As one of the few ACTUAL beneficiaries of an economic model that lets the ACTUAL spending of the ultra-rich ACTUALLY and DIRECTLY benefit me, I still believe they should be taxed like it was 1991.
And if they really don’t want their crotch-spawn to pay [del]death taxes[/del] estate taxes why not just liquidate their estates and give the money to them as a gift instead?
Ooops, that’s right, pretty much every transaction that leaves you with money in your pocket that wasn’t there when ya started gets taxed 'cause it’s some “flavor” of income.
CMC fnord!
It’s a real shame that no one tried the “Gift Tax Gambit”.
I can see the commercial now;
::Night, through a snow crusted window we see;
two bright eyed waifs standing by a brightly lit Christmas tree, under the tree [del]gaily[/del] tastefully decorated presents,
standing by the children a sinister figure (use the standard man in black Government agent costume) his hand, outstretched, before the children’s faces
(we do need some threat here NOT A GUN a weapon we can associate with liberals, stungun?, witty sarcasm? Put Bob on this, see what he can come up with.)::
VOICEOVER: First the Democrats refused to stop taxing the dead, now they want your children to pay taxes on their Christmas gifts.
The Democrats, why do they hate America?
Maybe they realized two "War on Christmas"s would be three too many?
the donor, not the recipient, pays the gift tax.
thanks for playing.
As long as the poor want the rich man’s bling the rich man will have power over the poor. Simple as that. In our lives we are hideously wealthy. Almost every single one of us posting in this thread has obscene wealth by historical standards. If we wanted to use our time as a modern leisure class to meddle in politics we can do that and have power. If we wanted to live as ascetics realizing we don’t need consumptive crap like expensive shoes and internet message boards we could choose that. But the fact of the matter is people have power over us because we devote time to shit that just isn’t important. Control the shit that isn’t important but make people want it and they’ll give you the stuff that IS important in exchange. That’s why poor people living in the Ghetto dress expensively and leave the tag on so that people know it’s the ‘official shit’.
geezermom Actually you are way off. The idea is that as individuals we can spot problems and address them more dynamically than a rigid bureaucracy that requires you to fill out forms in triplicate in order to get past the door.
The point is that socialism disengages us from the world’s problems, charity engages us with them. When being charitable we are helping take up someone’s burden in a personal and meaningful way. With social government programs we don’t even really need to think about it.
So, did your dad recycle before the city considered the curbside recycling program?
But the government’s monkeysphere is orders of magnitude larger than ours. It’s not infinite, of course, but it does take a much larger view of society than those engaged by a charity.
I think the counter perspective is that there are lots of wide-view charities, and barely a cause that has no foundation (Soon, we’ll rid the world of T.B.A.!) to support it.
Actually, the way charity works now disengages us from such responsibility. We hear tales of the ultra-rich giving to charity and think that the problem is being handled, while we disregard the fact that they are getting tax deductions and more than their money’s worth of publicity. BTW, guess who eventually gets to pay for all those tax breaks, folks?
We’re not talking about ‘a charity’ we’re talking about ‘charity’. The point is that when the whole idea of giving becomes something that governments do then why be giving at all?
Yes of course, and part of that idea is that the more the government gives the more it takes, whether that form be taxes or freedom of choice. And that the slide to socialism is incremental over time.
I think both you and those rich people are mistaken as to what the word ‘charity’ means. What you described is not charity. Charity is being willing to give to someone else something they need, without personal recompense. Opening the door for someone who lives in your apartment building is more charitable than a tax shelter foundation, even if it provides less for the betterment of humanity as a whole. The very fact that a Foundation is what comes to mind when you hear the word charity is evidence of how disconnected from each other’s daily lives we are. Your automatic perception was that it was either a government bureaucracy or a private corporate one rather than taking your chainsaw and cutting the branches of trees off of people’s roofs after a hurricane. Hurricane Katrina is actually the perfect example of the problem I am describing. The socialist government disaster relief agency got in the way of individuals helping each other to rebuild.
