POLL: When do you think the estate tax should kick in, if ever?

[oreagan]

Dissipate's post

What? A firm can never control prices because it's a mutual thing? Are you kidding? A firm can't control the equilibrium price, but I absolutely guarantee you that if I start a t-shirt company right now I decide exactly what price I want to charge. Whether someone chooses to buy it or not is up to him, but if I'm only only provider of this t-shirt then it's a question of buy it or do without. In the case of railroads, I would be the only supplier of something that allows a farmer to make his living and feed his family. He's perfectly free to not buy my product, but If he doesn't pay whatever the heck I want to ship his corn away, it rots in a barn and his farm gets foreclosed by the bank. Sure, I lose his money, but now the next 10 farmers down the line know I mean business and they'll pay the much higher price.

Dissipate's crazy author:

There is no direct
control over price because price is a mutual phenomenon. On
the other hand, each person has absolute control over his own
action and therefore over the price which he will attempt to
charge for any particular good. Any man can set any price that
he wants for any quantity of a good that he sells; the question is
whether he can find any buyers at that price.

No one is questioning the farmer's right to sell his good at whatever price he wants, but in order for him to do that, he's going to have to get his goods to a market. The moment his corn is grown it isn't going to magically transport to wherever someone wants to buy it. There is cost involved in transportation. He could buy a huge wagon train or start his own railroad firm, but those cost enormous capital and if he had that then he wouldn't need to work all year on a farm anyway.

Also, another point where that article is ridiculous: If the farmer DOES get his product to market completely free of charge and information is also free and universal, he COULD charge whatever he wants for it. If the going price for corn is $3 per bushel, he could charge $4. Good luck finding a buyer; he sells 300 bushels on a world market of billions. He could charge $2 and sell every bit of corn instantly, but why would he do that when he can get $3? We're discussing (or at least I'm trying to discuss) reality.

As for you tirade against universities, I attend a top university (a state university even) and even in Econ 101 and 102 we were taught both Keynesian and Classical economics, both being correct in some cases and incorrect in others (using history and fact as a guide). We also touched on other theories, including neo-Keynesian, neo-Classical, and more minor schools. There are as many Classical as there are Keynsian economists in the department as a whole, with a dash of others thrown in as well.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think people should get riches when they earn it.

So you are against:

Lottery
Gambling
Welfare
Charity
Game Shows
Bingo
Door Prizes
Birthday presents

Why is it "right" for the government to dictate what a private citizen gets to spend his/her money on? How is that "fair"? You seem to have some hang-up with rich celebreties. What's up with that? I can't see anything other reason than jealousy. If your parents came into a vast amount of money, either by accident or hard work, then (heaven forbid) they should pass away, you are saying that they have no right whatsoever to leave you any of thier money? You didn't 'earn" it, so you would just hand it over to the government and be perfectly happy with that?

 

[Jhhnn]

From cKGunslinger-

"So you are against:

Lottery
Gambling
Welfare
Charity
Game Shows
Bingo
Door Prizes
Birthday presents"

I think that's a mischaracterization, although I wouldn't presume to speak for Infohawk. Nowhere within any of your cited scenarios does any reasonable individual feel as though they're entitled to receive anything, luck being understood as the major factor. I think you also need to understand that the vast majority of welfare recipients are UN-lucky. Any I've ever known, and there have been several, were on welfare for the benefit of their children rather than themselves, and hated the whole thing.

And there are issues of scale, as well. Great wealth carries with it great power. I'm not really sure that he extreme Hi-Lo split in the way our society treats work vs reward is reasonable, let alone applying that to a no-work vs huge reward entitlement. and no lottery I've ever heard of has the same kind of payoff that the Walton heirs received, ~$20B each...

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think people should get riches when they earn it.

So you are against:

Lottery
Gambling
Welfare
Charity
Game Shows
Bingo
Door Prizes
Birthday presents

Why is it "right" for the government to dictate what a private citizen gets to spend his/her money on? How is that "fair"? You seem to have some hang-up with rich celebreties. What's up with that? I can't see anything other reason than jealousy. If your parents came into a vast amount of money, either by accident or hard work, then (heaven forbid) they should pass away, you are saying that they have no right whatsoever to leave you any of thier money? You didn't 'earn" it, so you would just hand it over to the government and be perfectly happy with that?

