Slashdot Mirror
A Minor Political Screed
AN ELECTION-SEASON EPISTLE ABOUT PYRAMIDS, DIAMONDS, INHERITANCE TAXES AND A CLOSE ELECTION THAT SOMEHOW HAS EVERYBODY BORED STIFF
Hello all. Here's hoping that autumn 2000 finds you well as we continue our transition into a new century.
Has anyone noticed something interesting? The complete lack of any voices proclaiming that December 31, 2000 is the _real turn of the century? Odd huh? I haven't heard a single call to celebrate this formal milestone -- even as a simple excuse to have another party! You'd expect at least for some Society of Nit-Pickers & Pedants to do so..
Anyway, whenever it's time to bid adieu to the Summer Olympics and prepare for Halloween, you can be sure that we in the USA are also approaching another bizarre ritual - our quadrennial presidential elections.
As usual, there is the politics you see on the surface... and what's going on below. Issues that get little play in the press. Issues that are really driving the deep agenda of one party or the other.
I've noticed one of these. And it bothers me enough to provoke spending an evening to pen this letter, offering a comment or two, in case some of you are interested.
SPOCK VERSUS DARTH?
Something strange is going on in the States (for those of you who live outside and cannot feel it in the air.) Times are good and that tends to seep some passion out of the political contest. Also, nobody is particularly scared of the choices being offered. Or excited, for that matter.
True, almost everyone agrees that Al Gore has about twice the IQ of George W Bush, more experience and a much better idea what's going on. Some call him "overqualified the same way Spock was, to be captain of the Enterprise, and therefore unromantic, a rather unpalatable choice for those preferring the zing of human fallibility in their leaders.
(See the latest issue of Yahoo Internet Life Magazine for a fascinating interview that seems to support this view.)
But for those who worry about George W's paucity of intellect, do not fret. By nominating Richard Cheney as his running mate, Bush quite properly signalled that he is front man for a brain trust that has considerable experience and knowledge about the workings of policy and government. As they did under Ronald Reagan, these gray eminences will handle most decisions with utter seriousness. They are not scary madmen or boat-rockers.
Government will function either way. To a large degree (at least compared to past empires) it will leave us pretty much alone. Those of us in the middle class, that is.
Then why am I writing now? Clearly I care, and wish to influence your vote, speaking openly, as one citizen to another.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Well, for one thing, I utterly reject the silly platitude going around that says the republican and democratic parties are just the same. What hogwash!
On the left, some males swallow this romantic twaddle and go running off to Ralph Nader, seeing him as a Don Quixote-type, ignoring his programmatic vagueness, his oversimplifying demonization of markets and his many questionable personality traits. Very few women seem to have joined the Nader campaign. Maybe because they are more practical, knowing that the next president will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices. I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.
But there is another, far more important reason. It has to do with a blatant attempt at social engineering that none of us should like or put up with. An effort to fundamentally alter a social contract that has done very well by America and the West for several generations.
A SOCIAL CONTRACT THAT WORKS
Look at the difference between European and American societies. Both have changed considerably since World War II by becoming much less pyramidal and more "diamondlike".
Some of you may have heard me talk about this before. It's an obvious metaphor for our unique culture. Throughout history, almost every civilization had a social structure shaped like a pyramid, with a few at the top lording it over uneducated masses below. And it was in the best interest of those on top to make sure those masses stayed down. Social position was inherited. Above all, information flows were tightly controlled.
In sharp contrast, our contemporary social pattern is diamond-shaped. For the first time, the well off actually outnumber the poor, at least inside our national borders. The educated outnumber the uneducated, and those who see themselves as somewhat empowered make up a majority. For the first time, most people merely envy the rich and do not hate them, because each of us can daydream taking our own turn in the pointy upper half. And if not us, then perhaps our children. It's called "social mobility" and it never happened before - at least not on this scale.
Above all, we feel that society's elites are somewhat accountable - or at least they are limited in the degree that they can use their elevated position to wreak capricious and direct harm on us, unlike the impunity that cloaked aristocracies in pyramidal cultures of the past.
(Harm done to the earth is another matter, we can discuss elsewhere.)
People who rage at "government bureaucrats" seldom stop to think how little those bureaucrats can actually do to harm you, compared to the impulsive power-abuses of aristocrats and oligarchs in nearly every past culture. And not too long ago! Forget Caesar and Louis XIV. Read Dickens, Jane Austin, Faulkner, Steinbeck! Hell, look at Myanmar and China today. It's like peering into a strange and desperately lopsided world -- the world that all our ancestors toiled in, friends. We are the ones living in an anomaly. The social engineering that occurred since WWII -- through marvels like the GI Bill, the explosion of literacy and expanded state universities, etc. -- caused a peaceful revolution in human affairs that was unprecedented across all time. And unlike other revolutions, it happened without much violence or bitterness. This revolution benefited those below without tearing down those above. We ought to appreciate such a marvel; it's incomplete, by a large margin, but it's also quite unprecedented. Our diamond-shaped social structure, with its implication that any of us may succeed next year, promotes a vibrant, can-do spirit that makes vigorous use of tools like mutual criticism and accountability. And note this symptom of health -- America has seen a burgeoning in the number of millionaires, but the vast majority of them made their own fortunes in the marketplace, through competitive delivery of goods and services.
Hey, that's what capitalism is supposed to be for, right? We can (and should) argue all day about how to help the poor. But at least their brightest sons and daughters already have a much better chance than the peasant kids did in the past. Every year, some of the best (or luckiest) make it all the way to the top. And countless sons of the rich find themselves having to earn it all over again.
*=> In Europe, by contrast, a majority of millionaires inherit their riches. Studies show that few of them seek to learn useful occupations or do anything dynamic with their fortunes. They do work hard at politics, striving to keep property and inheritance taxes low, while sticking the poor with high sales taxes. This way, they will be able to pass on their money, titles and life-style as entitlements to their lordly kids without impediment or inconvenience.
A DIAMOND UNDER SIEGE
Don't get me wrong! I have every intention of getting into the upper brackets myself. I've already made some progress in that direction. And I plan to be sure that my children get some advantages from my success. But that's a far cry from entitling them to billions from goods and services they never did a thing to produce or provide to anyone. My success does not entitle them to a position in life that safeguards them from competition.
I lived in the U.K. when Margaret Thatcher succeeded in ramming through a bill ending all property taxes. The chief beneficiaries were 1,000 landed families who no longer had to worry about actually earning some money to keep their grand estates. The chief effect? An increase in the VAT paid by normal folks... oh, and many castles and manor houses stopped having open house days, since they no longer had to earn tourist dollars to pay the rates! Oh boy, now the art collections could go back to being "for our eyes only!"
Here in the States you see the same movement at work. Lots of "Simple Tax Plans" take advantage of citizens' (justified!) anger at tax code complexity, pandering to that anger by pushing a National Sales Tax, with the chief effect of shifting the burden of taxation from the top of the diamond to the bottom. And the underlying agenda of turning that diamond into a pyramid once again.
(An aside: I am working with a group developing ways to simplify the income tax code using a computer program that will find politically neutral simplifications, taking the whole issue out of politics. It's an exciting project, requiring fascinating algorithms, but more than we can get into here.)
*=> Now comes along George W. Bush with his grand plan to "cut taxes" in a manner that blatantly gives fully half of the benefits to the richest 1%. Delaying the payoff of our grandchildren's public debt for a decade, he'll use most of the budget surplus to achieve such wonders as completely repealing the inheritance tax.
WHAT THE INHERITANCE TAX DOES
Now there's a funny thing about the inheritance tax - it's effects are vastly greater than they seem at first sight. At the surface, it doesn't look like the government's biggest source of revenue. In fact, its chief effect over the years has been encouraging super-rich folks to create charitable foundations, in order to keep their money away from the IRS!
Get this -- in the USA, charitable giving by the rich is MORE THAN TEN TIMES as high as it is in Europe! Studies credit most of this difference to the inheritance tax, spurring the wealthy to use their money to buy fame and gratitude, rather than let Uncle Sam decide how it will be spent.
Yes it's kind of quirky and ironic. But there's a kind of beauty to it, leaving the super-rich free to choose WHICH charitable use their money will go to. That's a lot of pleasure and power to have while doing a lot of good. And the pleasure goes to the people who got rich by actually providing goods and services, not their spoiled kids. (Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
Care to guess what'll happen to charitable giving if GWB gets his way?
We are entering a period when some estimate that fifteen trillion dollars will shift hands between generations. For those in the middle class, this may be the only sizable dollop of cash they'll ever see, since most of their current savings are tied up in their homes... and the Inheritance tax won't touch a penny of it. But about a third of that fifteen trillion dollars is set to flow to a few thousand people who never produced a thing to earn it. Fortunately a large portion will also go into charitable foundations, taking on a myriad bold tasks that simply don't appear on the radar screens of either government or corporate planners. Fascinating projects, chosen by real innovators. That is, if things stay the way they are.
THAT is why the effort to revoke the Inheritance Tax is so frantic and urgent right now. It is why the bosses of the GOP have made it their number one priority. A trillion or two, taken away from bold foundations and slipped into the pockets of new lords. What a cool agenda!
FAMILY BUSINESSES? BALONEY
Oh, don't talk to me about "family businesses & family farms". That's been debunked, big time. The effect of the inheritance tax on small and mid-sized family business is virtually nil today. Nil. Moreover, Clinton & Gore have shown willingness to push upward the exemption from a million dollars to two million. Hell, make it five! TEN! That's a heap of equity to pass on. The kids should be able to do a lot with it, even if they must reconsolidate a bit
That's still a far cry from letting a small cadre of lazy preppies scoop in billions without paying a penny of it to the nation that protects them, pays for the research, protects them, educates their workers, protects them, keeps the poor from rioting, protects them, maintains labor peace, protects them, enforces contracts, protects them, invests in saving the environment we all share and then protects the rich some more, in ten thousand more ways than they would ever willingly acknowledge.
It's ungrateful, churlish and just plain nuts.
No, I am not preaching class warfare... though that is exactly what you will get eventually, if the pyramid is restored.
A lot of people are upset because the fraction of our economy controlled by the top 5% is rising, higher and more rapidly than at any time in 3 generations. I'm a bit less concerned by that, so long as the diamond remains healthy. So long as most of the millionaires in each generation still have to earn it and their kids still go to college with our kids. In that case they'll keep intermarrying with us, instead of thinking themselves a different species.
...which is exactly how the rich always thought of themselves in other cultures/times/places. As a different species, justifying their status with absurd racial notions or self-serving ideas about divine authority.
(SOME EXCEPTIONS)
(Okay, not all of the rich! Not today.
(It depends on which kind of wealth eggs you on -- RELATIVE wealth or ABSOLUTE wealth.
(Take those who want to be rich in order to have lots of fun and cool stuff. These folks don't compare themselves to those below them. They don't begrudge if others get rich too. In fact, the more the merrier! Let's all get so rich together that everybody vacations on terraformed Mars! Ski Olympus Mons! Ain't it awful how crowded Europa is getting these days?
(Others need to feel rich-er than the masses. It's the "er" suffix in richer that gives their life zest and meaning. The relative comparison to others. They would feel happier being in the top 1% of a poor society - with shabby servants to scream at - than being at the mere 90th percentile in a fabulously wealthy nation of equal citizens.
(I'll bet you know both types, admit it! This personality factor makes a big difference in which political movements each wealthy person donates money to, even if they buy similar cars and belong to the same clubs.)
WOULD-BE PYRAMID BUILDERS
People, it's time to say no-thanks to those wanting to bring back the old social pyramid. The diamond deserves our loyalty.
But alas, the diamond ain't stable, ladies and gents. The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
I accept the productive value of capitalism, when the market is a vibrant place for fair competition of goods & services. But if accumulations of wealth pass a certain point, capitalism will die and feudalism will replace it, as happened every other time there was a brief renaissance of competitive opportunity in human affairs. Seriously, name a bright era when that did not happen, shutting down opportunities and progress for centuries at a stretch.
Anyone who wants the pyramid back is your political enemy, folks. Not just the enemy of us but an enemy of his own children. Just ask the innocent young baronets who lost their heads during the French Revolution. THEY didn't rape the serfs, but they paid a stiff price for their grandparents' arrogant, insatiable greed. Alas, those yearning for pyramids are too stupid to grasp how wealth is really made, or what happened to the pinnacle classes in every other culture, when the people below got fed up. They are too stupid to realize that the diamond is their own best friend.
OKAY, OKAY, OKAY....
Oooh, Brin is really starting to go over the top now!
Oh, all right.
Maybe the social diamond won't fall apart overnight if George W. Bush becomes president. Maybe he'll be balanced by a Democratic Congress. Maybe we'll be fine. There are lots of other factors involved than which figurehead occupies the White House.
Still, his blatant campaign to give a few trillion dollars to those who need it least bothers me deeply. Especially the raging avarice and ingratitude of it. People who have thrived immensely under the protection/support/subsidy of a great nation don't want to help pay to keep that nation prospering and growing, or to help poor kids rise up high enough to compete with them on an even playing field.
They want to be lords. OUR lords. And we shouldn't let them. Merely as rich as Croesus, that's all they should get to be. Getting to be rich as Scrooge McDuck should be enough for anybody.
Oh, pity their poor offspring, who must graduate from Andover or some other prep school knowing that now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!
Oh no, they may actually feel a need to study something useful in school, in case their measly inheritance ever gets frittered away. Their mere ninety million dollars instead of tens of billions.
Worst of all, they have to suffer and watch as Dad's fortune goes to some prissy goody foundation to cure cancer, or to some university to buy buildings named after him and Mom.
"What an outrage! That money's MINE, you hear? Do you have any idea how little ninety million dollars can buy, these days?"
ENOUGH
This is the GOP's absolute top agenda item - they say so themselves - and we should reject it resoundingly. Send the Republicans back to the drawing board.
If Bill Clinton and Al Gore can see the light about welfare reform and budget balancing, then Dick Cheney can bloody well go back to the brain trust and report that the GOP needs some fresh ideas. And, please, some fresh blood while you're at it.
There are fresh ideas out there! * Ideas about how markets can be used to help stimulate and promote sustainable occupancy of the planet without putting all our faith in bureaucrats or the almighty dollar. Ideas about how markets can be made more vibrant than ever, spurring innovation while helping forge a diamond that floats ever higher, carrying everybody on Earth upward with it.
Go away this time, Dick. Give poor George W. a nice cushy job somewhere in the oil biz and bring us someone else in 2004. Somebody with brains... and proposals that make sense.
====================================================== ========================
NOTES:
* For those of you who are libertarians, see the next issue of LIBERTY magazine for an article about ideas like these. Ideas about freedom and "reduced government" that are worth campaigning for and that aren't about helping foster an old-fashioned inherited aristocracy in America. When you think about how many interesting things Cheney & co. could be talking about - like ending the Drug War - you'll wind up holding your nose and voting for Gore.
For those of you on the left who are actually thinking of voting Nader... gadzooks, do you know anything about that person? A gadfly needs personality traits that would be calamitous in a President. Learn more about him, for Gaia's sake. Then think about Global Warming, the Supreme Court and the Internet. You'll hold your nose and vote for Gore.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
I post something like this, and get marked as "flamebait", but someone sends you an email, and it gets posted to the front page?
Hemos, you old troll you!
Well now, maybe if YOU were born with a silver spoon in your nose, YOU would prefer to eliminate the Inheritance Tax as well.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
Well, for one thing, I utterly reject the silly platitude going around that says the republican and democratic parties are just the same. What hogwash!
Anyone who studied history could have told you that. Oh I forget most people on slashdot don't like hearing facts.
Respond to s
I know that there are a literally uncountable amount of factors in our economy, but this year (the year I for some reason got into mutal funds) has seen quite a decrease in value of our stocks.
My dad seems to think that we are just going through October rollercoaster that happens every year AND election year jitters. Is the election really a factor?
I would like to think so. -- I mean, I just can't fathom what the media is harping on -- tech stocks dwindling. Are they over-valued, well, yes of course, but the big names are still driving our world. I think that everyone as a whole just doesn't know what a Republican majority might do. I highly doubt it could be much.
----
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
One thing I don't understand is why everybody around here seems to be favoring Gore over Bush. True, I would never in a million years vote for someone as mind-bogglingly stupid as Bush, but I would also never vote for Gore - he is extremely in favor of censorship, and his wife Tipper is even worse. True, she won't have any real power if Gore is elected, but she will have way too much pull. She is a very dangerous woman.
Why is censorship so bad? You tell me.
--
I disagree with Dr. Brin's self-assessment: this is not a rant, it's well thought out and carefully considered. It's the best piece of political commentary I've seen this entire (endless) campaign season. Should be read very carefully by all.
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
You don't agree with it and you can't refute the statements made therein? Interesting. Tell me just what makes it illogical or unsupported to be classified as a troll instead of a differing political opinion.
Respond to s
After eight long years of corrupt, flag-burning hippies with their Addams Family-looking mutant cabinet running the country, I'd be perfectly happy just to see some normal adults runnings things, even if they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
As for the difference between the Dems and the GOP, the author is correct, there is a difference: The Dems want to steal your money and waste it by shoveling it out to corrupt foreign leaders and crack heads. The GOP want to steal your money and use it to buy $2,000.00 toilet seats.
Where Your Vote Should Go
great comedy company.
This whole peice is dedicated to the principal that Government is smarter than people are. "We are from the Government and we are going to help" is one of the most scary thoughts anyone could have.
Thomas Jefferson said, "People who give up freedom for security will get neither".
The problem is Government thinks that your money is their money. And since we are the government, your money is my money, and that my friend is called Socialism.
Our founding fathers knew that the only way to keep America free is to limit the Federal government, something this generation has not learned.
People who think they are superior to others, aren't.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
> Has anyone noticed something interesting? The complete lack of any voices proclaiming that December 31, 2000 is the _real turn of the century? Odd huh? I haven't heard a single call to celebrate this formal milestone -- even as a simple excuse to have another party! You'd expect at least for some Society of Nit-Pickers & Pedants to do so..
Actually, I'm a Life Member of the SNPP. But that's exactly why I don't call for the celebration.
Sure, I'm all agreed that this New Year's it the millenial anniversary. But anniversary of what? A WAG at the date of a possibly mythological event? We NPPs would rather pick at it than celebrate it.
Besides, only lamers need holidays as an excuse for a party. If any day is holy, then they all are.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One thing, and one thing only makes anybody wealthy: capital. Savings applied to productive uses. Death taxes destroy capital. They force the sons of farmers and businessmen to sell the business in order to pay the taxes on what they have inherited. This destroys capital.
Inheritance taxes make us all poorer, even if we don't pay them ourselves.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The very rich DON'T pay the inheritance tax! Do you really think the Kennedy's pay this tax. Of course not. With proper estate planning, the tax can be avoided entirely. It is the people who get caught off guard that get ripped off by this tax. An untimely death, or some similar circumstance. A family who has been a long time resident in some california communities, and whose real estate has crossed the threshhold. If the tax isn't to be abolished, lets close ALL the loopholes, and let the ultra rich old money families pay their share too. How fast do you think Ted Kennedy will change sides if he has to give 55% of HIS money to uncle sam?
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
The poorest 10% propably pay less than 3% of the taxes. That's "disproporionately" for ya, is it fair ?
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Dont you people see that we ARE the working rich!!!
He has some interesting points, though. But, as he dismisses the notion that we have a single-party system, I dismiss the idea that this election is simply about the inheritance tax and Supreme Court justices.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
-Kriticism
-PARANOIA is fun. D20 is not fun. The Computer says so.
-The Computer
I know more about Nader than I really know about either of the two republicrats, and that's part of why I've decided to vote for him.
And it's not about the Supreme Court. It's about scare tactics.
They get permanent positions in the lap of luxry and very rarely have to actually do any of the genesis work that makes American capitalism supposedly great. I live in America but I have to at least concede that starting a business is almost impossible to do without failure and as such takes real talent (and unfortunately massive luck). People who just maintain things don't change anything.
Respond to s
Darn. Just when I thought I was being intelligent and thoughtful, David Bring demonstrates that I'm just one of the many "males who think they'll vote for Ralph Nader." Oh well. I think that after reading this letter I'm back in the Gore camp. The last thing I would wish for is a return to the pyramid.
...and let them know that you think they're impeding any progress in the American ploitical process.
I sent them this last night:
I'm just wondering how you people sleep at night knowing that you are hampering any progress that this country has tried to make past the same old crap spewed forth decade after decade by the two parties whom you solely represent.
The American public, as well as the global community, is appalled at your evil nature for not allowing Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan to speak to the American public.
People all over the world are mocking Americans for your exclusion. We know that any non-partisan inclusion in your decision making was removed about 8-10 years ago when the formerly conscientious comittee resigned in disgust at your two party insistence, stating that they would not be involved in "hoodwinking the American public."
I am a patriot, and I love my country, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so due to your heavy-handed control over the political process. How your representatives can stand in front of a live television audience and feel good about themselves while screwing us all is beyond me.
The political process needs to be fair to all Americans. Your process is so self-interested that it leaves us all wishing that someone within your organization would wake up one morning and say, "My God, how can I continue to belittle the American political process and silence the voices of millions in the elections."
Hopefully, someday, your consciences will speak up and you will fight to help us regain some voice in our own political process.
oh right, i forgot. there is only one school of economics, and that is the 20 year old, prooven to have failed idiotic idea of "tricle-down" economics. please.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
I see that David says that farmers and businessmen are not affected by the inheritance tax. I'll accept his point regardless of its veracity. My point still holds: the inheritance tax converts capital into consumption. This is a bad thing in the long term.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Why do I get the feeling that Gore will also do as his predecesor and lie and tell the people what they want to hear? Gore seems to be a great story teller. Other then the supreme court issue (Look what happened when E. Warren was appointed! SHEESH! Talk about back scratching deals!) Andy Roony could be president because all the real work, ie. Speech writing, negotiations, bill props etc. are done by advisors. However, the one thing that Clinton/Gore have hurt is the USA military. The Voice of America recently put out an editorial about the Cole. The state department who approves such editorials denied its printing because the death of the 17 Navy boys don't out weigh the 100s of palestineins (sp?). Thats the Clinton/Gore state dept. Thats just sad. An editorial cant be printed because it might enrage Palestine and the deaths of their 100 outweigh the deaths of our 17 that serve us and our country. Ugh.
-- Whee
Get real.
The biggest issue this year is "Who is government working for?". And until this question is answered, no other issue even makes sense to talk about. You can't decide how (or if) to fix social security or respond to terrorist attacks unless you know who your constituents are and what they believe.
THAT'S why I'm voting for Nader. Bush and, to a slightly lesser extent, Gore are both working for Big Business. Nader, Browne and Buchanan are all working for The People (or subsets thereof). Buchanan's subset is the religious right and therefore I'm not voting for him. Browne is working for people, but defines businesses as people--which I don't agree with and therefore I'm not voting for him.
Nader is the only candidate that recognizes that government belongs to people and businesses are NOT people. Therefore he gets my vote. But not because I want him to win. I want to use Nader's candidacy as a medium through which I can send my message: I want goverment to be of, by and for the people.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Rather than "over-the-top", I find this to be well-thought and well-argued.
It's a shame that it'll never become a prime-time topic of conversation...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Come on people, don't listen to this fool. He's responsible for stealing three hours of my life under the guise that I'd be seeing a film with certain characteristics, such as acting and things that happen to keep my interest.
For THREE HOURS of my life I stared at Kevin Costner (the man responsible for such one-liners as "muh boat") ride a horse and obstinately persist in not acting.
If the movie was bad than the book must suck and therefore all of this man's opinions are void, null, undef, and so forth...
I should sleep more...
I'm voting for Harry Browne. I'm not holding my nose to vote for Bush OR Gore. Gore frightens me. The things he says in _Earth in the Balance_ are indistinguishable from the Unabomber Manifesto.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
If you have even half a brain, you know who the Slashdot crew is voting for, and perhaps it's not our place to suggest how they run their own web site. But as a self-proclaimed news site, they ought to feel some responsibility towards providing unbiased political coverage. Or even something close. It would be a refreshing change over the slanted coverage given by mainstream media.
And while neither of the big 2 candidates are really outstanding, what it really comes down to is:
Republican == smaller gov't, better protection of constitutional rights, and lower taxes.
Democrat == bigger gov't, less freedoms in order to protect [victim of the week], and higher taxes.
And seeing as 2-3 vacancies are expected to come up on the Supreme Court (and this is the *TRUE* importance of this election), I sure as HELL don't wan't gore sticking his freedom hating lackeys on the SC where they'll sit for the next 20-30 years.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Correct. And, the more intelligent the person with all this money, the better the money will be used. The better the money is used, the more the economy grows. The more the economy grows, the more money we have. And, the more money we have, the more starving children we can feed.
Therefore, since I am more intelligent than any of you, if you do not send me all of your money, you are personally responsible for the deaths of starving children. Email me to arrange delivery.
Thank you.
Bruce
Bruce
You are the real Bruce Perens.
Contrary to what the uninformed of the world are trying to claim, the inheritance tax *is* a huge factor in small business progression. I myself am one of thousands of people who *would* inherit my father's farm, but it's not gonna happen! I'll have to disolve the farm in order to pay the inhertance tax! No really! I'm not making this up! Imagine that! If Brin had actually used his own grey matter instead of that which was spoon fed to him, he might have noticed that this is a real issue affecting real people!
Ben
Of course if you like being a slave in the United States of China because the government dosn't have any military defense and you have no other form of internal improvements to keep you living in the life you are now.
If not from the federal government you are going to get taxed somewhere.
Respond to s
The federal government controls so much of the economy, that I don't see how we can elect someone who isn't an economist.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It does not take much of a farm or small business these days to equal 1 million dollars, the new amount at which inheritance tax will kick in. I know that sounds like a lot, but experience with my family's farm showed us that it was not. When you add up land at thousands of dollars/acre, and the value of lots of heavy machinery and buildings, even a modest farm can be raped by these taxes.
End result? It gets sold to a huge agri-business concern, since the family cannot afford to give away 1/3 of all it owns (and has already paid taxes on) to the government and stay in business. And then people complain about corporations taking over our economy... Sheesh. Get a clue and look at the consequences of the policies advocated by the Democratic Party. Just because what they say sounds warm and fuzzy should we believe it?
I'm sure /. would probably run an editorial from someone else on the other side of the issues - 'specially if they are someone has high-profile and eloquent as David Brin.
And, /. is giving the opportuninity for all sides to speak thier piece on issues that /.'ers find important - look back at the most recent set of questions to be presented to the various presidential candidate camps from here based on user comments.
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
I've read nearly every one of Brin's SF books, enjoying their scientific approach coupled with his humorous cynicism directed at politics.
But in this screed, I see Brin finally abandoning any hope for political change. This is cynical realism at its hopeless worst.
Sure, the Supreme Court scam is no excuse for voting for Gush, but geekyness is about the worst reason I can think of for voting for Mr. Status Quo Bore.
As for me, I'll be watching CSPAN on Friday night from 8:00-9:30 EDT to hear the "Rest of the Story."
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
It's the perfidy (stupid): Same lies, same sellout to, e.g. Russians selling nuclear stuff to Iran, or Russians pols and mobsters stealing the aid we send them, or sombody selling our nuke secrets to China. This is the biggest reason why, in a time of nearly unparalleled prosperity, the ruling party is losing. Charater does count: "loathing" the military traslates into some pinhead at Voice of America spiking a piece on the Cole bombing because those deaths do "not compare" to the Palestinian loss of life in the new Intifada.
Also, this Europhile thing is misplaced. Sure, I like blondes (and I am one), and SAABs, BMWs, and Mercedes are cool cars. IKEA makes cheap furniture that isn't ugly. But what about violent crime in gun-free London going out of control because you can be sure to be able to do a housebreak or a mugging without encountering a gun? What about ramapant mafias and endemic official corruption in southern and eastern Europe? What about the ever efficient and rational Germans going broke becuase their welfare state is unsustainable?
The real reason we are prosperous is that we have moderate taxes (that could be lower), pretty good rule of law (could be better), sanctity of contract (that is mostly enforceable), and private property (that could be better protected from bureaucrats). If we ever got freedom of choice in puclicly supported education, we would have a new Golden Age.
I wrote parts of this stuff
I had the pleasure of meeting and chatting with Dr. Brin earlier this year. A wonderful thing about him is his ability to go off on a discourse such as the one above off the top of head, in real time. In person he has a great enthusiasm and clarity that few people have. Whats more he's right (IMO of course)
And there is a problem with this?
Hmmmm?
No, really, why the laughter? Do you have unresolved issues or something?
The wealthy are being disproporionately taxed, but they are also disproporionately benifiting from the society that they are helping to fund with their taxes.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
When it comes to matters of technology, programming, etc., I trust the /. editors in their decision making, just like I trust my favorite musicians' and actors' creative decisions. But for the love of God, stay out of politics! You clearly have no idea what on earth you're talking about.
First off, in Bush's tax plan, when you look at the entire thing instead of the tiny little bit Gore harps on in his overbearing debates, the top 1% pay MORE of the tax burden than they do now. MORE. MORE. MORE. Are you listening, or do I have to say it again? Now, they pay 62% of the tax burden, under Bush's plan, 67%. 67 > 62.
Also, if you're worried about the rich having more money, please read some Adam Smith, people. What do you think they're going to do with it? Keep it locked up in a chest under their bed? No! They spend it! On buying things from the lower 99%, which gives us the money.
I am begging the /. editors now, before I lose any more faith in them, please stop posting this drivel.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Facts are such difficult things for people with your opinion. Best just to ignore them, eh? The first generation earns the money, the second spends it, and the third gives it away. At least that's what's happened historically. Look at any of the wealthy families from a hundred years ago.
Now, that said, as a practical matter, there are no safe investments. All capital must be managed, or it will slip away. It takes effort and skill to manage capital well. That's work. Sorry if you don't appreciate it as work, but perhaps you haven't tried to do it yourself.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Sure, the money will be in a more liquid form -- and that means "Hello, Cayman Islands". Many estate planners predict that the very rich will set up off-shore trusts if the estate tax is repealed.
With a simple bit of estate planning, a married couple can ALREADY give over ONE MILLION dollars tax-free to their heirs. (This will automatically raise to TWO MILLION dollars when the federal exemption rises in a few years.)
The reason that non-millionaires are supporting the repeal of the estate tax isn't that they want to benefit people who die with over two million dollars (ie, the richest of the rich). It's because people believe that they may someday "hit it rich", and thus be one of Bush's benefactors.
Maybe this is the wrong argument to be making to the stock-option laden crowd (even after the recent downturns in the stock market)!
Why is this on Slashdot? It may be interesting to some, but for many others it's just liberal trolling. There was one blurb about tech about computing a better tax code.
For the past few days Slashdot has been posting political articles, favoring Gore for the most part (Hemos and Taco have made it clear they prefer Gore). This has really gotten out of hand. Is anyone else as annoyed as I am?
It's obvious that they've made an attempt to disguise the political articles as tech-related, but what it really boils down to is trying to push their opinions on us. I don't think I'm being overly conspirical, and I don't think Taco/Hemos intended to really sway the vote here.. but it does seem blatantly irresponsible.
If you go to the academic record, they were both mediocre (at best) undergraduate students, with Bush having a slightly higher GPA while taking a slightly tougher courseload (including "Mr. Environment" Gore's 'D' in basic science). But Bush managed to earn a Havard MBA -- Gore dropped out of Vanderbilt twice in graduate programs, once in divinity (after he failed most of the courses he took in a program he got an early rotation home from Vietnam for) and once for law (I don't know what his grades were there -- he left to run for Congress).
Ok, so coursework isn't always the best example. But Gore's reputation for brilliance comes more from being very detailed as opposed to having original ideas. And seeing whom each candidate has surrounded himself with as advisors tend to make me think that Bush may really be the smarter one, especially in where it matters for a President. I personally prefer a delegator to a micro-manager. (Also true in business... but I digress...)
Of course, the real reasons to vote for someone are basic competence (I think either candidate is competent), trustworthyness (Bush beats Gore hands-down here), and issues (all depends on your own philosophy). There may be many reasons to vote for one candidate over the other, but please don't fall for the "Gore is brilliant and Bush is stupid" line as a factor in your decision.
--
The president need not know anything of ecconomics to run the country when he has capable assistants who can do the job.
Respond to s
Well if we want to base our Callandear on the supposed birth date of Jesus Christ, the end of the Cent happened in 1996. Because the Callandear we currently are using was declared around 300AD by a ruler who guessed the birth of Jesus 4 years off from where historical evidence points it to be.
And even if 1AD was Jesus's birth, we should be good C programmers and count from 0 anyway.
And should time really be based on one religion's views? (suppose it's too late to change it now)
I know this is barely relevant, but I get so annoyed when people who claim the new Cent starts on 2001 think they're so smart.
I feel better now.
It's turtles all the way down.
it will in fact bring about a stronger economy due to the fact that rather than having money tied in up in charitable foundations, it will be in more liquid forms, mainly equity.
/. readers) would appreciate it. And I don't mean it in a sarcastic way at all.
IANAnE(conomist) but why would money be "tied up" in charitable foundations? I would think that such money would be spent doing something, anything at all (even in the case of inane foundations like, say, "Save the Roasted Porks of Alabama Foundation").
Maybe it only happens here in Mexico, but when people with tons of money decide where to keep it, most of the time they end up investing it in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands or something like that.
Of course, I could be wrong, since I only took Economics I at college, so if you could explain your point in more detail, I (and probably a few other
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
There are several ways of responding to this without giving the wealthy a tax cut. Perhaps cracking down (via tax law) on companies like Microsoft and Cisco, the porportion that the wealthy pay would go down. And before anyone decries the horrible taxing regime placed upon the rich today, please consider that several decades ago (60s? 50s? Can some older /. readers indicate when?), there was a fifty percent tax bracket. What frightens me most is how much popular support there is for regressive taxing schemes (like a flat tax).
The money in charitable foundations is not "tied up" at all, but is used, for example, to pay salaries to researchers, purchase equipment, rent buildings, and so on.
This is placing real, maximum-liquidity cash money directly into the economy - an even better thing as far as this student is concerned.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Well, for one thing, I utterly reject the silly platitude going around that says the republican and democratic parties are just the same. What hogwash!
Thank you. Last time I brought this point up on slashdot, I was shot down by people who find it easier to group the parties together than actually follow the issues. And I have to agree about Ralph Nader; I'll probably be voting for him because my state seems a lock for Gore, so he doesn't need my vote, and I'd like the Green party to get matching funds. But I haven't been impressed by Nader as much as I would like to be, and if the race was close where I live I doubt I'd vote for him.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
It will be really interesting to see how a really intelligent president will handle things. Clinton's brilliant, but not in a geeky, policy-oriented way, and the last few presidents before him have ranged from moderately intelligent to downright dim. The other comment (besides the both parties being the same one) that always annoys me around election time is the charge that the President "shouldn't be too intelligent" because it will somehow limit their leadership ability. That's a particularly ridiculous claim, and one of the last vestiges of a thread of anti-intellectualism that's run through our country for too long. Gore was blasted for "talking down" to us during the debates; if you're going to avoid voting for someone because you don't like him to express his knowledge, then you deserve the President you get. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't, but we still get stuck with them.
--
There are two interesting & contradictory forces at work here.
One is the general belief (I think) of most of us that people should be free to succeed based on their own merits. If I come up with a briliant idea, work my ass off and build an amazing company, then I don't think anyone will mind me getting rich at it. In this sense, schemes like a "progressive tax" that attack the successful seem Un-American.
On the other hand, there is another fair concern about excessive power (and power is at least proportional to money, if not equal) resting in the hands of a small minority. Those of us outside that circle are wary of "them" unfairly dominating the opportunities (ala the Russian oligarchs).
What can we do? Well, I hope that some good economists are working out what the actual "answers" to these problems are, and more importantly what the actual FACTS are. Meanwhile, I admit having some sympathy for the inheritance tax. Essentially it can be used as a generational 'RESET' button (only less severe) to force every person that wants to be rich to work for it and earn it on his or her own. In fact, in its current form it hardly seems to even be forcing that, so how can it be considered such a great evil?
On the other hand, a flatter income tax would seem more fair to the living. This is particularly true in my case, as all these "targetted" tax cuts seem aimed at other people. The complex tax code attempts to influence personal policy, which seems an excessive intrusion by the government. Does it really make sense that people receive a tax break just for having more children? Why do we want more people in the world?
Irritating.
Milo
Where do you think charitable foundations keep their endowments? Under a mattress? It's in equity and bonds.
Two scenarios:
1. Rich man dies. Passes equity, property to son, who promptly spends the rest of his life partying and frittering away the wealth his father acquired.
2. Rich man dies. Equity, property is sold to some other rich man. Money obtained is used to set up charitable foundation. Note that the equity, property is not "destroyed" but is in fact in better hands than in scenario 1.
So in which scenario does society benefit more?
Would this be kind of like how Microsoft and Cisco are paying so much higher taxes than everbody else?
Oh wait! that's right the percentages you have are BEFORE THE TAX BREAKS that damn near aleviate all their taxes.
Did it seriously never click in your head that most of the tax breaks you ever hear about benifit the top 10% the most?
It's not the potential for what they could pay that counts, it's what they actualy pay.
I am willing to pay taxes for military, schools,
property tax (pays indirectly to military twice),
and charitable organizations.. and no I don't want a tax cut for "giving money away". I think what I understand of what Bush is saying, is that I earned the money, I should be smart enough to know how to spend it. If I came from the poor and became rich, and all of a sudden turned on the poor, then there is something wrong with me, not the rich in general. The govt should not decide who or what I spend my money on. I should pay taxes for the things mentioned above, and for roads and highways to be kept in shape etc, for the local police, and the police of my state.. actually.. thats what I'm willing to pay more of my money to. Not welfare, or social security that I won't see. If I choose not to use my social security.. then why make me ? what if I die before I turn 65 ? Where does the social security go ?
does my family get the social security that I already paid for ? There are plans out by Clinton, that would TAKE my property away when i die.. what about my remaining family ?
consider the money stored in charitable foundations. Typically those are setup as true "foundations" according to the law, and that involves a couple of things:
The foundation must spend a certain percentage of its assets every year. This usually means funding programs, which employ people, who spend more money, etc. This ends up having the same effect as government spending, which is probably the biggest promotor of growth in an otherwise stagnant economy. If you build a wing on a library, you have to hire people to build it, design it, clean it, buy books, etc.
The foundation invests the money it hasn't been spending in order to maintain the foundation. While this money isn't then used actively, it has the same money multiplier effect as if I just sat there and invested on ETrade.
Now consider someone who just sits there on his money. If they're really serious about wealth protection, it's in bond funds, money markets, annuities, etc., which are all probably in some offshore country (switzerland, Luxembourg, the Caymans, etc.). This has some money multiplier effect, but less than spending a large portion of it every year, and is probably less likely to help than maintaining the endowment of a foundation, because it's being held elsewhere in low-yielding investments.
I'm not arguing for a tax-the-rich policy. I think that it's largely wrong to overly tax inheritance, and the example of France shows that it just transfers money to corporations (look at family wineries in France....there are very few of any size remaining, because the inheritance laws encourage sell-offs to corporations and require splitting the land if you have multiple children). That's not very good either.
But don't say that having scions just holding all money is a positive economic effect. Your high school economics class may have taught you something, but obviously not THAT much.
Non-profits are good for helping disadvantaged people pull themselves up out of that bottom part of the pyramid to make the diamond shape real.
Too many people are emphasizing the health of the economy over the health of the populace. There needs to be a balance.
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
...and so you won't hear me wailing about how unfair it is that they pay 1/3 or even 1/2 of all taxes.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Hey, anyone on slashdot have David Brin's email address? He's always been a man I wanted to communicate with. Mostly, I think, to explain my love/hate attitude towards him. I need some closure on this.
;) ) And here he's giving me reasons to hold my nose and vote for someone, when I'm so far planning to not even vote because of how depressing the choices are this election.
It started in '92 when I met him at a sci-fi con. I'm a physicist who wants to write; he's a writer who learned physics. (Or so he told me then.) I was annoying, I admit, following him for about half an hour asking how one could do both physics and sci-fi at the same time. And he eventually rebuffed me as I deserved. After reading Startide Rising and Sundiver, see, I was just another worshipping fanboy, and although he was polite he did remind me that he was just human and I should get a life.
Then came what I call the 'political' era of Brin's writing, and I lost some interest in him as an author. Still a good thinker, though. After the IMO failed stories of his last trilogy, I find myself still reading Brin for his political and opinion pieces. I lost taste for his writing, even though he's the man I wanted to emulate...but I'm learning more from him now than before.
Now I'm a bit older, a bit wiser, I have a life and I've had one story published so far. (I'm planning on more, but I'm in no rush. I too shall one day spawn a trilogy or three.
It's an interesting cycle I'm in with David Brin. I act childish, and get kicked in the ass. I grow up. I act childish again, and get kicked in the ass again. Pardon me, I think it's time I registered to vote.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
1. The economy is not as stable as most think. It fluxes more and more each day, and is becoming unpredictable. A loss of confidence could cause problems, as could numerous other things.
2. If it keeps up, we might have a recession or depression, depending on the severity of the economic downturn.
3. It requires a smart man to steer a troubled economy.
4. Bush is not a smart man.
Any questions?
---------
I have Slashdot as my homepage. I am not sure this is going to last much longer.
If indeed they are paying such a large slice of the pie than I say great!
The top 10% make more money than the bottom 90% combined! Just think, the assets of the US's two richest people match the combined assets of the bottom 25%!!!
.sig: Now legally binding!
Well, it seems that Katz bashing and M$ bashing have been pushed aside in favor of something new: Republican bashing!
In all seriousness, folks, this piece goes pretty far (okay, VERY far) past moderation. Yes, most politicians are not the brightest of folks. Yes, they're mostly not geeks. But they are charismatic, and that's why they make good front men for the ideals behind them.
Probably the MOST disturbing idea in the above nonsense, for me at least, is the idea that the wealthy owe proportionately MORE to the country, simply because they've done well. If you're a failure, society will pick up the bill for you. If you're doing all right (read: middle class), society wants some back. If you've come up with something truly interesting, and are making big bucks, society will grab everything it can, and try for more. This leads to convoluted tax code, as the wealthy find it FAR cheaper to pay lots of lobbyists than to pay the taxes they might otherwise owe. As to inheritance tax: the constitution forbids double jeopardy: the government isn't allowed two bites out of the apple, in criminal matters. But inheritance tax gives them (at least) two HUGE bites out of the financial apple: this money is taxed when it is earned (income tax), taxed as it grows (capital gains tax), and taxed AGAIN after you die, and want to leave it to your kids (inheritance tax). And we wonder WHY people try to hide money overseas??
Elloquent, well-structured nonsense remains nonsense.
Well, maybe flunking isn't all that important, but as a simple point of comparison it definetely asks for some consideration. And if bush's "promised" plans are stupid, yet gores are not, I do not trust this persons ability to think in a scientific manner.
The "have seen the light" about welfare reform is a semi-accurate statement. On one hand, we have the administration vetoing and opposing reform earlier, yet more recently began to give in. Good for them... well, actually good for everyone. On the other hand, we have the promises of welfare and social security reform in 1992, yet the only things that have happened have been opposed by clinton/gore and other democrats. It seems to me, that along with all the other broken promises of all politicians, people would not be so taken and led by words.
If one is a scientist and wishes to study what has worked and what has not (effects) than it would behove one to not listen to the words as much as the underlying meaning and plan. I can say I will make pigs grow wings and fly, but until I either show you a plan, or a prototype flying pig... it is just words. Plus, if in the past I have made many such promises, (not to mention that at the same time promised to another group that I was against genetic manipulation of animals) but not delivered, then that sets a record.
Also important is to remember that a beaurocrat is a beaurocrat, whether in government or business. The difference is that government beaurocrats enjoy a lack of accountability. If a business hurts you, you can sue for reperation, and maybe even press criminal charges. Not with the government, most of it anyways.
Then again, if the media told everyone that bush was a child molestor, people would believe it. Sheep. Some sheep have degrees, some have high paying jobs, but most are just sheep. When people judge one candidate on a basis, then don't judge another on the same basis, then that shows a lack of logical thinking and using a logical process. If someone supports gore, fine.... don't make justifications and excuses for his incompetence, dishonesty, and sleaziness. Same with bush or any other.
Politics and the american public remind me of football. Supporters of one team will always call "unfair" if the ref makes a call against their team, no matter what the instant replay shows. (ego is a very strong thing) Yet, 15 minutes later will jump up and shout WOOHOO if the ref does the same thing to the opposing team. They justify that as being fair and balanced. I guess I consider myself a ref, not a fan. And right now I see both teams wearing very similar jerseys. However I have noticed a lot more fouls and cheating on one team. Being the ref, I don't make excuses for either one, but I sure get annoyed at the fans who are so one sided.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
As for Gore's favorite line about Bush's tax cuts
giving more money to the Richest.. simple math.
I pay 1000 in taxes,
you pay 100 in taxes.
now we both get 10% back of what we paid..
who gets more back ? and who still paid more in taxes ?
The math isn't too hard is it ?
This is a question that I've long pondered. To me it doesn't seem right that just because you make more money that somebody else, means that your required by law to pay more taxes, per dollar than somebody else.
Think about it, why should net income be a deciding factor regarding in income taxes? What is wrong with a flat tax rate, of say 20% across the board. Everybody will end up paying their share of the costs of running government.
Of course in this country nobody wants to talk about fair or equality. It comes down to class warfare. The middle class envy the wealthy for being wealthy, and they feel that they should have to pay a greater percentage of taxes for being wealthy, almost as a form of punishment for being finanically successful.
Consider if somebody who made, for example $1 million dollars a year, and the IRS takes, $300k of that, their ends up being $300k of money that cannot circulate back into the economy. Now if he was given a tax break of say 10%, he now has $100k extra to invest into various business ventures, purchase of goods etc. $100k can easily pay the wages of 2 middle class workers. Yes, I know basically what I'm pointing out is trickle down economics, which in my opinion does work. I think a lot of our economic prosperity it due to the policies of the Reagan/Bush administrations. How you ask? Well economic policies don't affect the economy over night, sometimes it can be a matter of years before the changes work through all levels of the economy. Notice that as we come to the end of Clinton's 8 years in office, the economy is showing signs of slowing. Perhaps this could be the result of 8 years of Clinton economic policy?
I guess we'll all decide in just a few weeks now how we feel about the issue....
That's an impressive article, I would like to see it in a distributal form with stats and whatnot that I could take to all those places downtown with the "prayer for Bush" flyers and give them some mindshare competition.
Hmm, maybe I will just write one, I think this could have done alot better without the fluff.
-Nathan
-- is waiting for someone to suggest this whole thing could be done so much better on BSD.
...didn't work too well under Reagan
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
There's a reason that we discuss economic theories, because the social world is too complicated to be determined by mathematics alone.
IMHO, the greatest problem with eliminating the inheritance tax is that is will most likely lead to focusing money into discrete groups in society. These groups may not always have the best ideas on how to make money with their money, and it may be poured into bad investments.
The best way to increase available capital is clearly to increase the flow of money throughout society. Inheritance tax is one way to increase that flow by redistributing it from a highly concentrated segment (the extremely wealthy) to other segments.
-- Bird in the Bush: The Renewable Energy Blog http://www.birdinthebush.org
The idea of an inheritance tax is supremely unfair. Were not taxes already taken out of the money when it was first earned? Now when a person dies and they want to give their kids the money, its none of our business how much money! The money is then taxed again? How is that fair? So long as a person makes their money legally then it is none of our business how much he makes. Just because he makes a lot of money does that mean he uses the roads more often the I do?
Another thing, the letter seems to imply that because Gore is pro-choice that women must therefore be on his side. This is simply not the case. According to a poll conducted by NOW (The National Organization for Women) 52% of women describe themselves as pro-life. This is an issue that is always assumed to be drawn along gender lines, but its not! The evidence shows that its not.
If I was to do a poll based upon the buttons that I see then I would think that Nader has overwhelming support by women. I've seen several women on my campus wearing Nader/LaDuke buttons.
I do not support Nader because I disagree with him on a lot of issues. But if I did agree with him more than I do with Gore I would vote him. In many ways are sacrificing your voice if you vote against your beliefs for the sake of winning immediately. Look, if Nader gets more than 5% he has serious potential to grow. If Gore or Bush are elected very similar paths will be taken with regards to the very weighty issues like Foreign Policy and increasing the welfare states' money handed out. Whereas Buchannon and Nader have pledge to pull all of our troops out of Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan, etc. Plus B & N have radical new ideas for recreating our economy. Personally I don't like their ideas but if you do and you want your opinion paid attention to then for heavens sake, vote for who you agree with most! Anything else may help you win immediately but you will lose in the long run.
Let us examine your argument that "Death tax destorys capital". Irregardless of wether or not you think that these farmers in question have to sell their land, do you honestly think that selling their land is "destroying their capital"? For one, them selling their land merely means that someone else now has land (more capital for someone else!). Now, suppose these fictional farmers can't support their farm becuase of the inheritence tax. So they sell their farm. I bet they make a hefty sum of cash (liquidifying their capital). THERE IS NOTHING PREVENTING THEM FROM BUYING ANOTHER BUSINESS. So suppose they do buy another business. What do we have then? Capital->Cash->Capital! Minus some money out for taxes, of course. My point being, just selling land does not "destroy" capital. Capital can be bought and sold, sometimes for a profit, sometimes for a loss, but that's just the way the market works. The only way to "destroy" capital is 1. through depreciation (that's an entirely different book alltogether), and 2. bad investments (i.e. investing in a company that tanks, another subject that should have its' own book alltogether)
Um... you can't DESTROY capital with taxes. The Government SPENDS all it's money every year. It goes to contractors and employees and other groups.
It gets redistributed. Trickle down, remember? Just think of the government as another big business.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
Well, as a French guy, I can assure you that the inheritance tax in most european countries is absolutely staggering. In France, it's 33% (yep, one third). Inherit a $90,000 appartment? You owe the taxman a cool $30,000 plus various notarial fees (for appraisal). Generally, you end up selling it at a fraction of its value. No buyer? No big deal, the State just confiscate it.
So, According to Mr. Brin's reasoning, this ought to be a mighty powerful incentive for charity, right? Wrong: Charity donations per inhabitant in Europe are well below the US level, even after adjustment for GNP ratio.
The real incentive of the massive US donations seems different. It might be that the European non-gouvernmental charities are lobbying for subsides and are getting it from governments, and don't waste time on raising funds from individuals. It might also be a different tax dedu ction structure, which makes tax-lowering through donations much more efficient in the US than in Europe.
So I am afraid that Brin's whole line of reasoning is built on faulty assumptions and faulty data.
Disclaimer: I don't vote in the US, obviously, but I hate to see a "scientist" throw hogwash to defend a political agenda.
--SysKoll
P.S. Also,we all know that Hemos is a frippin' liberal already, don't we :-) ? So this feature is pretty useless.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Interesting read. But the choice between Gush and Bore is misleading. The only way anyone with good ideas will ever get into the office is if A) a miracle happens or B) the alternative parties build up brand recognition over time. And the only way B can happen is if good citizens like me vote for them.
So to those who won't vote for Harry Browne, I say: kiss my Harry Browne butt!
Screw lawyers and economists (whoops, sorry hawk), what we need for setting policy are philosophers, who think in terms of right and wrong. That eliminates the need for an economist, since the first thing a philosopher would do would be to make the government stop having so much control over the economy. ;-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I love it. I'm not the worlds largest fan of David Brin (I don't dislike his works, but he's definitely not my favorite) but he writes a really good 'rant' here.
While it may have been pointed at as a bit of a rant, it's very well thought out. I can't agree with all of his points, but you know, it would be nice if all of the candidates had advocates as good as this. It's thought provoking, a good plea for votes, and generally some really good stuff that's probably going to stick in /.'ers heads for quite a while, probably all the way to the voting booth.
I'm NOT a fan of Al Gore, and I'm sure as hell not a fan of Bush. I haven't decided for sure who I'm going to vote for, but, I know that this essay will probably pop up in my head just before I vote. I wish I had David Brin's email address, just so I could send him a thank you for such a cool piece.
Is this news for nerds? Probably not. Is this a hard, factual article? Not really - it falls under the 'emotional plea' area in many ways. Is this something that should happen more often on /.? Damned straight. I'd love to see more stuff from literate, intelligent, and high profile people like this. I'd probably email CmdrTaco and say just that - but I know it would get lost in all the comments and story submissions ;-)
Ok - I'm done patting David Brin on the back, and done praising /. for now. Actually, no I'm not - lets see more works like this on /. Stuff that really works the brain, instead of the normal /. stories. This is a good direction for /.
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
This theme crops up on /. once in a while and it is nonsense.
You simply can't have politically neutral taxes, no matter how fascinating your algorithms are. For instance, here in the UK we have an income tax. The proportion of your gross salary which goes in tax increases as your earn more.
That might seem reasonable enough, and I reckon that even I could hammer out a suitable algorithm but some conservatives oppose taxing that way. They wouldn't accept those alogrithms.
A few years ago the conservatives gave us a flat rate tax where everyone from cleaners to the Prime Minister paid the same amount of money, regardless of their wealth. Can't ask for a simpler algorithm than that.
To say that it didn't play well would be an understatement. There were full scale riots before it was repealed.
Two approaches, both vigorously resisted by groups which, in different ways, are very powerful. Is your algorithm going to produce flat or gradulated taxes? Either way, there's going to be some serious moaning.
My point is that taxation policy is always going to be "political". Technology won't stop that. There will always be debate and there will always be calls for reform.
All this "politically neutral" stuff just gets on my nerves. Strange how you never hear poor and homeless people saying that politics is over and we can happily take money out of politics.
It is just lazy, short-sighted and complacent.
> it will in fact bring about a stronger economy due to the fact that rather than having money tied in up in charitable foundations, it will be in more liquid forms
Ah, I see that the "Trickle Down" philosophy is still current among Republicans.
After all, everyone knows that "5417 runs down hill", so why shouldn't money, too?
A convenient myth, if you need to justify handouts for the rich.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One of the major difference spotted Alexis DeTocqueville in Democary in America noticed between the United States and Europe was the inheritance tax, which prevented all the wealth and power of the nation from being accumulated by a small minority. This was in the early 1800's. The inheritance tax is still very important today as it prevents the accumulation of wealth over generations by a very few people. It is also the cause of a huge amount of charity as Brin points out.
The question posed by some in response to this open letter is would America be better off without the inheritance tax. If you believe that completely laize faire capitalism is the solution to everything then, yes you probably don't want the inheritance tax, or any other tax for that matter. However America's economic system is far from completely laize faire. There are the patent office and the anti-trust laws for example.
