Your momma and daddy may have to give away much of your inheritance to someone else

a reply to: queenofswords

Queen.. My original post in this thread was not about the merits of higher taxes on the rich, or not. It was about couching the argument in a skewed manner by using terms of mommy and daddy as if those on the other sided of the Op's position were noting but childish individuals. In that reply I stated my opinion that there were more than one position to consider on this issue. With that, FF, replied that there were not. There was only ONE way from which to evaluate this issue. To me this is an emphatic statement.

As for basing our positions on years of observation and living under several administrations I agree. However, opposing positions can be arrived at from the same decades of observation. Yes? In my reply to FF, this was the point I was making. That there ARE other positions with valid concerns which, when considered by both sides together, might allow a superior position to emerge. Adamantly denying any validity to an opposing position from the outset offers no resolution at all other than "Im right and you are wrong".

To me, the issue of taxing the rich more than they are already taxed is moot. It is money that controls this government now for as long as I can remember and those that control that "money" will not let it happen. Obama's "agenda" were it to be enacted would likely make things worse than they already are, though whether it be he, or Bush or the next marionette that drives that final stake remains to be seen.

For me, this system of economics that more and more as the years go by, bases it's values on cheap, on obsolescence, on psychologically manipulative merchandising, has, over the last century demonstrated itself to be two things. One, a system whereby some, and I emphasize some, can rise to wealth through struggle, innovation, determination etc. The other thing though is that as the masks of smiling faces slips away, it has also demonstrated itself to favor the corrupt, the psychopathic and the down right criminal and to allow them to achieve wealth beyond which any balanced and healthy society can endure.

a reply to: queenofswords The criminal gang is at it again stealing what is not theirs. Russia and China have no estate taxes they want their families to grow and prosper while the president in thief wants to destroy the family and have the state confiscate wealth. They tell you the money will come from the rich when in reality the middle class will suffer. And of course no accountability with the stolen wealth.

I know quite a few "rich" people, a number of whom would be termed, "filthy rich" by some of the more envious on this board. Of those folks, not a single one of them stole a penny from anyone or cut anyone's wages or made them work as slave labor.
One of my neighbors is a multimillionaire who got his money from his hobby of computer programing. He wrote a program for his profession that was a "must-have" for everyone in that profession. He did it all alone, in his study at night, while the rest of the world was sleeping. When he retired from his regular job he sold his hobby company to a larger software company for millions of dollars. They made that offer---he didn't demand that they pay him that kind of money but when they offered it, he took it because he realized he could a lot of good with it. He has. He has given away millions of it and continues to give it away but because he invested it wisely, his fortune continues to grow and continues to give it away and make our county a better place for him having lived here and shared his good fortune. I see no reason in the world to deprive his children of whatever is left when he passes. Likely his children will continue his good works with that money---or they will enrich the people who sell them fancy cars and homes or the colleges their children will attend.
A dear friend of mine is another multimillionaire because he has a nice looking face and voice and the folks in the world of TV pay him handsomely for his work in front of a camera. He has never employed slave labor nor has he ever stolen anything from anyone. He gives millions of his dollars away each year to finance kids who can't afford to go to college. He buys houses for folks struggling with finances in the crazy world today. He pays his household help more than most first year teachers make. Why should he be taxed at a higher rate than anyone else? How is it fair to take 90% of his income and let me keep 100% of mine just because he is paid well for his work?
I simply don't understand how this financial envy became an entrenched political position. What else can it be called except jealousy? I see it a lot in society and even in my own family. The people who are working their behinds off, did the responsible things, went to school, put in the time and effort to do well and are enjoying the benefits are being ridiculed and called "Lucky" because they have worked hard, practiced discipline in life and are now enjoying a few of the fruits of their labor. To those family members who dropped out of school or refused to further their education a family making $150k is "filthy rich" and should hand over some of their ill-gotten gains to the slackers in the family. This despite the fact that the families making that kind of money put in at least six years of college, working from the time they were 14 years old, paying as they went rather than going head over heels in debt, but somehow because they are living the dream they worked so hard for, they are the "evil rich" who are holding back the ones that refused to do what it takes to get and hold a job. The entitlement attitude is the evil in this scene because it condones theft.
What is evident here is that the politicians are mad that there are some few of us out here who actually don't depend on government for sustenance. Taking our money is their only weapon. This will cause more people to depend on government, especially the farmers and ranchers. I honestly believe these folks are the main targets of this legislation. Forcing more small operators out of the market so the BigAg companies and developers can snatch up the land when the tax laws force the inheritors to sell will be good for the corporate bottom line which means that campaign donations will skyrocket!
This isn't about helping poor people---this is about fostering class warfare---something any good disciple of Marxism will readily see. It's just too bad the people in DC are so damned ignorant of the past and the massive fails that Marxism has created wherever it was unleashed.

