Inherited wealth. Any justification?

[bripat9643]

Well that is the theory behind "The American Dream." I'm not actually stupid enough to believe that such actually exists

Thank you for supporting my vision of you as a lazy, jealous elitist who thinks he should be paid for sitting on his ass, while the people who do work and accumulate wealth pay you out of their pockets.

I'm not a plutocrat, or any other sort of welfare queen

I suspect you are a welfare queen.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Can you point out any of the Founding Fathers saying anything of the sort?

 

[Agit8r]

"The American Dream" is a slogan coined by 20th century politicians. it has no connection with anything the Founding Fathers endorsed.

I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension. Are you actually Neil Bush?

 

[Two Thumbs]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

Taxes have already been paid on the money earned. So the government is outta luck

There is no justification for the government to demand another cut.


Stop being envious of what other peoples parents have done, and work to be that parent that ensures their kids don't have to work a day in their lives.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

what utter non-sense.

Then who gets the money since no one else earned it?

The government? They print money, they earn none of it.
Charity? Who gets it? Who gets to determine who gets it?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Since we didn't have a national bank for most of the years prior to 1914, your premise is obviously bogus.

 

[Agit8r]

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

Can you point out any of the Founding Fathers saying anything of the sort?

"There... is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi
into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy."
--Thomas Jefferson; letter to John Adams (Oct. 28, 1813)

"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."
-- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)

"No man nor corporation or association of men have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges distinct from those of the community, than what rises from the consideration of services rendered to the public, and this title being in nature neither hereditary nor transmissible to children or descendants or relations by blood; the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge is absurd and unnatural"
--Declaration of the Rights of Massachusetts, Art. VI (1780)

Shall I go on?

 

[bripat9643]

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

it's true that you couldn't amass wealth if thugs were allowed to take whatever they wanted. How does that justify government engaging in the exact same activity? What distinguishes government from thugs? Apparently nothing, according to you.

 

[Bern80]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

We aren't a merit based society so much as a freedom based society. Therefore the justification would be whomever I want to give my money to, whether it be my children when I die or someone off the street, is none of your fucking business.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where did you find this giant malodorous pile? It sounds like you've been reading the communist manifesto.

 

[Agit8r]

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

Since we didn't have a national bank for most of the years prior to 1914, your premise is obviously bogus.

Good gawd. The first publicly traded stock on the NYSE was The Bank of New which was founded by Alexander Hamilton who as Treasury Secretary insisted upon the need of the First National Bank

Bank of New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

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)

Neither of those statements justifies redistribution of wealth.

 

[bripat9643]

The estate tax should be called the patriot tax. We live in America where we are suppose to value hard work and ingenuity, yet Republicans do not value these principles. Instead, they value the idea of perpetual wealth and dynasties.

These types of people would make King George proud.

So, how much of your estate are you going to leave to the government?

You think this loser has an estate?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Where in the Constitution does it say the IRS can hand you a bill that you'd better pay, or else?

It doesn't say that in so many words. But exactly that intention is derived from interpretation of such components as the General Welfare clause, which is saying whatever is best for the majority and the general health of the Nation is what we're gonna do! So if you manage to accumulate enough wealth to qualify you as a de facto aristocrat I remind you that Americans in the essential meaning of the designation are innately hostile to aristocracy and all it stands for.

In other words, it doesn't say any such thing. Inventing things that aren't in the Constitution is a favorite liberal hobby.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Where did you find this giant malodorous pile? It sounds like you've been reading the communist manifesto.

You should read more and type less. See three comments up ^

 

[bripat9643]

I am talking about how markets work in aggregate. When we provide a good or service that society demands by their willingness to pay, that is (at least economically speaking) considered merit. By this "spontaneous order" that markets provide (with exception to the cronyism that never fails to infest part of the marketplace to the detriment of society) what we say that a person has merited what they receive from markets as its reward. basic economics here

Then passing what you have earned onto your descendents is just another part of what you call "merit."

 

[bripat9643]

"The American Dream" is a slogan coined by 20th century politicians. it has no connection with anything the Founding Fathers endorsed.

I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension. Are you actually Neil Bush?

Can you quote anyone before the 20th century using the phrase "the American Dream?"

. . . . .


I didn't think so.

 

[jillian]

Wow who knew our Society was based on 'merit'...Please tell us what other nations are based on 'merit'

Liberals think the government invented money so it could reward those who excel according to some arbitrary definition of "merit."

You gotta love how utterly clueless and naive they are.

And who exactly believes that?

I love when rightwingnuts make up what they *think* other people believe and then argue against their own false premises.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Can you point out any of the Founding Fathers saying anything of the sort?

Shall I go on?

Nothing you quoted justifies confiscation of inheritances.

Please find something that actually endorses the government confiscating what someone has earned.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Since we didn't have a national bank for most of the years prior to 1914, your premise is obviously bogus.

Good gawd. The first publicly traded stock on the NYSE was The Bank of New which was founded by Alexander Hamilton who as Treasury Secretary insisted upon the need of the First National Bank

Bank of New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bank of New York was not a national bank. Whether Hamilton insisted or not, the fact remains that for most of your history before 1914 the U.S. did not have a national bank, but we did have a stock market. Your claim that the stock market couldn't function without a national bank is therefore obviously bogus.

If you claim 'A' cannot exist without 'B' but the empirical evidences shows 'A' existing while 'B' doesn't exist, then you are just plain wrong.

That's simple logic - probably the reason you don't get it.