bobrek--why would haven want to help out his grandparents when he just said he doesn't believe inheritance is deserved? ------------------ "There's a lot of things you can say about playing with Dream, but I get to say, `I played with the Dream.' That speaks for itself." --Walt Williams "****!" --Kenny Thomas
I watched President Clinton on CNN moments after he had vetoed the attempt to repeal the estate tax. I wish I had taped that, because he amazed me even more during that moment. He showed his willingness to go against public sentiment time and time again to do what he thought was right. That is the sign of a leader. I'll try to find a transcript, or quotes from Clinton regarding the estate tax. The one thing (paraphrased obviously) that sticks out most in my mind (aside from the "good old farmer" balogna that SamCassell and Clinton shot down was this: Clinton relayed phone calls from more than one billionaire that simply asked him not to repeal the tax. Each of those guys said that charities and non profits would be devastated by the repeal of the tax. Now again, charities and non profits would be devastated. Let's put that into more immediate terms... (aside from all of the incredibly important charities such as Cancer Research, that us kids here might not appreciate) Churches, missions, art museums, symphonies, etc. Heck, my entire hometown of Greenville was built on money that would have otherwise gone to the estate tax. The Greenville Peace Center, Piedmont Park... I just know of my church's improvements, but think of the other bazillion churches or colleges that improve because of estate tax money. Someone pointed out that this affected few people at all. I forget Clinton's quote about the matter, but upon hearing the numbers I scoffed that this is/was even an issue of debate. This tax harms next to noone, and its social benefits are overwhelming. It's truly a weird place to focus energy. Think of your own hometowns... think of the symphony or ballet, think of the building at college that has a donor's last name (that is, if your local corporate support isn't all that ), think of the add on at Church. Sure your offering or tithing helped out, but most of the influx of support came from the all too few shortening people at the front. ------------------ (===)
List government functions that are tied to economy. In my view, the government should provide military, infrastructure, education, some level of social welfare (health care, etc.). None of that is tied to income in my book. Just because we earned more as a country in the last few years doesn't mean that we should spend more. On a micro-economic level, you're right. However, on a macro-economic level, the size of a country's government (and it's resources) has to be proportionate to the size of the country. If a country doubles in size (economically, not physically), then that comes with an equivalent increase in infrastructure (roadways, etc), jobs, population, and/or technology. For example, if the economy grows because there are more people (thus more commerce), then the social & infrastructure needs government serves increase. If the country grows primarily due to technology, government has to keep up in that arena. If it's primarily due to inflation, all of government's expenses increase. Basically, on a single-year basis, what you're saying is true. Over the long-term though, a government is going to grow in proportion to its country's economy. If it turns out government can be a bit smaller (maybe the growth was primarily technological which requires less resources), the tax rate can be cut or raised as necessary. However, in general, the income tax serves to automatically bring in an approximate income of what should be needed. The estate tax has encouraged charitable contributions to a very large extent. If one eliminates it now, then many very necessary organizations are going to suffer immensely. This is the only legitimate argument, in my mind, for keeping the estate tax. But essentially, this is government saying you MUST donate to charity or we're going to take half of your money from you - no good reason, but you're dead, so we can. This doesn't make much sense to me. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
How would you justify most taxes? The income tax suggests that you're taking part of the social structure and reaping the benefits, fine. But why is there a sales tax? To limit purchasing? Of course not, it's a free ride by the government. I think taxes have to be weighed against their benefits to society more so than there philosophical justification. ------------------ (===)
Shanna: 1. While allowing that the argument concerning justification is certainly not resolved, the estate tax is not without merit. Government's a priori purpose in society is to sustain an environment where individuals may pursue non-other harmful goals. The government has the right to tax in order to achieve this primary function. All *transactions* are fundamentally social interactions in which wealth changes hands. The occasion in inheritance is not inherently different. Inheritance is still the transfer of wealth from one person to another. If one "gives" a person the money, it's taxable unless that person is a dependent. It should be no different in this situation. 2. The most wealthy Americans have benefited the most from the conditions set forth by American government. It follows that they should contribute the most towards the perpetuation of that system. 3. Inheritance is not deserved. In fact, I struggle with the idea that it should be valid AT ALL. While I certainly sympathize with an elderly person trying to contribute to the success of his children... THIS IS WHAT PREVENTS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. The playing field isn't, and will never be, level because some people start out so much worse off. The estate tax is a way of moderating this. America should be a meritocracy, not a class system. Right now, it always leans MORE to a class system... Bush's policy will make it worse. The estate tax must remain. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001!
