GREAT piece on God...Goodness...Evil...Love...and 'why?'

[wade]

Property is land, cash, jewels, go carts, ping pong balls, whatever. I contend you should be able to pass it onto your children with as little tax as possible. You earlier stated " everyone should start on equal footing" i took that to mean that you believe an estate (of whatever types of property) should be confiscated by the government upon a person's death. Is that what you mean? Your mind is a confused sewer. screw locke and you historical rantings. I just don't care.

RWA - you must come from a rich family right?

 

[shadrack]

Property is land, cash, jewels, go carts, ping pong balls, whatever. I contend you should be able to pass it onto your children with as little tax as possible. You earlier stated " everyone should start on equal footing" i took that to mean that you believe an estate (of whatever types of property) should be confiscated by the government upon a person's death. Is that what you mean? Your mind is a confused sewer. screw locke and you historical rantings. I just don't care.

"Property" signifies dominion or right of use, control, and disposition which one may lawfully exercise over things, objects, or land.

"Property" is divided in to several classifications: real and personal. Real property has divisions in classifications: freehold estates, nonfreehold estates, concurrent estates, future interests, specialty estates, and incorporeal interests.

The estate tax is only effective if more than $1,000,000 is passed down to your children. It used to be $675,000. And if the neocons get their way, there will eventually no longer be a tax in any form on estates when a person pass there property to their children. I think an estate tax is perfectly reasonable as a practicle way to "reset the playing field", so to speak, with each generation. So, yes, I believe my children should have to earn the wealth that they accumilate.

You drink the neocon "koolaid" and their web of deception to simplify things to say even a poor person should be scared that the boogyman government might, some day, come in the middle of the night and take their grandkid's pingpong tables if we don't all band together and fight this horrible encroachment on our constitutional right to property. I tried to give a historical background of why estate taxes aren't unreasonable or communist. Neocon leadership claim that "liberal" government is nothing but a communist ogre wanting to take your hard work away from you and distribute it to everyone else. Why do they make these claims?

 

[shadrack]

I'm not sure what you mean. In a fair market economy, competition between firms offering such profits would drive the price down to the point where the effective profit approaches zero after everyone is compensated for their time and investors are compensated appropriately for their risk.

Any time someone is making more than this very limited "profit", someone else is supposed to be encouraged to open a similar business and offer the same goods or services for less. That's what capitalism is really all about.

okay, you answered very well, thanks.

What about an individual who profits from their own property, including labor?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Property" signifies dominion or right of use, control, and disposition which one may lawfully exercise over things, objects, or land.

"Property" is divided in to several classifications: real and personal. Real property has divisions in classifications: freehold estates, nonfreehold estates, concurrent estates, future interests, specialty estates, and incorporeal interests.

The estate tax is only effective if more than $1,000,000 is passed down to your children. It used to be $675,000. And if the neocons get their way, there will eventually no longer be a tax in any form on estates when a person pass there property to their children. I think an estate tax is perfectly reasonable as a practicle way to "reset the playing field", so to speak, with each generation. So, yes, I believe my children should have to earn the wealth that they accumilate.

You drink the neocon "koolaid" and their web of deception to simplify things to say even a poor person should be scared that the boogyman government might, some day, come in the middle of the night and take their grandkid's pingpong tables if we don't all band together and fight this horrible encroachment on our constitutional right to property. I tried to give a historical background of why estate taxes aren't unreasonable or communist. Neocon leadership claim that "liberal" government is nothing but a communist ogre wanting to take your hard work away from you and distribute it to everyone else. Why do they make these claims?

Your belabored definitions of property are not impressive. We all know what property is.

What DID you mean when you said everyone should start on equal footing? A hundred percent estate tax is the only thing that would create that condition. That's not what America is based on. Did you mean it, or were you just talking out yer ass again?

 

[shadrack]

Your belabored definitions of property are not impressive. We all know what property is.

What DID you mean when you said everyone should start on equal footing? A hundred percent estate tax is the only thing that would create that condition. That's not what America is based on. Did you mean it, or were you just talking out yer ass again?

