MattZ Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I'm suggesting that some "successful" business owners don't give a fair share back to the workers who were instrumental in helping them build their fortune. No argument here. Thats why I tried to pepper my post with as many caveats as possible. I know that its impossible to make a general argument about an issue as complex as this. I suppose I am swayed by my own position in this -- which is that I would not have a job if my President/CEO hadnt started his company. And I make a good living, and I am grateful for it... Of course, the jerks that get to the top on the backs of their workers without giving anything back are the other side of the coin. As with everything, there are 3 sides to every issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mick Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 (edited) . . . For example, I am sure that the President and CEO of my company is in the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans. Maybe even top 1%. But he got that way by starting a business, sticking his neck out, and building something that not only was successful for himself, but gives 30 other people well-paying jobs. . . . That may all be true, but I don't feel it supports the argument that his kids should inherit the wealth created by his hard work, or luck, or cunning, tax-free. The income the enterprise generated was taxed along the way but not the growth in the value of the capital. Under our tax system, the capital gain is not taxed when property is inherited. The estate tax is a backstop to the capital gain that would other wise escape being taxed. I know this issue isnt black and white, and there are too many caveats to hit on all the issues. I know that taxing the top 1% estates brings people from insanely wealthy to silly wealthy. But you cant make a blanket statement that "rich people should pay their fair share" -- rich people do pay a high percentage of their income in taxes. 50% in NY, actually. People may not think that is good enough, but there is a fine line between taxing fairly and incentivizing entrepeneurs. Not to mention, this is a capitalist society -- not a socialist one... . . . Keep in mind, many large, taxable estates ($20mil -$30mil) pay no estate tax. There are many techniques to be employed to pass vast wealth to kids without it being taxed. Only rich people receiving bad advice pay estate taxes. If a couple has $4mil (or less), their kids will pay no federal estate tax. This can be achieved with virtually no planning and without even having a will. Really rich people don't pay 50% tax in NY. The 50% income tax rate (combined federal, state and NYC) is for working stiffs that make more than $340,000 per year (and in NYC, many live paycheck to paycheck on that amount). Really rich people don't work for a living. The bulk of their income - consisting of dividends and capital gains on their wealth - is taxed at 15%. Only rich people receiving bad advice pay income taxes. And while I'm no economic theorist, I don't think this is a purely capitalistic society- thank God! We tax and regulate - sometimes clumsily - to try to minimize the bad stuff captialism does. Edited August 1, 2006 by Mick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 You know I had a short dissertation written up about the unified estate and gift tax (not death tax), but I just don't care any more. To put things simply the last 6 years have shown me that Republicans can not govern, so anything they are pushing for has to be inherently bad for the country. And believe it or not I am 100% in favor of revamping, not eliminating this tax that affects so few people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Phillips Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 People always bring up this notion that minimum wage hikes will lead to layoffs, but it's horseshit. The last hike, over ten years ago, preceded the largest economic expansion in decades. Businesses don't hire labor out of kidness, they do it because they have a need. That need doesn't diminish because they have to pay more for it. If it did, then it was an inefficient operation in the first place. As for the cost being passed to the consumer, someone already addressed the fact that competition (usually a favorite of free marketeers) cuts that out pretty damned quick. As for the Death Tax and it already being taxed: we have a tax on income in this country. Yes, the builder of wealth has paid tax on income earned, but when that person dies and leaves money to an heir, that money become income for another person and is rightly taxed. And the idea that it's GOOD to build an aristocracy in this country is soundly un-American! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I think the problem with the estate/death tax issue (and frankly, the arguments that everyone (including me) are making in this thread) is that it is too broad of a brush. There is not one universal stereotypical rich person in the world. The top 1% of this country is made up of money hungry jerks that get to the top on the backs of underpaid workers, and there are folks that stick their neck out, provide a valuable service to their community, start a company and provide jobs to folks. Now obviously, I want the folks in the latter category to be as incentivized as possible to go out and to continue doing what they do, because quite frankly, I would not have a job without one of them in particular (i.e., the president of my company). Does an estate tax really disincentivize folks from sticking their flag in the sand and starting something? I don't know. But I do know that part of the incentive for people to become obscenely rich is the thought that they can support their families for generations to come. You may not think its GOOD for there to be an aristocracy in this country and you may think that $$ left to children is "income" that should be taxed but these are opinions -- not truths. And frankly, if you believe in this country and the idea of the American dream (thats a whole other thread), you have to take the good with the bad. Part of why there is an aristocracy (and there is in every country, fyi) and part of the reason that generations of trust-fund kids grow up pissing off everyone around them, is that you probably have to have something like this to allow a supply-demand/capitalistic society to function. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I think the problem with the estate/death tax issue (and frankly, the arguments that everyone (including me) are making in this thread) is that it is too broad of a brush. There is not one universal stereotypical rich person in the world. The top 1% of this country is made up of money hungry jerks that get to the top on the backs of underpaid workers, and there are folks that stick their neck out, provide a valuable service to their community, start a company and provide jobs to folks. Now obviously, I want the folks in the latter category to be as incentivized as possible to go out and to continue doing what they do, because quite frankly, I would not have a job without one of them in particular (i.e., the president of my company). Does an estate tax really disincentivize folks from sticking their flag in the sand and starting something? I don't know. But I do know that part of the incentive for people to become obscenely rich is the thought that they can support their families for generations to come. You may not think its GOOD for there to be an aristocracy in this country and you may think that $$ left to children is "income" that should be taxed but these are opinions -- not truths. And frankly, if you believe in this country and the idea of the American dream (thats a whole other thread), you have to take the good with the bad. Part of why there is an aristocracy (and there is in every country, fyi) and part of the reason that generations of trust-fund kids grow up pissing off everyone around them, is that you probably have to have something like this to allow a supply-demand/capitalistic society to function. Again, well put. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Let's just leave them alone and all try to work together and make America great again. That's what's up! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 america will never be as great as after the second world war when the stratification of wealth is approaching the gilded age. it is a robust middle class and industrial infrastructure that made this country what it was. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I wish Truman were here. Of course I'm on page 540 of the book so I still have a lot to learn about him. But from what I know, we need someone like him to lead this country to greatness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Phillips Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I think the problem with the estate/death tax issue (and frankly, the arguments that everyone (including me) are making in this thread) is that it is too broad of a brush. There is not one universal stereotypical rich person in the world. The top 1% of this country is made up of money hungry jerks that get to the top on the backs of underpaid workers, and there are folks that stick their neck out, provide a valuable service to their community, start a company and provide jobs to folks. Now obviously, I want the folks in the latter category to be as incentivized as possible to go out and to continue doing what they do, because quite frankly, I would not have a job without one of them in particular (i.e., the president of my company). Does an estate tax really disincentivize folks from sticking their flag in the sand and starting something? I don't know. But I do know that part of the incentive for people to become obscenely rich is the thought that they can support their families for generations to come. You may not think its GOOD for there to be an aristocracy in this country and you may think that $$ left to children is "income" that should be taxed but these are opinions -- not truths. And frankly, if you believe in this country and the idea of the American dream (thats a whole other thread), you have to take the good with the bad. Part of why there is an aristocracy (and there is in every country, fyi) and part of the reason that generations of trust-fund kids grow up pissing off everyone around them, is that you probably have to have something like this to allow a supply-demand/capitalistic society to function. I don't know how you can not see an inheritence as "income." What else is it? It's money in-coming to your household. Whether it's earned or inherited is irrelevant to me, it's money coming in and should, therefore, be taxed like all other income. As for an aristocracy and the fact that all societies have them being some sort of argument in defense, that's silly and not much of an argument. All societies have lots of social and economical quirks, some good and some bad. What does that have to do with the fact that a concentration of unearned wealth leads to lower productivity and innovation. Mind you, I'm not even saying there should be a particularly HIGH taxation of inherited income, but the idea of low taxation (and even none for some people) seems counter productive and flies in the face of good old fashioned American ingenuity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 aristocracy is a hold-over from feudalism, which i think we can all agree is a moded form of social organization. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I just heard this AM that the Senate worked late last night & the minimum wage bill was defeated by a scant 4 votes.Damn shame that the Republicans tied the estate tax onto that bill,but if the Dems regain control this Nov.,rest assured that it come back up this time w/ no b.s. attached Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 .....and you know some Republican candidate will use this as a smear campaign against his opponent..... *cue the deep booming ominous voice* "Sen. _____ voted AGAINST raising the minium wage. Therefore you should vote for _______ because he/she cares about the working families of (insert state)." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 .....and you know some Republican candidate will use this as a smear campaign against his opponent..... *cue the deep booming ominous voice* "Sen. _____ voted AGAINST raising the minium wage. Therefore you should vote for _______ because he/she cares about the working families of (insert state)." Yep,you can bet that will happen.They must try to make SURE that they bang the gong constantly about the estate tax being the REAL reason,tho.I think it could be said that the working poor hate the filthy rich even more than they hate politicians Scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.