If you believe as most everyone that the government should collect taxes and help the economy, then other arguements for the inheritance tax apply. What would happen without the inheritance tax? First charitable giving for things like libraries would go way down. The strength and stability over generations of the extremely weathy would assured. Would the decreased tax burden on the wealthy help the economy? Under standard economic theories increasing the savings rate helps the economy, but so does investing in infastructure (buildings and libraries) so it is not clear how much the economy would stand to benefit with the change.
the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes.
Well, of course they are. They're richer, therefore it is inevitable that they will pay more tax. Even if everybody paid tax at the same rate, the top 50% would pay more than the bottom 50%.
Quark
--
I've got green eyes, red hair, and I'm left handed. A hundred years ago, I'd have been considered in league with the De
The richest 1% controls 80% I don't know about you, but to me that's pretty messed up.
This money, of course, disappears into the ether, never to seen by society again. What people do not, unfortunately, realize, is that morality has nothing to do with economics. When the son is "frittering away the wealth his father acquired," that is A Good Thing. Who is getting this wealth he "fritters away"? The poorer people he has to pay for products and services. Thus, more people are gainfully employed, rather than recipients of the largesse of a charitable foundation.
So, in response to your question, society benefits more from the first scenario.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
As for Brin's "rant", it just seems to be more liberalist crap. He's just perpetuating the liberal notion that it's the government's money, not yours, and even if it was yours, the government knows best how to handle it. Never mind that for inheritance taxes, they are taxing income and goods that have already been taxed. Never mind that the government should be in no way whatsoever entitled to get up to 50% of someone's equity and goods and such just because they died and wanted to pass it on to their offspring.
This makes the flat tax idea seem a great one. Bring on the flat tax, remove the marriage penalty and the inheritance tax (it bothers more than just the rich ya know, though some people wouldn't want you to know that), and dammit, tax EVERYONE equally (that's the way percentages work).
hey, who knows. Giving the government less of our money to work with might be the single most effective way at reducing government.
This is impossible on its face. Every complication was put there to serve some political special interest; removing any of them is inherently a political decision.
More fundamentally, even the simplest replacement (e.g. zero taxes up to X income, then Y% of everything above that) requires a determination of X and Y based on a political decision between appeal to envy (set Y high to "soak the rich" and set X at upper-middle-class level to avoid hitting the bulk of voters) and appeal to fairness (set X at a lower-middle-class level to spread the load as widely as possible while protecting people who really can't afford to pay, set Y at the minimum necessary level to fund the government).
The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
True. Too bad Brin doesn't apply this principle consistently, noting that the power of the people in government office increases with both the total amount of taxes levied and the amount of discretion applied in who shall be made to pay what amount.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
do yourself a favor: stop tossing around "liberal" like some kind of insult, making yourself sound like a mindless dittohead. your argument is reasonable but you sound like Yet Another Angry White Male with your subject line. it's just become too common a pejorative term among said AWM's without two brain cells to rub together to produce a spark of truly independent thought. i'll avoid using "right wing" for the same reason. deal?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
First, its nice to have someone who can actually articulate an argument writing for Slashdot for a change.
I must firmly disagree with David Brin. I have seen and read countless articles on the inheritance tax the last couple of years and plenty of cases of small business's wiped out because the children couldn't pay the tax and keep the business. In fact here in San Diego several years ago, a large popular local bank, San Diego Trust and Savings Bank sold out to a big Bank chain because they couldn't figure out how to pass on the bank to the kids without being killed by the taxes.
Much as I love David Brin's novels, I find his political analysis to be shallow.
... the Al and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story... that Al Gore discovered the Love Canal problem... that the greatest national security threat is the automobile (form Algore's book)...
He says he is not advocating class warfare, and then does exactly that. He objects that Bush's tax cut gives back a disproportionate amount of money to the top 1%, but seems to ignore the fact that those people are paying an even more disproportionate amount of taxes. Even Bush's tax plans make the tax system *more progressive* (and thus, in my opinion, more unfair to those who strive to achieve and be rewarded for it).
He decries social engineering, and yet supports a candidate who will use the tax code to do exactly that. Every time the tax code gets more complex ("targetted tax cuts") the government engages in more social engineering, more programming of our choices, and thus reduces our individual freedoms.
He also doesn't seem to realize that since the end of income averaging, the tax code taxes many more "rich" people who are just happen to get a bunch of their income in one lump sum, and thus hit a very high tax rate. For example, if you trade some of your salary for equity, then when you finally cash in on that equity, you will be "rich" as far as the tax code is concerned, even though you may end up with no more money than someone who took the money as salary and payed less taxes than you did. It has happened to me. And it happens to small business owners all the time.
He is willing to unfairly tax people twice in order to satsify his dubious social policy goal of preventing idle rich kids (not exactly a significant problem in the US, and not because of the tax code) and to encourage charitable giving. Folks, it ain't charity if government extortion forces you to do it. Furthermore, some of the greatest charitable foundations in the country were set up before we had those taxes! And, if you do the math, you will see that the tax hits hardest at those who are the children of the not-very-rich. If your parents have $100 million, and the tax takes $55 million, you can still be an *evil* idle millionaire if you want. But if they only have a couple of million, the tax makes a difference between a retirement cushion for you and not having one! David, you are a physicist... DO THE MATH (DTFM). Do you really believe that Bill Gates set up his foundation to avoid taxes? Carnegie? Ford? How much more money would go to charitable foundations if the government wasn't taking it from people and then redistributing it according to whatever buys the most votes?
And then there is the specious attack on W's IQ. OK - W wouldn't be the top guy at a geek convention, but neither would Algore. If you extrapolate their SAT tests to IQ (which, for verbal SATs is a very good extrapolation), there is only a slight difference, and both are almost two standard deviations above average.Furthermore, there is no evidence that high IQ is correlated with presidential success - just look at Nixon and Carter! Also, it is clear that Gore's "high IQ" has not blessed him with any degree of judgement when it comes to science - his environmental conclusions are not based on science or scientific reasoning, but rather radical romanticism. I'd rather take a solid guy who knows how to delegate over a genius who wlil pander, engage in class warfare, exagerrate his own achievements, make most his income from oil and tobacco while pretending to big their biggest enemies, and in general behave like a spoiled, power hungry rich kid.
And let us not forget who "owns" the democratic party... it is the teachers' unions (who bring us a public school system that consumes more money per pupil than almost any country in the world, and delivers far less educational results than every first world country and most second world countries)... it is the tort lawyers who use the billions of dollars that they got from the tobacco companies to attack the very capitalism that David naively thinks he supports... and who one of these days will get around to going after the software industry (after they destroy the pharmaceutical industry, the auto industry, the chemical industry, the firearms industry, etc)... it is the giant companies that prosper from *more* government regulation... and who use things like extreme environmental regulation to prevent small, less well capitalized companies from entering their field.
If you believe that the tax system should be used to control individual decisions... that the money really belongs to the government and they are just letting you use it... that the government should discriminate based on skin color or other artificial characteristics... that the problem with our schools is that we don't give them enough money or federal control... that Al Gore is a farmer... that Al Gore invented the internet
Sure... vote for Al.
And to those Libertarians out there...
Do you really want a government that believes IT can make the important decisions for you (taxes, who you can hire, what you can do with your land, etc, etc, etc)?
The only good weather is bad weather.
I'm surprised that he could be for Gore and working on a program to simplify/ depoliticize taxes at the same time. I have yet to hear Gore mention tax cuts without prefacing it with the word "targeted". "Targeted" seems to be the antithesis of simple and depoliticize. The only people who get "targeted" tax cuts are those who can afford cpa's to figure them out, not the poor people conned into voting for them.
This is one of thos commonly cited ideas, this notion that because the top 10% pays 1/3 of all taxes, that they're disproportionately taxed, and it's true. They should pay more. After all, they also receive more than 1/3 of the income.
I'm not some money-hating liberal either, I'm a member of the group that I think should pay more taxes.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
There's a reason GWB (disclaimer:yes, he's a moron) is proposing a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans - the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes, by even the most conservative estimate.
That same top 10% also holds more than 50% of all wealth in this country. By that standard, they should be paying 1/2 rather than 1/3 of all taxes.
That becomes especially true if taxation only affects (as it should) disposable income. It is quite unfair to tax the portion of income required to meet the minimum of food, clothing, and shelter. In the modern world, add in transportation and utilities since it is nearly impossable to be employed without those. Otherwise, taxes force inverted values in spending that would be seen as inexcusable at a personal level (A person who would buy fine art with the grocery money probably deserves to go hungry).
Well, yes.
The people who pay the most taxes are going to expect the most benefits. I know the propaganda is that voting gives you power, but it is really the taxes that are the power. When the middle class pays most of the taxes, they own the government. When the rich pays most of the taxes, guess who has control now? Do we really what a government owned by the top 10% of socitey?
What annoys me is that rightist like to say the "economics" is strongly on their side, as if there was any semblance agreement on these issues in the economic community. No, Trickle-Down, give-it-to-the-rich-so-they-invest-more-of-it is far from the only legitimate economic theory. In fact, Trickle-Down had its chance for 12 years, and where did it take us? The biggest recession since the Great Depression (thank you Regan/Bush). Unfortunately economics (or anything else really) is not as simple and concrete as libertarians would like us to believe. The biggest falacy of this system is that this invested money ever "trickles" out of the closed circle at the top of the ladder. The more left leaning ideas that you need to balance the degree of social programs with the amount of capital the rich retain have been proving themselves rather nicely in Europe and in America for the last 8 years.
And before you say it, nobody is raised in a bubble, nobody deserves sole credit for their standing (do you think B. Gates is 100,000 smarter and ingenuitive than Alan Cox?:). We are all products of this great society we have built together, it is not us and them.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
Speaking of nonsense...
...it will in fact bring about a stronger economy due to the fact that rather than having money tied in up in charitable foundations, it will be in more liquid forms, mainly equity.
Since when is equity liquid? How is $6 million more liquid when it's tied up in a plot of land than when it's being spent by a group like the Gorilla Foundation, which is creating hundreds of jobs in Hawaii to build a preserve?
Have you even thought about what a charitable foundation does?
Read the full text my book Perl for the Web
There are many things I like about the "flat tax", but by your argument why does a flat precentage tax make more sense than a flat amount tax? You could take the whole budget, divide it by the population, and send everyone their bill each month.
It's a little crazy, but it would probably motivate the average Joe to show more interest in reducing the size of the government...
-Milo
One of the pillars of Communism, according to Karl Marx, is a heavy income tax. Such a tax implies that the Government has more right to a person's money than that person does. This is like saying that I have more right to your money than you do. If you believe that, send me your CC number.
I believe that we shouldnot only abolish the Inheritance tax, but all direct taxes on income. Such taxes lead to Communism. The only fair way to tax people is with indirect taxes such as a sales tax. Those with more money pay more taxes because, in general, they buy more expensive things.
The Inheritance tax is also a great way for the government to tax me twice. That money is what was left over after I was taxed and now the Governmetn gets to tax it again.
The Constitution provides for equal rights, not equal things.It is people who believe that the Government know better than I do about how to live MY life and spend MY money that are the true enemies of this Republic. (Yes, a Republic not a Democracy. Anyone who tells you that America is a Democracy hasn't done enough research.)
PerlStalker
This is an old argument that is brought up time and time again. The truth is, no body feels bad for the top 10%. Why? Because for the top 10%, living expenditures account of a DRASTICALLY smaller amount of the income than the bottom 50%. The people in the bottom 10% have next to no disposible income.
In a sense, it's a attitude of "pay more if you have more". The top 10% have more, why shouldn't they pay more? We're all citizens here, no? And can they honestly say that they're going hungry becuase of these taxes?
First, you have to actually know what they have enough to uniquely identify it. That may be more difficult than it seems. I can't remember how the registry works, but it isn't that great.
Next, they can arrange the time within reason. You work during the day? How about going to see something 400 miles away from your home at 8am on a Wednesday? Probably not that convenient for you.
Finally, you don't have the right to see it in its proper light or anything. So they can (and have) move a painting from the wall, lay it on a corner of the floor of an unlit barn. You might see it a little, but probably not enough to give it its full mastery.
While I agree with the principle of letting people see the art in exchange for keeping it out of the inheritance taxes, the loopholes have destroyed the spirit of the law there.
Yes, it's entirely possible, even plausible thath they're paying most of the taxes (although I'd like to see some sources there). The important question, though, is "Should they?"
Ask your average American, and I have little doubt that they'll say "Yes." The reason the rich pay most of the taxes is that they can afford it. Let's say we shift it so that we go to a flat tax rate where everyone pays (for example) 20% taxes. Some guy making 7 figures a year will notice it, but only in the size of house he can afford. On the other hand, someone only barely in the double digits will be able to mark it by the number of meals he can have.
I know this is unbelievably naive, but I wish that people could just be good to each other. Christ, so much of this would be handled if people could look past what kind of car they're going to get this year, and whether it's cooler than the one Bob at work got. If people could see past their own greed, it would be obvious to them that making sure others don't go without is in their own best interest. Unfortunately, history is proven that humanity cannot hear the sound of our own demise until it's too late.
BOLLOCKS TO THAT, I SAY.
Get involved, try to make thing better, vote for the person who will make things better for the most people, even if that means you take one for the team. I hear the train rumbling down the tracks, and I don't want to be strapped to them when it gets here. I don't think any of us do.
"This is your world. These are your people. You can live for yourself today, or help build tomorrow for everyone."
He was not reponsible for the script. In fact, DB was a bit miffed at not being given a chance for any input beyond selling the option.
Agree or disagree with Dave's rants, but base them on their own merits and not what Costner did with his short story!
Stefan
Because otherwise there wouldn't be any way to hire people to cook, clean, and take care of the gardens. Would you rather cook for someone else all the time, or have someone else cook for you all the time? How about clean?
Capitalism and the game of succeeding in it is very similar to playing the lottery. Only the ones that win like it, and overall, it's a true scam. The lower income bracket tolerates losing the lottery the vast majority of the time on the pipe dream that they might win one day. People tolerate the idea that others never have to work another day in their whole life based on a pipe dream that they might eventually achieve the same thing. The real winners are the ones running the casino!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's just the way it is. It isn't fair at all, just like the lottery isn't, but people tolerate it much the same. In this case, supply strongly influences demand. We should all be cooking and cleaning for each other.
There certainly isn't a diamond now, and I doubt there ever will be as long as money itself is defined the way it is. Check out "transaction.net" for some ideas about new forms of currency that will lead to a more equitable state of affairs.
"When you think about how many interesting things Cheney & co. could be talking about - like ending the Drug War - you'll wind up holding your nose and voting for Gore. "
Not bloody likely. You'd have to hold a gun to my head to get me to vote for a man who finds lying easier than breathing. Bush may be bad, but Gore is much, much worse. I *do* hope you aren't serious.
On another note, how did this Nader guy get so much press? He's little more than a publicity-seeker; no clear grasp of economics, no real understanding of the important issues. There IS a real alternative: the Libertarian party. If you don't like Bush (and i'm not especially thrilled by him), vote Harry Browne next month.
Well, how many base ten systems do you see starting at 0?
1... 10, 11... 20, 1901... 2000, 20001...
It's not difficult.
I think Brin is on the right track, but at the end he clamps down his conclusion to voting for Gore. Pyramids are bad, diamonds are good, Republicans are demons from hell, therefore be VERY SCARED, RUN and HIDE go vote for GORE. I don't buy it. Lesser evilism has resulted in these stupid chips off the old corporate block for candidates.
As a young woman said after the Madison Square Garden Nader super-rally, in response to the question of why she was voting for Nader:
"I am making a statement that I will no longer compromise"
We have been compromising way too long. Now is the time to take a stand and topple this exploitive and corrupt duopoly.
Don't like Nader? Fine. Vote Libertarian. Vote something other than the status quo, for your own sake. You're screwed either way if you vote for BushGore.
Personally I agree more with Nader's platform, history and experience, and am voting Green. Stop the mentality of lesser evilism. Grab the reigns of your *own* government.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I think you are missing the point. Yes equity is a good thing and much more flexible in the economy then investing in a charities, buuuut that is not the point being made. For thos who break the cap of the inheritance tax by a few mill, instead of flushing it down the drain to the goverment, they send it off to a Charity. (In theory) It looks good for the them and its good for society. Without the tax, people would just sit and hord the money. . .
.It anin't kindess dipping into their wallets.
Do you really think top %10 in the US are naturally that philanthropic .
As someone who has recently started working for the Nader campaign, I can say unequivocally that he is wrong. The Nader Campaign HQ is an almost perfect 50-50 split between the sexes. Furthermore, donations (which I enter into the database, yes, data entry, yes, I'm interested in helping any way I can), are divided similarly evenly between male and female.
There's a reason GWB (disclaimer:yes, he's a moron) is proposing a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans - the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes, by even the most conservative estimate. Even left-leaning economists are beginning to concede that the wealthy are being disproporionately and perhaps unfialry taxed.
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
I don't follow. In your first comment you seem to imply that the wealthy shouldn't be taxed so much. In the second you claim that US policy (presumably tax policy as well) creates prosperity. Which one is it, should the wealthiest be taxed less, or are you saying the system works just fine like this?
--
Actually, the top 1% of wealthiest Americans provide 37% of the US' income tax revenue.
This is the most ridiculous thing about Gore's recent "apples-to-rocks" comparisons: he is comparing Bush's 33% tax cut for the wealthiest 1% (i.e. 12% of all revenue) to Bush's education spending (very likely to be less than 12% of all total revenue), instead of comparing Bush's education spending to his own education spending.
That's a little like me saying "You are clearly more thrifty than I am, because you spend less on Coke in a week than I did on a set of Nordic skis." (Actually, it's closer to "I am deciding to bill for two fewer hours this week, but my cubemate is more responsible because she is buying six cups of coffee every day and working a full week," but I digress...)
I'm not a fan of either of them, though.
WRT the death tax: Why not allow greater deductions for charitable contributions now? Instead of assuming that the recently deceased would rather donate money to universities, libraries, etc. than to Uncle Sam, why not let them do it while they're alive for a tax break? Then they can see the results of their philanthropy, which will (I'll assume) motivate further giving. I paid 42% taxes at my last consulting gig (I'm a grad student now, so I'm paying a lot less....). I would have gladly donated that money and more to impoverished schools, soup kitchens, free clinics or any number of charities instead of sending it to a monolithic federal government.
~wog
Isn't Capitalism trickle-down at it's very core? I have capital, and start a company. If successful I can conduct more business and hire more employees thus creating jobs. That is wealth trickling down no matter how you look at it. Then all of the employees at that company go to McDonald's for lunch thus supporting the people that work there. Seems like this trickle down thing has been working for hundreds if not thousands of years.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
...there's more discussion about this election going on than the media report
:-)'
Hopefully this means people will actually go and vote on election day (or submit an early ballot)
I have forgotten the actual stats from the last election, but I think voter turnout was something like 48% of registered voters. And Clinton/Gore won with between 49 and 53% of the vote. That means only 26% *of the entire body of registered voters* actually voted for Clinton/Gore
In the long run it doesn't matter who you vote for -- GET OUT THERE AND VOTE. (the smaller the turnout the less work "those bozos" (you pick which side you think they are) have to do to win)
While the lesser of two (or more) evils is still evil, it is *less* evil
Oh, and don't forget the big picture this election cycle: A vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush.
-dubber
Your complaints about being offended offend me.
Separately, if the overall level of taxes is generating surpluses, that might be evidence for cutting taxes, and of course cutting them will result in the highest payers getting the biggest cuts, even though they will continue to be the highest payers, absolutely, relatively and proportionately. Supposedly smart Democrats are so dishonest on this point they should be disqualified from taking oaths of office. It's OK to want to soak the rich, but come out and say it.
Brin seems to think that no individuals really own anything. The unstated assumption behind his reasoning is that it's the government (Brin would say society, but it amounts to the same thing in a democracy) who REALLY owns everything, and because of it's benevolence it lets individuals call something their own -- for a time.
Why does Brin find it so unfair that rich kids will, maybe, go to prep schools and will not have to work for a living? Basically, because it's NOT THEIR money. It's the government's (society's) money that their parents were allowed to hold on for a while. But what government giveth, government taketh back, and "allowing to own" is personal and ends at the person's death. I would bet that economics and politics aside, Brin believes that in a really fair and ideal world inheritance taxes would be 100% -- so that everybody starts in the same position: poor. This actually makes some sense in a social Darwinism sort of way, but the resulting world won't be pretty.
A "social" reason Brin gives for maintaining the inheritance taxes is that it forces massive transfer of wealth to charities. And what's so good about that? Charities, especially large ones, are notoriously inefficient and spend a large percentage of their money on supporting their own bureacracy. I am not arguing that charities are useless, but Brin himself points out that Europeans contribute vastly smaller amounts to charity than Americans, and they seem to do quite all right.
In the classic balance of power between the group (commune, society, government) and the individual Brin's ideology falls heavily on the group's side. This is evident from his writings and from this comes his opposition to inheritance, which, after all, over time tends to create powerful individuals which the government sometimes has hard time dealing with.
Am I surprised? No. Do I disagree with Brin? Hell, yes!
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Actually, I know quite a few women who are involved in the Nader campaign...
If you think you should pay more in taxes do you send in more than you owe at tax time? If not then you seam to be talking out your ass.
Why? The top 10% probably consume about 1% of government expenditures for social programs. The consumers of those programs should be supporting them.
Those poor, poor rich folks, in the top wealthiest 10%. They pay more than 10% of all taxes, they pay a full 33% -- isn't that outrageous? I'm sorry, there's a big flaw in your reasoning. The top 10% probably take in 50% of all income (or let's suppose at least). It would be FAIR to make them pay 50% of all taxes. If they pay only 33%, they're paying less in proportion to their income than most tax payers, and that's a benefit they, above all people, DON'T need. The richest 10% should pay a LARGER proportion of all taxes than their proportion of national income.
The primary difference between Reps and Dems, is that Reps believe that people can do things for themselves. Dems believe that people need the government's help to get out of bed in the morning.
Plus, who are you to decide how the rich should spend their money? It is THEIR MONEY. Some rich dude wants to drop 1.000.000.000.000 on his prat son, WHO CARES? It was his money in the first place. If it had been your money, you could decide that it is not right to give it to your punk kid.
I get really sick of people saying that "an enlightened society should do blah, blah, blah..." I have news for everyone... We are NOT an enlightened society. Technical people like us have something others do not have. In the same way, rich people have something the rest of don't have. It is nothing to be ashamed about. And to be totally honest, sure, under W's plan, the rich get a bigger tax break. So what? They paid more money in... there is this thing called "fairness." I mean, geez... so a rich dude gets another $100.000. Sure, that seems like a lot of money to me, but when you are incredulously wealthy, it is a drop in the bucket...
Under the Bush plan, I will get back about $900. BFD. Sure it is nice, but it ain't gonna buy me a new house. The same with the rich dude.. he gets back a hefty sum by my standards, but it ain't all that...
People just need to chill and leave us all alone with our own dosh...
I'm no bleeding liberal, but the original author makes a few good points. Having less money go to charitable foundations is a Bad Thing.
I find Dr. Brin's arguments to be cogent and well thought-out. In fact, I agree with almost every conclusion he has made here, although I do disagree with some of his logic.
I'd like to further thank Dr. Brin and Hemos for a provocative and interesting commentary. ...and I'd like to urge all of the disaffected cynics out there to get off your duffs and vote in November. It might not seem like much, but it adds up....
Okay... so the richest 10% of the nation are paying up to 1/3 of the taxes in this nation... I don't see the problem. If you have huge amounts of money, you *SHOULD* pay more taxes than anyone else. The amount of tax money taken out of a 2-million dollar-per year income *SHOULD LOGICALLY* be ALOT more than the portion taken out of a $150,000/year income.
People who are rich have *every* right to be rich... and the poor people have every right to try to become rich, but with wealth comes other obligations, such as higher taxes.
This article (though indeed over-the-top in some places), was extremely interesting, and I think illuminates some very crucial points, that tend to get brushed under the carpet in all the hullabaloo about the campaign itself...
*-----------*
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Lets looks at some simple arithmetic. I'll grant you that the top 10% pay 33% (or so) of the taxes. That's because they have more than 10% of the wealth. Now if GWB has his way, they'll get well over 50% of the tax cut. By my math, that means that they are getting a tax cut OUT OF PROPORTION to their tax burden. This works to undermine our progressive tax structure. To recap: 50+% / 33% > 1
The reason the rich pay a higher percentage is that life is fairly hard, and a just government will want to fund itself without inflicting unnecessary misery. If someone who earns one million dollars a year loses thirty percent of that to taxes, they've got to cut back a little bit, but someone who loses ten percent of ten thousand dollars a year is going to be in serious pain.
What is this, a Utilitarian position? Could someone more informed correct my reasoning?
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
According to conventional arguments, the richest 10% controls (significantly) more than 50% of the nation's wealth, so how is a mere 1/3 of the tax burden unfair? Besides, even equal percentages on a per capita basis are regressive. I mean, look at buying power and you'll see what I mean. If the tax rate (cumulative, for our purpose - income tax, sales tax, etc.) is a flat 17% on annual income (a la Forbes), then a person who earns $150,000 a year is left with $124,500, while a person who earns $15,000 is left with $12,450. It is impossible to argue that the person with $124,500 is being hit harder than, or even as hard as, the one with $12,450, because his real buying power is still significantly higher. The difference for one is a high-priced sedan, while for the other, it's the difference in rent for an apartment in a safer part of town.
The rich pay the majority of taxes to support the government. But it's that way on purpose. Those who benefit the most from government (i.e. the rich - don't even try to tell me that corporate protectionism and agencies like the FDIC, the FTC, and the SEC don't provide more to the rich than the SSA, Medicaid, and other social welfare programs do to the poor) deserve to pay the heavier share of its taxes.
Right...
How so? The wealthy use far fewer social services. If you look at the government as an organization that provides essential services to parts of the population, the rich certainly partake in fewer services than other segments.
Left shift 1 for e-mail...
Effective writer? Hah! Why does he contradict his own points then?
WRT inheritance tax, he's clueless (probably other things too, but I only skimmed the article) -- the inheritance tax portion caught my eye.
David claims inheritance tax is responsible for the high rate of giving in the U.S. compared to Europe. Guess what? Much of Europe has inheritence tax too.
David showcases Andrew Carnegie as a big giver in this section too. He was. Carnegie gave somewhere around $350 million to charity during his lifetime. Did this have *anything* to do with inheritance tax? NO! Duh...look at the Carnegie quote that David thoughtfully included.
If you want an interesting homework assignment, dig up the tax laws from 1900-1919 and explain how those laws motivated Carnegie to give so much.
--CPRich people paying taxes because they "have" to does not give them influence.
Rich people donating money to parties to influence political decision does (by it's nature) give them influence.
Special interest (good or bad) is a seriously bad thing. I favor a system that requires these groups to convince the people of their plight and get approval through a ballot measure rather than slipping a few prostitutes through the office window of some politician.
They get laid and we get screwed. It may SEEM fair in theory... BAD!!!
by the people for the people... needs a little "gettin' back to".
-Nathan
Back to regressive taxing schemes. You are like that idiot rich bitch on Hardball talking to John McCain who couldn't understand why Daddy has to pay a higher percentage of taxes than the other people she goes to college with whose parents both work and make a total of $40,000 combined.
She doesn't understand that that the extra $200 taken from the poorer family is food money, while the $2000 taken from her dad means she has to drive a Honda instead of the cherry red BMW convertible. OF COURSE her cherry red BMW convertible is more important than $200 in food for 10 families.
Dastardly
Can we get a /. pole on the presidential candidates? I'm curiouse to see what how the geeks are voting. Also, no stupid options like CmdrTaco's mom for once, a serious pole, go figure.
What I don't like about all this pyramid/diamond talk and using as a justification for some particular tax agenda is this: it is all based on the assumption that it's the government's place to redistribute wealth and turn a pyramid into a diamond.
I just don't accept that. I certainly don't see it in the US Constitution, nor do I really see it even implied in Locke's social contract. It's just some wacky idea that liberals have pulled out of their asses.
Whether or not inheritence taxes cause rich people to philothropize, whether or not "trick down economics" work -- these things are irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with why we gave government the power to tax.
Note: I'm not saying I want a pyramid and for a small group to hold all the economic power; I just think that it's immoral for these liberals to pervert the original purpose of government and use its power (ultimately backed by physical force) to try to achieve their (possibly noble) goal. Find some other way to do it.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What the hell does that mean? Listen, I don't normally rant and rave, but seeing something this clueless moderated up this high makes gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies.
How does having money "tied up" in equity bring about a stronger economy? Sure, it helps keep the NASDAQ up, but that's hardly the same thing. A liquid asset doesn't do jack for the economy until somebody liquidates it.
And what gives you the idea that giving more money to the rich will mean more money in liquid assets? Last I heard, statistically, the rich were much more likely to spend money on illiquid assets like country estates, luxury motor yachts, and numbered Swiss accounts than any charitable foundation is.
(You want more money in liquid assets? Fine: abolish the inheritance tax on stocks, and double the inheritance tax on property. I won't stop you.)
What do you think charitable foundations do with their money, put it in a sock under the bed? They spend it. In fact they spend it a lot faster than the rich do. On rent, salaries, goods and services... all those goodies that keep the economy moving. Money given to a charitable foundation is hardly "tied up".
And all that aside, you've totally missed the point of the article.
People having money is not a problem.
People having lots of money is not a problem.
People having money at the expense of everyone else is a problem.
-- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.
They are not benefitting from society. They are benefitting from a combination of their abilities and their existing capital. In some cases, their benefits derive solely from the latter (especially those coasting on inheirited wealth). They receive a disproportionately small amount of benefit in terms of social services provided by the money they pay in taxes.
Without factoring in any social obligation, from a purely economical standpoint, you want to maximize the total output of the economy, and strong top-heavy taxation is an impediment to that, especially when it comes to investing.
This is one of thos commonly cited ideas, this notion that because the top 10% pays 1/3 of all taxes, that they're disproportionately taxed, and it's true. They should pay more. After all, they also receive more than 1/3 of the income.
Ahem. This would be true under a flat tax. However, because USA and most all Western countries have a progressive tax system, the rich pay a higher percent of their income as taxes compared to the middle and the lower classes.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I find myself very disappointed that after arguing that Bush/Republicans are bad, he parlays this into therefore you should vote for Gore. He notes the Libertarians have good ideas, ones worth working for, and uses this as a reason to vote for Gore. Why not vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate then? Or any other candidate other than Bush/Gore? They dont have a chance of winning? Maybe if people voted based on what they thought was right, instead of who they thought would win...
Yes, the rich should pay more than the poor, but only to a certain point - the rich should be treated fairly too. This bolshevik crap that the rich should be taxed to death has been the undoing of most European economies.
To quote Montgomery Ward (back in the good old days of the 1950s, when the top tax rate was over 50%): "I don't mind giving half of my money back to the American people, because I get all of it from them."
It always surprises me that people here are in favor of Gore. It seems to go against most geek theories.
First of all, I think it is useless to talk about Bush vs Gore without talking about the advisors they will surround themselves with. Bush seems stupid, yes, but he also seems like he would listen to his cabinet. Gore seems just intelligent enough to be dangerous to the country, not listening to advisors while charging off on some personal crusades.
That being said, look at the differences between their parties' platforms. IN THEORY the republicans want to distribute the power allowing the states to have more control and the federal government less. This distribution of power seems much more along the lines of what geeks would ask for. Just as OS is all about giving choices in programs, letting states set the laws would give people more of a choice (granted noone really wants to move) and more space to experiment with different approaches. Also, things like school vouchers foster competition for money, just like the OS programs keeping companies on their toes.
Granted Republicans are not entirely consistant behind their ideals (Christian Coalition) but they are there and often do make it into politics.
Even more important for a president, I think Bush would do a better job with foreign policy than Gore. I simply think Bush has the balls to do the right thing with the military to avoid the complete screwups of Clinton. I would even propose that something in the liberal mindset makes them poor commanders-in-chief. I wouldn't be alone in making that proposition, either.
I completely blame Clinton for many things including the price of oil and the slowdown of the US economy. I think Gore is a little more upstanding than Clinton, but even worse in terms of personal agendas. He would just push forward more of Clinton's erronious policies but adding an extra layer of overstated environmental concerns and wussy foreign policy, all of these places Bush would shine in with help from his advisors.
Yes! Democrats are better because they give more support to things like research for the sake of research, but that doesn't outweigh the drop in the standard of living that they bring about. Handle research funding through Congress where it belongs and let's have a president who can keep us from ticking of the rest of the world.
Why do you have to insult people you disagree with? Small minds....
And another liberal myth rears its ugly head! No, being rich doesn't allow you to hire accountants who keep you from getting taxed. The only way you avoid being taxed if you have a lot of income is to do exactly what the government wants with your money. That's what those accountant will tell you. Sure... put it in tax free bonds. But the payout on those bonds is much less as a result... so you are still paying the tax... just indirectly to the bond issuer!
The only large tax break I am aware of that is silly is real estate depreciation. The TEFRA act of 1986, with its passive loss deduction, removed that loophole from the rich - and coincidentally was the true cause of the S&L collapse.
It is a myth that the rich avoid paying taxes by using loopholes.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Quite frankly I never expect to be a millionaire, not that I wouldn't like to though, but I have to say that I think increasing the percent of taxation the more succesful you are does not strike me as a fair and even handed way of acting. I have been a proponent of a flat tax system with no credits or loop holes for quite awhile just because it is a fair way of taxing people. The American way is to work hard and become rich. But nowdays we seem more and more to want to punish the rich for being successfull. And as far as those who have inherited their wealth, well they can thank their ancestors for living the American dream. Bush approaches government with a common sense, even handed ideaology while Gore approaches it with a middle class uprising against the rich. And I don't fit the typical conservative demographic. I'm 25 year old technophile pagan.
it's not longer "news for nerds".
i guess it's now "news for communists who sometime may have heard of linux".
All this tax cut crap drives nuts. The reason the wealthy get such a large $ amount in tax cuts is because they pay the greatest $ amount in taxes. If everyone gets a percentage of their taxes reduced, it stands to reason that the rich will get a little larger $ amount. Even if they said "ok, across the board everyone gets a 2% tax cut." 2% of 500k in taxes is a lot more than 10k in taxes.
For me what it all boils down to is Gore is for big government and Bush is for giving some power back to the states and making people accountable for their own life. For Christ's sake people, this is America. You make your own way in life, and you should take care of yourself. I look at Gore and I see a future where everyone has health care. sure. fine. Ok. everyone, just give the government your money and you will be taken care of. Sounds like a good plan eh, Comrad?
If I just work the government will give me health care. They'll give me a house. They'll give me food. Work for the good of the country.
I believe in an America where your free to do what you want and that includes take care of your own health care. Invest your own money for retirement.
The choice is simple, vote Gore for big government that will take care of you.
Vote Bush if you want to see some of power and some of the accountablity fall squarely on the states and yourself.
The sad fact is, most of America today is content to be taken care of. For heavens sake, don't make me responsible for myself.
There are many taxes we all pay, regardless of our income. These include sales taxes, excise (gasoline, liquor, cigarettes, etc), and don't forget the lottery! A disproportionate amount of poor people play the lottery (read: state-sponsored gambling) which accounts for a great deal of tax money for states.
When you look at the numbers, poorer people pay a much higher percentage of their income towards these taxes.
GWB's idea is broken and it's typical of old-style republican thinking. I'd be all for a candidate who wanted to end our unfair taxation of the poor.
--
Perhaps our socioeconomic profile resembles a diamond, but like a diamond, many believe it to be hard and unyielding. There are signs that the "social mobility" David Brin praises may become an anachronism. Just look up the phrase on Google, to peruse some representative takes on the subject.
For example, from http://www.urban.org/periodcl/update26.htm:
"...she cited one study that indicated that the children of a father whose income was at the 75th percentile of income, had about twice as much chance of making it into the top quintile of all income as the children of a father whose income was at the 25th percentile. Another study found that sons of white-collar fathers were almost twice as likely as the sons of blue-collar fathers to secure upper white-collar jobs."
This view stands in stark contrast to the highly moderated objection to Brin's article that the rich deserve all their capital, because they "earned" it. The point is quite simple, many of them did *not* earn a damn thing. Brin is not disparaging those who have legitimately earned their fortunes; he is lamenting the sad state of affairs that allows prep-school playboys to preside with impunity over vast fortunes, the acquisition of which they had nothing to do with.
There's an interesting an idea I heard once, I don't remember where. The idea is that although the majority of people may benefit from populist policies, many will still favor policy that benefits the rich. Why? Because everyone would like to believe that someday *they* will be rich. Obviously, though, for most, that is simply a sad delusion.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
He is wrong in saying that eliminating inheritance tax will give rise to negative effects in society, because it will in fact bring about a stronger economy due to the fact that rather than having money tied in up in charitable foundations, it will be in more liquid forms, mainly equity.
Society is not the same as economy. Society may not get better because of money being freed up. Granted it should follow, but it doesn't necessarily. Money is not everything. He is right.
Why is liquid money better than money *used* by charities? This makes no sense! What use is a pile of cash floating around when you could help someone that needs it?
thenerd.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.
I am glad to finally see someone publicly stand up for the rational behind the estate tax. I happen to completely disagree with everything that the estate tax stands for, but it is good to have a real argument about the purpose of taxation. Here's a hint, taxes are for raising revenue to cover government expenses. Everything else should be excluded as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is absolutely NO authority in the constitution for the federal government to ensure that a wealthy elite is not formed through inheritance of wealth. There is actually a good argument to be made for this policy, but to carry it out in direct violation of the powers granted to the government is far worse than any social good you might hope to accomplish by confiscating the wealth of the very rich at their death. This is a clear reason to never even consider a vote for Al Gore. His boldly stated intention is to use the tax code to skirt the limitations placed on the federal government by the constitution of the United States. The fact that this is already being done is no reason to endorse a massive expansion of this diminution of our rights as citizens of this nation. Al Gore has already demonstrated contempt for the freedom of the citizenry, and contempt for the rule of law (which starts with the constitution). Why on earth would you put him in the most powerful office in the land? Oh, BTW, if you couldn't tell by my rant, I am a pragmatic Libertarian. (pragmatic meaning that I am no ideologue)
Two corrections, the Cole memo was from the State Department, and that would be "publicly." See! I am a victim of public schools! Who do I sue?
I wrote parts of this stuff
Nor is it a vote for Bush.
It's a vote to get real left wing party established in the US. Nader's platform is far closer to the platform I believe in - but this says more about the Greens than about Nader himself. If I continue to vote Democrat, even as the Democratic leaders do less and less that represents my views, they have no reason to do anything but take my vote for granted. If you never vote for the candidate you want, you will never get that candidate. Period.
In '92 I grudgingly voted for Clinton, in '94 I voted for Nader, even though it was a write in. This year I'll vote Nader so that the Greens might get the 5% needed for matching funds. In 2004 maybe the Green party will have built enough strength to mount an even better campain. By 2008 maybe I'll finally get to elect the kind of candidate I believe in. (The universe ends in 2012, at least according the to Maya calendar, so don't waste another moment - vote for Nader this year).
Any second thoughts I've had are gone after the Illinois Democratic Party pulled all its back handed stunts to try to keep Nader off the ballot. I'm so pissed I'm thinking of sticking to 100% 3rd party candidates. If the Democratic party wants to ignore and alienate their core constituency, they're doing a great job.
Instead, the people who have 1/3 of the wealth pay 2/3 of the taxes. The poor and middle class end up paying twice as much in taxes as the wealthiest of the wealthy!
That's unconscionable, and it must be changed.
There was not only a grain of salt implicit in the fact that a 'major' figure was expressing political opinion, but there was an explicit salt-lick provided in the form of a disclaimer that this was:
I'm no fan of GWB (part of the 'Dick and Bush' party), or of Gore/Liebermann (the Tipper and 'censor Hollywood' party)
Note to those without a sense of humor: those statements are made with tongue lodged firmly in cheek.
There is only one solution: educate yourselves. Do not be fooled by the media. In an age such as this where there is simply too much information from too many sources to be gathered by ourselves; opinion and bias abound. Cross-corralate information, seek other sources, and seek to come up with your own opinion.
Lord knows you're not going to be happy with anyone else's.
I've used resources such as realchange.org in my own research.
My opinion will be expressed with many (fewer than should be) Americans on election day. Until then, pax.
You know, you lost my interest and respect when you repeated the same tired line that the wealthiest 1% will get the largest amount of the tax break. I will repeat this 10 times so you will get it.
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
Get it yet? I don't think it is fair that just because someone earns more then the fellow down the block he automatically has to be taxed more on that income. That is not fair, it is not just, it is wrong. And perpetuating that stupid "Well, they'll get more" $H!T over and over while ignoring the fact that they PAY MORE just pissed me, and anyone with half a brain, off!
Am I in the top 1%? Hell no. Am I ever going to be in the top 1%? Most likely not. But you better believe I'm quite upset that the more I make the less, in percentage, I take home. A few years ago at the start of my career I took home nearly 75% of my income. Now I am making three times as much and taking home only 66%. I'm not taking home three times as much. If I even get another meager raise I'm almost certainly to break into the next tax bracket and take home even less. All because I am getting more and more experience and being more and more successful in my professional career.
IE, the more successful people become, the more we try to pull them back down on par with everyone else. Meanwhile the worse people are the more we try to pull them up with everyone else BY FORCABLY REMOVING FROM THOSE WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL. I'm sorry, that isn't social mobility, that is socialism. Tell me, how can you move from class to class when there ARE NOT CLASSES.
Do I want Bush in the office? Hell no. Do I want Gore in the office? Hell no. What I want is a stop to this BS when it comes to tax breaks to stir the popular vote through FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.
Once more..
THE WEALTHIEST 1% PAY THE MOST TAXES SO CLEARLY THEY WILL GET THE LARGEST BREAK!
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
I am sick to death of all this liberal bullshit. I am tired of republican and democrats pulling bullshit tactics and sob stories on the American people. Government has a few jobs that they don't do very well...
1. UPHOLD the Constitution. Not ammend it and bring their own political slant into the game.
2. Protect our CITIZENS and our way of life as prescribed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
3. Maintain all of the values which this country was founded on... BTW, most of these values were based on a Christian ideal. I am not saying that I am against the seperation of church and state. I am saying that we should do what is right for our citizens and not what is politically correct or popular.
(This also means that if a person follows the Consitution, people are free to do whatever they wish with their bodies...as long as it does not endanger others... The abortion issue is evil...but political suicide to ban.)
4. What is most important is protecting the citizens that this government now holds as a threat to national security. In a true society based on the Constitution, we wouldn't have racial profiling, judges that make policy with judgements, some of the lame ideas like "hate" crimes. Crime is crime and it should be dealt with fairly, swiftly, and with a like punishment. Every crime of a violent nature is a hate crime. One person's death is no worse than anothers. It is equally appalling.
Fuck Bush, and Fuck Gore. They are just the same machine in different suits.
The thought of another democrat being elected and tearing down the rights of the people while building up an even larger, overpowering federal government scares me even more.
Democrats tearing down the rights of the people? You seem to be unaware that the republicans have long been doing a full frontal assault on the first amendment. Just about any law that attempts to circumvent or cancel one of the first amendment freedoms has been sponsored by a republican.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
The inheritance tax simply precludes the timeless/deathless hoarding of capital within privileged families. Your implicit assumption is that class aristocrats are the appropriate ones to have and keep capital.
(Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
But wait! He didn't say, "I don't want the money to go to the government!" He was one of the great philanthropists, but with the estate tax he would have been a tax dodger. What's so terrible about letting someone choose how to spend their money and assets? Where does the mentality come from that says it's wrong to pass wealth along to your children?
I'm not rich, and I doubt I ever will be. But that still doesn't mean I would advocate this kind of socialist redistribution of wealth. I agree that we need to do something about the shrinking middle class problem, but it has to do with a lot more than robbing from the rich to feed the poor.
Actually, it has quite a lot to do with education. Oh wait, that's Bush's first priority. Go figure.
Borogrove
When the son is "frittering away the wealth his father acquired," that is A Good Thing. Who is getting this wealth he "fritters away"?
Consider this: Rich man passes company to son. Son mismanages company, company loses half its value.
Also find out what "fritter" means. To "fritter" means that the money is not wisely invested and put to productive use, but merely consumed.
This money, of course, disappears into the ether, never to seen by society again.
As other posters have pointed out, the charitable foundation invests the money, presumably wisely, and uses some of the proceeds for worthy causes. The same cannot necessarily be said for an heir of no special merit.
No...nobody with any brains make a generalization like that.
Why, who woulda thunk that it was so much easier to rise five percentiles (from 75th to 80th) as it is to rise fifty-five percentiles (from 25th to 80th)?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
After I became a rabid libertarian, I started studying economics so that I could tell whether the libertarians were right.
I concluded that libertarians have a better grasp of economics than the other parties, but most libertarians still miss important issues.
Inheritance is a problem. Capitalism works because it tends to concentrate money and power in the hands of those who know what to do with it (make more money and power). There is no good reason to think their children will be any good at managing that money.
Brinn claims in his letter that US rich give more rather than let the government take is when they die. Sounds about right to me. I have not checked or ask for his source, but I think that is reasonable and true.
I wonder though it his position that the choice is better, the choice you make while you are alive. That is the important part. If the governement was not going to take the money then people might not give?
Maybe there are other reasons that US rich give more than the rich in other countries?
Also an other question? Why not just take the top three percent of the rich's money for "national defence"? After all we take lives in that cause, why not take a little money.
After all we cold use it to cure AIDS and cancer. Why let those people die. That sure does beat letting people make libraries in thier name.
If the slope is slippery, let's slide down it. When is it ok to take people's money? Only after they are dead? Think about it.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Is this really disproportional? I have seen statistics (you know, the things you "LIE" with) that put as much as 90% of the US's wealth in the hands of less 1% of our population. If this is true (and I know we may never REALLY know if it is) then I feal it isn't.
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
Or not.
Lets remember that the USA is the ONLY true capitalistic republic on the planet (that I know of, and don't get me started on the use of the word "Democracy" in reference to a Republic). Every other economic powerhouse country uses either a form of economic socialism coupled with the republic form of government, or use capitalism under a non-republic form of government. Each of the other forms have built in limits to keep the wealth in the hands of only a few. Our form of economy/government doesn't have such limits (yet).
I would say that rather than being a result of policy, it is more a fluke. Putting our form of republic together with things like the GI Bill, and our historical "Can Do" attitude provided everything needed to allow for a burst in wealth.
Also, there are other things which factor in to increasing taxes on the wealthy. There's a hidden tax, which is that your deductions are eliminated as your income goes up (starting at around 150k, and bottoming out at 80% 'reduction' at $1M). Also, the tax code increasingly implements tax credits that the wealthy cannot take advantage of. (A good instance, imho, of well directed tax policy. Any tax imbalance that also encourages responsible spending, such as on education, is better than random tax cutting).
And I believe the high tax brackets ran at least thru the 70s into the Reagan administration, which was the one that cut the top bracket to 39.6%.
Still, consider the tax bill on $500k:
36% effective federal rate (some taxes at 39.6, some below, that's roughly the average)
9.1% state (this is California)
2% social security (I'm estimating there)
2% property taxes (based on 1% prop tax on a $1M home)
2% sales taxes (obviously dependant on what you buy)
Now, on top of all these taxes, they get half their itemized deductions removed (1/2 credit on charitable donations, 1/2 on mortgage interest, etc). They can't save into tax advantaged plans beyond a employer (probably themself) sponsored 401k. And, most of all, they can't take advantage of tax credits of any kind. When you add up the tax credits for dependant children, etc, etc, most of the bottom 1/3 of income earners in the US pay no income tax at all. They usually only pay sales tax and social security (plus miscellaneous fees like, say, auto registration, which is based on car-value in many states, such as CA).
*=> Now comes along George W. Bush with his grand plan to "cut taxes" in a manner that blatantly gives fully half of the benefits to the richest 1%. Delaying the payoff of our grandchildren's public debt for a decade, he'll use most of the budget surplus to achieve such wonders as completely repealing the inheritance tax.
Humm, if the richest 1% of the American people pay more than 50% of the income taxes then shouldn't they get more money back? After all, if its an accross the board tax cut (i.e. everyone gets a 10% tax cut) then those that pay more should get more back (or pay less as the case may be). 10% of $20,000 is more than 10% of $2,000
Kent
BULLSH*T! This guy is full of it. The assumption that government or anyone else is somehow entitled to my money is absurd. The problem with all this moralistic whining about how the rich wont pay enough in taxes is first based on a mathmatical distortion and second just utter bs because it IS MY MONEY! Not theres. I earned, its mine and where the hell do they get off taking it for an array of programs whose principles while good are skewed by horrible execution. Maybe if government had a success rate above 1% (barring the military) it would be better, but they dont. And they have the gall to whine about how the rich will get the biggest cuts. In dollar terms they are right, in PERCENTAGE TERMS they are WRONG. The rich will still shoulder the vast majority of the debt. But okay, maybe the rich do get off a little too easy. Gore on the other hand decided he is going to dole out OUR MONEY based on social engineering for a set of principles which includes military tech transfers to China. It isnt his to decide who is worthy and who isnt. ITS MY (and your) money. Where the hell is he coming from.
Brin seems to be saying that real freedom in the U.S. started in the middle of the twentieth century. Actually, individual freedom (the only kind that really matters) decreased during the century, especially during the latter half. Though necessary to provide freedom from foreign control, Government is the natural enemy of individual freedom. The U.S. government is already much larger than it needs to be, so let's not vote in someone that explicitly likes big (and bigger) government.
Yes, I know, he's got a lot of personality flaws. He may infact even be off his rocker. OK, so I concede that. Having lived under Reagan and not died, I know that it is possible for the US to survive a president who is off his rocker. It's long term things that concern me, and Nader's arguments are about long-term consequences of current policy, and I largely agree with him (and with Brin). If anybody else would raise the issues that Nader raisses (or even concede that they exist) I would gladly consider changing my vote. Here are the issues I worry about. 1) It is one world, and on a world wide scale, we do have a pyramid, (not diamonds) and it's getting worse. Substitute "corporations" for "aristocrats" in Brin's mail, and you can update what he says about the 19th century to 21st. Go to Indonesia and see if you don't agree with me. I fear corporations for the same reason that that great old free-marketeer Adam Smith feared them centuries ago, and corporations were much weaker things in those days. I fear that simmering class warfare could get very hot indeed, and it will be a worldwide phenomenon, not a USA-localized thing. 2)The good things that Brin celebrates in our (USA) political environment came about because our democracy has more or less worked. Recent trends that cede our sovereignty to things like WTO threaten our ability to control our own destiny, and indeed are inimicable to democracy in so many ways that I can scarely think about it. Nader and Buchanan are the only candidates who agree with me on this one. 3) Like Dwight Eisenhower, that old lefty, I greatly fear the military-industial complex. Bush and Gore are as one with it. 4) I am very scared that we are evolving into a police state. Every day the "security forces" ask for and recieve more surveillance authority, at the same time that the court swats back the rights of the accused, and at the same time that television celebrates the notion of ceding civil rights in the name of better entertainment ("COPS," "Police Chases," etc, etc.) Therefore I am distraught at the treatment of Nader by the candidates and the Commission on Presidential debates. His exclusion from the Boston debates was worthy of Milosovic, and it was treated with a yawn. (Old timers who were around for Nixon: Can you imagine what a principled person like Eliot Richardson would have done? I cannot imagine that he would have remained silent as Bush and Gore have done). I myself was harrassed and detained by the police at the Boston rally. I am a balding old man who went only to pick up his teenage daughter, not to cause a ruckus, and I was treated worse by arrogant police than I ever was in my travels in Africa. Call me nuts (this is slashdot, I know you'll call me a lot worse than that) but I see signs of fascism wherever I look. 5) I fear the prison-industrial complex, and I fear that as a money-making organism it needs a supply of prisoners, and that is why we have the war on drugs-- to keep poor people (espescially black people) down and in prison. I say this as an old white guy who hasn't smoked a joint in 25 years. I fear the militarization of the war on drugs in south america, because it will consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. 6) I like Patti Smith and Eddie Vedder. Thanks, N.A.
Ultimate Geek NanoNovel: Acts of the Apostles at www.wetmachine.com Fear the Future! Defrock the Infodruids!
Why not allow greater deductions for charitable contributions now?
Just a clarification -- charitable contributions (ie, to churches, universities, libraries, soup kitchens) are already 100% tax deductible. This is an example of government using the tax code to change behavior. We like charitable contributions, so we encourage it in the tax code.
Are you proposing a charitable gift tax-credit of some sort?
What's wrong with socialism? You use it as if it has inherent negative connotations, which it does not.
Please defend this position, because socialism is not antithetical to democracy as you suggest.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Just a small point, but violent gun crime in London looks like a kids fairytale compared to the stuff in the states.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
However, what the rich have over those that don't are numerous tax shelters that they can squirrel away money in and avoid taxes until the so-called death tax.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Let's take a moment to talk about the inheritance tax. While I'm certainly not a Bush supporter, I definitely support the Republican position in this very important area. ALL of the money that is taxed when someone dies has already been taxed AT LEAST ONCE. The person who held the money and possesions that will be taxed again already paid income tax at the very least. That is the first tax imposed by our endlessly obtrusive government. That person also paid sales tax on every item that will be passed on to the next generation. Now the government wants to step in and tax everything AGAIN? I thought that Americans were supposed to be protected (I believe that our government has completely forgotten about the Constitution...or at the very least only see it as an obstacle that needs to be subverted in order to steal more money from hard working Americans) from double taxation. Why should "rich" families be subjected to more taxes than poor people?
It was explicitly stated in the article that there are more millionaire Americans today who earned their money by working for it...not inheriting it...than ever before. You show me a millionaire and I'll show you someone who works twelve to sixteen hours a day. Why is it that these people should have to carry more of a tax burden than anyone else? They are already carrying a huge burden for society...or do you think that the work that they do is only for themselves...that nobody else benefits from the 65%-75% of their lives that they give to their jobs? It's time to give the HARDEST working Americans a tax break. And if it has to start with the inheritance tax...then so be it. They shouldn't have to fight the government for the right to give the posessions that they EARNED to their own children.
The Republican ticket is weak this year. The Democratic ticket wants to grow the government to a size never seen before in American history. Before you go to the booth this year, ask yourself this question: What does the government do that the private sector wouldn't do better? If you needed to get a package to Boston tomorrow, would you send it via Fed Ex or the US Mail? If you wanted to give to the poor, would you give your money to the Salvation Army or a politician?
