Are the Poor Getting Poorer?

[BigBallinStalin]

has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

Ah, so saving money (i.e. investment) doesn't lead to the creation of wealth and work for others? I guess by your logic mass-consumption should be rewarded while saving should be punished.

Nothing in your post argues against anything in my post. Consider a new post, in which you explain either your point, or the part of my post that you disagree with.

What's your stance on the taxation of inheritance?

[BigBallinStalin]

has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

Ah, so saving money (i.e. investment) doesn't lead to the creation of wealth and work for others? I guess by your logic mass-consumption should be rewarded while saving should be punished.

Well, no, that wasn't his logic at all. I'd assume his logic is that we shouldn't reward heirs for the work of their grandparents. And I'm sure you do too, you know about incentives.

I'm just taking his earlier implications to the extreme.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=153828#p3384905

I'm opposed to the taxation of inheritance. Why punish people for saving wealth for their spouse, children, and grand-children? Why deny them the opportunity to donate it to a charity anyway--or do whatever they choose to do with that wealth? In this circumstance, the state has no right to intervene in another's wealth. Sure, the egalitarians would complain, but their complaints do not equal the right to confiscate the wealth of others.

Think about incentives. I work my whole life, and accumulate all this wealth. Then, I want to give it to whoever I think deserves it. It's my wealth; not yours, or anyone else's. I worked to provide for my family, their kids, and maybe even other charities--if I feel that my family would receive more than enough.

Now, let's impose a 50% tax rate on inheritances. What? Now, I have to relinquish 50% of my money to the state, who will inefficiently spend it on god know's what? I may as create trust funds which allocate funds to my future grand kids. I may as well give my inheritance before I die. That's how incentives work.

How about a 100% tax rate on inheritance? I'd have no incentive to save up to my death, so I'd over-consume, or I'd find clever ways to divert my wealth to whoever I wish right before I die.

[PLAYER57832]

Cap-gains - we encourage investment. I like that, so I would not apply it in a way that discourages investment and innovation.
.

It already, inherently does and that is the problem. One can gain a more by moving companies off shore, selling off assets. These moves are often not made because a company is really and truly losing money (or needs to.. that is, they COULD generate a profit if managed better), but just becuase the heads want to make MORE money.

It feeds greed, pure and simple, not real jobs, not production, not sustainability... not anything in the long term except fat checks for those at the top.

[PLAYER57832]

has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

The money earned has already been taxed through income taxes when it was earned. You and your greedy friends want to tax the taxed money again. Where does that power/right come from? Why do you have more of a say over a person's money than they or their family do? Are you seriously standing here saying that an individuals life-time accomplishments are owned by the state in the end? That an individual has a right to only the crumbs of the fruit of his labor?

The problem is, in essence, that it takes money to make money. Those already having money have in inherent power that other people do not have, power that they themselves did not work to achieve, did not necessarily do anything to earn, (in fact, often do just the opposit).

I know PLENTY of wealthy people who flat out will not give their kids inheritance (college.. sure, a small stake in a new business or such, but if they are competent.. not more). The reason is that when you get things for free, they are not appreciated, plus there is skill to be gained in working up.

Anyway, from the state's perspective, there is no real benefit from money that is stockpiled to give to the kiddies. There IS benefit from money that is circulated.

The problem comes when it is business and not money that is inherited, but the truth is that anyone worth their salt can hire an attorney to set up a trust. My family did and it was not that much money involved.

Anyway, money not earned by onesself has always been seen as slightly "ill-gained", and much easier to tax than other types of money. Maybe taxes should not be used for morality, but they often are.

[PLAYER57832]

has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

Ah, so saving money (i.e. investment) doesn't lead to the creation of wealth and work for others? I guess by your logic mass-consumption should be rewarded while saving should be punished.

I did touch on this a tad. Its not that saving should be punished, but that savings beyond a certain amount should be somewhat discouraged. People need to be strongly encouraged to put aside enough to cover emergencies, medical issues and retiremnet. However, beyond that, the state has a vested interest in encouraging people to invest and not hoard.

Its a case where the state's interest partially contradicts the individuals, but there it is.