I said starting anew with each generation is a fundamental American principle. Meritocracy not Aristocracy is the American way. Each individual of each generation must earn their own right to wealth and power. That has always been an underlying principle in this country and always should be. The means by which that is achieved has been different from time to time through out our history. Today, the estate tax is a reasonable measure to ensure that this principle is fulfilled. Neocons want the estate tax repealed. I don't. I'm a little suspicious of the neocons' motives of why they want it repealed. Whether $1,000,000 is too much or too little can be debated on the practicality of that amount, but in general, the estate tax is a good thing that represents fundamental American principles.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I said starting anew with each generation is a fundamental American principle. Meritocracy not Aristocracy is the American way. Each individual of each generation must earn their own right to wealth and power. That has always been an underlying principle in this country and always should be. The means by which that is achieved has been different from time to time through out our history. Today, the estate tax is a reasonable measure to ensure that this principle is fulfilled. Neocons want the estate tax repealed. I don't. I'm a little suspicious of the neocons' motives of why they want it repealed. Whether $1,000,000 is too much or too little can be debated on the practicality of that amount, but in general, the estate tax is a good thing that represents fundamental American principles.

No. It's not a fundamental american principle. The estate tax should be repealed totally. you're full of crap.

 

[shadrack]

No. It's not a fundamental american principle. The estate tax should be repealed totally. you're full of crap.

I suppose equality in age, race, and gender really isn't a fundamental American value and principle because the lack of child labor laws, slavery, and lack of voting rights for women wasn't addressed in law until after the nation's birth. The hereditary transfer of concentrated wealth IS incompatible with American values and democratic aspirations. To not agree with this is to not agree with the struggle that this nation's founders chose to engage in. Why in hell do you think they all hated England so bad?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I suppose equality in age, race, and gender really isn't a fundamental American value and principle because the lack of child labor laws, slavery, and lack of voting rights for women wasn't addressed in law until after the nation's birth. The hereditary transfer of concentrated wealth IS incompatible with American values and democratic aspirations. To not agree with this is to not agree with the struggle that this nation's founders chose to engage in. Why in hell do you think they all hated England so bad?

You're losing your mind. You're all over the map. Your revisionism is disgusting. If you were consistent, you would say "yes, there should be a 100% estate tax" that would be the logical policy if what you say is true. But, what you're saying is crap.

 

[wade]

okay, you answered very well, thanks.

What about an individual who profits from their own property, including labor?

Well, the same rules apply. If someone an individual finds a way to make money others will imitate that method and undercut his rates if they can, driving the personal profit down to the minimum viable level at which the endevour can be sustained. Personal talent in this case sets the rates. For example, a football quarterback is only worth what another quarterback of equal value is willing to do the job for. But, if there are no other quarterbacks of equal value, he can then set his rate at whatever the market will bear.

 

[wade]

No. It's not a fundamental american principle. The estate tax should be repealed totally. you're full of crap.

Capitalism is about market efficiency, not rights or wrongs. Under capitalist theory, the concept of the rich is that those who are able to accumulate capital are by definition the most efficient managers of capital, and therefore should be the ones to manage capital to promote growth.

When capital starts becoming a dynastic property of an economy, this principal is defeated, and the economy effectively becomes a feudalistic caste based class hierachy. This is contrary to the concepts of capitalism. Therefore the idea of a significant (though not necessarily 100%) estate tax makes pefect sense within the theory of capitalism.

Within the theory and concepts of US democracy a high estate tax also makes sense. Communism is about "equal outcomes", but US democracy is supposed to be about "equal opportunity". How can you have anything close to equal opportunity when some start with great inherited wealth and start with nothing?

Again, I think it is clear you must come from a rich family RWA. You are simply trying to justify your "right" to inherit an obscene amount of money some day.

 

[wade]

You're losing your mind. You're all over the map. Your revisionism is disgusting. If you were consistent, you would say "yes, there should be a 100% estate tax" that would be the logical policy if what you say is true. But, what you're saying is crap.

In concept this is probably true, a 100% estate tax rate would be appropriate to the fundimental concept of American democracy. However, there is another issue involved, which is the right of a parent to provide for the security of their offspring, as a part of their own (the parent's) lives. For this reason, some passing on of wealth is fair and right under our democracy, however when this becomes the passing of dynastic power it is contrary to the concepts of our democracy.