The only way to fix government is to make it smaller. Don't let Al Gore buy your vote with other people's money. (Yeah...that's right...that money that the government promises to you every year comes from other people...and the government takes it forcibly. The government steals from other people to give you money). George Bush isn't any better than Gore. Robbing from the poor to give to the rich. If the government was smaller...a lot smaller...we wouldn't need to tax ANYONE at the rates that we do now. Between income tax, sales tax, taxes imposed on employers, and other misc. taxes the average American gives 47% of their paycheck to the government.
I know that one of the two large parties will win the election this year. They win EVERY year. But a vote to a third party will send a message to our two champion parties that the voters are not happy with the way Washington is being run. A vote for the Libertarian party is a vote for smaller government, lower taxes for everyone, and a candidate that will actually try to uphold ideas presented in the Constitution rather than trying to subvert them.
At the very least, I implore every reader to do their own research on each candidate before voting. Don't listen to what other people have to say...
The family farm argument is real. My parents own a farm in Iowa that's been in the family for a couple generations. We no longer work it, and it's tended entirely by the neighbors. We split the profit. Anyway, my mom is getting older, and she does the numbers on it regularly. It's not a big farm by any measure, but it will require some selling off to be passed along to me and my brother. With that said, I still support the inheritance tax. I'm doing well enough that the farm money is moot. Bill G's kid will have so many advantages, the billions will be moot as well. Look at George Jr. He's going to inherit the White House. For that matter, look at Al Gore. He inherited the Senate. The dis on Nader is totally unfair. If Nader was elected, he'd put a lot more left leaning justices in the Supreme Court than Clinton's right-of-center, weak on personal privacy and search and seizure puppets. Bush may be an idiot, but Gore is an evil genius who will have us all wearing "national health" barcodes before he's done. Besides, the biggest threat to our "diamond" "democracy" isn't the inheritance tax. It's the complete collapse of our public schools. The poor and middle class are being shafted, and the last chance for meritocracy is being stripped away. Don't even get me started on H1Bs. Both parties hate labor in this country.
Actually, Cuba is officially recognizing this New Year's as the turn of the millenium.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Is it really too much to ask for this guy to at least attempt to find some evidence for his claims?
:-)
I thought Al Gore was an idiot after those debates; at least George W. tried to sound reasonable (except for that "There's got to be a consequence" silliness)l. But this guy makes Al Gore sound like... well... George W.
I'm actually now undecided between Harry Browne or Ralph Nader. The problem is I don't know whether to choose between strict adherence to the Constitution, or strong government controls on corporations.
That is, if I can vote at all... I've already registered in Indiana, but I go to college in Wisconsin. There's no chance of me getting to an Indiana Clerk's Office to vote absentee, but I don't know if I'm allowed to re-register in Wisconsin.
One thing is certain, though: Al Gore is the worst choice for President there could possibly be.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
The richest 10% don't have to worry about whether they can afford to heat their homes this winter. They don't have to worry about getting their kids a basic college education. They don't have to choose between buying prescription drugs or food.
Maybe you've never known what it's like to be poor. I've had to sleep in unheated trailer homes; I've faced the choice between Ramen noodles or a doctor's visit. I clawed my way out of those hard times. But a lot of people are in those dire situations, and they need help. To pass them by so that Mr. Goldshorts can afford to buy his daughter another Lear jet strikes me as simply cruel.
One responsibility of the government is to help its citizens when they require it. And so yes, the richest Americans should pay most of the taxes, and no, they shouldn't get a tax break, because darnit, they don't need the help!
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Good grief you must be one old guy are you are a nostalgic fool. Either way face facts about how the world works. The interstate highway system would have never been built without government funds. That makes it easy to cross the country instead of taking a bunch of time or 2 weeks or more when the country was young.
Respond to s
The diference is that Trickle-Down is a radical rightist idea that appeared in the 1980's that goverment should play as close to no role in the economic system as possible. Raw unchecked capitalism concentrates wealth at the top. America is a prime example of this. 90% of the nation's weath is in the hands of the top 10% of the people. 50% is in the hands of the top 1%. This is insane. So yes, as you contend Trickle-Down is just a fancy name for raw unchecked capitalism, and that is precisily the problem.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
Oh I love this argument
'Lets go to a flat tax and give the government less money, that will reduce its size'.
Guess you havent heard of a little thing called the deficit. Since when has LACK of money stopped the government from SPENDING that money. Answer , hardly ever.
The real answer is to trim government spending, take the surplus, use to to reduce the deficit and, as the reduction in spending stabilizes and the surplus shows to be truly long lasting, begin reducing the tax burden.
Reducing taxes before controlling spending will spin the economy off into Truly Bad Places.
OK, that's my $.02. Neither candidate really matters, but I won't get into my long rant about why Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned, and why you should be in favor of this even if you are pro-choice, but IMHO these candidates are both pretty much the same, with the exception of a few promises. They both are in the pocket of corporate interests. So, if you really care that much, vote third party.
Can your IM do this?
Read the fucking argument. Your simple equations of more liquidity meaning more economic growth only apply in an economic system like the current one, where that liquid is in the hands of people who have a lot to gain by using it wisely. Inheritence tax is only pushing that equity into the hands of those who have all the absolute and relative wealth they could ever use.
Do all these rich conservatives actually believe all the jargonized disinfo they're spewing?
Want a real-life scenario?
My parents have both worked roughly 18hrs/day for the last 35 years. No exageration. My childhood was spent living within a small company. He was a Heating/AC Contractor. Later he sold the business and bought a golf course. If I had to value their total net worth I'd have to guess about $1.5-2 mil.
If my parents were to die in a car wreck tomorrow what would I get? When the IRS asks for its tax money where do I gt it? Maybe 10% of their worth is liquid. If I have to sell either their home or the golf course it would have to be a fire-sale. Golf courses sometimes take years to sell and their home wouldn't come close to covering the tax bill.
Want another example?
The last place I worked the guy sharing a cubicle with me had his father die. His father was a farmer/small business owner in Virginia. He lived in an old farmhouse that had been in the family for over 100 years. Looking at the place you never would have guessed that his net worth was well over $1 mil. Based mostly on the value of the farmland.
In the end my friend had to sell the farm and pay a tax attourny a good chunk of money to keep the inherentence from ruining his own financial health. It made him bitter. Worse, it destroyed a family legacy.
Brin, on another point, America is completly different from England. As you well know, owning land here is easier than ractically anywhere else in the world. All a person has to do to own land is make the right decisions and be willing to put forth the effort.
Decisions are really what this is about. Some people learn to make good decisions and take responsibility for their actions. Fundamentally this ifs how people get ahead in this country. (Un)fortunatly we live in a country where a few greedy politicians discovered a sure fire way to buy the vote of those who -for the most part- have made poor decisions. Tell them that it is their God given right to take money from the wage earners and redistribute it to them. Feed their greed. Demotivate them from even trying to earn their own rewards by telling them they can have it for free.
Responsibility is also what this is about. The Democratic party has an inherent conflict of interrest when it comes to the poor. The poor are their chief source of voters. Every poor person lead down the path to success is one less vote for the democratic party. Just look at the demographics. Sure, not everyone is a poor democrat. By the misplaced idealism of essentially socialist govenrment philosophy has beeen proven a failure time and again. Your hearts are in the right place but your head doesn't understand the problem.
Wan't another reason to vote Republican (probably not but please read this anyway). Abortion. Dont' delude youself into thinking the sides of this issue are Pro-choice/anti-abortion. Abortion is premeditated murder. A fetus is a living human organism. The will come a day, maybe in our own lifetime, when female fertility will be as easy to turn control as a lightswich. When that day comes these feeble excuses over pro-choice and "a woman's right" will sound as reasonable as a southern farmer explaining why slavery is a good thing or a anti-semite explaining why the Jews should all be killed. Abortion is an absolute horror and future generations will view us, will be unable to comprehend us, for the horrors we allowed.
While it may be profitable to discuss, for example, what an ideal electronic mail tranfer protocol might be, it would not be acceptable to implement something claiming to be SMTP that in fact is not SMTP but instead some particular person's idea of what SMTP ought to be. We follow the standards, and should chide those who do not. If the standard is in need of improvement, then discussions should be opened on the subject of improving the standard. Disregarding it is not an option. So if you really think that it's in the best interests of the United States that government forcibly redistribute money from those with more to those with less (let's not sugar-coat it - that's what Gore and Brin are advocating - transfer of wealth, earned or not, by force of law), then you should advocate not a vote for a candidate who ignores the standard (hint: both Bush and Gore do so) but instead a new Constitutional Convention.
But then, I suppose when passions get aroused, the temptation to ignore the standard may become great. Funny how that works. We roast Microsoft for ignoring standards when their passion for money gets involved, but it's somehow considered acceptable or even noble to disregard the Constitution when a noted individual's passion for "social equity" is involved.
I will avoid advocating any candidate or platform in this post, because I believe it's too important that it stand on its own to give readers the opportunity to disregard it as partisan rhetoric. But I would suggest that the reader reconsider his or her choices with an eye on the Standard in question.
I find that for such a smart man, his grasp of economics and politics is shaky at best, and downright non-existant at worst. He is wrong in saying that eliminating inheritance tax will give rise to negative effects in society, because it will in fact bring about a stronger economy due to the fact that rather than having money tied in up in charitable foundations, it will be in more liquid forms, mainly equity. This is, as any student of economics knows, a good thing!
Money makes money, and having a group of people with all of this money is hardly going to change anything for the worse.
I'm sorry, but that same economic attitude was what justified Trickle Down Economics. GWB's current plan sounds frighteningly similar to that same 1980s policy that left my family homeless for two years and nearly homeless throughout my early childhood.
"Keep the money in liquid form in the hands of large corporations and wealthy individuals, and it'll get recirculated throughout the economy. If the government has it, it will not get recirculated to the general populace of workers." Yes, those of us who've been educated in economics are familiar with this idea. We know about the concepts of how banks create wealth from liquid wealth, etc. Those of us who paid attention during the 80s also realize that it doesn't work the way it was intended.
When put into practice, we've seen this economic gameplan cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
Mr. Brin is right on. Inheritance trumps merit, and thus makes a perfectly competetive economy impossible. Some students of economics still believe in trying to attain ecnomic equality, as difficult as it is.
-Roy Huggins
Contribute to the Keep Roy Employed Fund!
"What's that Trickling Down? It's liquid alright -- but it ain't equity..."
Back at the beginning of the 90s, the Deutschmark was more powerful than the dollar. Then the German economy collapsed, thanks to Chancellor Kohl's egocentric wish to be the German unifier i.e. taking on all the problems of East Germany. This is the reason now why the German economy is a shadow of itself. A lot of European countries are doing very nicely. Ireland, for example, exported more software than the US last year and currently has an unemployment rate lower than that of the US. The Dutch insurance and banking sector is thriving, as is Luxembourg's. What you've also got to remember is that most of Europe's economy is founded on real money, which isn't fashionable at the moment, but when the stock market collapses in the US, as it did under similar conditions in the Far East i.e. massive debts and corruption, and the pretend dollars disappear, Europe will be the place to have your money stashed.
In a capitalist society, the government's "social services" include protecting private property and enforcing contracts. Therefore, the more property you have, and the more you benefit from pieces of paper (such as stock options) that represent wealth, the more you benefit from the government.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Intelligence isn't a necessary quality for a poliitician. Most of what I've read says that Washington wasn't just not a genius, but was in fact downright dim. But he was an excellent leader.
(You want more money in liquid assets? Fine: abolish the inheritance tax on stocks, and double the inheritance tax on property. I won't stop you.)
The crazy thing is, those who inherit stocks already get a big tax break!
Say I bought CSCO at the IPO price. My $1000 is now worth gajillions. If I sold that stock, I would owe a pretty big chunk of capital gains. But if I die, and leave that stock to someone else, his basis price is the market price at the time of transfer. Thus, if he sells instantly, he pays no capital gains tax.
Doubling the estate tax on property is nice rhetoric, but easily avoided. What if I have a company that holds real estate, and I own stock in that company (ie, a real estate investment trust (REIT)). Is it property, or stock?
So, let's tax everybody at, say, %20. Across the board, no tax shelters, flat bleeping tax.
The richest 10% of the people in the country control at least 50% of the money. So, using a flat tax, the richest 10% would still be paying at least 50% of the taxes.
So, even with THAT proposal, some Republican will claim THIS as now being unfair, and decide to add all those nice, pretty tax shelters...
The bid to remove inheritance taxes is, plain and simple, a desire to create a permanent aristocracy in America.
If every person in America deserves an EQUAL chance to become a success, then inheritance should be outlawed completely! This runs against the common wisdom, and feels "not quite American." Fine. I even agree. That's why the inheritance tax is a pretty good compromise.
Now, if somebody could force through legislation to roll back copyright protections from "life + nn years" to simply "life..."
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
Why? The top 10% probably consume about 1% of government expenditures for social programs. The consumers of those programs should be supporting them.
Why? Those programs are "social insurance". I'm happy to give up part of my earnings if it means that the bottom 10% get their monthly check and health care so they don't turn to a life of crime... Not to mention, I like the idea that, if something catastrophic happens to me (I become a parapalegic, etc.) I will have some sort of aid to fall back on.
Also, I believe that a larger percentage of taxes goes to non-social programs... Things like defense, the FDA, FCC, law enforcement, prisons, the space program, etc... These are programs we all take advantage of.
Josh Sisk
Many European countries have more "progressive" -- that is, liberal -- tax and economic policies, particularly France (with such high taxes that many businesses move to the UK...) and the Scandinavian countries (at least one of which, if memory serves, even puts a cap on the ratio between max and minimum income in a company).
It's not completely coincidental that their economies are less than booming.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Unfortunately, all of Brin's writings tend to be that way. Which is a real pity. In his case, it's what prevents him from being a first-rate SF writer, the kind who's read long after the science part is obsolete. Until he can opt out of his permanent flame war, he'll just be another churner of interminable pseudo-epics, read only by the uncritically faithful.
David, you're basically a good writer. I'd kill for your ability to characterize and your rigorous imagination. But you need to turn down the self-righteousness and turn up the listening skill. You're good, but your shit smells as bad as anybody else's. Rants like this one actually harm the causes you're advocating.
__________
On the other side, I've got George W. Bush Jr., an elitist who has no experience in the world politics, keeps equating public schools with private (hmm..do private schools HAVE to accept handicapped students?), and who will overturn Roe vs. Wade if he ever got the chance to.
Sigh. I hate Gore's international & military stances. I hate Bush's domestic agendas.
And neither offered real workable solutions. Testing of students is NOT the problem...nor do I approve of Government playing funding games. (Student appathy IS the problem...we're warehousing students, but neither talked about that.)
And neither offered a real vision of where the US could be.
That's why people don't care about the election.
Brin is 100% correct about the inheritance tax, but wrong that a vote for Gore will save it. Also, there are plenty of other examples of the powerful using their power for self-preservation, and Gore doesn't seem interested in getting in their way, while Nader does:
Campaign Finance Reform: This is the most important rule that must be reset in the people's favor. Without it, one trip to the booth to vote Gore won't save your precious inheritance tax or any other check we have on the power of the wealthy.
Globalization: Gore and Bush are in absolute lockstep in keeping any sane restrictions out of our trade agreements, whether they affect the environment, worker safety, intellectual property, privacy, or consumer protection.
Environmental protection: Gore has sat silently by while Clinton broke promises on fighting for Kyoto, raising the CAFE standards, enforcing pollution regulations, and including protections in trade laws. Earth in the balance? Feh. Al seems more concerned about his political future being in the balance.
"Intellectual Property": Al has been utterly silent on stopping the giveaways and protecting consumer rights, while taking a lot of money from the entertainment industry. Want seniors to pay less for prescription drugs? Stop giving away the patents to government-funded research!
And don't talk to me about the Supreme Court. Clinton's appointees aren't saving the 4th and 5th amendments from the drug war or the 1st amendment from the corporations.
Nice try, but I (and my wife and a few sisters) will be voting Nader, even if he's not as pretty.
It's all about keeping those who are winning the game from changing the rules in the middle. Nader will, Gore won't.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Cracking down on M$ and Cisco won't help anything. I own Cisco and you'd be cracking down on my profits. Go buy some stocks yourself. You'll soon understand how corporate taxes are entirely bogus. They are all actually secondary taxes on shareholders. Call it double taxation since I've already paid the IRS the tax on the money that I spent buying Cisco. Now you want to tax me again?
What frightens me most is how much popular support there is for regressive taxing schemes (like a flat tax)
The reason this is happening is that there are more people, making more money and they look at their paychecks and think "I didn't used to see 1/3 of my pay disappear before I even got my check. This sucks!". They also took at their tax returns and think "Damn, what did I get for the $20,000 that I sent to the IRS this year?"
Finally, how exactly is a flat tax rate regressive?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
There is a whole separate question of how much the government should spend, but you didn't touch it so I won't. Therefore, surplus tax receipts indicate a tax cut is in order. If we keep a progressive tax system as you prefer, what's wrong with cutting everybody's taxes. People who pay no tax will receive no cut. People who pay moderate tax will receive moderate cuts. People who pay high taxes will receive the highest cuts.
As far as corporate taxes go, yes, there is some disproportionality (BTW, caused by folks who meddle with the tax code to encourage social behaviors they prefer, more typically a Democratic position). But, you need to understand the accounting to grasp why corporate taxes are gravy, not grave. People own corporations. People's income from investment is taxed, but taxable, successful investments represent corporate income which is also taxed. Together, corporate and personal taxes represent even more progressivity than the tax code would imply.
So, after cutting taxes, the rich will still be paying more (progressively) and the poor will still be paying less... This is the Bush proposal and I don't understand what your problem with it is since it fits the criteria you set out.
Because the primary goal of government is to protect property rights. And who do you think owns most of the property? Social services may cost more, but when push comes to shove, it's a lot cheaper to keep the peasants fed than have them rioting all over the place.
And the average person hardly benefits from our greatest cost, the military. Sure, they keep us safe, but how much is spent protecting our borders versus how much is spent policing the world? You know, it's that whole "protecting American interests "thing, which really means keeping markets open and American-owned property in forgeign lands in the hands of Americans.
--
Consider if somebody who made, for example $1 million dollars a year, and the IRS takes, $300k of that, their ends up being $300k of money that cannot circulate back into the economy. Now if he was given a tax break of say 10%, he now has $100k extra to invest into various business ventures, purchase of goods etc. $100k can easily pay the wages of 2 middle class workers.
But of course, with his taxes lower he can't find qualified workers because the government is no longer spending as much to educate people as it once was. Or maybe he can find qualified workers, but he can't deliver his product because the roads are falling apart because the government can't afford to maintain them. Or maybe the roads are OK but he can't afford to borrow the money needed to start his business because government borrowing (to make up for his $100K/year tax cut) has driven interest rates up.
You act as if government just takes all the tax money it collects and burns it. In reality, it spends it on all the things that are required to ensure that this country is a good place to do business. Don't believe me? Try starting a business in a place with ultra-low taxes and virtually no government, like Sudan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia or Russia, and see how far you get.
I think a lot of our economic prosperity it due to the policies of the Reagan/Bush administrations. How you ask? Well economic policies don't affect the economy over night, sometimes it can be a matter of years before the changes work through all levels of the economy.
So you're saying it takes 15 years for an economic policy to make itself felt in the economy? Does that mean that you believe that the U.S.'s growth in the '80s was due to Richard Nixon's economic policy?
Notice that as we come to the end of Clinton's 8 years in office, the economy is showing signs of slowing. Perhaps this could be the result of 8 years of Clinton economic policy?
If the economy is showing signs of slowing (to a "mere" 4% growth rate), it's due to the Fed's interest rate hikes and the growing cost of energy.
The reality is that it takes a couple of years at most for a federal economic policy or budget to begin to make itself felt in the economy. Reagan's policies grew the economy, but at the cost of high deficits and stagnant middle-class and lower-middle-class wages. His rising tide lifted some, but not most, boats.
Clinton's policies also grew the economy, but under his administration the deficit was eliminated and wages began to rise, across-the-board, for the first time since 1973.
Nice and reasonable response. Just what I was thinking. Thanks
Can your IM do this?
You also have to consider that non-profits make infrastructure investments that for-profits sometimes aren't interested in, especially if payoffs are uncertain or very far into the future. Basic research (in every field including finance, technology, and science). Non-profits are also more amenable to making public research findings, for profits would much rather protect their trade secrets.
Clearly this is a more complicated issue than flatpack thinks it is, even within economics. Intergenerational wealth-transfers have been a debating point within economics for centuries.
-- Equity lord of the Trill Consortium
A middle of the road family, who received a small amount from their parents will be hit hard. Don't forget that wealth rarely lasts three generationsin this society. Taxes won't really touch the rich, but they will touch the middle class.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
If you're passing on an inheritance worth more than $1 million, you've probably figured out your will, your tax shelters, life insurance, and the effect on your family years, if not decades, before your demise.
You can't shape the law for people who won't plan, and if you don't have the resources to pay tax attorneys and accountants, the inheritance tax isn't going to affect you.
Yes, an inheritance tax conflicts with the idea of a free market, but we don't have a free market. We haven't yet had a free market, with no tarrifs, no trade laws, etc, since Europeans turned this land mass into colonies.
And we can't have a truly free, unfettered market. Truly free, market economies allow for boom and bust cycles that dwarf the great depression and our [gradually diminishing] tech/money love affair.
Look at Russia, the most unregulated economy in the world. Unemployment is twice as high as the worst unemployment in the US during the Depression, corruption is at unbelievable levels and the people are so desperate that they welcome authoritarian leadership. All this despite having the richest array of natural resources, traditionally a cornerstone of economic power, of any nation on earth.
The "new" economy that so many of us are enjoying depends on productivity and ingenuity in the private sector, but it also requires that government provide the right kind of regulation and oversight. Too much regulation and innovation is stifled, too little and the incentives for innnovation and competition dissapear.
The Clinton/Gore administration has found the right balance in providing an environment for the economy to flourish. If people don't take advantage of that environment, then it doesn't really matter. In the past eight years, this combination has created huge amounts of wealth. Great, let's keep it going by carefully handling the market forces. The same conservative economists who promoted shock-therapy for Russia (the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and other conservative think tanks) are backing this giant tax cut.
Don't forget the publicly funded research (even private research is publicly funded through tax credits) that started this technology machine and help keep it running (don't listen to me - ask Vint Cerf).
Yes, we each make our own destiny, but government sets the stage.
The biggest problem I have with GWB is that he doesn't seem to understand the complex effects of government actions. That and his choice of Dick Cheney, who headed the VP selection committee and then selected himself. What a pillar of ethics he is. Sure, he sounds like a nice, grandfather-type, not a power-hungry opportunist.
What was the question?
Okay look... He is definitely not arguing a point-by-point economical debate - THAT's clear.
Brin is making (perhaps a little too) sweeping generalizations... but then he calls his own potential fallacy. But basically, look at history:
Rise of Egyption Empire:
Rise of the Roman Empire:
do while ((Rich no longer have to fight to get rich) && (Spoiled children make bad decisions))
Thats basically his point.
Still.... I agree that most of us think taxes are too high... and they ARE. But like Brin indicates, the rich recieve many more benefits of government and should be expected to pay more. It is the successful middle-class that revolted from England, and later wrote the Best Constitution of its time. Nowadays, we've extended our freedoms to women and to non-whites (finally), but we have to maintain that same socio-economic balance (that fine diamond shape) because the balance is our livelihood!
it's a socialist diatribe of the worst kind.
its message is 'people don't know how to spend their money, only the government does. rich people are bad, we should have control of their money. it has been determined you only need N dollars to be happy.'
sorry, but, that's a load of bullshit.
personally, i think nobody needs more than $5-10 million to lead a happy life. but that shouldn't be a law. it should just be common sense, once you have enough to do pretty much anything you want and not have to work another day in your life, the rest should be used for charitable causes (note: most donation money that most professional 'charities' receive never makes it to the actual cause.)..
articles like this turn my stomach.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Okay... so the richest 10% of the nation are paying up to 1/3 of the taxes in this nation... I don't see the problem. If you have huge amounts of money, you *SHOULD* pay more taxes than anyone else. The amount of tax money taken out of a 2-million dollar-per year income *SHOULD LOGICALLY* be ALOT more than the portion taken out of a $150,000/year income.
Why *SHOULD* they? Where in the consitution does it says that the rich *MUST* support the poor? That the rich *MUST* pay more taxes? Just because they have more money means they must give more of it to the government?
So does your reasoning also dictate that rich people *SHOULD* pay more for a can of coke than or poor person? Why does it seem that the only thing that has a different price for different classes is taxes. If a rich person and a poor person go to buy a car, it costs the same. Why shouldn't it cost each of us the same to pay for the "services" the Federal Government provides us? Of course you can't put a dollar figure on that number, so we do it with percentages. Yes the rich don't feel it as much, but they are spending *A WHOLE LOT MORE* on the "services" from the Feds (defense, foodstamps, whatever...) then the non-rich.
Also, was it just me, or did Gore have waaaaaaay to much coffee or something before the debate last night?
--
Inheritance tax is a tax on saved income, income that got taxed. So, it's a weird consumption encourager, and "unfair" in the sense that it is double taxation.
You could say the same thing about sales tax: you're getting taxed for spending money that's already been taxed.
The federal reserve system makes the money! Out of thin air! Not backed by anything except an unredeemable promise...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
"But what about violent crime in gun-free London going out of control because you can be sure to be able to do a housebreak or a mugging without encountering a gun?"
Question: What is the per-capita rate of death by gun in the UK. As I recall, it is an order of magnitude lower than in the US. I bet that they would rather have the problem of house break-ins going up than having the murder rate that we have here in the US.
Bullshit, what do you think those foundations do with the money? and when it's not getting spent, it's invested isn't it? If it's invested, it's helping the economy.
The inheritance tax is the only thing standing between US and a permanaent rulling class. You just CAN'T compete with someone whoese got millions and you have jack. Hell, companies pay stores to stock their products. If you don't have the capital to get started you have no chance to ever get it.
People set up offshore trusts to avoid taxes. Why would they set up an offshore trust because a tax was repealed?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Which ought to mean that if the top 10% have 90% of the wealth, then they should be paying MORE than 90% of the taxes.
You seem to be confused between tax on wealth and tax on income.
Under progressive income tax (as in, e.g. US), the rich pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes compared to the middle and lower classes.
Wealth taxes are quite rare. There is none on federal level in the US, although I believe a couple of states do have some variety of wealth tax in place.
And, of course, fairness is a matter of morality, not of economics. Some people would find a flat tax fair, others would find punitive taxation fair (e.g. 98% income tax in the >$500,000 bracket. Has been tried in Europe long time ago).
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Ummm, not all non-profits are equal in terms of benefit to society.
I'd suggest, say, that were Gates to accumulate vast quantities of Impressionist paintings and donate them to the Louvre, the main benefit would be to those rich enough to travel to France and spend their time looking at art. Arguably, society as a whole -- particularly the poor -- would benefit more if the money were used to start companies and provide jobs, or alternately to provide an endowment for job training and financial planning.
But charity does not necessarily imply good for the disadvantaged -- far from it.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
alright so I spelled Constitution wrong... I'm on my lunch break and was trying to get the thing typed out fast...
/comments.pl in order to allow everyone to have a fair chance to post.
And I just got this....
Slow down cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of
It's been 60 seconds since your last submission!
Did I miss a class in grade school that talked about how time was divided up into smaller segments. I *thought* 60 seconds and a minute were the same thing...
--
I think you miss a big point here. I'm posting anonymously (I never have before!) because of a personal point: I know from personal experience what Brin is saying here. I stand to inherit a good chunk of money from my parents (who I wish a long and happy life! :-) ). However, your comment that the bit about charitable foundations not being such a good thing is off the mark, I think. Most of my parents' money is going to a foundation (actually creating a sub-foundation inside a foundation -- it's complicated!), and I'm involved in seeing how the charitable contributions are distributed.
You really miss the boat here when you say that money put into a charitable foundation is not in the economy doing the "good thing" of providing equity. What do you think happens to all that money? Do you think it's just sitting there? No! It's invested, just as it would be if I were holding it for my personal benefit. It's just that the proceeds are used for people/causes that need it, not for my or their personal enrichment.
Honestly, I've never thought about the inheritance tax in the terms Brin uses, and despite the above I'm not sure I agree 100%. I've never considered my parent's money to be my entitlement. I figured they'd use it for their own lives, and I'd make my own money (doing quite well, thank you). It gives me great current benefits -- I went to excellent schools without ever having to take out a loan or worry about money... I don't have to worry about supporting my parents as they age....
So bottom line is this: people putting money into chararitable foundations is "a good thing." Do people like my parents really do that to avoid the inheritance tax, or just because they're good people? I don't know, but I appreciate the view that Brin gives....
Money in the hands of foundations works just as hard for the economy as money in the hands of families and individuals. Both parties spend the money, and bank or invest the money. When money is spent, banked, or invested, the recepients of the money themselves spend, bank, and invest it. And so on.
The only difference is that in the foundation's hands, at least once the money may be spent on the public good.
You speak as if you think that foundations are burying the money in their backyards.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Your statement presumes that the overall economic health is the top priority and nullifies any value to equity within the benefits brought about from that economic health. Your approach reminds me of what I would describe as a pre-Millsian "Utilitarian integral". Only absolute integrated happiness over the total population space matters and it is irrelevant how that happiness is distributed. Replace happiness with money and you have your statement. This is fairly easily debunked as being value-laden. You can equally well place some value on equitable distribution. Think of it as an equation:
E + D = TH
where E is total integrated economic health/wealth (perhaps corresponding to some combination of GDP with national savings/investment figures), and D is a dollar value we might place on the ideal of a Liberal Democracy of having some equity of wealth distribution and total happiness/Utility is TH. Now you are maximizing a different equation, neh?
Poor person makes $12,000/yr - pays $900 in taxes.
Avg person makes $60,000/yr - pays $8,000 in taxes.
Wealthy person $4,000,000/yr - pays $600,000 in taxes.
All three are provided with the same social services - National Security, Police, Hospitals, Education, etc. But the Wealthy person earning far more than the poor or even avg are somehow excused from paying more for those services?
Sorry, I don't buy it! I hate when people take a number like total taxes paid and complain that the richest 10% are paying the majority of it. Of course they are! They're earning more from our society! It's called paying the piper! You want to earn billions of dollars from the current social structure, then be prepared to pay dearly for that structure!
As the author of the email noted - without this tax proportion, the poor would revolt against the rich who would be cheating the system.
(note) the figures used are merely examples, not based upon and direct research.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Can't believe I read every single one of this dope's books. What a thoughtless dipshit.
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
He may be a liberal - actually, he can be just a libertarian. But Government intervention is not the main theme of his letter.
:P
What he keep saying is that a redistribution of wealth *in the form of inheritance tax* is necessary to the stabilization of American capitalism. Abolishing it will only change distribution of wealth and power into a pyrimad that will utterly destablize our society.
Please notice that redistribution of wealth is not the same strawman as the big (scary) Federal government.
So, you should have argued:
/sarcasm
The whole piece is just an rehash of the old class-warfare rhetoric - which the author did admit. As proven in the *good* old communist model, the liberal idea of robbing the wealthies to enrich the lazies does not work. Market capitalism has provided equal opportunities to both of the riches and the poors. Any excessive taxation is an infringement of personal liberty
*sarcasm/
Hate people who can't get their soundbites right.
Erm. If memory serves, there are higher caps for farm and small businesses in that the values have to be higher before the estate tax affects them.
Selling the farm would a) invoke the more normal (lower) threshold, and b) it's just shifting money... so the inheritance tax still applies unless it was sold at such a massive loss that the estate has dropped below the threshold.
So, if they cannot pay the estate tax on the farm, they have to sell it AND pay (higher) estate tax on the cash proceeds.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
So if a pyramid represents a social/governmental dictatorship, oligarchy, etc, and a diamond represents a free democracy, what shape represents Marxism? A flat line? A sqaure? Socialist Russia was never any of these. Why? They preached social equality, but there were always people "more equal" than you...
What side of the diamond do you want to be on and why?
Nearly a decade ago, I engaged David in a mock debate at a convention just north of Seattle. He played the role of Dukakis as I remember, and I upheld the role of Bush-the-father.
It is nice to know that in a day and age of constant change, that some people do have a consistent worldview. David's libertarian streak is alive and well; though he continues to see the Republicans as antithetical to those views and the Democrats as merely misguided dupes. A fairly strange interpretation of the history of the two parties, but I forgive him his minor eccentricities.
The Republican Party has a problem. It motivates the very rich donors to its campaigns by promising them tax relief. To a wealthy Republican, paying taxes is one of the worst of all possible expenses, because most wealthy Republicans are convinced in their hearts that the money will absolutely be squandered, and worse yet, squandered on programs diametrically opposed to their ethics, morals and world views.
The problem is that most people don't have a viscereal reaction to paying taxes. (I would argue that most people have no idea how much they actually do pay in taxes because they don't ever touch the payroll deductions and rarely bother to notice the bit of sales tax or social engineering taxes on cigarettes and gasoline.) Thus, the primary plank in the Republican platform is something that their funding sources care deeply and passionately about, but the rank and file don't - and the noncommitted general public doesn't either.
The GOP needs to take a step back to first principles to address these issues. Instead of talking tax cuts, they should be talking overall reduction in the size of government. AFTER they reduce the expenses of government - including the national debt, they should then talk about reducing the tax burden. This stands in stark contrast to the current plan, which is to try and reduce the size of government in parallel with reducing the tax burden - essentially having our cake and eating it too!
Bush-the-son could walk away with a landslide in this election if he promised to delay tax reform until after the national deficit was retired, a social security reform act was passed that ensured the system would be solvent for at least 25 more years, and provided for funding a reasonable level of health care for seniors and the poor without imposing major new taxes.
The wealthy Republicans aren't going to stop funding GOP candidates if those candidates focus on limiting government not reducing taxes - where else are they going to go? The Democrats would lose the only rational argument they have left to explain why they should be allowed any measure of power in the national government if the GOP had a rational plan to address the social safety net. And the economy would benefit as the debt and eventually the national tax burden declined.
Then we could move on to the next important issue in our body politic: Why we have reduced Presidential elections in the minds of many to a decision to support or attack Roe v. Wade, and what we can do to restore sanity to the process of judicial appointments.
Rather than trying to reform a totally corrupt and misguided party, or waste time on ineffective third parties, I'd much rather see someone with Brin's insights apply their attention to the quiet consensus building in the GOP that is close to finding the right path and needs to develop a social conscience to match its fiscal prudence.
As far as inheritance taxes, I'm willing to try a system that doesn't confiscate (and yes, that's exactly what it amounts to) the accumulated wealth of a lifetime. Capital in excess of one's needs is what is invested, fueling the engine of innovation that Mr. Brin celebrates. Taking it away or forcing it to be given away under threat of loss strikes me as anti-capitalistic. I'm tired of hearing dire predictions backed up by no facts. When we passed the property tax relief bill, Proposition 13, here in California, the political establishment predicted a shutdown of government. Didn't happen. In fact, government is several times larger than before, as a percentage of state GDP, and continues to take in enormous sums. When we passed a proposition that abolished bilingual education, the education establishment predicted nothing less than the establishment of a permanent subclass of Hispanic kids who'd never become educated. Guess what? They're now rising in their education test scores. It's time for some new ideas all right, and they aren't coming from the left side of the political spectrum.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
True, almost everyone agrees that Al Gore has about twice the IQ of George W Bush, more experience and a much better idea what's going on. Some call him "overqualified the same way Spock was, to be captain of the Enterprise, and therefore unromantic, a rather unpalatable choice for those preferring the zing of human fallibility in their leaders.
I'd be interested in seeing some factual data on this. All the data I've seen says that Gore was the greasy grind in high school and college, while George sailed through without really having to struggle. And yet AlGore is considered the smarter of the two?
As they did under Ronald Reagan, these gray eminences will handle most decisions with utter seriousness. They are not scary madmen or boat-rockers.
And as they do under most Presidencies. The only difference is that the Gore side pushes for extreme left wing solutions, attempting to destroy traditional family values, heck, traditional VALUES, inequality through quotas, and a "We're smarter than you" attitude about everything from the environment to health care to spending your money. Ever notice you rarely see one of his "Real Citizen Advisors" talking?
Government will function either way. To a large degree (at least compared to past empires) it will leave us pretty much alone. Those of us in the middle class, that is.
Clinton/Gore has brought us Carnivore, CDA, COPPA, and other travesties of justice. They continually push the bounds to interfere in the upper, middle, AND lower class lives. They seem to attempt to make it a rule that what is not compulsory should be forbidden. Isn't it strange that these paragons of choice refuse to allow parents the right to choose how their children are educated? How people spend their money? How people spend their taxes? Who people associate with as friends? How they protect themselves against criminals? Why is it only that the NON-traditional have a choice in America under the Democrat's system? When do WE, the traditional, family oriented middle class get a choice? We have one this election, and it's a pretty clear one.
Clearly I care, and wish to influence your vote, speaking openly, as one citizen to another.
At least you're honest here. And I really do believe that you care.
Maybe because they are more practical, knowing that the next president will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices. I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.
Actually, seeing the travesty Clinton/Gore has made of the Justice Department, do you REALLY want the Supreme Court to be made up of their nominees? Welcome to the police state, where the inmates run the asylum.
But there is another, far more important reason. It has to do with a blatant attempt at social engineering that none of us should like or put up with. An effort to fundamentally alter a social contract that has done very well by America and the West for several generations.
Right idea, wrong interpretation. You're right, people are trying to change the diamond. They change it by continually redistributing wealth. Funny how you complain about the sons and daughters of rich men getting their money, but you seem to have no problem with welfare. The truth of the matter is that Liberalism attempt to redistribute wealth by a Robin Hood method. Steal from the rich and give to the poor, and everyone will be equal. Can anyone say "Socialism?" Wasn't one of their tenets, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?" That's exactly the system you're proposing. Oh, you work hard and save your money. Therefore, you have ability, so you must contribute a larger share. But this man is poor and has no ability, so we will prop him up with your money, to make him feel more equal to you. Bah! I thought you Liberals liked Darwin? What ever happened to survival of the fittest? Or does that only matter when you're trying to get God out of the country?
As for foundations, you're right, that's a good thing. However, rich men and women deserve the same right to look after their children as anyone else. Or should we just get rid of inheritance all together? Should all estates go to the State for redistribution to the poor? That way EVERYONE can start off equal?
Here in the States you see the same movement at work. Lots of "Simple Tax Plans" take advantage of citizens' (justified!) anger at tax code complexity, pandering to that anger by pushing a National Sales Tax, with the chief effect of shifting the burden of taxation from the top of the diamond to the bottom. And the underlying agenda of turning that diamond into a pyramid once again.
No, the underlying goal is to make taxes FAIR. Fair means that we all pay the same percentage. No handicaps... Why should the smarter be handicapped by paying higher percentages of taxes, while the feeble are given the ability to consume without producing? And a National Sales Tax would be "fair" in every definition of the word. If I pay 10% on every item I consume, then I pay 10%. If I consume $1000/yr., I pay $100/yr. If I consume (because I'm rich) $1,000,000/yr, then I pay $100,000/yr. That's 1000 times more. And yet it is FAIR. The only way to make it politically neutral is to admit that each must pay an EQUAL percentage.
Now comes along George W. Bush with his grand plan to "cut taxes" in a manner that blatantly gives fully half of the benefits to the richest 1%. Delaying the payoff of our grandchildren's public debt for a decade, he'll use most of the budget surplus to achieve such wonders as completely repealing the inheritance tax.
As opposed to Al Gore, who give 5% of the American public any break at all. Mr. Bush is "cutting taxes" by CUTTING TAXES. The poorer classes will benefit MORE from Bush's plan than Al Gore's!
(Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
And this was done in 1905 I believe. WELL before the Federal Income Tax was instituted in 1913. Isn't that funny? Before we had all these darn taxes, people still created Foundations! Why would that be??? Maybe because they wished to keep their memory alive after they were gone. And they will continue to do it, no matter what the tax laws. In fact, they may just INCREASE charitable contributions because they will have more money to do so with! Why is it that Andrew Carnegie (a robber baron if there ever was one) is set up by you to be a selfless human being, while the millionaires of today are set up to be money hungry scum? Learn a little history before you pontificate on these issues. The people's lot was FAR worse under these "humanitarians" of ages gone by.
No, I am not preaching class warfare... though that is exactly what you will get eventually, if the pyramid is restored.
Why yes, yes you are... You're saying that rich people are jerks that should GIVE everything away to the people, and if they don't, the government should be fully justified in TAKING it away. You people sicken me, not just because you say it, but because you actually seem to believe it. The USSR said they would bury us, and in a way they have. They may be gone, but their political shellgame of Communism and Socialism has taken over at least the Democratic Party of the US.
People, it's time to say no-thanks to those wanting to bring back the old social pyramid. The diamond deserves our loyalty.
You're right. Tell the people like AlGore that we will not allow them to bring the rest of us into poverty to raise the rest up. Tell them that people need to WORK to get ahead, not get handouts from Daddy Government. The social pyramid is not only economic, it's political. And the democrats are trying their hardest to put it back that way. Their elite on the top, and the common citizens far far below.
But alas, the diamond ain't stable, ladies and gents. The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
And the democrats know that of the two, power is more important than money. They are continually trying to take the power AWAY from the lower and middle class, and put it in the hands of the people at the top. They don't WANT the "lower" classes to make any decisions. They are all knowing, and therefore all controlling. Forget what the people think, they'll TELL them what to think. And they've been doing it for many years. Your little sojurn into political theory right here proves it.
I accept the productive value of capitalism, when the market is a vibrant place for fair competition of goods & services. But if accumulations of wealth pass a certain point, capitalism will die and feudalism will replace it, as happened every other time there was a brief renaissance of competitive opportunity in human affairs. Seriously, name a bright era when that did not happen, shutting down opportunities and progress for centuries at a stretch.
Not quite. Actually, it dies and is replaced by Socialism. Ancient Rome fell when the people discovered bread and circuses. Not when people accumulated wealth. After capitalism comes socialism. When socialism fails, as it must, we come to the Dark Ages. Europe is back on its way there. Russia finally is getting out of it. And America is teetering on the brink.
They want to be lords. OUR lords. And we shouldn't let them. Merely as rich as Croesus, that's all they should get to be. Getting to be rich as Scrooge McDuck should be enough for anybody.
You're right, the Democrats do... Oh, I'm sorry, you were trying to say the REPUBLICANS do! Not exactly. They just want people to EARN their place, not be given it by a government fiat.
Oh, pity their poor offspring, who must graduate from Andover or some other prep school knowing that now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!
Are you talking about the Republicans? Or the entertainment industry, the Democrat political leadership, the trial lawyers, and the teachers of America? In each case, you keep making my point.
"What an outrage! That money's MINE, you hear? Do you have any idea how little ninety million dollars can buy, these days?"
You're right, the Democratic party of the American government DOES seem to be saying that all the time. Oh wait... Sorry...
There are fresh ideas out there! * Ideas about how markets can be used to help stimulate and promote sustainable occupancy of the planet without putting all our faith in bureaucrats or the almighty dollar. Ideas about how markets can be made more vibrant than ever, spurring innovation while helping forge a diamond that floats ever higher, carrying everybody on Earth upward with it.
Remember, even a diamond has a bottom point. No matter what, the bottom will always be there, and in some cases, it will be holding down the rest of the diamond. The more everyone has, the more expensive it becomes. It's called inflation, and it will always be with us.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
You're right... We have voted in worse. Bill Clinton. He's a geek wanna be, not a geek. He's not exceptionally bright by my academic standards, and frankly, he comes across as quite a mean SOB. He's all for class warfare and increasing the schism between American people. He's also about lying, cheating, and stealing to get your vote. There are people that will do anything for power, and he's one of them. Look at his own record in Tennessee. He's changed positions more often then some of his constituents change their shirts, although less than they change residences. He pushed through naturalization for criminals so that the Dems would have one million more Hispanics to vote for them. He takes money and increases the size of government and calls it a decrease. He takes money for one thing and spends it on another, in the process reducing military readiness. Al Gore and Company will do whatever it takes to get your vote. And after that, you don't matter. His whole record speaks volumes about that.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Ok so we should yank money away from the top 10% (which includes incomes of about $90 - 100k a year >> hardly rich if you work 60 hours a week to get it) and give it to the bottom and middle rungs? I think the system is fine and am not in the richest 10%. I could care less how rich some in the top are.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I, for one, have had enough of the notion that a government is the only way to get out of poverty.
I am sick and tired of every politician holding press conferences to tout the "New and Improved" program that does nothing to improve anything.
Now before every soft-hearted social engineer starts screaming that I must be some sick, uncaring bastard that was born with a spoon in my mouth, let me give you a little background.
Everything I had today, from my job to my possesions, I obtained by myself. I pulled myself out of poverty and am slowly climbing up the tax brackets. No program of the week helped me out, and I didn't ask for any either.
I'm sick of 40% of my hard earned money, dissapearing so some pregnant welfare mother with 5 kids can buy lotto tickects 3 times a week.
I'm not saying kill every government program. Just help thoses willing to work for a better life.
Help the poor? Screw'em I say. I'm tired of giving to the lazy
Everything else is perception only. It's far easier for the government to raise taxes as long as they can convince the majority of the people that "someone else" is paying for it.
The only way to simplify the tax system and to make it truly fair is to eliminate hidden taxes (e.g., exise taxes and corporate taxes) and double- or triple-taxation (e.g., inheritance taxes), and impose a single rate on everybody with some form of exemption. (The exemption would "untax" the poorest people and basically make the rest of the system progressive.) I personally prefer the mechanism to be a retail sales tax with a rebate mechanism.
--
There is positive benefit to having some of the total wealth concentrated in large 'slices'. Unfortunately, wealth tends to aggregate on its own, and left to its own devices, will aggregate into larger and larger blocks, which will use the political process to protect and preserve that aggregation, to the detriment of everyone else (this is the pyramid Brin talks about).
So our government's wealth transfer policies (taxation and distribution) should be considered as tools that are used to counteract that natural tendency for aggregation in an unchecked environment. Total dispersal of wealth (an upside down pyramid?) would be just as bad as total aggregation. The government's role is to strike a 'happy medium', which will often seem quite unfair to those who have already aggregated large 'slices of the pie'.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Keep in mind that I'm neither affirming nor condemning Brin's writing, merely bring up two salient issues.
I used to be a great welfare-hater. A coworker spoke of taxes as being 'wealth-redistribution', taking upper and middle class money and giving it to the poor. Then came the savings and loan scandal, and I realized that quite probably more of my tax dollars go to people making more than me than to people making less than me. Something of an epiphany, and that's when I began to have more respect for the cleaning people than for a lot of financial wheelers and dealers. At least the cleaning people are working, paying taxes, and not screwing anyone.
The second point is that *the wealthy are getting more out of the country than the poor.* Just about all of us get a stable place to live in, even if we may not own it. But how about the 'inner city battlegrounds' we see on the news. I guess they're better than Chechnya, but perhaps some of them would argue the point. I would argue that the wealthy pay more taxes, but in some sense, they're getting more services for what they pay. And NONE of us should sit here and say, "I did it myself," because none (or virtually none) of us really did. Public schools, playgrounds, safe places to play, a HOME that isn't getting shelled, a highway to drive our car on, a stable environment where a car dealership even feels safe to set up business so he can sell us that car!
I've no problem whatsoever with upward mobility. It is essential that downward mobility be preserved, as well.
Another point of Brin's:
In the novel Earth he presents three culturally-independent criteria for sanity. The third never stuck, but two were really good.
1: Able to be satiated. At some point, one has enough, and quits eating. Same for other facets of life, like collecting wealth or wives.
2: Able to change plans when circumstances change. Adaptability when necessary. (Arguably, aristocracy can be poor at this, and spends more time isolating their comfort zone, and influencing society so they can stay that way.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
In a recent case (last session), the supreme court ruled that the federal government did not have jurisdiction for rape cases. I think the law was called something like the violence against women act, which (among other stuff) allowed rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court, even if they had lost in state court.
The government defended the law saying that rape might have a detrimental effect on interestate commerce (which they are allowed to regulate). The supreme court quite reasonably rejected this argument.
The scary part? The decision was 5-4. Yep, that's right: 4 of the justices believe that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government jurisdiction over rape.
If Gore (or Nader if you want to go there) appoints the next justice, you can kiss the idea of limited government goodbye. If rape falls under the interstate commerce clause, then a government monopoly on health care could be made to fall under one of those clauses dealing with the militia, or maybe make it an agency of the post office.
Bush says he'll appoint strict contructionists. To me, being politics, this means, "no more liberal in their interpretations than the current court". (liberal = willing to let it slide, not "democrat"). This at least means that if they hear a case on something like states rights (medical marijuana, anyone?), then they would at least have a chance. I don't see that under people Gore would appoint.
Under Buchanan, god knows who he'd appoint. So I guess it's fortunate he has a direct line to god to ask about that.
Under Browne, it wouldn't be an issue, because most of the federal government would be dismantled by executive order in the first two weeks.
If we lived in a void where economic policy resulted in exactly what was theorized, your argument would be valid. As it is, social theory is at least as important as economic theory. One only has to look back to past centuries to see what a society increasingly based on inherited wealth will bring us.
Points that are obvious:
It is hard not to conclude that inheritance is a system in our society (and in most other societies) that can completely sustain and better those whose families are already rich. Note that this has nothing to do with how well our economy is doing, but everything to do with the ability to take the cream of the crop using resources that most of our society does not have access to. It is not subject to the pressures of capitalism! Of course it makes sense for richer people to support the economy because they do make less money in a poorer economy than they would otherwise (but relatively to poorer people, still more, do you see the difference?), but the key factor is that they do not have to. They can choose which economic policies to support because of their position. This can only result in even greater relative wealth for them, which by definition means less relative wealth for others.
Inheritance tax dampens this cycle. There are surely other ways to remove the cycle, but it seems other methods would be draconian and unenforcable so I am happy the government sticks with this. It's true that it isn't the best solution in that the government gets this money and it isn't invested in our economy immediately (I'm not that much of a socialist, honest!). However it's better that it is put in the hands of people that include some I have voted for, as opposed to those that I will never, ever, have the chance to vote for.
It is easy to control all that you see,
Sure didn't take long for New Deal economic policy to affect change.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Yes, and at the upper end of the economic scale as well as the lower. Brin's (unstated, but clearly essential) assumption is that, in the absence of inheritance taxes, the unworthy heirs of the rich would become and permanently remain rich. Of course, what will really happen is that they will be scammed out of the money or just piss it away -- hence, the old saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations".
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I am curious about your reference to 'left-leaning' economists.
Can you name names?
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
I am among the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I am single, don't own a home (my choice) and don't have kids. I pay the highest tax rate of anyone at my income level. You know what? I don't complain about the taxes I am paying. I could survive (quite well) on half my current income. The thought that I would make twice my current income and pay less taxes is preposterous.
I don't mind giving back to the country that has allowed me (the son of teachers) to do better than my parents did, largely through the availability of reasonably cheap higher education (one of the benefits of the taxes my parents paid when I was growing up). I also served in the military (reserves) without complaining about the paltry stipend I was paid for devoting some of my free time to serve my country.
Let's face it. If a person making $1 million per year has to pay $500,000 in taxes, they still have $500,000 left. They can live a very nice life on that much money. On the other hand, a person making $30,000 who has to pay $3,000 in taxes only has $27,000 left. They can survive, but not comfortably.
I will vote for Al Gore because I am not selfish and can live well and help the people less fortunate than myself move up in the diamond and compete with me. This is the way it should be!
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I'm not rich. I intend to be, but I am not.
Now that that is out of the way...
Every time I here the GWB is "[Going to] give a few trillion dollars to those who need it least" I get pissed off. First of all, he's not "giving" anybody anything. He's letting them keep what is theirs.
Let me say it again...
He's letting them keep what is theirs.
Let's call the inheritance tax what it really is: "THE DEATH TAX." I personally find it moronic that the Democrats in the house and senate beleive that when we die, part of what we leave behind is forcably willed to the State/Contry. Thats just plain BullShit. Why don't we just skip the IRS and put a toll at the Pearly Gates/River Styx/(other crossing over point that I'm unaware of). It would accually save even more money so we can transfer it to those tramps that can't manage to keep there legs crossed.
Now, on to the piramids and diamonds. What good has these great social angineering programs done... Did they narrow the gap bewteen the richest and poorest.. hmmm... no. Do you think that the people at the bottom point are any happier... hmmm. no, there still at the bottom.
So what have they accomplished?
Oh thats right. They "created" a larger middle class. And by creating a larger middle class, they are, in effect, able to generate more income via taxes. Hmmm. And where is that money going to go?
Thats right, to the bottom of the piramid (sorry, "diamond.")
But, um, won't that flatten the diamond again? and create a piramid with ALL the middle class now lower class, whether they've worked there ass off to get there, or were given money (taken from ME, BTW)
So in effect, the democrats plan will make MORE poor people, while the republican plan will allow for more middle class, EVEN THOUGH THE RICHEST ARE GETTING THE TAX CUT.
Sometimes, I wonder how people can forget what Ronald Regan did for us. By reducing the taxes on the rich, he created the economy we have today, despite Bill Clinton.
I guess that enough spooge for today :)
I will read any replies to this.
And who are you to decide who is 'rich' enough
and who is 'poor' enough? Why not just enact
a bill gates tax where by he pays $1 bio every
year and every american gets a check from billy?
And to follow up the prior poster, after bushes
proposal the proportion of taxes paid by the
top 1% rises!
ummmm...yeah. 'Publicans and Demicraps dominate...but that is not to say there is a lack of parties out there. There is a communist party, there is a green party, a reform party--in two flavors, and more (try doing some research instead of complaining). They may be under-represented, but that is a lack of SUPPORT not a lack of existance. If those of you that lament the "bi-party" system so much would take the time to actually campaign for another party (rather than just sitting and bitching), you may see the change you say you want so badly (god forbid that should happen...what would you whine about next? A REAL issue?).
The state should take (via taxation) only what is needed to carry out its legitimate functions - and not a penny more. Anything more is a kind of theft. And this is still true no matter how rich or poor the taxpayers are.
Transferring wealth from the rich and successful to the poor or middle class is not one of those legitimate functions.
I guess I should have put the emphasis on STUPID, not rich. I intend to be rich .I just don't intend to be stupid and amoral. My $2000 in luxury spending, or savings is less important than $200 a piece for 10 families to spend on food and necessities. This is why a flat tax is regressive it imposes a greater burden on those who are poorer because it is taking money from necessities, while the rich pay the same percentage, but that money comes form luxuries. A prograssive tax like we have now is fairer because the poorer person gets more money for the necessities while the rich person has to get the 20' boat instead of the 25' boat.