[spurgistan]

Money given to me by the state = NOT MINE. DRUG TEST.
Money given to me by my grandpa = MINE, EARNED THROUGH INCENTIVIZING HARD WORK AND DRUG TESTS, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

[Phatscotty]

Money given to me by the state = NOT MINE. DRUG TEST.
Money given to me by my grandpa = MINE, EARNED THROUGH INCENTIVIZING HARD WORK AND DRUG TESTS, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Can you advocate anything else besides taking? Why don't you just come out and say it, that the state has more right to a families property than the family does, rather than your standard operating procedure of mocking non sequiturs.

btw, it's more like this

money earned by me = mine
money not earned by me = not mine

[natty dread]

money earned by me = mine
money not earned by me = not mine

I see, so you concede that inherited money is not actually yours and should be taxed?

[Phatscotty]

money earned by me = mine
money not earned by me = not mine

I see, so you concede that inherited money is not actually yours and should be taxed?

first, you concede the money to be inherited has already been taxed?

[Symmetry]

money earned by me = mine
money not earned by me = not mine

I see, so you concede that inherited money is not actually yours and should be taxed?

first, you concede the money to be inherited has already been taxed?

When you give a few thousand dollars of your taxed income to a car dealership, for example, in the purchase of a car, would the fact that that money has already been taxed be an issue? Or is it only an issue for the very wealthy and how their children inherit?

[Phatscotty]

money earned by me = mine
money not earned by me = not mine

I see, so you concede that inherited money is not actually yours and should be taxed?

first, you concede the money to be inherited has already been taxed?

When you give a few thousand dollars of your taxed income to a car dealership, for example, in the purchase of a car, would the fact that that money has already been taxed be an issue? Or is it only an issue for the very wealthy and how their children inherit?

FIRST!!! did you have any thoughts about the 2 million dollar question i asked the last page?

[BigBallinStalin]

Money given to me by the state = NOT MINE. DRUG TEST.
Money given to me by my grandpa = MINE, EARNED THROUGH INCENTIVIZING HARD WORK AND DRUG TESTS, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Maintaining familial relations requires work.

Besides, it's a gift earned through someone's labor. Why do you care that someone gave someone else a gift? What right do you have to claim that gift?

Why don't I tax you on all gifts you receive? 50% take on your Christmas and Birthday gifts. You didn't work for those gifts (to apply your assumptions here), so why can't I tax them?

[Phatscotty]

in other words, who has more right to the deceased's property than the family of the deceased?

Answer: NotYou

Keep your grubby hands off my fathers lifetime savings. He isn't working past 65 for you, he's doing it for my mother and my sister and my brother and me, and he's paying more in taxes every month than most people do in 10 years.

Ya got that?

[natty dread]

If you had a government that you liked (you know... one that wasn't corrupt as f*ck), would you be more willing to pay taxes to it?

[Symmetry]

Money given to me by the state = NOT MINE. DRUG TEST.
Money given to me by my grandpa = MINE, EARNED THROUGH INCENTIVIZING HARD WORK AND DRUG TESTS, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Maintaining familial relations requires work.

Besides, it's a gift earned through someone's labor. Why do you care that someone gave someone else a gift? What right do you have to claim that gift?

Why don't I tax you on all gifts you receive? 50% take on your Christmas and Birthday gifts. You didn't work for those gifts (to apply your assumptions here), so why can't I tax them?

Ah, those poor millionaires, born to wealth and paying an income tax lower than other people. Perhaps they should be taxed similarly to other people, or perhaps we could consider inheriting millions to be different from an uncle's $20 gift voucher for amazon.

Heresy, of course.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you had a government that you liked (you know... one that wasn't corrupt as f*ck), would you be more willing to pay taxes to it?

It depends on what my taxes would inefficiently produce, and it depends on available alternatives for providing said goods.

I guess my answer is no, because, holding all else constant, decreased corruption doesn't necessarily lead to better produced goods by the government, or even a better country. There's too many unknown variables with your question.

[BigBallinStalin]

Money given to me by the state = NOT MINE. DRUG TEST.
Money given to me by my grandpa = MINE, EARNED THROUGH INCENTIVIZING HARD WORK AND DRUG TESTS, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Maintaining familial relations requires work.

Besides, it's a gift earned through someone's labor. Why do you care that someone gave someone else a gift? What right do you have to claim that gift?

