EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Estate Taxes Aren't a Levy on the Dead
To borrow from the Monty Python “dead parrot” skit: When Sam Walton died in 1992, he became a previous person, a past human, a former someone. You couldn't take him to dinner. You couldn't invite him to your son's graduation. And you couldn't tax him. He was flat-out dead.
Uncle Sam didn't tax a dead man when it taxed the income Sam Walton's heirs received. Those living individuals simply had to pay a tax on their unearned income, just as coal miners, secretaries, engineers and teachers have to pay tax on the earned income they worked hard for.
For those who still feel sorry for the top one-half of 1 percent of Americans who have to pay estate taxes, consider this: Five major heirs to the Walton fortune are now worth more than $16 billion each — and that's after having paid their estate taxes for what they inherited in 1992. Or, consider the 11 heirs to the Pritzker fortune, each of whom is worth from $2.3 to $3 billion, again, after paying inheritance taxes.
If government further eliminates taxes on dividends and capital gains — as some politicians are now fighting for — the continuation of these and many other aristocratic family dynasties will be extended as far into the future as we can see. Their distant descendants will never have to work a day in their lives, except, of course, for therapeutic reasons.
As unfair as this is to those taxpayers who actually work for their incomes and provide society with products and services, the worst part of eliminating estate taxes comes later, as:
• These heirs to millions, or even billions, of dollars actually make the problem of job creation in the U.S. worse. To maximize returns, they follow the advice of today's Wall Street gurus and invest their money in our low-wage competitor nations like China, India and Mexico.
• They drive up the costs of the world's dwindling resources. They buy multiple mansions in different countries and fly their private jets all over the world to vacation in the world's best locations. They have virtually no incentives to limit their consumption of the world's vanishing resources: seafood, oil, commodities of all kinds, and even pure water and fresh air.
• They add to their own descendants' competitive advantages over those of working-class Americans. Their descendants have free (paid for by mom and pop) access to the very best educations and financing of new businesses. On the other hand, they support politicians who will oppose the funding of government programs that benefit those who can't afford a good college education or who don't have access to financial backing.Today's heated debate about eliminating “death taxes” provides an important clue as to a politician's true values and loyalties. Those who cynically distort the nature of the estate tax are hiding their commitment to America's new aristocracy. As a general rule, they are the same ones who oppose government programs that benefit most working Americans — from extending unemployment benefits to preserving Social Security and Medicare — unless cuts can be made from other programs that also benefit the middle class.
On the other hand, if a government program benefits corporations or the wealthy and powerful — from financing the military-industrial complex to tax cuts for the wealthy — these same politicians are perfectly willing to add to a growing deficit.
Incidentally, “because the wealthy can best afford it” is a terrible justification for progressive taxes. They should pay more taxes because, as Warren Buffett pointed out, they have benefited most from our government's policies and programs: everything from our interstate highway system and our regulated securities markets to our government's purchases of products and services.
If we really want to salvage our economy, we need to get more money into the hands of consumers who will spend it in this country for things they actually need. That means we need to elect politicians who support the kinds of progressive tax policies we had throughout most of the past century — when the U.S. had a vibrant middle class, as well as a prosperous wealthy class — and became the great country that it is.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
72 Comments so far
Show AllI don't really understand the Right on this, it seems to me that inheritence is fresh income to the person who gets it. I don't know what I've missed.
"I don't really understand the Right on this,"
I don't understand them on anything. And the ones who really astound me are those on the Right who are not wealthy.
For years I have been telling people that if they are wealthy they should vote Republican, for to do otherwise would be ungrateful. But if they are not wealthy and they vote Republican, they are not using their heads. As bad as the Democrats can be, the Republicans are worse. Every day in every way.
There are plenty of working people who do not wish to move further towards socialism. That I think explains why they are Republicans.
Yeah, socialism sure sucks when it benefits the people. I prefer the socialism practiced by Republicans - socialism that only benefits the ultra-rich, the too-big-to-fail, the corporations we've come to love, like GM, BP, US Air, Lockheed Martin etc etc... the only one's who really need it.
–SS
"Yeah, socialism sure sucks when it benefits the people"
But of course you know that all benefits have costs, and only the people bear the costs.