Dastardly
I'm happy that the system is fine for you. But unfortunately the bottom of society is America is living in poverty on par with that of China and India. The system is not currently working for everyone as it is promised to, and no, i won't loose any sleep over the high taxes given to the priveldged few at the top in order to correct this through "big government" programs such as schools that don't have leaking roof's, national health care so not only the rich can be healthy and public transit for all.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
The entire argument rests on the assumption that scaled taxing is fair (and legal!), that I should have to give more of a slice if I make, or have, more of the money. This is the basis for inheritance tax, income tax, property tax, and just about every other overly complex tax law conceived by the liberal establishment.
The simple fact is that it is not a fair or logical practice. The top of Mr. Brin's so-called 'diamond' can sit on its money and still contribute as effectively to the economy as the sum of the middle and lower classes. Dollars on the stock market, money market, or just about anywhere short of under your bed contribute positively. Those investment dollars feed the economy. How do we reward this important facet of a functional capitalism? With steep capital gains and luxery tax. And God forbid you keep all your money on the Market or in the bank 'till the end, then we'll take up to 80% of that already-taxed money. (ever heard of that heinous piece of social engineering called the generation-skipping tax?)
The bottom line is, the rich can be just as discriminated against as the poor. Although this 'economic engineering' might fit our ideal vision of the world, does thi method really fit into the principles by which our country was founded?
But what about violent crime in gun-free London going out of control because you can be sure to be able to do a housebreak or a mugging without encountering a gun?
You've GOT to be joking.
I'm sorry.
Americans have absolutely NO right to lecture other countries about crime. That's like a 400 pound man telling his 300 pound wife she should go on a diet.
rhyac.
True, the 'partying son' invests some and spends some in ways which have a multiplier effect. But in this hypothetical, the money spent does not contribute to greater productivity. Money spent by the hypothetical foundation does.
For example, give $10,000 to a rich person. It pays part of the cost of a yacht. Sure, people are employed to build the yacht, but the yacht doesn't increase the nation's productivity. Give $10,000 to a working person. They buy a reliable car which gets them to work everyday and also to shopping and other activities. That increases productivity, on top of employing people to build the car. Lesson? Money multiplies better at the bottom than at the top. Very important!
(here it comes...)
HOWEVER,
The whole problem with Mr. Brin's arguement is that he ignores certain problems with Gore and the Democratic movement in general. The obvious issue is that Gore is part of the Clinton machine whether or not he'd like us to think otherwise. I simply in good conscious cannot vote for a pawn of the joke of president we've had for the past eight years. Other countries used to respect the US; now there's posters of Monica Lewinsky with an attached phrase: "Bill's Girl". Looking past Clinton, Gore has numerous problems himself. His attemps to redefine himself throughout his presidential campaign have just shown how he will change and say anything to get elected. I don't want a president like that. Now before I go any further, let me explain something: I WILL vote democratic when I find a candidate that I like. I agree with the Republican party on most things, but do not blindly vote. A vote for Gore is a vote for the continued migration of American policy towards Socialism. While G.W. may not be the best thing the Republican's have to offer (I would have loved to see Steve Forbes on the ticket), his VP choice was superb. Chaney has a proven track record. I think that when you compare Bush/Chaney's record to Gore/Liberman's record, the answer is clear. Bush has done a wonderful job in Texas, why do people ignore this? Chaney's record speaks for itself. All Gore and Liberman have done is continued the push towards socialism and increased government spending. Just remember: Gore has lied before, he will lie again. Mr. "I invented the internet" is not the kind of man we want in the white house. Plain and simple. Now, that being said, I would much rather Mr. Brin vote for Gore than a million un-informed people vote blindly. I respect his opinion, and offer the above as a counterpoint.
<JOKE>
I say we all right in Commander Taco for Prez...
</JOKE>
The Faxman
If top 10% is paying 1/3 of taxes then top 10% should get 1/3 of the proposed tax cut. Isn't it? If so then how come top 1% getting 1/2 of the tax cut in GBW plan. There seems to be some number problems here.
I come from a family of farmers (I didn't grow up on a farm, something unusual until my generation), and I've seen what the inheritence tax does to farmers & their families. To say that this does not have a harmful effect upon the families & their ability to continue farming the land is an absolute insult.
Many of the children have to spend a huge part of their lives saving money so they can pay the taxes. This is a huge amount of money to people who are already having a hard enough time affording the equipment, feed, and necessities for their families. Additionally, especially here in Chester County, PA (as well as my uncle's farm in Winchester, VA), land prices have risen dramatically, so that very few farms are worth less than a million dollars on the market. There have been more than a few cases here where the parents have passed on and the children suddenly discover the land they grew up on is worth millions of dollars because of the changes in the market in the last 10 or 20 years, and they don't have the money to pay the taxes. The result? Many of them have to sell their land to developers who build 400k houses on quarter acre lots, and the families have to find another way to earn a living after spending their lifetimes farming.
Sir, I do not believe you have any conception of what is going on in this country. Family farmers have been devastated in the last half century due to low crop prices and inheritance taxes, and you have turned a blind eye and deaf ear to their concerns.
Our one ruling party keeps up the illusion of being two parties, because they know that the people would not tolerate what was blatantly a single party, and a legitimate second party would increase in power.
There is little difference between Republicans and Democrats; moderate Republicans are closer, politically, to moderate Democrats than to libertarian Republicans. They're not exactly the same; Brin is correct to note that. However, the differences are small, and the existence of those differences does not make them separate parties. Any two politicians from the same party will not agree 100% of the time.
How many times, during the debates, did Bush and Gore agree with each other? And how many issues were not raised at all, because there is no difference between the two major candidates on those issues?
The one ruling party tries to scare us into not voting for second (oh, excuse me, "third") parties with the thought that, if we don't vote for the candidate we find less distasteful, the worse one will win. "Don't waste your vote!" they scream. I won't buy it. While Bush and Gore aren't completely alike, and there is one of the two I would have a slight preference for if those were my only two choices, the difference is small enough that I'm willing to risk that fate by voting for a legitimate alternative.
(Even if you are worried about that scenario, keep in mind that, despite the slogan, a vote for Nader is *not* a vote for Bush. It's half a vote for Bush. It takes two people switching from Gore to Nader to do as much damage to Gore as one person switching from Gore to Bush does. Think about it. Feel free to substitute any of the other "third" party candidates for Nader in this argument, of course.)
The tired old scare tactic of the one ruling party is becoming less effective, and they know it. So they try to beef it up with arguments that the next president will appoint Supreme Court justices. "If you don't vote for X, Y will win and get to appoint SC members!" But this argument doesn't hold water, either. Yes, the next president will have the opportunity to appoint some justices. The flaw in the logic here is failing to take into account that *which* justices resign will depend on who is the president. None of the justices are so infirm that they will have to resign in the next four years. A conservative justice is not going to resign during a Gore administration and let Gore shift the court to the left. Vice versa for liberal justices under Bush. So while the next president will have the opportunity to appoint some justices, the ideological makeup of the court will not change.
If you're the sort of person who's more responsive to slogans than to long, point-by-point arguments, here's a few for you:
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, don't be surprised when your government turns out to be evil.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Back in 1967, my parents bought an old farm with about 100 acres of property and a big house for about 15,000. That was a lot of money at the time. They've remodeled the house, repaired the damage due to old-time stripmining, and other improvements. In addition to this, property values in the are have shot up due to "sprawl." We're very close to Pittsburgh, PA, and to a community that itself was once all farmland, Cranberry. Because they're so close, property values have shot up.
That same property is worth millions now. A 3 acre lot is worth about 100,000 dollars now, without even having a house on it yet.
When it comes time for my siblings and I to inherit this property, the 40 percent tax we'll have to pay on this property will be astronomical. None of us is going to be making enough money to pay this.
Who's going to win here? My parents have fought to keep this property out of the hands of developers. The death tax will end that battle, and my parents will have lost.
Just ask the innocent young baronets who lost their heads during the French Revolution. THEY didn't rape the serfs, but they paid a stiff price for their grandparents' arrogant, insatiable greed.
I wouldn't call everything my parents worked their hearts out for "greed."
I don't even want to sell the property to make money off of it. I just want to preserve farmland, and woodland. My siblings feel the same way. The money means nothing to me in comparison to this.
So who's REALLY helping big business here? Bush, the guy who wants me and mine to keep this? Or Gore, who opposes this? Seems to me that Gore is on the side of all the "yuppie" land developers.
Brin is a brilliant writer. But I think he has some things to learn about politics. Specifically, that this country was not founded, nor became successful on, the politics of socialism and "public wealth." My parents aren't leaving us the Carnegie billions. They're leaving us the farm.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
...against Brin, but he's right.
My attitude is this: Fine, accept the repeal of estate taxes. You won't be around in a few generations when we're back to being completely ruled by a rich aristocracy. And I do mean "we." Have geeks ever been the ones in the aristocracy? No.
Just when we've started gaining a modicum of social power you all want to throw it away.
Ah... Maybe we can't handle it anyway.
The inheritance tax as implemented in the US is fundamentally wrong, regardless of who does/doesn't pay or where the money goes. Because it taxes citizens (real human beings, not corporations) on assets for which they have already paid rather substantial taxes with an even more onerous tax. Actually, it's a rather nifty scam on the government's part to be able to tax a family over and over again on assets and possessions that remain with the family for more than 1 or 2 generations.
Double taxation is on the same plane as "taxation without representation" in terms of basic wrongness. No matter how good the supposed "benefits", the ends cannot justify the means. If Mr. Brin is so concerned about the money disappearing, let him figure out some other way to soak the Evil Rich (tm).
Still, his blatant campaign to give a few trillion dollars to those who need it least bothers me deeply.
You know what bothers me deeply? The thought that someone mandates who needs what. More than that, someone mandating that I shouldn't be able to keep something that I have earned just because someone else decides that I don't need it.
How is that diamond shape looking now, when we have one person determine "You need that, you can keep it. You don't need that, so hand it over."
I think we can all take from this is Mr. Brin is a democrat and is going to vote for Al Gore; his diatribe just some manifesto attempting to scare people into voting for Gore. If he really put any thought into this, can he explain to me how (in his opinion)rich people keeping their money and thereby elevating themselves above everyone else(a rather ridiculous assumption) any different than a group of people deciding what I can keep and what I cannot keep? Even worse, that I cannot inherit money because I have not earned it? Is it written anywhere that I have any sort of obligation to society above upholding and obeying the laws of this land? If my parents work hard and earn enough money to ensure me never having to work a day in my life I think that I am entitled to that just as you are entitled to write books for a living.
But in the spirit of his jibberish, I shall wield supreme executive power as he has and decree that he should be flogged for allowing that horrible Kevin Costner movie to be made. And you take other people to task for not being useful to society....
Actually, we were closer to a "diamond", as Brin puts it, back in the early 1970s. Workers have lost ground since then, and CEOs have gained by about two orders of magnitude.
That many of the high tech companies are supporting and contributing to Gore? How about Hollywood contributions? There's a lot of money in these 2 places. Anyone thinking Gore will make any kind of financial impact on people's lives is kidding themselves. He's soaking up rick people's money right and left. Go ahead, put Gore in the whitehouse. The rich may not get much of their money back. Maybe the Chinese will.
i have an idea. let's issue national id cards that indicate how wealthy we are, and then charge higher sales/gas/alcohol/tobacco taxes to the wealthier people. this way, we can enforce taxation fairness across the board.
you make $1/hr more than me? that's ok, because the extra 50 cents a gallon you pay will make us even, and life is fair...
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
No clue why this got an "Insightful."
I've been poor. Actually, by my standards I'm STILL poor. I have to make the choice every month of paying to see a doctor or paying the car payment. I have to make the choice of eating out or paying the rent. I get no government help. Nor do I want it! If we got rid of just the people that collect an income tax return, but do not PAY income tax, that would be a tremendous blessing to the true "working poor."
We're not passing them by so that Mr. Goldshorts (who's he? I've never met him...) can by his daughter another Lear jet. We're saying that Mr. Goldshorts deserves respect, credit, and happiness for the work he's put in to EARN his money. And in the process for all the money he's put into the economy hiring workers and buying products.
The cruelty is that people consistantly harm one another either financially or emotionally by making the ability to earn money a sin.
There is no responsibility for a government to help it's citizens financially. It is the government's responsibility to protect them from enemies, foriegn and domestic. It's their responsibility to make the laws fair so that all citizens are EQUAL before the law. Under no circumstances is it the government's responsibility to make sure they eat right, or have heat in their homes. That's charity. For that sort of thing, turn to churchs, foundations, and community help. Don't pick my pocket to pay for your children.
And it's not a tax break, it's a tax reduction. Maybe they don't need it, but they sure as hell deserve it.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
I'll be honest: my view changes a lot on these sorts of things. But let me point out some holes I see in your refutations:
One of the functions of government is to factor in social obligations to its people, especially the ones who need the most help.
While some might argue this should be the job of your fellow citizens to do directly, I agree. And this is why I'm not chanting, 'flat tax!' But the sentence you're claiming to refute specifically disallows this social obligation simply because it needs separate consider from the economic effect of taxation. In other words, just because flat taxes, say, produce the greatest total economic gain (and I haven't said that's the case, either, but making the assumpion (which I don't agree with)), that doesn't mean they are 'right'. But we're not talking about the right government strategy, and I didn't claim that the sentence should become a government motto. It's a statement about the effects of taxation on economic production.
A purely economical standpoint leads to a corporate strategy, not a national one. Or in other words, a fascist state.
Again, I wasn't advocating elimination of taxes (or top-heavy taxes) as an economic strategem for the nation. As for corporate strategy, it would be very accurate to say that a corporate strategy tends to be purely economical, but that doesn't mean that any purely economical view shouldn't be considered in relation to the nation. And I don't see where fascism, which is an extreme right-wing authoritarian form of government, fits in. Even _if_ you say that all national economic strategy should be based only on total economic output, that's not fascism. It's not libertarianism either. Because total economic output is not gained from pure capitalistic machinations. Total gain requires that if a large disparity exists that certain things be put in place (such as the redistribution of wealth to educate the people) which have a larger long term total gain, even if they aren't as gainful for those taxed to do the redistribution.
You do *not* want to maximize the total output of a national economy. That's why the Fed has been trying to slow us down. The best national economy is a stable one, not one racing out of control towards a crash.
The Fed isn't trying to 'slow the economy' down to lower the total output, in the purest sense. It is slowing the economy down because people in good economic times demonstrate a tendency to overspend, undersave, underplan, and this leads to both a propensity for bad debt and recession as well as inflationary demand for goods and services. But you're half right -- stability is absolutely required for maximum total output. That's because maximum output requires capital available to be optimally invested, and that requires stability so people don't choose less-apt investments for capital in order to counteract the risk of instability. But an economy that is growing incredibly fast does not necessarily end in a crash. When personal income gains are matched by productivity gains, there's not cause for concern, because goods exist to satisfy the increased demand.
As Brin explained, top-heavy taxation leads to redistribution of wealth through charitable giving.
Actually, Brin explained that inheiritance/death taxes lead to redistribution of wealth through charitable giving. That's not a refutation of my point, but I agree with Brin and with you that the death taxes need to stay put. We were, economically and nationally, counting on this money in one sense, to bail us out of our national debt, by collecting the enormous revenues that will pass on from 2009 to 2023 as the boomers die. And I agree again with Brin on the point that it isn't about taking half of the first million or two or three, but taking the exorbitant share of the uber-rich and preventing the money from being completely tied up. (Although that money, to some extent, is invested in our economy as capital and helps produce gain, it is likely to be less efficient because the management of such out-of-proportion sums, if not tied up in a business, is likely to be less efficient than if distributed)
Also, for the record, I'm an engineer, and don't like corporate marketing strategies, but I do like economics, and I like taxation which benefits society, but some people don't see the correlation between taxation and the problems it can cause. (Again, notice Brin's observation about the terrible state of many European economies.)
From the green party website.
As an immediate step, the Greens advocate a maximum pay differential of 10 to 1. In the long run, the Greens support moving to an egalitarian pay system of labor certificates based on hours of labor contributed.
http://www.greenparty.org/program/econdemoc.html
SO WHAT? The richest 1% pay 1/3rd of the taxes? Big deal! They own 2/3rds of the capital! They can afford it...
The obvious workaround is roughly as follows.
a) Put a floor on it.
That is, any income below $X is not subject to income taxes, period.
b) Retain a very few tax credits/exemptions.
Child care credits and those relating to education and buying a first home are the main ones mentioned, IIRC.
If $X is fairly large, then even those with less income (not necessarily disadvantaged; probably, not not necessarily... since this ignores *prior* savings) would be reasonably treated fairly.
The fairness versus just a flat amount period comes in that
1) flat amounts need to be constantly adjusted over time for inflation / changing expenses and what-not, and
2) arguably the Gov't is a bit responsible for income, and this provides for *some* redistribution of the wealth (an arguably unfair, but necessary, partial correction to an unfair state.)
Call it more pragmatic than anything else.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Actually, you're incorrect.
Fully half of the current budget is used for entitlement programs: farm subsidies, welfare, social security, medicare, etc.
And second: SS was -never- meant to take the place of a person's own ability to pay their way in retirement. It was meant to be an additional source of funds to make those years easier. The current program has lost that ideal, and it's time to force it back.
*Note: I'm not voting for either of these two idiots.
How many people INSIDE the US listen to Voice of America? It's a radio station set up to offer, pretty much, propaganda of one sort to everyone else around the world. Not that that ain't bad. Very popular in East Germany for a few years there. More Americans listen to that welfare whore Rush Limbaugh (sitting on his pilodinal cyst eating pork rinds collecting welfare) than this radio program.
As such, it's controlled and disseminated in a strategic way, and at the moment in the Middle East, it's more important to the situation there for people to hear that the US cares about all the carnage in Israel / Palestine than US jingoism about our own losses.
Does that mean the the Cole incident is not a disturbing, horrific tragedy? Not at all. It means that strategically it's more important if we want a chance of influencing people in the Middle East with the voice of democracy to tell them and reinforce that their situation is more important.
Sheesh, when you read a document outside your sphere of knowledge, take the time to look at the signifiers. Intelligence supports the State Department on the repeal of such propaganda, because they're trying to control information for a purpose. I figure you right wingers would be over the moon, cause it fits into all your wanktastic Tom Clancy fantasies to see a document like that.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
Check out the 10-18-00 Savage Love column, hosted kindly by The Onion. It's available at http://avclub.theonion.com/savage.html.
It goes into much of what's wrong with Nader, and why he's not a good choice to make, no matter what.
The Good Reverend
Consumption (sales, excise) taxes, tariffs/duties, property taxes, estate taxes, etc. Except for estate taxes (levied only on estates worth over ~$1.5million anyhow) and tariffs (which are levied against businesses more than individuals), these are state (not federal) taxes. Though property and estate taxes hit the wealthiest for more than the middle class, they don't even the disparity, thanks to lower rates on, my favorite, capital gains taxes.
Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than earned income? Why has the number one legislative priority of the Republican party been to eliminate capital gains taxes? Who would benefit from this almost exclusively?
Not the poorest 95% of the country, I assure you. Nothing chaps my hide more than a billionaire complaining about taxes on unearned income, for that's what capital gains are - money made by shuffling other money around.
We do need to streamline the tax code, but for me, step one would be classifying capital gains as income and taxing it to the same degree as we
tax people who work for a living.
(Sorry for the rant, not directed at you particularly, Stonehand. Well, except the top paragraph)
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The ArmageddonCon sci-fi con will be held as planned, on the mount of Meggido, Israel, at 29, Dec 2000 - 1 Jan 2001 as planned. Check out www.armageddoncon.org for details!
;-)
Gilad.
Property taxes are wealth taxes, n'est pas?
Non. At least, not completely. You can easily avoid property taxes by transfering your wealth to another form (e.g. money). Rather, as their name shows, they are taxes on a specific form of property. But I agree in that they are similar to wealth taxes in that they tax "static" value instead of income.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Who CARES? The point is: society didn't work, didn't earn the money; the rich man did. If he wanted his son to have the property, why should someone step in and say, 'well, society would benefit more from it'?
If it's determined that redistributing the contents of wealthy persons' bank accounts would 'benefit society more,' is that justification enough for stealing?
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
Brin says, "Still, his blatant campaign to give a few trillion dollars to those who need it least bothers me deeply. "
I'm sick and tired of hearing this, and I wish that Bush would have nipped it in the bud while he had the chance. To say that a tax cut "gives" someone money is predicated on the philosophy that all of our money belongs to the government first, and they decide how much of it we get to keep. "Nothing's certain but death and taxes" has been beated into our brains to the point where some actually accept as reasonable the premise that the money I earn belongs to the IRS first, and me second.
Perhaps Brin would prefer a new societal shape - flat line - we just chop off all assets above a certain dollar amount, and give them to the lower half of the pyramid. We'll all have more than enough, and no one has more than anyone else. And good news! There's no longer any need for charitable giving -- the government takes care of all of our needs.
Until it runs out of resources because those who actually DO something productive have lost all incentive to continue innovating, producing, and growing.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It's been tried before, and it didn't work.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
trustworthyness (Bush beats Gore hands-down here)
<bs>Yea, like when questioned about his coke habit; Bush didn't try to hide it, skirt around the issue, or any other deceptive tactics. He was very trustworthy, up front, and open about it.</bs>
There may be many reasons to vote for one candidate over the other, but please don't fall for the "Bush is trusworthy and Gore is a liar" line as a factor in your decision.
Believe it.
All Bush can come up with in these unscripted encounters is touchy-feely "I hate washington, but I'm a uniter" vagueries.
Gore will explain in intricate detail what he plans to do. Specific bills, dollar amounts, motivations. Bush responds by saying, "That's great Mr. Gore, but I can actually do whatever it is I think I want done."
You're telling me that's trustworthy or competent? How can you trust Bush to do something he never said what he'd do, or how he'd overcome the "rancor and discord" in Washington. He has no standing! He has no actual will! I don't even think he's read his own tax plan. Gore, when discussing his plan, or Bush's for that matter, can tell you how it will apply to you. Bush, when asked last night about his tax plan, said it'd be great and started talking about NATIONAL DEFENSE and MEDICARE (which, by the way, are "big government entitlement programs," liberal stuff).
Tell me some more about how you trust the man, what exactly you trust him to do, and how he has earned your trust. Bush is the cleanest example of a puppet I have seen in my short life. He even looks like a muppet. He has made no substantive commitments to the populace, just vague suggestions. You'd better believe that he's going to be controlled by his advisors. Voting for Bush is electing the NRA and the Christian Coalition directly into office.
Gore, conversely, is his own man. He at least knows what he wants to do as president (SPECIFICALY), and how he plans to get it done. And he can tell you about it.
Me, I'm still voting for Nader. I have no doubts that either one will succumb to PAC money until campaign finance reform is a reality.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Making this 20 million should more than cover almost all farms and private business' value.
People, if you want your vote to matter, DON'T vote for the lesser of two evils, go out and educate your selves about the options. Then vote for who you believe is right. It's as simple as that.
Here are a couple of links that I find relevant:
The Libertarian Party
The Green Party
One of Nader's sites.
Those, of course, are only a limited sampling from my bookmarks, but they're a start.
~~Galen~~
BTW you seem smart enough to type your name. Feel free to type it next time.
Oh sure, the inheritance tax is certainly an issue, but it makes for a pretty poor argument to bully people into voting for Gore, that's fer damn sure! Since Mr. Brin's letter sounds just that one note, with a bit of insult-your-audience harmonics, it's a pretty poor essay.
Certainly, I agree about the diamond-shaped social structure. That's a good metaphor, too. But I can hardly agree that the inheritance tax is the only thing holding it together! Sure, eliminating the inheritance tax may be a step in the wrong direction. Then again, plenty of people argue that it's not. Who knows? I posit that a decent implied social contract, a relative abundance of wealth, and not least, a representative government are the chemical bonds holding the diamond together, not certain policies regarding said wealth.
Consequently, it's the threats to those bonds that give this election and political climate its urgency. Witness: The rise of multi-national corporations that care little for the well-being of the USA. Witness: The incredible concentration of wealth in a vanishingly small segment of our population. Witness: How representative government is eroded when the corporations control the media, and the wealth controls the politicians. They can take our rights away, and never tell us until it's too late!
I had decided to vote for Nader earlier in this election season, but one simple event so thoroughly cemented my support for him that there's no way I can even consider voting for Gore (not to mention Bush). That simple event was the physical exclusion of Ralph Nader from the auditorium where the second debate was held. This shows just how far the mighty have fallen. Both the Democrats and Republicans (who run the debates) are so beholden to their corporate masters, that they see nothing wrong with violating the civil rights of a man who threatens their hegemony. And do we hear about it in the the 'free' press? Hardly. Even though it happened again, last night in St. Louis.
You see, on such issues, issues that really matter, the Republicrats are the same party. Both now represent increased corporate control of government. Both now represent the increased influence of money in politics. Therefore, it makes no difference that Bush calls for repeal of the inheritance tax, and Gore doesn't. Once money rules in the White House and the Capitol, the inheritance tax will fall, and the only difference between Bush and Gore is how soon.
The forces of wealth already have chipped away at our rights with the effective repeal of the Fourth Amendment in the War on (Certain Unpopular) Drugs, allowing the WTO to override our health and safety laws, with the DMCA, with 'free' media outlets that don't cover abuses by the ruling parties or only cover the hooligans rather than the principled protesters and human-rights abuses they suffered in Seattle and Prague, and in myriad other ways.
So go ahead, vote for Gore, I can't make up your mind for you. But take a look at the man and his record. A good, long, critical look at his record.
Nope,
Mark Thomas is an alternative comedian who enjoys hassling big business, governments and 'individuals of high net worth' live on Channel Four. Basically he is an out-and-out unreconstructed socialist and quite often gets right on my tits (or he would, if I had any) but just occasionaly he does something truly amusing like bumrushing Jack Straw at an Oxford University Union debate.
Elgon
You may remember a skirmish between the British and a rogue colony a couple of hundred years ago. One big cause of that war for indepedance was taxation without representation.
If I am dead I cannot vote.
If I cannot vote, don't tax me.
In addition a lot of people pay estate taxes. It's not just the Scrooge McDucks ultra wealthy.
Who says my the people I leave my money too won't do better things with it than the government?
Ah, but look beyond the static numbers and on to the tends. The violent crime rate in the UK is increasing faster than in the US (where I believe it might even be decreasing) -- it's just that the UK has a long way to go to "catch up". And in the US, there's a strong correlation between the level of gun control and violent crime, i.e., that violent crime increases as gun control increases and vice-versa.
--
Well, yes, I suppose I could have just scanned in some pages from Smith's Wealth of Nations, but I would expect intelligent people would have already read it. Apparently not, though, since you think this "dogma" is only twenty years old.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Thank you!
I'm sick and tired of everyone jumping over themselves to claim that Gore's "invented the internet" quote was taken out of context and actually has a tiny bit of truth to it, yet constantly dropping hints that Bush is some coke snorting (also a media invention) moron. This is the same thing that happened to Quayle. Sure he wasn't the best speaker, but he was pretty damn intelligent and never said half of the crap people associate with him. But since he is an evil republican, we can make up anything we want about him and Bush and pass it off as true. But you take a quote a little out of context about our Democrats and we will whine like a kicked dog.
Both candidates are smart. Both are effective leaders. It boils down to this issues, and polls show that the the public supports Bush's policies hands don't believe me, of course you don't. It's here: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/zo/)
Wouldn't it be nice if we could stop the stupid name calling and false characterizations and just vote for who is proposing the policies we believe in?
Finkployd
Except that reducing taxes actually *increases* tax revenue when the tax rate is beyond the point of maximum return on the Laffer Curve.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled fact-free program.
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
unlike a whole hell of a lot of people in the country believe that you know what's best for you.
Too many people it seems just want to give the government money and be taken care of.
Scary thought.
Heaven forbid we actually have to take care of ourselves.
However, I would still think that the top 10% are bringing in y% income, where y is less than 90%, but much higher than 33% (the percentage of national taxes they pay), which *is* unfair to everyone else.
IMO, a flat tax with no tax shelters outside of US bonds and such, save at near and above the poverty level where there's a sliding scale, would be better than the huge mess of tax codes we have now.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Haven't you ever heard the golden rule? Sure it's been repeated recently in a DISNEY FLICK, but it's still true.
:)
He who has the gold makes the rules.
It's still very true these days. Thats why the mickeysoft trial feels like such a joke. What stops bill from promising handy campaign contributions to friends of judges in the matter in exchange for rulings that favor mickeysoft. It's so bloody unfair it stinks.
Wouldn't it just be handy if it were possible to outlaw all the various mechanisms that lobbyists and stuff use to buy off politicians? If anyone wants to know why so much of the US suffers from a state of political apathy, that crap is why. Why bother voting, some rich bastard will just purchase the appropriate laws to support their vewpoint. (DMCA anyone?)
I don't see the problem with the richest people paying the most taxes. Granted, I think the stepping percentages are a little insane, I'm paying 40% or so now, at the beginning of the year I paid around 25%!! Maybe finland has it right, maybe socialism is the way to go
------
Politicians in election mode bear slight resemblance to human beings.
...
Democrats are for big gum'mint, Republicans are for big business.
Personally, I feel we need to help the less fortunate, rather than
letting them fend for themselves...
> Frightening info, but necessary reading
>
> The State of Texas, under the leadership of Governor George W. Bush, is
> ranked:
>
> 50th in spending for teachers' salaries
> 49th in spending on the environment
> 48th in per-capita funding for public health
> 47th in delivery of social services
> 42nd in child-support collections
> 41st in per-capita spending on public education
>
> and
>
> 5th in percentage of population living in poverty
> 1st in air and water pollution
> 1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance
> 1st in percentage of children without health insurance
--
.sig coming soon
I'll sum up this letter with one word: bullshit.
;-), but take a closer look at the man. You say he's smarter than GWB. Gimme a break. The man gets a question, mentiones it for 2 seconds, then goes off ranting about something only remotely relevant. He makes faces when GWB's talking, saying without opening his mouth: "GWB, you're so stupid..." Do you want a man like that discussing nuclear disarmament for example? The man is incompetent. And if you're into high-tech and internet, please consider the price we must pay if he's elected. Kiss free speech online good-bye. Al Gore's all about censorship; he wants to control what YOU should be allowed to see! Who the hell wants this? Fucking paternalists...
I'll agree that Al Gore really helped the internet along when he invented it
And about inheretance tax: Dude, you've got it sooooo wrong. It's not about big, evil corporations. It's about the guy inhereting a farm from his parents, and then is forced to sell it when he can't come up with the insane 40% tax, and is then forced to sell what should rightfully be his! Don't give me that rich brat shit. If a rich old geezer gives away his money to charity instead of his kids, then he'd do so nomatter the inheritance tax.
You have no clue what the hell you're talking about. Get your prioreties straight, man.
Does anyone else think this guy writes a lot like JonKatz? He talks about the fact that the affect of the death tax on family farms and buisnesses have been "debunked" and gives absolutely no evidence. The main issue with the death tax is that it is UNFAIR and, here's the biggie, UNCONSTITUTIONAL . It double taxes income. The government doesn't have the right to say, 'Well, this is wrong, but since it benefits people who should be benefited, we'll do it anyways'. If they aren't going to say that about corporate accountability and political reform, why the hell do they get to say it about taxation?
Dismissing Nader because he has personality traits you don't like and then saying vote for Gore cause he's a nice guy is utter bullshit. There are no views presented in this letter backed up by anything with so much as a semblence of fact.
If you want to talk about keeping the pyramid healthy and fair, what about the billions of dollars we sink into the "Drug War" that both Gore and Bush (not Browne or Nader) support; and support increasing? What about the billions, if not trillions of dollars we give away to corporations, both national and international? How about the HMOs and insurance companies? What about a bigger DoD budget?!
I'm voting for Nader because I agree with him on virtually every point (I'm wary of his views on nuclear power), and he has the record to prove it. What has Gore done in the last 25 years, let alone the last 8 years that DESERVES my vote?! Ralph Nader has done more as a consumer advocate not holding ANY political office than either Gore or Bush have done during their entire time in office (not counting of course wasting money and killing people).
If you want to talk about personality traits, how about two people too enamored with themselves and their political oligarchy-monopoly that they can't even get around to finding any points to disagree on during a debate?! Gore has served, according to him in the last debate, in public office for 25 years. In that quarter of a century he hasn't figured out how to debate a moron who doesn't know his ass from a screwdriver on national television in a way that makes people see what a moron he is? He needs a team of thirty "debate coaches" to sit around and tell him how to sigh correctly? Oh please.
A monkey with half an ass and a tutu could make the American public see that George W Bush has about as much capability to be an effective president as his dad and Ronald Reagan and half the intelligence or vision; Reagan and Bush, Sr. were terrible presidents, but atleast they had some idea of what they wanted to do.
On the subject of Supreme Court Justices, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore (during the super rally in NYC which was excellent) made excellent points. The two worst justices, Sculia and Thomas, were voted in by DEMOCRATS . Sculia was 98-0 in the Senate, and Thomas was pushed over the top by 11 Democrats. Where is your democratic rhetoric now?
Besides voting history, two of the three possible retirees have said they won't retire unless there is a republican president; electing Gore will not get them replaced (unless they die).
Sheesh. Next you want to post Democratic bullshit rhetoric trash, try some that atleast appears viable.
I personally agree with your whole post, but whether anyone else does or not, they should at least acknowledge the quote above.
To understand what's right and wrong, the lawyers work in shifts ...
"There isn't always something worth voting for, but there is almost always something worth voting against."
Or something like that.
And seeing as how there is little to be excited about in this year's choice, the decision seems to come down to which major candidate you would least like to see in office. Do you want a President who made his money in oil production, or one who sees the internal combustion engine as evil? Do you want a President who opposes abortion except in specific, limited situation or supports a woman's right to choose? Do you want a President who favors extending the internet tax moratorium or one who "invented the internet"? Do you want a President who can't speak clearly, or one who lies clearly?
Do you want a President who will add Supreme Court Justices who favor a more liberal approach, or a more conservative one?
Then there is the balance of power. Government is now stymied by a Republican congress and a Democratic White House. Do you favor that balance, or not?
This year, I really believe the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils. Which is in itself a rather sad, frightening commentary on today's political system.
-----------------------
Want more information? VoteSmart!
-- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - R.A.H.
The rich pay the majority of taxes to support the government. But it's that way on purpose. Those who benefit the most from government (i.e. the rich - don't even try to tell me that corporate protectionism and agencies like the FDIC, the FTC, and the SEC don't provide more to the rich than the SSA, Medicaid, and other social welfare programs do to the poor) deserve to pay the heavier share of its taxes.
Ummm.. FDIC doesn't really protect the rich. FDIC insures up to $100,000 I believe. The really rich have that much in their petty cash. The FTC actually makes it harder for businesses, because it stops unsavory business practices. It's more set up as a CONSUMER protection measure more than a BUSINESS protection measure. The SEC again mainly prevents people from sharing their inside information with others to help their friends make money at the expense of... drum roll please... LITTLE PEOPLE, who don't KNOW the CEO's of corporations.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
I am voting libertarian this election most likely. Second choice: GW Bush. The reason is simple: I'm paying the equivalent of someone's salary in taxes. I know people who make less per month than I pay in taxes. The tax situation in this country is ridiculous. I know a lot of people say that it's because I make a lot, but I really don't. Also, people say that I shouldn't complain because others don't make so much. That may be true, but it doesn't cover the fact that *my* money is being used for things I don't approve of and things I don't need.
I've got government doing an awful lot of things I don't want and ignoring the things I do and the net result is that I pay an entire person's salary in taxes.
How about roads? National defense? Instead, several million dollars of my money was used to buy back guns in poor neighborhoods, something which I'm emphatically against.
The fact is that our current society is a result of our development into a more technical and knowledge-based economy. Tax apportionment isn't going to modify the fundamental situation of the economy, but it is unfair to me and many like me.
The Libertarians want to spend less of my money doing things I don't want. I'm all for that.
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
With no knowledge of economics, how is he to choose someone who has some?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Then pay attention to, and vote in, your LOCAL elections. Your county commisionners/city council/state representatives have more influence over your life than you realize, and are in raced decided by far fewer votes than national elections. Local elections are where your vote, and your voice, can make a much larger impact.
Go Vote! And VoteSmart!
-- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - R.A.H.
"One responsibility of the government is to help its citizens when they require it." is just not true. It'd be nice to think so, but I don't think it is.
Society has a responsibility to help it's members. Government has a responsibility to govern to protect the borders of the country, establish and enforce laws to protect life and liberty, and collect taxes enough to fund the first two. Last time I looked at the constitution, there was nothing about helping those who are poor, IIRC - it was a few months ago, and it's not my government, but anyway...
I actually agree with you - the rich should pay the taxes for more or less the reasons you state, but in the literal sense, it's not a requirement.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Wealth!=Income
Income!=Wealth
I can make $1,000,000 and either save it or spend it. If I save it (ie: Place it in a bank or purchase durable items that have a resale value such as land, vehicles, stock, etc.), I have Wealth. If I spend it on non durable goods, (ie: Expensive food, travel around the world, gambling), I have high income, but low WEALTH.
We're talking apples and oranges here. I don't care what their percentage of WEALTH is, I want to know what their percentage of INCOME is!
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Since only electoral votes matter, if you live in a state where there's a strong margin between the candidates, a gadly vote can have much more meaning than a vote for Gore or Bush - an extra percent for the Greens (or Libertarians, or Refomers) does much to bring the attention of to major parties to their causes, whereas an extra percent of victory for Gore (a shoo-in in Maryland, unless he's caught sodomizing small dogs in a Satanic ritual by the light of burning Americans flags) won't affect things one bit.
Good points on the inheritance tax; I'm really disappointed that I haven't heard more discussion like this from Democrats. Maybe if we did hear stuff like this from Gore, more of us would be voting for him instead of the gadfly.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The money stewarded by charitable foundations is piled in a closet somewhere?
A properly organized foundation delivers benefits by distributing the return on the investment of its principal in *equity* markets, dipshit.
Pardon my french, I can't believe this outburst is scored *insightful*.
illegitimii non ingravare
Uh, Mr. "Archangel", I think your nick and your sig cancel each other out. Why should I take anything that you say seriously?
To understand what's right and wrong, the lawyers work in shifts ...
Nor do I, actually. :) I'm taking this all way too personally, and I think it's time I stepped back and took a break for a while. Forgive me if my tone got a little strident there.
We're not passing them by so that Mr. Goldshorts (who's he? I've never met him...) can by his daughter another Lear jet. We're saying that Mr. Goldshorts deserves respect, credit, and happiness for the work he's put in to EARN his money. And in the process for all the money he's put into the economy hiring workers and buying products.
This hypothetical rich man already has all the happiness money can buy. Repect and credit for his accomplishments are something he can only get from his peers, not the government. Once you have no debt, sound investments, a car/house/wife/dog/and toybox then you're as happy as you can get financially. He's earned this comfortable lifestyle. What more does he need that money can buy?
The cruelty is that people consistantly harm one another either financially or emotionally by making the ability to earn money a sin.
No. The ability to earn money, like all other exceptional abilities, creates an obligation to use a small part of your abilities to improve the world. There is no great power that does not carry a great responsibility. It only becomes a sin when a person denies this responsibility and is selfish with their excesses.
There is no responsibility for a government to help it's citizens financially. It is the government's responsibility to protect them from enemies, foriegn and domestic. It's their responsibility to make the laws fair so that all citizens are EQUAL before the law. Under no circumstances is it the government's responsibility to make sure they eat right, or have heat in their homes. That's charity. For that sort of thing, turn to churchs, foundations, and community help.
I disagree, and I think this is the essential Republican/Democratic divide (not that I'm a democrat; I'm registered independant, but obviously somewhere in that cloud left of center.) The varying worlds of thought on this subject is also why the Libertarians scare the hell out of me.
It is the government's responsibility to safeguard the populace. Yes, that means policing the food they eat. Without the FDA, we'd all be eating food laden with sawdust. Even with food aid programs there are still children in the south ill from malnutrition. And it means protecting those who cannot find adequate shelter. We're talking about people dying, here. A government exists in part to prevent that from happening.
And it's not a tax break, it's a tax reduction.
Semantics. The rich don't need it, other people do. And I believe it is the government's role to make that distinction.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
> What absolutely astounds me is how people like Brin will slavishly vote for whatever felon the Democratic machine happens to dredge up. There is a danger to our republic, and it comes from people like Brin who support candidates that actively undermine the rule of law. The laws the Clinton-Gore adminsitration have broken are well documented elsewhere. Brin and others seek to reward them by voting them back into power. If scoundrels like Gore continue to get elected, eventually we will wind up with a modern day aristocracy: the poltical class that is above the law and everyone else. Does anyone seriously want to be part of the "everyone else" that is at the whim of the political class? Vote to keep our republic: vote for ANYONE but Gore.
you might be more effective if you didn't start with the insulting presumption that i don't know anything about nader and that's why i'm voting for him. on the contrary, is it just possible that i'm voting for nader because i know something about him? in that case, a more detailed critique would at least be debatable.
for myself, i'm no great nader apologist, and i have my own problems with him. doug henwood had a good leftist critique of nader back in 96 which is still useful today on two scores: 1) why leftists might have problems with nader, and (2) why leftists should still vote for him. the scene is a little different now, but much of this is still applicable, adding in the fact that votes for nader could get matching funds for the greens -- ahem, mr. environment.
i realize nader isn't going to fly among libertarians and objectivists, but let's not expect potshots to be persuasive to people who have actually thought about voting for nader.
"I've come to the conclusion that revolutions aren't profitable." -kevin kelly
Perhaps I'm missing something... When did race enter this argument?
Maybe it should be indexed to the CPI.
Absolute caps are... odd, given inflation and the life expectancy of the average law. At least income tax brackets are readjusted periodically... but the AMT brackets also need to get tweaked, otherwise the upper middle-class is going to get smacked pretty soon IIRC.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
... at least, I believe this is what you were looking for since it has the same info. It's in two articles, very technical on the brain anatomy.
;
http://www.pdxnorml.org/brain1.html
http://www.pdxnorml.org/brain2.html ;
I don't often feel compelled to respond to a piece of social criticism, but it this case I absolutely must. First a couple of bits of information about me to provide a context. I am a European who has lived in the US am extended period of time (33 years). I am a member of the middle of the "diamond" that David describes. I am (by principle) apolitical. BTW, I have worked my ass off for what I have. Now my issues. 1. I must take issue with the assertions about the European wealthy ("...a majority of millionaires inherit their riches".) This may be true in Great Britain, but certainly does NOT apply to most other parts of Europe. There are certainly (extremely) wealthy that have inherited, but the (European) millionaires that I know have earned what they have (by much the same means that have worked in the US.) Let's further delineate among the wealthy. The bottom line is that the extremely wealthy (those folks that David is addressing) have (and always have) ways to shelter and pass on their wealth. Really, this is trivial to do for someone with means (convoluted trusts, offshore accounts, etc.) Good luck trying to pry away their wealth. 2. Inheritance tax. Let's get real about this tax thing. Every dollar I earn gets taxed multiple times at earning time (state, federal, and social security). When I spend it gets zapped by sales tax (most folks don't have a clue about the level of taxes on certain commodities - gas, cigarettes, etc.). What I earn from investing, of course, gets capital gained. Let's not forget about intangible tax, and all the rest. I think the notion that what I (and EVERYONE else) leaves to their children gets taxed (mightily) is vulgar. You are talking about practically everyone in the "diamond." Let's stop this social engineering, and work (and write) about the things that are truly eroding our cerebral/social/environmental areas. I think your efforts would be better directed in those areas.
QuickSilver_999 had an excellent response. But tell me, how does a person who can't afford to feed his children, let alone send them to college, have an equal opportunity to a person who sends their kid to Harvard with his pocket change?
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Seriously.
People that support Bush are certifiable if they think he's got "policies." What he's got is notions and "I'm not the other guy" rhetoric.
Is one of his policies "I'll bring dignity back to the Oval Office?" Well, what will he do for an encore? It takes 30 seconds to bring dignity somewhere, and then he's got 3.999 years left to sit and be dignified. Furthermore, the voters who think that such an "issue" is a legitimate reason to elect a person president have been decieved by the right. Dignity alone does not get bills passed or provide national security. It's a red herring.
As far as I can tell his other policy is to end partisan bickering. Which is impossible unless there are no partisans. So he can only deliver on this promise if the Republicans carry a wide majority in the house and senate and there is no disagreement on how to screw the public. A democrat can just as easily accomplish the same thing with a congress of the same party. Hell, if we elected an entire capitol filled with trained rats there'd be no partisan bickering because they'd all agree: cheese.
Bush is a non-candidate. He's using the anti-incumbent rhetoric just swell, using to his advantage that the republican majority has made for a noisy but EQUITABLE few years, but has no other issues. He's got strategy, not issues. He's saving that until the people controlling him can whisper their issues in his ear after he's elected.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Get this -- in the USA, charitable giving by the rich is MORE THAN TEN TIMES as high as it is in Europe! Studies credit most of this difference to the inheritance tax, spurring the wealthy to use their money to buy fame and gratitude, rather than let Uncle Sam decide how it will be spent.
Now, assuming these studies are credible (unreferenced 'studies' are always dangerous quote generators), wouldn't this comment encourage us to repeal any taxes possible? If the 'wealthy' (conveniently undefined) would rather make their own decisions than let Uncle Sam do it, why not give them more money to do it with?
So long as most of the millionaires in each generation still have to earn it and their kids still go to college with our kids. In that case they'll keep intermarrying with us, instead of thinking themselves a different species.
What!?!?! No class warfare in this piece? What is this drivel? Elsewhere he claims to have no issue with people of wealth, yet his class bias clearly seeps through. It's like the guy at the bar who, when turned down by a beautiful woman, loudly proclaims her a lesbian. I don't have what it takes to belong to a certain group, so I must find a reason for their not including me. Besides, if I want to spoil my grandchildren with my wealth, that's my prerogative...IT'S MY MONEY!
People who have thrived immensely under the protection/support/subsidy of a great nation don't want to help pay to keep that nation prospering and growing, or to help poor kids rise up high enough to compete with them on an even playing field.
This is patently false. Even if you assume that such pure selfishness existed, if the wealthy want America to discontinue its prosperity, who would purchase the goods and services that reinforce their wealth?
Rather, the issue is the fairness of the tax cut itself. Gore's tax benefits are mostly credits, not cuts and are directed specifically to certain groups. This is blatant social engineering and allows him to claim that he is helping almost every person in the country. You're a one-eyed, peg-legged gay eskimo? Gore will design a tax credit for you. No, it won't make much difference in your life once you actually look at the details, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that Gore cares.
In contrast, Bush's tax benefits are mostly cuts, and primarily distributed across ALL classes, not just the segments that Mr. Brin favors. That means that the eskimo will benefit, just as everyone else benefits. And it's only fair that the top 1% get 30-35% of the tax benefits since they pay 32% of ALL taxes. I can't imagine anything more fair than that. Or is Mr. Brin only interested in "social engineering" that serves his own purposes?
ENOUGH If you really want to vote against social engineering, vote against Gore.
Say the tax rate is 10%. In *absolute terms* the percentage tax paid by the wealthy and the poor is the same -- 10%. But that doesn't factor in the differences in disposable income.
A rich person making $100,000 spends $50,000 on living expenses (housing, food, medical care, etc). Thus his tax rate as a *percentage of disposable income* is 10,000/50,000, or 20%.
On the other hand, a poor person making 10,000 a year spends 8,000 on living expenses (once again, food, health care, housing). Thus his tax rate as a percentage of disposable income is 1,000/2,000, or 50%.
Obviously, I just pulled these numbers out of the air, but they are sufficient to make the argument. Hence, the "progressive" tax is , in theory anyway, actually flat when thought of in terms of disposable income. However, the fighting question then becomes "How much of my income is disposable income?"
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
I guess I should have put the emphasis on STUPID, not rich. I intend to be rich .I just don't intend to be stupid and amoral. My $2000 in luxury spending, or savings is less important than $200 a piece for 10 families to spend on food and necessities. This is why a flat tax is regressive it imposes a greater burden on those who are poorer because it is taking money from necessities, while the rich pay the same percentage, but that money comes form luxuries. A prograssive tax like we have now is fairer because the poorer person gets more money for the necessities while the rich person has to get the 20' boat instead of the 25' boat.
Quick fix, no income under 20K per year will be taxed, above that there will be a 15% flat tax for everyone. If you Still think that unfairly taxes poor families then do it this way.
1 Person, 20K = No Taxes
2 Person, 25K = No Taxes
3 Person, 30K = No Taxes
4+ Person, 35K = No Taxes
Any person or family where income is greater than the amount shown pays 15% or the amount neccessary to drop them to the top of their bracket, whichever is less. So 1 person making 20,025$ a year won't get screwed and have to pay 3 grand in taxes. Just 25$.
That way a family of 4 where one parent has a decent job making around 30K pays no taxes which will significantly add to their ability to take care of their children.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
"regressive" is not appropriate...
Thanks for the tip. As I understood it, "progressive" and "regressive" were opposite directions in a spectrum of taxing schemes. In that light, the idea I was trying to convey was that a flat tax is more regressive than our current system. Of course, once I admit that, I open myself up to debate on whether or not our current system is too progressive, etc.; a debate in which I am clearly outmatched.
If everyone pays, say, 13%, the amount anyone pays is in proportion to their income.
I was really drawn to this argument when I first heard it, but Steve Forbes soured the deal (this was before/during the primaries). Some Web site (I forget which) pointed out that under his plan, Mr. Forbes has no income (neglecting potential salary as President), and therefore would pay no taxes. As marcus seems to believe, investment income wouldn't count as taxable income; IMHO, I think this is wrong.
If class inequities continue to grow, the top 10% better be sure to own 10% of the nation's guns... with personal armies to match.
Does anybody have statistics on gun ownership rates in the US according to income?
I'm guessing that hordes of street thugs (and backwoods rednecks, for that matter) have the power to significantly alter American society right now.
If there is anyone who I haven't pissed off with these comments, let me know and I'll try to correct my oversight. I hope I got gun control advocates and rich folks riled up at least!
Therefore, surplus tax receipts indicate a tax cut is in order.
We have something called the National Debt, which, as far as I'm concerned, means we don't have a surplus. I'd much rather hear a candidate talk about sinking every penny of the so-called "surplus" into paying off the national debt. I don't think we should lower taxes until we pay off the debt.
folks who meddle with the tax code to encourage social behaviors they prefer, more typically a Democratic position
Uhh, yeah. Like the War On Drugs TM. Face it, both the Democrats and the Republicans meddle with the tax code to encourage social behaviors. I am so sick of hearing the hypocritical Republican talk about "Getting Big GovernmentTM Off Our Backs". Republicans want just as much Big Government as the Democrats do, they just want to use it to enforce their religious beliefs.
--
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
Thru charity. Thru loans. Thru hard work. Thru scholarships. And you don't need to go to Harvard to make a million bucks. Plenty of people that I know of went to far lower colleges than that and make some pretty serious money.
Not only can people work for what they want, but they also don't always need it. I really think college is overemphasized these days. In many cases, it's just an overgrown kindergarden.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
The wealthy have this neat trick of having the public bear costs while privatizing profits. This tradition was manifested in the European colonization of Africa and the sub-continent. For example, the Dutch East India Company used the publicly funded Dutch national army to protect it's "investments" (read economic pillage) in India. However, it kept all profits for itself.
One might argue the company generated wealth, but all it really did was shift wealth from India to the disproportionate benefit of Dutch elite. (And BTW, India had a thriving economy before the Europeans stepped in.)
This tradition is carried on today by the transnationals and wealthiest families. The wealthy benefit from our substantial distribution system, our university system, our R and D systems, and our security systems (including police, military, and intelligence). All these things combine to protect their wealth. Yes, we all benefit, but then we all contribute. The letter is suggesting, and rather convincingly IMHO, that those who benefit the most are trying to shirk their responsibility by socializing the costs of maintaining a civil, technological society.
After all, they've done it in the past.
Regarding the percentages issue, I'd like to point out that there's more to it than the hard numbers. We all have basic living expenses. Ie, there is a minimum we could possibly spend to keep nourished and sheltered. What's left over is disposable income. Taxes for the less wealthy therefore have more of an impact because they have less disposable income.
Like all mathematical modelling, percentages don't fully capture reality. 50% of $100 is more significant than 50% of $10000000000000000000. I mean, how many yachts do you really need? Ie, if all I have is $100 to spend, and you take half, getting that half back is significant in terms of my basic material comfort. To a middle-class family, a tax break could mean more sporting and academic activities or even something so basic as healthier food on the table.
Mathematically unfair? Who cares!
Now, one may use the 'garden path' argument and attempt to discredit my points by taking the extreme. So, let me take this opportunity to say that I do not support big government or big taxes. Let me also say that I can be in favour of a (truly) free market without being an economic rationalist.
A retail system doesn't work well. Here is why. Lets say an individual needs $20,000 (arbitrary number but close) to pay what most would consider basic needs. Let us say he or she makes, say $30,000. The remain $10,000 is put into savings. (I don't think saving 1/3 of your income is reasonable but whatever). So $20,000 or 2/3 of his or her income is spent on things that would generally be hit by a retail tax. Food/electricity/transportation/etc.
Now lets take someone who makes $300,000. They also need about $20,000 for basic needs but let us assume their wealth makes them more prone to purchase things, so lets say they spend $100,000 (5 times the less wealthy individual) and save $200,000.
The effective tax rate for someone making $30k is 60% and the tax rate for some one earning $300k is 30%. Seems backwards to me. The wealthly do buy lots of things (and would be hit by a retail tax) but they don't buy more as a percentage of income. They have a tendency to invest. Which is good but doesn't negate the fact that they would be pay less taxes (again as a percentage, which really is the way we should be, and hopefully are, thinking about tax rates).
Do you ever feel like there are people watching you? You're not alone.
The people who are earning Earned Income Tax Credit are in fact people who usually need said funds. When I was a child my family and I were the recipients of such funds and it helped to offset the large number of other taxes that were levied for various things.
The government needs funds to pay for things. If the government wants to give money from overly rich people to those who are making less than the poverty line and allow them to have a better life that is their perograterative.
You seem to think that life was good back in the good old days without seeing all the good that government has done to help people.