As it is right now, there is no estate tax on the first $1 mil. of an estate, after that the estate tax grows to about 50% at $16 mil. Why is this not fair? This means a child lucky enough to inherit such a fortune will still be at a significant advantage over the average american, and they have done nothing to earn it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In concept this is probably true, a 100% estate tax rate would be appropriate to the fundimental concept of American democracy. However, there is another issue involved, which is the right of a parent to provide for the security of their offspring, as a part of their own (the parent's) lives. For this reason, some passing on of wealth is fair and right under our democracy, however when this becomes the passing of dynastic power it is contrary to the concepts of our democracy.

As it is right now, there is no estate tax on the first $1 mil. of an estate, after that the estate tax grows to about 50% at $16 mil. Why is this not fair? This means a child lucky enough to inherit such a fortune will still be at a significant advantage over the average american, and they have done nothing to earn it.

You're off your rocker. The fact is that our society needs consistency of leadership in the private sector. Real estate developers especially, like donald trump. I hope his daughter Ivanka steps up to fill her daddies shoes. How can she do that if we take the shoes away.

Wade, you're an authoritarian of the worst kind. Please leave our nation. "Marvin K. Mooney would you please leave now."

 

[shadrack]

The fact is that our society needs consistency of leadership in the private sector. Real estate developers especially, like donald trump. I hope his daughter Ivanka steps up to fill her daddies shoes. How can she do that if we take the shoes away.

I hope the most capable step up to fill Donald Trump's shoes. If it is his daughter, then so be it. But I hope she's forced to earn it like all others should. There are greater responsiblity placed on the powerful and wealthy. There is a duty to public trust and confidence. This lack of duty is what is causing the breakdown at the higher levels of leadership within big industry. And if not corrected, will cause the breakdown of our nation. It is scandalous and corrupt and a major ethical problem that must be addressed, legally if necessary.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I hope the most capable step up to fill Donald Trump's shoes. If it is his daughter, then so be it. But I hope she's forced to earn it like all others should. There are greater responsiblity placed on the powerful and wealthy. There is a duty to public trust and confidence. This lack of duty is what is causing the breakdown at the higher levels of leadership within big industry. And if not corrected, will cause the breakdown of our nation. It is scandalous and corrupt and a major ethical problem that must be addressed, legally if necessary.

You're a mindless, socialist automaton. Please give it up. I've whipped you soundly.

 

[shadrack]

Well, the same rules apply. If someone an individual finds a way to make money others will imitate that method and undercut his rates if they can, driving the personal profit down to the minimum viable level at which the endevour can be sustained. Personal talent in this case sets the rates. For example, a football quarterback is only worth what another quarterback of equal value is willing to do the job for. But, if there are no other quarterbacks of equal value, he can then set his rate at whatever the market will bear.

How does fair market capitalism address these dilemmas that drive value, prices, and salaries up to levels that are unfair to the people who have little or no control over the decision to pay an extremely high salary?

I made a reference to the dollar auction early with RWA. If a person who invests fails to win, he will not profit nor will his investment be returned. So, in an effort to win, costs and prices are driven up, not down. This is not caused by a lack of competition, but by competition in general. How does capitalism address these real problems of investor competition?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How does fair market capitalism address these dilemmas that drive value, prices, and salaries up to levels that are unfair to the people who have little or no control over the decision to pay an extremely high salary?

I made a reference to the dollar auction early with RWA. If a person who invests fails to win, he will not profit nor will his investment be returned. So, in an effort to win, costs and prices are driven up, not down. This is not caused by a lack of competition, but by competition in general. How does capitalism address these real problems of investor competition?

How does competition drive prices up again? I missed it. Are you smoking crack with wade again?

"Fair" Market Capitalism? Nice invented phrase, moron.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Capitalism is about market efficiency, not rights or wrongs. Under capitalist theory, the concept of the rich is that those who are able to accumulate capital are by definition the most efficient managers of capital, and therefore should be the ones to manage capital to promote growth.

When capital starts becoming a dynastic property of an economy, this principal is defeated, and the economy effectively becomes a feudalistic caste based class hierachy. This is contrary to the concepts of capitalism. Therefore the idea of a significant (though not necessarily 100%) estate tax makes pefect sense within the theory of capitalism.

Within the theory and concepts of US democracy a high estate tax also makes sense. Communism is about "equal outcomes", but US democracy is supposed to be about "equal opportunity". How can you have anything close to equal opportunity when some start with great inherited wealth and start with nothing?

