Soviet zests (topic change: Social/Capital/Communism)

[The Khan]

Also the spendthrift idiot inheritor will most likely make the economy, the luxury industry rich, rather than using it in a government alms project.

[Lightbringer]

Mainly the point I'm making is - why should you get a load of money just because you were lucky enough for a close relative to be rich? It doesn't go well with the whole 'to each according to what they earn" thing.

Why should Uncle Sam get a load of money just because MY relative died? At some point in this hypothetical family's history, somebody earned the money. I understand that the government needs some money to do things it is supposed to be doing. I just don't think that death is a taxable activity. Wait til the kids have the money and start buying houses or cars or boats or clothes or whatever. No we don't have a VAT but they will be more likely to put the money into the system where the IRS will get it eventually. (probably after creating a few jobs along the way!)

As for this level of taxation. If I remember correctly, Reagan had convinced congress to drop it down to 35% or somesuch, then Clinton jacked it back up. When the republican congress passed the Bush tax cuts, they included a deal on the Death tax where it would be phased out until it reached 0% this year. Unless Pelosi and Reid and the gang pass a more reasonable version, it will return to the Clinton 55% Jan. 1 2011. I am unsure what it has been historically, but somehow I doubt it has always been over 1/2.

Another example of the suckiness of this. Sports teams. One of the largest business models not to sell major %s of ownership through stock. I am just going to use nice round (and admittedly small) numbers, but you will get the drift. Joe Blow owns the Hoboken Hammers Team and 51% of the stadium. He bought the team 50 years ago for 5 million dollars by selling his string of car dealerships. Today, the team is worth 101 million dollars. He dies and leaves the team to his son. His son immediately owes 55 million dollars to the IRS. His son does not have 55 million, and is forced to sell the family business. His son is taxed on the sale price as well as still owing the 55 million. Some jackass now owns the team and moves it to Austin Texas screwing over all of Hoboken as well as the Blow family. While the details have been changed, the basics of this story have actually happened at least a dozen times in the late 90s and early 00s (before the phase out fully kicked in). Again I ask (semi rhetorically), How does Joe Blow dying entitle Uncle Sam to more than half of his family business?

-Light

[fool]

How does Joe Blow dying entitle Uncle Sam to more than half of his family business?

As I said before, I'm also not comfortable with it going to the government. I'd prefer things like this to go directly to the local community. It's another problem with the way the U.S. (and most countries, frankly) runs things - it's got to the stage now where even the states are too big to be controlled by their inhabitants.
For what I mean by this, to take your example, Joe Blow dies. The family business would go to the employees (in this case the players) and they might decide that the son will do a good job running it and pay him to do it. On the other hand, the son might be a lazy bastard and they decide they want to hire someone else to run the business.
Or another example of this. Mr Joe Joeson dies and leaves everything to his only son. He has 3 houses. His son gets one of them (worth below a certain margin), or enough money to buy his own. The rest goes directly to the town/area (if it's a large city) council, made up of every resident. They vote to put up a dozen homeless people in the two houses that are left.

[Lea]

In Russia we have no Inheritance tax, only duty (0.3-0.6%). Lightbringer, move here with all property.
Does it matter to you what happens with your stuff after your death? If future of your children important to you then invest to them directly. Or... are you surrounded by crowd of heirs with greedy eyes and a dripping saliva?

[Lightbringer]

...are you surrounded by crowd of heirs with greedy eyes and a dripping saliva?

My net worth if I died tomorrow, after you added in my life insurance, sold my small 50+ year old house and 14 year old car, and subtracted my debts, would be less than $50,000, and almost all of that would be from the insurance. I couldn't afford to move to Russia, even if I wanted to go. Also, Uncle Sam may be a greedy socialist, but he isn't stupid. They slap a gift tax on people who just start giving assloads of cash to their kids. I am sure there is some sort of dodge for the death tax, but as I said, I'll never have to worry about it, so I don't know what it is.

@Fool

If Joe Blow makes some mistakes running the team, are the players going to be forced to help pay his debts? Why should they get the team if he dies? Same deal with the houses. You seem awfully generous with some pretty expensive chunks of property. You seem to be overlooking the risk the owner took, the time and money they invested, and weighing coincidental acquaintance as heavily as blood relations when deciding who gets what. If Joe Blow earned it, he should have the right to decide who gets it when he dies. If he wants strangers to get his stuff, he is free to write his will accordingly.