Having been extremely well schooled in American History I can say that Federalism is a good thing. If you let states do all the work you get a bunch of bull shit laws that are all about the local rich guys and never focus on anyone. Some of the more violent times in our history were where colonial state governments were in charge of their little fiefdoms. Remember the rebellion of Daniel Shays? Well see the local fat plantation owners were fearful of loosing money and they decided to basically let the indians do whatever they pleased to the settlers. Well your average settler lived on the frontier and so was the recipient of many tomahawks in the face. So Shays tried to take over and failed. Civil rights legislation would never happened if the Federal government hadn't come and and tried to make a difference.
You are probably thinking of life in the antellebum period right? Well back then things weren't that rosy either. Before the civil war a bunch of wackos lead by John C. Calhoon out of South Carolina thought that they could do whatever they wanted too and they got bitchslapped by Andrew Jackson (old Hickory to his friends) and basically they were forced to toe the line.
I guess I can say I am a person who is more inclined that government should represent all people not just rich and powerful people who want to rule.
The problem with representation is that the government is probably going to fund things that you don't like. In fact even if this were a direct democracy and everyone was asked about what they wanted in government then you would *still* get pissed off at something. The whole reason we don't have direct democracy is that it rarely prevents massive majorities from crushing the little guy (wheather that's a social, ecconomic, or political thing it dosn't matter).
Respond to s
I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.</i>
You *are* kidding right? Gore wants to continue abortion and require licensing of guns (if not a ban)... Does anyone want the metaphore of crapping down this countries throat? I didn't think so.
(I suppose if we kill the children off now, before they're born, we might counter the increase in crime once guns are banned. Less people==less crime either way...)
Bush is an idiot--given. Gore is a liar--given. Who do we vote for? I don't really care anymore.
In the Simpsons universe, we'd have mayor Quimby right now and a choice between Homer and Mr. Burns. I'd rather vote for Lisa, Marge, Dr. Hibbert, Sideshow Bob or even that comic book guy. But no.
Maybe we should just give up on this country and start a colony on mars. Maybe something based on Libertarian political philosophies and reason--like America was long ago. In a new colony we might prevent things from getting this bad.
That same top 10% also holds more than 50% of all wealth in this country. By that standard, they should be paying 1/2 rather than 1/3 of all taxes.
It is an income tax, not a wealth tax. Those who are paying the vast majority of the income tax (that top 1%, 10%, whatever) are not the same group as those who own the top 1%, 10%, etc of the wealth.
If we have a 10% reduction in the income tax rate for all income tax payers, then it should be obvious that the more you pay into the system, the greater your particular relief will be, in raw dollars. After all, you were paying more raw dollars into the system to begin with. There is nothing unfair about all taxpayers getting the same percentage reduction on their rates.
Most people of course will agree with your theory, however reducing a bureaucracy is like fighting entropy. In the private sector, companies that get too bloated eat up all their revenues and go bankrupt. With government it isn't so easy.
Bite the hand.
The Lottery:
Taxes for people who can't do the math.
--
Fully half of the current budget is used for entitlement programs: farm subsidies, welfare, social security, medicare, etc.
I would _not_ consider farm subsidies a social program, personally... But if you do, then yes, you are probably right about the numbers. Farm subsidies are massive, much more massive than most people think. According to NPR, last year 50% of all farm income was from subsidies. That's a problem.
And second: SS was -never- meant to take the place of a person's own ability to pay their way in retirement.
Did I say it was? Or that it should? Personally, I wouldn't mind it if we eliminated social security entirely (I have a very nice IRA, among other investments, so I don't plan on needing it) except for the fact that then we'd have to do something about all the people who didn't save for retirement.
Josh Sisk
The "top 10%" has 98% of the wealth. So you're proposing that people with 2% of the wealth should pay 2/3 of all taxes?
Education is the silver bullet.
--
Ireland had the benefit of billions of dollars worth of support from the EU, which let them cut taxes and increase spending. That money came from the richer EU nations --- like Germany.
All money was someone's taxed income at one time or another. Consider this; someone who inherited enough money to live off of it without working is one less person with taxable income. That money gets taken out of taxable circulation, potentially for hundreds of years. So the only taxable money is the stuff that is trading hands in the middle and lower class segments, and the income that gets added to the pile for the upper class. Aslong as they make more money than they spend, that money will stay within the family prepetually, and any taxes on them will only be on the part that's added to the large amount of wealth they already have. Without inheritance tax, money slowly trickles out of the taxable domain and into a pool that cannot be taxed.
However the top one percent, that Gore talks about so much, pay 1/3 of all taxes. Gore admits this.
But lets talk about the greater concern. How do we preserve the what we have? Bush's plan gives tax breaks to everyone. Not just the rich not just the poor. Gore's plan give money to poeple who chose to do something the goverment wants them to do. This is a fundamental diferance in philosophy.
But it is Bush's other plan (social security) that is not getting enough atention. If you are poor. Part of you social security money can be set aside in an investment account. That money is yours to keep no matter what! You can pass it down to your heirs when you die. That money becomes Hamilton's "pools of capital" that provide the social mobility the author liked so much.
That becomes especially true if taxation only affects (as it should) disposable income.
And it does not? How much does a person who makes 18k pay in taxes? Really?
To be fair Bush's plan raises the level where you pay no taxes higher then Gores does. So knowing the facts I assume you will be voting for Bush, eh?
"The poet presents his thoughts festively, on the carriage of rhythm; usually because they could not walk" Nietzsche
They don't. The Constitution, read as written, would prevent all these things. Problem is, it would prevent Dr. Brin's "social engineering", too. If you believe that the US Federal Government is really responsible for the blossoming of the middle class in the 20th century, maybe it'd be best to take his advice, and hope we can influence the legislature to make amends.
For my own part, I can neither see that social engineering is compatible with freedom, or responsible for prosperity. And I sure as hell don't trust Congressfolk, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.
I don't much trust businessfolk either... at least big businessfolk, like Gates and Ellison. But it seems to me that it's their influence over government that really poses the greatest threat. Again, limit the sorts of laws Congress can make.
For that matter, I don't really trust the rich. But if Gates and I can both get an X% tax cut, fine by me. Why? Because I don't compare myself to those above me. I don't spend my time worrying about their lordly children, or where they ski, as the author seems to do.
And please... don't tell me that we're "spending money" on anyone by not taking as much of their money. That's really obvious... I like my propaganda mild, with milk and sugar.
Geez, I've gone over my two minutes...
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
OK, I researched this one. What matters in crime rate is the rate at which crimes are solved and criminals are locked up. Guns are a distant second in having an effect on crime, but, in fact, more guns does in general mean less crime. On the other hand, "violent society" seems to have nothing to do with it. If you have competent police and enough prisons that are not clogged with small time marijuana peddlars, you can play all the Doom you want, have guns or not, be religious or not, be rich or be poor, educated or illiterate (though illiterate police are unlikely to succeed), and your crime rate will be pretty low. The main arguments for guns are political, and that they have a unique ability to stop crimes as they are happening, which police cannot do in the vast majority of cases.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Nobody is guaranteed an easy life. Forcefully taking more from the people who can afford it to "redistribute" it is bullshit. No one else has a right to the money that another owns.
Our largest "cost" is entitlements. The food you eat, grown by farmers via subsidies is one such cost. If you think military spending is in the majority, I suggest you examine the budget before making such baseless claims. You'd be surprised at how little we spend on the military. If you include intelligence and other defense associated costs, it's still small compared to entitlements.
Yes. The term is "progressive tax code." The idea is to have those that can help support those that can't, and like it or not, this is a Good Thing. Paying $1000 a year or 10% is a hell of a lot more painful for someone making $10k a year than paying $250k or 1/3 of $750k. Big numbers, yes, but at the bottom levels a little goes a long way, and at the top they should be investing what they can to minimize the damage from the tax hit. Progressive policy has done a lot to create the diamond structure Brin describes, and flat or regressive taxes (same thing, really) would gut that progress. Do you really want a class war?
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
what's the old saying, the 10/90 rule?
where 90% of the wealth is held by 10% of the people...
something doesnt add up.. if they have 90% of the wealth, shouldn't they be paying 90% of the taxes???
I know that's unfair, and very extremist, but I don't think it's unfair to them that they pay 67% of the taxes either....
All right, I've seen this GWB is a moron thing one too many times. No, I don't think he's a rocket scientist, and yes, it's a good thing he brought Cheney on board. But folks, Gore is in precisely the same category! He's an idiot AND he's dishones. They (ambiguous, amorphous group in each party) don't pick independant, free thinking candidates. Do you really believe Clinton was free to follow his instincts? Did ya read the Starr report? Some of the statements of the Secret Service made him seem rather like a gold fish in a bowl who was just rebelling a bit by getting blow jobs from the hired help.
The point here is that we still have an EXTREMELY progressive tax system. One of the points Bush makes is that, even after the proposed tax cut, we are taking most of our revenue out of the wealthy. The real issue isn't the income tax! Most revenue comes from taxes a great deal more hidden, and a great deal more regressive, than the income tax.
The one thing this letter misses, and this mostly based on the thoroughly debunked "labor theory of value" is that investment capital is necessary. He seems happy to have people rich enough to spend more on making themselves happy, but wants to stop those wealthy enough to invest in the economy. This is precisely the wrong answer.
We need money not to be the end in itself. We need wealth, not as a yard stick with which to compete with one's neighbors, but as the basis for production.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
-m
How do you choose a mechanic for your car? How do you determine a good resteraunt to eat at? Do you have to know (or should you know) about everything to make any decision?
Respond to s
David -- this is a fascinating rant, but you miss the point entirely: one side will provide the means for you to join the rich (like maybe help fund the large R&D effort for the cold war that led to our present economic boom), and the other side will do all it can to prevent you from getting rich (by taxing the shit out of you if you exceed the median, playing devisive politics to split the nation, etc... Ted Kennedy does not seek peers.) Still, I can't believe that either side will make a whole lot of difference in the end. Most people don't care. Clinton will be remembered as a good president because he didn't break anything, not because he did anything.
I'm sure you don't like the Republicans as much as I distrust the Democrats, but I'd urge you to look at both sides of the wealth equation. It's not as skewed as you make it out to be.
I'm a Canadian, so I don't have a vote in your election. For me, it's a cross between a circus sideshow, and an oncoming oil tanker heading right at my canoe.
:)
But the strange way your electoral system is set up means that third-party votes are, for all intents and purposes, thrown away. All they do is reduce the size of the population who actually determines who gets to win. And the smaller that portion gets, the more likely the decision is going to be made by power blocs that vote en masse for one of your two parties.
Depending on the relative size and power of these blocs, you're giving power to some pretty scary people with some pretty scary agendas....
A protest vote may feel nice (and here, in Canada, it can actually be effective - our version of the Republicans went from running the country to effective non-existance in one election!) but they way your system works, not only does it accomplish nothing, it actively works against you.
I'd go so far as to say "Any vote for a third-party candidate in a US election is a vote for the guy you don't want"
I don't disagree with any of your motivations, but were I in your shoes, I'd hold my nose, and vote Gore.
It's the Supreme Court, Stupid.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Anyone who has followed the raging human rights debates in this country should actually read what the Supreme Court has written on such subjects as forced sterilization (Buck v. Bell) and just who is actually a person (Dred Scott). Why do I mention these? Because certain "charitable" organizations were started by people who were at the top and wanted to stay that way. Foxes are buying welfare for chickens.
With all the rhetorical posturing about "choice", the bottom line is that the Republicans don't want to associate with poor people, and the elite Democrats want to destroy them: Isn't it odd that billboard ads for malt liquor, sterilization, and abortion seem to be in minority neighborhoods more so than in White neighborhoods. Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League made no secret that its intention was to eliminate the "teaming, swarming" minorities and create a society of "thoroughbreds," and it was catching on in the 20's and 30's, until a disciple named Adolph Hitler carried her doctrines to their logical conclusions.
Now the rhetoric is directed beyond government mandated genocide, as the velvet glove of "choice" is being used to convince minorities to destroy themselves, and the iron fist of the welfare state is only partially occulted to make sure the government mandated choices are made.
I have also noticed that it is always someone else who is causing the population explosion. Malthus has been consistantly been proven wrong, but just in case he is correct, I offer my final solution: People who think the world is over populated or teaming with inferiors will help solve the problem by arranging to have themselves shot.
How many people have to suffer a harsh punishment before "cruel and unusual" returns zero?
My understanding of economics must be really shaky, because I can't see how encouraging class warfare would do anything to help the economy...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
All money was someone's taxed income at one time or another. Consider this; someone who inherited enough money to live off of it without working is one less person with taxable income. That money gets taken out of taxable circulation, potentially for hundreds of years.
Unless those recipients of that inherited money are sewing it into their mattresses, that money is being stored in banks, or is invested to fund productive enterprises. The money that is in the bank is lent to help finance productive enterprises. It is not lost from circulation. It goes toward purchases, salaries, payments of debts, etc. All these activities are taxed in their normal ways. Even the money the recipient's spend on themselves, as consumers, is income to someone and is taxed.
Explain again how this money is taken out of taxable circulation?
"The system is not currently working for everyone as it is promised to"
when and where was anything along the lines of "you will not live in poverty" promised to anyone in this country?
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
I knew 13% was the wrong number to use. It was in my head because of Forbes, but you'd have to be on crack to exempt investment income. I believe in capital gains being at different rates, because you can't treat $750k earned by a plastic surgeon doing surgery or $5M in book sales the same as you do with $5M earned on invested money, because the $5M invested has another impact on the economy. In fact, the last major lowering of capital gains rates not only increased investment and spawned new jobs and innovation, but increased the total revenue in dollars collected.
But if you went to a flat tax (especially a flat low tax), and everything was subject to it, I agree.
But disasters and illnesses and accidents do strike. It is a civilized government that provides a safety net for it's citizens.
Aparently you've never needed such a net, or known anyone who has. Count yourself lucky. Hope you don't get stricken with mental illness, suddenly unable to work for a living. Oh, you have family and friends to take care of you? Lucky you, not everyone is so lucky.
And I wish our current government DID give equal OPPORTUNITY to everyone, but it doesn't. Nor does it equally protect the rights of its citizens. Whether it be racial profiling, denying gay people rights to petition their goverment (vis the defeated Colorado Amendment II), or share in the civil marriage contract, or be it the illegal search and seisure that is regularly performed in the name of the "War on Drugs".
Trust me, I'd much rather my tax money go for social security and medicare and welfare, to be honest. Think of it this way: At the very least, these programs contribute to social order, opportunity, and safe-guarding property rights by removing the motivation for mass riots of the 'common people' who cannot get enough food to eat, etc. Thus do the rich benefit from programs for the poor...
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
My grandmother retired from the J.C. Penney company before they offered a retirement plan after 30 years. 2 years after that they gave all the retirees a pension. She was old, tired, and had saved enough to last a while so she retired. J.C. Penney was sued by a group of retirees who retired and didn't get anything. J.C. Penney cut their losses by setting a cutoff date with the courts on how far back they were going to give pensions.. My grandmother happened to be in the one month before the cutoff. She still has her savings, but if my father didn't live with her there is no way she could pay the electric, heating, or telephone. Seniors die each year because they cannot afford to heat or cool their homes. They suffer from arthritis, which is made worse by extreme heat or cold. The poor often do without heat, or cooling or adequate food. I make a good living, but we're a one income family while my wife is in college for the next 3 years so we shop at discount stores, discount food stores. We were lucky enough to qualify for a loan to buy a house, but most of it sits empty since we're not buying any furniture other than we have. We could probably afford to buy more furniture.. or other things if we didn't have to pay taxes.. We're penalized by the Marriage Penalty... I would like the Marriage Penalty removed... but I wouldn't want to stop paying Social Security if it means that someone like my grandmother might not be able to afford medicine, or to eat, or to live out the last years of their life comfortably. I don't think any child should be deprived of their grandparents. Some of you talk about how the rich need tax breaks.. The middle class is a disappearing part of our country.. they are quickly slipping into the poor.. Let me tell you something, when you hit age sixty you go from being middle class to poor pretty easily.. You wear clothes that are old or out of style.. not because you want to.. but because you have to save... The Evil Rich are the Record Execs, the Sony Execs, the Movie Execs, the ones who care for one thing.. Money, they don't care about their employees well-being.. or the well-being of the people.. Just crank out garbage films.. Independent Filmmakers now have a voice, and so do Independent Musicians.. They want to contribute to the world, to make a difference.. I refuse to vote for George Bush.. A vote for Bush is a vote for Texas.. That's what I swear it sounds like when he's talking. I've had friends who are native texans.. Who are more irked by the bigoted opinion that Texas could be it's own country again.. Seceed from the USA.. His track record for Texas isn't great.. But he'd like the world to think so. George Bush is rude, he's crude, and he doesn't care about anything except getting the oval office. I'm not too thrilled with either candidate.. But if I have to choose one who I think would support my right to free speech, and the right of a woman to choose her own destiny regarding her body (who the hell does a man think he is to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body?) I'll take Gore. Love live the Techies, Long live the Internet...
freedom of choice in puclicly supported education: codephrase for "there there, you don't have to learn about that nasty Darwin fellow if you don't want to"...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
So, I guess you're OK with the inevitable assault on our civil liberties that will result from either a Bush or Gore administration? I'm old enough to remember the PMRC. As a dedicated civil libertarian, I can't in good conscience vote for Gore.
Also, your diamond analogy is wrong. In terms of wealth, the real incomes of the middle class have actually been declining for 25 years or so. In terms of political power, one need only look at the amount of money it takes to influence a legislator or executive these days to realize that power is still proportional to the size of one's pocketbook (or campaign contribution).
The politicians are in the midst of and end-run around democracy; slowly erode the right to dissent (through PMRC-type culture wars and censorship in the name of protecting children), scare them into submission (the drug war and hysteria over crime), and they won't be able to do a damn thing when society turns right back into a pyramid...
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
SS can be looked at as a form of insurance against living too long. Originally, SS benefits kicked in at one year after the average age of death: the idea being, you were expected to be able to support yourself for as long as you expected to live, but if you wound up living to 90 instead of 65, you wouldn't be left on the street.
Nowadays, since SS isn't tied to the average age of death, we have a pyramid scheme that's about to fall apart, since the top of the pyramid is getting too large: SS only works when there are more people working than retiring. This has to change.
The best thing to do would be to again tie it to the average death age: make the entitement age slowly move from 65 (???) toward the average death age, over a period of 30 years. This way, people would have enough advance warning to save up for the amount they're _not_ going to get from SS.
Kyle
[ home ]
If Gore is Spock and Bush is Vader, then where do I go to sign up for the "dark side". In watching the debates I lost count of the number of times Gore said he was going to "fight" for something or make it his number one priority?! That's been one of the biggest problems with Clintoon/AlGore, they are always "fighting" for/against something. How about taking a break from the fighting and doing some governing?? Bush may not be "smarter" than Gore, but he's more Wise by far...
Surplus tax receipts indicate that it's now time to pay down the huge debt accumulated over the previous decades. Period.
One of the largest portions of the budget is the interest paid on the national debt. If we pay down the debt, we free up MORE money. By forgoing a tax cut now (when the economy doesn't need the stimulation anyway) a more meaningful tax cut can be made in the future--AFTER we've paid down our debt obligations!
Proposing a tax cut now is just fiscally irresponsible. Period.
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
It is quite unfair to tax the portion of income required to meet the minimum of food, clothing, and shelter.
Well, there you have it. We get burned because we are taxed on our gross, instead of our net income. The truth is there is no truth to the tax system - it's not voluntary, it's not fair, it's not efficient, it's not honest, and most likely it's not good for us.
Read the American Declaration of Independence, which listed the grievances justifying the American Revolution. The Bill of Rights (including the preamble) was intended as a check on the excess of government which could lead to another revolution.
Over the last 90 years progressives, those in government and industry, have made a point of ignoring limits to government, to the point of forgetting why there are limits, to the point of wholesale abrogation and denial of limits to government. The tax system is just one aspect of this. Let's not forget the public works systems, the insurance industry, the nascent military-industrial complex, etc.
Well, here I am, way off topic on a soapbox. Suffice to say, David Brin is a good storyteller, but his analysis is shallow. Government is not innately good for you, especially in particular. Government is just a lesser evil, which must be kept in check in order to avoid greater evil and wholesale unpleasantness. Anyone who wants to use the government as an agent of social change is neglecting this basic premise, and denial is lying.
Why can't \. just stay out of politics and stick to what is "technically speaking" important to the online community? Granted, you can filter out these political diatribes WHEN THEY ARE MARKED AS SUCH, but this left leaning influence often permeates other articles.
I don't care to hear how electing Republicans is the same as taking away some "God" given right that people seem to think they have. I don't care to hear that conservative views are destroying our "right to net." I want geek news! Not tilted rants! Even when you filter out the politics with \.'s filtering, this leftist dribble just influence's the culture on the website among the readers to rant from the left on those posts where politics don't belong.
Enough already!
We should all be voting for Harry Browne anyway...
If I hadn't been posting the hell out of this thread, I'd be moderating that up. There are obviously two considerations, moral and pragmatic. We all have to consider our duty to our fellow man, and we have to evaluate the impact of birth luck (smarter -> more money) on the equation. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't really capture the essence of true fairness. "From and to each, according to his performance indexed against his potential", might be a better way to be truly fair. The pragmatic concerns weigh in against that, to some extent, and much more so against traditional Marxist philosophy. (I think history has, to a large extent, proved human nature disallows it.)
Au contraire, mon frere! I've actually listened to the men, and have definitively concluded that they're both idiots! Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber, I say, and it'll be a cold day in Helsinki that I cast my vote for either of them. I'll take Nader, thanks... :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
All you leftists are a bunch of little girls who are so terrified of life in the real world that you want the nanny state to hold you, care for you, and tell you that everything will be all right. If you need that crap, join a commune. Or at least let those of us who don't want your worthless programs to opt out of them. I live in California, and I pay half my income in taxes. I am not rich. I might be if I lived in North Dakota but not in the Bay Area. I live in a small two bedroom condo, and drive a 1987 Volvo 240. Everyone seems to think GWB is an idiot. He may be. But if you have ever read Gore's book, you would now that he is a frightening idiot. Is this a good choice? No. I would rather have a do-nothing frat boy as president than a law school and seminary seminary school dropout who got Cs and Ds all through his undergrad career. Gore will have a bloated, inept program for every perceived problem his focus groups can come up with. Just remember, do you want government to have more control over your life or less? If he has his way, Gore will inject government into every aspect of your life. If you want that, then maybe you have some emotional issues you need to deal with before you worry yourself about policy issues.
I understand how hard it is to be in financial straits. God knows i've spent most of my life there. But that doesn't mean that the government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone isn't in financial straits.
secondly, lets look at this statement:
And so yes, the richest Americans should pay most of the taxes, and no, they shouldn't get a tax break[...]
when we say "most of the taxes" what are we talking about? I agree, the rich should pay, in a monetary sense, most of the taxes, but I don't agree that the rich should pay more of their income.
Let's look at it this way: suppose I and my wife/girlfriend/life-partner/dog live together, and our bills come to $600/mo (a dream-world estimate, to be sure, but for the sake of argument). Further, let us suppose that I make $1000/mo, and she/he/it makes $500. How do we divide the bills? If the other person were merely a roommate, it would be $250 split two ways, but since we're in a relationship, what's fair? (which also presents another question I hadn't thought about until just now--are we merely roommates with government [or each other, since we are all party to the national expense and debt] or is it a relationship?)
The way I solve this problem is that because I make twice as much as she does, I pay a two-share of the bills and she pays a single share: $400 for me and $200 for her. I'm paying more rent, dollar-wise. But as a percentage of our incomes, its the same!!! I think this is what the national situation should be. I don't think that the government should take a larger percentage of anyone's income; likewise, i agree with an earlier poster who said that non-disposable income should be untaxed (thus, the far-too-low standard deduction). I think that there should be a large standard deduction, around $25-30k, tied to inflation, and take 10-15% of everything after that. That's Fair.
(An aside: I am working with a group developing ways to simplify the income tax code using a computer program that will find
politically neutral simplifications, taking the whole issue out of politics. It's an exciting project, requiring fascinating algorithms, but
more than we can get into here.)
So... where exactly CAN we get into this?
Good grief, one area where geeks could positively affect policy, and we don't get more info?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
you come off here as thinking like these profits shouldn't be taxed simply because they're yours.
;-)
The point being that they ARE mine, and I already get taxed on capital gains, so tax me. Any loss of revenues by the corp reduces the value of my stock. IOW, it costs me. So while the corp is taxed, the shareholders are the ones that ultimately pay, always.
Only if the corporation is publicly held. A great many corporations (like my employer) are privately held, so your argument doesn't wash
I think that you probably want to retract that one. Every corp has shareholders, whether the shares are traded publicly or not. The same rules of reduced corporate profits = reduced shareholder profits apply.
Okay, I'm confused.
You do seem to have a mixed up idea of what a corp is, why it exists, and how it works.
I still think that if Congress has the right to create life, they can tax it
Never heard that line, but I like it.
taxes should be spent on yourself (what's in it for me?), I think that taxes should be spent on the country as a whole. The striking thing is how often these intersect (public education, interstate highway system, etc.)
We're getting into semantics here, but really, why shouldn't they be spent on me? Afterall, I am the taxpayer. What am I buying for my money? Your particular examples are quite poor. As far as education goes, I prefer to take care of my educational responsibilities myself. I'll spend that money, or the time that would be spent making that money, on my daughter's education directly. No bureacratic salaries are required and the quality of her education greatly improved. As far as the highway system goes, I seem to recall some license fees and fuel taxes that are supposed to cover the costs directly associated with the users of those systems. What else? National defense, OK I'll spend 10% of my annual income on that. What else? We've still got 20% of my income yet to spend before we reach my current billing level.
What do I get for that missing 20%? Believe me, we're not even talking about SocSick and Mediscam here. I'm taking care of my own retirement and health insurance. You think I'll trust my life, health, and general welfare to some 'crats in DC? No thank you.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Of course. And if you were referring to the wealth acquiring parent(s), I would have no quarrel with this. But what moral principal mandates that this inequality should extend to the children? That's the real issue here, and you're missing that completely. In a very real sense, this arrangement rewards for nothing more than one generation's worth of genetic makeup. Do you disagree with this; or do you agree, but think that's o.k.?
And for all those who would take the moral high ground, and assert that property is some kind of natural right, please articulate the basis for this position. There are any number of faiths and philosophies that would assert just the opposite. I'm not espousing any faith-based precepts here, but I'd like to know how anyone can get off claiming that Bill Gate's right to inter himself with billions of pez dispensers is some kind of a 'moral' right.
Not so long ago, primogeniture used to be the modus operandi for inheriting wealth. For inbred institutions like the British monarchy, it still is. But most of us have moved on. Inheritance is not a moral right, it is an historical institution. Nothing more, nothing less.
My position probably sounds extreme, so let me be clear: as far as I'm concerned, this is not a matter of absolutes, it's a matter of degree. I believe everyone should have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. But not to a fare-thee-well.
Because I also believe that in an ideal world, children would enter a level playing field. They would not be discrimininated against according to the misfortunes of their parents. Nor would they be unduly advantaged.
The amount of wealth and power inherited by the upper eschelons of society *is* amazing and astounding. And all out of proportion to their ability to use it to either thier own or society's benefit.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Ahhh, how right you are. However, why do we in the US let economics stomp all over morality and justice. Now I'm not a big moral crusader ("stop the Internet, down with violent video games") - I'm rather libertarian when it comes to personal liberties - but for heaven sakes, lets get back to what this country was giving lip service to 200 years ago: freedom and justice for all.
"Freedom and Justice, it's not just for the middle class and the super-rich anymore!"
This man clearly didn't read the essay, he just zoomed in on a Bush catch-phrase and fired off the obligatory canned response. It's not just that you're offbase, you're baseless. This talk about farmers & businessmen makes no sense because the estate tax proposals have nothing to do with these warm, fuzzy characters. This is about landed wealth & big business, not Jed with 500 acres in Iowa or Sue with her corner store in Boise. It's about Bill Gates. It's about giving people like his kids even more money than they already have, removing the incentive for people like Gates to do the one thing I like about him & his wealth (namely, the Gates Foundation). Quit this nonsense about small farmers & think about who you're trying to give this money to, and who you're trying to take it away from. It's not Jed or Sue's kids that you're taking it from, and its not Gates' kids that you're giving it to. It's the money that never makes it into public hands that you're eliminating -- you're taking it from all of us.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Sorry, but I cannot agree with the inheritance tax. While all his conclusions may be true if the inheritance tax is repealed, I believe people should decide what is done with THEIR money and NOT THE GOVERNMENT. When my parents died, the thought that the government was going to tax their hard-earned money yet-again (income tax) really pissed me off. Then I found out the first tier was at $600K - so we were well below that and weren't taxed.
I still believe the best tax solution is a simple 15-20% sales tax and NOTHING ELSE. Tax people when the spend the money not when they save it. Some institutions would be tax exempt like charity and schools. 15-20% may seem high, but it is roughly the same amount of tax you pay now through sales tax and income tax. After you turn 65 (for example), there is no sales tax. That is ncentive to save for the future.
A couple friends of mine and I started talking about starting our own business and the first order of business was our goals. We all have children, but our goals were to sell out after a few years and not to build a legacy for our kids. I don't want my son having a free ride. I'll pay for his school and any emergencies, but that's it. If he turns out to be a crackhead loser, then he deserves the life of a crackhead loser, not that of a RICH crackhead loser. (Hopefully he didn't turn out that way because of bad parenting, but even if so, giving him money out of guilt doesn't help him.)
I find that the most charitable people are those that clawed their way up from the bottom (or the middle).
-tim
- The assumption that government, specifically the Federal government, is the proper vehicle for guaranteeing subsistence needs.
- The assumption that all income belongs to the government, to dispose of wherever it can find a "need"; the desires of the people who made that income have no special status.
In response I remind you: the power to tax is the power to destroy. The power of taxation is also one of the most insidious anti-productive forces in the economy, because it focusses efforts on the avoidance of taxes instead of on productive pursuits. This is one reason why I find Al Gore's "targets" so repugnant, because it substitutes Al's priorities for those of the people who are actually affected and who might have better ideas of what to do with their money.And I don't care if the rich don't need it as much. The truly poor pay 0% income tax. If you really want to make things fair, you should be taking away the Social Security benefits of rich retirees. Remember, the poverty rate among seniors is the lowest among all age cohorts, and the Social Security system is one of our biggest fiscal time-bombs. Take away the hand outs from the people who don't need them; that's fair.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Jeff
Jeff
This guy misses the point of the so called "digital divide." At the same time he correctly points out the positive of social mobility (and incorrectly attributes it to social engineering ... shudder), he misses the fact that a great deal of that mobility springs from native intelligence. To us, this is a good thing. Competence is valued, and compensated, and poor kids who take the time to learn how to use computers rocket to success, with or without college degrees.
... big surprise... most of these are in, or will end up in government) they will be looking for ways to capture this. Open Source takes from the government (tax on nothin' is still nothin'... no currency valued production to tax, no sale to tax, no continued service to tax). When they figure this out, look out. Why do you think the IP laws are what they are?! ...and getting worse!
But folks, this is what is going to create the new pyramid, if that's what he wants to call it. Sure there will be different people at the top, but the wealth of the future is what is between your ears. The fact that you earned it won't make it ANY less likely that they (the huddled masses yearning to breath free, or the arrogant morons with hollow doctorates) will want to take it away. So the stupid people who don't produce anything will end up at the bottom. News flash. They vote. And when they are stupid people with advanced degrees (and
If the debate proves anything it is that both Bush and Gore are willing to use FUD against technology and the Net. They are playing on people's fears, and "the people" are afraid of the technocrats. People fear what they don't understand, and stand by, most people don't understand. People resent what they fear. People hate what they resent. Only a matter of time.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
1. "Surplus" refers to the derivative (from calculus) of what the debt refers to, and we do absolutely have a surplus. The debt is important as a percentage of GDP, but that has been shrinking. (analogy: owing $100 when you earn nothing is a big deal, but not if you earn $100,000 with prospects for growth.) But that's a separate discussion, anyway. The issue I was responding to had to do with tax policy.
2. Face it, both the Democrats and the Republicans meddle with the tax code to encourage social behaviors.
simply, not true. Your example, government drug policy appears nowhere in the tax code. It is exactly your confusion of social policy legislation and the tax code which is the problem I was complaining about: thank you for illustrating my point.
I can't really say. The best thing to do is to make sure that you have you money in a safe place and not take inordinate risk. The bulk should be in savings/certificates of deposit and the remainder should be in low risk investments that have good returns over the long haul.
Respond to s
The fact that people are indicating who and who does not need money is very dangerous and reeks of socialism/communism. Where do you draw the line? $30k/year? $50k? $100k?
Given that our society is capitalistic, money is not guaranteed. When the job market wasn't looking good, I risked $25k (in loans, mind you) on a college education with the hope that it would pay off while my friend bought a Jeep Cherokee. I have health care, he doesn't. Is it charitable to give him health care, within the government's bounds, with part of my income, because it was beyond his control? Should he take care of himself, or should wealthier taxpayers? You mean I don't HAVE to risk a college tuition and still have health care? Count me in!
I don't mean to suggest that all poor people are responsible for their situations. I grew up with a blue collar single parent and one sibling. But it galls me to see people, some of whom I know, waste all of their money on frivolous items for short-term satisfaction without setting any of it aside for retirement or education. A friend of mine is almost 40 years old, makes $50k/year, and has no retirement fund because he cashed his 401k. And I know he'll be a needy one for Social Security and Medicare when he's older. He's put himself in that position. And I'll be paying for it.
Whether or not you think the rich should give to the poor is an issue that should not rest within government's hands. I care about people not having health care and food. But lets give them fishing poles, not fish. I'll help these people out, donate time and money, but _I_ want the control. I don't want my money being funneled and wasted by government bureaucracies that have practically zero accountability.
You may feel that the many of the rich aren't selfless enough to give their money to those that need it. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Just as you can't regulate ethics and morals and laws shouldn't serve as a moral foundation, you also cannot regulate selflessness. And you can bet it isn't going to help the relations between economic classes.
The rich are not evil. 80% of the million-aires are first-generation (forgot the source, sorry). That means they worked for the money themselves. And, if you inherited it, does that mean you're an ingrateful brat!?
I'm surprised so many people on Slashdot are arguing for Bush, I thought I was in the minority here. I am not atheist, I hate techno "music" with a passion (BTW, The Who is my fav group also, saw them 3 times this summer), and I'm a conservative. Now that I think about it, however, I can see why. People here tend to be for individual freedoms and less government control over everything.
People like Jon Katz would have you believe that corporations and anything that's "corporate" (whatever that means) is evil. That is simply not true. What is wrong with being tied to "big oil?" It means he has experience in dealing with our most important resource! Believe it or not, Microsoft is not the devil, they may suck, but they are not evil.
I am voting for Bush. Alan Keyes would have been my first choice, but Bush is what's left. I wouldn't even consider Algore unless he changed his position on abortion (again).
"There are no cool guys in musicals." -- Coach McGuirk
Many large corporations, including Microsoft and Cisco, pay no taxes whatsoever: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14017.html
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
I hope someone reads this.
It's unfortunate that Mr. Brin's "letter" was published at Slashdot, for it carries as many substantiated claims as a Lyndon LaRouche pamphlet, perhaps less.
Where is the documented support for these claims? Where are the studies which support these fantastic statements? Are they simply hand-waving arguments?
To begin with, this "inheritance" argument should be the *least* of our concerns. How about things like the economy, abortion, and SOCIAL SECURITY? Or is it that both of these candidates waffle too much to get a concrete idea of where they stand on these issues?
Now, on to the inheritance thingy..
Let's assume that we are living in a "diamond"-shaped society (though it's less of a diamond than Mr. Brin tends to let on). Let's further assume that this inheritance tax is repealed. Now what? Will all of these newly found "riches" suddenly vanish, leaving the US bankrupt? No. Not remotely.
The inheritances of the nation's wealthy will see one of the following fates:
1) Inheritances will be wastefully spent by the inheritors on goods, trips, and poor investments.
2) Inheritances will be wisely apportioned and re-invested, resulting in a greater wealth than before.
3) Inheritances will be spent on both good and bad investments, causing the overall inheritance fluctuate in size, but not deviate much overall.
In any of the cases above, the economy wins. If #1 is true, then money is largely spent on purchasing consumer goods. This means that other companies will profit. If #2 is true, then this means that the wise investments have produced successful ventures/businesses/etc. . This means that more people are employed, more goods are purchased, and so on. (If you do not believe that a well-invested inheritance can help out the economy, please see Bill Gates and the millionares he has created). If #3 is true, then money is still spent in the US, thus benefitting the local economy. Now, of course it is possible that the money may go overseas, but, this number is small, as the US is one of the best countries in the world to invest in.
How many children of famous American businessmen become famous Argentinian/German/Japanese businessmen? Probably a negligable amount (close to 0). What I am getting at is that a LARGE majority of the money will still remain tied up in the US economy. Better yet, it will be in the US ECONOMY, and not the US GOVERNMENT. This is CRITICAL to point out. This is the heart of Mr. Brin's argument, and it is flawed, fundamentally.
Now, to be quite frank and make some statements that will assuredly be attacked...
Trickle-down economics WORKS, believe it or not. Let me point out some VERY good examples of trickle-down economics, and why, not only does trickle-down work, but it is also very AMERICAN.
Why do many cities try to attract large businesses to locate in their town? Because a large business will bolster the local economy! Trickle-down in effect!
Why do cities try to host the Olympics? Because of the boost to the local economy! Trickle-down in effect!
Bill Gates. Rich boy turned to richest man. As much as many people hate him for Microsoft, his aggressive business tactics have made MANY millionaires. Windows has created many spin-off businesses that have also been extremely successful.
Is this bad? No! In fact, that is what many people believe in: that any individual, through hard work and persistence, may rise to the top and profit.
This government is entirely too wasteful. Believe me, as I have worked as a government contractor for many years. Giving more money to the government should be the LAST thing we do as a society. You work hard for your money: Why work for $1.00 so that the government can take $0.40, waste $0.30 in an effort to put $0.10 to use (please note: the above was an exaggerated demonstrative. I don't have exact numbers to show how much is spent on government overhead)? The argument here is, "Well, that's why the rich give away so much: so that the government can't waste it." Well, if the government is going to waste it, and you and I and the rich of this country all know it.... then why have the tax?
Remember, folks, if there is no concrete evidence to support a statement then it is, at best, a hypothesis; at worst: a lie.
This hypothetical rich man already has all the happiness money can buy. Repect and credit for his accomplishments are something he can only get from his peers, not the government. Once you have no debt, sound investments, a car/house/wife/dog/and toybox then you're as happy as you can get financially. He's earned this comfortable lifestyle. What more does he need that money can buy?
Did it occur to you to ask him? Seriously. You are advocating your right to decide for him what is best for him.
[...] The ability to earn money, like all other exceptional abilities, creates an obligation to use a small part of your abilities to improve the world. There is no great power that does not carry a great responsibility. It only becomes a sin when a person denies this responsibility and is selfish with their excesses.
Look at your argument here. By claiming there is an obligation, you are asserting your own right to decide how to use the finances you say he has earned. Ownership means nothing if you don't have the right to say how the thing is used. You are advocating taking the decision out of his own hands and giving it to a bureaucracy.
read as such, this is a thoughtful political commentary, and deserves a
thoughtful response.
Brin has made several good points. Donations made to any number of charitable
causes are laudable and of great benefit to society. I have used some of the
libraries that Carnegie created. I have been treated in hospitals founded by
people who wanted their names to outlive them. In college I was housed in
dormatories and taught in classrooms built with donated money.
Furthermore, many heirs are unworthy and lazy. They live off of the money
they inherited, for having done nothing more strenuous than being raised by
the nannies their parents hired and attending the prestigious schools they
were sent to.
I concede both points, but let us examine them more closely. At one point,
Brin illustrates the strawman of the spoiled heir with the following words:
He did not create this strawman. It has been the rallying point of defenders
of inheritance taxes for some time. And in fact, there is some research to
back it up. There are a pair of interesting books, The Millionaire Next
Door and The Millionaire Mind that examine the character,
lifestyle and behavior of millionaires and, to a lesser degree, their heirs.
They go into detail about the disasterous effects of allowing people to live
off of money they haven't earned. Such people often develop lifestyles that
their own skills and labor cannot support. They become more dependent on it
as time goes on. Such support makes them weaker rather than stronger even as
it betters their immediate circumstances.
But focusing on the recipient is wrong. Inheritance taxes do not deprive the
recipient of something that was his by right. That is the reason for the
slight of hand in focusing on the recipient. Inheritance taxes deprive people
who have earned a fortune of the right to leave it to their heirs. That money
was already subject to taxation once, either income tax or capital gains tax.
It's rightful owner has already paid the government protection racket once to
retain part of it.
Money is a medium of exchange, and as such it is a symbol. Those who want to
justify taxation wish to forget what it symbolizes and treat it as a thing of
value in itself. Let's consider for a moment what it symbolizes and why.
Money replaces barter. It is given in exchange for something of value.
Initially, it is given for labor performed. Once wealth is created in the
form of usable items, whatever they may be, money is paid for the use of
something of value as well. But at its core, it represents a portion of
someone's life in terms of labor performed. Taking someone's life
involuntarily or a portion of it goes by many names. We call it murder,
assault, theft, fraud or slavery.
The United
States Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness." Taking some or all of my money by taxation
deprives me of the first. Granting to a government the power to tax one
action while exempting another robs me of the latter two.
Brin compares the arbitrary abuses of power in China to the relative freedom
of Western countries. Let us take a specific example. China limits the
number of children parents may have. The effect is more subtle where we are.
Taxes reduce our means for raising a family. Laws prohibiting us from
importing nannies limit the availability of childcare. The War On Drugs
drives up the price on illegal drugs, underwriting the profits of gangs
willing to operate outside the law. They provide their own protection for
their businesses, making many neighborhood unsafe to raise children in.
When people choose for themselves what to do with their own money, they are
weighing both the cost to them of earning it and the benefit of what they will
purchase. They know their own needs. Government programs either come in "one
size fits all" which never does, or in custom tailored versions for a
politically connected few. Either way, some people pay for what they do not
use, some people receive what they do not pay for, and it costs more than
letting us buy what we need ourselves.
Anyone advocating taxation and government programs must believe one of two
things, or both. Either I have no right to the fruits of my own labors, or
the government will do a better job of supplying my needs than I would
myself. The former is indefensible. It is institutionalized theft. The
latter assumes that the government knows my needs better than I do myself, and
that someone working for it is saintly enough to fulfill them rather than
furthering his own career.
Taking all of my money when I die does not deprive me of something I need.
But it is theft nonetheless. It is taking away the results of years of my
life in the form of my labor. It is the theft of my liberty, in the loss of
my freedom to leave that money to whom I choose. And if robs my of the
happiness I have pursued, when during my life I know that I must choose to
leave my money to charity or the government, rather than to my heirs.
Do you consent to all that is done in your name by your government? Or is it,
in fact, destructive to the very things that we are taught to believe that it
was created to protect?
above, I replied to someone else about the debt . To what I said there, I'll add that you need to make a better case that debt is bad than you have. Your conception of "interest" as purely bad is flawed. For example, borrowing money to pay for a college education which leads to a higher income in the future is a smart thing. Many corporations never pay off there debt, instead growing it all the time. Why? Because they use the borrowed money to generate more income than they pay in interest. Debt that shrinks as a percentage of income and/or wealth is not terribly important, but if you want to get rid of it you cannot simply advocate higher taxes without considering what the money is being spent on, which you haven't.
Please spare with me the family history here...
My parents worked 23 years to build up their net worth. Their net worth is about 4.5 million today. And let me say, I've *never* seen people work so hard, and I've seen a lot of people work from where I grew up in the suburbs, my relatives both in Asia and in the States, and from living in 2 metropolitan areas and going to two different national universities. For those familiar with the reference in Cryptonomicon, my mother puts Asian women to shame.
You think my parents did it for themselves? You're full of it. I hear it all the time. It was done for their two children and for a better life. That is why they scrap and save. They reuse shopping bags as trash bags. I've seen better shoes on homeless people in DC than on my father. Up to last year, they had 20 year old work vehicles. They take old furniture tenants leave behind as junk and fix them up for their own.
Their two kids, btw, which did not float through life. I didn't know my parents were millionaires until I was 22, and only then because they decided to build a new house. Now knowing, it hasn't changed a thing about it; daresay, knowing it when I was younger wouldn't change my values or morals, despite what you may think. At one point in high school, I held 3 jobs on top of my academics and extracurriculars and cutting lawns or shoveling snow weekly for 15 properties. I did these things because I liked doing them, because I felt working hard built character, and earning what you have is worth something. To this end, I agree with your epistle.
I also know I'm damn fortunate for my position in life compared to others out there. But to classify me in with "small cadre of lazy preppies" is insulting and short-sighted. You're assuming you know the small business people, but then you say something utterly idiotic and insulting. All you've done is assumed something about a whole class of people that doesn't fit down to the individual level (in the racial world, this is called racial-profiling).
Both of their kids made it to college. Both were first in their family to actually get through college. Both somehow managed to get into medical school--this is post age 22--I'm no lazy assed fool. Both volunteer vast amounts of their free time instead of moonlighting for $100/hr pay to pay off their massive student loans. One used a 12 year old car to get to her residency until it broke down. Both incurred massive debts in the wish to become doctors, not because of the pay, but because we wanted to help people intimately (the older) and through research (the younger).
What I do mind is some clueless ass stating that family businesses losing out is a crock concept. That the money from them in the form of a *tax* or charitable contribution is greater than what can be done privately. You want the government or otherwise some chartiable organization to get over a damn million dollars of money that I and my sister could have a *choice* to utilize the way we see fit? That money is going to the middle class, which when it saves $1,000 is getting $1,000 matching money, which is just another way of saying we're taking from the rich and giving you the tax break?
The money we may receive has already been taxed. Once by income tax. *Yearly* by school and property taxes. Again when purchasing properties by sales taxes. Upkeep of properties by sales taxes. And will again before it even comes across our hands finally if and when it is willed to us. They have already *payed* for the money that is used for research, protecting the nation, et al at least *3* times. *I've* done some of the research this money goes to fund. I damn well know where tax moneygoes. It goes to reagent makers which drive up their prices because they know the gov labs are the major spender and will buy it anyways. I could probably give you a run for what this money goes towards, although you'd like to write off the likes of me as unable to grasp where it all goes.
You characterize anything opposed to what you suggest "ungrateful, churlish and just plain nuts."
Bullshit.
The approximately 1 million each that will be lost to each of us is lost funds. It's lose investment opportunities to build up companies doing good things. It will destabilizes the business philosophy which created this income--I won't go into this because it's detailed--which in turn will drive up rent (we are about $100 below market price for our properties), screwing those that would be new to our community.
Worse, it makes me wonder why the fuq did my parents work so damn hard, reduce their standard of living to sacrifice for their kids, when a large portion of it it going up in smoke, enough to destabilize the business?
And you wonder why the rich go and buy Mercedes Kompressor convertibles instead of a Dodge Neon or Toyota Corolla? They know the money ain't going to their kids. It's going to the government. Might as well blow it now. And when they do that, it *isn't* going to charitable organizations.
And it makes me wonder why the hell I should work so damn hard, despite having the smarts and will, when I could just kick back, earn my $40,000 a year, and be comfortable. After all, the diamond structure says the chances of me hitting the "poor" category is slim.
Hell, makes me just want to stop volunteering and start that $100/hr moonlighting position. After all, I should just fit the profile you wrote me of in, start working just for *me* to make up the lost cash that will ensue so the business does not destabilize, instead of feeling I should contribute back to those less fortunate than I.
Reality result is brain drain, a dumbing down. The middle rich just say "fuck it" because another quarter of the funds for the next generation to do good just got washed away.
You mention a claim that 2 or 10 million dollar exemptions will be a good thing. Well, Gore and the Dems have had 8 years to pass that. They haven't yet.
You mention you don't preach class warefare. You are. You've just re-imaged it into a societal good letter. You're pitting one group against another, even second-guessing intentions even though anecdotally, good and bad has come from the inheritance tax.
I apologize for the length and the several points I could have made more lucid if I weren't so damn pissed and rushed after reading this epistle. Letters like these make me realize why I went from being a moderate dem to a moderate republican.
This is a bunch of CRAP. I am not rich, not by any stretch, I just took a second job so I can afford the things I need for my daughter. Does that mean I am entitled to someone elses money? No. Many of these rich people have had to take out massive loans and spend year after year working/learning in order to make big bucks...and now *I* should take it away from them? I don't think so. And if they decide to save a large chunk of it and give it to thier children...I am supposed to complain about that? THAT is complete bullshit. If you want communism then leave the US..because that is what you are proposing.
But the richest 20% are earning 49.4% of the income!
According to US Census Data the richest 5% of Americans earned 21.5% of the income last year, and the richest 20% earned 49.4% of the income. Assuming a linear relationship between these figures (a falacy I'm sure, but I'm making this up as I go along) the top 10% is earning about 35% of the aggregate income. Thus paying a third of the tax burden is not disproportionate. (Note that this is all 1999 data)
I'm heartened to note that you don't immediately corolate disproportionate taxation and unfair taxation. The reality is and has always been that taxation levels are both a revenue tool and a social policy tool. And like any other tool, they can be used for evil (using that hammer to kill someone) or good (using that hammer to fix your NT server).
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
My father died suddenly and the majority of the estate was lost because inheritance tax forced us to liquidate all of his assets. Mostly because the assest were valued at far more than we could actually sell for. So with a snap of the governments fingers my intended future home disappeared. Also Inheritance tax is not the only thing that forces rich people to donate to charities. Rich people can be taxed on income from investments at upwards of 60-70 percent. Especially wind-falls. Donating to charities reduces their tax bracket. Also a non-profit organization makes a great tax shelter since money can be moved tax free as long as the organization does not return dividends.
----- 70% of all statistics are completely made up.
Actually, I favor abolishment in stages.
- Anyone may, at any time, opt out of the system.
- In doing so, you lose forever government benefits that may assist you in your retirement, or which may aid your family if you die.
- You may choose to take what you've paid in so far as a lump, or to voluntarily forfeit that money to the government (if you are filled with "good will" - and I might just opt to do this...).
- Should you choose to stay in the system, you will receive benefits based upon your age.
- Those 55 and older (born before the end of WWII) will receive full benefits.
- Those 40-55 will receive 60% benefits (this is an arbitrary number).
- Those 30-40 will receive 30% benefits (again, arbitrary).
- Those younger than 30 receive no benefits - you have to fend for yourself! Better plan ahead!
- Those who can demonstrate a real, unadulterated hatred for HTML are eligible for special benefits.
As you get older, you have less time for your planning to pay off, so you may receive benefits. There is no excuse for anyone 40 years old or younger to have to rely upon the government, picking the pockets of the rest of society, for your retirement but, because the government has been stealing from you all your life, the government will pay some benefit to those 30 and older.With careful planning, someone making $22,000/yr. can retire comfortably (as will likely be evidenced by my mother, who makes about that much after more than 25 years of employment).
Anyone not able to make that kind of money is not sufficiently motivated. McDonald's pays shitty wages for shitty work because it is an entry-level job, not meant to make you rich, but meant to give a pimply-faced teenager a taste of the working world, hopefully to motivate them to bigger and better things. I worked at McDonald's as a teen, and never saw it as a career path, but as a plain old job.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Maybe the social diamond won't fall apart overnight if George W. Bush becomes president. Maybe he'll be balanced by a Democratic Congress. Maybe we'll be fine. There are lots of other factors involved than which figurehead occupies the White House.
That's still a far cry from letting a small cadre of lazy preppies scoop in billions without paying a penny of it to the nation that protects them, pays for the research, protects them, educates their workers, protects them, keeps the poor from rioting, protects them, maintains labor peace, protects them, enforces contracts, protects them, invests in saving the environment we all share and then protects the rich some more, in ten thousand more ways than they would ever willingly acknowledge.
Oh, pity their poor offspring, who must graduate from Andover or some other prep school knowing that now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!
I'm glad David Brin brings up the subject of "preppies" and their attempts to maintain elite status in Ivy League schools, such as Yale whose "Skull and Bones Society" pandered to the likes of the Bush family. It is understandable that Brin gets a little hot under the collar about Ivy League schools since there was a time when men of Jewish heritage, like Mr. Brin, were excluded with prejudice from those institutions of higher learning.
One of the principle symptoms of an elite attempting to maintain its status in such a school is a clear bias in ethnic makeup. So one might suppose such elitism is now a thing of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant past because, as David Brin informs us "now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!"
But the picture at places like the Bush-dynasty's Yale University that simple?
I took Yggdrasil's table in "Diversity's Losers", which includes "Jews" as defined by Princeton Review's "Hillel Guide To Jewish Life on Campus" within the category of "Whites" vs non-"Whites". I then added a "Pan-Western Fascism" metric to the end of it. The PWF metric is the "Jewish" percentage of the student body divided by the non-"White" percentage of the student body (times 100).
Yale, that Bush-family bastion of "preppy" elitism, didn't simply come out on top, it is _way_ out on top:
The table sorted by PWF metric is:
________________ENROL__%WHITE__#WHITE__#JEWS____ J-%__#W-Gen__W-Gen%____PWF_
YALE____________10000____67______6700___3000____ _30____3700____37_______90_
PENN____________22800____60_____13680___7000____ _31____6680____29_______77_
COLUMBIA________19000____58_____11020___6000____ _32____5020____26_______76_
BROWN____________7100____67______4757___1600____ _23____3157____44_______69_
NORTHWESTERN____10000____68______6800___2000____ _20____4800____48_______62_
DUKE_____________9500____72______6840___1500____ _16____5340____56_______57_
HOPKINS__________4400____65______2860____800____ _18____2060____47_______51_
HARVARD_________16700____45______7515___4500____ _27____3015____18_______49_
CORNELL_________18500____67_____12395___3000____ _16____9395____51_______48_
PRINCETON________5700____70______3990____800____ _14____3190____56_______46_
CHICAGO__________8500____60______5100___1350____ _16____3750____44_______40_
STANFORD________14000____50______7000___2000____ _14____5000____36_______28_
DARTMOUTH________5270____57______3004____500____ _09____2504____47_______20_
MIT______________9800____48______4704____875____ _09____3829____39_______17_
CALTECH__________2050____56______1148____100____ _05____1048____51_______11_
But really, considering recent events in middle east, with both Bush and Gore siding with Israel as its soldiers support apartheid in that country by mowing down with Uzi-fire the indigenous people who are armed with rocks, and a Kristalnacht-like rampage against Palestinian-run shops, is such a result really that surprising?
Seastead this.
