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

[tobee43]

There's a great book that I never finished 20 years ago called Atlas Shrugged by Anne Rein. It appeared to be about people that worked hard and contributed to society, breaking apart and starting their own society, thus leaving those that did not contribute to fend for themselves. I am dying to know how that ultimately turned out for both sides.

your really cute....it's ayn rand....and you should finish book...i'm not telling you the ending...fountainhead was my personal favorite.

[helpme2010]

There's a great book that I never finished 20 years ago called Atlas Shrugged by Anne Rein. It appeared to be about people that worked hard and contributed to society, breaking apart and starting their own society, thus leaving those that did not contribute to fend for themselves. I am dying to know how that ultimately turned out for both sides.

[tobee43]

Let start around 3500 BC Mesopotamia and go forward, the argument made on here and on all sides of the political spectrum about service and who pays for it has raged in one fail government from then to now. The little man feel he should not have to pay for the common need of other the ruling elite say bs you will pay and serve the society. The little man feels he should keep his hard earn money for himself and let the rich Lords, the war load, the king, now in this era the government pay not him this is also bs they never pay we do. This has been argued and fought over every since and if you know history then you know how the movie ends.. There is and always will be a total concentration of resource and wealth at the very top and everyone else is cannon fodder. America is just repeat of a cycle that has been spitting out fail society every since then. There has been a number of great society in man's history (Egyptian/ Persian, Roman/Ottoman the Han Dynasty, then throw in a few truly great man like Alexander, Genghis, Napoleon, or Hitler but they all fail,. Look along the historic time line of man and it's a recurring event.
Man has strive to achieve a social system where the tribe look out for the benefit of there weakest member to there strongest with some contribution from everyone. However it has so far always been corrupted and ultimate fail because it does not work. There is greed and ambition and natural Darwinism and the strong always win and when they get control it's dam hard to take it back. We as individual rail at the moon and with the internet it reach a lot more ear and eyes but it ain't changing Jack you will pay taxes no matter whether the power is the hand of the "R" OR "D" OR "TP". These organization don't give a darn about you because they just want power and the wealthy that flows from it. So which ever side you fell passion for they will just use it to get your vote to achieve there end game. Which is control and you still will pay taxes, maybe it's what you feel is the right thing to pay for with your tax money but you will still pay.

great POST......just after the first line i was thinking about the rise and falls during that past million years or so!! LOL!!

so true...every word of it!!!!

blog it will you!

[diesillady]

Let start around 3500 BC Mesopotamia and go forward, the argument made on here and on all sides of the political spectrum about service and who pays for it has raged in one fail government from then to now. The little man feel he should not have to pay for the common need of other the ruling elite say bs you will pay and serve the society. The little man feels he should keep his hard earn money for himself and let the rich Lords, the war load, the king, now in this era the government pay not him this is also bs they never pay we do. This has been argued and fought over every since and if you know history then you know how the movie ends.. There is and always will be a total concentration of resource and wealth at the very top and everyone else is cannon fodder. America is just repeat of a cycle that has been spitting out fail society every since then. There has been a number of great society in man's history (Egyptian/ Persian, Roman/Ottoman the Han Dynasty, then throw in a few truly great man like Alexander, Genghis, Napoleon, or Hitler but they all fail,. Look along the historic time line of man and it's a recurring event.
Man has strive to achieve a social system where the tribe look out for the benefit of there weakest member to there strongest with some contribution from everyone. However it has so far always been corrupted and ultimate fail because it does not work. There is greed and ambition and natural Darwinism and the strong always win and when they get control it's dam hard to take it back. We as individual rail at the moon and with the internet it reach a lot more ear and eyes but it ain't changing Jack you will pay taxes no matter whether the power is the hand of the "R" OR "D" OR "TP". These organization don't give a darn about you because they just want power and the wealthy that flows from it. So which ever side you fell passion for they will just use it to get your vote to achieve there end game. Which is control and you still will pay taxes, maybe it's what you feel is the right thing to pay for with your tax money but you will still pay.

