]

In other words, if the children are adults, they must earn their own wealth and the taxation of such inheritance is proper (though as with all taxes, not particularly enjoyable).

So having established that the two individuals felt that the inheritance tax is a necessity, we must now establish a reason for such. Jefferson has a two-pronged approach. The first, perpetual slavery:

Quote:
Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle.
Debt is a much part of usufruct as Surplus. To hold one true is to hold the other true and thus, binding sons to the sins of the father.

His next point comes later when he addresses the state of France and what has become of it after many centuries of inheritance:

Quote:
This principle that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead is of very extensive application and consequences in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given antiently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity? whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue ecclesiastical and feudal? it goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations; to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences; with a long train of et ceteras.
France has become a society wherein should the government acknowledge the right of inheritance, it is entirely at the mercy of the Aristocracy whose transference of wealth keeps it in a state of perpetual power without effort. Thus, he makes the case that inheritance inevitably creates a class of Aristocrats, a plutocracy. He stops short of directly claiming this because the letter was in fact being sent to Paris (where Madison was) but the extending thought is quite clear.

Note, despite Jefferson's views, he was foremost a realist. He did not realistically think that Inheritance could be abolished but rather was arguing its existence as as a right and then establish how it should be treated (in this case, taxed).

Part 2

Andrew Carnagie and the "Gospel of Wealth"

Andrew Carnegie is one of the most ardent supports of the Inheritence tax to have ever lived. As a true rags to riches business magnate, Carnegie possessed a very different mindset, summing his thoughts on money as:

Quote:
Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth.
One may mistake this as a disdain for wealth that lead to his view for the inheritance tax but Carnegie endorsed several reasons. Perhaps foremost to Carnegie was his lassiz-faire social darwinistic views. He viewed competition and inequality as essential to society, noting that it was great men who brought about the greatest advancements. However, he sharply criticizes the act of inheritance:

Quote:
The question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is, Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the State. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters
moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate; for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed often work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families, and of the State, such bequests are an improper use of their means.
Something to keep in mind at this point is the wealth of this man, though I will discuss Bill Gates later, adjusted for inflation, Carnegie had easily ten times his wealth and yet he believed his sons were entitled to nothing and that only those who could not provide for themselves should be given any wealth. Having stated such, he goes on to explain his view on taxation of such:

Quote:
The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes -- subject to some exceptions -- one tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community from which it chiefly came, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the State, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.
His purpose here is not to generate money for the state (neither was it Adam's or Jefferson's purpose). However, whereas there concern was the prevention of an Aristocratic class, Carnegie is more concerned with Philanthropy, stating:

Quote:
This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being by far the most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of
enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for, to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention, and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition, to have enormous sums paid over to the State from their fortunes.
By absurdly high taxes, the wealthiest of men must find a way to administer their wealth in life and Carnegie concludes that great men wish to live legacies (in fact, that's the main reason he thinks the selfish rich create perpetual trusts) and by forcing them to spend now:

Quote:
Under its sway we shall have an ideal State, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the
many, because administered for the common good; and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this,
and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among themselves in trifling amounts through the course of many years.
Here lies in his solution; Public Works for the good of all men.

Fast forward to today and we have two of the wealthiest men in the world sharing a similar adage. As neither have the cogent view as the result of definitive works into the matter, instead, I will simply quote various statements by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in regards to Inheritance Tax.

When asked how he would change the tax code, Buffet said:

Quote:
"If I really could do it, it would shock you,’ he said. He’d tax the hell out of personal consumption – at progressively higher rates – and impose an ‘enormous’ inheritance tax.”
For Christmas, his children receive 10,000 dollars (adjusted for inflation annually) and none he has stated that “a few hundred thousand ought to do it" in regards to his childrens inheritance.

In response to a critique of food stamps by the DuPonts, he once acidly said:

Quote:
“The DuPonts might believe themselves perceptive in observing the debilitating effects of food stamps for the poor, but were themselves living off a boundless supply of privately funded food stamps. The idea that you get a lifetime of food stamps based on coming out of the right womb strikes at my idea of fairness.”
Another of his more famous quotes in regards to the Inheritance tax was spurred by a comment it might be repealed. He cited the idea as absurd, retorting they might as well:

Quote:
"choose the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics"
In Buffet we see the natural concerns shared by Smith, Jefferson and Carnegie in the creation of a wealthy class and creating a disincentive among the future generations to add value to the society. Buffet's own wealth upon his death will go to a foundation to solve various world problems (chief among them medical.)

