Inherited wealth. Any justification?

[Agit8r]

You are thinking like a Collectivist. The Premise is False. When you Pay me for Goods or Service, it is not up to you how I use that resource. Why should I be accountable to you, or you be accountable to me in that way??? How does that serve Liberty???

But massive accumulations of wealth are a construct only possible through the mechanism of government. In medieval times that mechanism was war and conquest. now it is only possible through recognition of the corporate person, limited liability, etc. And being entirely dependent upon government, in a REPUBLIC amassed wealth must answer TO THE PEOPLE!

You're complete numbnut.

Tell us again why you think you're entitled to take things that don't belong to you? Seems to be a pretty basic concept in life your parents failed to teach you.

I'm not taking anything that belongs to anybody. I'm saying there ought to be a limit to how much the few can skim off of the top of the rest of us THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF GOVERNMENT! You have something against a limited government?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The money belonged to the who died-I think we can all agree on that.

as long as the person has earned that through merit to society, of course. But MERIT IS NOT HEREDITARY! That is the one MOST BASIC principal that this country was founded upon

Back to reality. The biggest flaw in your argument is this: nobody has the same judgment of what merit is. What I may think is worthy of more merit-would be less to others.

There's only 1 accurate way of judging "merit"-you get paid what you deserve from your bosses. If you feel you're underpaid-you can always find another job (nobody forces you into a job/salary). If you can make more elsewhere-then you're currently working less than your "merit", so go out and get it.

You make what you earn. Period. If you don't start out on 3rd base, like some people do, then BOTH hard work, and smart work are the only way out. Working hard is smart, and working smart is hard.

If I want to give all my money charity tomorrow-I can. If I want to give all my money to a family member tomorrow-I can. Are you against this? If not-why can't I do this the moment I die?

 

[Agit8r]

Right now the top 2% or 3% of incomes own 90% of everything. The rest of us are peons. The basic question is, does the government protect and promote a middle-class, or protect the super-rich? Didn't someone say "let them eat cake" when the citizenry had enough poverty?

Blame the "Too Big To Fail" Schemes, the Corporate Protectionism, the Monopolies that infringe on Free and Local Competition. What we live in today is not Free Market Capitalism. Unjustified Regulation. In all things there is balance, we are so far off the Reservation, there is no simple fix, the remedies are complex and compounded, and need to be fluid enough to adapt to circumstance. Every action will have repercussions to contend with. Grown Up's should take responsibility and Navigate. Totalitarianism should be rejected at all cost, while we still have the power to reject it.

If a company is proficient enough to take extreme power then it is their right as a United States Corporation to do as such. If another person or company believes themselves better then let them contest. The U.S is a competition and thats the point of it. Don't hate the large companies just because they're winning.

America was founded on the principle of "Charters of power granted by liberty." Corporate charters were originally little constitutions for companies, in which their limited powers were specifically enumerated. It was only through the Supreme Court's activism that anything other was ever possible

Dartmouth College v. Woodward - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

as long as the person has earned that through merit to society, of course. But MERIT IS NOT HEREDITARY! That is the one MOST BASIC principal that this country was founded upon

You are thinking like a Collectivist. The Premise is False. When you Pay me for Goods or Service, it is not up to you how I use that resource. Why should I be accountable to you, or you be accountable to me in that way??? How does that serve Liberty???

But massive accumulations of wealth are a construct only possible through the mechanism of government. In medieval times that mechanism was war and conquest. now it is only possible through recognition of the corporate person, limited liability, etc. And being entirely dependent upon government, in a REPUBLIC amassed wealth must answer TO THE PEOPLE!

But massive accumulations of wealth are a construct only possible through the mechanism of government.

False Premise. The Accumulation of Wealth is the product of the Selling and Trading of Good's and Services, in The Market Place, which belongs to Individuals in the Society, Not Government. Government may be charged and compensated for Regulating and Maintaining by the Consent of the Governed. For it to Usurp Power or control, For it to play God, acting beyond It's charge or Authority, is a Crime against those it was constructed to serve. No mechanism is of more value that what it was constructed to serve. You are making Government your Religion.

In medieval times that mechanism was war and conquest.

I view the Avenues of Invention, Discovery, Revelation, and Hard Work, among the mechanisms that both advanced and enriched us.
War and Politics was only a part of it. Surely you see that.

now it is only possible through recognition of the corporate person, limited liability, etc.

Not necessarily true, still if it were, the fault would lie in an incompetent misguided and misdirected Government manipulating outcome.

And being entirely dependent upon government, in a REPUBLIC amassed wealth must answer TO THE PEOPLE!

Really! The Unwashed the angry mob gets to play Tyrant over the unsuspecting because you say so??? I don't think so. Yet if that were true it would put the Power in the hands of the Manipulators, the Puppet Masters, the Formers of Public Opinion. Maybe that is who we need to Tax???