I faced all those same problems - I grew up in a poor family. I had heat only because as a kid I helped chop wood from the trees around our house. I had to use money from my part time job while in high school to pay our electricity bill after we got cut off!! The car that I managed to save $100 to buy I kept going for five years and about 250,000 miles through my own efforts, inclduing spending a whole spring break at college rebuilding the engine. What did you do on your spring breaks?
I had to work 40-50 hours weeks through the last two years of college - the first few I got by with as little as 20 as I had a good grant. I'll bet I ate more Ramen than you could even dream of. The doctor wasn't even an option - I saw a dentist perhaps every five years and only had a checkup because an exam was required for admission to school.
Now I'm a software architect at my current company, making more money than both my parents combined, which I am also using to help them. So don't tell me you'd like the government to take away more of MY money that I have worked so hard for, and I share with my parents and siblings and charities!! All I ask of government is that it stay the hell away from me.
Yes, some people need help. But what they need is help up, not a pillow in the face smothering them to death with kindness.
Remember that if you give EVERYONE a tax break, they all have more money to help others with, and the poor have more money to help themselves. If I was able to save enough to retire on for instance, I would donate a large portion of my time to helping charities with computer work. But if captical gains and income taxes are too high (though capital gains seem to matter little personally with the quality of my investments!), it will be a long time before I'm able to do that.
More money for indivduals means MORE free time and resources to help others with, including themselves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Speaking of S&L's, Neal Bush stole a billion dollars from the Denver economy, and his entire family wet their beaks.
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
"To "fritter" means that the money is not wisely invested and put to productive use, but merely consumed"
You missed the guys point. Money that is "merely consumed" doesn't vanish into the ether, it ends up in other peoples' pockets. So when the rich guy "fritters" away his money by buying McDonalds food twice a day, he is feeding a market for burger franchises, which in turn creates dozens of jobs for people who would otherwise have no jobs. Sure, working at McDonalds is a crappy low-paying job - but when the alternative is no job at all, it's a godsend. Perhaps that's difficult to understand for people living in the USA, where unemployment is 4% - come live in a country for a while with over 30% unemployment. Every job is precious. Sure, I may be squandering away my money when I buy crappy overpriced burgers, but some of that money directly benefits the people who provide those services to me (i.e. making burgers.)
You're correct, the money could be invested wisely and put to good cause in charities. But the previous poster is also right. Either way, that money will end up benefitting a number of people.
Except for the fact that that up to $1,000,000 is (or will shortly be) exempt from federal estate tax. Sorry, but thinks for playing.
I guess if I were part of the nambla.org crowd instead of a "breeder" I would feel the same way about sodomy, adoption and foster care. If homosexual child sexual abuse accounts for, say, 20% of all molestations, it still makes a gay stranger 4 times more likely to molest than a heterosexual stranger. Yet the vast majority would still be heterosexual molestations. Gays are not biological freaks, and they deserve neither more nor fewer rights than heterosexuals. Do you really think that 2 heterosexual men living together would be allowed to adopt or be foster parents either?
The Republican congress (see the Constitution) cut spending, not the Clinton administration. He was a passive participant in polls and focus groups.
How many people have to suffer a harsh punishment before "cruel and unusual" returns zero?
I posted this down there somewhere in the chaos, but I decided to repost it up here where someone might read it. This is the way I think taxation should work:
1 Person, 20K = No Taxes
2 Person, 25K = No Taxes
3 Person, 30K = No Taxes
4+ Person, 35K = No Taxes
Any person or family where income is greater than the amount shown pays 15% or the amount neccessary to drop them to the top of their bracket, whichever is less. So 1 person making 20,025$ a year won't get screwed and have to pay 3 grand in taxes. Just 25$.
That way a family of 4 where one parent has a decent job making around 30K pays no taxes which will significantly add to their ability to take care of their children. This way the poor don't get shafted by taxes, and the rich aren't bearing the burden of a whole bunch of lazy bastards. I'm also in favor of removeing the current welfare system and impleneting a new system whereby current welfare recipients live in a policed apartment complex and are required to take 3 hours a day of job training. Are given a couple of sets of decent clothes, and are required to get a job in 6 months or out they go onto the street and someone who actually needs help instead of just wants to sit on their ass can come in.
Comments are welcome.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
It's a nice romantic idea to imagine yourself completely independent from anyone else. I think a lot of Republican boomers are particularly fond of the image of the cowboy, who lives on a ranch so far removed from others that he count all his interdependencies on one hand by remembering who he ran into on the trail that week. Sometimes I think a Thoreau-style self sufficience is the only way a person could get the clarity to actually be themselves.
But as long as we're using a peer-to-peer protocol to discuss this, we aren't there yet. Unless you're living in a biosphere with no atmospheric exchange, growing your own food and generating your own electricity, you're not even close. So until then we have to make compromises with the other children.
And oh yeah... let's not forget that the founding fathers were also the richest landowners in the country, with a lot to lose by preaching anything other than complete economic "freedom". Even so, some of the founding fathers were great philosophers who saw past their own immediate interests. Jefferson in particular favored compromises to freedom, not for security but morality: he was one of the few delegates to the first congress who spoke out against slavery, despite being a slave owner himself.
I was in Las Vegas this weekend (25th Rocky Horror Con), and my SO and I walked the strip. Beautiful buildings, magnificent structures, amny based on historical themes. As we walked, we passed two workers on break, chatting about overtime and completion bonuses.
It struck me hard that the originals (the pyramids, the greek structures, the Taj Mahal) are national treasures, all built by slave labor. The American variants, also built to be (and often are) impressive symbols of pride, were being built by well paid workers who could take a break in the middle of the afternoon.
Who needs big bucks? The people who will "waste" it on things like Viscaya (a beautful manor donated to Miami, host to many Renesaissance Faires), large scale pieces of art, or (god forbid a *complete* waste of money) a civilian space program.
Now, in the past two years, I've had some trembling moments where I was almost homeless, where I had to live off of Ramen for months at a stretch... but now it's starting to pay off, and the company I founded is starting to take off. Soon I'll be able to celebrate the rewards of those intentional lean times... or do I not deserve a reward for 18 hour days, months on end?
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
If you're going to do anything that benefits one group at the expense of another (which pretty much describes any significant legislation), then you should expect to have to fight for it. Saying that "politics needs to have less fighting" or "politics needs to be more civil" is, besides being plain wrong, also pretty boring.
My biggest disappointment with the debates, aside from the near-criminal exclusion of my candidate, was the complete lack of friction between the two candidates most of the time. This isn't a choice among different ideals or great visions for the future, this is more like deciding if you'd rather have espresso or cappucino from Starbuck's. I was screaming for some contrast. I was dying for a point that would bitterly divide the two puppet^H^H^H^H^H^Hmen. It doesn't even matter to me whether I agree or not, I just want to see one of them take on some idea -- hell, let's have something controversial for a change -- and run with it.
But I've set myself up for a fall, of course. In this day or focus group, middle of the road, bland to the core campaigning, hoping for a little blood -- in the vein and out in the open -- is clearly too much to ask for.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
If these substances were inert they wouldn't have any psychoactive properties, would they? Most of them are dangerous if misused and certainly merit some degree of regulation (even if not the prohibition we currently have).
And in the spirit of the current fortune at the bottom of the page ("Quod erat demonstrandum. [Thus it is proven. For those who wondered WTF QED means.]"), I offer my own: non-sequitur is literally "does not follow". In other words, you can't get there from here using logic.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Your alternative to an elected representative government is a corporate mafia. Power abhores a vacuum. This generation has not yet learned that the only way to keep America free is to limit the power of money.
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
Hmm .. basic capitalist economic principles, upon which the wealthiest nation in the world is built, are now considered "twenty year old conservative dogma"? How insightful, not. Obviously spewed forth from somebody who lives in such a society. Why not go live in some socialist and communist countries for a while, and have a first-hand look at how wildly they've benefitted from their principles?
I resent you justifying your personal need for a lethal penis substitute in terms of it helping the crime situation.
Guffaw Ever notice how much the anti-gun nuts love to compare firearms with male genitals? And in the same breath point out how BAD guns are? Gun == penis == bad. Gag. Which is worse, man-hating-women or men who wish they were dickless?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
So, if the wealthiest 10% (who in actuallity control close to 98% of the wealth) isn't going to pay for these programs, who is? Perhaps we should levy a tax on panhandling? or maybe soup kitchens? how about free medical clinics?
To say that the wealthiest of the wealthy don't benefit from social programs is asinine. Social programs keep the unwashed masses from rising up against them, and in that sense they benefit far more from these programs than the people actually recieving the aid. How is it unfair to ask the wealthiest people in the world to help pay for them?
A better question would be, how unfair is it that 98% of the wealth only pays 33% of the taxes? Take a look at that ratio again and tell me who's really getting screwed.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I bet that they would rather have the problem of house break-ins going up than having the murder rate that we have here in the US.
I bet they don't have a choice. Any Limies out there remember anybody asking you whether you wanted the right to keep and bear arms? Didn't think so.
Support your right to keep and arm bears
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
gentry: n.,pl.
1. People of gentle birth, good breeding, or high social position.
2.a. An upper or ruling class.
2.b. The class of English landowners ranking just below the nobility.
3. People of a particular class or group: another commuter from the suburban gentry.
Of course there were many small land-owners. However, I was referring to the so called "Founding Fathers" -- but I really should have made that clear -- who wrote those founding documents. No, I believe the American Revolution was for much less nobler reasons than Disney (an outright nationalist in any case) would like us to think. What they wanted was to not be taxed by the King, of course. This is understandable, since they 1: would have made a lot more profit if it weren't for the Crown skimming off the top, and 2: they thought they could get away with it (well, they were right).
Colonial revolution is inevitable, as history has shown us, though not always with similar incentives.
[pink beam of light]
", but under his administration the deficit was eliminated and wages began to rise"
Yeah, was eliminated despite Clinton and his administration. It was republican Congress which forced that issue on him.
Let's face it. If a person making $1 million per year has to pay $500,000 in taxes, they still have $500,000 left. They can live a very nice life on that much money. On the other hand, a person making $30,000 who has to pay $3,000 in taxes only has $27,000 left. They can survive, but not comfortably.
I have lived VERY comfortably on 27k after taxes. But you probably don't know about the real value of money and how to spend it wisely because you are up in 1% land.
It may not be the same comfort you enjoy with your 500k take home pay, but I like it. You would probably consider it to be a prision sentence to have to live in my modest 2 bedroom apartment in the nicer area of town (not the BEST area of town). And it would probably kill you to have to only go out to eat 2 or 3 nights a week.
Hey, if you want to give half of YOUR money to the government then fine. I don't want to do that when (if ever) I'm making a million a year.
--
Steve B sez...:
This is impossible on its face. Every complication was put there to serve some political special interest; removing any of them is inherently a political decision.
Yeah. Brin needs to consider Von Hayek. Centralized planning is dumber, not smarter. I see a return to feudalism all right - but it's Th e Road to Serfdom ..." The thesis of The Road to Serfdom, for instance, is not simply that central planning is inefficient because it blocks the flow of information. Rather, Hayek argues that substituting government plans for individual plans requires imposing a single hierarchy of values and overriding the diverse tradeoffs individuals would prefer. "One best way"--even for education, retirement saving or health care--is a prescription for tyranny or vicious political conflict. "
The payoff for progessive government is dead bodies. The intellectual distance from the DemocRATS to the Nazis is a thin line, and it's getting narrower all the time.
I don't understand how could this be considered as an insightful post! This guy has clearly never been in Europe!
Ok, so there are no guns in London, but that does not mean it is an unsafe place. I'd even say the opposite. I have a much smaller chance of getting shot there than in the US.
And what about "mafias and endemic corrupction". We may have some of that, but probably not much more than in the US. And I've been in Germany and in the US, and Germany really looks like a richest country than the US. Maybe their total wealth is smaller than in the US, but the average person seems to be richer.
Don't get me wrong. The US is a great and very rich place. But don't assume you are so much better than anyone else, because it is not true.
Cheers,
Angel
I agree with a lot of what David Brin was saying. I've got a few problems of my own with what the government wants. On the one hand, I support womens rights to abortion, on the other hand, I support Gun Owners rights.
I would have voted for McCain but I'll be damned if I'm voting for Bush. So Gore gets my vote now. Bush says he supports abortion in the case of rape,etc, but when asked what he would do if something happened to his daughters, he said (effectively) "Don't go there, none of your damn business".
In retrospect, I think most presidents, or presidential candidates, that have been in the military (like McCain, or Eisenhower, or Washington) know the cost and have paid the price. They are willing to bite the bullet for the good of the country. Bush? yeah right! Gore? his service barely qualifies but he did the job, unlike junior.
I own my own business with 2 storefronts and taxes hit me hard so I'd rather be voting for the Republican tax plan except for the fact that I won't be seeing one damn penny.
Do you know why they don't do Gallup polls in Austin (where I live)? Most of us would kick Bush out. Rick Perry, Texas LtGov, lost in his home district during the last election. think they knew something we don't? then again, maybe I should vote for Bush so that the rest of the country can experience him.
Sure I'd rather vote for somebody else who was better qualified. but since they don't get support because of our screwed up federal balloting and matching funds rules, and be able to fairly compete against the competition (remember Junior's "exploratory committee"? how much money did they raise for "just checking out Georgie's chances". what utter bullshit! he knew he was running at the time), I don't 'waste' my vote on them and let a sh*tbag like Dubya in the White House. I think that is why most people are afraid to vote for Independents. Not because they are not the right person, but because they think the person the other party supports is a worse evil than the one their own party supports and they are more afraid of "the evil" (apologies to Sluggy) than their candidate losing.
I'm good with numbers -
What do Brin's politics have to do with "News for Nerds?" I didn't think that Slashdot was a political-junkie forum.
You blabbering idiot! WTF do you know about inheratance tax, farming or the like? First off let me tell you who I am so when I start to rant it paints a clearer picture.
In Silicon Valley, San Jose, next to Evergreen valley college there is a soon to be demolished cherry orchard that belongs to my family, We have lived here for over 100 years, we watched San Jose go from a nice little town of 30k people to over 800k in less than 30 years. I know firsthand a thing or two about farming and inheratance tax. Any ./'r from that area will back me up on that.
First let me tackle your comment about "Oh, don't talk to me about "family businesses & family farms"
This isn't debunked you twit! Most farms that are not in the central valley are owned by families, i'm not sure about the rest of the country. The central valley farms are run by HUGE corporations. Those operations run 247 because of the sheer magnitude of the farms. Go ahead, drive down i-5 sometime and see what im talking about.
This has been the trend for the last 20 years. Small family farm's being bought out by large corporate firms like ADM. Yes the goverment has tried to give small farms a break, but with fuckheads like ADM finding loopholes in the laws to use to their advantage, the money just gets sucked up fast, and by the time the goverment realises what happened, who's left in the cold without help? The small family farmers that run fruit stands on the side of the roads.
One common tax exemption for farmers was to put all their families on the books as property owners. My family 40-50 people. ADM 40k-50k. So in addition to sucking up all the assistance money the big time farmers are basically PAYING LITTLE OR NO TAXES.
So to end my first part of my rant, you haven't a clue how hard its been for family farmers to stay in business. Cost of everything has gone up, we were promised tax breaks and monies that never came. All the tax breaks and assistance went to large firms like ADM. End of story. My family has given up on farming, now we do property which is going to be the second rant.
THAT is why the effort to revoke the Inheritance Tax is so frantic and urgent right now. It is why the bosses of the GOP have made it their number one priority. A trillion or two, taken away from bold foundations and slipped into the pockets of new lords. What a cool agenda!
Ok this one really gets my goat. First off every member of my family has put in some time into the business. When I mean time i'm not talking about sitting behind some lush desk, playing grab ass with a pretty admin that daddy hired for me (I do know people like that, they make me sick) I'm talking spending 12 hours a day in the orchards with a hoe digging out weeds from around the trees because the uncles are too cheap to buy some roundup. Hard cheap labor, thats what makes farming work. Due to a loophole in the minumum wage laws your family is not required to pay you minimum wage. So you work your ass off from the time you can hold a shovel till your old enough to get out on your own FOR LESS MONEY THAN THE MIGRANT FARM WORKERS!!! The only two reasons for doing this is A. Help the family out & B. Someday you'll inherrite the farm. Bad enough I had to work less than minimum wage, and now I have to pay more because some baboon behind a monitor who's never had to do a real day of hard labor in his life doesn't like the fact that i'm going to be inherreting a large some of money? I remember my elders telling me what people said when they were gonna move to the valley, everyone said stuff like "its a floodplane there better buy a boat" and "Oh california has earthquakes and its gonna slide into the ocean." Well fuck, 100 years later, we're still here. Now that its no longer the "Valley of hearts delights" and its known as "Silicon Valley" its suddenly cool. This really pisses me off! My family and other farming families were the ones that built all the flood control for silicon valley. If that flood control wasn't there downtown SJ would be under 12ft of water every year. So for all our hard work we can't pass it down to the next generation without heavy taxes? We helped make the property safer and more livable so all you technocrats could live here.
I'm just gonna wrap this up now. You are way off base on your comments, unless you've come from a family that has worked its ass off to get where they are you just have no place shitting on the rich. You gotta remember, when we first moved here italians were still being called niggers, wops, and dago's. Against all odds we persavered and we became a success. I compare you to George Bush, some guy with lots of ideas, but no fucking clue as to how it really is out there. I think its really bad that cmdrtaco has turned ./ into a place where his unedumacated buddies can't post some trollbait like that.
--toq
A micromanager (easy to be when you have the intellectual ability to know tasks outside your sphere) has the risk of losing sight of the big picture while mired in the details.
Whereas GWB is likely to lose track of the big picture because he set it down, walked away, and couldn't remember where he left it.
I'm tired of hearing how Reagan was great because he was stupid, and how it's time to put another idiot in the white house. You ask wouldn't you feel better knowing that what you see is probably what you'll get? With Gore, or Nader, or McCain, or Bradley, or even god forbid Buchanan, we'd know what we were getting. With Bush, you're betting on the ability of a stupid guy to pick smart advisors. Remember that you are voting for the President, and not the members of the Cabinet.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
Unlike some of the other posters, I will not accuse you of making this error because you're a stoner. On the other hand, I hope that you'll study the matter before repeating this claim, and hopefully learn that it's false and try to spread the truth whenever you find someone making it in the future.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You've GOT to be joking.
I'm sorry.
Apology accepted.
Americans have absolutely NO right to lecture other countries about crime. That's like a 400 pound man telling his 300 pound wife she should go on a diet.
If his 300 pound wife does in fact need to go on a diet, does that mean he's wrong? Uh, what was your point again?
Actually, when you factor out urban drug dealers killing other urban drug dealers, the murder rate in the US is about the same as any other first-world country.
I'd cite references but you wouldn't believe them either.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
who here would like to see Jon Katz and David Brin square off... any topic.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Alright People, /any/ of it. I mean, here's a government that has cut our defense budget down insanely, and ruined their ability to keep me and my family safe in the case of a war, yet they still take my money every year. EVERY YEAR they take some of my money that deserves to be appropriated towards my security and they spend it on things like relations with the Red Chinese (Oh no, moderate me down because I'll refer to Communists as Rads!). So, again, I'm at a loss as to why they deserve to get more of my money that my kids deserve for the sole reason that I'm their father. It makes me sick, and you people make me sick. You people that believe that the rich deserve to be taxed (or punished) more because they've become more successful than us in the Middle class bracket. Congratulations, you've become biased against successful people. And you wonder why you can't get up there in the rich bracket. Anyway, One last point: My dad owns a Robotics Engineering business, and we're doing quite nicely for now. Ideally, by the time he dies we'll be a major player. Now, his choices are as follows: 1) Drop his business out of the family at his death, and not lose 50% of its income, or 2) leave it to me or my brother (don't care to run it, but I would for him), and force us to pay insane death taxes. Which do you think he's gonna be forced to do? Good job Uncle Sam, big pat on the back for that one. I have to say that I'm completely in favor of GWB on this issue, although I still think the idiot can't debate to save his life. But neither can Gore lately. Basically, GWB's the lesser of two evils. He gets my vote.
--Josh Adams
This is about to make me sick. Everyone in existence today feels that since we live in a free society and their vote counts that they have the right to write an uninformed rant and expect to be respected. What makes me sick is the fact that Slashdotters give in so easily and are so easily swayed. I don't care whether you're voting for Gore or not, this article was extremely idiotic. The Inheritance Tax, he claims, is good because it takes money away from children who have never worked to earn it. Did he ever Point out what the government has done to earn it?
The government currently takes about 50% of the estate upon death (at least 50, I should say). We on slashdot can get so riled up about our freedoms being taken away involving things like Napster and the illegal trading of music (I love it, I do it, but it's as illegal as warez is.). How can we not get riled up about our freedoms to own property? Never in the Constitution was the government given the freedom to take my land away when I die solely because it exists on American soil. The idea of capitalism is that I can work hard enough to own things. That's capitalism boiled down. Following that line of reasoning, if I own something and the government takes it when I die, that's thievery, or even grave-robbing. I plan on becoming a Physics professor at a renowned University, and I know it's a lofty goal, but I also plan on becoming rich and famous. Now, I'm allowed this right by my American government. That falls under the pursuit of happiness.
If I choose, after acquiring my wealth, to leave it to my children, I somehow don't see the line in the Constitution that says that the government is entitled to
-knewter
Read the title. Thank you. =)
Inheritance taxes make us all poorer, even if we don't pay them ourselves. This is nonsense. Inheritance taxes can be thresholded so that they do not effect the middle class citizen.
Now that's some high quality troll there, buddy. =)
The USDA reports tend to disagree with your FACTS.
Focusing on Kansas (since you brought it up):
Total number of farms in Kansas: 65,000
Total number of land in farms, in acres: 47,500,000
Average farm size, in acres: 731 acres
Source: Kansas Farm Facts 1999
Average selling price of irrigated land: $1,020/acre
Average selling price for non-irrigated land: $623/acre
Average selling price for all land: $659/acre
Source: Kansas Farm Facts, 1999
Where did you ever come up with your numbers?
The hell it wasn't. It produces a bunch of enzymes, including alcohol dehydrogenase, which are specific to the function of handling alcohol. Since the digestive system produces alcohol in the normal course of business (some of our symbiotic bugs like to make ethanol), and there's some methanol in various foods including grape juice, you simply cannot make that claim. Western culture has made alcohol into a social substance, and we've co-evolved with it for hundreds of generations. The long and short of it is, we are adapted to alcohol.
I stand corrected. I did not know that.
But the liver certainly is not equipped to handle the huge quantities of alcohol that some people throw at it (frat boys come to mind).
--
While I know Brin's disavowing this as rant as an off-the-cuff polemic, it saddens me nonetheless that yet another American intellectual posits the superiority of this system as the End of History and the Envy of Billions.
The US is a police state--unless you're a member of the class Brin represents, whereas it's only a capitalist republic. The two don't rule each other out, of course, and the lazy millions that are uninterested or incapable of climbing the plateau to Millionairehood would probably be able to articulate this maxim to Brin if given the opportunity.
I really LIKED Transparent Society, and of course his Uplifter series. Sadly, I feel this fondness has been misplaced--he's just another White American Intellectual. See Chomsky for what that means.
(Brin isn't alone, either: Bear's Darwin's Radio reflects the class prejudices of its author, as well, and I'm really struggling to make it through it. Bear's another smart guy mired in his little Clockwork World. A little Zerzan would do these fellows some good.....)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
Then you are going to have to vote for Browne. Not to mention the fact that he will end the war on drugs, kill of the IRS and basically get the government out of the tech industry. But the supreme court justices he chooses will rule solely on the basis on the COTUS, period. Not on their iterpreatations (sp?) of the COTUS, not what they "FEEL" the Framers meant, but on what they actually put on paper. In closing a few choice words from the man who is the sole reason I will vote in this presidential election.
"If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you are giving up. You are basically saying, 'We will never have a smaller government, so I am voting for whoever will take me to hell at the slowest possible rate.'"
root@localbrain root>ps ax |grep thoughtd
Is it too late to start a write-in campaign for McCain?
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
He read someone elses missive, got all fired up and feelin' holy and penned a missive of his own. All well and good, but his status as a writer lends it a nebulous credibility it doesn't deserve.
**>>BELCH
Mr. Brin's contention that the real issue for this election is about George W's tax cut, namely an inheritance tax cut, is entirely off base. The real issue to decide for yourself is this, Who do you want making decisions about your life?
-
If you haven't already noticed, Governement policies, especially the tax code, have been designed for social engineering. Look at an example, interest expense on a primary residence is tax deductible and therefore encourages home ownership. This Presidential race will underscore this very notion that the government creates laws and policies in order to design their own view of society.
VP Gore is very proud of the fact that he has been in Politics for over 24 years. What that really means is that for the last 24 years, he has believed that he is smarter than most of us and therefore the Government must make the decisions in our lives. That is flat out wrong. VP Gore's liberal spending plan for his version of Government will grow the size of the Government measured by the number of people employed, the total dollars spent and worst of all the reach of regulation into business and personal lives.
On the other hand, George W. brings forth a plan that to paraphrase says, "I trust you to make decisions over your own life, not the Government." Bush's plans all say the same thing.
Education - Let's use measurement and accountability at the local level to generate positive results. And when it still doesn't work, let the parents decide where to send their children and help them financially to make the move.
Social Security - Let's let individuals manage a small portion of their own contributions that remain there for their own benefit. Let them earn a higher return than the 2% that traditional social security earns. 2% barely beats inflation in the current market.
HealthCare/Medicaid/Prescription Drugs - Yes, let us help those that cannot help themselves, let's at least give them options to choose from while covering their basic needs.
Taxes - George W.'s entire philosophy does culminate in this issue. There is a $4.6 trillion surplus right now. George W. is going to put over half ($2.6 trillion) of it in Social Security to fix the problem there. He is using $700 billion for programs like a reform of Medicaid and Education. And then is giving back to the people $1.3 trillion of their own money. Remember that, He is giving the people back their own money, not the Government's like Al Gore would describe it. Of course the Gore supporters are going to say, "What about the wealthiest 1% getting all huge tax cuts." But guess what, that wealthiest 1% also contributes 1/3 of the tax revenue. Bush's plan does not say that some people should get tax relief and some should not. All people who pay taxes will get tax relief. Yet Al Gore's plan would provide selective tax relief to those people that he deems worthy of relief. And a sizable portion of what Al Gore calls tax relief is actually targeted increases in benefits to offset taxes. Again more spending from the liberal candidate.
Once again the Primary issue for this race is this: Who do you want making decisions about your life? The Government - then vote for Al. but if you would prefer to make more decisions for yourself - VOTE BUSH .
I heard a comment from Bush when he accepted the Republican party nomination. He said the Presidency is "The Opportunity of a Lifetime." The Vice President has made the Presidency "The Opportunity for a Lifetime." It is amazing how one little word can make the difference in the philosophy of how to help people.
Bry
P.S. For all those out there who believe in Ralph Nader and plan to vote for him, do not let any naysayers persuade you from voting your conscience.
-----------------------------------------------
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to!
The following essay provides more reasons why the choice does matter, without speaking approvingly of either candidate: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001016&s=ea lterman
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
First of all hidden taxes already place that burden (higher tax rate as a result of higher consumption as a percentage of income) on the shoulders of those who spend a larger percentage of their income on consumption, so on the balance that doesn't change. If a "rich" person chooses to save and/or invest, then he or she is doing the economy a favor, providing capital for business to provide more and better paying jobs.
Next, consumption is a better overall measure of ability to pay than income is. It is also a much more stable source of revenue for the government. (Income can fluctuate significntly, but consumption always remains somewhat constant.)
Third, the rebate mechanism makes the system more progressive, while giving everyone the same marginal rate. (In the AFT plan, a family of four can spend $22,500 a year and have an effective tax rate of 0%.) The rebate is preferable to exempting any retail items because the latter opens the door for the lobbyists to get back into corrupting the system for their benefit. Also, if everyone pays tax on every purchase, even if their effective rate is at or near zero, they will have a greater stake in keeping government accountable. (It's the perception game again, but in reverse.)
Finally, there are the freedom aspects to going to a sales tax. Under such a system, the tax system can't be tinkered with to give anyone a preference based on age, gender, race, sexual preference, social/ecomoic status, etc. -- i.e., no more class warfare via the tax code. No one needs to provide the government with an accounting of their finances. (The only information needed by the government is the number of adults and children residing at your address for the rebate.)
Also remember that many of the hoops the tax code makes you go through is so that you can perform certain activities with pre-tax money (health care, professional development, retirement savings, charitable contributions, etc.) -- under a sales tax plan, all income is pre-tax until you decide to spend it.
--
Are you saying that the Laffer Curve is wrong, or are you just creating a strawman for obfuscation? I ask because I didn't recognize a single coherent argument in your post.
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
You're exactly right about the regressive idea, but you can take it further than that by removing benefits all together. You still have a regressive system.
Imagine if someone made $500,000 a year. With a 20% flat tax, that person would pay $100,000, leaving that person with $400,000. Now imagine someone making $20,000 a year. They would have to pay $4,000 a year, leaving $16,000.
Now it's pretty obvious that it's easier for someone to live off of $400,000 than someone living off of $16,000. With someone living off of $16,000, a larger percentage of their income goes to necessities like electricity, rent and food (and other necessary consumables). If a person pays about $10,000 a year on such things, that only leaves $6,000 for the poor person. This is the only money that they can spend on other things like possibly saving up for a house or having a few more clothes. However, the rich person would still have $390,000 left to do with as he pleases.
Just this alone shows how regressive a flat tax really is. Personally, I don't know that we should force people into living at a subsistence level just because of federal taxes. But that's just a personal view.
I don't claim to know it all, I just claim to know what I have learned from economics. :)
Kyle Johnson
"We've upped our standards, now up yours!" -- Brad Donoho
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Well - I do own a small company; this may sound self-serving as hell - but I felt the same way as a private in the Army many years ago...
..."
If you had a 20% flat tax for everyone, no exemptions at all, how much tax would a guy earning 45,000 per year pay and how much would a guy making 1,000,000 per year pay? $9,000 Vs $200,000 of course.
Now go check out which groups actually pay the most in actual dollars of tax under the current tax codes, loopholes and all.
Pretty simple I know, but that, to me, is the heart of the matter. The so-called "rich" already pay the bulk of taxes (the assumption is they have more benefit and stuff to protect so pay more). Dont take my word for it - check it out. If you take something from somebody, give it back to the people you took it from.
Most folks believe that corporations don't pay much in taxes; here's one example - check your paycheck for how much social security got - Your employer pays an EQUAL matching amount for all their employees - if "Joe" had $1000 pulled out, I also sent in a matching $1000.
How about "hidden taxes" - do you have health insurance at work? How much did you pay? Now check out what your employer paid. Guess who's underwriting the vast bulk of health costs?
On inheritance taxes, I guess it comes down to: who owns the fruits of you're labor? You or "the people"? Mr. Brin follows a very tortured "ends justify the means" argument but bottom line, he's for grabbing what's yours to achieve a little social engineering....
"... But about a third of that fifteen trillion dollars is set to flow to a few thousand people who never produced a thing to earn it.
Uh, so what? what's your point Mr. Brin? We're already subject to an annual shakedown - we work every year right thru May to support our government. If after a lifetime of work Grandpa or Dad leaves me some bucks (or great-great grandpa for that matter) - I have to justify that too? Why? How many times do I have to go thru the tax gate on the same dollar?
Just to keep it straight, 90% of those few thousand people will squander all of it in the first generation. And they'll do it by spending it on stuff that produces jobs - big houses, travel, boats and planes that lots of "normal" people have jobs making. The few that keep it have invested it, stocks, bonds, bank accounts - money that goes right back into circulation growing companies, financing homes, etc. It isn't stuffed in a mattress someplace.
The point is that family fortunes are invested - which creates jobs; or squandered on products or services, which creates jobs. Rich people create jobs.
The diamond Vs pyramid example is wonderful. Mr. Brin makes a mistake in suggesting the changes came about peacefully - two world wars is hardly peaceful. The industrial revolution created the economic imperatives for a "middle class", not enlightened europeans. You can't get filthy rich selling Windows and NT unless you've got somebody with enough bucks to buy it.
Mr. Brin mentions Andrew Carnegie - Mr. Library himself - in the same paragraph with charitable tax relief. He forgot to mention that NONE of those tax codes existed when the grand old man passed his fortune along! Carnegie did it because that's where he got his start - in a library reading; and very much believed that everyone should have access to what he had. No one asked him to do it, no special "tax relief for libraries" tax codes existed. To even imply that Carnegie did it to save taxes is to impune the man and his motivations. Broke people don't start charities, rich people do. Sorry if that rankles, but it's true.
Look; there's always a little class-warfare hiding under the well chosen prose - in the case of "rich" people - that little irritation is that someone has more than you and they didn't sweat enough (in your opinion) to have it. You can't pander to that for a hundred lines and dismiss it with a paragraph - or claim you're trying to somehow prevent it.
Two points for your considerstion:
From here on out, everytime you hear a group described - rich, poor, black, hispanic, whatever; substitute the desciptive with "white" or some term that describes you. Offensive is offensive, despite the historical accidents and current cultural relative positions of any group.
Number two; unless you're a gifted writer or other artist, you'll have to make your money like the rest of us. If you think creating wealth is easy - I suggest you go out there and meet a payroll sometime. For every high profile rich person you can name, there's thousands of people out there eaking out a net in some corporate park - employing 5 to 15 people and working far into the night when they go home at the end of the day.
Unless you're a crook, use a gun or you're a government (see use a gun); money is exchanged as a measure of the value of your service to the other party. If you want more, better find a way to increase the value of your services: learn a skill that pays well (like writing well and the ins-n-outs of the publishing game); or multiply your personal worth by building a company; - or get a gun, OR, if you don't like guns, get the government to do it for you - they have plenty of guns. If you think the gun analogy too extreme; pick any ethical or moral stance in opposition to government edicts and keep saying "NO". You'll eventually see what backs up government rules and regulations strapped to the waist of the latest representative paying you a courtesy call.
Maybe, someday, I'll have some bucks to pass on to my kids - right now I get downright giddy when there's something left over and I get my tax return done on-time. But in the meantime, if I live to be a hundred, I'll never understand how the baby-boomers got from personal freedom advocates to a cabal of condo-CC&R committees who don't give the slightest thought to funding their ideas with other people's money.
Steve Brown
I question this assertion. How are you defining "wealth"? Do cars, television sets, personal possessions count? Who made this estimate and how did they do the measurement?
I play Nerd-Folk!
All well and good, but the attitude you describe is fueled by a thing called 'morale'. This is the glue that keeps troops from heading for the hills at the first sign of danger or adversity. Morale is fuled by any one or both of 2 things, Leadership and/or Money. Most soldiers will gladly do with less of the second and more of the first. For the past 8 years, they haven't had either.
**>>BELCH
OK, maybe I'm an idiot here, but I don't know what the hell this comment has to do with David Brin's letter. And why is it marked up insightful? Insightful?!? Insightful about WHAT?
Sweet Jeebus, this is what I find so depressing about politics. Every time someone tries to talk about something interesting they get drowned out by a flood of the same old, same old BS. It's the same shit as trying to talk about religion or (good luck) paranormal experiences... so many people have such a deeply ingrained (and, most likely, BORING) belief system they can't even HEAR what the other person is saying, let alone actually be thoughtful about it.
So anyway, what, this guy is saying a vote for Bush is a vote to limit the Federal government's power? I don't get it. If that's what he means, I gotta say, it's really, honestly, truly too depressing to even bother commenting on any further.
If anyone needs me, I'll be out looking for the nearest suicide booth.
testify! :)
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
That has nothing to do with the issue. Even ECON 101 will give you more insight on the nature of taxation.
We already have a tax surplus, so right off, there is no need to soak anyone, regardless of income.
Secondly, there are a raft of issues that you haven't even considered, like investment vs. consumption, proportionate taxation, etc.
Taxation has nothing to do with "getting back" at people who are wealthier than you - it is an integral part of the eceonomy and should be managed as dispassionately as possible - which means as much as it pains you to say - rich people are an asset to the economy, and how their wealth is taxed in proportion to other citizens should be considered from a perspective of utility and fairness.
All I ask of government is that it stay the hell away from me.
If you could look beyond the end of your nose you'd realize the myriad ways in which social program spending contributes to your quality of life - ways that you could not make up for with infinite personal wealth.
Chief among them is the reduction of crime. This is most visible in Britain, where the Thatcher and post-Thatcher erosion of social progams has led to skyrocketing criminal activity against property and persons. When people who see or have no other options are not taken care of, they become desperate and turn to crime, and that's when they come after you.
Many people say, "Let charity deal with them." But that is not fair to society. Everyone benefits from the reduction of poverty, and everyone should pay for it, in direct proportion to the amount they stand to lose.
The same applies to other services which cannot be provided through private means, such as military protection. The richer you are, the more you stand to lose through hostile action against US interests, and therefore the more you should be paying to foot the bill for all the soldiers and tanks out there.
It's always seemed to me that people who vote Republican are either very rich or very naive(generally not both) and nothing I've read here suggests otherwise. Why middle-income people who clearly benefit from more liberal policies continue to oppose them is a psychological baffler. My best guess is that it's a form of self-hate, propelled by jealousy for the better-off.
A reporter recently used Texas public information laws to obtain 900 pages of George W. Bush's governor's schedules and correspondence and discovered "a governor who works short hours and spends little time studying specific issues or working on executive matters. The schedules show that Mr. Bush typically had his first office meeting about 9 a.m., took two hours of "private time" at lunch for a run, and then wrapped up his last meeting by about 5 p.m. A large portion of the officially scheduled meetings were "photo opportunities," interviews with reporters, or meetings with school groups or other ceremonial occasions. Relatively little of the day was devoted to hard-core examination of the issues." NYT reporter Nicholas D. Kristof goes on to note that the schedules were taken from one of Bush's busiest periods as governor, 1997, a year in which the Texas Legislature met.
Since Bush has often told the nation to look at his Texas record to determine what kind of president he would be, one wonders how he would function under the extreme pressures and very long days common to the presidency. Bush is unwilling to put a label on his language and attention problems, which appear to be the reason for his short days in the governor's office. However, his friends and business acquaintances have commented on these problems.
Doug Hannah, a friend since childhood, has found that the attention problem runs in the family: "They have an attention span of about an hour." When he and George were boys, he remembers, "Mr. Bush would pick us up to take us to the movies and leave after an hour and 20 minutes.... At ball games George would sometimes want to leave in the fifth inning." "Even today," writes Gail Sheehy in the October Vanity Fair, "nothing engages Bush's attention for more than an hour, an hour max-more like 10 or 15 minutes. His workday as governor of Texas is "two hard half-days," as his chief of staff, Clay Johnson, describes it. He puts in the hours from 8 to 11:30 A.M., breaking it up with a series of 15-minute meetings, sometimes 10-minute meetings, but rarely is there a 30-minute meeting, says Johnson. At 11:30 he's "outtahere." He tries everything possible to have at least two hours of what he calls private time in the middle of the day to go over to the University of Texas track or run a hard three to five miles on a concrete path at a pace of 7.5 minutes a mile, then relax and return to the office at 1:30, where he'll play some video golf or computer solitaire until about three, and then it's back to the second "hard half-day" until 5:30."
It's not just that Bush begins to lose focus earlier than most administrators in high pressure jobs, but his language breaks down and he sometimes becomes incomprehensible. When reporters began writing about his language difficulties after the New Hampshire primaries, excuses were made by both Bush spinners and sympathetic reporters that he only made his language gaffes late in the day. Then it was late in the day and early in the morning. After that it was late in the day, early in the morning, and when under pressure. Then Bush began to schmooze with reporters on his plane and we were given stories that he didn't sleep well on the road and missed the comfort of his Austin bed. All of these explanations are true, but they don't really get to the heart of the matter. Bush appears to be incapable of working long, hard, pressure-filled days, the kind of days common to the presidency, without suffering a loss of attention and an inability to clearly communicate. Can we afford a president who works a six hour day and devotes little of those hours to "studying specific issues or working on executive matters"? Bush may want to do more, but his language and attention problems appear to prevent him from doing more.
pronoblem
You can have my estate when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!!!
uh... wait...
"Extremism in defense of liberty is more fun."
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
While Mr. Brin's essay was well written and thought out, I find Al Gore's and the Democrat's party (of which nothing is democratic) to be more lording than the Republicans and Bush. When Al Gore stands before the American people and repeatedly promises to spend X billion dollars for this and that, I feel as a fief in his kingdom.
How is it that we have allowed it this far? How can a presidential candidate propose to spend billions of dollars for issues that belong in the private domain without the American public crying foul?
Mr. Brin explains that Europeans have used their governments to perpetuate their wealthy inner circles from generation to generation. Does he not think that Democrats are capable of this too? Al Gore's father? A former U.S. Senator!
Hey, I agree with Mr. Brin's conclusion, but I don't agree with his course of intellect. Look at both main parties' candidates: the son of a former president and the son of a former senator. Both were bred to be "lords." I will take Mr. Brin's argument and go one further. I refuse to accept the politispeak of the two main parties. I refuse to accept the socialist spending free-for-all of the Democrats. I refuse to accept the cultural hypocrisy of the Republicans.
I want to live free. I'm voting Libertarian.
This is just another purely voluntary exchange in our capitalist society. It puzzles me that people object so strongly to it. Sure, it would be nice if I could pick and choose which services I wanted to receive, and it'd also be nice if I had some anti-gravity boots.
If you want to end this voluntary exchange between yourself and your government, there are two simple ways to do so: 1) Emigrate. 2) Vote for people who will eliminate services.
Option 3, whining about how it is 'immoral' for the government to charge for services seems inefficient, if popular.
--
share and enjoy
The cost of living where I live precludes living comfortably (at least my idea of comfort, which is of course, a subjective measure) on $27K take home. For instance:
- $1,000 (minimum) for a 2BR apt.
- $250 for a car payment
- $100 for car insurance
- $100 for gas (I drive alot)
- $200 for student loans (I don't have them, but many do)
- $350 for groceries and various sundries
----------$2,000 per month
That leaves you with about $250 for savings and/or rainy day money. I could live comfortably on $27K when I was 27, not so at 37.
I just hope you always have your $27K to count on because if GW gets elected and you lose your job or become disabled, you won't be living so comfortably on what the post-tax-cut-for-the-rich government will provide you.
And incidentally I seldom go out to eat, as if that has anything to do with the price of tea in china.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The quote bush has been tossing around the debates is that after his cut the richest 1% will be paying 1/3rd of the taxes at only 1/5th of the benefit. Current taxes are actually much higher.
Note: 1/5 1/3
The concept behind it is this: everyone in the united states works hard for their money. Therefore, if there is a cut, everyone should benefit.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
Is it wrong to pump more money into public schools? Is it wrong to expect the rich to pay more taxes? Is it wrong to vote for someone who is obviously more intelligent? Is it wrong to dream that a Great Society can help improve the lot for all its citizens with directed government programs and ideas? Is it wrong to think that a corporatist richie toady will sell out to corporations, annihilate the wilderness, eliminate the freedom of abortion choice and generally make everyone more miserable? Is it wrong to think that maybe we could all stop thinking about MINE MINE MINE for a minute and see that everyone gets food, shelter, a decent job, a superior education AND FOR GOD'S SAKE PROVIDE FOR EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR MEDICINE AND SEE A DOCTOR? What the fuck is wrong with everyone? What is the fucking problem? I'll sacrifice the cost of a couple of new hard drives if it will get some poor black kid in Watts a new book for algebra or help his community fund a new school. Jesus...you people---by definition---are affluent. YOU'RE TYPING ON A GODDAMN COMPUTER. Wouldn't you sacrifice that shiny new Lexus for a shiny new elementary school, decent roads, research into fuel efficient vehicles, funding for a universal health care system? Don't we all owe the responsibility of trying to help each other? At the very least here in America? No? Well then fuck yourselves. Your cruelty and callousness will lead to our collective downfall. Enjoy your Mercedes and your cell phone. They didn't earn it so they don't deserve it....right? You think about that and remember the hungry, the cold, the ignorant and the sick. Remember it, eat your cake....and choke.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Very good, we're getting somewhere. Now are you ready to generalize this flash of insight to cannabinoids? ;)
Heh, of course. Pot isn't something I use to get fucked up, it's something I use for the positive benefits it gives me - relaxation, creativity, headache relief (NOTHING is better than pot for getting rid of a headache), and a general sense of well-being. And so I don't smoke an obscene amount of it. If I did, I'd be stoned right now. But I've been at work all day.
--
So you can say, pretty reasonably, that if you decrease or abolish one form of tax, another is going to go up. You can hide it by reducing government spending, but it doesn't change the fact that, say, if you abolish inheritance tax, income/some-other tax is going to be adversely affected.
Now, my thought on it: If I have to pay taxes anyway (and I don't see why I shouldn't), I'd rather pay (most/some of) them when I'm too dead to enjoy the money.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That's all very well and good, but it just doesn't apply to the real world. Some parents just don't have a clue how to manage their own lives, much less raise children; others do better; still others do superbly well. Short of raising the next generation in communes or hiring a Handicapper General, level playing fields in the sense you describe (as opposed to a level playing field of equality before the law) just don't exist.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This is counterintuitive for some people. However, its not as though everyone puts money into the same investment yielding the same rates for the same time. Last time capital gains rates were lowered (to the 20/28 short/long term, not the recent merging to the flat 20% at 12 mo rate), the revenue realized from those capital gains taxes rose.
Why? It's a combination of factors, but probably the best answer is that taxes are an incentive to leave your money tied up in investments, rather than to free your money to make better investments. The capital gains taxes restrict the liquidity of our capital, and therefore hamper the economy. I think taxing capital gains is reasonable, and agree with Brin. But the lower rates promote investment, _especially_ investment in new enterprises, which are a higher risk and a higher reward.
It might seem convenient to say, "capital gains are just income for the wealthy", but that's not necessarily true, and in the cases where capital gains ARE income for the wealthy, it doesn't assess the whole picture. The gains are made because the value of an asset has appreciated. Those assets tend to be securities of businesses. Investment in businesses creates jobs, and the money invested is used to fund the creation of wealth, and taxes are paid on the wealth through money paid to employees, corporate taxes, etc. And even those considerations only scratch the surface of the dynamic nature of the economy.
For a more detail treatise on the topic, there are a ton of documents you could find. One is here. This was discussed because of the 'Contract with America' capital gains cuts. These predictions came true. Here's are some quotes that illustrate the point:
Or...
And this is why capital gains taxes should be low, and should remain low. Brin is dead on with the death taxes (haha), in terms of their impact, but if you look at this without envy over Other People's Money, you'll discover this works best. (In fact, the whole concept of capital allocation is interesting, because if you instantly redistributed all wealth in the nation so everyone had an equal dollar amount, we'd be set back countless years. Because most people would create consumer demand only with their money. A smaller but significant portion might invest (by pooling funds) to take advantage of that demand (if they had some reason to believe the money wouldn't be redistributed again), and the creation of wealth by entrepreneurs would be likely much more difficult. (Relatively speaking to his net worth, Bill Gates spends little money. If you divided his fortune amongst 1000 people chosen at random, the distribution would be more even, but the allocation would benefit the economy less because those people would spend more on consumerism and less on capital reinvestment, but this is _really_ disgressing...)
On one final note: "we who work for a living". People with a great deal of money tend to work hard with it. Money growing itself does so poorly. These people must select and promote good investments, etc. If you have rich loafers, that's why you get them with the death tax. But just because someone isn't getting a paycheck, and lives on investment income, doesn't mean they're loafing. And the average person in that 1% isn't some stuffy billionaire, he's a small business owner living in the suburbs with a net worth of about $4M, still working, providing jobs, etc.
While I don't support evolution being pulled from school curriculums, better one science course be messed up than students being graduated unable to read.
But hey, if they can't spell Darwin at least they've heard of him!
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I don't plan on voting for Bush (or Gore for that matter), but was curious about this whole 1% thing. My household is three people (two adults, one child) with an income around $30k annual. Found a site that let me figure out my taxes under both plans -- Bush's cuts my taxes by almost $1200 while Gore's cuts it by a grand total of $500.
Any tax decrease is fine by me, but I guess I'm one of these evil 1 percenters that Gore's worried about since he's apparently going to take my tax dollars and give it to the truly needy. Whew -- I can feel less guilty at my largesse.
Thank you for making my point. Gore throwing money at the military is NOT going to solve their problems. They need reform and leadership, not someone who thinks that the problems can be bought away.
Bush is against frivolous spending on the military. Check out his plan if you don't believe me.
A Vote For Anyone But Bush Is A Vote For Gore
It's as simple as that. Stomp your foot and make all the childish 'statements' you want.
**>>BELCH
"There is no responsibility for a government to help it's citizens financially. It is the government's responsibility to protect them from enemies, foriegn and domestic. It's their responsibility to make the laws fair so that all citizens are EQUAL before the law. Under no circumstances is it the government's responsibility to make sure they eat right, or have heat in their homes. That's charity."
I'm afraid government doesn't conform to your narrow view of responsibility. WE set the governments priorities, not some ideological rule-book.
"And it's not a tax break, it's a tax reduction. Maybe they don't need it, but they sure as hell deserve it.
Deserve. I deserve alot of things. Maybe if I had the money/power to influence policy, I could get what I deserve too! But all I have is one measly vote...
Did you read the original post?
The poster was implying that America is better and has fewer crimes because Americans (for some fucked up reason) believe that God gave them the right to carry guns.
Maybe my analogy wasn't good. That's like a 400 pound man telling his 300 pound wife she should go on a diet so she can look like him. And I'm sure my analogy still isn't perfect, but fuck it, the point remains: America has one of the highest crime rates in the first world. If you people know what's causing crime, fix your own fucking problems before you start telling other people how to fix theirs.
(and no, you can't factor out urban drug dealers, dumbass - a crime is a crime is a crime).
rhyac.
The "Society" I speak of is the stable, consumerism that finances corporate revenue. Society in America is stable and prosperous enough that we don't have constant riots and turmoil like that which exist(s/ed) elsewhere in the world. Look back a couple years at Yugoslavia, do you think the ethnic battles taking place produced millionaire entrepreniors? Of course not! The economy there collapsed during that time.
I used the examples of law enforcement, education & healthcare not as an indicator of what rich people use - but for us "common folk" that rely on such to keep us from decaying into rabid ethnic/racial/religious/etc enemies Hell-bent on killing each other.
All of the stability that results from the government programs like I mentioned are essential to the prosperity of all, including the rich. Nowhere did I mention anything about getting something for free or that "fat cats" should lose money. I'm saying they have a bigger piece of pie to protect, it's gonna cost more to protect it. Common sense. If you insure a Ferrari, are you gonna pay the same rate you would for a Chevy? Hell no! The Ferrari has greater value, so it's premium is going to be greater to match. A wealthy businessman has a greater income to protect, so he's gonna pay a greater premium in taxes to ensure the government keeps the public nice and orderly.
ps - for the record, I'm not a long-hair, pointy-headed, left-wing, liberal freak! I'm a bald, round-headed, moderate who has a grasp on common sense!
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Sigh. I'm tired of reading about this "double taxation" notion. Money is taxed every time it transfers hands. My company pays me -- I'm taxed. I pay for services from McDonalds -- they are taxed. They pay their employees. It's taxed again. Inheritance taxes are no different in principle. Money is changing hands. While we can debate about the amount, of course it should be taxed. On the issue of "giving back the surplus". First, tax receipts are supposed to be in surplus during the good times to store up money for deficit spending during downturns. Second, you are confusing money with real goods and services. The US (given its unemployment rate & GDP gains recently) is clearly producing all the goods and services it can. Putting more money in people's hands to spend just causes inflation, it doesn't magically create more goods and services. If money were just paper, fine, but if you got an extra $2K in taxes, you'd be likely to spend at least some of it. More demand, same supply, prices rise. It's called inflation, the federal reserve pulls money out of the Economy which causes interest rates to raise. That's why you don't implement new spending programs or tax cuts in boom times, they should be reserved for recessions. On that front, both candidates fail, but Gore less so, primarily because of the double-promised $1 Trillion for social security in Bush's budget. I honestly haven't made up my mind, but at least get your economics straight.
I notice Brin deigned to recognize those of us whoa are libertarians in a footnote writing,
"When you think about how many interesting things Cheney & co. could be talking about - like ending the Drug War - you'll wind up holding your nose and voting for Gore. "
Ummm...when did Al Gore endorse ending the drug war?
The only difference between Al Gore and George Bush is they put different faces on their brand of drug war fascism to appeal to constituents who can be made to believe they represent very different viewpoints. Brin falls for this political act hook, line, and sinker.
It certainly has generated some interesting debate. But that is all I will give him. Brin does a fine job of setting up the strawman here. In true leftist fashion, he creates a perfectly self-sanctimonious situation-"I am against multi-billionaires; dare you argue?" Get real. Who is actually FOR multi-billionaires? I challenge Brin to name one multi-billionaire who would actually benefit from the inheritance tax relief. (Bill Gates doesn't count. He claims he is not leaving anything for his family.) As other /.'ers have pointed out, there really are families who do lose everything. And, believe it or not, there really are family owned farms and businesses that need relief.
This screed, however, is not really about taxes. It is indeed about social engineering. Brin makes two points which assert this fact.
One: Oh, pity their poor offspring, who must graduate from Andover or some other prep school knowing that now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!
The fact that the bastions of the Ivy League allow for so-called merit-based admissions is social engineering at it paramount. Since this practice has only be going on for the past 30 or so years, we have no idea what the long term impact of this will be on society.
Imagine this, the intellectually gifted are given opportunity while the challenged are left behind-regardless of class. This is what accounts for the "social mobility." And has Brin points out this diamond is precarious. I myself prefer the image of a rift valley widening as intellectuals marry intellectuals and have intellectual progeny, while the less gifted marry less gifted and have less gifted progeny. And the gap widens and widens. All for the cause of social engineering.
Two: Maybe because they are more practical, knowing that the next president will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices. I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
Ah, he could have stopped here. This is what this is truly about.
It has become more apparent lately, that the Supreme Court wields the true power. Recall the Amendment 2 of Colorado issue. The majority of the population of the state, voted (whether you agree with them or not) on a ballot initiative, which was overruled by the Supreme Court. The will of the people was usurped by the Supreme Court.
It is clear, that the Supreme Court is slowly moving to the center-right, and this must petrify Brin.
The Real Issue
We all know the Al Gore took the initiative to invent the Internet. But did you know that Love Story was written about Tipper and him? The man is a pathological liar. Haven't we had enough of this already from our president? Do we need another term of never really knowing if what the man says is the truth? "Well, if you mean truth as in truth. . ."