a reply to: diggindirt

Oh boy....personal story time.

Hard work can pay off, however most people who work hard make near minimum wage. Luck is a major factor in determining ones success.

It is not about entitlements, a Marxists agenda, or what ever rabble rousing catch phrase the puppet masters throw out there. Those farmers and ranchers you mentioned are becoming more and more scarce thanks to companies like Monsanto and their ways.

This is about the Inequality that is actually happening.

Someone who chooses to work 40 hours should be able to earn enough money to live a decent life here in the US.

That is not the case here in the good old USofA.

originally posted by: jrod
Someone who chooses to work 40 hours should be able to earn enough money to live a decent life here in the US.

That is not the case here in the good old USofA.

Of course it's the case in the U.S.

If a person offers his or her work to the entire world of employers, and can't find ONE employer willing to pay that person a decent wage, it's not the employers' fault.

Lack of ability does not entitle one to have others pay a person.

I'd agree with Jamie here. It would be easy to think that Farmers provide a vital resource needed for the species, so should be paid well. In reality this is unskilled labor. Anyone could farm with a small bit of land. People who make near minimum wage are doing unskilled labor, that is, and will continue to be sourced out to technology as it becomes economically viable.

If you want to make good monies, your ability through skill must be in demand. It takes little reasoning to realize that the higher skill sets will be in higher demand, purely thorough the lack of ability for the majority to gain proficiency. I have a mind that is geared towards complex problem solving, and have a joy for working in the terminal. That's not something most anyone can do like they could be a farmer. If I wanted to (I don't) I could be a farmer, but not every farmer could do what I do.

a reply to: jrod
I've never met a wealthy person who only worked 40 hours a week. I've never met a successful business owner who only worked 40 hours a week. I'd still be broke and in debt if I adopted the idea that I shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours a week to have a good life.
The kids in my family who have a work ethic are the ones doing what it takes to live the American dream.
The whiners are sucking their parents dry paying child support for the "Baby Daddy" who has two children by two different girlfriends. Oh, well, they won't be bothered by any cumbersome estate taxes.
Should the kids who took advantage of the opportunities offered, worked hard and still work hard be required to hand over a portion of their income to the burger-jocks who had the same opportunities for education and advancement? How much should they be required to subsidize their cousins' lifestyles?

a reply to: diggindirt

That's also very true. You'd be hard pressed to find a business owner or self-made wealthy individual who puts in less than 55 hours. I've already mentioned my parents went from rags to riches (just barely, to be fair). It didn't matter what the standard was, they did what must be done to propel their selves into the positions they desired. That meant 80-100 hour weeks for about 20 years of their lives. They still work more than 40 hour weeks in their 50s.

a reply to: queenofswords


I don't think 'extremely wealthy' has anything to do with this. People who own small businesses, farms and the like will get hit hard. Most won't be able to hold on to them. The 'extremely wealthy' will not be effected as they have other avenues to deal with this TAX.

This is just another attack on the middle class. It's designed to further diminish it, with the eventual goal of having just two classes - THE EXTREMELY WEALTHY and everyone else.

Make no mistake, this will not affect the wealthy. This, like all other taxes, is actually intended to suppress the efforts of the "slave class" to become the "ruling class". The same goes for regulations intended to "reign in powerful corporations". It is the powerful corporations that welcome these new taxes and regulations. The higher the taxes and more dense the regulations, the more difficult it is for small businesses to compete.

The important thing to remember .. to ALWAYS remember .. is that politicians are rarely subject to the laws they pass. They are the oligarchy and we are their subjects, period.