Yes Jake, everything has costs but people are happier when they get a bigger bang for the buck and can go less materialistic without having to worry about getting insulted about it. People in Germany are happy to pay taxes compared to people in the USA because they know that they will get more for the taxes they pay while we in the USA will be soaking in losses and bloody cuts to public services our tax dollars were meant for. The Waltons and the Gates will stop at nothing to get all the revenue they want and then play good cop bad cop to further the lie that big corporations and abusive churches are "helpful" while government isn't. The reality is that corporatism means really big government while socialism is less government when you compare the overall costs.
P.S.: As I have said before, I am for socialism but don't mind at least a little wiggle room for which regulated capitalism can step in and be a supplement.
nice commment...
re:
"As I have said before, I am for socialism but don't mind at least a little wiggle room for which regulated capitalism can step in and be a supplement."
This I believe is the answer Americans need. The solution is not to remove competition and the incentives for innovation by over-regulating the Capitalist market. It is to limit the boundaries of that market to only be involved in profit-appropriate products and services. Where the product or service is specifically meant to serve a social good, and not a private good, the free-market should not apply. Just as today the free-market doesn't account for the decisions of the police dept, fire dept. or the military (or at least only indirectly), in the future it should also not be connected to our basic health infrastructure, or our national banking system (there should be two separate systems here imo - one public one private).
This structure is currently most commonly referred to as 'Free-Market Socialism", and to my mind, it's the best solution for all times, and all people that will ever be brought forward, because it reflects our own natural preferences.
–SS
Speaking of firefighters and "free" markets, here is a tragedy to prove that they don't mix.
http://www.alternet.org/news/148407
As with capitalism, most Americans are hardly aware of the real meaning of socialism and its various flavors. Disaster capitalism is the only capitalism that they call capitalism and will even mistake regulated capitalism as "socialism". Worse, socialism is totally bungled and confused with Marx, Stalin, and communism. It is no wonder that this nation is a laughing stock.
P.S.: Thank you. If you are new to CD, then welcome and pleased to meet you. :)
"Speaking of firefighters and "free" markets, here is a tragedy to prove that they don't mix. http://www.alternet.org/news/148407"
Great article that perfectly reflects the issue we're bringing up. "Penny wise, and pound foolish" – Describes most Republican and modern Libertarian economic thinking nowdays.
"As with capitalism, most Americans are hardly aware of the real meaning of socialism and its various flavors."
Yeah, its very sad that so little cooperation can occur in America, simply due to a confusion of terms. The fact that so many on the Right characterize Obama as a Socialist really stuns me... that so many on the Left consider Obama a 'Progressive' is perhaps an even bigger problem. Deliberately or not, the people of this country have become terribly confused about what it is that these political terms even mean. And so we have the perfect illustration of how Orwell's News-speak, the intentional obfuscation and misuse of language, is one of the most effective and powerful tools of the elite. A perfect method to divide and conquer the people.
"Worse, socialism is totally bungled and confused with Marx, Stalin, and communism"
Well, Marx did come up with the philosophy of Marxist Socialism, so this seems a natural connection, but I think I understand you – in other words, you mean the modern approaches and implementations of Socialist models are not direct reflections of historical socialist movements, correct? I personally see Marx's observations as an excellent analysis of macro-economic trends, but I am not much of a fan of his prescriptions for setting up a Socialist society, so I think we're likely coming from a similar place here.
"P.S.: Thank you. If you are new to CD, then welcome and pleased to meet you. :)"
Yes, pretty new here on CD (about a week). Thanks, and please to meet you too!
Cheers,
–SS
"people are happier when they get a bigger bang for the buck and can go less materialistic without having to worry about getting insulted about it. "
What do you mean by this?
"People in Germany are happy to pay taxes compared to people in the USA because they know that they will get more for the taxes they pay "
And how do you know this to be true, bith the heppy part and get more part? Thanks.