He may be perceived as stupid, but at least I have not heard anyone point out blatant lies spewing from his mouth.
You may indeed say, "Is reason enough to vote for him?" I say, "Yes. Considering the alternative."
NOTE: Slashdot. I know the point of posting this was to generate discussion, but please in the future, let's try to stick with geek stuff. This Marxist, intellectual ideologue diatribe is for the State Universities I am busting my ass off trying to make sure my children don't have to attend.
"No, wait, on second though don't even try to get it right, we'll just withdraw funding and open our own school." Huh? What kind of nonsense is that? As near as I can tell, the kind that could only come from an education that failed to teach that it is often (usually, perhaps always) better to fix something than to abandon it.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Trying to discredit an entire idea (that of birth control being a good thing) by citing one psychopath who subscribed to that idea is idiocy. By that logic, I could argue that Christianity should be illegal because of all the people who have comitted, murder, rape, and even genocide in the name of God. Obviously, that line of reasoning is flawed.
If you're wondering why so many ads for malt liquour, sterilization, and birth control are in minority neighborhoods, ask the (overwhelmingly republican) owners and advertising executives of the companies selling the products. (Yes I think the drug company execs are mostly republican, despite the fact that they're selling something most republicans consider abhorrent. You'd be amazed how hypocritical people can be.) They are the ones who target their advertising to specific areas, not the Democratic party. Sure the elites want to destroy the poor. The majority of the wealthy, whether Republican or Democrat, want one thing: to keep themselves in power. The thing is, the average income of Republicans is significantly higher than that of Democrats (no I don't have a study to cite, but it seems pretty obvious to me. If you can show me trustworthy data indicating otherwise, I'll admit my mistake.). Some of the rich Democrats, though, seem to show some compassion for the less fortunate. A few Republicans do too, but not as many.
The trouble with overpopulation is that only the smart people will see a problem and try to help correct it, maybe by not having kids, maybe by arranging to have themselves shot. So the dumbasses keep on churning out kids, and pretty soon the world is populated exclusively by people with the intelligence of your average jock or /. troll. "I've been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding / The cretins cloning and feeding..." But it's plainly immoral to say to some random couple, "You can't have kids, you're too dumb." (Though you have to admit it's tempting sometimes. Just ask anyone in tech support.) As usual, there's no easy solution, so nobody does anything.
Now what was my point here?
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
Yes. I can't stand taxes in the first place, I've yet to hear an argument that could convince me that government deserves my tax maoney. I'm willing to put up with it, however, because as inefficient as government is, at least it does some good (please no flames, I am a libertarian, but we need some central management). What I can't accept is that some people should pay a higher RATE of tax just because they have more money. Either we have equality or we don't. There's no compromise here. Everyone must pay the same RATE.
I think you're dead wrong about the nature of value. To say that farming and mining are the only true sources of value is patently absurd. Value, for these purposes, is a quality of some entity (product or service, for the most part) that does some good. In a market economy most things that have value have some directly proportional price associated with them. Although it might be true that, to some extent or other, all products ever sold on a market come originally from some farm (food, clothing, etc) or some mine or oil well (metals, plastics, fuel), your assumption that 'the only industries that create value are farming and mining' must be wrong. First, there is the issue of the value-add. This is where a plethora of industries add value to a raw material by changing or manipulating them in some way. This can be as simple as a forge turning iron ore into hammers. There are many, many ways of adding value to a raw material, from turning it into a product to shipping it to a place where it will be used by someone. When companies do this they are infusing utility into a lump of matter, creating value by smelting the ore into a tool and shipping it to your house. In fact, one might say that farming and mining, by themselves, create almost no value. After all, how much use is a lump of iron ore sitting in some mining company's bins compared to a hammer sitting in your toolbox? Even if you ignore this, farming and mining, although essential, still pale next to the value of all the country's (and the world's) service industries. Here, a person creates value every day by availing his expertise to someone else, sometimes with almost no help at all from the acmed farming and mining communities. Teachers fall into this last category, but anyone who uses their knowledge to achieve some good is creating value out of thin air. The computing industry is an excellent example of this. At the beginning, after the mining companies are completely through with their portion of the effort in making a computer, you have, basically, some sand, some petroleum products, and a few lumps of some random metals. The hardware folks take over, turning that pile of almost useless refuse from a geology class into a computer. Clearly, value from nothing. After that the software people take over. Using the tools that the hardware mfgers have built for them and their knowledge of math and logic, they create a tremendous amount of value by writing cool software. The funny thing about this in particular is that it's almost irrelevant where the hardware comes from or what it does, because you can write software by scratching in the dust, which last I heard one didn't need miners to dredge up for us.
Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
I will reserve all opinion on this topic, as I am not yet of an age to vote, nor consider myself wise enough or well informed enough at the moment to have a useful outlook. Yet, there are two points I would like people to keep in mind:
There is a scrap of verse from earlier in this century: "The center cannot hold. The best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Besides that, remember that the government has no money and money is intrinsically worthless. The government has only that money which it can extort from you, no more, and anything that tries to say otherwise is juggling the books - something that is considered very dishonest among accountants. Money has no value except that confidence we have in it. If I issue twenty muduli, self minted, in exchange for a wheel of cheese, you are unlikely to accept the transaction, and yet it is just as real as the dollar or the franc or any other value abstraction. The only difference is the reputation of the issuer, and people's confidence in it. Think about this when you listen to all the plans for moving around small green pieces of paper.
And of course, having used that expression, remember Douglas Adams' words, "Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
I reposted this because, I knew it would get missed in my other message.
I mean, _really_, is there a single GOP-hater that hasn't been featured on Slashdot yet? Every time I think we've run out Rob somehow manages to find more.
And please, if you're going to feature tripe like this, at least find someone who can do better than be a cheap hatemonger against $GROUP.
-- Brad Felmey
Anyone read this?: www.idurham.com/ubb/Forum43/HTML/000012.html ? The original can be found at the Boston Globe online and can be found by searching for the author (Jennifer C. Braceras).
Money is not taxed - Income is taxed! Say it with me one time... Money is not taxed - Income is taxed!
Example:
John Doe Sr. starts a company and builds an estate worth $4 Billion. He pays income tax on his income as it's earned. He has one son, John Doe Jr.
John Doe Jr. inherits the $4 Billion estate when daddy dies. Junior earns his money through the inheritance. The Inheritence is his income and therefore subject to income tax payments by him.
The fact that Daddy derived income from his business, and Junior derived income from his inheritence is irrelevent! Each of them derived an income - and all income is taxable.
Why don't people understand this? It is basic common sense!
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Of all the great fortunes that have been created in the last ten years, how many would still exist if the government hadn't started plowing money into the development of computer networks 30 years ago? How many of these businesses could have taken off without an available pool of talented engineers educated largely at public expense? How many tech fortunes rely on the government's enforcement of intellectual property law? The attacks on Brin's letter posted here invariably refuse to acknowledge these facts. The wealthy in this country aquired their wealth not only because of their own hard work, but also because they live in a unique system which has allowed their work to be rewarded more than they could have ever dreamed of in any other time/place in history. They owe a cut of their newfound wealth to the maintenance of the society which has allowed them to prosper, and they shouldn't whine about it.
That's right, 10% of the population controls 98% of the wealth, and they only pay 1/3 of the taxes.
For those of you who are math impaired, that means the rest of us, who only control 2% of the wealth have to pay the remaining 2/3 of the taxes! How's that for disproportionate?
And don't even try to tell me they don't benefit from the social programs they help pay for. Social programs help relieve the desperation of the poor, and as we all know, desperate people commit desperate acts, like the French Revolution for example.
Take another look at the numbers above (feel free to verify them for yourself) and ask yourself, "who gets more screwed by the current tax laws, me or Bill Gates?"
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I live in London and don't recognise your picture of spiralling crime at all. I don't have figures for London alone, but nationally figures for most forms of crime have fallen in the past two years (for example, burglary is down by 21%, despite our lack of guns to defend our homes). The only statistically significant increase in violent crime was 'stranger violence', which increased by 29% (this doesn't include mugging, which fell by 7% if you exclude school-age bullying). 29% is a sizeable increase, but the commonest location for these incidents is the pub. Arming violent drunkards doesn't sound to me like a recipe for crime reduction.
Has the US ever gone to war to protect corporate interests overseas? Well, does Joe Poorboy own any stock in BufuCo? no, Ritchie Rich does. Joe Poorboy's SON gets drafted or more likely, is economically compelled to sign up (unlike Richie Rich's offspring), and has to go overseas to fight, and most likely die, to protect some company's assets from waking up one morning in a communist country.
Poor Americans end up fighting wars, at cost to the government, to protect the vast interests of the American rich overseas. Poor Americans live on PCB dumps, because the rich Americans' stock holdings are in companies that only look at the bottom line, and therefore do not give a rat's ass about the environment, so they dump crap on land, which devalues it, so the poor can afford to live there and drink contaminated water. And, of course, who pays to clean up the mess? The governement.
Just a few examples.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I can listen to mindless liberal babble just by turning on the radio and TV news. It does little to read it on /. also.
So, I'll sign off until after the election. No more banner ad clicks from me until after the 7th and my favorite morning read has real content again.
I read ./ because it news for nerds. This crap ain't news for nerds... too bad Cmdr Taco, Rob and crew have closed their minds to real freedom and self determination. Figure they got brainwashed in school.
Sigh.
>Separately, if the overall level of taxes is generating surpluses,
What surplus? How can people talk about surpluses when they have somewhere on the order of 5 TRILLION dollars in collective debt. IMNSHO, you don't have a surplus until you don't have a debt. Raise the taxes, cut spending, and pay off the debt.
You are just shooting from the hip at some minor point that have nothing to do with the thread, and indicating that your grasp of the issues leaves your opinion not terribly interesting
Thanks for the personal attack -- always appreciated when discussing issues.
1. "Surplus" refers to the derivative (from calculus) of what the debt refers to, and we do absolutely have a surplus. The debt is important as a percentage of GDP, but that has been shrinking. (analogy: owing $100 when you earn nothing is a big deal, but not if you earn $100,000 with prospects for growth
You're absolutely correct: we *do* have a surplus. However, just as I think it's better for me to pay off my credit cards before investing in the stock market, I also think it's better for the US to pay off its debts before lowering taxes.
You can certainly argue that sending as much money back to the people (and corporations) as you can, as soon as possible, will help generate more wealth (and taxes) than using the money to pay off the debt. Some folks call that "Reganomics", others, including Gee-Dubya's daddy, called it "voodoo economics".
Even if you're a fan of Reganomics, I'd urge you to wait until the debt is paid off -- imagine the tax cut we'll see when we don't have to sink billions into covering our bills.
simply, not true. Your example, government drug policy appears nowhere in the tax code
I disagree. I'd say that the increased levels of spending on jails, border patrols, "military advisors", and support for foreign governments to control their drug supplies has a direct impact on the budget and the tax code. We could see a helluva nice tax cut if we'd legalize drugs. Tax 'em to cover the increased social cost (treatment programs, etc), and you'd probably still have money left over.
is exactly your confusion of social policy legislation and the tax code
Tax cuts == changes in the tax code. If we saved a few hundred billion by legalizing drugs, we could (would?) change the tax code. It certainly seems to me that keeping the prohibition on drugs alive is rather tightly tied to the tax code. How else can we afford to enforce all of these social policies unless we collect taxes to pay for it?
--
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
If Mr. Goldshorts HAD put his money into the economy, it wouldn't be saved as inheritance, and wouldn't need to be taxed as inheritance, only on a Sales Tax basis.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
How does diverting money away from these [public] schools -- gutting both -- any kind of sane solution here?
Because the schools are controlled by interests that do not care about how students are educated, namely, the teacher unions. I have a friend who worked for LA Unified. Her school had a early-grade teacher who would only hand out coloring assignments. Every day. The prinicipal couldn't because of the union contracts.
The power must be given to the parents, because they are the best qualified to care about their child's education. Yes, there are some parents who have wacky, creationist ideas. But that's a small area compared to the utter disaster the public schools have become.
But one thing I simply don't understand is this whole thing of "taking money away from public schools". The government's job is to make sure students get an education. Where the money goes is irrelevent, as long as children are getting educated. If we have fewer public schools, and more private schools spring up, I simply don't understand why this is a problem. The amount of money per student stays the same. It just means some schools would be consolidated.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You could say the same thing about sales tax: you're getting taxed for spending money that's already been taxed.
And this is why I think a national sales tax would be better. It would no longer matter how much money you make, only how much you spend. Groceries, which in many states are already not taxed, should not have sales tax, but everything else should. Clothes, houses, cars, whatever. Then those that could only afford cheap cars would pay little tax, and those that buy $50,000 SUV's would be taxed much more. Seems more fair than the current system, and it eliminates the need for me as an individual to file a bunch of bullshit with the government telling them how much I made last year, which, incidentally, I feel is none of their business. People should not be taxed, only commercial entities.
-Nathan
Care about freedom?
Care about freedom?
Become a card carrying member of the GOA.
If this man is claiming to be a libertarian he is seriously wrong my friends. A flat tax is a the heart of the libertarian message. Libertarianism dicatates "I don't want the government doing ANYTHING unless there is no other way". Basicly this means a selective tax code is out of the question. In my opinion a selective tax code is moraly reprehensible. Say I earn $100,000 a year. $40,000 of that goes to the government. Say $10,000 of that $40,000 goes to save for my retierment (SS what ever). Maybe I don't want contribute to a retirement plan. If you do well more power to you. Go open an account. Maybe I plan to retire to Iraq or somewhere. I really don't think the US govenrment will send my SS checks to my new address in Iraq (Just a guess). Now currently, in theroy at least, US govenment dirives it's athority not from devine right, not by a totalitarian leader, no the govenments power is dirived from the people. Who are the people? I am the PEOPLE. For instance, the US postal service. It exist because Ben Franklin (I think) thought it would be a good idea for everyone to send a mail box. I happen to think everyone should have a e-mail box. Do I want this subsidised by the government? NO. Maybe you don't want an e-mail box. So why make you pay for something (via taxes) that you do not want? This is exactly my problem with Social Security, Medicare, the NEA, PBS, and about a billion other govenrment programs. Now I am not advocating anarcy. There is some need for government. Protecting the borders from forgien invasion (military), issueing currency, and insuring the protection of our rights (police). On a whole nother subject is the what our rights are. Freedom of Speech is up there. But the right to LIFE, liberty and the presute of happyness is the most important of all our rights. I can not understand any argument for abortion. It is killing a babby. Who wants to killy babbies? Even if you arguee that a fetus is not a babby (which I can not comprehend), why kill it. There are couples who wait upwards of 10 years to addopt babbies.
I think this country suffers from a lack of patriotism and they forget how important our arm'd forces are. Even though I have never served -- I fully salute those that do and have.
Offtopic kinda but did you hear Clinton's trip to vietnam, he wanted to (in acordance w/ Vietnam's wishes) fly the Vietnam flag above the American on the ship? WTF?
-- Whee
Oh, come on. If not the preamble ("...insure domestic tranquility...promote the general welfare...") then you only have to look as far as Article I, section 8 to find "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, [...] to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." That's just the first example I found...I'm sure if I kept looking there'd be more.
In any event, this comes down to a central disagreement about the role of government. Which after all, is why we're structured as a democracy; you vote your way, I'll vote mine.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
So every Republican has a religious agenda to impose on you?
It'd probably shock you to know that I'm a registered Republican. Have been for years.
Every belief that isn't aligned with your own is incorrect?
I've got nothing at all against different beliefs. I do have a problem when others try to use the law to enforce their own set of beliefs. I've got a big problem with that. And I'm not convinced that Dubya's got the moral backbone to stand up to the religious right. Not after watching him kowtow to them in the primaries.
It's unfortunate that you had to ruin a perfectly competent and valid idea with such a blatantly ignorant aside.
It must be nice to not know any better.
What is this, personal attack day? Okay then -- you're an ass, and blind to boot if you don't see what the Religious Right's trying to do to this country.
--
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
IF there was no FDA, we'd all be eating Soylent Green.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Nice grab, but the (possible) passage of this bill only makes official what the government has been doing for decades.
One of the few people in government actually working to protect your privacy is Ron Paul. His site is a good resource for this sort of gestapo crap.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
If by "social programs" you mean welfare, then there's a logical flaw in your argument which should be obvious to anything with a pulse.
If by "social programs" you don't mean welfare, then I'd like to see you back up that number you pulled out of your ass, because I don't believe it.
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Your Libertarian vote, while well-intended, will effectively go to Gore.
**>>BELCH
There's a difference here.
Some people are looking at money as a SURVIVAL issue. A fraction of a percent of income tax could mean life or death for a large number of very poor, borderline homeless people.
For the middle-class, they're still struggling, but they've replaced SURVIVAL with MAINTENANCE OF STANDARD OF LIVING. Certainly this justifies raising taxes a tad on them, because they won't starve, they just will have to cut back to 3 packs of pokemon cards a week for their kids, or they'll have to cut out the premium channels on cable. If a family member comes down with cancer or something, they're essentially screwed, even with good medical coverage. They're back in the soup-lines.
Then there's the upper-class, who have NO CONCEPT of survival anymore. It's taken for granted, a given. The only thing they are frightened of is a revolution or national invasion, and their government takes good care of them. Standard of living maintenance similarly has no meaning for them. They've replaced that impetus with something else, something else that I have no clue about, and I'm sure most people in this discussion don't either. Is it a contest to be the richest in the world? Is it a contest to establish an everlasting legacy of wealth for their family name? What is it? I don't know. But they certainly don't want to have to go down to the level where they have to go into a BMW dealership and have to decide on a 5 or 3 series. Especially if the evil government is robbing them of it. It certainly makes no sense to me why this impetus for a very rich person to become very much richer, is more important than perhaps thousands of people eating, or getting proper health care, or for fuck's sake, breathing clean air.
Especially when, eventually, if this money is kept hidden away from the consumer-level economy, it will weaken the government to the point where ecological regulation will become impossible, and without that, we will all, with 100% certainty, bake like potatoes, choke, shrivel up, and die. Private enterprise cannot do this task. Well, if humanity's survival isn't important enough, then I guess we need to cut the taxes. We all die anyway, at least those super-rich people will die happy.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In fact, I'll argue that its impossible to avoid; so much so that Brin and many people who make the argument about "frozen capital" are aware of it, yet they continue to argue this position, hoping the less-thoughtful suckers will believe them.
In which case, this is not about "what's good for people in general" (which would be to LET the rich folks have their millions in retirement funds), but about envy, pure and simple. Envy that some people have a LOT of money and some people don't.
Of course, such people will argue (vehemently) that this is not the case, and that, if they had that money, they'd feel the same. Of course its easy to make that hypothetical statement, as they would never have such money. (Yes, I know about George Soros -- but he made his money on investing, and besides, you'll notice he never gives away close to even 25% of his fortune.) This is worse than greed; greed is the desire to be something better, bigger and/or more than one is currently. Envy is the desire to have no one any better than oneself. Its not levelling the playing field, its reducing its best and brightest to that of the lowest common denominator.
And this sort of envy is the most virulent. It induces people to meddle in the affairs of others, when they have no right to do so (and they know it).
And the worst part is, they don't even have the goddamn honesty to admit that their ideals are nothing more than this.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
It's frustrating but true. It's the power/problem of a multi (more than 2) party system. If you vote for the lesser 3rd, you vote for nothing. You can only really vote AGAINST someone if you choose between the two most likely to win.
**>>BELCH
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'll be generous and allow that, just because the point that you base your argument on is flat out wrong, that you still might have a good point. The fact that you didn't make it I'll set aside
Parents may be qualified to care, but ...so what? That does not, by extension, mean that they are qualified to educate. Educators, by profession and by societal expecation, are qualified to educate (thus the term!). Unions have done a whole lot of good for the average workers in this country, but if you think they're in the way here then that's fine. But that notwithstanding, the goal here should be to fix the existing public school system, not to scrap or scuttle it. That is exactly what would happen if those that can afford to do so would draw money away from it, leaving what remains for those that cannot afford to bail out. That's wrong, and leads directly into the old "rich get richer..." game, as the offspring of the gutted public school students attend even more gutted public schools, and the private school offspring go to Andover & Exeter.
I realize I'm being inflammatory here, & apologize in advance, but I can't help it -- I really feel like this is an assault on a public -- meaning For Everybody, meaning Base Level -- institution here, that benefits a very small number of people at the expense of the greater majority's well being. Sometimes, that's acceptable & necessary, but with public education, it's dangerous and should not be done without good reason. I've heard no good reasons for it, and however bad public schools may be, I will not stand for harming them further.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
True the inheritence tax doesn't kick in until the amount inherited is above a certain amount, but the fact remains that the person receiving the inheritence was not previously taxed on it's value. That is my point - it's not taxed twice as the poster had stated. Each recipient is taxed, above that mininum, seperately. It is the person who is taxed, not the money.
Notice I didn't capitalize Income Tax, which is a specific form of tax on income. I merely stated it is considered income to the beneficiery, since they didn't previously own it. Feel free to use whatever teminology you wish, the concept is my point.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
I'm tired of reading about this "double taxation" notion. Money is taxed every time it transfers hands.
There are a number of good reasons to tax income. It's an activity that people are eager to engage in on their own; the activity generates the wherewithal to pay; it is in some way a measure of benefits a person receives from being in a society. There are probably more. But, when I say "income" I mean what economists mean, money transferred to pay for production. Production, value creation, call it what you will, it is what makes up GDP. Other transfers of money that are not associated with creation are not at all the same thing and hardly deserve taxation by the same justifications.
Plus for Nader: he actually has opinions on things, and isn't simply catering to raw demographics.
Minus(es) for Nader: Ow, that smarts.
I'd like to see a 3rd party candidate who was a bit more honest AND practical (heaven forbid, eh?) like Jesse Ventura, who has impressed me with his candor, opinions, and success (at least in contrast to Bush and Gore, although that's not saying much.)
Gore, as a member of the incumbent party, and given his popular image as 'smart' and 'experienced' is most likely to win. At this point, if you don't vote against Gore, you're voting for him. The ONLY way to effectively vote against Gore is to vote for Bush, who actually has a chance of winning.
If you don't mind the idea of having Gore as your president, then by all means vote for Nader.
Sad, but that's how it works.
**>>BELCH
Remind yourself that Gore's solution to everything is to spend more money on it. Remind yourself that even if you think Bush isn't all that bright, he's got the best advisors in politics working for him, including Condaleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. Recall from your days of 7th grade math class that 6% of $100 million is more than 50% of $50,000, so naturally the very wealthy will benefit more in *nominal* terms. Listen to our founding fathers: "It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part." -Benjamin Franklin Remember the 20 year presidential curse...every president elected in a year ending in zero since 1840 has died while in office, with the exception of Ronald Reagan (and he only barely survived an attempt on his life).
I am appalled at how many people here on /. take these candidates seriously. Listen, first of all, politicians lie. Bush and Gore say things that they don't mean in order to get you to vote for them.
Dubya wants to get elected because he CAN. The people who want to put him in power want to do so so that they can get richer and more powerful, probably at YOUR expense.
Gore want to get elected because he really wants to get elected. He doesn't hold strong convictions, he doesn't believe in things... he just wants to get elected and he'll say and do and believe whatever it takes.
This ain't rocket science, kids. I am baffled as to why people continue to debate these candidates based on "issues" or "principles" or "character". Hello, it's showbiz!
If you want to vote for a real candidate you'll have to look elsewhere. There are lots of choices. Browne, Nader, Buchanan, etc. It'll only take about five minutes to find one that holds similar beliefs as your own, and chances are, these people believe in it. I suggest you do it, and convince your friends, family and neighbors to do so as well. True, your candidate won't win this year, but you have to keep trying. Things will only get worse if you keep voting for the same schmucks year after year after year.
Don't vote for people who don't represent YOU!!!
The good news, we'd be on the same side of that argument! ;-)
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Are fresh out of college and still full of the 'Liberal College Activist' mindset that makes college life so exciting and important-feeling.
They haven't grown out of it yet, but they will.
**>>BELCH
We are continually told that the top 10% of the population pays roughly one third of all taxes. With the information provided it does sound unfair, however I wonder if we would find that statistic unfair if we were provided with more information such as the percentage of income the top 10% make. In a quick search I was unable to find the percentage of income for the top 10%. I did find the 1992 percentage for the top 1% of the population. The 1992 income percentage for the top 1% was 8.3% of all income. Without more data I can't say for sure, but this does lead me to believe that by income the top 10% should be paying somewhere around 33% of all taxes. If a tax cut is needed, I can't see the fairness in giving the majority of it to the rich.
With regard to your valid and deep concerns over things like the Supreme Court- what on _earth_ gives you the idea that Gore will be trustworthy and do as you wish, or as he promises? I'll give an example- environmentalists (not my core issue, BTW) used to put a lot of stock in Gore. He practically campaigned on that- for instance, swearing up and down that a proposed toxic waste burning facility 150 yards from a _school_ in New Jersey would never open. After years of being Vice President, guess what? The facility opened. It runs. It has _missed_ several quality inspections and is still not being shut down, and the inhabitants of the town and the children attending the school are getting sick at rates far beyond the normal- and where's Gore? How is this different from if it'd been Bush all those years? How can you even think Gore can be trusted to appoint Supreme Court justices the way you expect him to?
I'm not voting Nader because I believe he will win. I think it would be fascinating and astonishing if he did, but he'd probably be killed anyhow. I am voting Nader (and, locally, a Progressive ticket) because there is NOBODY else that embodies my own concerns so well- primarily, corporatism. What I'm seeing here in Vermont (which in theory is well suited to cottage industry and small business!) is a complete freeze-out across the board- it's becoming unthinkable to run your own business. I see many people staying afloat by working 18 hours 6 days a week- I've known several go under even doing that, for instance the finest bookstore I've ever known that had to accept the terms of Barnes and Noble or they'd not have access to stock- and in other cases I'm working until 3 in the morning trying to help local businesses that have not gone under yet. Main Street is spotted with empty storefronts, more every month- but Wal-Mart offers extremely competitive pay! I don't accept this as a picture of my ideal country. I don't accept that my only role is as a consumer and corporate cog- and with all Nader's faults he's the only guy who plainly has Lots Of Issues with the corporations.
Beyond this, there is my decision (in a way, a deeper decision) to side with the Progressives. Much of their platform seems like hippie fantasizing to me but I'll accept that since there are a few 'radical' points in there that I feel are profoundly important- that actually coincide with your feelings on inheritance. The Progressives (at least here in Vermont) take issue with wealth being derived from position or power, and that is the issue that resonates most strongly with me. As I see it, wealth needs to correspond directly to WORK. Now, there are lots of IT geeks who work absurd, impossible hours- they should get their share of wealth. However, the bookseller working 18/6 and doing good work should also have his chance at that- and the flip side is that the boss of those IT geeks, or the vice president of Barnes and Noble should _not_ get many times that amount of wealth based on the amount of damage they can cause. I'm not saying these guys should be made _poor_, I'm saying that right now the disparity between worker 'wealth' in proportion to the work they do, and boss/corporate PHB/Rambus-patent-holder/stock-option-speculator 'wealth' in proportion to the work they do is absolutely ridiculous. Never mind that in many cases (such as Rambus) the controller of this 'wealth' is actually doing damage to society and blocking progress, adding insult to injury!
I don't see Gore giving a tinker's damn about this stuff. In fact, I expect him to further prop up the corporations, appoint SC judges that will back the corporations _for_ him so he doesn't get the PR hit, and in general do everything he can to obliterate the free market in the sense of 'people can enter it and do business at whatever level they operate on'. You cannot make me trust him. Both the major parties are worthless to me now- it's like asking which major record label is the 'good one'- they are indistinguishable. Either way your vote says simply 'More please'. I refuse to say that.
Frankly, I don't think it's necessarily such a bad thing if the country goes to hell under Bush because people didn't support Gore- it takes a lot of unreasonable behavior before the general public begins to get upset and agitated, and I'm not convinced that the system can be changed through the main, two-party, existing channels. If I _really_ disbelieved it, I wouldn't be voting: I'd be throwing bombs, and I would be doing it to corporations, not clueless government officials. However, I am not and don't plan to do any such thing- instead, I'll give the system a chance. I'll vote for Nader, unhesitatingly, and I will be counted by each party as 'somebody who went and voted not for us for specific reasons', and I will _keep_ voting for anyone reasonably acceptable who supports the issues I consider absolutely crucial, and will keep voting third party.
Before Nader and, on the local level, the Progs came along, I was not going to vote at all.
Cheers. If Nader can't win, I hope we _do_ get stuck with Bush, not because he's any good but simply because he's liable to turn up the heat until it's completely intolerable. Something's got to give, sooner or later. Bush is probably the one guy most capable of designating W2K the official U.S. operating system, for instance, and impeding anything else. It would seem about as significant as designating a state bird, to him. Be careful what you wish for.
I've heard no good reasons for it, and however bad public schools may be, I will not stand for harming them further.
This is your problem in a nutshell. Which is more important -- harming the public school institution or the harm to the public school students? Isn't the point that we want students to be educated as well as possible?
Educators, by profession and by societal expecation, are qualified to educate (thus the term!).
The "educators" are the problem, not the solution. Yes, some teachers are good teachers, who have the best interests of the children in mind. But others are typical government beauracrats whose only function is generate more money, students be damned. Explain to me how we got "social promotion". Explain to me how we got "whole language" (that destroyed a generation of reading skills). Explain to me how a student can make it all the way through school without being able to read!
As far as "qualifications" to teach, there has been study after study showing home schooled students do far better than the average because of the personal attention. Let's face it... teaching is important, but it's not rocket science.
That's wrong, and leads directly into the old "rich get richer..." game,
The rich already send their kids to private school. Hell, I forget the statistic, but an absurd number of public school teachers send their kids to private school. I think it's the ultimate in classism to insist the poor can only go to the school that the Government dictates (no matter how bad), and the rich can send their kids to any school they want.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Guffaw Ever notice how much the anti-gun nuts love to compare firearms with male genitals? And in the same breath point out how BAD guns are? Gun == penis == bad. Gag. Which is worse, man-hating-women or men who wish they were dickless? Nice troll ... the logic's just bad enough and the language just inflammatory enough for me to give you THREE troll points.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
He should have said that a larger percentage of income tax goes to non-social programs. That is what is really relevant in the current discussion. (The rich pay a very small percentage of the social security tax.)
I agree with the notion that the rich don't pay enough taxes in this country. A large percentage of our income tax goes towards protecting the assets of the people. (The largest example is the military.) People should pay for the benefits they receive. Therefore if the rich control 90% of the assets they should pay the majority of the taxes.
Chris Mesterharm
See, the government is here to help the little people get ahead in life when they might be down on their luck, or handed a pair of duces in life's Poker Game.
Using the tax law to spread the wealth around a bit and keeping it from being clumped together is a good thing. You know how all those kids who inherit million$ always hoard it and never spend it on things and possessions.
This is a vital role for the government. Another vital role for the government is to protect those kids who may not have caring parents, and as such we NEED filters in our public schools' Internet access to keep them from viewing porn or learning about how to make a bomb.
We also need to protect the elderly from being ripped off by monitoring all lines of communication for scam artists and thugs. It would be helpful if we could do this with email and websites as well, so that we can watch for terrorists while we're at it.
Hey, here's another idea! You can shampoo my crotch! Government always does things badly, no matter how well intentioned. Rose and Milt Freideman described it best when they explained the four (and only four) ways to spend money:
This is how middle aged men shop for Porches. You get exactly what you want at the lowest price.
This is how second-wives of middle-aged Porche drivers shop at Neiman-Marcus. You get exactly what you want, but don't care about the price.
This is why kids get underwear for Christmas. You get a good price, but don't care as much as to whether you're pleasing the recipient.
Government spending of tax revenues falls into this category, and NOBODY gives a good Goddamn as to the price or quality or neccessity.
You can do whatever you want with your money when you die, I don't care. DON'T, however, use a gun (Government) to take mine.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
"Ah, so stealing my wealth to supply charity for the needy "promotes the general welfare"? I'd be interested to learn precisely how."
I'm curious as to why you suggest taxation is theft. Is all taxation theft, or just the taxation you don't like?
Violent crime in the UK is decreasing, and has been decreasing the last 8 years. Petty crime, OTOH, has slowly but steadily been on the rise.
I'm sorry, I should have said "stay the hell away from me, as much as possible".
Of course I realize that you need some social programs - but on the other hands, are not a lot of those needs met through private charities? Why do you assume that government is the only source of such support?
For instance, I give presents every year to an organization that gives me the list of a needy families. I then buy the things for them, wrap them up, and drop them off. Should they close thier doors and wait for a government agnecy to fill that need?
My own idea of wanting to help charitible organizations with computer work would, I'm sure, be greatly improved by having to register myself with the gorenment (hey, new word if Gore is elected!) Agency of Charitable Programming Needs, where my time would be doled out by someone living 2000 miles away.
What I'm saying is that I deserve a choice of where my money goes for charity. I think people are a lot more charitable than you give them credit for, and the government is not nessicarily the best source. I'd agree that you need some level of support, but there needs to be a limit... Perhaps a tax credit where if you donated to charity that would actually reduce your tax burden by 1.5 times the amount donated to account for reduction in needs of government programs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The economic recession of the early 90's was caused by a lack of capital in our economic system, the result of Greenspan and the Fed raising interest rates, not the result of Republican tax-cuts. Let's not forget who makes the budget: Congress, not the President. So not only was trickle-down not responsible for the recession, it wasn't even in effect.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Pre-Reagan. I believe the super wealthy got taxed at even much higher rates. They still got by. I believe the private jet industry was still booming back then. But when Reagan changed the tax codes, there was a huge windfall for these people. "Reaganomics" claimed that with all this extra money, it would go into the economy, and "trickle-down" to the masses, because there would be more spending, more robust economy, more jobs, etc.
The fallout of this though was yes, there were more jobs, but most of the new jobs were service-industry jobs, low-wage jobs. Nothing you coould support a family on. At the same time, the normal "white-collar" kind of job that built this nation back in the 50's (which is what the republicans believe they want to return to - more like the 20's), was reduced. People would get laid off from $50k/yr jobs, and had to pick up two $15k/yr jobs to try to compensate.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Taxes should be calculated using natural law. No Diamond no parimid just one big square.
Gift: When one person takes something from another, with the another's permission.
Theft: When one person takes something from another, permission be damned.
To quote Ronald Unreasonable, "I did not ask for, did not receive, and will not pay for, Item 21, `Tax', on your invoice."
All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. I never gave my government permission to take almost 40% of my paycheck. In fact, the government never even asked if they could take 40% of my paycheck. Now, they might have very good purposes in mind and undoubtedly a lot of that taxation goes to very good purposes--but it doesn't change the fact that, through taxation, the government is taking what does not belong to them and they are doing it regardless of whether I give them my permission or not.
That's theft, clear and simple.
What makes taxation legal is that the right of the people to enjoy certain government services outweighs my right as an individual to not have 40% of my paycheck taken away. This is a balancing act of liberties.
Taxation is legal, and oftentimes taxation is right.
That doesn't mean it's not theft.
If taxes are reduced, the government has less money. Therefore the government will spend less money. When people spend more, it will be offset by the government spending less. If the government did not spend it, it would negate government debt, causing holders of that debt to have their principle returned, which they would then spend. The only thing that's going to drive inflation is people cashing out of investments and reducing the amount of capital which produces goods and services, and using those dollars instead on consumption, assuming that consumption drives demand enough to increase prices. In other words, reducing the percentage of capital invested in production and using it to buy the fruits of product will cause inflation.
If it's really so important to have a diamond shape, instead of a pyramid, then we should tax both the richest and poorest people the most, and people in the middle the least.
I find it hard to take an argument seriously that would object to all the lower-class people becoming middle-class. There's some good insight in there, but it needs refinement.
Quite possibly what really matters is the amount of power, not wealth, that is given to a small percentage of the populace.
"What makes taxation legal is that the right of the people to enjoy certain government services outweighs my right as an individual to not have 40% of my paycheck taken away. This is a balancing act of liberties.
Taxation is legal, and oftentimes taxation is right.
That doesn't mean it's not theft."
My definition of theft is different: theft occurs when someone takes something from someone else 'unlawfully'. If it's legal, it's not theft. So lets leave the word 'thief' out of the discussion. Murder is illegal, capital punishment is legal. Kidnapping is illigal, imprisonment is legal. I could go on.
Oh, don't talk to me about "family businesses & family farms". That's been debunked, big time. The effect of the inheritance tax on small and mid-sized family business is virtually nil today. Nil.
Brin is just plain wrong here. To put it in the venacular of the victims of death taxes, "Brin is full of BULLSHIT."
Let's just use an average here of about $1000/acre. A modest spread of 2000 acres is worth two million dollars. The government will take half of that when the owner dies.
Brin is well-known for writing fiction. This is more of his fiction, and should be labelled as such!
If he doesn't think it's fiction, he has his head up his ass so that he's on a steady diet of his own shit.
As the 4th-generation descendant of two ranch families, I know the effects of the death tax in its painful details. I ain't no rich kid whining here, I am a future land steward who will help feed the world. Beat that, Brin, you second-rate Sci-Fi hack!
Many, many, many ranch families have had to sell their ranches just to cover the death taxes on them. Just go to a rural town and ask a few folks.
And don't forget -- these landowners have been paying property taxes all along. Basically, they have to rent their own land. Then they die, and the government takes what's left.
Another frightening aspect of Gorespeak is that he keeps talking about "family farms" never ranches. As anyone slightly familiar with agriculture knows, ranchers are ranchers and farmers are farmers, again visit a rural town for all the information on the difference. It is safe to assume that farmers will get all the goodies and the ranchers, as usual, will work their 18-hour days and keep getting screwed by the taxman.
DAVID BRIN IS FULL OF BULLSHIT!!!
-Todd Hartmann
My father grew up dirt poor in the Depression. He worked constantly, doing back-breaking labor for low pay working on road crews. He saved his pennies, went to the cheapest college he could find, and applied himself.
After he graduated with honors, he applied to every law school he could find. He wound up attending GWU in DC; he attended night classes while spending days working in a men's clothing store. He worked his fingers to the bone and then some. Three years later, he received his JD in law and a few years after that, he was a successful lawyer.
My own story was a little different. I went to college on a four-year full-ride scholarship. I worked like hell in high school and blew away the PSAT/NMSQTs; I had nine different offers for four-year full-rides, just because I worked like hell.
Today I'm a college graduate, a software engineer, doing pretty well for myself.
How does a person who can't afford to feed his children, let alone send them to college, have an equal opportunity to a person who sends their kid to Harvard with his pocket change?
The answer is mind-bogglingly simple. You work like hell, and that makes opportunities happen for you.
I know, I know, this entire "if you work hard and apply yourself, you can succeed in life" sounds like it came out of a Horatio Hornblower novel. However, it happens to be right, and that's something you haven't quite seemed to comprehend yet.
As to voting for Gore: not even with my nose clamped permanently. I'm voting for Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party because, "It's about appropriate power structures, stupid."
It is a civilized government that provides a safety net for its citizens.
Unfortunately, this is pretty much a pipe dream. Government nets are made by the lowest bidder, which means it's not going to be a quality net.
I have my own safety net called insurance. I get to choose the quality of my net, and that's not something I'm willing to give up.
And yes--I have needed such a net in the past, and I know plenty of people who've needed one as well. Guess what? The nets we made for ourselves worked just fine.
Government is not the place to look for solutions to our social needs. We need to look to ourselves first. You'd be surprised at how many "government functions" you can take care of yourself, if you only have a little bit of gumption, a touch of creativity, and the willingness to work like hell.
...and should be taxed AT LEAST as much as earned income. I'm in the top 5%, and I don't approve of the morality that says I should owe less taxes because it would be an incentive for me to spend more. Fuck that, money I make by moving money around should be taxed the same as money made by the sweat of my brow. The "trickle down" arguments are equivalent to saying "Fat man should eat more food, not less, as when he gets bigger portions, more crumbs fall to the beggars at his feet."
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
...and that's good, because he won't. What I do want is for the other candidates to adopting his ideas in an attempt to get the Green Party voters to vote for them. Just like Clinton adopted "balance the budget" from Perot in '92 and '96.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Great. So if the government were to pass a law saying "Jim Nolan's house is now forfeit", you wouldn't consider that to be theft?
(Yes, I know it's a bill of attainder. The point still stands.)
Trusting the law to make determinations of right and wrong is like trusting Charles Manson to be a sane and lucid human being. It's not just wrong, it's entirely opposed to history.
Trusting the law to provide a moral framework, so that we can say "theft is the unlawful taking of property", is foolish. Immoral laws are passed all the time.
Remember that, at one point, you could just as easily say "voting rights are held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote", and exclude women, the non-landed, minorities, some religious sects, etc.
Your definition of theft needs a lot of work.
Yeah, yeah. The spectre of Supreme Court nominations is raised in every election. We'll never get away from it. The fact that the Democrats bring it up so often in an effort to scare people into voting for them is just another indicator that they have nothing of substance to bring to the election. Gore will say anything, anything to get elected. He's got no real message or direction. And the Democrats know it. That's why they're resorting to these fear tactics.
Besides, you don't really believe that the President can get away with just appointing whomever he wants, do you? Look at the way the nominations have gone in the last few decades. The confirmation process has become a total Kangaroo court! There is no way someone with a clear agenda can get past it! The only hope a president has is to try and nominate a moderate or a "stealth" candidate who has an agenda, but doesn't display it out in the open. But even that rarely works. The idea that Bush or Gore will be able to just walk in and dump their favorite conservative or liberal in the court is nonsense.
Very few women seem to have joined the Nader campaign. Maybe because they are more practical...
The average citizen, both male and female, responds to pandering. GWB and Gore have done a lot of pandering to women in their campaigns. Nader has done very little. It may be a nice bit of fashionable PCness to assert that women are somehow smarter or better than men, but it isn't true.
Free Hans!
David Brin once again proves he's an idiot.
Big deal. My companies managment enjoys sucking
Bill Gates FUD, and David Brin plus his Slashdot
buddies like sucking Bill Clintons FUD.
it'll be a cold day in Helsinki that I cast my vote for either of them
Helsinki has lots of cold days. Perhaps you should reconsider your euphemism.
My
Its true that the richest pay disproportionally more. But flaw the of Mr. Brin saying that a tax cut to the rich would shift the taxpayer weight to the poor is that he incorrectly assumes that there is a set amount of taxes. If you're pushing for a smaller government, then you can give tax cuts to everyone, all around. There is no hike in the sales tax like in Europe. There is no shuffling the taxes into other places so that it gets hidden, you just eliminate it. As far as the inheritence tax, it is true that it encourages the rich to set up various non-profit organizations. But many of these are just schemes to avoid taxes and are not real charities. For some people I've talked to, a higher tax bracket encourages them to be less productive. They'll take 3 or 4 months off every year, b/c they make plenty of money anyway, and the time off pulls them down into a bracket where they are keeping more of the money they earn. Laws should not be set up to force people to spend their money a certain way. Just because they are rich, does that mean they owe society something? Do we want a society that punishes success? The propaganda and incorrect mindset is that there is only a set amount of wealth in the world, and if someone has a lot, that means he made it from the ones that only have a little. The fallacy of this idea is clearly exposed when thought out logically.
"marriage penalty" is actually a misnomer.
Taxing a couple who both work at a higher rate than a couple making the same amount when only a single person works is actually GOOD for the country.
Having one parent home to raise kids is GOOD for the country. Adding another incentive to have more families where both parents work is not a good thing. And if couples aren't going to have children, then tough.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I lack the time or the inclination to rebut all of these assertations, but let me mention the one that Mr. Brin gives as his main reason to reject the Republicans: taxes.
It is obvious to all who seriously analyze the facts, that supply side economic theories work. Study after study shows Laffer's Curve to be an accurate description of the behavior of the economy with respect to tax cuts. It's not a matter of favoring the rich, but of expanding the pie for everyone. And the best answer is (surprise, surprise) treat everyone equally! Yes, all men are created equal should apply to taxes too! It's only fait that everyone pay a similar percent of their income in taxes to the government. (It's appropriate that we allow the less fortunate to escape this burden with deductions and such, but we should move away from the other extreme.) Making the tax code fairer (ie flatter) helps everyone by improving the economy and removing obstacles to income growth.
I'm a middle class type, married with one kid. I don't have 90 milliion dolllars; I don't even have one million. (At the rate I'm going, I never will.) But I want my daughter to have that chance. I think she has a better chance if Al Gore and his "targeted" policies are never implemented.
One more thing: a moderate can only be portrayed as extreme if the person doing the portraying is truly on one end of the spectrum. Bush is pretty close to the center on most issues, and appreicates his diferences with others where his position is not usiversally accecpted (like abortion). He is not a "right-winger" to be sure. Look at his record in Texas and you see a moderate, even in his court nominations (See this article from The New Republic, a somewhat left-wing magazine, for more info.) I can't say I agree with Bush on everything; he clearly doesn't understand the Internet. But, all things considered, Gov. Bush is better for the country. Mr. Brin's opinions are clearly more extreme than the typical Republican or Democrat.
Nick http://www.nickspace.com
The depressing fact is: Someone will win the election. A few facts for your calculator: The top 1% of earners in the US pays more than 1/3 of the total tax received by our Government. They only benefit from 1/5 of the reductions in the Bush tax reduction plan. The other 4/5 goes to those who pay the other 2/3 of the taxes. Especially the lowest wage earners. So 1% of the population pays 1/3 of the taxes, and gets 1/5 of the break when it comes. Does that seem "fair and enlightened"? Speaking for myself, FAIR would be equal percentages from everyone. The more you work, the more you earn, the more you pay. I say this as someone who (with my wife's salary included) didn't make 35 Grand last year. I started my own business and took a 50% pay cut to do it because I want more control of my own destiny. "Government Gore" isn't the right choice for individual-minded people. I'm no big fan of Bush, but he's done a good job in Texas. Since he's been governor, things have steadily improved from the the Richards era. Gore is a pathological liar with delusions of grandeur. Bush is a realist with common sense viewpoints. His economic conservatism will help this country deal with the coming recession. Just because "he don't talk funny like dem 'lectuals" doesn't mean that he's stupid. Gore's certainly no rocket scientist either. In fact he's said some pretty stupid things in his day. I wonder if either candidate can spell potato? Here's the GREAT NEWS, with the Bush plan a family of four making 35 Grand a year pays NO TAX!!!! 35Grand may not seem like much to a lot of folks, but there are a lot who live on less! They can use the money they won't pay as tax for whatever they want, which probably means for their kids. Like MOST LIBERALS, you don't trust people to spend their own money, do you? You think that the government taking it and giving it out as "entitlements" with strings attached is the better solution. Besides, someone has to hire all those useless sociology and political science majors, right? The truth of the matter is that your pissed that the liberals didn't put somebody more electable on the ticket, right? Well join the club, the republicans aren't happy with Bush as a choice either! In fact, vote Cthulu, why settle for the lesser of two evils! You're wrong on this one. Go write another good book and stop feeling guilty. At least your grammar and english skills are better than mine! Happy Halloween
An article that talks a little more about this is http://www.intel lec tualcapital.com/issues/issue320/item7250.asp
Difference between Republican + Democrat:
|---|
Difference between Republican + Libertarian
|-------------------------------------------|
Difference between Democrat + Libertarian
|-------------------------------------------|
The Demopublicans only seem different when compared to each other. Considered within the wider spectrum of political thought, they are two peas from the same centrist pod. There may have been ideological differences in the past, but they are rapidly dwindling, what with Democrats supporting censorship and Republicans supporting massive federal spending programs.
--
Dude, national sales tax would be regressive (unfairly paid out by poorer taxpayers) due to the fact that a person with a lower income has to spend a larger percentage of their income on minimum expenditures for life (food, shelter, etc). People who can afford to save can afford to pay less in taxes. Now, it would be possible to create a progressive (taxes increasing with income) sales tax, but that still misses taxable interest income (money you make by keeping money in the bank, or CDs, or other interest-earning holdings, essentially). The easiest way to do it is to add up total income, and cut a percentage off of that. Pretty much the way it is done now, although with Earned Income Credit, the poorest of the poor end up with complete tax relief or even a negative tax rate. Now, to create a progessive sales tax, you'd have to basically have no sales tax on some things, and excessive tax on others, but then the rich guy who buys the cheap stuff isn't paying his share, right? And soon the "luxury goods" that have the higher tax associated with them lose sales, the companies stat hurting, and they want you to re-arrange the taxes or reclassify the goods. You'd also have to have a banking/savings/investment tax, so that people who can afford to save don't get unfair tax relief by saving.
itachi
Before I get on my soapbox, let me thank David Brin for many hours spent reading and re-reading his writings. I would rank his books up with Azimov, Hienlien, and Herbert.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Yeah, I decided that it might not be as funny when read as when typed, but it was already there & I thought someone might chuckle (or not), so left it in. *shrug*
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Exactly. Actually, from what I've heard, Bush's tax cuts, etc are for giving back/making things more proportional. i.e., if you are of the 10% rich, then you get more back, because you have paid more. Conversely, if you paid little, you get little back. Why in hell people have problems with this I'll never understand. You pay more, you get more back. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
Except that the rich are already getting more out of society than the poor. Plus, the money which is taxed from them is money that would go to luxury uses as compared to the basic necessities that the poor and middle class have to spend their money on.
As for Brin's "rant", it just seems to be more liberalist crap. He's just perpetuating the liberal notion that it's the government's money, not yours, and even if it was yours, the government knows best how to handle it. Never mind that for inheritance taxes, they are taxing income and goods that have already been taxed. Never mind that the government should be in no way whatsoever entitled to get up to 50% of someone's equity and goods and such just because they died and wanted to pass it on to their offspring.
What did their offspring do to earn it? What will losing a few million more matter to the top 1% of the nation? Compare that to what $1000 more would matter to the bottom 10%. Yes, the government does know best how to use some of that money. The military, environmental protection, farm relief, federal law enforcement, and other domains are areas in which an individual rich person could do little to help out even if they were so inclined. This redistribution of wealth to protect the entirety of the nations from others and from itself is the reason we have the "diamond" that he describes. It's not a square block, like in a pure socialist society, but it serves the majority of the people far better than the old "pyramid" system. Isn't that what democracy is all about, serving the needs of the majority?
This makes the flat tax idea seem a great one.
Oh, except that it has the exact same effect that he describes of eliminating the motivation for rich people to give to charity that our current progressive system uses while simultaneously penalizing the lowest income brackets. No wonder the Republicans are so much in favor of this. It's the rich that will most benefit.
Giving the government less of our money to work with might be the single most effective way at reducing government.
Not that anyone's given a good reason for wanting this other than it means more money in their pockets -- in the short term, anyway. What exactly is wrong with large government, and how do you think reducing their income in taxes will reduce the government instead of just racking up more debt.?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
While the stories posted to Slashdot are at the discretion of CmdrTaco, Hemos, et al, I would hope they'd use more discretion in the future. I don't go to the Republican or Democrats for Linux news, and so I don't wanna come to Slashdot for a politcal opinion...especially one not even closely related to Linux or Opensource.
End Rant.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Right, ad hominems are where I get off the debate train. Try to do without attacking the person with the opposing view next time...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
This philosophy is exactly the problem in these discussions. Just because most everyone can teach 1-on-1 they think that teaching is easy. Guess what most literate people can write "Hello World!" in any language or balance a simple low-volume checkbook. We still need 6 figure programmers and accountants. Try teaching 35 children with four or five unruly ones, probably couldn't.
Now if you want to fund me and everyone else to stay home with our children when we have them that would be great but most people gripe at paying poverty wages for 1 to 20 teacher/student ratios. I doubt they want to pay 20x as much.
"Great. So if the government were to pass a law saying "Jim Nolan's house is now forfeit", you wouldn't consider that to be theft?"
No, it wouldn't be considered theft. But I could make an argument as to why it SHOULD be considered theft.
I don't trust law to determine what is right and wrong. I think we determine what is right and wrong, then try to draft a law to address the problem.
I use the law to define "theft". So perhaps my legal definition should change to include taxation. I don't think so. However, the argument wasn't that taxation is wrong and should be considered theft, it was that taxation IS theft. Reasoning along those lines, imprisonment is kidnapping.
"Trusting the law to provide a moral framework, so that we can say "theft is the unlawful taking of property", is foolish. Immoral laws are passed all the time."
I thought we were talking policy. Where did I say anything about "trusting the law to provide a moral framework"? Reading is not enough. You should read carefully.
"Remember that, at one point, you could just as easily say "voting rights are held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote", and exclude women, the non-landed, minorities, some religious sects, etc. "
Voting rights ARE held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote. Mine didn't kick in till I was considered eligable BY LAW. Sheesh.
He's earned this comfortable lifestyle. What more does he need that money can buy?
Who the hell are you to determine what someone else needs/doesn't need? That's incredibly arrogant.
First, make sure everyone has food, shelter, clothing, and health care. Then we can worry about computers, music, art, season tickets to whatever, cars, etc. I think that's the point. And once you have enough money that you have no worries re: the basics, a little of that Robin Hood action to make sure that everyone does have the basics is OK with me. But that's just me. Far be it from me to tell you not to be a greedy, self-centered weasel. In fact, I would be okay with a tax policy that let people exempt themselves in exchange for a big forehead tattoo saying "I feel no need to pay my share for government services". But again, that's just me.
itachi
I am going to get you started on the use of the word "Democracy" in reference to a Republic:
Republic: 1a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president
1b. A nation that has such a political order.
2a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them
2b. A nation that has such a political order
Democracy: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
Thus, the United States is both a Republic and a Democracy.
taco once said when he posted an article that he would rather vote for an inanimate carbon rod than for george bush. me, i decided basically the same thing about al gore a long time ago. something along the lines of "i don't care who the republicans put up for president, he'll get my vote over gore." then i get george bush. sheeshh....
i'm pretty sure i agree with malda about bush. not that that changes my opinion about gore any. right now i think i'd rather vote for an inanimate carbon rod than either of the primary candidates. too bad there isn't one running. that's why i'm looking at the other candidates. if i vote for nader, it's not because i think there's no real difference between the primary candidates, it's because i think they're both bad.
right now, i think i probably will vote for brown or nader. i don't seriously believe either one has a chance to get elected. but i also don't think i can stand to vote for either gore or bush. and i won't not vote like in the last election (not because i didn't care back then, but i had just turned 18 before the election and couldn't be bothered to register)
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I wholeheartedly concur. We need to let the wealthy spend their money as they see fit, not give it to wasteful charities. The money the wealthy spend will filter down to those who need it. I propose we call this "filtering" process a "trickle-down" theory.