Unfortunately, humans are easily conned. Same as it ever was.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
I'd agree with Jamie here. It would be easy to think that Farmers provide a vital resource needed for the species, so should be paid well. In reality this is unskilled labor. Anyone could farm with a small bit of land. People who make near minimum wage are doing unskilled labor, that is, and will continue to be sourced out to technology as it becomes economically viable.

If you want to make good monies, your ability through skill must be in demand. It takes little reasoning to realize that the higher skill sets will be in higher demand, purely thorough the lack of ability for the majority to gain proficiency. I have a mind that is geared towards complex problem solving, and have a joy for working in the terminal. That's not something most anyone can do like they could be a farmer. If I wanted to (I don't) I could be a farmer, but not every farmer could do what I do.

What makes you think you could be a farmer? You believe that just tossing a couple of seeds in the ground makes you a farmer? You don't sound very educated making statements like that.

originally posted by: Bilk22
You don't sound very educated making statements like that.

Please tell me, what does an individual need to be a farmer? Does he need brains, brawn, or merely the lack of physical and mental handicap?

What makes me think I could be a farmer? I have neither, physical or mental handicap. It's really that simple.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: diggindirt

That's also very true. You'd be hard pressed to find a business owner or self-made wealthy individual who puts in less than 55 hours. I've already mentioned my parents went from rags to riches (just barely, to be fair). It didn't matter what the standard was, they did what must be done to propel their selves into the positions they desired. That meant 80-100 hour weeks for about 20 years of their lives. They still work more than 40 hour weeks in their 50s.

As a business owner, I can attest to this as well. The business and your life become one and the same. Sad, but true. That's what it takes to compete. The end result of all of that competition is one thing: more value for the consumers' dollar. It is the most valuable role that a person can play in the world, in my opinion. It bothers me that socialists and communists don't appreciate the diligence required to accumulate wealth. Furthermore, they don't appreciate the fact that wealth is accumulated by providing valuable products and services to society.

Instead, all you hear are asinine comments like "you didn't create that" and "you're too wealthy". Despicable. Mark my words, when the government overreaches and it no longer makes fiscal sense to be self-employed, we are the ones who will suffer. If you want an example today, just look at Venezuela. This is what an anti-business climate will always lead to: misery. Why? Because business is commerce and commerce is the free exchange of goods between people. It is the foundation of a free society. Take that away, and you'll see what serfdom is really like.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
What's with the momma and daddy bit? It sounds like you are appealing to the innocent child in us all that love our mommies and daddys so much and hope that the big bad wolf don't come and blow our houses down.

There are two sides to this argument. The massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of the kingpins of of this economic scam is part of the reason we are in so much trouble. There are valid arguments for both sides of this issue but couching an argument in the childish manner in which this OP has been written serves no purpose other than to appeal to childish emotion.

We're in so much trouble because the keepers of the purse - the government - are not responsible with what we give them. That national debt has nothing to do with the wealthy or anyone else. It has to do with pandering for votes, with waste and mismanagement of resources and with spending trillions of dollars to support the military industrial complex.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: Bilk22
You don't sound very educated making statements like that.

What makes me think I could be a farmer? I have neither, physical or mental handicap. It's really that simple.

Your posts here prove otherwise IMO.

a reply to: Bilk22

So you've got nothing.

Allow me to educate you. Farming is considered an unskilled labor.

Unskilled Labor
Unskilled labor does not require workers to have special training or skills. The jobs that require unskilled labor are continually shrinking due to technological and societal advances. Jobs that previously required little or no training now require training. For example, labor that was once done manually now may be assisted by computers or other technology, requiring the worker to have technological skills. Examples of remaining unskilled labor occupations generally include farm laborers, grocery clerks, hotel maids, and general cleaners and sweepers.

Link

It's something that anyone who is not physically or mentally handicapped could learn without technical requirements. I have the ability to grow physically to the requirements needed to be a farmer. Last year I went from 172lbs to 194lbs and increased a mere 3% bodyfat (it was mostly muscle).