Jake, others and myself have gone over this with you in the past so at least try and look up the archives on this site. However, since I am nice, I will give you a nice summary. Taxes are what people pay as a service to one another in their place. Government collects the revenue and spends. It is how the money is spent that makes the difference and you know that. Power to the individual does not come from raw deal governments saying things such as "Here's a $1000 tax. Do what you want with it." Power to the individual comes from collective empowerment. When people pay taxes, public services such as protection, health care, education, etc... come from collective funding or at least supposed to. That is what powers the individual because he or she shouldn't have to pay taxes and be told to pay another private company exorbitant amounts. It is called double taxation and is morally wrong. Why do you not hear that from most right wing churches especially ones with wife-beating pastors? I will tell you why. They get unfair subsidies from the government and the same for corporations. Now just think. They get double payments and the rest of us poor Joes and Janes are left holding the double taxation bag. In the meantime, the Sam Walton heirs do nothing productive but misuse their inherited fortunes to lobby for more corporate abuse. How many workers all over the world have to go through sweatshop hell because Walmart and others like them put them where they are at? In Germany, complaining about taxation was low when I was there and my relatives and their friends would be happy to describe the whole system to you and have us to a comparison of that system to the American system. I know that we have had this argument before but European governments spend their tax revenues fairly and wisely compared to this rotten government in Washington DC. I may not have spoken to every single German but I have learned enough to confidently say that they are indeed much happier and healthier compared to the USA. Why don't you live in Germany for at least a year and see for yourself and then come back and tell us what you think?
"Taxes are what people pay as a service to one another in their place."
Agreed, as far as it goes, and we both agree to the problems associated with paying that taxes and having a government not spend the money the way we like.
"Government collects the revenue and spends."
Yes, and they do not exist without the private sector there to pay the taxes.
"It is how the money is spent that makes the difference and you know that."
Agreed, we have discussed this.
"Power to the individual comes from collective empowerment."
It might and it might not, and the "collective empowerment" does not have that power to give until it first takes it.
"That is what powers the individual because he or she shouldn't have to pay taxes and be told to pay another private company exorbitant amounts. It is called double taxation and is morally wrong."
I don't understand your meaning here, can you please give an example.
"wife-beating pastors?"
Whoa! Simmer down there! :-)
"They get unfair subsidies from the government"
An exemption from taxes on churches is not the same as a subsidy.
"and the same for corporations."
Not for all, not that I am aware of. There are aspects of tax law that individuals and corporations use to lower their tax bill, but that law is an example of the "collective empowerment" at work, and apparently not to your liking in this case.
"In Germany, complaining about taxation was low when I was there"
Ah, back to Germany. I am happy for the above discussion though. The lack of complaining may be a cultural thing, I don't know. But my original questions to you were around your idea that the was a "bigger bang for the buck" and that they are "happy to pay taxes ". It is hard for me to think that paying taxes would be a source of happiness for anyone, much less that it's patriotic as some like to say. Thanks for your comments.
"Why don't you live in Germany for at least a year and see for yourself and then come back and tell us what you think?"
I have two brothers who were exchange students in Berlin, and our family stays in touch with the Berliners who had stayed here. We never talked about taxes that I recall. On the most recent visit the improvement in American beer was front and center though.
Good lords.
There are COSTS to having NO benefits. There are COSTS to everything under the sun, from eating shrimp to chopping down a forest to build a boat.
Now I am going to suggest something that may not have occurred to you. If PEOPLE want to BENEFIT from anything, be it benefiting from digging a hole in the side of a mountain to get the gold to geeting a free meal at the Local Union Gospel mission, there will be a COST and the only fair way to pay for that costs is that the PEOPLE bear the brunt of it.
"There are COSTS to having NO benefits. There are COSTS to everything under the sun,"
Of course this is true. When I first posted the notion of the costs, it was because I was not sure the poster I was responding to understood it. So many times the socialists love to talk blissfully about the *free* services they get. Since you seem to realize that, I don't see where there is any disagreement at all on this between us, and I am glad that you made it clear.
Nonsense. Working class people create all the wealth. This idea that if they were able to retain or recover some of it that they would be getting something for "free" is nonsensical.
Management, owners, landlords, and investors are getting the free ride, or looking to. They then see more going to the working class as an "expense" just as slave owners were getting a free ride and saw better food and clothing for their slaves as an "expense."
The working class people's needs can only be seen as an expense if: you identify with the master; if you presume that the working class people are and should be little better than slaves or pets. Under any other conditions the notion that the people's needs are an expense is ludicrous and absurd on its face.
"Working class people create all the wealth."
No. not just by laboring willy nilly. They have to labor in some directed manner. That's not to say some particular working class person can't also direct his own labor but that's not what usually happens, except for those self employed.
"This idea that if they were able to retain or recover some of it that they would be getting something for "free" is nonsensical."