The income tax suggests that you're taking part of the social structure and reaping the benefits, fine. But why is there a sales tax? To limit purchasing? Of course not, it's a free ride by the government. Achebe, The sales tax works exactly like the income tax except that it's not progressive. It takes a portion of commercial transactions, but it does so at the consumer end instead of the wages side. As with the income tax, the sales tax takes a portion out of the economy to pay for government services. I think taxes have to be weighed against their benefits to society more so than there philosophical justification. I agree partially, but I think there has to be some "fairness" to the tax as well -- and there doesn't seem to be any with the Estate tax (likewise for the marriage penalty). ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
If one "gives" a person the money, it's taxable unless that person is a dependent. It should be no different in this situation. Is this true even within family? If I buy my parents or my kids a car, do I get taxed on this? (If that's true, that sucks too) I can understand it between non-family members, but I think money should transfer within family without taxation. 2. The most wealthy Americans have benefited the most from the conditions set forth by American government. It follows that they should contribute the most towards the perpetuation of that system. Absolutely, but they already do that within the income tax system, both on an absolute and relative scale (due to the progressive tax). This is just an additional tax on the rich. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Shanna says: "Absolutely, but they already do that within the income tax system, both on an absolute and relative scale (due to the progressive tax). This is just an additional tax on the rich." Not exactly. This isn't taxing the rich person who acquired the money, but rather the INHERITANCE of the money by someone who didn't earn it. As such, this person has never been taxed for the transaction of ACQUIREMENT, which income tax essentially is. Thus, it is not a situation of being "taxed twice" for the same money. Besides, tax rates for the wealthy are ridiculously low in America. This is one way of increasing taxes on the extremely wealthy... and better yet, it only taxes the superwealthy that don't *earn* it. Sounds good to me. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001! [This message has been edited by haven (edited March 19, 2001).]
Achebe -- You're a really bright guy...but your little tribute to Clinton where you said the guy constantly ignored public pressure to do the right thing was nothing short of laughable. Damn, I hope I'm not that biased!!! You really can't be serious. This is a man who took polls, and followed them, constantly. He would ignore his own advisors to meet the demands of the people. He was a master of public relations and truly benefitted from it. The statement that he ignored public sentiment time and time again to do the right thing is so off I really don't even know how to respond!! Come on!!! You're better than that, Achebe!! ------------------
Mad Max--to be fair, I don't think Clinton looked at any polls before he ordered a bombing right when the Lewinsky case was heating up. ------------------ "There's a lot of things you can say about playing with Dream, but I get to say, `I played with the Dream.' That speaks for itself." --Walt Williams "****!" --Kenny Thomas
hehehe MadMax. I have to admit that I was trying to bait someone w/ that comment. LOL. Did you get a chance to see the interview in which Clinton addressed that very issue? I can't remember if it was w/ his pastor or with the CNN White House cronie, but I found his comments enlightening (I'm pretty sure it was the cronie). Clinton was asked specifically whether or not he responded to political polls. He said that he certainly did not. Instead, he said, that he used the polls to convince other people that he was right. hehehe. He then used a couple of examples in which he obviously didn't have the support of the American people (I forget all of the examples but the Estate Tax and the Marriage Tax 'penalty' are a few), yet had to rule on any account. The times that he didn't have poll data to push Lott or whomever for support he downplayed the polls or merely twisted the data he said. He used them... but not to figure out how to think but merely as an indicator that his opponents were wrong (when his opponents didn't have the polls on their side obviously). ------------------ (===)
Oh one other thing, and I suppose this is what you were alluding to: Clinton said that he did use the polls sometimes in short political cycles merely to prioritize his goals and to again... win whatever political battle he had to. That is, if the people didn't want a tax cut, he'd force his oftentimes more popular agenda down the Congress's throat. Nothing wrong w/ that though. ------------------ (===)
