Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

[dcarrigg]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Do people around here not understand what taxes pay for? When the government takes 35% or however much away from some "lazy trust fund kid," they are going to give so much more back to him or his brother or his fellow yacht club members in the form of subsidies, monopoly protection, lucrative no-bid contracts, and so forth. Not to mention the ridiculous price controls that government engages in, the rampant wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen so far), etc. Can anyone on this forum honestly believe that even a majority of estate tax revenue will go towards things that they believe government does well?

Please try to think one step ahead. Empowering the government means empowering the politically influential; that's it!

So your solution is to preemptively capitulate? You sound like Obama.

Seriously, though, by your logic here all taxes should be eliminated and the government disbanded. If you are an anarchist, that is fine, but if you are simply arguing for limited government, then one would hope that you would argue against other taxes before you go after the estate tax.

[srivatsan]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Robberies...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-Ent...12556.html?x=0

hmm.... As stated in various threads and EJ et al, the spate of crimes are slowly nudging up that even MSM cannot not cover it.

[c1ue]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

When it comes to politics, nothing is "permanent." If that's your only justification, then it is a very poor one.

Uh, ok.

I just pointed out 2 examples where in fact the money from a large fortune has continued to influence the course of America via politics through an entire century - and hasn't ended yet.

Your response is to trot out some aphorism which clearly doesn't fit the empirical facts.

[Ghent12]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

So your solution is to preemptively capitulate? You sound like Obama.

Seriously, though, by your logic here all taxes should be eliminated and the government disbanded. If you are an anarchist, that is fine, but if you are simply arguing for limited government, then one would hope that you would argue against other taxes before you go after the estate tax.

Who becomes the most influential in a constitutional republic when the government becomes smaller? That is the point when the people become the most influential on government affairs, while the moneyed interests and political power blocs lose their influence and their interest in controlling a weaker entity. I am not an anarchist, but even you should realize that the extraordinary largess of the current government has led to more and more corruption and war and the trend will continue indefinitely so long as the government continues to grow in power.

Uh, ok.

I just pointed out 2 examples where in fact the money from a large fortune has continued to influence the course of America via politics through an entire century - and hasn't ended yet.

Your response is to trot out some aphorism which clearly doesn't fit the empirical facts.

Did those mean rich people promote things you didn't like? So what is your solution, hm? Do you think the various estate taxes have or will break those two families or their influence on politics? Or will those estate taxes collected be recirculated for their benefit in perpetuity?

As I said, nothing is permanent in politics, but giving more power and influence to this government is probably the worst idea I've ever read.

[c1ue]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Did those mean rich people promote things you didn't like? So what is your solution, hm? Do you think the various estate taxes have or will break those two families or their influence on politics? Or will those estate taxes collected be recirculated for their benefit in perpetuity?

The rationale that a successful businessperson deserves the money they earned does not apply to said businessperson's successors.

I don't care if Ross Perot wants to use his money to try and become President; I do care mightily if Perot II, III, IV etc do so.

The effectiveness of estate taxes in preventing the Kennedys from doing what they've done or the Rockefellers from doing what they are doing isn't the point. Obviously it hasn't worked in these cases.

Equally obviously it could work if there was a societal recognition of the distortions wrought by huge inheritances.

While I am not a conspiracy nut, you don't have to be one to see what the effects of great money has on the US or any other nation: just examine the political efforts of the above, plus others like the Kochs.

The difference is this: while you and I can have any wacky world view whatsoever - we cannot exert much more influence than 1 grain of sand on the beach. The billionaires and multi-billionaires - they're the equivalent of steam shovels. They can and do exert massive influence.

It is no different than giving "special" persons more than 1 vote.

As I said, nothing is permanent in politics, but giving more power and influence to this government is probably the worst idea I've ever read.

Your world view is indeed amusing.

Somehow having a government with the ability to rein in some of the more egregious abuses of banksters is bad, but having banksters able to put together ever bigger and bigger bankrolls in which to manipulate government is good.

The 'no government is good government' sounds nice to those who can free ride within a 1st world economy and infrastructure; those who see how things work in other nations without said economy nor infrastructure understand that libertarianism is a fantasy.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Who becomes the most influential in a constitutional republic when the government becomes smaller? That is the point when the people become the most influential on government affairs, while the moneyed interests and political power blocs lose their influence and their interest in controlling a weaker entity. I am not an anarchist, but even you should realize that the extraordinary largess of the current government has led to more and more corruption and war and the trend will continue indefinitely so long as the government continues to grow in power.