I never expressed any such idea. I was making reference to an idea that I often hear that social programs are "free* as in "isn't it great in Canada we have "free" health care".
"Management, owners, landlords, and investors are getting the free ride,"
Unsupported.
"The working class people's needs can only be seen as an expense if:"
Under *any* system there are costs associated with meeting the needs of people. Period.
"if you presume that the working class people are and should be little better than slaves or pets."
Nothing I have written should lead you to think I believe this.
""Management, owners, landlords, and investors are getting the free ride,"
Unsupported."
The fact that they are facing less stressful times and have more money in their pockets proves that the "free" ride point is correct.
"The fact that they are facing less stressful times and have more money in their pockets proves"
This is a very broad generalization you are making. Who is the "they" you are taling about, and how can you say this across the board?
Well, those with more money always get the upper hand on everything so it is as good as "free" to them. The upper class gets fewer strings attached while the working class doesn't. The heirs of Walton don't deserve any tax breaks and they abuse their daddy's inherited income to control and abuse government. They would rather fund abusive churches than use that money to fix a languishing metro system for example. I could go on with plenty more examples until my face turns blue and I die but I hope you get what I am saying.
P.S.: I will have more to say on this and will return as soon as my headache is gone. It will be a long day today. :(
I am sorry you have a headache and I hope that improves. On laws that permit tax breaks, I am sure that you and I would agree that some of them are not right if we were to look, and changing the law involves voting and lobbying you representative.
No one said that owners are bad people. I said they have more power, they have power to control and dominate others. Some think that is a "right" - that it is inevitable, the natural order, rational, that it is "human nature," just as at one time people thought that those born to certain bloodlines should have the power to control and dominate others.
"He with the most money should control and dominate others" is no more rational, or just or permanent, than "he born into certain families should control and dominate others." It is no less a type of mystical magical thinking - with gold as the sacred magic substance rather than blood - no less unsupportable. In some ways the current system is more brutal, since people can be blamed for their own lack of power and it is harder for them to see the tyranny under which they live. On the other hand, the resistance is certain to be just that much more powerful and all-encompassing, and the future all that much brighter for that reason.
You ask "how can you say this across the board?" Quite easily and logically. I will explain, Ready?
- Those with more money have more money - they have that in common.
- Money is the tool by which people can control and dominate other people.
- Ergo, those with money control and dominate those without.
- Those who wish to control and dominate others are motivated to amass wealth.
Those being controlled and dominated are fed up with that. I stand with them, and not with the controllers and dominant ones. If you stand with the controllers and dominant ones, then of course you will see all of this quite differently. But the "ideas" - just talking points really - tossed back and forth don't matter. what matters is this: which side are you on? That determines everything you say and do.
"He with the most money should control and dominate others"
I know no one who subscribes to this and deny it is possible anyway. See below.
"You ask "how can you say this across the board?" Quite easily and logically. I will explain, Ready?"
Wait wait wait, Jennifer was talking about current *trends* I am quite sure. I'll bite though:
"- Those with more money have more money - they have that in common."
Granted by Reflexive Property of Equality.
"- Money is the tool by which people can control and dominate other people."
Denied. Money is merely a store of wealth and a medium of exchange. Where transactions occur in a free market, that is, a market in which the participants freely agree to participate, there is no "control" or "domination".
OTOH, "The tool by which people can control and dominate other people" is called "violent force" or the threat thereof.
"I stand with them, and not with the controllers and dominant ones. "
And I deny your framing of the situation in these terms of “us and them”.
"of course you will see all of this quite differently."
Your misunderstanding above about what money is, and your ignorance of what the *real* "tool by which people can control and dominate other people" is, explains our different points of view.
Yes, you are taking the position of management. No one here can refute that position, so have at it. I can't "refute" it either - it is proper for you to take that position, and for you it is the right position. I am opposed to it, and only interested in arguing with those potentially opposed to it, as well. You and I are enemies, or course - but we can respect one another, and since both of us know where we stand and are not living in liberal fantasy land, we probably share a similar view of objective reality.
My comment about "management, owners, landlords, and investors are getting the free ride" was directed to the liberals here (I assumed you were one.) Of course you would disagree - that is consistent and shows integrity and I have no quarrel with you - no desire to change your mind.
