The Top Fifth

[Moiraine]

 

It's not true for many.

 

But with money comes power. And if 5% of the wealthy are a$$hole$, they stand out. They stand out more than other people who are a$$hole$ because they have the means to negatively affect a lot more people than do the non-wealthy a$$hole$.

Why are they a$$hole$? Because they don't want to part with their money? Hell, I wouldn't want to neither....

 

 

Wealth redistribution is a joke, and taxation is theft (turns into a bald eagle and flies away).

 

 

You could have asked what I think makes them (those 5% or whatever the # is) a$$hole$, instead of imagining what it is.

 

Paying off politicians to pass laws that only help the super rich and/or corporations and hurt everyone else makes you an a-hole. Keep your money all you want - if you can do it without hurting other people, then you're not an a-hole.

 

Policy shouldn't be made based on who can pay politicians the most $.

[Landlord]

Explain unequipped. What's expected of them?

 

Philanthropy is not required.

 

 

"not equipped with the necessary items or skills". It's not strictly about philanthropy. It's also not a matter of expectation as much as it's a matter of them being capable of using their money responsibly and in a way that is ethical and beneficial to society.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

It's not true for many.

 

But with money comes power. And if 5% of the wealthy are a$$hole$, they stand out. They stand out more than other people who are a$$hole$ because they have the means to negatively affect a lot more people than do the non-wealthy a$$hole$.

 

Why are they a$$hole$? Because they don't want to part with their money? Hell, I wouldn't want to neither....

 

 

Wealth redistribution is a joke, and taxation is theft (turns into a bald eagle and flies away).

 

You think less than 5% of the wealth are a$$hole$? Or less than 5% of any group?

 

 

I know some rich a$$hole$, and some bitter/poor a$$hole$....

 

Exactly. So you already know that their are rich a$$hole$ out there. Your previous post doesn't address the point of the post you're quoting:

"But with money comes power. And if 5% of the wealthy are a$$hole$, they stand out. They stand out more than other people who are a$$hole$ because they have the means to negatively affect a lot more people than do the non-wealthy a$$hole$."

[RedDenver]

From the Trump Money thread:

 

At the risk of derailing this thread into the heated inheritance tax discussion, why should people who did nothing to earn that money get it all of it as opposed to the society that could use it to improve the infrastructure that made earning that wealth possible getting some of it?

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

From the Trump Money thread:

 

At the risk of derailing this thread into the heated inheritance tax discussion, why should people who did nothing to earn that money get it all of it as opposed to the society that could use it to improve the infrastructure that made earning that wealth possible getting some of it?

One major issue is that because there are a hell of a lot of families where the kids DID help earn the net worth of the family.

 

Another is that this CAN greatly disrupt businesses that actually then affects employees of those businesses.

 

I don't necessarily have a major issue if we want to tax people with a billion dollars and it's in line with possibly income tax rates.  There are still major issues that would need to be worked through with this.  But, I have a real problem with thinking that the government can just come in and take the vast majority of a net worth.....just because someone died.

Talk about taxation without representation.

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

One major issue is that because there are a hell of a lot of families where the kids DID help earn the net worth of the family.

 

Another is that this CAN greatly disrupt businesses that actually then affects employees of those businesses.

 

I don't necessarily have a major issue if we want to tax people with a billion dollars and it's in line with possibly income tax rates.  There are still major issues that would need to be worked through with this.  But, I have a real problem with thinking that the government can just come in and take the vast majority of a net worth.....just because someone died.

Talk about taxation without representation.

Taxing the net worth of someone who can no longer have a net worth because they're deceased doesn't seem all that invasive - there's no way for dead people to represent themselves anymore.

 

As far as inheritors who did earn some of that inheritance - I'm ok with having some method or process that takes that into account. As far as disrupting businesses, I think that's a valid concern and the government could do something like spread the inheritance tax over the lifetime of the inheritor or wait for the company to be sold (or the inheritor otherwise extracting the value they inherited) to claim the taxes (sort of like a lien on a property).

 

I'd be fine with getting rid of the inheritance tax if there was another mechanism to prevent/minimize the equivalent of American royalty and still fund the things that make our society worth living in. But allowing giant sums to be transferred from the earner to a non-earner seems like a terrible idea all around, especially when he inheritors typically grew up wealthy and have had every opportunity to succeed without the inheritance.

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Talk about taxation without representation.

 

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

.......doesn't seem all that invasive - there's no way for dead people to represent themselves anymore.

 

Yeah...that's kind of my point.

 

I'll admit.  This is one area where it just makes me not be able to align with the Democrats.  I'm sure you and I could negotiate something that each of us could stomach.  But, there are too many on the left on this issue that I could never agree with.

