WatchI wanted to put this comment in the Obamacare thread, but now I'll try this. This post is in response to a comment using this blog commentary on the website of The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers
Interesting aspect of history, this entail and primogeniture. From http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-4.htm:
"Entail and primogeniture imposed potentially perpetual restraints on the alienation of land, and could result in useful agricultural land being tied up indefinitely."
The laws of primogeniture and entail were laws that fostered perpetual inheritance according to the will of the state, which would be for the benefit of those actually in power. That is quite different than an inheritance determined by the deceased with no transfer of conditions upon further inheritance of the same property. Letting the individual decide for a single instance of estate disposal does not appear to be what Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson were against. Would Jefferson agree with FDR? I am not sure I would trust an editorial in the Economist that equates opposition to entail as support for an estate tax. The Economist seems to be controlled by the Rothschild banking family of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group). They only copied from a blog by Stephen Budiansky. According to wikipedia, Budiansky went to Harvard and Yale, like the political elites often do, and was editor of U.S. News & World Report. Yah.
Jefferson did support the rich being taxed more than the poor (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1330.htm). A flat tax does that. I know you want a progressive tax. Jefferson seems to have at least pondered the possibility.
From (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1330.htm): "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
As for family inheritance itself, Jefferson was not against it. Thomas Jefferson wrote (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj010010%29%29):
"As the law of Descents, & the criminal law fell of course within my portion, I wished the commee to settle the leading principles of these, as a guide for me in framing them. And with respect to the first, I proposed to abolish the law of primogeniture, and to make real estate descendible in parcenary to the next of kin, as personal property is by the statute of distribution. Mr. Pendleton wished to preserve the right of primogeniture, but seeing at once that that could not prevail, he proposed we should adopt the Hebrew principle, and give a double portion to the elder son. I observed that if the eldest son could eat twice as much, or do double work, it might be a natural evidence of his right to a double portion; but being on a par in his powers & wants, with his brothers and sisters, he should be on a par also in the partition of the patrimony, and such was the decision of the other members."
Although inconclusive as to his feelings on the estate tax, Jefferson seems to have no problem with a law of family inheritance in parcenary, meaning received undivided and in common by family coheirs. Moving on....
Here is a list of the biggest U.S. land owners: http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/ It says Ted Turner is number one with a little over 2 million acres.
Biggest in the world? Do I think Queen Elizabeth II can use 6.6 billion acres? Not really. That's one sixth of the world's land. Do you think the estate tax is getting her? More about the world's biggest land owners (http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/):
"She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres."
ACTUALLY, THE BIGGEST OWNER OF U.S. LAND IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! From http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html we have: "The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States." I know parks and government facilities are needed, but 30% of the whole friggin' country? Is government big enough for you yet? The estate tax will stop the aristocracy? Would you please stop hating the so-called rich and aspire to be one yourself? If you earn it, you help us all. Politically speaking, $10 million is not rich. I said 'politically speaking'.
Perhaps we need a gift tax to stop landlordism too? When does the paranoid taxation stop? There is no landlordism without government coercion. The estate tax does not stop government coercion; it is government coercion that mainly benefits elitists, some of whom, like the Kennedys, are part of the dynasties supposedly to be dismantled. Why don't we destroy Harley-Davidson? Why don't we destroy Campbell's soup? I liked it better when the Bancroft family owned the Wall Street Journal. Is it better that WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch? I don't think people with several million dollars are aristocrats. They are not able to compete with George Soros or Bill Gates unless they stand united in the distribution of power. If they are numerous, they provide some safety to the rest of us. The freedom we once had in America can trace its heritage to the Magna Carta, when barons limited the king's power. That is the greatness of British heritage: limited government.