You are right - health care is not free - for the bosses and owners, and of course the bosses and owners can pass any costs they incur down and thereby make things not free to anyone. You are right, in the current system workers need to be directed by management. You are right, "management, owners, landlords, and investors" are not "getting the free ride" if you see their needs as more important than the workers - if you see them as driving and leading society and see that as a good thing, if you see them as adding an essential and valuable ingredient to production.
"Yes, you are taking the position of management. "
Mangement is not just a position in the sense of labor vs. management. It is a necessary function. It is in fact a type of labor.
"Of course you would disagree - that is consistent and shows integrity and I have no quarrel with you - no desire to change your mind."
Ad hominem dismissed, it's still unsupported.
"You are right - health care is not free"
Nothing is free.
"the bosses and owners can pass any costs they incur down"
I don't think you fully understand "cost". Everything that is beneficial has a cost, no matter the system. There are costs associated with ant colonies.
Saying you ave integrity and are consistent is an "ad hominem" attack??
"Ad Hominem" is a logical fallacy. It's a technique in avoiding a point of argument by substituting instead statements about who or what the arguer is or may be. The fallacy is that who or what the arguer is or may be is irrelevant to the argument itself. In the current case, my point that you have not supported your contention that libertarianism is manufactured propaganda stands.
"Yeah, socialism sure sucks when it benefits the people"
But of course you know that all benefits have costs, and only the people bear the costs.
~ What costs?
( I think you are calling social programs socialism, they are two totally different things, and you are doing it on purpose )
And please , tell us how the people are NOT bearing the costs of capitalism and who it is you are implying is sharing the cost?
"~ What costs?"
I'm sorry, you seriously don't know that social programs have costs? You haven't noticed the expenditure in the budget for those programs, just for starters?
Unbelievable.
Ah. I get where you are coming from. It all depends on which "we" you consider yourself to be among.
Yes. Social programs have costs, or will incur more costs - for the wealthy, for the better-off.
Working people are already paying the costs, but they aren't getting the goods. The goods are all going to the better=off people. It will cost them, yes. Dearly, I hope. Enough of the theft. Enough of the 90% supporting the 10%. Enough welfare for the upper 10%. Time they were knocked off their high horse and stopped being parasites.
You are quite the pro-management anti-labor person. Curious - do you consider yourself a Democrat?
Ah. I get where you are coming from. It all depends on which "we" you consider yourself to be among.
"Yes. Social programs have costs,"
Agreed. Please tell Morticia.
"Working people are already paying the costs, but they aren't getting the goods."
Very broadly stated *opinion*, no support.
"Curious - do you consider yourself a Democrat?"
As a registered Republican, no, I thought you knew that already.
No, I didn't know you considered yourself a Republican. I have no quarrel with you in that case.
We have been over this. Yes, "benefits have costs." The debate is about who should bear the burden - the working class people, already in desperate straits, or the few who are rolling in unimaginable riches such as have never before been seen?
"The debate is about who should bear the burden - the working class people, already in desperate straits, or the few who are rolling in unimaginable riches"
The debate is not so simple. The debate should include ideas around those things that *motivate* people to produce goods and services to society, and to consider the *consequences* resulting from applying whatever law you think should be applied.
So let's say that you apply laws that shift the burden to the "rich", and that you even go further and enact laws to knock those filthy evil rich down to size, so that everything is "equal" now. What happens then?
"I prefer the socialism practiced by Republicans - socialism that only benefits the ultra-rich, the too-big-to-fail, the corporations we've come to love, like GM, BP, US Air, Lockheed Martin etc etc... the only one's who really need it. "
Unfortunately, most people in the USA are ill-conditioned into believing that they will be like those top folks so they shamelessly trash the socialism they really need with the result being too few making it and the rest of us fighting for scraps and still deluding ourselves into believing that our hard work will get us to that "top". Such is the nature of disaster capitalism.
No they aren't. That is pure projection. Most liberals and progressives are upwardly mobile, and concerned with income and status, so they assume that everyone is.
Everyday people don't "trash Socialism" - the intellectuals, the liberals and progressives do. All most people know about Socialism is the word, which they have been taught to fear. The reality - public institutions, protection of public resources - they love. Of course. Bu they are not hearing a Socialist point of view, so how can anyone say they are rejecting it? Why are they not hearing a Socialist point of view? Because preventing that from happening is job one for Democrats, liberals and progressives, that is why.