-Light

[fool]

If Joe Blow makes some mistakes running the team, are the players going to be forced to help pay his debts? Why should they get the team if he dies? Same deal with the houses. You seem awfully generous with some pretty expensive chunks of property. You seem to be overlooking the risk the owner took, the time and money they invested, and weighing coincidental acquaintance as heavily as blood relations when deciding who gets what. If Joe Blow earned it, he should have the right to decide who gets it when he dies. If he wants strangers to get his stuff, he is free to write his will accordingly.

are the players going to be forced to help pay his debts?

They could always sell if off or just let it collapse, yes?

Why should they get the team if he dies?

Because they made the team?

You seem to be overlooking the risk the owner took, the time and money they invested, and weighing coincidental acquaintance as heavily as blood relations when deciding who gets what.

No, I just think that once someone dies, they have no right to private property.

[Lightbringer]

@Fool

Your POV sounds like greedy jackals circling around looking for a sign of weakness to jump in and attack. The players did not invest any money, zero, nada, zilch. In fact, if it were not for the owner putting up millions of dollars of his own money, then the players would not have the opportunity to play a game for millions of dollars. I dare say there are a million athletes for every rich person willing to pay them movie star salaries. Yes, they are the product that the owner profits by, but they profit far beyond the high school gym teacher salary they might be stuck with if pro sports did not exist. If all the players suddenly quit, the owners would have new teams on the field the next season. If all the owners "quit", the players would just be SOL. So don't give me this crap about "the players Made the team".

Secondly, you seem to have a warped view of fairness. You state in plain English that if the team falls on hard financial times, that the players should bear no responsibility. All the while, if the team does well, and the owner dies, then the players should all benefit. Are you 6 years old? What sort of fairy tale world do you live in? TANSTAAFL. The players are employees. Collecting a pay check does not entitle you to inherit the business you work for. It entitles you to a pay check under whatever contract you negotiated with the owner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lastly, your little bon mot about dead people's property rights. Let me ask a few questions. Was the Will created after the person died? or while they were Alive? Are you suggesting that living people have no property rights either? Are you suggesting that successful people should go on wild spending sprees to make sure that they are penniless on the day they die, so that vultures have nothing but dry bones to pick over? you do understand that a major reason successful people save money is expressly for the purpose of leaving it to their children, right? You do understand that human beings care for their children? Are you saying to me that it is somehow evil to want to provide for your children over providing for some greedy, lazy, incompetent people you do not know? Or that we should disown our children, throw them out in the street and leave everything to the government? Maybe when we die, the bank could just clear our accounts to cash and leave it in a pile on our front lawn for anyone passing by to grab? Our houses and possessions would be "first come, first served", except for those evil and undeserving "relatives". How disgusting! To actually be related by birth to a "rich person"! They should be horse whipped to Death! .....

Obviously, I am intentionally being an ass. However, your grave robbing socialist ideals deserve nothing better. That is another aspect of socialism I detest. Basically, you are advocating taking rights away from an individual, and giving (in this case property) rights to the State. In the rush to "be fair", socialism never takes into account the unintended consequences of it's actions. What possible motivation to create wealth is there, if the State is just going to steal the results and give them away to someone else? Why should someone aspire to success, if the "reward" for succeeding is punishment? Soon, your whole society has been Pavlov trained not to succeed. How are you going to feed the poor and all those other idealistic "feel good" goals, if everyone has settled down to just making enough to get by and stay under the Tax Man's radar? What happens when there are no more "Rich" to tax?

-Light

[fool]

Your POV sounds like greedy jackals circling around looking for a sign of weakness to jump in and attack.

More like that's what any kind of inheritance can look like depending on the angle at which you look at it.

The players did not invest any money, zero, nada, zilch.

However, they did all the wealth creation involved in the business.

I dare say there are a million athletes for every rich person willing to pay them movie star salaries.

That's not to say that all of them are capable of earning their owner those millions of dollars back.