Did those mean rich people promote things you didn't like? So what is your solution, hm? Do you think the various estate taxes have or will break those two families or their influence on politics? Or will those estate taxes collected be recirculated for their benefit in perpetuity?

As I said, nothing is permanent in politics, but giving more power and influence to this government is probably the worst idea I've ever read.

del.

[DSpencer]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

The rationale that a successful businessperson deserves the money they earned does not apply to said businessperson's successors.

A firm believer in property rights would say that the businessperson has the right to decide how their property is used including the right to give it to their heirs or anyone else they choose.

To me the issue seems to be whether people believe in a utilitarian, "greater good" type philosophy or a more "natural law", property rights based philosophy.

Even if those defending the estate tax could convince those opposing it that it is a benefit "to society as a whole", it probably still won't convince them that it is morally justified.

I think many of the debates I see, here and elsewhere, run into the same problem. People trying to convince each other of a particular viewpoint on a specific issue without addressing the underlying basis for their belief. Granted, changing anyone's mind on deeper issues is probably close to impossible as well.

It may be more productive to examine how people become so wealthy. One of the few areas where I personally have changed my opinion is the validity of copyright and patent law. These laws lead to many government enforced monopolies. I think it can be convincingly argued that they are neither a benefit to the "greater good" nor a justifiable application of property rights.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

A firm believer in property rights would say that the businessperson has the right to decide how their property is used including the right to give it to their heirs or anyone else they choose.

To me the issue seems to be whether people believe in a utilitarian, "greater good" type philosophy or a more "natural law", property rights based philosophy.

Even if those defending the estate tax could convince those opposing it that it is a benefit "to society as a whole", it probably still won't convince them that it is morally justified.

I think many of the debates I see, here and elsewhere, run into the same problem. People trying to convince each other of a particular viewpoint on a specific issue without addressing the underlying basis for their belief. Granted, changing anyone's mind on deeper issues is probably close to impossible as well.

It may be more productive to examine how people become so wealthy. One of the few areas where I personally have changed my opinion is the validity of copyright and patent law. These laws lead to many government enforced monopolies. I think it can be convincingly argued that they are neither a benefit to the "greater good" nor a justifiable application of property rights.

Nope, no, and wrong.

Did Jefferson hate property rights? Paine? Locke? Smith? Teddy Roosevelt?

Why capitalists should like estate taxes
From Adam Smith to Thomas Jefferson, lovers of freedom have demanded that social privilege be earned -- not inherited.
BY SAM FLEISCHACKER
It is inspiring to see William Gates Sr. (Bill Gates' father and leader of the family's foundation), George Soros and other wealthy people defending the estate tax. They know that repealing it would seriously harm charities and important government projects. But even more important than that is the issue of equal opportunity. Warren Buffett puts best why we need an estate tax: Without it, we will have "an aristocracy of wealth." That elegant phrase brings out exactly why those who believe in capitalism should fervently defend the estate tax.

Estate taxes can easily look cruel or unfair if one calls them "death taxes." In fact, however, they are the fairest of all taxes, and have a long and proud history.

Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.

Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.

And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."

These worries about whether inheritance is justified at all have their source in a central principle of capitalist societies: the principle that social privileges should be earned, should be a reward for contribution to society, rather than handed out by government leaders or passed down by aristocratic dynasties.

One might expect those who decry welfare programs on the ground -- who insist that everyone should work for their living -- to be the first to embrace the notion that the children of the rich should not become rich themselves just by inheriting their parents' money. Instead, we are treated all too often to the spectacle of wealthy heirs deploring the injustice in the fact that poor people might be given a leg up by the government, while insisting that there is nothing at all wrong with the many legs up they themselves have received from their parents.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with parents giving their children a good start in life. On the contrary, it is admirable when people devote their earnings to a comfortable home and a good education for their children, and when they give their children ample opportunities to find satisfying work.

But all this can be done without, in addition, passing on an estate worth so much that the children need never contribute to society at all. The passing on of such estates creates a large and unnecessary barrier in the way of social mobility, giving the children of the rich an enormous and entirely unearned advantage over the children of the poor. That defies our society's belief in equal opportunity.

Three objections tend to be made to this argument. The first is that estates keep families together, that they are an expression of familial love. The second is that limiting the ability of parents to pass their wealth down to their children may sap the incentive people have to make money, and thereby depress innovation and initiative. And the third is that government taxes on an estate constitute an illegitimate infringement on the right to property.

The first and second of these arguments are wildly implausible. Inheritances are one of the largest sources of bitter family squabbles, and they lead even well-meaning people to look forward, to some guilty extent, to their parents' deaths.