Why don't I tax you on all gifts you receive? 50% take on your Christmas and Birthday gifts. You didn't work for those gifts (to apply your assumptions here), so why can't I tax them?

Ah, those poor millionaires, born to wealth and paying an income tax lower than other people. Perhaps they should be taxed similarly to other people, or perhaps we could consider inheriting millions to be different from an uncle's $20 gift voucher for amazon.

Heresy, of course.

It doesn't have to be millionaires. If it is, then you still have no rightful claim to their property--as much as your moral philosophy screams, "IT'S NOT FAIR< I WANT THEIR STUFF!! I WANT THEIR STUFF!!!"

Millionaires are taxed more than the average Joe. Not sure where you're pulling your numbers from. You might be confusing millionaires with companies, but their income is still taxed at a higher rate, as well as their capital gains from securities, and they still pay sales tax and yada yada.

Inheritances and $20 gift vouchers are both gifts. In the US, a gift over $10,000 is taxed anyway (to mitigate the problems of tax evasion), but still, I'm seeing no reason why inheritances should be taxed.

[Symmetry]

Money given to me by the state = NOT MINE. DRUG TEST.
Money given to me by my grandpa = MINE, EARNED THROUGH INCENTIVIZING HARD WORK AND DRUG TESTS, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Maintaining familial relations requires work.

Besides, it's a gift earned through someone's labor. Why do you care that someone gave someone else a gift? What right do you have to claim that gift?

Why don't I tax you on all gifts you receive? 50% take on your Christmas and Birthday gifts. You didn't work for those gifts (to apply your assumptions here), so why can't I tax them?

Ah, those poor millionaires, born to wealth and paying an income tax lower than other people. Perhaps they should be taxed similarly to other people, or perhaps we could consider inheriting millions to be different from an uncle's $20 gift voucher for amazon.

Heresy, of course.

It doesn't have to be millionaires. If it is, then you still have no rightful claim to their property--as much as your moral philosophy screams, "IT'S NOT FAIR< I WANT THEIR STUFF!! I WANT THEIR STUFF!!!"

Millionaires are taxed more than the average Joe. Not sure where you're pulling your numbers from. You might be confusing millionaires with companies, but their income is still taxed at a higher rate, as well as their capital gains from securities, and they still pay sales tax and yada yada.

Inheritances and $20 gift vouchers are both gifts. In the US, a gift over $10,000 is taxed anyway (to mitigate the problems of tax evasion), but still, I'm seeing no reason why inheritances should be taxed.

Don't troll, you see the reasons, you simply disagree with them and that's fine. If you would like me to argue with you, then perhaps we can do so on an honest basis.

Now obviously you know that capital gains are taxed at a far far lower rate than standard income taxes, and that that will constitute a massively disproportionate amount of income for the sons and daughters of millionaires. They haven't earned that money, they are born to it, and they will be taxed at a lower rate throughout their lives.

I fail to see how this isn't a form of aristocracy.

[Phatscotty]

I fail to see how any of this is any of your business in the first place. Is this all an envy thing?

[Symmetry]

I fail to see how any of this is any of your business in the first place. Is this all an envy thing?

I hate your freedom, obviously.

[spurgistan]

Money given to me by the state = NOT MINE. DRUG TEST.
Money given to me by my grandpa = MINE, EARNED THROUGH INCENTIVIZING HARD WORK AND DRUG TESTS, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Maintaining familial relations requires work.

Besides, it's a gift earned through someone's labor. Why do you care that someone gave someone else a gift? What right do you have to claim that gift?

Why don't I tax you on all gifts you receive? 50% take on your Christmas and Birthday gifts. You didn't work for those gifts (to apply your assumptions here), so why can't I tax them?

I don't think getting a bicycle disincentivizes me to be economically productive on the scale of getting a multimillion dollar inheritance, does it? I would say that the same exemptions that have always applied to inheritance taxes in the United States (something like $300,000, or something. More than any family farm that anybody can find, despite conservative protestations) would apply to birthday gifts, not that I wouldn't mind getting rid of half my gifts anyways. My family gives shitty gifts. Anyways, not like they could tax half the love the gifts mean.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maintaining familial relations requires work.

Besides, it's a gift earned through someone's labor. Why do you care that someone gave someone else a gift? What right do you have to claim that gift?