If all the players suddenly quit, the owners would have new teams on the field the next season.

See above.

[strike]If all the owners "quit"[/strike] if the owner quit then the players would go off elsewhere and work for a lower wage.

You state in plain English that if the team falls on hard financial times, that the players should bear no responsibility. All the while, if the team does well, and the owner dies, then the players should all benefit.

Not quite. The players wouldn't individually receive shares or anything like that, there would rather be part of the business owned by all of the players. If the team falls on hard financial times, they're out of a job.

Collecting a pay check does not entitle you to inherit the business you work for. It entitles you to a pay check under whatever contract you negotiated with the owner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I know this isn't how things work now.

Are you suggesting that successful people should go on wild spending sprees to make sure that they are penniless on the day they die

If they're right bastards, they're free to do that I guess.
Remember

Above a certain margin

so that vultures have nothing but dry bones to pick over?

You mean their children?

You do understand that human beings care for their children?

I also understand that human beings care for other human beings as well.

above a certain margin

socialism... the State... e.t.c.

The state wouldn't actually be involved.

Why should someone aspire to success, if the "reward" for succeeding is punishment?

No it isn't...

What happens when there are no more "Rich" to tax?

This is not about income, or value added tax. It's about tax on unearned transfer of wealth, on a localised level. Would it surprise you for me to say I don't like income taxes very much, although I do see some legitimate functions for the state?

[Lightbringer]

We can argue about the sports biz until we are blue in the face. I can't bring myself to understand why you think that multi million dollar P/year salaries aren't enough for someone to play a game. Does the third stringer traded to the team 6 weeks before the owner's demise get to inherit part of the team as well? What about the veteran who retired two months before? What about the fans? The hot dog vendors at the stadium?

I am well aware that children and relatives of rich blokes act like "vultures" sometimes over inheritance. However, I am unsure why you find it distasteful for someone who has a legal right to be concerned about the disposition to act that way, but someone who might as well be a stranger off the streets is A-OK to stick his grubby paws into the pie. I'll get to "above a certain margin" in a minute.

The state wouldn't actually be involved.

They passed the law that denies the offspring rights to their inheritance, they damned sure are involved.

Now, about this "tax on unearned transfer of wealth", and "above a certain margin" stuff. Again, it boils down to unintended consequences. You would not be in favor of a huge tax if a rich person wanted to give a fortune to a charity, right? What if he wanted to give it to some random homeless person? You would not have him slapped in irons for leaving it in a big pile of small bills on a street corner? Why then it is evil (that must be punished) if he wants to give it to his children? He/She may have been training the kids on how to run the family business so that the employees might continue earning a living with someone the owner trusts running the show. Anyway, since there is a certain margin that can not be crossed without committing financial seppuku, what happens when the Rubicon of wealth is before a man? He can cross over, knowing full well that everything he does from that point on is basically a waste of time because it will be stolen from his family. Or he can set up a trust fund for the "safe" amount, chain the factory gates shut, and live out his life enjoying his personal wealth, content in the knowledge that he has done the best that the State will allow him to achieve. Even with your "margin", people smart enough to succeed are not going to slave away and take huge risks for no real return. They will either "Go Galt", or they will explore illegal methods of keeping their wealth. Neither of which is what you intended to happen when you convinced the State to enact a harsh Death Tax.

-Light

[fool]

They passed the law that denies the offspring rights to their inheritance, they damned sure are involved.

They passed the law that denies the offspring rights to their inheritance, they damned sure are involved.

I'm speaking theoretically. Your present system isn't capable of handling what I'm proposing; I'm not even sure if one currently exists that could completely bypass the state when dealing with inheritance 'tax'. The difference is that it would be dealt with through direct rather than representative democracy.

I can't bring myself to understand why you think that multi million dollar P/year salaries aren't enough for someone to play a game. Does the third stringer traded to the team 6 weeks before the owner's demise get to inherit part of the team as well? What about the veteran who retired two months before? What about the fans? The hot dog vendors at the stadium?