Thomas Jefferson also wrote this (Thomas Jefferson to Pierre S. Dupont de Nemours, April 15, 1811; see loc.gov Jefferson digital collection):
"Another great field of political experiment is opening in our neighborhood, in Spanish America. I fear the degrading ignorance into which their priests and kings have sunk them, has disqualified them from the maintenance or even knowledge of their rights, and that much blood may be shed for little improvement in their condition. Should their new rulers honestly lay their shoulders to remove the great obstacles of ignorance, and press the remedies of education and information, they will still be in jeopardy until another generation comes into place, and what may happen in the interval cannot be predicted, nor shall you or I live to see it. In these cases I console myself with the reflection that those who will come after us will be as wise as we are, and as able to take care of themselves as we have been. I hope you continue to preserve your health, and that you may long continue to do so in happiness, is the prayer of yours affectionately."
Are you wise enough to deserve freedom?
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
This is the most incoherent rant you've posted so far.
What the fuck does a british queen have to do with an estate tax in the US?
The jefferson stuff was nonsensical and only tangentially related to inheritance at all (seriously, he's talking about whether estates should be divided evenly amongst children, not whether or not a part goes to the government).
And the US government being the largest landowner? Seriously? Did you know that the US government owns ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of US airspace? OH MY GOD.
Follow
Befriend (25)
416 threads
7,008 comments
Saint George, UT
elliemae's website
Actually, you did put it in the Obamacare thread, and it has received as much play there as it did here.
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
36 comments
It didn't show in the other thread to me for a day. The point, Kevin, is that the largest estate holders are people who control government. Could you please use logic for once. Why do you bring up airspace and not mineral rights? or the depletion of fossil fuels for all I care. BTW, oil is not necessarily a fossil fuel. When I overwhelm that thimble mind of yours, you get all huffy. Maybe you can't hang without doing some actual research? The problem is that the U.S. Government owns the airspace between your ears and those of most Americans.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
antifeminist says
The problem is that you ramble too much and fail to make a coherent point.
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
36 comments
Really, tatupu70, then tell me why we say we have a federal government? It is a basic question about our political system.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
antifeminist says
huh? Change subjects much?
Follow
Befriend (25)
416 threads
7,008 comments
Saint George, UT
elliemae's website
antifeminist says
Not exactly earth-shattering news. A couple of the top ten own media congolmerates. Big whoop. Other non-earth-shattering news: some of the interwebs giants are rich.
antifeminist says
tatupu70 says
Add to that your condescending comments about Kevin's "thimble mind" and his head, much like that of most Americans, is full of air. I'm sure that you had a message to convey but it was lost between the 1,142 words you used to make your point and your question, "Are you wise enough to deserve freedom?"
As if wisdom and being deserving of freedom were one and the same.
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
antifeminist says
You mentioned the government itself (which, clearly, controls the government), and Ted Turner. The claim that Ted Turner controls the government is about as ridiculous as arguing about british monarchs in relation to US taxation.
So I don't really know what you're talking about.
antifeminist says
Because I was making an absurd argument to illustrate the point.
Please keep insulting my intelligence though. It hurts me so much to have my intellectual capacity impugned by someone who can't formulate a coherent argument in a few thousand word post.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
You "know it all libs" didn't answer the question, you attacked the messenger (as usual). Is the policy just? No. Stealing from the dead is illegal. When did the IRS become one of our heirs? Taking from another by force or threat of force is a crime.
Darn, why does that pesky work, FORCE, keep coming up in any discussion involving government. I guess it boils down to this: libs prefer force, others prefer freedom (and limited constitutional government).
Nov. 2nd. TRASH DAY. Its time to get rid of the garbage.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Honest Abe says
Here's where you are mistaken. When you are dead, you can't really own things anymore. Your heirs own them. And taxing them on their inheritance is entirely legal.
Follow
Befriend (1)
104 threads
2,851 comments
Honest Abe says
It's cute that you spend so much time defending the Paris Hiltons of the world. Ms. Hilton has a very large trust fund you can donate to in order to help her through any rough times.
Instead of complaining about Paris Hilton's mistreatment on an Internet real estate website, why don't you send her some money? I'm sure she would do the same for you.