Again, I think it is clear you must come from a rich family RWA. You are simply trying to justify your "right" to inherit an obscene amount of money some day.

monopolies do not drive prices down and increase quality for the consumer, hence why I am for anti monopoly laws. When government takes over functions of society, they are effectively a monopoly and everyone loses, except government bureaucratic liars.

I'm not from a rich family you fuckstick. In fact my dad owes a bunch in back taxes and hasn't a dime to his name.

You're just looking for a way to codify your runaway sense of envy into some kind of rational and convincing thought. You're failing.

 

[5stringJeff]

AHEM.

There is now an Economic forum available for your use on this subject. May I suggest that you continue this discussion in there and save this thread for the discussion of the original topic (i.e. God, good, evil, love, and why).

 

[wade]

How does fair market capitalism address these dilemmas that drive value, prices, and salaries up to levels that are unfair to the people who have little or no control over the decision to pay an extremely high salary?

I made a reference to the dollar auction early with RWA. If a person who invests fails to win, he will not profit nor will his investment be returned. So, in an effort to win, costs and prices are driven up, not down. This is not caused by a lack of competition, but by competition in general. How does capitalism address these real problems of investor competition?

Well, first I'm not sure but I think you are refering to the outragous managment compensation phenomena of recent years (the last 25 or so). If so then I explain it as follows. What has happened is that managers think they are comparable to artists and sports stars. They look at the salaries and compensation of these types of people and feel they, since they are at the "top of their field" deserve comparable compensation. The fact that, in the great majority of cases, they are much more replaceable than the successful artist or sports star does not enter into their equation. And, since they are CEO's or Presidents of the companies in question, they set the salaries. If the compensation at the top is high, so is that at the mid and even lower levels of management. So what has happened is managers have priced themselves out of the market, it's just taking time to hit home.

Today, in a typical company of 5000 employees, as much as 1/3rd or more of the employee compensation will go to just 200 or so managers/executives. This is totally out of line. However, the free market system will adjust. Foriegn companies do not have such outragous manager bloat, and thus are more efficient and will drive US companies out of business or force them to reconsider their management compensation allocations. It will just take some time to sink in.

This is why "outsourcing" is really, in the long run, pure exporting of our companies to foreign ownership. It's not only the general employees who can be replaced with cheaper labor, it's the management and the executives as well.

As for the stock market speculation you are describing, that is not really capitalism, that is gambling. Capitalism addresses it quite simply - you're not supposed to undertake such gambles and call them "investments". Investments are based upon expected rates of return. The way the stock market works today, stock values are rarely related to dividends. It's all false value and the stock market system today is one big sham.

 

[wade]

monopolies do not drive prices down and increase quality for the consumer, hence why I am for anti monopoly laws. When government takes over functions of society, they are effectively a monopoly and everyone loses, except government bureaucratic liars.

I'm not from a rich family you fuckstick. In fact my dad owes a bunch in back taxes and hasn't a dime to his name.

You're just looking for a way to codify your runaway sense of envy into some kind of rational and convincing thought. You're failing.

But the Bush administration is about the support of oligarchies and even monopolies.

Furthermore, your statement about monolopolies is not necessarily true. There is such a thing as a "natural monopoly", which is defined by average costs always falling with increasing output. In these cases, "competition" will indeed lead to higher prices, but the market response is of course that only one company will survive such competition. These kinds of monopolies need to be heavily regulated to ensure that they take profits in accordance with normal competitive industries. Classic examples are telephone service (a long topic in and of itself), power distribution, and roadways.

If you family is indeed so piss poor as you describe, why in the world would you favor dynastic wealth accumulation? It's both contrary to the basic concepts of capitalism and fairness upon which this nation was built, and harkons back to european fuedalistic thinking.

Envy? I don't envy these people, that implies that if I were in their position my position would be different, it would not. I fear them. They are a bigger threat to American democracy than ten Bin-Ladin's.

PS: If your Dad is indeed in such a position as you describe he needs to contact a good tax lawyer who can work out a settlement with the IRS as soon as possible. Otherwise, unless he can go 10 years without significant income, he is going to get badly hurt when the IRS acts upon his back taxes. If you're really serious about your Dad's position, PM me and I will send you some info about how to deal with the IRS.