 

[Agit8r]

False Premise. The Accumulation of Wealth is the product of the Selling and Trading of Good's and Services, in The Market Place, which belongs to Individuals in the Society, Not Government. Government may be charged and compensated for Regulating and Maintaining by the Consent of the Governed. For it to Usurp Power or control, For it to play God, acting beyond It's charge or Authority, is a Crime against those it was constructed to serve. No mechanism is of more value that what it was constructed to serve. You are making Government your Religion.

Really? Then why did the founders of our stock market require a national bank?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

But massive accumulations of wealth are a construct only possible through the mechanism of government. In medieval times that mechanism was war and conquest. now it is only possible through recognition of the corporate person, limited liability, etc. And being entirely dependent upon government, in a REPUBLIC amassed wealth must answer TO THE PEOPLE!

You're complete numbnut.

Tell us again why you think you're entitled to take things that don't belong to you? Seems to be a pretty basic concept in life your parents failed to teach you.

I'm not taking anything that belongs to anybody. I'm saying there ought to be a limit to how much the few can skim off of the top of the rest of us THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF GOVERNMENT! You have something against a limited government?

Seriously.. what the hell are you on? If I have amassed an estate worth, say $4,000,000 and I leave it to my kids... what's it to you? How is the government involved other than wanting to tax me again once I have died?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Inherited wealth. Any justification?

Inherited wealth. Any of your business?

 

[Wiseacre]

This is basically an argument for redistribution of wealth from those who are entitled to it by way of inheritance to those who are not entitled to it by any reason whatsoever. It is authorized theft.

 

[Agit8r]

You're complete numbnut.

Tell us again why you think you're entitled to take things that don't belong to you? Seems to be a pretty basic concept in life your parents failed to teach you.

I'm not taking anything that belongs to anybody. I'm saying there ought to be a limit to how much the few can skim off of the top of the rest of us THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF GOVERNMENT! You have something against a limited government?

Seriously.. what the hell are you on? If I have amassed an estate worth, say $4,000,000 and I leave it to my kids... what's it to you? How is the government involved other than wanting to tax me again once I have died?

You believe that you could amass $4 Mil, without a government? really?

 

[MikeK]

Back to the government? Did other people's money once belong to the Government? No.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion even if it does reflect an anarchist perspective.

Wealth generated under the auspices and within the protections of the United States and its government is a resource accumulated by an American citizen and is therefore subject to the purpose and intention of the U.S. Constitution, which is concerned with the general, not individual, welfare of the Nation and its People.

Who inherits what from whom is absolutely no one else's business... including the Government... and damned jealous, petty, greedy people.

The United States Government is a government of the People, for the People and by the People and is committed to preserving the interests of the People, even if it means compromising the interests of individuals who manage by one means or other to accumulate exceptional portions of the Nation's wealth resources.

A fact you might not care to acknowledge is wealth is power and exceptional wealth is exceptional power and for that reason should be subject to federal control. And appropriately progressive taxation is an effective, productive means of exercising that control.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, but excessive wealth is a malignant element within a democracy.

 

[Lasher]

No problem with inheriting wealth

The problem comes when you are born on third base and you act like you hit a triple

The thread isn't about behavior, it is about ownership of property.

 

[Wiseacre]

MikeK:

" Wealth generated under the auspices and within the protections of the United States and its government is a resource accumulated by an American citizen and is therefore subject to the purpose and intention of the U.S. Constitution, which is concerned with the general, not individual, welfare of the Nation and its People. "


Wow, so the gov't can do ANYTHING it wants with any US ctizen's property? Where the hell does it say THAT in the Constitution? Sounds like total communism to me. No individual property rights at all, the day we get to that point is the day liberty and freedom die.

 

[Lasher]

I don't see the argument for giving anything back to the government when taxes have already been paid.

Ever witnessed Caroline Kennedy?

Can you honestly tell me she merits the wealth she has?

Who merits it more?

 

[California Girl]

Now why when I read this post am I suddenly seeing visions of those two young British Royals who are being wed. There's a prime example of wealth from what source? However, If someone pay's taxes on wealth , I fail to see how taxing it again somehow can be justified into being called anything but a penalty. The other issue here is this sense that money earned somehow belongs to the Govt. it does not. A person and company should however want to pay their fair share of taxes to support the nation in which we all love. The issue that comes to mind here is that when we do pay that money is spent in reckless ways and as such it is the taxpayers right to demand it be spent in a wise manner.

Her wealth (Katherine Middleton's) comes from her family's hard work and sacrifice.

His comes from being born into the British Monarchy.... inherited money.

Either way, it's theirs, no one else has the right to take it from them.

And... the British Royal family pay taxes.

The Royal Family is nothing but pets kept for the amusement of the British people

Each and every topic you opine on shows just how fucking ignorant you are.

Whatever their royal family are or are not is fuck all to do with you. You are the combination of traits I really dislike about our country - fucking arrogant and fucking ignorant. That absolute worst of Americans.