I think lotteries and gambling should be illegal. Game shows require skill to win by the player. If they stoop to the level of gambling they shouldn't be allowed. Birthday presents are reciprocated and frankly, in any case, they are de minimus and not very important. Charities work for the public good. That's the consideration they give in exchange for getting donations. Private individuals don't (if they wanted to they could set up a charity). Welfare is a different matter. It depends on how much welfare you're talking about. I don't believe a person who doesn't work and has no excuses to work deserves to have any luxuries. I think people "deserve" some basic services by nature of being human beings and countrymen.


My motives don't have any bearing on my arguments. I could accuse you of supporting abolition of the death-tax for being a spoiled brat who never worked for anything in his life but I'm not into assuming and it's not pertinent to your arguments.

Why is it "right" for the government to dictate what a private citizen gets to spend his/her money on?

We live in a society with a govenrment that tells people what to do ALL THE TIME. (I've already addressed this issue above. ) No reason to make an exception for estates. The founding fathers sure didn't.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan

Dissipate's post

What? A firm can never control prices because it's a mutual thing? Are you kidding? A firm can't control the equilibrium price, but I absolutely guarantee you that if I start a t-shirt company right now I decide exactly what price I want to charge. Whether someone chooses to buy it or not is up to him, but if I'm only only provider of this t-shirt then it's a question of buy it or do without.

In the case of railroads, I would be the only supplier of something that allows a farmer to make his living and feed his family. He's perfectly free to not buy my product, but If he doesn't pay whatever the heck I want to ship his corn away, it rots in a barn and his farm gets foreclosed by the bank. Sure, I lose his money, but now the next 10 farmers down the line know I mean business and they'll pay the much higher price.

Rothbard talks about this. Sellers may charge whatever price they wish, but since no seller can force someone to buy their product at a particular price, they have no control over the equilibirum price. The fact that only a single firm produces a particular product does not automatically constitute monopoly. On the contrary, this simply means that a single firm has the means to charge the lowest prices. If this particular firm tried to "control prices," and decided to jack up its prices, a competitor would inevitably rise up and steal its market share. This is of course assuming that there are no government enforced entry barriers in the market. If you study monopolies from the Austrian perspective you will see time and time again that the true concept of monopoly is that of political monopoly. This is to say that the only time monopoly can be achieved is through government force. Of course, businessmen are not exactly "defenders of freedom," they all want the government to step in and keep out their competitors, and some have successfully been able to get the government to do this for them. Therefore, the best way to end monopolies is to get the government out of the way, period.

In your scenario with the railroads and the farmers, assuming that there were no entry barriers in the railroad market a competitor would quickly start building railroads and undercut this "monopolistic firm." Furthermore, as Rothbard points out, EVERY firm tries to charge the highest price for its goods and services, railroads would be no different. The railroad firm would not charge the "equilibrium price" one day, and then decide to get greedy and start charging a "monopoly price" another day, it would charge the true equilibrium price for its goods and services from the get go. Once again, the railroad firm would not be able to charge whatever it wanted to, because if it could do that then it would charge an infinite sum. This is obviously absurd, because no farmer would be able to afford this, and the railroad industry would not have any business.

Dissipate's crazy author:

There is no direct
control over price because price is a mutual phenomenon. On
the other hand, each person has absolute control over his own
action and therefore over the price which he will attempt to
charge for any particular good. Any man can set any price that
he wants for any quantity of a good that he sells; the question is
whether he can find any buyers at that price.

No one is questioning the farmer's right to sell his good at whatever price he wants, but in order for him to do that, he's going to have to get his goods to a market. The moment his corn is grown it isn't going to magically transport to wherever someone wants to buy it. There is cost involved in transportation. He could buy a huge wagon train or start his own railroad firm, but those cost enormous capital and if he had that then he wouldn't need to work all year on a farm anyway.

Costs are a part of every business and cannot be regulated away or reduced by "trust busting." As I said before, these farmers would not have to start their own railroad firm in the face of this "monopoly." There would be entrepreneurs out there building other railroads to compete, IF the current railroad firms were not selling their service at the lowest possible price.

Also, another point where that article is ridiculous: If the farmer DOES get his product to market completely free of charge and information is also free and universal, he COULD charge whatever he wants for it. If the going price for corn is $3 per bushel, he could charge $4. Good luck finding a buyer; he sells 300 bushels on a world market of billions. He could charge $2 and sell every bit of corn instantly, but why would he do that when he can get $3? We're discussing (or at least I'm trying to discuss) reality.