As for the second argument, people have ample incentives to pursue great wealth, whether or not they can pass it down to their children. They will avidly seek wealth for their own self-aggrandizement, for the opportunity to provide well for their families during their lifetimes and for the opportunity to endow charitable causes. It is hard to imagine that an estate tax, even a large one, will lead many people who would otherwise amass a fortune to sit back on their haunches.

So we are left with the argument from the right to property. But it is hard to see why people, after their deaths, should continue to have any right to property at all. Whatever we think about the immortality of the soul, we don't normally believe that people should continue to have civil rights after they die.

Moreover, although it is part of the right to property to give gifts to one's children during one's lifetime, here too we draw limits to exactly what one can buy for one's children. One may buy them a good college education, but not -- directly, at least -- a political office, a place in the army or civil service, or a job in a publicly owned company. Money allows one to help one's children, but not to guarantee social status and power for them.

Aristocratic societies allowed parents to pass status and power down to their children; our society, in the name of equal opportunity, has long fought against that possibility. But if we therefore place limits on the gifts parents can give their children even during their lifetime, then we should certainly be able to restrict what parents can do after they die.

All of these are reasons why great promoters of capitalism, going back to Adam Smith and his students, have seen an estate tax as perfectly legitimate. There is no milder, fairer way of fostering social mobility, of making sure that equality of opportunity, distant dream as it still remains, does not disappear altogether from our scheme of values.

[DSpencer]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Nope, no, and wrong.

Did Jefferson hate property rights? Paine? Locke? Smith? Teddy Roosevelt?

Moreover, although it is part of the right to property to give gifts to one's children during one's lifetime, here too we draw limits to exactly what one can buy for one's children. One may buy them a good college education, but not -- directly, at least -- a political office, a place in the army or civil service, or a job in a publicly owned company. Money allows one to help one's children, but not to guarantee social status and power for them.

The above paragraph does not impress me as an example of sound reasoning. What is the author trying to say? Are monetary gifts to your children allowed? If so, in any amount? Or is the "appropriate" amount to be determined by someone else and on what basis?

If you could give money to your children (tax free) before you died but not after, that seems to turn the estate tax into more of an unexpected death tax. If you can't give your own property/money to children (or anyone) while alive, then that strikes me as a property rights issue.

If the whole issue boils down to a subjective determination of how much is "fair" then I'm forced to conclude it's being based on utilitarian considerations. If you think that less than 100% of an estate should be taken by the government, why? If a dead person has no rights to determine what happens to their property, why should their heirs get any at all?

Jefferson was a smart man and I agree with many of his positions. He also owned slaves which I consider completely inconsistent with property rights as I believe every person has self-ownership.

I think most people have a mix of utilitarian beliefs and natural rights beliefs. Perhaps I stated my original post poorly. It seemed to me that people were arguing past each other by appealing to different philosophical positions. That is more what I meant.

[cjppjc]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Perhaps I stated my original post poorly. It seemed to me that people were arguing past each other by appealing to different philosophical positions. That is more what I meant.

You stated your thoughts perfectly the first time.

[c1ue]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

A firm believer in property rights would say that the businessperson has the right to decide how their property is used including the right to give it to their heirs or anyone else they choose.

To me the issue seems to be whether people believe in a utilitarian, "greater good" type philosophy or a more "natural law", property rights based philosophy.

Even if those defending the estate tax could convince those opposing it that it is a benefit "to society as a whole", it probably still won't convince them that it is morally justified.

I think many of the debates I see, here and elsewhere, run into the same problem. People trying to convince each other of a particular viewpoint on a specific issue without addressing the underlying basis for their belief. Granted, changing anyone's mind on deeper issues is probably close to impossible as well.

They have the right to give it to their heirs. Just not all of it.

Seriously - every time I see the rationale of 'property rights' used, I have to restrain a heave.

Does a businessperson have the right to create poisonous products?

Does a businessperson have the right to kick their dog?

Does a businessperson have the right to a non-devalued currency?

The reality is that a gigantic pile of money to a trustafarian is a clear and present danger to society.

1000 people giving $1,000,000 each in 1000 inheritances is far less dangerous than 1 person giving $1,000,000,000 in 1 inheritance.

'Rights' is where we are today: the 3 ratings agencies saying that their bulls**t self serving MBS ratings were "free speech". Corporations having the same "free speech" right to pour money into self serving campaign donations.

The original rationale behind the concept of rights was the preservation of independence and fairness in society.