Why don't I tax you on all gifts you receive? 50% take on your Christmas and Birthday gifts. You didn't work for those gifts (to apply your assumptions here), so why can't I tax them?

Ah, those poor millionaires, born to wealth and paying an income tax lower than other people. Perhaps they should be taxed similarly to other people, or perhaps we could consider inheriting millions to be different from an uncle's $20 gift voucher for amazon.

Heresy, of course.

It doesn't have to be millionaires. If it is, then you still have no rightful claim to their property--as much as your moral philosophy screams, "IT'S NOT FAIR< I WANT THEIR STUFF!! I WANT THEIR STUFF!!!"

Millionaires are taxed more than the average Joe. Not sure where you're pulling your numbers from. You might be confusing millionaires with companies, but their income is still taxed at a higher rate, as well as their capital gains from securities, and they still pay sales tax and yada yada.

Inheritances and $20 gift vouchers are both gifts. In the US, a gift over $10,000 is taxed anyway (to mitigate the problems of tax evasion), but still, I'm seeing no reason why inheritances should be taxed.

Don't troll, you see the reasons, you simply disagree with them and that's fine. If you would like me to argue with you, then perhaps we can do so on an honest basis.

Now obviously you know that capital gains are taxed at a far far lower rate than standard income taxes, and that that will constitute a massively disproportionate amount of income for the sons and daughters of millionaires. They haven't earned that money, they are born to it, and they will be taxed at a lower rate throughout their lives.

I fail to see how this isn't a form of aristocracy.

I'm not trolling. Essentially, your moral stance is that it isn't fair that the recipients, whose ancestors have accumulated more wealth than yours, deserve 100% access to that wealth.

Your stance that millionaires pay less in income taxes to other people is ridiculous. It's completely wrong, and if you're intentionally stating a false standpoints, then that's trolling~omgzor.


So what if they didn't "earn" it according to your moral definition of "earning things fairly." Those recipients can either blow all their money (and create demand for those goods and services), or they can invest it into securities or government bonds which provides money to firms which demand it. Or they can hire a financial manager to oversee that. Or, they can found their own charity and give back in a way which they deem most useful. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of that.

It's not your money; therefore, you don't have a right to it. Any justification for theft on the grounds of "it's not fair!" is absurd, albeit morally satisfying to only you. Think about the wealth which is created from that invested money, or the job of the financial manager, or whoever is affected by the demand created by that millionaires' money. According to them, it's not fair for them to lose those opportunities simply because you say it's not fair that the recipient gets to keep a tax-free gift (i.e. inheritance).

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

[natty dread]

If you had a government that you liked (you know... one that wasn't corrupt as f*ck), would you be more willing to pay taxes to it?

It depends on what my taxes would inefficiently produce, and it depends on available alternatives for providing said goods.

I guess my answer is no, because, holding all else constant, decreased corruption doesn't necessarily lead to better produced goods by the government, or even a better country. There's too many unknown variables with your question.

Let me clarify then: a government, which acted in a way that you would generally be satisfied with, with regards to policy, using tax money, legislation, etc. This hypothetical government would have a low corruption rate, intelligent infrastructure, reasonably low level of unnecessary bureaucracy, and would represent the opinions of the population fairly, with a reasonable spectrum of various political parties.

If you had such a government, would you still be unwilling to pay taxes to it? If so, why?

[PLAYER57832]

It's not your money; therefore, you don't have a right to it. Any justification for theft on the grounds of "it's not fair!" is absurd, albeit morally satisfying to only you. Think about the wealth which is created from that invested money, or the job of the financial manager, or whoever is affected by the demand created by that millionaires' money. According to them, it's not fair for them to lose those opportunities simply because you say it's not fair that the recipient gets to keep a tax-free gift (i.e. inheritance).

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

Except, who defines whether its "your money" or not? In the middle ages, even issuing loans at all was considered sinful.. "usary". Only mony rightfully earned was OK. Much later, in certain Aristocratic classes, by contrast, even discussing money was "vulgar".

The question is really how much money your children have a right to get just becuase they are your children.

[Symmetry]

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

Apologies, next time I will attempt a moral argument that only works for the rich, or maybe only for the poor, or something.

What did you mean by that anyway?