I'm talking about reality also, Man, Economy & State is an economic treatise based on real economics. Rothbard talks about this in this excerpt. Any firm can try to charge any price that it wants to, but prices in free markets are always set by supply & demand. If you would like to challenge this concept, I recommend you start up a firm and try setting an arbitrary price. If you could get away with selling your product at an arbitrary price then you would quickly become a trillionaire. This is every businessman's dream, but of course in reality this is impossible.

As for you tirade against universities, I attend a top university (a state university even) and even in Econ 101 and 102 we were taught both Keynesian and Classical economics, both being correct in some cases and incorrect in others (using history and fact as a guide). We also touched on other theories, including neo-Keynesian, neo-Classical, and more minor schools. There are as many Classical as there are Keynsian economists in the department as a whole, with a dash of others thrown in as well.

Keynesian and classical economics are both wrong. They fail on the philosophical front. Philosophers have explored the question of what is knowledge? What can we say for certain about the world? A school of thought emerged among some philosophers that said that in order to know about the world one must go out into it and see how it really is. This school of thought rejected knowledge a priori, that is knowledge that is simply deduced using logic or a set of axioms. This is known as positivism. Positivism is a flawed philosophy, and it should never be used to study economics. Professor of philosophy, Hans-Herman Hoppe critiques positivism in this lecture here.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Go ahead, Dissipate, quote theory as a rebuttal to reality, as if you're not putting the cart ahead of the horse. Theory merely attempts to account for reality, not vice-versa. To claim otherwise is to disown the scientific method...

You challenge oreagan to give you just one real world example, he does, and then you say it can't be true because theory fails to explain it. Absurd.

Wrong. Knowledge can be known a priori, that is there is knowledge that can be merely deduced. This is not to disown the scientific method, the scientific method works great for what is known as the "hard sciences" such as physics and chemistry. Why? Because experiments in these sciences can be performed under controlled conditions, therefore empircal data can be used to draw conclusions. However, this is not to say that knowledge in the "hard sciences" cannot be known a priori also. In fact, some theoretical physicists have come up with theories that just about perfectly matched reality.

This is not the case for economics. In economics conditions are constantly changing, because people's behavior is constantly changing. Therefore, in economics we cannot apply both empirical and a priori methods, we can only apply a priori methods in order know what is really true. No controlled experiments can be set up when it comes to people, therefore we must reject empiricism when it comes to economics. There is a link to a lecture that goes into more detail on this subject above. Theory does not "fail to explain" his example, the statement made in his example must be false. We know this a priori, no empircal studies need to be done.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Go ahead, Dissipate, quote theory as a rebuttal to reality, as if you're not putting the cart ahead of the horse. Theory merely attempts to account for reality, not vice-versa. To claim otherwise is to disown the scientific method...

You challenge oreagan to give you just one real world example, he does, and then you say it can't be true because theory fails to explain it. Absurd.

Wrong. Knowledge can be known a priori, that is there is knowledge that can be merely deduced. This is not to disown the scientific method, the scientific method works great for what is known as the "hard sciences" such as physics and chemistry. Why? Because experiments in these sciences can be performed under controlled conditions, therefore empircal data can be used to draw conclusions. However, this is not to say that knowledge in the "hard sciences" cannot be known a priori also. In fact, some theoretical physicists have come up with theories that just about perfectly matched reality.

This is not the case for economics. In economics conditions are constantly changing, because people's behavior is constantly changing. Therefore, in economics we cannot apply both empirical and a priori methods, we can only apply a priori methods in order know what is really true. No controlled experiments can be set up when it comes to people, therefore we must reject empiricism when it comes to economics. There is a link to a lecture that goes into more detail on this subject above. Theory does not "fail to explain" his example, the statement made in his example must be false. We know this a priori, no empircal studies need to be done.

So economics should be based on only what you assume is true?

This takes the cake as the worst argument you have tried yet, which is actually pretty impressive!

 

[tmservo]

Exempt farms and netted value, and it's manageable. In other words, someone dies and they have a farm, the equity in the farm can't force the inheritent to sell. Same with a house. Or combine.