Today the rationale behind "rights" is how to justify what I've done, or what I should be given. And with a big enough stick - any right can be abrogated today as our entire DHS infrastructure attests to.

It may be more productive to examine how people become so wealthy. One of the few areas where I personally have changed my opinion is the validity of copyright and patent law. These laws lead to many government enforced monopolies. I think it can be convincingly argued that they are neither a benefit to the "greater good" nor a justifiable application of property rights.

As I have written up in a blog posting - the entire point of copyright law/patent law wasn't for the enrichment of corporations or the enshrinement of permanent rent seeking ownership of technology - it was to foster development and reward those taking risks inventing, writing, or other forms of creation.

The original debates in England noted in the blog spoke of the challenge of balancing the monopoly rent seeking vs. reward; it is without question today that the monopolists have won.

[Ghent12]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

What do you think the worst possible thing a "trustafarian" can do with their money? Sit on it? "Squander" it? Attempt to gain political office? None of those strike me as particularly bad except the latter, but that is only because Leviathan is currently very powerful. If government were just an arbitrator of disputes and provide basic physical security as its dual primary functions, then there would be little worry about "trustafarians" being able to "buy" their way into office.

It's about the right to property. The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor. Unless a market is rigged (by government, almost exclusively), then profits are a reward for providing a necessary and desired service or product--an incredibly wealthy person that earned their wealth should, from a moral perspective, absolutely have the right to decide how their wealth is used, including to pass it down to their heirs. That's just fair. Explain why they can't give it all to their heirs. You've given two examples of families which have persistent political influence, but that is essentially nothing compared to the thousands of family-owned businesses and their employees.


You complain about monopolies, but the only reason they do and will continue to exist presently is because the government protects, subsidizes, and fosters them. In a truly free market, there is no possibility for a pernicious monopoly to reign for any significant period of time. You note what "the point" of copyright laws have been, but that is irrelevant. The only aspect of laws that matter is the set of incentives that they create. Consequences matter, not intentions, and it is without question that copyright laws have had the consequence of reducing competition.

[c1ue]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

What do you think the worst possible thing a "trustafarian" can do with their money? Sit on it? "Squander" it? Attempt to gain political office? None of those strike me as particularly bad except the latter, but that is only because Leviathan is currently very powerful. If government were just an arbitrator of disputes and provide basic physical security as its dual primary functions, then there would be little worry about "trustafarians" being able to "buy" their way into office.

You really need to study history more.

Leviathan exists not because of some natural law per se, but because it is in the interests of those who desire power over others.

To say that government is powerful because of itself is to ignore both history and reality in most of the world.

Furthermore you miss yet again the entire point: it isn't that government is always good nor always bad - it is that we are at the point where a shift has gone to one extreme.

If you believe some mythical return to libertarian individual isolationism will somehow reverse this shift - I would point out that the most likely path for that is a complete collapse of society - not some orderly progression of 'smaller government'.

Every single example in the past in which liberties were promoted and government influence pared back was due to someone in government: Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt being prime examples.

It's about the right to property. The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

I see your billionaire's right to property, and raise you 300 million Americans right to a more equitable society, and 6 billion people's rights to not have their lives f***ed over by silver spoons.

Why is the billionaire's right so much stronger?

Again you focus on the selfish right while ignoring the rest of the world and society.

You complain about monopolies, but the only reason they do and will continue to exist presently is because the government protects, subsidizes, and fosters them. In a truly free market, there is no possibility for a pernicious monopoly to reign for any significant period of time. You note what "the point" of copyright laws have been, but that is irrelevant. The only aspect of laws that matter is the set of incentives that they create. Consequences matter, not intentions, and it is without question that copyright laws have had the consequence of reducing competition.

Again you spout demagoguery without actually knowing facts.

Monopolies exist all the time without government intervention.

Standard Oil was created without government intervention.

The Catholic Church was created without government intervention - in fact was persecuted for centuries by the government of Rome.

The present Republikrat system was created without government intervention.

Just because many present monopolies exist due to government policies like patent/copyright law doesn't mean this is the only path.

Your "truly free" market is a fantasy - even were it to magically appear, it would soon be destroyed by the most successful elements within it.

This is what the libertarian doesn't comprehend.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

I could not have said it better myself. The calls for no governmental interference in the Microsoft case were rather curious since its copyright and patent laws that created and maintained that wealth. Its lengthy process is of course highly advantages to deep pockets and acts as a moat for big business.

[srivatsan]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Now to help "facilitate" less crime:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43608911...-consumer_news



I do not know where to begin....