[helpme2010]

I agree and disagree with the statement about dismantling government benefits. I am all for privatizing social security for example, but only a certain amount. You never know, even if you are doing pretty good, that suddenly something can go wrong and you may need the help of the government. One problem with giving the corporations complete control is the level of corruption and manipulation that would occur if they had control. I don't trust any corporation as far as I can throw a 200 pound weight. I think government needs to have far better quality in terms of monitoring corporations, which government fails miserably as well.

I also think its sad that gas taxes get pulled away from infrastructure road repairs, social security gets raided, money gets taken away from its original purpose and spent.

[chrisdfw]

[QUOTE=diesillady;482676 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.[/QUOTE]

We can pay for many legitimate government services a la carte. Gasoline taxes should go for roads, fees to ride the bus should pay for public transit. Water and sewer fees should maintain the sewers. Etc.

How we pay for things is less important to me that what we are paying for. Flat tax, value tax, I don't care as much about that as dismantling the government paying private benefits. I don't think the government should take money from me and give it to someone else for a private benefit. No more welfare, section 8, food stamps, social security, medicare, medicaid, wall street bailouts, GM bailouts, ethanol subsidies, etc. Nothing that takes money from one citizen to give a benefit to another.

Public goods are different. The military defends everyone in the country equally. Food stamps allow one person to eat, but forces another person to pay for it. There is a big difference because the government is choosing to favor one over another. That is not a legitimate role of government.

Infrastructure should be paid for by those most directly benefitting wherever possible. Property taxes should pay for local police, since they are protecting the people who live in the area. Gas taxes should pay for roads, those that use the roads the most pay the most. Some things don't fit neatly into a category like the military, so we can fund that with a general sales tax or income tax.

[chrisdfw]

Both you, I and 99% of the rest of this country would be better off with more "draconian" tax structure.

Maybe so, you sound like a very practical person. I am an idealist, I prefer that everyone pay something for government services (which I believe should be limited) even if it is a small amount, just because it makes people better citizens. I don't believe in having government play such a large role in the country, of course you are correct, WHERE to draw the line is the debate. I draw the line at taking money and doling it out for private benefits. No government should be in that role. But in our system the federal government was supposed to have an even more limited role.

Powerful corporations and powerful government go hand in hand. If the federal government wasn't so powerful, corporations would have little incentive to get involved in politics. If the government didn't hand out benefits to one group at the expense of another, labor unions and corporations alike would not be so involved. Money is power only because the government is so large and powerful, having the the ability to take from me against my will and give to someone else.

I believe big government promotes plutocracy, not counters it. IF the government did not consume so much economic activity, the wealthy would not have so much power. Democrats and republicans both favor big government and poweful corporations. Nobody with any real power does anything to reduce the scope of government, on the contrary, democrats wanted a huge expansion of the government into the medical sector... before that republicans wanted... wait for it.. a huge expansion of the government into health care (medicare prescription drugs). The common theme is that they both want to take money from the public at large (mostly from future generations) and use it provide private benefits to certain people (either the poor, the old, the rich, but mostly the powerful)

In the end as long as the government has the power to take from one person and give it to another, the very plutocracy you cite will be a problem. It is only when there is limited government does the plutocracy cease to be a problem.

I am not a pragmatist though, I don't care about the result as much as I care about the principle of freedom. I believe the government should provide and defend freedom, whatever the cost. If people starve to death, I am willing to accept that if that is the cost of freedom. I am in the tiny minority I know... "most men don't want freedom, just a master that doesn't beat them".. I can't remember the person who said that, but I believe it is true and that is the heart of the issue. People want to be comfortable, the want the illusion of security and are willing to sacrifice freedom to get it. I understand the desire to be comfortable, but to me, the price is too high. If even 1% of my income is taken to provide for someone else against my will, that is too much. I believe charity has to be voluntary, or it is immoral.

Economically we might be better off if we provide some sort of safety net (maybe.. I am not so sure) but I am willing to forgo the increase in utility to defend the principle of freedom.