Follow
Befriend (4)
159 threads
2,826 comments
Typical, Democrat rebuttal ramblings. Rather than answer your question, you're just being called a Conservative crack pot, and the Obamaites are going into full bore protect mode. "Must... eh... protect... eh... Barry... and Oh by the way you suck Republican trickle."
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,562 comments
ACTUALLY, THE BIGGEST OWNER OF U.S. LAND IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! From http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html we have: “The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States.” I know parks and government facilities are needed, but 30% of the whole friggin’ country?
Over half of federal land is in Alaska. No one pioneered the majority of Alaska (I wonder why) so it just stayed on the federal books. Federal land also includes ALL the Indian reservations (a big chunk of Arizona and NM) as well as all the military bases and military reserves (a big chunk of Nevada and Utah).
What was the point anyway?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
Back to the original thread: the policy is totally unjust. An estate that has accumulated wealth has ALREADY paid taxes on the estate's assets. It is totally ridiculous that ANY government entity would have any claim whatsoever (other than Probate Court processing fees) on and estate that has already been taxed. The appeal to the estate tax is especially dear to the liberals that typically want to "share the wealth" by removing wealth from those that have earned and giving it to those that haven't.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
RayAmerica says
Is there some law that I don't know about saying you can only be taxed once on your wealth? Take my car for instance. I was taxed when I earned my income. Taxed when I bought the car. Taxed when I got plates and registration. Than taxed again every year. Not sure where you are coming from...
Ray--do you agree that large inequality of wealth is a bad thing for an economy?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu70 says
You will also probably pay a state tax if you sell your car (we do in my state). Your post illustrates quite well one of the basic problems of liberalism. You enumerate all these taxes and see absolutely nothing wrong with them. Have you ever wondered about all the "silent" taxes you pay? Probably not, or better yet, if you have, you think they are great. Pretty sad when so called Americans think it's being patriotic to be taxed into oblivion. Oh well, what was all that fuss the Founding Fathers went and stirred up when they could have just laid down and let old King George just make tax slaves out of them. It’s pretty clear which side a lot of you people would have been on.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
RayAmerica says
Nice job running away from yet another question Ray.
I'd like to see you answer it. Is there a problem?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
iwog says
What question was that Larry?
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
RayAmerica says
tatupu70 says
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu70 says
I don't spend time worrying about the wealthy and how they effect my life or community. However, in casual observation, I have kind of noticed that poor people don't seem to be creating many jobs, except of course, the adminstrators the government has to hire in order to dole out social entitlements. So in a way, poor people do create "jobs."
As far as this "large inequality of wealth" is concerned, how exactly do you propose to close the gap? And why exactly is it that you feel this "inequality of wealth" is a bad thing for society?
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Tatupu - I think you made an important point. You get taxed when you earn your income, your get taxed when you buy a car, you get taxed for the plates, taxed every year you own the car. AND, its a big and, there are countless other taxes and "fees" that everyone is subject to. Tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. How much tax is enough? Do we have to stoop so low as to exacerbate the pain of death by taxing the grieving family? And you call republicans greedy?
Why don't we do this, why not tax everyone 100 % of their earnings, and provide everything everyone needs? That way all you bleeding heart liberals will get everything you want. Except I'm calling in sick every work day.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
Honest Abe says
"Kentm" actually proposed this nutty idea for investors in real estate! When it comes to taxation, the sky is the limit with liberals.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
RayAmerica says
Yes, you spend all your time worrying about the poor instead. We are well aware. But, regardless, I don't recall mentioning wealthy people at all. Why do you bring that up at all?
RayAmerica says
Really? You must not be looking too hard then. Was Bill Gates wealthy when he created Microsoft? How about the founders of HP? I think poor people have a great history of creating jobs. It's the American dream after all.
RayAmerica says
So, did you answer the question yet? Just wondering... I'm specifically asking about the effect of large inequality of wealth on the overall economy. What do you think?
