How Rich Kids Get a Head Start

[Benvolio]

The only reason that many billionaires in America are now first generation is that a lot of the old families did have to relinquish the gilded age...and bred so many children that the estates became quite diffuse.

As for Gates and Buffett....I doubt if their two votes have been responsible for all the horrific debt spending on the military industrial give-away welfare programs of the last 50 years, but unlike the Koch Bros., or Sam Walton and a lot of other rape and pillage capitalists, at least Bill and Melinda Gates have committed all their money to the public good.

I can't believe though that you's be arguing for estates to be taxed to the hilt so that the government could get their hands on the cash instead of the individual having the control over the charitable use of their fortunes. This is incredibly inconsistent thinking from you.

Gates and Buffett donate to democrat campaigns as well as vote, and endorse candidates as well.
I would prefer no tax on estates. But it gripes me that Buffett and Gates promote high government spending and taxes but themselves avoid paying taxes to pay for the high spending.

 

[Kabluey]

Gates and Buffett donate to democrat campaigns as well as vote, and endorse candidates as well.
I would prefer no tax on estates. But it gripes me that Buffett and Gates promote high government spending and taxes but themselves avoid paying taxes to pay for the high spending.

Well then vote for politicians that pledge to close the loopholes they use and vote to retain those who maintain that pledge.

 

[Benvolio]

Well then vote for politicians that pledge to close the loopholes they use and vote to retain those who maintain that pledge.

The "loophole" is the deduction for charitable contributions. I am not aware of any politicians promising to end it.

 

[Kabluey]

The "loophole" is the deduction for charitable contributions. I am not aware of any politicians promising to end it.

That's not the only loophole, and you know it.

 

[Benvolio]

That's not the only loophole, and you know it.

We were talking about the charitable deduction to avoid taxes, and you suggested that i vote for people to eliminate the loophole. I said the "loophole"--in quotes--charitable deduction. It is not a loophole. And there are no loopholes. Everything about the tax code and regulations are carefully calculated, and dictated, mostly by the democrats.

 

[rareboy]

^ That is just bullshit nonsense. Prove that it has been mostly dictated, drafted and calculated by Democrats. The Tax Code has been dictated by the rich to protect the rich and that includes as many Republicans as Democrats.



Citations to back up your claims or forfeit any credibility on this subject.

 

[Benvolio]

^ That is just bullshit nonsense. Prove that it has been mostly dictated, drafted and calculated by Democrats. The Tax Code has been dictated by the rich to protect the rich and that includes as many Republicans as Democrats.



Citations to back up your claims or forfeit any credibility on this subject.

Back at you. Prove your claims. Name one loophole. Corporations and rich individuals are not leaving the country because of Republican taxes.

 

[rareboy]

You are deflecting and prevaricating.

There certainly are loopholes that favour the rich from mortgage interest deductions through the capital gains tax rate and you know as well as I that all you have to do is Google Tax loopholes and you can spend a few happy hours learning how, if you are rich, you can game the system and get advantages that the poor or middle class cannot.

And of course the corporations are not leaving the US because of the taxes. For many of them, by the time they take advantage of all the benefits built into the Code, they pay little to no taxes at all relative to their income or wealth...and in a pinch, many of them still just shift their cash offshore to avoid being taxed at all.

But the onus is directly on you to prove your claim. You know you can't so you are trying to spin it back round on me to prove something that I never claimed in my post.

Nice try.

 

[Benvolio]

Ah. You don't understand. A loophole is and accidental or unintended glitch in the law. This is from Wikipedia: "A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security, or a response to one's civil ".....
So when I said there are no loopholes, I meant the tax code has been studied and revised so many times that the accidental glitches have been removed. What is left was intended.
Neither the mortgage interest deduction nor the capital gains rate is a loophole. Both are carefully planned and reconsidered from time to time, and are designed to achieve certain results. The mortgage interest deduction is intended to facilitate and encourage home ownership and if course has helped millions of families to acquire homes.
The capital gains rates include a lower rate for assets held for a longer time. This in intended to reflect, in part, that the currency tends to inflate over time, in large part due to intentional policies of the US or Federal reserve. Some, or all, of the increase in value of an asset over a longer period is merely due to inflation of the currency, i.e., the money has gone down in value. Inflation is not really income, because the owner, in buying power, stays where he was before. While the Constitution allows the taxation of income, it does not allow the taxation of principal unless proportionate to the census.
Aside from that, taxation of capital gains at the persons highest rate, strongly discourages the sale of assets and the purchase of assets, and thus economic activity over all. It is a burden on the economy outweighing the tax benefit.
Liberals and other marxists, try to judge the economic system entirely by their perception of fairness, rather that upon economic growth and progress. Holding people down to economic equality seems fair, but it is a prescription for stagnation and tyranny.

 

[rareboy]

You are still deflecting.

I asked you to prove that the Democrats were responsible for the Tax Codes and you haven't tried to do that.

I only maintained that the tax codes were crafted by the rich for the rich with purposeful loopholes left in and that Republicans have contributed as much to this as Democrats...in fact, using your logic, moreso, since you maintain that the Republicans are the wealthiest in the country and the Democrats would be trying to take away all their wealth to give to the freeloaders. You can't have it both ways on this.