Netted assetts are the same. If your family owns two grocery stores, and you have a value of $1,000,000. You may be rich. But you die and the kids get it, the estate should not require a taxation on the asset value of the enterprise.

"The Death Tax" has little impact on billionaires. Big impact, however, on businesses that make good money with lots of holdings in assetts.

 

[tmservo]

I agree with family homes. However, the conversatives always harp about family farms but they've never been able to show that a single family farm has been put out of business because of the inheritance tax! But heck if it were actually an issue I'd agree.

I can't think of farms directly put out of business, but living in Kansas, I know of several farms that have been sold because of it.

A single large wheat combine has an effective cost of about ~$250,000 and up. You have to have a good combine if you want to do any sort of wheat or grain farming. Then there is storage, selling, insurance, land.. your value in all of those is far greater then your "profit" you work to break even first, then to make some money at the end. As a plus, generally you get to provide for yourself a lot of other items (like a good garden

But when a larger (but not huge) family farm goes under, what happens is this: the estate tax puts to the heirs an interesting question: keep the farm, which they could do, and just pay the one time tax.. or sell the farm, generally at greater then it's value to a factory farming company who will give them cash on the barrelhead.

So, you start out in the hole owing money to the government or with a bucket of cash. Thus, more small farms "die" with their owner because the way the system was setup made it much more preferrable for the children to sell the farm rather then keep it.

It's gotten bad enough that we have communities (like Salina, Kansas) that are posting out through Kansas message boards that they have farms that are desperate to sell for next to nothing because of internal decent against selling to someone like a corporate farm company.

"The Death Tax" in relation to stock is silly. If Bill Gates dies tomorrow, even with a gigantic death tax bill, assetts in stock cannot be required to be liquidated immediately to pay the bill. In fact, his heirs would have up to seven years. The reasoning is simple: if he was required to come up with the cost immediately, the selling of that stock in a blind fury to do it would drive the market down, down, down. So, special rules are setup for money held in stocks to prevent negative impacts to other holders..

So, with 7 years to sell his stock to make up the tax, the value can rise, fall, split, whatever. Some of his holdings will be vested in corporations, and corporations don't pay death taxes (thus why factory farms started kicking the a** out of people who died)

The people who get screwed by the death tax are people in the middle; maybe a lot of assetts, not a lot of liquidity, and their assetts are not in stocks.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
However, this is not to say that knowledge in the "hard sciences" cannot be known a priori also. In fact, some theoretical physicists have come up with theories that just about perfectly matched reality.

I'm a physicist (both in terms of that being my major and that being my job full-time on breaks and part-time during the year). No law or theory of Physics is accepted until it matches up with repeated, peer-verified experimental results. Logic and a priori "knowledge" led us to believe that there would be an ether as a medium for light's travel. Scientific experimentation proved that theory wrong. Instead of taking your pre-Scientific Revolution viewpoint that the experiment must have been flawed, we moved on and developed new theories. Entrance: Einstein and an entirely new perspective on the universe. Nothing can truly be known a priori. Relativity makes no intuitive sense and seems contrary to logic and everyday experience. Guess what? God doesn't care. Because it seems right to you doesn't make it so.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan

Originally posted by: Dissipate
However, this is not to say that knowledge in the "hard sciences" cannot be known a priori also. In fact, some theoretical physicists have come up with theories that just about perfectly matched reality.

I'm a physicist (both in terms of that being my major and that being my job full-time on breaks and part-time during the year). No law or theory of Physics is accepted until it matches up with repeated, peer-verified experimental results. Logic and a priori "knowledge" led us to believe that there would be an ether as a medium for light's travel. Scientific experimentation proved that theory wrong. Instead of taking your pre-Scientific Revolution viewpoint that the experiment must have been flawed, we moved on and developed new theories. Entrance: Einstein and an entirely new perspective on the universe. Nothing can truly be known a priori. Relativity makes no intuitive sense and seems contrary to logic and everyday experience. Guess what? God doesn't care. Because it seems right to you doesn't make it so.

I did not reject empirical methods. I said it only works in the hard sciences. Please, listen to Hoppe's lecture on this matter. Many things can be known a priori, and this is where economic knowledge begins and ends.

Speaking of physicists, David Friedman is a physicist who is also an anarchist-libertarian. He also happens to be the son of Milton Friedman. More on him here..