 

[Agit8r]

Back to the government? Did other people's money once belong to the Government? No.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion even if it does reflect an anarchist perspective.

Wealth generated under the auspices and within the protections of the United States and its government is a resource accumulated by an American citizen and is therefore subject to the purpose and intention of the U.S. Constitution, which is concerned with the general, not individual, welfare of the Nation and its People.

Who inherits what from whom is absolutely no one else's business... including the Government... and damned jealous, petty, greedy people.

The United States Government is a government of the People, for the People and by the People and is committed to preserving the interests of the People, even if it means compromising the interests of individuals who manage by one means or other to accumulate exceptional portions of the Nation's wealth resources.

A fact you might not care to acknowledge is wealth is power and exceptional wealth is exceptional power and for that reason should be subject to federal control. And appropriately progressive taxation is an effective, productive means of exercising that control.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, but excessive wealth is a malignant element within a democracy.

yes. The spirit of 1776 was "That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." (Const of VA)

or put another way

"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal." (Const. of PA)

 

[California Girl]

Back to the government? Did other people's money once belong to the Government? No.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion even if it does reflect an anarchist perspective.

Wealth generated under the auspices and within the protections of the United States and its government is a resource accumulated by an American citizen and is therefore subject to the purpose and intention of the U.S. Constitution, which is concerned with the general, not individual, welfare of the Nation and its People.

Who inherits what from whom is absolutely no one else's business... including the Government... and damned jealous, petty, greedy people.

The United States Government is a government of the People, for the People and by the People and is committed to preserving the interests of the People, even if it means compromising the interests of individuals who manage by one means or other to accumulate exceptional portions of the Nation's wealth resources.

A fact you might not care to acknowledge is wealth is power and exceptional wealth is exceptional power and for that reason should be subject to federal control. And appropriately progressive taxation is an effective, productive means of exercising that control.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, but excessive wealth is a malignant element within a democracy.

You show me where - in the Constitution - the founders gave 'We, the People' the right to rob others of their money.

Fuck off. You don't get what is mine - whether I earned it or whether I inherit it. You can die in a ditch for all I care. You will not steal from me or mine. Get your own you lazy assed liberal.

 

[Lasher]

I don't see the argument for giving anything back to the government when taxes have already been paid.

Ever witnessed Caroline Kennedy?

Can you honestly tell me she merits the wealth she has?

So, you're supposed to decide who is 'allowed' to keep their wealth? Fuck off you greedy, (and probably poor) liberal. What's hers is hers.... earn your own fucking money.

I love you for your convictions!

 

[MikeK]

[You show me where - in the Constitution - the founders gave 'We, the People' the right to rob others of their money.

Fuck off. You don't get what is mine - whether I earned it or whether I inherit it. You can die in a ditch for all I care. You will not steal from me or mine. Get your own you lazy assed liberal.

You might wish to put that argument to the Internal Revenue Service. And please let me know how you make out.

By the way, have you tried Preparation-H? I've heard it's pretty good.

 

[Agit8r]

Back to the government? Did other people's money once belong to the Government? No.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion even if it does reflect an anarchist perspective.

Wealth generated under the auspices and within the protections of the United States and its government is a resource accumulated by an American citizen and is therefore subject to the purpose and intention of the U.S. Constitution, which is concerned with the general, not individual, welfare of the Nation and its People.

Who inherits what from whom is absolutely no one else's business... including the Government... and damned jealous, petty, greedy people.

The United States Government is a government of the People, for the People and by the People and is committed to preserving the interests of the People, even if it means compromising the interests of individuals who manage by one means or other to accumulate exceptional portions of the Nation's wealth resources.

A fact you might not care to acknowledge is wealth is power and exceptional wealth is exceptional power and for that reason should be subject to federal control. And appropriately progressive taxation is an effective, productive means of exercising that control.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, but excessive wealth is a malignant element within a democracy.

You show me where - in the Constitution - the founders gave 'We, the People' the right to rob others of their money.

Fuck off. You don't get what is mine - whether I earned it or whether I inherit it. You can die in a ditch for all I care. You will not steal from me or mine. Get your own you lazy assed liberal.

Y'all want my FICA taxes, whether or not I have earned them o_0

 

[Lasher]

Now why when I read this post am I suddenly seeing visions of those two young British Royals who are being wed. There's a prime example of wealth from what source? However, If someone pay's taxes on wealth , I fail to see how taxing it again somehow can be justified into being called anything but a penalty. The other issue here is this sense that money earned somehow belongs to the Govt. it does not. A person and company should however want to pay their fair share of taxes to support the nation in which we all love. The issue that comes to mind here is that when we do pay that money is spent in reckless ways and as such it is the taxpayers right to demand it be spent in a wise manner.

It isn't about money belonging to government, it is about a society based upon merit. Money is but a medium of recognizing merit, no?

Screw you. You don't get to decide who deserves what. Nor does your Messiah.

Mmmuah ! Kiss, kiss, kiss !