 

[Kabluey]

Ah. You don't understand. A loophole is and accidental or unintended glitch in the law. This is from Wikipedia: "A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security, or a response to one's civil ".....
So when I said there are no loopholes, I meant the tax code has been studied and revised so many times that the accidental glitches have been removed. What is left was intended.
Neither the mortgage interest deduction nor the capital gains rate is a loophole. Both are carefully planned and reconsidered from time to time, and are designed to achieve certain results. The mortgage interest deduction is intended to facilitate and encourage home ownership and if course has helped millions of families to acquire homes.
The capital gains rates include a lower rate for assets held for a longer time. This in intended to reflect, in part, that the currency tends to inflate over time, in large part due to intentional policies of the US or Federal reserve. Some, or all, of the increase in value of an asset over a longer period is merely due to inflation of the currency, i.e., the money has gone down in value. Inflation is not really income, because the owner, in buying power, stays where he was before. While the Constitution allows the taxation of income, it does not allow the taxation of principal unless proportionate to the census.
Aside from that, taxation of capital gains at the persons highest rate, strongly discourages the sale of assets and the purchase of assets, and thus economic activity over all. It is a burden on the economy outweighing the tax benefit.
Liberals and other marxists, try to judge the economic system entirely by their perception of fairness, rather that upon economic growth and progress. Holding people down to economic equality seems fair, but it is a prescription for stagnation and tyranny.

Isn't modifying the tax code to provide tax credits just another form of welfare?
I hear you can even claim a rebate on the interest cost of holiday homes. How does that make home ownership more affordable for the common person?

For that matter, why was there an assumption made that capital games are always from long-term investments?

 

[Kulindahr]

No it rests on the assumption that people work harder when they can accumulate savings and pass it to their children rather than having it confiscated by the state.

No, because inheritance is a system that exists regardless of the existence of a state. It rests on the assumption that someone who didn't earn it has a greater right to it than those who actually did merely because of blood relationship.

In a rational society, on the death of a wealthy person the wealth would be distributed to those who worked to create it, in proportion to the work they put it. If a son or daughter worked like crazy to contribute to that wealth, he or she would be entitled to a portion commensurate with the work done. If there was no work done, then the son or daughter should be tossed out to learn to be an honest citizen.

 

[Kulindahr]

You miss the point entirely. This thread is not about reasonable taxation so the government can function. The thread is about increasing taxation to eliminate the advantage that "rich kids" have. It is about taking away from those who have too much. You like all liberals, think that some taxation is necessary, so more and more and more is better, while most voters get a free ride.

If taxation is theft, then we should all be thrilled that "most voters get a free ride" -- they have been freed from being victims of that theft.

We are approaching a point in society where no taxation should be necessary. Eliminating all of it, starting at the bottom, should be our goal. And the distribution of wealth by a cap on how much one legal entity may inherit is a step toward that, however small.

 

[Kulindahr]

And any idea of debts against an estate dying with the man are tantamount to simply theft from the creditors.

But inheritance of debt is theft from the heirs -- after all, they didn't incur those debts!

Maybe creditors should be required to carry insurance that would pay off debts in case of death?

 

[rareboy]

Ah. You don't understand. A loophole is and accidental or unintended glitch in the law. This is from Wikipedia: "A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security, or a response to one's civil ".....

So right off the bat, the Wiki definition doesn't indicate what you say it does. A loophole is not accidental or unintended in all cases.

So apparently, you do not understand.

 

[Kulindahr]

So coming back to this......one could argue that all those rich southerner children should have been able to keep all the slaves that made it possible for them to live an indolent and pampered existence. Fortunately that didn't happen.

Or that the children of robber barons of the 19th century should have been able to keep all their money. But even their peers recognized the disaster that aggregation of a nation's wealth meant and busted up the monopolies in favour of creating more widespread wealth and thereby saving the country and capitalism itself.

The US is due for another adjustment in order to rebalance the wealth of the nation or face an economic crisis so hard and deep as to lead to the irrevocable shift of the US to a thuggish oligarchy controlled by odious men like the Koch's.

Yeah, the article seems to get it backwards -- if the rich have better starting points for their kids, the sensible approach is to try to make more people rich. Abolishing the mortgage interest deduction wouldn't do that, it would do the opposite. Limiting it, however, would help; the trick would be determining how valuable a home needs to be for the kids to get the sort of advantage under discussion. Of course that's actually going to vary by locale; a house of $200k value in some locations is immensely expensive, while in others it would be akin to a shack; OTOH, a flat rate for the country would serve to spread the geographical concentration of wealth.

 

[Kulindahr]

Look again. I said he did not argue, with Marx, for no inheritance as you claimed in#24. He thought the wire and children would/should ordinarily inherit and do so free from the debts of the deceased.

No, he rejected the idea of inheritance. The only reason the wife and children would get the land would be by the principle of occupancy (he is assuming the corollary principle of use).

 

[Kulindahr]

For that matter, why was there an assumption made that capital games are always from long-term investments?

"Capital games" -- Freudian slip?

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW, capital gains is something that needs to be overhauled. It shouldn't apply to any sale of stock except the initial IPO, because only the IPO is actually an investment that helps a company grow -- after that it's just money changing hands for the profit of the buyer and seller, and the company isn't part of it.

 

[Benvolio]

So right off the bat, the Wiki definition doesn't indicate what you say it does. A loophole is not accidental or unintended in all cases.

So apparently, you do not understand.

Drafters do not intend to leave it possible to circumvent or avoid the intent of the system.