"Most liberals and progressives are upwardly mobile, and concerned with income and status, so they assume that everyone is."
Then why do most people keep falling for crap election after election instead of electing principled people? I don't even know if they are liberal or progressive at heart or in name only but my experience tells me more of the latter.
On your second paragraph, your first sentence I disagree with based on experience and what goes on in the media (radio, tv, and even Internet) along with the real world conversations. They are CONDITIONED into going against socialism. I hope I cleared that one up.
People's social status and power - their desire to retain whatever wealth, status and power they have - trumps their supposed beliefs. Beliefs are added on as an afterthought, to disguise the grab for raw naked power, to distract us from the actual conditions, the actual social process. Notice how so many Democrats are silent now when Democrats do the same things Republicans did. Notice how so many progressives and liberals are desperately trying to keep us from turning our rejection of the Democratic party into rejection of the entire system whereby some have wealth and power and others do not. They are all defending the system of power and privilege and status, and making up rationalizations for that to persuade people to stay passive and disengaged and isolated. So we have lots of talk about "personal beliefs" - in lieu of talking about objective reality and shared aspirations. We have lots of talk about that most individualistic and weak of all political actions - voting. So long as we all stay divided and seeing ourselves as autonomous individuals, no mass uprising can happen and the people pushing those ideas can feel secure that their positions or the positions of those they depend upon or admire will not be threatened.
It is not about personal beliefs, it is about personal desires for dominance and control over others. For us, the response is to reject individualism in all of its guises and think in terms of common class interest - the have-nots fighting back against the ruthless haves - and to think in terms of mass action, cooperation, solidarity, community and not in terms of individualism.
Of course, many good people are swept into liberal and progressive politics, because there seems to be nowhere else to go. That is what these debates here are about - working class people unable or unwilling to speak and act for their own, and instead trying to find safe and conformable compromises with the wealthy and powerful and protect the social conventions that enforce this patten of dominance and control based on money.
Yes, people are conditioned to reject the word Socialism, but for the most part people have not been conditioned to reject socialist programs, yet, although that is happening now. The more the right wingers go after the programs, the actual real life stuff, the stronger the Left will get.
The goal of the right wing is not to advance any philosophy, it is to gain control and domination over all of us by grabbing all of the wealth. As conditions get worse, and as the capitalists and their right wing shills get more obvious - which they have to do - more and more people will become Left without being converted to any new beliefs or being sold on Socialism. Everyone in the working class is sympathetic to Socialism from a young age. If that were not true, the human race would have never survived.
In Capitalism, the ruling class is compelled to increase the attacks on the working class indefinitely, just as a fish is compelled to swim - it is all they know. Sooner or later, they go too far and the working class people fight back. That has started now in Europe, and will soon spread here. There is no stopping it. That is not because people will suddenly have a new enlightenment, or suddenly have a new political philosophy or belief system, it will be because people are fed up with being controlled and dominated, abused and neglected and impoverished.
TA, I don't know but it seems that the worse things get, the more they move to the "right". As for capitalism and socialism, I support socialism but also believe in regulated capitalism such as the capitalism that exists in Europe unlike the USA which has disaster capitalism. You seem to be optimistic while I am not. Again, I will be looking back at what was written here from time to time and rethink things. Maybe my being 29 is my weakness. :(
Desperation. Things seem to be getting worse because the ruling class is desperate.
The working class people in Europe are rejecting "regulated Capitalism" because they are tired of being pushed around by the rich and their slimy agents in government.
Hey, 29 is great! No problem. You are right to weigh everything and take your time and think it through. I have not so much time and am trying to toss everything your way I can think of as fast as I can. Take whatever is useful.
Much better times are coming. Unimaginably better. I may not live to see it, but you will. Don't despair. There is too much to do and too much to gain. We can't afford the luxury of despair. The worse things seem now, the more profound, far-reaching and positive the changes will be.
They want public education, public roads, public health and safety inspections, social security, parks, libraries and on and on and on...
Guess they actually must want to move more toward socialism, eh? More so than the Democrats do.
The fact that Democrats don't get this explains why people vote Republican, I think. Or don't vote.