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Honest Abe says
You are completely missing the point. The question was concerning the estate tax. The overall level of taxation is quite a different topic indeed.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
No, I didn't miss the point. I said "Do we have to stoop so low as to exacerbate the pain of death by (estate) taxing the grieving family"? Then I said "And you call repub's greedy"? A rhetorical question...its you slimy, grave digging libs who are the greedy ones. So I hope all you libs rot in hell (thank god I'm an atheist).
My point was: How much tax is enough? It was reported today that even the British government would be CUTTING SPENDING, god forbid. Read slowly: cutting spending, not increasing taxes.
I then suggested a 100% tax on the 50% of the people who are able to, and choose to work. That way you libs can have the Socialistic Utopia you dream about. Except I'm calling in sick every work day. I'm tired of busting my hump so the IRS can loot me and my family, only to spend the money on war, "foreign aid", welfare, freebee's, bridges to nowhere, airports without passengers, neverending pork projects, bailouts, subsidies, grants, and any other stupid, redundant, overlapping program they can envision. Things a limited, constitutional government wouldn't do...which is what intelligent, freedom loving people expect from their government.
But government has never understood the difference between need and want. Why should they? Its not their money they're squandering. In other words, if their decisions cause a huge loss of money, THEY DON"T CARE ( and yes, I'm screaming). If their dumb decisions financially hurt the taxpayer, again and again and again and again, so what? Raise their taxes some more. Besides its those greedy business owners who provide all the jobs who are the problem here. Lets tax them fat cats till it hurts. What do you mean they're relocating to a more tax friendly (city, state, or country)? They can't do that. We haven't shaken them down enough. Are libs stupid, or ignorant?
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
You probably don't even pay enough in taxes to cover the things that a constitutionally limited government would provide.
We used to use tariffs and stamp taxes to pay for this stuff, but corporations hate that so we had to go income tax. Then people decided that we needed a giant military and medicare.
Please don't talk about taxes unless you support ending the big three spending categories.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Kevin, I think you're first two paragraphs are completly wrong. And I completly support large reductions in the big three spending catagories. And an estate tax is the same a grave robbing. Lously, thieving ba$tard$.
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
Honest Abe says
So you're saying that you do pay enough in taxes to cover the things that a constitutionally limited government would provide? (let me guess, you're going to try to include FICA in there?)
You also think that we didn't use tariffs and stamp taxes to pay for things prior to 1913? Sure thing, buddy.
Are you sure you know what those are? In your rant above, you managed to name one.
I'll actually agree with this. Estate taxes are taking away wealth from dead people who have no use for it so that it doesn't get thrown into a hole somewhere that nobody can benefit from.
Just like being buried with your wealth, leaving it all behind for your children is mostly a waste.
I would never leave my children more money than they need to live a comfortable life until adulthood, and maybe pay for college so that they can start off life debt-free. Anything else would deprive them of the experience of building their own lives.
Assuming that I live to see my children all finish college (it shouldn't be too hard to live into my late 40s...), I'll probably wind up leaving all of my assets to charity when I die.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
Honest Abe says
Since Ray won't answer, I'll ask you as well Abe. Do you think extreme wealth inequality has an effect on the overall economy?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu .... the Bolsheviks had a supposed "real problem" with wealth disparages. When they created the Liberal Utopia AKA the Soviet Union, they forcibly took from all the “haves” in order to supposedly give to the “have nots.” There was only one slight problem with all this; the ruling elite determined it was THEY that were the “have nots” and the peasant class suffered even more under their wonderful socialist state. I personally know a couple that lived in the USSR. They have told my wife & I numerous stories about what it was really like, including having 17 adults live in a one room "apartment" with 1 bath to service the entire floor! Yep, socialism really, really works.
Your previous point about Bill Gates being once “poor” and “he created a lot of jobs,” etc. is pure nonsense. Bill Gates didn’t create ANY jobs whatsoever until he started his business. While he was “poor” he created nothing.