For the record, I believe professional sportsmen are payed way too much. However, if you're going to defend some kind of position, you have to be willing to apply it in all cases to be intellectually honest. Besides, I think you slightly missed the point. As I said, the players (or indeed other employees) wouldn't individually own shares - they would be owned by one legal entity. After doing a little bit of research, my idea looks to be very similar or possibly the same as a worker cooperative.

someone who might as well be a stranger off the streets is A-OK to stick his grubby paws into the pie.

Not someone, a group of 'someones'.

You would not be in favor of a huge tax if a rich person wanted to give a fortune to a charity, right? What if he wanted to give it to some random homeless person?

A charity is a different case, because it is non-profit; however, I would support taxing it if someone gave, say, $2m to a random homeless person.

You would not have him slapped in irons for leaving it in a big pile of small bills on a street corner?

He/She may have been training the kids on how to run the family business so that the employees might continue earning a living with someone the owner trusts running the show.

If the employees want the kids to carry on managing the business, that's fine.

since there is a certain margin that can not be crossed without committing financial seppuku, what happens when the Rubicon of wealth is before a man? He can cross over, knowing full well that everything he does from that point on is basically a waste of time because it will be stolen from his family.

Why doesn't he cross over before then, knowing full well that he would never be able to spend it all in his own lifetime? Because he cares about his family. Why do you assume that he cares about no-one else? The money or possessions don't go off to some distant and unconcerned State. They go to the people around him, who decide how it can best be put to use.

Even with your "margin", people smart enough to succeed are not going to slave away and take huge risks for no real return.

(see above)

They will either "Go Galt", or they will explore illegal methods of keeping their wealth. Neither of which is what you intended to happen when you convinced the State to enact a harsh Death Tax.

Go Galt?

[Lightbringer]

Read "Atlas Shrugged". Who is John Galt?

-Light

[w00tang]

I do apologise for not putting in my unneeded and useless opinion for the last week, I was in Cairns.

So I'll post in relation to your comments about left/right wing and as you put it feel good/common sense.
In Australia there are two main political parties at the Federal level, Labour (Left wing, currently in power, led by Kevin Rudd who spends more bloody time overseas than he does in Australia) and Liberals (Right wing, can't even lead their own party, let alone a meaningful opposition), now the Labour party is usually the 'feel good' party, they put in place some decent laws and regulations, they are always organising some sort of overhaul or massive plan, BUT, they always seem to rack up more debt than I care too count, now the Liberals usually do wonders for the economy, but do just about everything else that you DON'T want them to do (Don't even get me started on that disgusting rat of a man, John Howard).

Generally when I ask people from foreign nations they tell a similar story. So what do we have here? On one hand you can vote for a party that will put some extra cash in your pocket but you will ultimately be ashamed of and hate OR you can vote for a party that you can proudly say you voted for, but will make it that bit harder to afford your new 50 inch plasma TV (Everyone has one, so that's not much of a loss, but you get my point!)

PS:This should go down in history for the greatest thread derailment that has been accepted by the administration. And is it true that the USA has no system like the GST in place? (Wiki link if you don't know what GST is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_ ... Australia))

[Lea]

I will tell some our anecdotes about socialism:

- What happens after building up a socialism in the Sahara?
- At first sand will be distributed by cards, and then it will disappear.

Capitalism is exploitation one man by another, and a socialism is vice versa.

There will be such shop announcements at a socialism: "The today meat requirement will not be".

- What hell is better - capitalistic or socialistic?
- Socialistic, certainly - there is either no matches, or misfuel, or copper repair, or Party meeting.

Western trade-union figure has visited the USSR and give interview after:
- What it was pleasant to you at there?
- Much was pleasant... but most of all is possibility to do nothing for wages!

[Feltan]

Capitalism is exploitation one man by another

Only if your read and believe Das Kapital. Such tripe as "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks" is as evil as it is wrong.

Once you accept that as your premise, all sorts of violations of liberty can be envisioned.

Ask an American -- most will soon be able to tell you that the only difference between Marx and Obama, is that Marx is just a whiter shade of pale.

Regards,
Feltan

[The Khan]

Ask an American -- most will soon be able to tell you that the only difference between Marx and Obama, is that Marx is just a whiter shade of pale.

Regards,
Feltan

Skin Color or behaviour? I do not remember Obama ordering the American "disenfranchised" to slaughter the rich and make class warfare.