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

[Milton Kuo]

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

Is the World bettter off if the Government takes 80-90% of the Wealth of some one like Bill Gates upon their death.

This Money while it is invested with the Family provides Revenue for Financiers, Attorneys, Accountants, and Capital that may sit in Banks (this Capital gives the Bank a larger pool of Capital from which to make loans) or Municipal Bonds or Stocks certificates that would be liquidated if there was an 80% tax- isn't this wealth being productive.

Alternatively, this Money gets sucked up by the Government and spent very quickly. There is a loss of wealth at the local Bank were the Family kept CDs, there is one less buyer on Municipal Bonds, one less buyer of the Family business publicly trade stock (bringing down the value of the stock for all owners of shares).

Does Society actually end up better off with Massive Taxation of wealthy at death or does the Government become the spend-thrifts?

A high estate tax should exist to encourage the wealthy, who realize that government is inefficient and lousy at creating wealth, to arrange for the disposition of their wealth in a way that benefits society. The idea of the estate tax should not be so that the government can receive a windfall from the passing of a wealthy person to spend on bread, circuses, and pork. Instead, it should spur the wealthy to do things similar to what Carnegie did with the funding and building of libraries, schools, universities, etc.

[lektrode]

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

A high estate tax should exist to encourage the wealthy, who realize that government is inefficient and lousy at creating wealth, to arrange for the disposition of their wealth in a way that benefits society. The idea of the estate tax should not be so that the government can receive a windfall from the passing of a wealthy person to spend on bread, circuses, and pork. Instead, it should spur the wealthy to do things similar to what Carnegie did with the funding and building of libraries, schools, universities, etc.

+1

and hey, better add the bernank's cut: +.5
(for the 50% of the value of the US$ that he and timmy has flushed down the toilet the past couple...)

[flintlock]

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

I must not be explaining myself clearly since it comes off as "nonsense".

Society provides a framework in which you can make money. If those who benefit most from this framework are not responsible for its maintenance, then who is?

I get completely what you are saying here. And agree. But that doesn't mean I'm one of those who think we should tax those who benefit most from the "system" into oblivion.

There are many who would like to, just for spite. Never mind they cut off their own noses.

[Ghent12]

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

How did Bill Gates gain his wealth? Through government protection of an artificial monopoly - copyright. How did Rockefeller gain his wealth? Through government protection of private property.

Always conveniently overlooked by the libtards.

This is a significant point. Extreme wealth accumulation generally only occurs because political power (i.e. the power of the state, aka violence) allows it to occur. A natural, organic market monopoly would immediately be broken if said monopoly abused its monopoly pricing power--meaning that as soon as it tried to hike up the price of the products or services it sold, other businesses would start up to compete. I would encourage some research into A & P, a little-known grocery store at present but at one point had more stores in the US than any other grocery chain before or since, including Wal-Mart.

Why should anyone care at all if the rich "hoard" their money? It's their money! How can anyone possibly think that they have a claim on Rockefeller's or Gates' estate? In a sense, the supporters of the estate tax are partially correct precisely because it was the government's monopoly-protection laws which allowed them to aggregate so much wealth to begin with. I say do away with both government support of businesses and the heavy myriad tax burden as well.

[c1ue]

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

How can anyone possibly think that they have a claim on Rockefeller's or Gates' estate?

Because I don't want Rockefeller grandsons, grand-nephews, great grand-sons, etc etc and what not forming a permanent part of the political establishment in the US.

It still happened, but the present day Rockefellers didn't do squat to earn their position.

See: Kennedy

[dcarrigg]

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

Because I don't want Rockefeller grandsons, grand-nephews, great grand-sons, etc etc and what not forming a permanent part of the political establishment in the US.

It still happened, but the present day Rockefellers didn't do squat to earn their position.

See: Kennedy

+1

I'll throw my two cents in down below, but I do hope that this discussion can lend itself back towards the concept of going to prison for healthcare and away from the estate tax.

That being said, I suppose I'll fan the fire.

I maintain that policies encouraging wholesale wealth and title transfer to progeny ad infinitum by birthright are against the spirit of the American and French revolutions. Those who advocate these policies are not capitalists, but rather something more akin to royalists. The bourgeois so detested by the socialists were peasants, not nobility. They amassed wealth by working and trading for it, not by birthright.

This is not an academic argument - in almost every culture that had periods where children could inherit an unlimited amount of wealth without mediation a nobility formed. It is an historical fact that has occurred on every continent. In every case, the nobility assumes the authority of the state.

[flintlock]

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

I'd love to see a poll on the estate tax where the respondents were categorized by their chance of being the actual beneficiary of an estate. My guess is you'd see those who stand no chance of ever seeing a penny, all for the tax, those who stand to gain, mostly against it.

[c1ue]

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

I'd love to see a poll on the estate tax where the respondents were categorized by their chance of being the actual beneficiary of an estate. My guess is you'd see those who stand no chance of ever seeing a penny, all for the tax, those who stand to gain, mostly against it.

If the objective is to provide for the education and welfare of the surviving family - within some reasonable bound - there is absolutely nothing wrong with inheritance.

However, the present estate tax levels are in the $5M dollar range. While some may think that a $1M house and $4M in liquid assets is barely enough to get by - I disagree.

Were Bill Gates to be subject to a 99% estate tax - this would still leave $500M for his heirs to 'get by' on.

Of course none of this really matters: Gates has long since placed the bulk of his money into a 'charitable foundation', much as Papa Joe Kennedy moved his fortune into the Caribbean and Papa Rockefeller into various corporations, foundations, and trusts.

[flintlock]

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

Yes, I personally don't have as big a problem with the higher limits of today. But not so long ago, when the exclusion was 1 to 2 million, that, to me, was nothing less than sanctioned robbery by the State.