The Democrats are preventing the government from moving far to the left, which is where the general public wants the government to be, while at the same time claiming that they have to move to the right because the people are to the right. What a scam. I don't know why anyone believes that pack of lies, because any time spent out talking with people is all that is needed to see through the whole ruse. But what are you going to believe - your own observations or the talking heads on cable?
Meanwhile, the Republicans must look at the Democrats, and at most of the discussions here and thing "gee, this is like taking candy from a baby." They almost can't fail, given the pathetic state of the so-called opposition.
"They want public "
They may, and they may also want to keep more of the fruits of their labor, and maybe *not* spend so much on public programs. There are *degrees* to all of the things you list, as well as waste.
"Guess they actually must want to move more toward socialism, eh? "
No, you have not made that case here at all.
The false black/white aspect of it does trouble me though, many people don't really understand that our current system is a mixture.
unfortunately, Too many on the Right are too concerned with the rights of unborn children to care about those who have passed through the birth canal.
unfortunately, Too many on the Right are too concerned with the rights of unborn children to care about those who have passed through the birth canal.
What's the Matter with Kansas?
Hmmm
It seems to me that the only "people" saying we should not have an inheritence tax are politicians and corporate mouth pieces (MSM) who are paid to say such nonsense.
Oh and by the way the Walton family "fortune" is now well north or 120 BILLION which is well past 20 BILLION EACH!!
Does anyone really believe that taxing the heirs to these fortunes will negatively impact our economy? I do hope not no one is that foolish. Bottom line here people is that 1/10 of 1% of the US population have damn near all the money. And if history is any guide whenever a society has reached this point in the past it is only a matter of time before it is destroyed.
And guess who ends up doing the destorying? The working class stiff that actually earned the money? no.....History shows us that the rot at the top becomes so overwhelming that it is the super rich that destroy the society. Hell the working class is just trying to survive.
In many ways I characterize myself as a Libertarian... but far moreso regarding my personal work-ethic, and independent thinking. I am certainly not a member of today's Libertarian party who are simply representatives of the unaccountable corporate class (as you mentioned above ddearborn).
From my point of view, bestowal of inheritance is not a cut and dry issue for Libertarians, even though the majority would likely jump on the 'no-death-tax' bandwagon without a moment's hesitation. If Libertarians consider Ayn Rand's own words, "To the glory of mankind [...] for the first and only time in history [...] man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man..."
Where in this is there the allowance, or the preference for the bestowal of riches from a parent to the child where this act usurps the basic principle of the Libertarian earning their fortune for themselves, on their own terms, without the manacles of obligation to bearers of gifts and privileges? Do the accomplishments of parents automatically get transferred to the children? No. So if wealth only is valid based upon individual accomplishment, there seems to be a real conundrum. Perhaps the most valid position for a Libertarian is that the inheritances of the wealthy should be completely doled out to favored institutions and properties independent of nepotist considerations? Am I wrong here? Nepotism is not a valid part of objectivism, is it?
Looking for a little discussion with Libertarians here.
–SS
I can't even begin to describe how absurd atlas shrugged was, at least the first 800 pages that I read before I just couldn't take it any more. It amazes me that Rand's main character, Dagny, I think it was, wasn't a self-made woman in the slightest. She INHERITED a railroad!!! WTF? And that just scratches the surface of the absurdity. I can't see how anyone takes Rand seriously after reading that book.
"Dagny, I think it was, wasn't a self-made woman in the slightest."
Has anyone said that she was self-made, or that through this character Rand was trying to make some statement about the self-made?
The John Gault speech was agonizing, that is for sure. Hopefully you quit before that.
When I was in college in the days of the Mozasaur, there was a group of Ayn Rand freaks.So I said, WTF, I'll try "Atlas Shrugged".To my nineteen year old brain, her ideas seemed simplistic,her point of view narcisistic, her characters cartoonish, and her writing (biggest sin for me at the time) god-awful.I gave up about half-way through the book.Then I did a little digging, and found out she had been traumatized by the Russian Revolution.Poor thing.There was some of that in my background too: I continued to hang out with the socialists.Ayn Rand fadism seems to come and go. She's getting some attention now, because Alan Greenspan admitted to being a member of her circle in New York.I can see how she might appeal to some 19 year olds (the most self-centered people on earth) but as for becoming a guiding light in the intellectual development of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Wow.
It appeals to adolescents: some of them never grow up.