 

I have no problem with large sums of assets transferring from generation to generation....in fact, I believe that's what should happen to those assets.

 

Another thing for clarification.  A family remaining wealthy from generation to generation isn't "Royalty".

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Yeah...that's kind of my point.

 

I'll admit.  This is one area where it just makes me not be able to align with the Democrats.  I'm sure you and I could negotiate something that each of us could stomach.  But, there are too many on the left on this issue that I could never agree with.

 

I have no problem with large sums of assets transferring from generation to generation....in fact, I believe that's what should happen to those assets.

 

Another thing for clarification.  A family remaining wealthy from generation to generation isn't "Royalty".

I mean this with all due respect, but saying "there's too many <insert group of differing opinion> that I could never agree with" seems like a copout. If you and I can find some compromise, then it seems possible to compromise with a much larger group as well. You don't have to agree on a whole bunch of wide-ranging issues, just on one or a few.

 

It's "royalty" under the current system where the wealthy can simply buy politicians. If money was removed from politics, then it's be more like the old class system of aristocracy, which was a major reason we split from the British Empire, and I would think/hope we wouldn't want any more today than back then. American ideas of capitalism (especially conservative/libertarian ideologies) are built on the notion that income and wealth should be merit-based, but inheritance is the exact opposite of that, so I'm mildly surprised that so many conservatives/libertarians oppose inheritance taxes.

[Moiraine]

Just now, RedDenver said:

It's "royalty" under the current system where the wealthy can simply buy politicians.

 

 

This was my first thought as well. As we get closer to being an oligarchy, and maybe we already are that with the wealthy writing bills, the more this is true.

[BigRedBuster]

22 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I mean this with all due respect, but saying "there's too many <insert group of differing opinion> that I could never agree with" seems like a copout. If you and I can find some compromise, then it seems possible to compromise with a much larger group as well. You don't have to agree on a whole bunch of wide-ranging issues, just on one or a few.

 

 

How is it a "cop out" when I say I don't agree with many people within the party?  How is that different than someone saying they couldn't be a Republican because they disagree with too many people in the party about race or gender equality?

 

23 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It's "royalty" under the current system where the wealthy can simply buy politicians.

 

I guess you could stretch the definition to sort of maybe encompass that.

 

Royalty would be a family who is paid by the government to represent the country.  Just because someone is rich, doesn't make them royalty.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

How is it a "cop out" when I say I don't agree with many people within the party?  How is that different than someone saying they couldn't be a Republican because they disagree with too many people in the party about race or gender equality?

I didn't think we were talking about joining a party but rather compromising with those who are NOT in your party/ideology. I was responding more to the context of what you wrote: "I'm sure you and I could negotiate something that each of us could stomach.  But, there are too many on the left on this issue that I could never agree with." Which seems to say that you don't want to spend the time/energy finding a compromise, which is why I used "cop-out". Maybe that wasn't what you meant.

 

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I guess you could stretch the definition to sort of maybe encompass that.

 

Royalty would be a family who is paid by the government to represent the country.  Just because someone is rich, doesn't make them royalty.

Yes, I'm making more of a comparison/analogy to "royalty" than a strict definition. "Aristocracy" or "gentry" might be a better word choice.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I didn't think we were talking about joining a party but rather compromising with those who are NOT in your party/ideology. I was responding more to the context of what you wrote: "I'm sure you and I could negotiate something that each of us could stomach.  But, there are too many on the left on this issue that I could never agree with." Which seems to say that you don't want to spend the time/energy finding a compromise, which is why I used "cop-out". Maybe that wasn't what you meant.

 

You left off the sentence before that.

 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'll admit.  This is one area where it just makes me not be able to align with the Democrats.  

 

Which, I'm meaning that I can't join or claim to be a Democrat because of these issues.

[methodical]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Yeah...that's kind of my point.

 

I'll admit.  This is one area where it just makes me not be able to align with the Democrats.  I'm sure you and I could negotiate something that each of us could stomach.  But, there are too many on the left on this issue that I could never agree with.

 

I have no problem with large sums of assets transferring from generation to generation....in fact, I believe that's what should happen to those assets.

 

Another thing for clarification.  A family remaining wealthy from generation to generation isn't "Royalty".

 

It's fine we can't agree.

 

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?

 

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.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Which, I'm meaning that I can't join or claim to be a Democrat because of these issues.

Ok, I didn't take it that way from what you wrote, but I certainly agree that you shouldn't join a group or claim to be a member of a group that you mostly don't agree with.

 

But can we find a compromise for the issues around inheritance taxes even if we don't join the same group(s)?

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

But can we find a compromise for the issues around inheritance taxes even if we don't join the same group(s)?

 

That's why I'm an independent.