I actually believe we should be paying more taxes in quite a few instances. I believe we should be paying higher sewer fees, as our infrastructure is crumbling, more gasoline taxes as our roads are in disrepair. Higher fees for public services like water, to support the true cost of providing the services. But most of these things are better provided for at the state and local level where people understand the needs, not by taking money from California to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Taxes are an inevitable cost of society, but the government picking the winners and losers has got to stop, why does an ethanol farmer deserve a subsidy, but someone growing cotton in texas does not. Why does a poor person with no job get food stamps at the expense of a middle class self employed business owner? As long as the government is picking between groups, plutocracy will rein as those with the money spend it to influence government.

I am willing to sacrifice being better off for the sake of freedom. In the short term I believe everyone may need to sacrifice to get the budget back on track, but primarily through spending cuts as we scale back government and get the beast out of the economic game. In the end we can't afford not to do something, people have lost faith in the government. 80% of the public is against a bailout, but it goes through, what that says is that the government chose to bestow private benefits on wealthy corporations as the expense of future generations against the will of the people. It could never happen if the government was not in the business of bestowing private benefits.

[msm859]

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.

Thank you for the end compliment. I enjoy an intelligent debate without useless rhetoric. I also actually have a a degree in Economics and was studying supply side economics in college when it was first brought up in the 80's so this has a certain interest to me. More importantly though I have an interest in my children and grandchildren's future. Given your passion I suspect I would never convince you of my side which is okay, but I also have no doubt that you are likewise concerned about the future of this country. Sorely missing from much of the conversation is any honest debate. Your idea of the role of government may be different than mine but I suspect you are at least receptive to some objective facts. The deficit is a fact. The recent tax "compromise" is a Trojan Horse that is going to make it that much harder if at all possible to fix. Weeks ago the Republicans were arguing you cannot extend unemployment because it will add $50 billion to the deficit, yet they don't blink to add almost $900 billion in the next 2 years because they got the only thing they cared about -- tax cuts for the rich ($250k may not be, but they even voted against it when it was a $1 million dollar limit). Said cuts will probably be extended again in 2 years. I suggest to you that at said time your concern of paying for welfare benefits or of this country becoming socialist will be the least of your concerns. Your real concern and what was just proven is that a plutocracy is what will bring this country down. If you think about the macro picture most businesses in this country actually depend on a vibrant middle class to succeed. A plutocracy is hard at work trying to destroy that. I have my own business and virtually all of my customers are the middle class. I come from a family of 7 kids and all of us became home owners 6 out of 7 easily did better than our parents. I am concerned how many of the grand kids will be able to say they did better than their parents. Would you rather pay 5% more in taxes but make 10% more in profits, or pay 5% less in taxes but make 10% less in profits? One of the primary purposes of government is to provide for the common good which should mean to promote an environment were all can succeed and have equal opportunities. As I just read somewhere, China is developing bullet trains and their kids are going to school 6 days a week. We are building religious theme parks were our kids are going on rides with dinosaurs.
Balance is a tough act with government in general and federal vs state and I would probably agree that the federal is too involved. As you can see I am from CA and it is funny when on some blogs the "red" state fanatics are calling for the feds to quit giving aid to the states - pointing to "liberal" CA, but not realizing that CA sends the feds more money than they get back unlike what typically happens in most "red" states. So in a state micro view I would prefer the feds were out of almost everything - CA would be better off. But certain things have to be considered as a whole country, were that line is drawn is the debate.

Again as to the inheritance tax I believe it is a necessary tool to combat greed and a plutocracy -- and a better way to obtain revenue to fund the government than many other ways. With that as my concern I don't have a problem with generous exemptions -- perhaps to allow 1 generation a comfortable life -- and if they are smart and industrious more. To abolish it will destroy this country as we know it. Until the national debt is gone though I would be more inclined to favor one of those draconian rates of 55% or more on estates over $10 million. If the ruling plutocracy knew that they would more likely yield their influence to balance the budget and get rid of the debt -- unlike what they just used it for to add $900 billion to the debt in the next 2 years. Both you, I and 99% of the rest of this country would be better off with more "draconian" tax structure.

[tobee43]

"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.

i absolutely SO agree with you...

privatizing ...which i posted on another thread, i truly believe is the answer to many of the unemployment issues, the government interference, privatizing would improve services....improve the free market system...from social services to medicare...

i think we can't forget the government contract with Halliburton..........now that's really something to be sick about!...so please let ME hire whom i wish....is that point!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.