Bill Gates himself considers himself a protege of Carnegie, having created the William H. Gates Foundation after studying his works.

Upon being asked about the repeal of the Inheritance Tax:

Quote:
It's ridiculous...it's just such a fair tax. I mean, it's just such an opportune, appropriate time to have repaid from the people who have benefited more than anyone else from the circumstances that this country makes available, from the conditions that make it possible to become.... There's nowhere else in the world, nowhere else in the world, that people can accrue the kind of fortunes that happen here. And that's because of the kind of country we have.
And the kind of country we have is a function of the taxes that we pay to provide security, we have a stable market, you can predict next week will be pretty much like the week before.
We have the most immense investment being made by our government in advancing businesses by supporting the enormous research industry that's going on in this country. And it's that piece of government expenditure that which has everything to do with the health and robustness of our economy.
Here he gives a new argument not yet expressed, the idea that your wealth stems from your country (and implicitly your government.)


He clarifies this in an interview with Bill Moyes:

Quote:
MOYERS: Why shouldn't you be able to direct your money to where you want it to go in your will or however you want to do it? I mean, you earned it.


GATES: "You earned it" is really a matter of "you earned it with the indispensable help of your government."
You earned it in this wonderful place. If you'd been born in West Africa, you would not have earned it. It would not have occurred. Your wealth is a function of being an American.

GATES: The huge disparity in wealth that's happening, is something that is, I think, really dangerous.

MOYERS: Why?

GATES: Wealth is power, Bill. And it just is not a good situation. And the examples of the aristocracies of Europe are so clear. We don't want to have a country like that. Who was it that said, it was Louis Brandeis who said...

MOYERS: Justice of the Supreme Court...

GATES: Yes, indeed. And he said, you know, we can either have a situation where we have a small number of people with a huge amount of wealth or we can have a democracy. But we can't have both. That's clear wisdom.
On the issue of social harm:

Quote:
MOYERS: What do you think is the social harm that comes from a large concentration of wealth?



GATES: I just don't think that my son's children or any other wealthy person's children are benefitted by being handed a quantity of money that's so great that they and their offspring will be really rich for that generation and for generations to come. That's not a good thing for a human being, to be in that situation.



And then more to the point, it's not a good thing for society.


MOYERS: What do your two daughters think about this? I mean, in effect, you're going to cost them something when you're gone!


GATES: Well, I think I can fairly describe them as being understanding of what's happening here.

MOYERS: So you are in effect penalizing them because of your principles.

GATES: That is correct, but I'm doing the right thing.
Like Buffet and Carnegie, Gates has no intent of being a hypocrite. To date, he's donated 27 billion dollars of wealth to charity and other philanthropist causes.

The purpose with this essay was not to persuade opinion, rather it was to prompt a debate on why there is a huge disparity between the founders of a creed, the most successful members of the creed versus the regular members of the creed.

In other words, how is it that today's proponents of capitalism, republicanism and libertarianism remain the most vocal opposition to the inheritance tax? Is it simple avarice?

[chrisdfw]

Here you go if you want to balance the budget:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Contrary to your individual belief. Welfare is not the major problem. Nor are high taxes. Look at history, our taxes are too low to sustain the government. We are simply destroying our country and our children's future with these unsustainable deficits.

Our taxes are only too low to sustain the government if you believe that the federal government has a role in every aspect of our lives.

I understand how little of the federal government goes to "welfare" as you define it. Its a philosophical issues of theft for me, not an issue of numbers. I know all the numbers, and I can't settle an argument over the principle of whether I should have to pay taxes to support others on the basis of numbers. Even if you only take 1 dollar from me and give it to someone else, it is still theft. The argument is not how much is it ok to steal, for me it is a principle that government should not be doing that. But I would include the social security system in the welfare system, as benefits are not proportional to what was paid in, and it is an intergenerational transfer of wealth (aside from the dead weight losses it imposes by allowing people with something to contribute to be idle).