And no one pays for tax breaks because you aren’t giving money back, you’re just not taking it away. If the government weren’t providing expensive services then it wouldn’t matter that it’s not getting that money would it?
:smack: This would be why my career as a tax thingy guy hasn’t really gotten off the ground then?
My dream of being able to say “I am [del]R@nd R0ver[/del] crowmanyclouds, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.” is crushed, I hope your happy. 
CMC fnord!
So I can use this as prima facie evidence as to why the whole estate tax re-branding worked. We, the unwashed masses, are clueless about even the most basic aspects of tax law. Right?
Can I pull that shiny nugget out of the shit pile or epic fail?
Does it help that everything I know about the gift tax was taught to me by Andy Dufresne?
You actually think that, after Hurricane Katrina, the government wasn’t needed and that everything would have been hunky dory if the neighbors had just lent each other a helping hand?!?
Neighbors did lend each other helping hands and often were expressly prevented from doing so. Outside contractors were bussed in and filled hotels being paid overtime and hazard pay rather than stimulating the local economy by hiring the local workers. I’m not saying that having something like FEMA is a horrible idea, what I am saying is that it’s the perfect example of how socialism can go horribly wrong.
From listening to him, it seemed that Joe the Unlicensed Plumber didn’t understand that his business grossing $200K wouldn’t put him in this bracket. He have to earn it after deducting equipment, trucks, and salaries and benefits for his workers.
Joe’s position is exactly like that of someone who refuses sex with a nice looking woman because someday Angelina Jolie might drop in, and he wants to stay pure.
Yeah, I always thought it was a failure of message on the Obama camp’s part by not pointing that out. They won anyway so it didn’t matter…but…
Heh
I wish someone in the Obama camp had the presence of mind to say, ‘We said income not revenue you fucking idiot.’
Of course Obama’s no new taxes for the middle-class promise was a load of horse-shit. Luckily for him though Pappy Bush taught me to read the candidate’s lips when he was promising nonsense of that sort.
If you lived in an absolute socialist country, where everyone is guaranteed food, shelter, and medical care, and though taxes are absurdly high, there is still massive socio-economic stratification (that is, an entrepreneur or hard worker can still earn, say, 7-10 times the average annual net salary without being unusual), you would give up all sense of altruism? The museum or children’s group can go take a flying leap?
Of course, nothing is ever that rosy, and an absolute socialist country would likely suck as much as an absolutely capitalist country, and WHEW, aren’t we glad both only exist on paper?
A difficulty with the two views is discerning what fraction of altruism is for personal warm fuzzies and what part stems from civic duty. That’s why the government’s larger monkeysphere prevails in a modern society. It accounts for the free rider problem (people who benefit from living in a society but aren’t charitable for either reason), which is the benefit-side of the general concern of no one will give if the government takes care of things. It also accounts for a different perspective of societal good, one shaped by a representative republic (in theory).
Sorry, but using the term “crotch-spawn” means you forfeit the right to be taken at all seriously.
It had nothing to do with “socialism”; it had everything to do with having people running the government who wanted it to fail. Put an incompetent in charge of FEMA who doesn’t even support the idea of such an agency and what kind of result can you expect?
As I recall, Obama did that, looked him right in the eye and told him the facts of it, while he stood there stroking his chin and pretending he gave a rat’s about the truth. Then Fox Gnaws packaged it like “Boy, this guy really took Obama to school on that stuff, huh? Huh?”, people looked and saw what they were told to see.
The Alll-American, bullet-headed Saxon mother’s son…
[emphases mine]
Wealth = bundled toxic debt with AAA rating? Where is that wealth now?
Like Enron for example? The big E collapse had a bigger effect on the economy than 9/11. It was pure economic terrorism and should have been prosecuted as such.
And, of course, we are looking at the result of the wonderful 90s and 00s in the devastation around us today. NO. It don’t work that way. It’s been sort term gain for a few and long-term payback for the rest of us.