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Go ahead, Dissipate, quote theory as a rebuttal to reality, as if you're not putting the cart ahead of the horse. Theory merely attempts to account for reality, not vice-versa. To claim otherwise is to disown the scientific method...

You challenge oreagan to give you just one real world example, he does, and then you say it can't be true because theory fails to explain it. Absurd.

Wrong. Knowledge can be known a priori, that is there is knowledge that can be merely deduced. This is not to disown the scientific method, the scientific method works great for what is known as the "hard sciences" such as physics and chemistry. Why? Because experiments in these sciences can be performed under controlled conditions, therefore empircal data can be used to draw conclusions. However, this is not to say that knowledge in the "hard sciences" cannot be known a priori also. In fact, some theoretical physicists have come up with theories that just about perfectly matched reality.

This is not the case for economics. In economics conditions are constantly changing, because people's behavior is constantly changing. Therefore, in economics we cannot apply both empirical and a priori methods, we can only apply a priori methods in order know what is really true. No controlled experiments can be set up when it comes to people, therefore we must reject empiricism when it comes to economics. There is a link to a lecture that goes into more detail on this subject above. Theory does not "fail to explain" his example, the statement made in his example must be false. We know this a priori, no empircal studies need to be done.

So economics should be based on only what you assume is true?

This takes the cake as the worst argument you have tried yet, which is actually pretty impressive!

No, economics should be based only on what you know is true. For instance, we know that the axiom of human action is true. Why? Because it can be proven using a method called proof by contradiction. This is where you assume something is true, and then in trying to contradict this assumption you prove that it is in fact true. If you want to see a mathematical example of this type of proof go here.. I wrote the long version (called the more concrete proof) of the proof on that page (thank you very much).

So here we go. We make an assumption, then we try to contradict it, proving the assumption correct.

Axiom: man acts.

If you try to show or argue that this axiom is incorrect, you will fail. Why? Because in doing so you will have committed an act.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

I think lotteries and gambling should be illegal.

We all have opinions.

Game shows require skill to win by the player. If they stoop to the level of gambling they shouldn't be allowed.

How about having parents on their deathbed hold a mini-gameshow for their children to win their inheritance? :roll:

Birthday presents are reciprocated and frankly, in any case, they are de minimus and not very important.

Who says they are not important? Can a parent just give his/her child his entire estate for the kid's birthday? Would that be ok?

Charities work for the public good. That's the consideration they give in exchange for getting donations. Private individuals don't (if they wanted to they could set up a charity).

Can a child set up his own charity, with himself at the recipient and have his dying parent donate his inheritance to him?

Welfare is a different matter. It depends on how much welfare you're talking about. I don't believe a person who doesn't work and has no excuses to work deserves to have any luxuries. I think people "deserve" some basic services by nature of being human beings and countrymen.

Alright, I pretty much agree with this.

My motives don't have any bearing on my arguments.

Wrong. You say "Look at those rich kids not working and getting all that money from dad. I don't like that or think that's right!" Your motive is disgust at what you seem to perceive as an unjust situation.

I could accuse you of supporting abolition of the death-tax for being a spoiled brat who never worked for anything in his life but I'm not into assuming and it's not pertinent to your arguments.

1) Who said I was for the abolition of the death-tax? 2) You would be wise not to assume that. My position may make it sound as if I am typing this from my summer home in the Bahamas, rather than my double-wide trailer in rural Texas, but one need not belong to a group to want to defend its rights.

We live in a society with a govenrment that tells people what to do ALL THE TIME. (I've already addressed this issue above. ) No reason to make an exception for estates. The founding fathers sure didn't.

Yes, we live in a society where the government makes laws for us. But these laws are based on rights and the notion of equality, not on whining from people who are unhappy with the lives they've made for themselves and jealous of those who are either hard-working, naturally gifted, or simply 'luckier' than themselves.

Again, what is your preoccupation with people who don't "earn" (by your standards) what they have? What about people who are born attractive? Should they be forced to have their faces surgically and painlessly disfigured, so that the rest of the 'ugly' population doesn't feel bad? After all, they didn't "earn" their good looks, they just inherited them from their parents. Why don't we vilify 'the pretty' like we do 'the rich'? What's the difference? Why is it that one of these ideas is absurd to all, but the other seems reasonable to a few? They are logically equivalent.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk

I think lotteries and gambling should be illegal.