I have worked unskilled labor for a variety of jobs. Guess what that means? I'm not a mommy or daddies boy. My uncle has a ranch, my great-grandfather was a farmer, and the Chapman name still has farms up north currently in operation. Before you go assuming something about someone, you might want to get to know them first. You don't know me, or what I'm capable of. For all either of us know, the other has a higher working capacity. It would be fun to challenge you in a test of physical strength.

I'll go with an assumption now, just to make it even for your original reply which had a ridiculous assumption. It sounds like you equate brains with a lack of physical work capacity. That would be your err.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Bilk22

So you've got nothing.

Allow me to educate you. Farming is considered an unskilled labor.

Unskilled Labor
Unskilled labor does not require workers to have special training or skills. The jobs that require unskilled labor are continually shrinking due to technological and societal advances. Jobs that previously required little or no training now require training. For example, labor that was once done manually now may be assisted by computers or other technology, requiring the worker to have technological skills. Examples of remaining unskilled labor occupations generally include farm laborers, grocery clerks, hotel maids, and general cleaners and sweepers.

Link

It's something that anyone who is not physically or mentally handicapped could learn without technical requirements. I have the ability to grow physically to the requirements needed to be a farmer. Last year I went from 172lbs to 194lbs and increased a mere 3% bodyfat (it was mostly muscle).

I have worked unskilled labor for a variety of jobs. Guess what that means? I'm not a mommy or daddies boy. My uncle has a ranch, my great-grandfather was a farmer, and the Chapman name still has farms up north currently in operation. Before you go assuming something about someone, you might want to get to know them first. You don't know me, or what I'm capable of. For all either of us know, the other has a higher working capacity. It would be fun to challenge you in a test of physical strength.

I'll go with an assumption now, just to make it even for your original reply which had a ridiculous assumption. It sounds like you equate brains with a lack of physical work capacity. That would be your err.

Keep proving your ignorance. Farming is unskilled labor? By whose standards? Yours? LOL Man you must still be living in your rich mommy and daddy's house. They should send you off to a farm and see if you come back with all your fingers and toes.

Edit: I see I'm arguing with a child. Never mind.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: pl3bscheese

You're typing a bunch but not really making a clear argument beyond your opinion that inheritance is bad.

I said a lot more than that, but apparently it's too much to ask for the majority of the members on this site to put the pieces together. I've come to expect this.

Would you agree taxing a person multiple times is bad?

How do I even begin to answer this in a way you can comprehend? Eh, let me first state that you're trying to look at a single variable within a very complex system, so giving you a simple answer would never suffice. On principal, of course multiple taxes for the same good or service is wrong. I take this to be a matter of ethics. I was trying to look outside of this, and take a broader view. Apparently that's just not okay, or something, LOL!

That taking money from someone by force of State just to make a level playing field because they have fat stacks and you don't is still theft?

Who are you referring to here? Who is it that doesn't have fat stacks? You do realize I'm not the one making the laws, right? Do you think my motivation has anything to do with greed? Did you happen to read my post? So how am I to decipher this sentence? It appears to be all over the place, and without reason. Okay, I'll assume it's not myself you're referring to. Who then? The politicians? I don't think that applies either. The poor? Maybe that makes a little sense. Okay, so do you think the poor look at the rich, and all want to steal their money, just because they don't have as much? Do you think that's a reasonable assumption to be making?

I don't think so. Some poor might make it out to be so black and white, but certainly not all of them.

Look at the statistics! The field is incredibly unlevel. Who in their right mind would think and feel this is sustainable, or okay? I'm going to assume you're not out of your mind here, so then you disagree on mere principal of force by the state. Okay, I'm totally cool with that. I apparently didn't make it clear, but I don't care how we go about leveling the playing field, rather realize it's an absolute necessity. I'm cool with it happening by other means. Right on. So what do you have in mind? I'm open to suggestions.

originally posted by: Bilk22
Keep proving your ignorance. Farming is unskilled labor? By whose standards? Yours? LOL Man you must still be living in your rich mommy and daddy's house. They should send you off to a farm and see if you come back with all your fingers and toes.

Edit: I see I'm arguing with a child. Never mind.

I'm a 32 year old man, who is fully financially independent.

You only continue to make a fool of yourself with assumptions.

End of discussion with you.

Good. Legacy wealth is a pox on this country.
Make the kids earn their own fortunes.