Liberals hate successful people. They are totally obsessed with the amount of money CEOs make, etc. What they fail to realize is that without the white collar executives, the blue collar workers wouldn’t have a job. Apparently, people like won’t rest until the entire country is brought down to the level of national poverty.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
RayAmerica says
When he was poor, (I'm not sure if he was ever really poor, but play along) he created Microsoft. Are you calling Microsoft nothing?
RayAmerica says
So, what exactly is your answer? Wealth disparity does or doesn't affect an economy? That's a nice story about the Soviet Union, but not sure how it applies...
RayAmerica says
I'd turn that around and say without blue collar workers, white collar executives wouldn't have a job...
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu70 says
A common statement made by blue collar union workers. I've known some of these biased types that believe the company (that hired them) wouldn't exist without them. What they have zero concept of is the amount of skill, brains and venture capital that is required to create a manufacturing business. Somehow, they think all it takes is a lunch bucket and a desire to "work with your hands" and presto .... a viable company has been born. If it's so easy, and if they (as they often claim) don't need company executives, why then don't they go out and create a competing business?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu70 says
Within walking distance of my home, there is a multimillion dollar home in which the property’s owner pays tens of thousands in annual property taxes. I pay nowhere near what he is paying because I have nowhere near the property he has. How exactly is that property owner diminishing my quality of life or others in my neighborhood?
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
RayAmerica says
Many of them do.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
RayAmerica says
Ray. Why do you keep avoiding the question. Simple yes or no. Does extreme wealth inequality affect the overall economy.
Please no anecdotal evidence. No stories about other countries. Just a yes or no. And perhaps some explanation as to why you believe it does or doesn't.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu70 says
I'll play along too. You just don't seem to get it (or you are playing, which is it?). When Bill Gates worked alone (while he was poor) experimenting with the PC ... he wasn't employeeing anyone. It was only after he started his business (Microsoft) that he began hiring employees. IMO, you and the Duck need to go back to school and get edukated.
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
tatupu70 says
Would adding water to the Duckie Dude's Pond "effect" his paddle? I don't know for sure, but it would probably cause the pond to rise. I hope this makes sense.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,718 comments
RayAmerica says
Your argument is beyond ridiculous. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. Starting Microsoft wasn't the job creation event?
Follow
Befriend
12 threads
495 comments
antifeminist says
The moon is made of cheese. The Apollo program was filmed in my backyard. The Texas Nation Guard shot Kennedy. A crack group of marines blew up the levy in New Orleans. Bush ordered the planes to fly into the twin towers and doubled down by pre-wiring the buildings with explosives. I have helmet head. The secret rulers of the world decided it was time to take down the US by selling toxic loans and high-fructose corn syrup. Obama blew up the Deep Water Horizon to get his poll numbers up. Ted Kennedy didn't drink alcohol but was afflicted with chronic lyme disease. If we all just sat in a circle singing Kum Ba Ya, things would be better. Nero and his great-great-great ... great-great ... great-great grandson Obama are the anti-christ. The democrats want to us to be the USSR V2. Joe Biden does NOT have hair plugs.
Did I miss anything?
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
36 comments
WEALTH INEQUALITY CAN BE GOOD OR BAD.
WEALTH EQUALITY IS ALWAYS BAD.
Some people are inferior athletes, inferior models, inferior thinkers, and some are inferior supporters of civilization. Giving wealth to inept persons causes consumption without creation and consolidates power without responsibility, the economy shrinks, and poverty and cruelty expand. It has been proven by economic research, duh! Equality can only happen at the lowest level of quality. You feminized bleeding hearts won't make derelicts or yourselves more; you may only strip quality people from realizing their potential and overshadowing you.
Here is a chance for some of you to read something intelligent from wikipedia for a change:
The ugly truth is that nature recycles all of us, but inferior individuals are meant to go first. If they don't, the whole of society must go. That's the way it is. Sorry, mental wusses.