We all have opinions.

Game shows require skill to win by the player. If they stoop to the level of gambling they shouldn't be allowed.

How about having parents on their deathbed hold a mini-gameshow for their children to win their inheritance? :roll:

Birthday presents are reciprocated and frankly, in any case, they are de minimus and not very important.

Who says they are not important? Can a parent just give his/her child his entire estate for the kid's birthday? Would that be ok?

Charities work for the public good. That's the consideration they give in exchange for getting donations. Private individuals don't (if they wanted to they could set up a charity).

Can a child set up his own charity, with himself at the recipient and have his dying parent donate his inheritance to him?

Welfare is a different matter. It depends on how much welfare you're talking about. I don't believe a person who doesn't work and has no excuses to work deserves to have any luxuries. I think people "deserve" some basic services by nature of being human beings and countrymen.

Alright, I pretty much agree with this.

My motives don't have any bearing on my arguments.

Wrong. You say "Look at those rich kids not working and getting all that money from dad. I don't like that or think that's right!" Your motive is disgust at what you seem to perceive as an unjust situation.

I could accuse you of supporting abolition of the death-tax for being a spoiled brat who never worked for anything in his life but I'm not into assuming and it's not pertinent to your arguments.

1) Who said I was for the abolition of the death-tax? 2) You would be wise not to assume that. My position may make it sound as if I am typing this from my summer home in the Bahamas, rather than my double-wide trailer in rural Texas, but one need not belong to a group to want to defend its rights.

We live in a society with a govenrment that tells people what to do ALL THE TIME. (I've already addressed this issue above. ) No reason to make an exception for estates. The founding fathers sure didn't.

Yes, we live in a society where the government makes laws for us. But these laws are based on rights and the notion of equality, not on whining from people who are unhappy with the lives they've made for themselves and jealous of those who are either hard-working, naturally gifted, or simply 'luckier' than themselves.

Again, what is your preoccupation with people who don't "earn" (by your standards) what they have? What about people who are born attractive? Should they be forced to have their faces surgically and painlessly disfigured, so that the rest of the 'ugly' population doesn't feel bad? After all, they didn't "earn" their good looks, they just inherited them from their parents. Why don't we vilify 'the pretty' like we do 'the rich'? What's the difference? Why is it that one of these ideas is absurd to all, but the other seems reasonable to a few? They are logically equivalent.

Gunslinger: I suggest you go back to the first page. I showed that under Infohawk's premise that no one should get something that they do not earn, the government would not be able/allowed to exist. Also, take note that Infohawk conveniently ignored to take heed to my point.

 

[Jhhnn]

Stunning, Dissipate. The notion that theory doesn't have to accurately account for reality within the study of economics basically moves belief in any of them into the realm of superstition, with no belief structure having any more validity than the next. You've basically stated that what you said is true because you believe it, and not necessarily vice-versa, the economic theory equivalent of Bible-thumping...

 

[Red Dawn]

Why should the money and property that constitutes an inheritance be taxed twice? It was originally taxed when it was amassed, it shouldn't be taxed again upon tranfer to another member of the immediate family.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why should the money and property that constitutes an inheritance be taxed twice? It was originally taxed when it was amassed, it shouldn't be taxed again upon tranfer to another member of the immediate family.

Well according to the OP, it shouldn't only be taxed, it should ALL go to the government, except for a small portion large enough to take care of the funeral, etc. Infohawk seems to believe no one should get any money from their parents when they die, in fact, no one should get any money from anywhere if they didn't earn it. Of course, he hasn't really come back to defend that postion lately, so maybe that was just a trolling point.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Stunning, Dissipate. The notion that theory doesn't have to accurately account for reality within the study of economics basically moves belief in any of them into the realm of superstition, with no belief structure having any more validity than the next. You've basically stated that what you said is true because you believe it, and not necessarily vice-versa, the economic theory equivalent of Bible-thumping...

Wrong. Like I have said before, you start with what you know is true and then go from there, and what you come up with will match reality. Hence, the fact that Austrian economists are not constantly "fine tuning." On the other hand the Keynesians had to dump their theories in the '70s when their Phillips Curve failed to hold up. Now the statists have simply re-grouped under Neo-Keynesiansism.

