Jump to content


The Top Fifth


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, methodical said:

I'm curious what happens after generations of assets like real-estate get passed down from one family member to another in perpetuity? what about when you include the gains and any other purchases?  America's been around for 250 years round about and we've had single families that have been passed down wealth equivalent to something like 4x Bill Gates's wealth.  What does the end result become when they aren't families that have a gilded age sense of class based social responsibility or aren't private about their influence, do we now live with the koch's and soros's buying influence and steering the debate from beyond the grave for the rest of the countries existence?

 

 

You are talking about two totally different issues.  a)  Wealthy people passing their wealth to the next generation....and b)  That wealth having over bearing political influence.  

 

I don't view those as related.  You can have a country where there are wealthy families over various generations....and at the same time, take a lot of the power that wealth has out of politics.  

I am for allowing wealth to be passed down AND taking the power of money out of politics.

Link to comment

14 minutes ago, methodical said:

I'd agree with you that for things like active non-purely investment vehicle tax dodging companies a succession plan that isn't a huge penalty would be reasonable, but the reasonable thing to me if we got rid of the estate tax would be to make up for it by actually taxing the wealthy before death... and that's a non-starter to many if not most republicans also.  So while not ideal, this tax allows the wealthy to grow their wealth much more during a lifetime, for a tax burden on that potentially larger amount later.  Like most things tax wise it's a trade off, one more that we're slowly eroding away with no thought as to why it was put in place in the first place.

I would be more in favor of taxing the wealthy before death than an estate tax.

 

However, I also believe there is a limit that the government should be legally able to take.  I also believe that everyone should be paying taxes so I'm against wealthy people being able to get out of paying taxes through loopholes and expensive accountants and lawyers.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You are talking about two totally different issues.  a)  Wealthy people passing their wealth to the next generation....and b)  That wealth having over bearing political influence.  

 

I don't view those as related.  You can have a country where there are wealthy families over various generations....and at the same time, take a lot of the power that wealth has out of politics.  

I am for allowing wealth to be passed down AND taking the power of money out of politics.

 

 

They are related, because the bolded isn't happening, and probably never will. They're related as long as that problem exists. The only sign we have as that it's going to get worse. If it's going to happen, it needs to be balanced out. But we don't see that, either. I seem to recall the GOP mentioning simplifying the tax system and closing loopholes. All they did was lower tax rates without addressing that problem.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That's why I'm an independent.

So am I!! Are we best buddies now? :D

 

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I would be more in favor of taxing the wealthy before death than an estate tax.

 

However, I also believe there is a limit that the government should be legally able to take.  I also believe that everyone should be paying taxes so I'm against wealthy people being able to get out of paying taxes through loopholes and expensive accountants and lawyers.

The bold is sort of a circular argument. What's legal and illegal is set by the government. The "legal limit" is by definition whatever the tax rate is.

 

Colorado for example has a law (part of the state constitution?) that requires a vote of the people to set taxes, so maybe that's what you mean?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The bold is sort of a circular argument. What's legal and illegal is set by the government. The "legal limit" is by definition whatever the tax rate is.

 

Colorado for example has a law (part of the state constitution?) that requires a vote of the people to set taxes, so maybe that's what you mean?

My point is, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment that limits on a percentage basis, the amount the government can take from an individual.  There would have to be certain stipulations on when the government can go over that list.....but, in theory, I think you get the idea.

 

Yes, the government makes the rules.  My opinion is that, on an ethical stand point, there should be a limit that congress must abide by when setting the tax rate.

 

And..yes....I understand that in practicality, something like this probably wouldn't work.  But, the theory behind it, I agree with.  

Link to comment

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

My point is, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment that limits on a percentage basis, the amount the government can take from an individual.  There would have to be certain stipulations on when the government can go over that list.....but, in theory, I think you get the idea.

 

Yes, the government makes the rules.  My opinion is that, on an ethical stand point, there should be a limit that congress must abide by when setting the tax rate.

 

And..yes....I understand that in practicality, something like this probably wouldn't work.  But, the theory behind it, I agree with.  

I mostly agree with this, but I'm strongly opposed to setting a limit that can never be changed. Different times and different circumstances can make any limit a bad one. But something like a direct vote by the people is something I'd favor so that the power isn't entirely resting with our representatives.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...