You are I would agree for sure on the deficit, we are destroying the future, we only disagree on the fix. I believe in a massive reduction in almost every aspect of government. I believe in the soveriegn individual supported by the rule of law and a limited role of government.

The deficits are unsustainable, I will never argue that they aren't. I have never said anything to the contrary. I just want to get rid of federal government interference in my life. Protect me, enforce property rights, prevent trade wars among the states.. very limited role.

We have an estate tax not an inheritance tax... I believe if we are going to tax wealth, we should do it with an inheritance tax in place of an estate tax. That way at least we would be promoting distributing the estate over more people. Then the exemption would be based on how many people you give the money to. I believe very strongly in property rights, including the right to the fruits of my labor to do with as a I please. Gift taxes and estate and inheritance taxes infringe on those rights. Especially at the grotesque rates proposed by proponents. I might be inclined to agree to allow estate taxes, but the problem is they are usually accompanied by gift taxes. I do not believe I should be limited in my right to give my property to anyone I wish at any time for any consideration or lack of consideration I choose to accept. I do not believe that inherited wealth is necessarily a good thing, and I would encourage people not to do it, but despite my beliefs I do not believe the government should get involved.

I cannot argue with any of your facts, never intended to take issue with facts. The issue for me is the issue of the role of government, the morality of slavery (even fractional slavery where the government takes just part of my labor for the benefit of another master). You can't settle a conflict between my belief system and yours with facts or figures. I want a smaller government which does not take from me to provide for another. That is the role of charity. Charity is voluntary, not forced at the barrel of a gun. Again, I think charity is good, but not a place for government involvement.

I appreciate your arguments and point of view, they are far more rational and thought out than most I have encountered who share your point of view.

[diesillady]

Why is cutting section 8, unemployment benefit and welfare the only targets mention when it come to cutting our tax budget. When any research will show that 82% of the budget is for the DoD 20%, Social Security 21%, Medicaid/Medicare 33%, Interest on the debit 8%. Safety Net and non defense discretionary spend account for only 18% of the budget. Now you can cut that 18% by getting rid of the Department of Education, Benefits for federal retirees and veterans, Scientific and medical research, Transportation and the budget will still not be balance based on current revenue streams from all sources. The US budget has not been balance for years, because the government borrows the money from Social Security or China or issue worthless "T" Bill ever year. We have 13 trillion dollar deficit but cutting section 8 welfare and unemployment is all you can come up with. You can cut out all of those agency in that 18% and we will just have more of those pesky unemployed people getting unemployment benefit. But people need a villain so everything will be okay if we had no poor people or homeless people. If America only had those good hard working right type of people like the good old days we all be in middle class Nirvana.

[diesillady]

"I just want to get rid of federal government interference in my life. Protect me, enforce property rights, prevent trade wars among the states.. very limited role."
But what part of these are you willing to pay for and how much? How can be it done fairly, do we each paid $100 a year in taxes or a $1000 year I mean you got to pay something for these service. People cry I just want my money not to be taken and use for this or that. So let's go to a flat taxes or value tax but that still means some deadbeat might get you money. I say let everything go to privatize industry and let the free market work. How do you think we'd live if the infrastructure of this country is not maintain by government every service you need would be a la carte. My guess is you be so broke paying all those private contractors you would be worse off than you every though possible. But you'd be happy that the damn Government didn't steal my money and give it to them people.

[tobee43]

I would love to read this bill. I have read many of the previous ones related to UE. I was a little lazy and didn't research to find it (and probably would just cry after reading it).

As for tobee saying you don't like tv, I love tv (I was raised by a tv). ahahahahah

I also watch a lot of tv, because the more they talk about this on tv, the more the politicians will listen and take action, as many watch the cable news channels and take action from those commentators. The commentators represent the people (something congress is supposed to do but doesn't always do). Angry screaming commentators demanding 99er help will represent the voice of millions and can help our cause.

well, i should say i HATE tv...i love movies and do like a discovery channel and a few like the history but we don't have cable anymore....but my dh is a cnn 24/7....also in my car i only have national news going.