You yourself live in the realm of superstition. Looking at your signature, you believe that the GOP is the "greedy opportunist party" when in fact both parties are greedy and opportunistic. People like you prepetuate the horrible political system we have in this country, because you actually think that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. There is no difference, they are simply the Republicrats.

 

[Jhhnn]

What makes you think inheritance is taxed twice, or any more than any other transaction, Red Dawn? When I use my money, that I've already paid taxes on, to hire a contractor or give it away at a level above the statutory limit, the recipient pays taxes on it, too...

And there are God only knows how many ways to avoid inheritance tax, as with life insurance. My self owned company buys me a paid up life insurance policy as part of my compensation package. I don't pay any taxes when I receive it, and When I die, nobody ever pays taxes on the proceeds. My company even used it as a tax deduction, an expense, when it was purchased...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Your axiom isn't very enlightening.

Try learning about HOW man acts.

It's quite an interesting subject; and there's books about it, too!

 

[digitalsm]

InfoHawk you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.

Estate taxes in the late 1700s and 1800s were always TEMPORARY. So quit making sh!t up.

The first estate tax was in 1797, it was the second Stamp Act. The tax was used to pay off debt incurred during the undeclared naval war with France. It was repealled in 1802.

The second estate tax was the Tax Act of 1862. This was used to pay for the Civil War. Rates were increased in 1864, and in 1870 the taxes were repealled.

The third estate tax was the Tax Act of 1894, it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

The fourth estate tax was the Revenue Act of 1916. This was used to pay for WWI. After the war had ended, for the first time ever, an estate tax wasnt repealled, even though there were HUGE budget surpluses.

You are either misinformed about the history of estate taxes, or you are making sh!t up. These are the facts about how estate taxes were for over half of the US's History. They were used in times of war to pay off debt incurred by said wars, and afterwards they were repealled.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
InfoHawk you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.

Estate taxes in the late 1700s and 1800s were always TEMPORARY. So quit making sh!t up.

The first estate tax was in 1797, it was the second Stamp Act. The tax was used to pay off debt incurred during the undeclared naval war with France. It was repealled in 1802.

The second estate tax was the Tax Act of 1862. This was used to pay for the Civil War. Rates were increased in 1864, and in 1870 the taxes were repealled.

The third estate tax was the Tax Act of 1894, it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

The fourth estate tax was the Revenue Act of 1916. This was used to pay for WWI. After the war had ended, for the first time ever, an estate tax wasnt repealled, even though there were HUGE budget surpluses.

You are either misinformed about the history of estate taxes, or you are making sh!t up. These are the facts about how estate taxes were for over half of the US's History. They were used in times of war to pay off debt incurred by said wars, and afterwards they were repealled.

So until we get the goverment out of debt we should keep the estate taxes. This Iraq war is costing a bundle, why are we even discusiing tax reduction of any kind??

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: digitalsm
InfoHawk you have no fvcking clue what you are talking about.

Estate taxes in the late 1700s and 1800s were always TEMPORARY. So quit making sh!t up.

The first estate tax was in 1797, it was the second Stamp Act. The tax was used to pay off debt incurred during the undeclared naval war with France. It was repealled in 1802.

The second estate tax was the Tax Act of 1862. This was used to pay for the Civil War. Rates were increased in 1864, and in 1870 the taxes were repealled.

The third estate tax was the Tax Act of 1894, it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

The fourth estate tax was the Revenue Act of 1916. This was used to pay for WWI. After the war had ended, for the first time ever, an estate tax wasnt repealled, even though there were HUGE budget surpluses.

You are either misinformed about the history of estate taxes, or you are making sh!t up. These are the facts about how estate taxes were for over half of the US's History. They were used in times of war to pay off debt incurred by said wars, and afterwards they were repealled.

So until we get the goverment out of debt we should keep the estate taxes. This Iraq war is costing a bundle, why are we even discusiing tax reduction of any kind??

First, the estate tax up until 1916 was solely used for war costs/debt, not any other debt. Second a mere estate tax, which is highly inefficent, can NOT pay for a modern war. Third, why yes there is a war going on, but for 2/3s of the past 90 years there hasnt been. Fourth, the estate tax wont be repealled until 2010.

 

[1EZduzit]

My logic is simple. No balanced budget, no tax cuts of any kind. That's the way it's meant to work.

Get the costs under control and then think about a tax cut. I'm not talking "projected" numbers either. I'm taking a proven balanced budget.