But for those who say this is all about stopping the Rockerfellers, Kennedy's, and so forth, $5 million seems a tad low don't you think?

I'd also argue that the pro-estate tax person with the lofty principles, who suddenly found out he stood to gain $3 million from a long lost uncle, would cry foul if Uncle Sam got it instead. After all, who better to "help"?

Some of this debate always slips back into the liberal fantasy that all rich people inherit their wealth. That is simply not true. If we are talking about the heirs of the Robber Barons then we are talking a statistically tiny number.

If there is one thing that the "privileged" do inherit that occasionally gives them an unfair advantage, its the value of education, hard work, and other similar principles ingrained in them from an early age. They are raised for success. Though a nice trust fund doesn't hurt either.

[dcarrigg]

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

I'd love to see a poll on the estate tax where the respondents were categorized by their chance of being the actual beneficiary of an estate. My guess is you'd see those who stand no chance of ever seeing a penny, all for the tax, those who stand to gain, mostly against it.

Here's the best recent poll. You're absolutely wrong here. The taxfoundation polls and other non scientific polls by newspapers etc. consistently find approximately 70% of Americans in favor of eliminating the estate tax. Scientific polls support similar, albeit muted, numbers. Clearly 70% of Americans do not stand to inherit > $5M from a single parent or > $10M from married parents.

Put simply, most of those who stand no chance of ever seeing a penny are against the tax. They are conceptually or philosophically opposed. Maybe they think they'll hit the lottery. Who knows.

I know that I am conceptually and philosophically in favor of it regardless of how it effects my personal wealth. An exemption up to a point is okay, but I see no difference between a lazy man living off of a trust fund not working and a lazy man living off of welfare. No difference at all. I don't care what his daddy done did - this is America, and we earn our way here. The guberment taking 35% of everything after trust boy's $10M is not sanctioned robbery - it is simple, good old-fashioned common sense - like grist mills and johnny cakes.

If you raise a kid that can't get by having 35% of his cash taken after the first $10M then that's your problem to contemplate from the other side of the River Styx.

The argument that it hurts family enterprise is hogwash, since assets of a corporation or partnership do not get hit with the tax - only personal wealth. The old sole-proprietor can quite easily and cheaply form an LLC if it's such a concern. Moreover, "bypass trusts" are routinely set up to circumvent the tax.

"Sanctioned robbery by the state" is such an alarmist and nutty way to put it. Death and taxes man. Assuming Taking 35% of a trustafarian's cash after you make sure he has $10M free and clear because his daddy didn't stipulate a non-profit for it to go to (or create one his kids could work at forever like Gates) isn't exactly the old stamp act. I don't think anyone will be out setting the Gaspee ablaze in the Bay over this one.

The state stopped taxing land and started taxing income. This is the last remaining tax that hits wealth as the land tax once did. It is more fair and conducive to productive capitalism than any other form of taxation currently in effect of which I can think. It has stronger philosophical and economic underpinnings than sales tax, income tax, or capital gains tax. I defy anyone to make a fact-based argument to the contrary.

That being said, let me smile with you Flintlock. I just read it over it it sounds all fire and brimstone. Without tone of voice, what can you do? The old Yankee dry wit doesn't always come clear through pages and computer screens.

[Ghent12]

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

Because I don't want Rockefeller grandsons, grand-nephews, great grand-sons, etc etc and what not forming a permanent part of the political establishment in the US.

It still happened, but the present day Rockefellers didn't do squat to earn their position.

See: Kennedy

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

[thriftyandboringinohio]

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.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams date October 28, 1813 (emphasis mine):

For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. 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.

The estate tax is a provision to prevent its ascendancy, well justified.

[Munger]

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

delete

[Munger]

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

I know that I am conceptually and philosophically in favor of it regardless of how it effects my personal wealth. An exemption up to a point is okay, but I see no difference between a lazy man living off of a trust fund not working and a lazy man living off of welfare. No difference at all. I don't care what his daddy done did - this is America, and we earn our way here. The guberment taking 35% of everything after trust boy's $10M is not sanctioned robbery - it is simple, good old-fashioned common sense - like grist mills and johnny cakes.

If you raise a kid that can't get by having 35% of his cash taken after the first $10M then that's your problem to contemplate from the other side of the River Styx.

The argument that it hurts family enterprise is hogwash, since assets of a corporation or partnership do not get hit with the tax - only personal wealth. The old sole-proprietor can quite easily and cheaply form an LLC if it's such a concern. Moreover, "bypass trusts" are routinely set up to circumvent the tax.

"Sanctioned robbery by the state" is such an alarmist and nutty way to put it. Death and taxes man. Assuming Taking 35% of a trustafarian's cash after you make sure he has $10M free and clear because his daddy didn't stipulate a non-profit for it to go to (or create one his kids could work at forever like Gates) isn't exactly the old stamp act. I don't think anyone will be out setting the Gaspee ablaze in the Bay over this one.

The state stopped taxing land and started taxing income. This is the last remaining tax that hits wealth as the land tax once did. It is more fair and conducive to productive capitalism than any other form of taxation currently in effect of which I can think. It has stronger philosophical and economic underpinnings than sales tax, income tax, or capital gains tax. I defy anyone to make a fact-based argument to the contrary.

That being said, let me smile with you Flintlock. I just read it over it it sounds all fire and brimstone. Without tone of voice, what can you do? The old Yankee dry wit doesn't always come clear through pages and computer screens.

+1

[Ghent12]

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

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams date October 28, 1813 (emphasis mine):

For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. 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.

The estate tax is a provision to prevent its ascendancy, well justified.

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!