Furthermore, since this "trickle-down" process will be very successful, we can cut back on those wasteful government programs that provide services for the poor. Since money from the wealthy is filtering down, they won't be needed anymore. And those damn welfare cheats need to be put in their place.
Oh wait...it appears that this whole "trickle down" thing has already been done, and it didn't work. Damn, and I thought I was onto something there.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Sounds good. From this point forward, you will be required to provide your own roads, and will have to live in this sovereign territory over here with no defenses... oh, yes, and you should be aware that you will recieve no benifits of technology produced under the auspices of government grants...
Idiot. Do some reading on the reasons we formed societies, and the reasons we don't allow selective opt-outs on the benifits and costs. Opt out on the whole, or on nothing. If you opt out on the whole, I'm sorry, but you'll have to be dumped naked on a deserted little atol somewhere. It wouldn't be fair otherwise...
Some libertarians make me sick. Some conservatives make me sicker.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Right, ad hominems are where I get off the debate train.
You're misinterpreting what I said. How about, "here is the flaw in your reasoning in a nutshell"...
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Try teaching 35 children with four or five unruly ones, probably couldn't.
I agree that teaching requires certain management skills. Where I take issue is that students need "specially trained" people over people that simply have an interest in their education. The original poster downplayed the importance of parental interest over teacher qualifications. In other words, that it was more important to leave the question of where a student should get educated to the government, rather than to the parent.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
A flat tax is regressive as several other people have already explained, although it could be fixed to be both a flat tax and neutral/progressive. Rather than the tax being applied on salary/wage income, if the tax were applied on any type of income (like taxable earned income, inheritance, etc), regardless of source, then it would be non-regressive. Of course, then it loses all of it's support, because it is no longer a tax dodge for the rich that has a BS populist appeal. Also, the existing Earned Income Tax Credit program is too good to kill. It really only benefits the poorest of the poor, and absolutely needs to be kept, flat tax or no flat tax.
itachi
If you don't want to decide how Society is run by government them someone will decide how it is run for THEIR benifit. Government decides how society is run ALWAYS that is WHY the constitution and Bill of Rights are so important, to control it. Government never goes away in civilized society. (Now if you believe government is BAD, BAD, BAD go to Somalia by all means but you will still find the informal gov of warlords)
Brin is saying vote for a more just society. Freeing ourselves from an Aristocracy is why we SHOT the British and their allies.
Considering the richest 10% own the vast majority of the country (and the planet for that matter) it seems pretty clear to me that these rich whining parasites aren't paying nearly enough taxes. You'd think that between the fat inheritance they receive from their parents, the 1st rate health care and education their parents buy them plus the government subsidies to the businesses they own they wouldn't bitch so fucking much. But oh no, they want even more. Cut the capital gains tax, give me even more money for being rich. Fuckers.
From the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA:
regressive tax
Tax levied at a rate that decreases as its base increases. Regressivity is considered
undesirable in taxation because it forces poorer persons to pay a greater percentage
of their income in tax than wealthier persons.
progressive tax
Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.
Devised to collect a greater proportion of tax revenue from wealthy people,
progressive taxes reflect the "ability-to-pay" principle.
-end britannica bit-
So you are/were correct. And a flat tax tends to be more regressive, and our system is not progressive enough (hint on how you tell: there are homeless people, hungry people, and people who have to choose between food and medicine). Although it could be possible to make a neutral or progressive flat tax, it would be really really hard and really easy for people to cheat...
itachi
Nowhere in any document describing the foundations and obligations of the American government will you find anything referring to your statement. You're thinking of France.
A purely economical standpoint leads to a corporate strategy, not a national one. Or in other words, a fascist state.
You seem like a lefty - read some Chomsky and you'll see that we already have that, and the government is the chief culprit.
You do *not* want to maximize the total output of a national economy. That's why the Fed has been trying to slow us down.You're making an implicit correlation between inflation and productivity that doesn't necessarily exist.
As Brin explained, top-heavy taxation leads to redistribution of wealth through charitable giving.
Which is utter gibberish.
HUH? Investments count as inherited wealth. Are you saying old people should blow their money on fast cars and televisions?
Its easy to take the high ground when you have no hope in hell of ever being elected.
Ontario's NDP rode the high horse for years and then finally got elected in the early nineties. They came crashing down to earth with all the scandal, scum, grift, and influence peddling that surrounds every mainstream party.
Of course, since they wouldn't shutup about how moral they were all those years in opposition, the voters essentially voted the party out of existance on a national scale in a few years.
1) The success of the American Experiment is what really created the diamond. It was the unique method of restructuring political power by the US Constitution that changed the way the world works. Mr. Brin conveniently skips over this discontinuity of history to make American political conclusions based on the circumstances of 16th century aristocracy and medieval feudalism. With all it's faults, the constitution effectively shifted power towards the individual and away from the inherently power hungry governments.
Gore represents a party that believes more power should rest in the hand of government, with the hope that this power can be used to make the world a better place. But power shifted away from the individual creates a condition, for better or worse, more like the pyramid than the diamond. As other experiments in government have proven, it is not the redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution of power and freedom that flattens the pyramid and improves the standard of living for all.
2) Mr. Brin's criticism of Nader hits my sore point about presidential elections. He askes us to look beyond the candidate's platform and evaluate the personality of the candidate as well. (BTW this is a big campaign thrust for Bush). I am frusterated by the fact that only third party candidates are allowed have a real personality. Gore has gone through more personality overhauls in the last year than I thought possible. Bush's personality remains as unsubstatial as his Doonsbury charachiture. The Media's insistance on a two party election is killing the spice, variety and interest possible in a presidential election.
It seems the majority of people say Nader is a bad vote because he will not win, in otherwords it is a throwaway vote.
:::
Well, I completely disagree. You should vote your conscience. Do you think the American colonialists thought to themselves, "hmm, we probably won't win a war against England - lets just do what is safe and side with their overwhelming numbers."
And who won that war? And what did they fight for? Monarchies? I don't think so. (at least not ones as strict as Englands)
And lets suppose you vote Nader and he loses and George W'buh gains power. Bush acts predictably and puts on a black cloak dons a raspy old voice and begins to refer to all the unrich as 'insulent dogs'. Big f'in deal - it's riot'n time. You wanna be Jedi Rebel? What about a real rebel! Sounds fun don't it?
And lets suppose you vote Nader and Gore wins. Gore will act predicatably (as you can see from his track record see: Al Gore A User's Manual) and his head spins around 90 degrees {much like the mayor from Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas} to reveal the effigy of whoelse but George W'buh. Well, the 'safe' vote isn't so safe anymore.
It's hard for me to believe that people actually want to make a safe vote. And I _think_ that's what V. Cerf and Brin are advocating. They fear Bush winning because not enough voted for Gore. I can't see it any other way.
Vote what you believe, and fight for(which includes an ability to justify) your beliefs.
::: that's my main comment, you can read more below if you have time
Some others claim it's becuase he's a crackpot with crackpot ideas.
I'm going to vote for Nader because I like his position on issues - he is obviously more philanthropic than individualistic (as Bush and to slightly lesser extent Gore are).
Which leads me to respond first to the latter, I believe that one can roughly generalize two types of voters [as Brin did with those who want all to be rich, and those who want to be rich-"er"].
Thus, individualists will want to be rich"er" and favor themselves any way they can. The great lyricist Reznor wrote:
'god money's not looking for the cure
god money's not concerned about the sick among the pure
god money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised'
Perhaps this is out of context, as far as I know I don't think it is. And if you're an individualist, then you'll think Nader is a crazy man. You'll think and say "geeze, what a loon, I'm not just gonna give my hard-earned money away. Hell, if I can steal money and get away with it, then I deserve to be richer too [see corporate crime - the _largest_ of all criminal acts]!"
Note: I'm not making an absolute judgement call here, who knows if there is 'right' way to act in ones life anyways. You'd need to deeply study ethics to be able make an educated guess at what is right or wrong and even then there may not be an answer. In summary, self-serving people think Nader is crackpot because they are different, not because Nader is an all-around crackpot. Perot is more a crackpot than Nader. Crackpots are crazy, for real, at least by definition, and I don't think Nader is crazy. Crockpots, on the other hand are good for chili and nacho cheese dips.
"Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison." - The sometimes cool, Jenny Holzer
I may think you're a raving right wing loonie (in fact, I do :), but I wouldn't call you such unless provoked. Or using it as an example in this case.
In an exchange of ideas, it's best to discuss the ideas and not the people exchanging them. If you'd rather discuss the people, that's fine, but there needs to be a shift & a distinction.
Anyway, like I said, I've lost interest, I've been at work for too long, this CD has repeated for the last time today, and I'm going home to see my girlfriend now. Good night :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...
itachi
Ahh, the idealistic promise of socialization. Sounds great in theory. Doesn't work well in reality. Al Gore would have us believe that more social programs are the answer to everything. Let take a look at a hypothetical example: Al Gore decides that very poor children should be given programmable calculators so that they can keep up with their peers in school. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? In THEORY, I would support this measure. IN REALITY: Where does this money come from? Assuming we don't dip into other programs, this comes from each and every hard-working taxpayer. Who is going to manage and distribute all this money for this new program? We need to hire some burocrats to manage and distribute this money. Mostly, these jobs go to people who 'supported' the president in his campaign (people he/she owes a 'favor' to). These people are government employees. Government employees have a history of doing poor jobs yet still keeping their jobs and getting paid very well for the amount of 'work' that they actually do. They are not subject to the same rules that regular company employees are. In a regular company, if you do not do your job well you are gone. Government employees are paid from a nearly infinite source (taxpayer pockets) and have 'customers' that are unlikely to complain about poor service/results (because their customers are getting something that they didn't pay for in the first place). The result is a bunch of people in cushy jobs that are paid more than they are worth and are hard to remove. Need proof of this? Go to the local IRS tax audit office. Need another example? Visit your local DMV. Also, burrocracy tends to 'breed'. Once 1 person gets in, they find a way to justify hiring 3 more people. Eventually you have 10 people doing the work that 2 people could handle. Next question: who is the government going to buy the calculators from? Time for government bids. History has shown that this process leads to the government paying WAY TOO much for simple items. Why? Perhaps the president has more 'favors' to pay back. Whatever the cause, the result is more waste of taxpayer dollars. What happens when people find out that the government is giving away calculators? There are many people who do not qualify for the free calculators under the plan. However, they pay their taxes, and think the government 'owes' them something to. So they lie a little to get their children a calculator even through the program was not meant for them. Want to stop the abuse? Looks like you are going to have to hire more burocrats to monitor and fight program abuse. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE NOT AN EFFICIENT WAY TO DISTRIBUTE WEALTH. In order to get $20 to stick where you want it you have to take $100 away from taxpayers. Who loses in this scheme? Hardworker tax payers who refuse to lie in order to get something free. Who wins in this scheme? The people the program was meant for do get something, but so do: Burocrats, who produce very little work for their pay. Companies who the president owes a favor to. People who are willing to lie to get something free.
If taxation is theft, then asking a cop to stop a theif, or asking for the local Fire Dept. to extinguish your abode, etc, is theft. Taxes are a fee for services rendered. Enforced insurance, sort of. But most of the governments services are the sort you never want to need. Like the cop, the ambulance, the medical research, etc.
itachi
Brin has made the (all to common) assumtion that in order to benefit the poor/middle-class we must take from the rich.
In the real world this is clearly not the case. It is much more productive to increase the total amount of wealth in the system and make everyone richer. This is accomplished by the discovery of new resources or using the ones we have more efficiently. In most cases, the best way to do this is to promote innovation as much as possible by letting people keep whatever rewards they reap for their ideas and hard work.
Inheretance Taxes go directly against this idea. Think about it. "Hey, I've already made 100 million with 1 idea, why bother to try to think of another one when the government is just gonna take all of my profits when I die?"
Mid way through his piece Brin compared two "types" of rich people. Those who merely wanted to be rich, and those who wanted to be richER. He was very clear in which type he prefered. The same idea exist for the poor/middle-class though. Let's not get caught up in the relative wealth, it's much more important to look at absolutes.
-Harry
Just to clear some things up-- here's a piece a friend of mine wrote to rebut anti-Nader arguments. These address some of the things Brin wrote...
Answers to Seven Anti-Nader Arguments
--
Ran Prieur
ranprieur at yahoo.com
"Ralph Nader's candidacy is irresponsible because it will take votes
from Gore."
The Gore campaign is irresponsible for trying to take votes
from Nader! Al Gore is not entitled to and votes. He has to
earn them. Ralph Nader has earned your vote by courageously
serving the public interest for 40 years, and by closely
representing your political views and priorities. Al Gore
demands your vote just because he belongs to the ruling party
and he's better than Bush Jr. We will never get anywhere if we
keep voting for candidates just because they're from the same
parties that everyone voted for last time.
"If you vote for Nader, you're throwing your vote away."
A vote for Nader is the best and only way to use your vote to
strengthen the progressive movement. After the election, the
votes for Gore and Bush will be thrown away and forgotten. But
the votes for Nader will be counted again and again for
years. 5%? 10%? 15%?! The bigger the Nader vote, the more
attention Nader's issues will get from the dominant media,
from decision-makers in government and business, from
political campaigns of the future.
Historically this is the way progressive issues have always
entered the American political system - first by drawing a lot
of votes to fringe parties and candidates, and then, because
of these votes, being adopted by a dominant party.
A vote for Gore is worse than thrown away - it is actively
misused. Every progressive vote for Gore gives Gore the
incentive to ignore progressive issues. We'll vote for him
whatever he does, so he can take our votes for granted - which
he has already done by choosing an especially conservative
running mate.
Every vote for Nader gives Gore and all democrats the
incentive to adopt Nader's positions, or at the very least
give lip service to Nader's issues, which will do enormous
good by bringing these issues into the mass public
consciousness.
"What if Nader costs Gore the election?"
Then Nader and his issues and the Green party will get the
full attention of the dominant media; then this election will
echo through countless future elections where candidates will
court the Nader voters, thinking they need us to win; then,
with Nader or another Green party candidate running in 2004
with federal matching funds, progressive issues will be at the
center of the campaign for months and get exposure that a
billion dollars of advertising couldn't buy.
"The country can't take 4 years of Bush."
Of course it can! We took 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr. and
we're still alive and fighting. We're standing at the end of
several thousand years of almost unchecked abuse of the Earth
and the human spirit. Four years of the small margin by which
Bush seems worse than Gore is trivial.
What the world cannot take is many more years of corporate
rule, which Gore represents as much as Bush. A Gore presidency
is not a victory, just a prettier defeat. We need to stop
negotiating surrenders and start fighting.
Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. A
terrible Bush presidency (or Gore presidency) will only bring
more attention to the value of Nader's perspective. What goes
around comes around. The farther the pendulum swings to the
right, the farther it will swing back to the left.
And don't be so sure Bush would be worse than Gore. No
Republican would have got away with butchering welfare the way
Clinton did. They needed a democrat. Maybe they needed a
democrat to pass NAFTA. Maybe they need Gore for further
abuses of poor people and the environment that we would never
take from a Republican. A wolf in sheep's clothing is more
dangerous than a wolf in the Bush.
"I've read Gore's book Earth in the Balance and I know he really cares
about the environment."
Yes, he does. It doesn't matter! Gore has to do his job. Like
all of us, he has to do what his job requires, regardless of
his personal beliefs. And his job, should he be elected, is to
represent the interests of the giant concentrations of money
that financed his campaign - to turn the Earth, you, me, and
everything living and unliving into an object for commercial
exploitation.
"What about the Supreme Court?"
Indeed, Democrats and Republicans still differ on the cultural
issue opinions of their court appointees. This will change as
the giant concentrations of money that rule the world discover
which court opinions on cultural issues are profitable. But
for now, court appointments are a danger of a Bush
presidency.
Changing the world is not safe or
painless. People before us were beaten and jailed and killed
in protests and strikes to earn what little social and
economic justice we now have. For eight years Clinton and Gore
have been selling these gains out from under us. Are we going
to let this continue for fear of something as tangential as
the appointments of people who interpret laws? We're supposed
to have power to make the laws.
Bush is not running for
dictator. He has to work with the system. And he wouldn't dare
overturn Roe v. Wade or any well-known court-created right,
because his handlers know that the people would rise up and
get an actual law for that right. We would learn to pass laws
instead of relying on interpretations of laws by courts held
hostage by the dominant parties. We would start using our
democracy again instead of just casting a cynical vote every
four years. The last thing the ruling powers want is for us to
get energized and feel our political power.
"Ralph Nader is not qualified to be president."
Of course he is! Nader has been working with the American
political system for decades. For decades he has been getting
actual results. He has been working from the outside not the
inside, but surely you're not suggesting that this
disqualifies a candidate. If only people who are already
working inside the system can work inside the system, then the
system will only get more insulated and inbred and corrupt -
just as it has been doing for many years!
Ralph Nader is an opposition leader. Of course he doesn't have
experience as a governor or senator or vice president. What
qualified Nelson Mandela to be president of South Africa? What
qualified Lech Walesa to be president of Poland? Both became
president only a few years after a time when it was absurd to
think either could be president. Ralph Nader can be President
of the United States.
Let's assume that economies are supposed to be somewhat "fair", i.e. your return from the economy is very roughly connected with how hard you work and how talented you are. Most people claim this is one of the many reasons capitalism is good - it rewards hard work (it's true IMHO).
Working 40 hrs/week should net you under $20,000 at min wage (very rough number, i don't care to do 6.25 * 40 * 52 = $13,000. ok, i just did). Does anyone care to claim with a straight face that a CEO who is compensated $10 million a year works 769.2 times harder than the janitor??? If not, what entitlement does that CEO have to earn 769.2 times more? What claim does he/she have on the money that the govt doesn't?? After all, while they may have *earned* it in an accouting sense, it's very hard to make an argument that they deserve that much money. An even more extreme justification kicks in when we start talking about heirs, who unlike the CEO contribute absolutely nothing to society? What right do they have to their money?
These people should be giving extremely large sums of their undeserved wealth to the less fortunate. If they are unwilling to do so, the govt has every right to "assist" in this process.
God this is annoying. I gotta compete with 1000+ comments to get modded up:)
"promote the general Welfare"
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
itachi
Taxes are a fee for services rendered. Enforced insurance, sort of. But most of the governments services are the sort you never want to need. Like the cop, the ambulance, the medical research, etc.
Then... as an H1B non-resident alien.. why do I have to pay taxes to the IRS? Surely if my taxes are paying to keep the INS going, I should have my greencard in no time instead of this interminable wait?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Remember that, at one point, you could just as easily say "voting rights are held by all those Americans permitted by law to vote", and exclude women, the non-landed, minorities, some religious sects, etc.
Just as you can exclude voting rights today from H1B workers who pay 35% of their wages in taxes.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Um, I would say beauracracy? My point is that govt. services require govt. employees, and they need govt. salaries. And imho, as an H1B, you should pay based on where you earn. It sort of makes sense that way, i think.
itachi
See my earlier post with regards to income distribution and taxes. The richest 20% of U.S. citizens earn half of the total income. All based on fresh new US Census data, with links and stuff.
itachi
I agree, the electoral college is a crock. You only need to vote if you live in a state with a large population. The small states have so few electoral votes that they really don't matter. It is also possible with the electoral college system that the person that wins the popular vote will lose the electoral vote. Therefore we could have a president that the people did not choose.
Back in the day when the electoral college was founded, the founding fathers had a legit argument: "The people are not informed enough to make an educated decision." Now with today's communication, the people are more informed than ever and are able to make the "right" choice.
[ ]
It seems to have become popular now to call Bush a moron. Mostly this seems to be done by Gore supporters with no real arguments. Frankly, I think you are all reading way too much Doonesbury. The fact is, GW's in charge of the second largest state in the union. Texas is bigger than many nations, and he's top dog. How many of you can claim an accomplishment like that? And don't give me any crap about nepotism; nepotism gets you a cushy middle-management job, it doesn't get you a governorship. Those are earned. Finally, as for him sounding dumb, I suggest you go ask Jimmy Carter (ex-president, genius, lamentably bad accent) what he thinks about outward appearances.
Since you are considering a protest vote, but want nothing to do with Nader, Harry Browne the Libertarian candidate for President is probably right for you.
Harry Browne for President
It sounds to me like David Brin would be happier voting for Harry Browne, and I encourage him to do so. The really unfortunate thing in this election would be to keep handing power to a Democratic party that continues its slide to the right, just because we have a nincompoop boogyman like W. waved in front of every 4 years...
Oh yeah, and as an aside, having volunteered at the Nader 2000 office in Seattle, and worked the Nader super-rally held here, I'd like to say that there are at LEAST as many women as men working on the campaign, if not more. A good number of women are refusing to be scared into line by Supreme Court boogieman...
Let's hear it for the politics of joy and justice!
If we gave everyone a personal nuke, no one would be able to hurt anyone else for fear of starting World War 3! Oh, what a wonderful world that would be!
Just a bit of sarcasm to lighten up your day.
I'm dissapointed in all the slashdotters out there. All those posts and not one person had anything funny to say! Why read if you can't laugh?
[ ]
--
Now lets look at the poor. Somebody making $5K a year is really struggling (poverty level income is what, around $13K a year?) So lets be generous, and draw a line 10 units DOWN from the middle of the crossbar to represent the gap between the poor and the middle class.
How about the rich? Well, $10 million a year doesn't even really get your started on the road toward the super rich, but hey, lets not be greedy, so draw a line 250 units long UP from the crossbar to represent the difference between the middle class and the rich.
Now connect the tips to make your diamond. Dang! looks more like a pyramid to me...
And if our diamond is so healthy, why is our much vaunted middle class making less today in adjusted dollars than they were in 1970? Sounds like a topological transformation is underway to me, and somebody didn't want you to notice...
There aren't people who have to choose between food and medicine or homeless people who have to pay tax. If you want to institute a custodial state that takes complete responsibility for people who can't/won't for themselves, you can say so. But keep in mind, over 1/3 of americans pay no taxes, and the people in the food vs medicine group are in that 1/3. It's very easy to say the rich should give up more to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etc. But when you're in the middle class, you could do the same instead of getting a big screen tv, buying a nicer car, etc. You don't have any right to demand others give up things when you won't, regardless of demographics. If people really should be fed/clothed/cared for (medically) by the government, then you shouldn't be waiting for the rich to cough up the money to pay for it all.
Basically, fairness would mean no taxes whatsoever. Of course the government has to run, (unless you are an anarchist in which case the discussion is pointless.) so taxes exist.
So, it is fair to take $4500 out of the mouths of 10 families children of making 30K/year. But, not fair to take an extra $15,000 to put $1500 of food back on those families table in exchange for near 0 impact on the quality of life of the family making $300,000. This is the difference from charging everyone 15% to charing 10% for the 30K and 20% for the 300K.
Let me put it this way fairness is bull. Life isn't fair. Get over it. But, morally I will not support a tax plan that takes food from the mouths of children which a flat tax does. The annoying part to most people is why does the governement get to decide when it goes form taxing food to taxing luxuries.
Maybe a national sales tax that exempts food and up to $200/item of clothing would perform this function better. But a flat tax is regressive and punishes the people least able to pay.
Dastardly
Yes, it is the perfidy. Like when Bush says:
- In the October 12 debate he claimed that all three perpetrators of the murder of James Byrd Jr. were to be executed, and cited this as evidence of his hard stance against hate crimes. In fact, he was wrong about the record. Only two were given capital sentences (source: NYT). Had there been a hate crimes law, all three would have been given capital sentences.
- In yesterday's debate, he claimed that national rates of health care coverage were falling while Texas' were rising. This was his rejoinder to Gore's question as to why Texas was 50th in the nation for family health care coverage. In actuality, Texas' rate of health care coverage has steadily declined during every year of Bush's six year term, with the exception of a small rise last year. In Texas, health care coverage has fallen from 78.2 to 76.7% (source: US Census web site), or 1.5%. Nationwide, over the same time span, health care rates have fallen only
.2%, meaning that Texas is not only 50th, but falling.
At least when Gore makes a mistake, he has the integrity to admit it and apologize. Bush still hasn't issued any statements on either of these. And Gore's much trumpeted mistake about the girl standing in a Florida class room didn't really alter the substance of his argument, only the strength of the evidence he used. Bush made both of the above two points major components of his argument during the debate.Quick fix, no income under 20K per year will be taxed, above that there will be a 15% flat tax for everyone. If you still think that unfairly taxes poor families then do it this way.
1 Person, 20K = No Taxes
2 Person, 25K = No Taxes
3 Person, 30K = No Taxes
4+ Person, 35K = No Taxes
And, what you have is a two tiered progressive tax system. Thank you for agreeing with me.
The advantage of a flat tax isn't that it is fair. The advantage is that it is simpler and more eficient to administer. Personally, I don't have much problem with the plan you propose, it performs both functions.
I suggested a national sales tax that exempted food and clothing up to $200/item might be more effective than an income tax at targeting taxes at income that doesn't go to food, clothing, or shelter. The only problem is that our economy is based on consumer spending and a sales tax woul dprobably have a chilling effect on consumer spending and the economy in general. But, maybe it would be less chilling than the income tax is. No one can really say.
Dastardly
- "The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95
- "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore
- "Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."--Vice President Al Gore, 8/11/94
- "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." --Vice President Al Gore
- "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." --Al Gore
- "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Al Gore
- "We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." --Vice President Al Gore
- "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." --Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93
Ah yes, clearly Albert Gore is the pinnacle of brilliance. The zenith of intellect!So go out and vote, and partake of this final nugget of insight from Intellectual Al:
He isn't saying that the 'kick in' limit shouldn't be raised. EVERYONE agrees that the limit should be raised. (well, nearly everyone)Even 10 million isn't an unreasonable limit. (as he said)
What the republicans want to do is to REPEAL IT ALTOGETHER. And THAT is an animal of a completely different stripe. Go back and read Brin again, and this time PAY ATTENTION.
When you repeal inheritance taxes completely, then you basically create a inherited aristocracy of wealth like they have in England. It will take a generation (or two?). But in the end, thats exactly what you get. Wealth flows into the wealthy families, and it STAYS THERE. The rate at which wealth flows in to charitable orginizations slows down DRAMATICALLY.
Neither of these are good things for the country as a whole, but both are what the republicans are actually trying to achieve.
Keep in mind that they (probably not Bush, but assuredly Cheney) understand the mathematics of small farms just as well as you if not better. If they were REALLY trying to solve the problem for the farmers, they would be proposing RAISE THE LIMIT.
They arent. Yes, farmers benefit by repealing estate taxes, but that's incidental. The REAL goal of this is to allow the super-rich to make their children super-rich.
After all, Bush may manage to be president for as much as 8 years. But after THAT, he'll have to work for a living unless his daddy is allowed to give him the whole chunk 'o change. (Or he's willing to allow his standard of living to decline after daddy dies).
The same goes for Cheney and HIS children, and for many of the top contributers to the Bush campaign. They KNOW what they are paying for.
Hell, they probably think their campaign contribution as an INVESTMENT.
tj
The intelligent way to direct the spending is to first use the money in the current budget where it is needed, and then pay down the debt as much as is affordable, keeping some reserves of course. Anything else is foolhardy.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Why shouldn't we, as a society, make it easier for people whose situations were like your own to accomplish what you did?
You propose charities as a solution, but all the statistics I've heard say that poor people donate a higher percentage of their time and income to charity than do the wealthy. I don't know that we can count on all people who have made it up the ladder to reach a hand back down... Especially those that didn' t have far to climb.
Let's make it easier as a society for more people to do what you did. It doesn't make your accomplishment any less worthwhile. And it benefits all of us!
You missed the guys point.
Not at all. Given X amount of money, there exist n different ways to spend it, not all of which bring the same benefit to society or have the same multiplier effect.
But the previous poster is also right. Either way, that money will end up benefitting a number of people.
I'm arguing that the money in the hands of a charitable foundation will likely have a much more beneficial effect on society than the same amount of money in the hands of an heir.
The Postman(on DVD)
Ok, so, here we have David Brin's book, turned into a Hollywood movie, proudly displayed on Amazon as having "Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only)."
What amazes me is that such a man can make money from a system designed to make sure Jack Valenti can have yet another ivory back scratcher, and yet he can sneer at the inheritence tax that is one of the things responsible for the transfer of property from living people to the undead. By undead, of course, I mean the neither living nor dead corporate persons who represent the real threat to things like social mobility in this country.
You see, when grandpa croaks and leaves the family business to his kids, the business is an asset, not liquid cash. That means, in order to pay off the government, the grandkids have to sell of the business, farm or whatever. Like as not, they'll sell it to OmniGlobalMegaCorp, which is a person which can own things in its own name. Now, what about OmniGlobalMegaCorp? A big company like that must pay a lot of taxes, right?
IT giants who don't pay tax part 2: how Microsoft does it
Hmmm, apparently, not only doesn't OmniGlobalMegaCorp pay inheritance taxes, he/she/it doesn't pay much in taxes at all. No wonder the family farm is going under, to be replaced by FrankenFood, Inc.
As to the Supreme Court, Clinton appointed one good judge (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) and one reactionary (Stephen G. Breyer), as evidenced by the case which redefined Free Expression in this country:
High court upholds limits on nude dancing
This case firmly established the authority of local government to regulate any speech it finds offensive, as long as it can suggest that the speech will cause the "secondary effects" of a crime. This effectively guts the First Amendment, all that keeps anything from being censored now is massive popular outcry and the whims of lower court judges.
John Paul Stevens, the other pro-First Amendment judge, was appointed by Ford. Souter, who is _sort_ of pro-First Amendment, was appointed by Bush, Sr.
As far as I'm concerned, if a supposed liberal, like Clinton, can appoint one bad judge, then a social reactionary, like Gore can appoint 3. As to abortion, I fully expect that the same reactionaries who allow "reasonable limits" on the First Amendment will allow similar restrictions on any other proposed right, as soon as the right case gets before them.
If you want to change politics in this country, you have to vote for the person you think is the best person for the job. That person is neither of the two major party candidates.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Who CARES? The point is: society didn't work, didn't earn the money; the rich man did. If he wanted his son to have the property, why should someone step in and say, 'well, society would benefit more from it'?
If it's determined that redistributing the contents of wealthy persons' bank accounts would 'benefit society more,' is that justification enough for stealing?
I'm not american but these are the principles that your country is founded on (i assume you're american). e.g. read up the justification for intellectual property and apply it to this case. I think you will see that it is analogous.
Geeze, that seems fair if the richest 10% control have over 50% of the money to begin with.
In other words, we don't hit very many people, but when we do, we fucking nail their asses, man!
I really worry about the divisiveness I see at work in the campaign rhetoric. Please tell me, which dollar was it that made me a second-class citizen? Which incremental dollar pushed me over the line into "the upper class"? Which dollar was it that had the "I'm your butt monkey" sign taped to the back?!
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
If no one bought any new cars (as they didn't in the 70's, when people decided Japanese and German quality were better than American made junk) whole families ended up destitute.
So, I just don't understand the attitude here at all. Most people would rather work at an honest job than accept charity, and it often seems to me that the whole purpose of government personel is to make you feel about two inches tall when you go for their services. (At least charities are mostly staffed by people who believe in what they are doing, not hostile, cynical bureacrats.)
Of course, it wouldn't matter if I wanted a new car or not, I can't afford one right now. But it seems to me that working people are getting shafted at both ends. By corporations, who do whatever it takes to get salaries down, and by rich liberals, who would rather help the work-shy than the guy running a cash register at K-Mart (which I did for a while... no picnic, believe me!)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
But the bomb crime kinda sucks, wot?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Right now, at least 7 of the 9 justices are clearly conservative. There are no clear liberals in the supreme court. So, just about ANY resignation is one step towards middle ground.
Unfortunately Clinton DID get a ultra-conservative into the court. I can guarantee you, that Bush will never appoint a liberal justice.
Please remember how important supreme court decision is. It not only change the national policy, it also swings the entire world culture. We don't need another conservative justice in the supreme court. Really.
I will wait and pray for the day that liberals get back into the supreme court.
The answer is mind-bogglingly simple. You work like hell, and that makes opportunities happen for you.
I asked how a poor man has an equal opportunity to a rich man. I'm not questioning that hard work can elevate you; that's how I got to where I am today. What I'm saying is that the poor man has fewer opportunities, because he *has* to slave like a dog to attain a comfortable life. Nobody rational can argue that the two men do not start at equivalent positions in life.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Even left-leaning economists are beginning to concede that the wealthy are being disproporionately and perhaps unfialry taxed.
I asume that "unfialry" is supposed to be "unfairly" (no criticism intended -- I spell as badly as anyone).
Fairness is a philosophically tricky subject. "I know it when I see it" just doesn't cut it. The best formulation I've seen is to think of a situation as a game with different positions you can play. You sit down with the other players and agree on the rules that govern each position -- with the proviso that you don't know in advance which position you get to play. The problem with most attempts to consider what is fair is that it is infected by our knowledge of our own position, or the position we aspire to play. This way of looking at fairness removes this distortion.
So, imagine we are setting the rules of the game called "Taxation", which has three positions -- poor slob Sam (who makes $10K), middle class Joe ($50K), and billionaire bill ($5M). A head tax goes right out the window -- you don't want to be stuck if you have to be Sam and have to pay the same money as Bill.
A flat tax of say, 20% would still make the Sam position untenable, since he'd pay 2K$ out of his 10K$ income, which is barely enough to live on to begin with. Joe really feels the pinch of $10K out of his $50K income -- its an OK position, but his lifestyle is a lot different than if he could keep all $50K. The cool million that Bill pays has absolutely no impact on his lifestyle -- he only experiences it when he looks at it as numbers on a spreadsheet. So Sam still stinks, Joe is tough to play, but if you get to play Bill you'll have a blast.
Now consider a progressive tax under which Sam pays $50, Joe pays $5000 and Bill pays $2M. Sam's position is much better, Joe's position is also much better, and while Bill's position is somewhat less fun than it would have been, but it's still pretty good position to play.
If you were sitting down to play this game but didn't know which position you'd have in advance, which set of rules would you prefer?
Looked at the other, fuzzier way, I still think it makes sense. While public goods make up a much larger fraction of Sam and Joe's total consumption, Bill still gets lots more financial benefits. Police property protection affects him more, his firm's goods travel over publicly funded roads, and benefit from publicly educated workers. If you added up the dollar value of these things, Bill is getting many times more value than Joe's total income.
As far as the "Double taxation" argument is in the interitance tax debate is concerned, I'd appreciate if somebody can come up with a sensible explanation of this position. Don't we simply tax money when it changes hands? I'm taxed on my income, and when I spend that income at the local bar the innkeeper pays taxes on that too, even though it was taxed when it originally passed into my hands. The only difference I see with the inheritance tax is that in that transfer of money the recipient doesn't have to work to get it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So GW is going to take away Unemployment Benefits? Medecaid Benefits? And the like?
Number 1) He's giving back some of the SURPLUS. Number 2) They rich's tax rate is going UP according to his plan.
And incidentally I seldom go out to eat, as if that has anything to do with the price of tea in china.
When people are trying to budget their money, the experts usually say an easy thing to do to save money is to cut down on going out to eat. My point was that I can *afford* to go out to eat often.
Your numbers are way off, plus you seemed to have forgotten utilities.
--------
$1764.92
Thats $485.08 left over for savings.
After the car was paid off and collision insurance was taken off that's another $203.25 to throw in the pot. Taken care of, the car should last another 7 years with only normal maintenance.
Investing the savings wisely should land me a few mil for retirement.
Oh yeah, and that's 30 minutes North of Boston (when I-93 isn't backed up of course)
You can live a comfortable life if you know what you are doing with your money. You won't be driving a BMW and living in a Million dollar home, but then again, that's not a Right that the government provides.
--
'then tough'????
How easy it is for you to dismiss the rights of thousands of people.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
No. Thank you for confirming use of the word "racism" is a substitute for critical thought.
I an immigrant Hispanic computer operator and father of three and quite frankly I am profoundly disturbed by what I see in your post.
Since I made no mention of Hispanics, and you are writing anonymously, there is a very good chance you are not Hispanic at all, but merely posing as one for rhetorical advantage. I don't have a particular problem with Hispanics, but if you are Hispanic, you're correct to be concerned. If you think my post is abusive, and as long as we're being anecdotal, you should have heard the response of a San Diego teacher I knew to the following situation:
She had foregone, not without some serious misgivings, the option of having a family of her own to teach secondary public education. She ended up teaching English as a second language to Hispanic students at a high school that had, while she grew up in the area, made a transition from almost entirely "white" (including Jews) to almost entirely Hispanic. Like most of the rest of the faculty, she was white while almost all of her students were not in the US legally. She was exceptionally attractive and was continually put upon by the young men and began dreading going to work in her chosen profession. One day, the vice principle, a Hispanic, noting her vulnerability said, with a sarcastic smirk to her "You know, you whites are just giving it away."
The principle was Hispanic and known to play favorites. The school district superintendent was also Hispanic and believed by the female teachers of the district to get away with having teachers fired who he had approached sexually.
With fellow Hispanics accepting the altruistic sacrifice of a life's work and even the option of having children from intelligent attractive white women to teach Hispanic illegals and then treating them with contempt, you are well advised to tell your eldest son to beware.
You have three children? Good for you. Children are true inspiration -- a material motive to work hard and build a better future.
But remember this:
People without children are people who really don't have much to live for and therefore they don't have much to lose.
Next time, try addressing the arguments -- especially if they are based on documented and reference facts -- as presented rather than launching into ad hominem rhetoric.
Seastead this.
Society has a responsibility to help it's members
And in a democracy, the government is one of the best expressions of the will of Society; Society can, and often does, choose to dump its responsibilities on the government --- that's what it's there for.
Did you read the original post?
Yes, but I didn't realize that I was obligated to try to drag you back on-topic.
fix your own fucking problems before you start telling other people how to fix theirs
Serious Question: Is someone attempting to impose the US Constitution on you or your countrymen?
and no, you can't factor out urban drug dealers, dumbass - a crime is a crime is a crime).
That's "Mr Dumas" to you, pal".
A crime is a crime? You mean the penalty for pinching a loaf of bread is the same is murdering your parish priest? If not please clarify.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Umm, I'm not one of those people who's going to vote Nader. In fact, I used to be a huge Republican. I changed my mind when I realized that both Republicans AND Democrats absolutely suck.
;-)
This gentleman who wrote the above letter claims that it's a trite platitude to believe that Republicans and Democrats are the same. Well, how are they not the same? They both adhere to the same fundamental assumptions about government, and those fundamental assumptions all revolve around our current monstrous system. No one is interested in a small government which does what Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would have wanted it to do, but otherwise leaves us the fuck alone. Republicans want to censor sex, and Democrats want to censor violence. They're BOTH for censorship, for doing what they think is good for us instead of letting us choose.
I mean, did you actually listen to the debate last night? They said practically the same thing about trying to get the entertainment industry to change its ways. Well, most Americans don't want the Federal government to tell the studios what kind of films they can give us, what kind of music we can have, etc. If you are a parent and don't want your kid to listen to Eminem, that's your business. It isn't, however, the government's business to try to get record companies to "self-censor" music. It's still censorship. One of the things most often forgotten is that freedom of speech is worthless if all the outlets for speech are closed to you--and that's what the Federal government wants to do, by telling the industry it needs to police itself better. Screw censorship in all its forms. When this country was founded, broadsides with the most obscene possible content were easily available in any big city, yet never once did Washington whine like Gore does about it.
The system today is monstrous, and neither party wants to restore small government. The gentleman who wrote this article talked about bureaucrats as essentially harmless. Sure, they're harmless if you forget that it's your own money paying them, money which is stolen from our pockets by an income tax which was unconstitutional until circa 1900. None of the people who founded this country and forged its laws believed in income tax. In fact, the very notion of taking money so directly and blanketly from the common people was abhorrent to them. Let's also not forget that not only have bureaucrats wasted TRILLIONS of our tax dollars over the years, but they've also created terrible things in so doing. Does anyone remember what a piece of horse-shit the Meese Commission Report, done primarily by bureaucrats, was? They wanted to take away our right to express ourselves in any sexually explicit materials. They considered Playboy magazine a gateway drug to the evils of pornography. Bureaucrats are not harmless. They're a big threat to every right we have, because they spin the facts to fit into politicians' preconceived plans. How is it that Gore has one set of figures for everything, and Bush has another? They each have their own set of bureaucrats, of course...
As more and more laws and regulations are passed, it becomes more difficult for a man to do anything without the government's permission or denials. Do you know what the country with the greatest social mobility is? Hong Kong. Do you know why? Very little bureaucracy and very little government intervention. Fifty years ago Hong Kong was a useless, poor rock in the ocean. It was literally a rock--people couldn't even farm there. There were no big industries. But the British controlled it and instituted a government of benign, salutary neglect. If someone harmed you, the police and justice system would take care of it. But otherwise, the government didn't do a damned thing. And today, fifty years later, Hong Kong is an economic giant. All that in five decades, from a pre-industrial-revolution level of existence, practically, to the average median income being only $2000 less than that in the US. And economic mobility here is NOTHING compared to Hong Kong. There, you fill out one sheet of paper, one-sided, and you're registered as a business. Anyone, literally, can start a small business. Here, people need to file so many papers that many give up--a stack of tax papers, a stack of forms to submit to the health department even if you're not serving food, a stack of forms over and over again. It's hard just to open your doors in the US because of the bureaucratic red tape. And then there are the thirty-page forms a business sometimes needs to fill out just to pay a few bucks in taxes...
The economic mobility of the present in the US is largely an illusion of the tech sector. Nowhere else is there upper mobility, unless you want to become an MBA business drone. And even then, I know a girl with an MBA who's working at Red Lobster.
Take me, for example. I have no upward mobility. I have no mobility at all. I am one of many lost in the cracks, lost to the complexities of new laws which an increasingly intrusive government saddles us with. Republicans and Democrats both--and, Democrats controlled the legislature, BTW, this wasn't a partisan thing--decided it would be a good idea to keep teenagers from having sex by making a new law, one very few in my state know about, which makes it a crime for anyone 18 or over to have consensual sex with someone who is *above the "age of consent"* but below 18. Well, when I was in high school I knew the age of consent in my state was 15, so when I was a high school senior and started dating a high school junior who was a year and a half younger than I was, I thought I was fine. After all, lots of high school seniors date even freshmen and sophomores, so dating a junior put me squarely on firm ground. Well, I wasn't on firm ground when her dad had me arrested for having consensual sex with her, even though she was above the age of consent, even though I was still in high school, even though she was only a year and a half younger. Even my teachers were shocked that I was being prosecuted. But thanks to those primarily Democratic lawmakers, I was in big trouble.
Here's where the story gets interesting: the judge was a smart and reasonable guy, and he dismissed the case. After all, the law was meant to keep old perverts from taking advantage of vulnerable teenagers, not to prosecute teenagers for dating people who are well within their own peer group. Nevermind that I'd been a virgin and she'd had more experience back then than most 25 year olds, so if anyone was seduced it was me.
Well, thank god for all that bureaucratic recordkeeping, because I can't get a job thanks to that arrest on a charge I wasn't even convicted for. Thanks to the fact that the Federal government does more than the Constitution says it should, I have an FBI record which prevents me from getting a job anywhere in the academic world. Since I was in 10th grade I knew I was meant to be a poorly paid, but happy with my career, teacher. That dream, that vocation, that entire life has disappeared. Thanks all to a few politicians who didn't think to write a law which couldn't be abused by being applied to an innocent high school kid like I used to be once. And then, thanks to the FBI which keeps records of arrests even if THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE.
Now, if the Federal government were as small as it's supposed to be, if it only did what Jefferson and Madison designed it to do, I could have a new life. I could have moved a few states over, and forgotten about that horrible period in my life when I was being prosecuted for doing something many, many, many, many teenagers do and is considered a normal part of adolescence, and taught middle or high school English or history. But instead I have a number, given to me by the Federal government, which follows me wherever I go and keeps me from ever having a life, a career, anything worthwhile since I have to give that number to my prospective employers and with it they find out from that same Federal government that a long time ago I was once arrested for something so minor and normal and such a misapplication of the law that the judge dismissed the case. And then they don't hire me, despite my degree from a prestigious private liberal arts college, completed in only three years of Dean's List hard work, with two full majors.
You see, people like me are forgotten in this Information Age. People like me are invisible. People like me have no future. People like me hate bureaucrats and unnecessary or poorly written laws, for good reason. And people like me have good reason to dislike both Republicans and Democrats for creating a country so Orwellian as this one out of a country as wonderful as the one Jefferson and Madison and Washington made.
And I'm not the only one. A fifteen year old kid in Michigan is on the sex offender registry because he had consensual sex with his girlfriend, who was a year younger than he was. He'll never have a future, either. I could list a dozen more cases just from the top of my head, since I'm acutely aware of such things. But they're invisible to most of you. We are invisible to most of you, the victims of the Information Society where one small step can stay with you for the rest of your life, thanks to laws which change yearly and a number which doesn't.
Anyone want to hire a very good, very educated, very dedicated English and history teacher who was never actually convicted of anything? Didn't think so. So tell me why I should vote Democrat, when they did this just as much as Republicans did? They are the same.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
I don't propose charities as a solution to that problem at all. What I was getting at with the charities was that having to pay less in taxes would lead me to be able to give a lot more to charities, which I consider a worthwile goal... I'm trying to say there are real, tangible benefits to giving people who have managed to earn a lot some sort of relief and letting them hold on to more money.
However, that is totally different than trying to help someone come out of a bad situation. As far as what did help me:
Private grants for college
Good teachers in gradeschool
Family support
Homeschooling from junior high until college
Problems that I encountered:
Very low federal aid for college due to government thinking divorced family is really whole (this was an even worse problme for my sister attending college a few years later)
Little support for home schooling, indeed active opposition.
What I really think would help more than anything is somehow making education interesting to kids, and availiable to everyone. I do support funding for lots of educational programs as that's the one area where I feel it is possible for the government to do a good job (Not that they actually have been).
As a tangent to that, I support the idea of vouchers because it would really help homeschoolers out, in turn supporting a lot of marginal kids (both fast and slow) who really do not do well in school. And lest you think that vouchers are just for the very religious, there are whole legions of homeschoolers (lookup unschooling) that have nothing to do with religion at all, but just with helping a kid to learn to learn how to be thier own teacher.
Once people are out of school and having problems, that's when things get a lot trickier. How do you help someone who did not go to the effort to help themselves in school?
The only possibility at that point I think is direct involvement with people by other people that care a great deal. I see a lot of private programs that do a lot of good work in this area, that help a lot to pull people through a rough time or help them build self esteem. I don't have any great answers for how to help people later on. But I do think government is one of the least effective ways to do so, and I try and do as much as I can to support good efforts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
actually, I don't remember a part of the constitution that even mentioned helping the downtrodden. You might try looking at it once or twice
I get no government help. Nor do I want it!
OK. Tomorrow, avoid driving on any roads. Tomorrow, take a drug not recommended by the FDA for safe consumption. Tomorrow, ask your bank or utilities to charge whatever they want to charge for the services they provide. (And the list goes on and on)
So, tomorrow, just totally drop out of society. Go to an island, let's say the Survivor island. Fend for yourself using only your survival skills, with nobody else to depend on. That's what you want, isn't it? Even if you could hack that, imagine the masses who wouldn't have a prayer in that Darwinian environment. Hysterically opposing what government needs to provide for all only suggests that there's not much of a care for the other masses of people around.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
All taxation is the moral equivalent of theft. I never gave my government permission to take almost 40% of my paycheck. In fact, the government never even asked if they could take 40% of my paycheck.
The American people (many now dead) gave the government permission to do this. If you don't like it, vote. Meanwhile, I'm voting for the guy who's NOT doing the big tax giveaway to the rich to avoid paying down the debt.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
The Laffer Curve is *realllll* simple. Watch:
* At 0% tax rate the tax revenue is -- wait for it -- 0 dollars.
* At 100% tax rate the tax revenue is -- guess -- 0 dollars.
If tax revenue is nonzero in between those tax rates, it must be a curve. And the maximum at which that curve peaks: that's the point of -- surprise! -- maximum tax revenue.
When Reagan lowered taxes in the 80s, TAX REVENUES INCREASED. The deficit has absolutely nothing to do with that, since spending ALSO increased. The 80s proved that the American tax rate was right of the Laffer Curve. PERIOD. You cannot argue with the facts. Now go shove your whiny objection up your ass and eat a bag of dicks, you ignorant fuckhole.
Kind regards,
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Yes, but the wealthiest 10% hold 50% of the wealth-- so they are not being taxed enough. They should be contributing 50% of the taxes.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You don't like it, move to Antartica.
"If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show
Not that I disagree with the general point, that investment in the market economy generally raises standards of living, but I think it's ridiculous to imply that charity is unjustly hurting the working class.
"If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show
Regarding Gore being his own man, may I mention the trial lawyers? This is the biggest lobby for the democrats. They have given Gore ten times as much as tobacco has given Bush.
The NRA I like. If you don't like the second amendment, that's fine. I would oppose your efforts to repeal it, but I would respect your honesty. Don't try to work around it.
I don't see how Bush has any more ties to religious groups than Gore. I mean, what's the democrats stance? Evil movie producers clean up your act, or we'll do it for you?
In my opinion, Mr. Brin must be a toadie for the Gore campaign.
Nope. Mr. Brin is a libertarian by nature, as are many intelligent (and not-so-intelligent) people. His support of Gore is an interesting twist, but I can't blame him. Given Geo. W. Bush's history, and the Republican's hypocritical acceptance of his historical drug use (remember how they lambasted Clinton for "I didn't inhale."?), I find Bush's candidacy ludicrous, and evidence of the republican party's current state of disarray.
Libertarians are not Objectivists, though many objectivists are libertarians. Personally, I tend toward libertarianism myself, but can't stand objectivism in the least. Nor can I stand the federal support of our burgeoning fuedal system we call corporatism, nor the Ponzi scheme that is the stock market.
The basic idea of libertarianism can be summed up with, "TANSTAAFL!" (Read "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," cobber. You'll be glad you did.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Is was in Ontario at the time of the election and lived through the NDP government so I feel the need to refute your comments at least in part. The NDP was not elected because of their high horse morals. Their accidental victory was a combination of two factors:
1) An early election call by the Liberal premier at the time was seen by the media and select special interest groups as a great opportunity to discredit the party. The hope was that the PCs would benefit from the negative sentiment, a strategy that obviously failed miserably as the PCs ended the election with fewer seats than they had before the election.
2) The NDP recognised that the poorer elements of the population voted less as compared to the middle class and rich. Therefore they promised increases in welfare and spending on low income housing that were obviously not sustainable on any sort of long-term basis and were never really a part of their policy platform in such an extreme form at any time before the election, but that finally got the lower class out of their homes and into the polling stations. The NDP came to power solely on that new wave of voting.
As to the NDP being "voted out of existence on a national scale", that is simply not true. Saskatchewan has an NDP government with real policies as opposed to the Ontarian NDP policy of more or less directly buying votes, and that province has done fine with the NDP enjoying good support. British Columbia also elected an NDP government whose problems all stem from corruption and other sorts of personal problems rather than the party's policies. Finally, the NDP has been more successful in the past two national elections than the PC party, the party that was in power throughout the 80s and is now on the verge of self-destructing permanently.
Well, some are...
Some people are going to a scifi con to watch the end of the world starting...
You want a coherent argument? On Slashdot? Well, all right, I'm saying the Laffer Curve is irrelevant. It's a nice theory, but until someone can put accurate numbers on the axes we can't use it effectively. We can certainly use it ineffectively, but I'm back to anecdotal evidence.
Inheritance tax in the UK is 40% on assets over £231,000, which is some way below the $1 million that is allowed in the US!
I am an idealist - I believe that people should make their own decisions. I morally distrust democracy because people can vote "for free" - the consequences of voting for subsidies, which tend to impoverish society as a whole, do not come to those who vote that way. So far, the alternative forms of government actually tried have all been worse. That does not prove that a more libertarian democracy would not be an improvement.
We should move to a VAT tax - taxing sales on the value added by the seller, so as not to penalize higher-priced but lower-margin sellers. Not because people in general deserve to pay more and the rich less. But because when we tax something, we get less of it. I say more income and more property are good things, but that more consumption is not always a good thing. Let's tax consumption.
And the rich would pay plenty of VAT - to the extent that they continued to buy ostentatious toys, they would pay through the nose.
The inheritance tax squabble is a TINY change. The big difference is on macro finance. Gore would increase government expenses and the complexity of tax subsidies; Bush would not. That's a fairly big issue.
I learned after comparing life under Eisenhower & Kennedy to life under their immediate successors, that you can kill the goose that lays the eggs. You can have deficits, inflation, unemployment, and a stock market declining in real value, all at the same time. Just do these things: expand regulation without regard to cost; refuse to make choices amongst pet projects and try to fight a war, end poverty, save the environment, and GREATLY increase retirement income, all at the same time.
Reagan saved us from that. He and Bush Sr. started the process that the Republican Congress and Alan Greenspan have allowed to continue, which has produced the current unprecedented boom. He slowed the growth of government. He largely ended inflation. He embarked upon a non-nuclear arms race which forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and collapse - to the incredible increase in our peace and safety, not to mention declining defense budgets (in real dollars).
The BIG change is that we need to do something about the Social Security welfare program. I say welfare, because receipts have nothing to do with earnings but are funded entirely by a huge, no deductions tax on WAGES. Even so I would have no objection were it not for the fact that longer lives, lengthening schooling, and earlier retirement are combining to shift us from having 4 or 5 people working for every recipient, to closer to 1 person working per recipient. No way can we afford this.
The only possible solution that does not chop the elderly or the middle class workers off at the knees is to continue and increase our economic growth. That requires investment capital and the ability for people to make wise decisions about where and how to invest. No one is wise in investing other people's money. And we can not trust the political process - the Government - to raise funds by taxes and then invest in a capitalist economy.
We can trust people in general to do their best to make productive investments with their own money. Bush foresees a future in which we move to a compulsory system of individual retirement investments. This is the one way to continue to insure that money is accumulated for retirement, and is invested in the growth of our society, and is invested productively.
Gore sees more of the same - much more.
That difference is HUGE.
I don't worry about the Supreme Court. I am as likely as anyone to think of buying a gun and taking to the hills if the government were to start requiring OR prohibiting conception, pregnancy, or child birth. What an invasion of the person!
My defense against this invasion is basically three-fold:
1. A rich society is a safe society. Economic growth more than any other thing will protect and expand liberty. So I look first to which party agenda advances or retards growth. The Democrats are all about seizing and redistributing the spoils. The Republicans are all about facilitating the creation of wealth in the first place. No contest, the Republican Agenda wins.
2. In a somewhat democratic society - and democracy is far more secure in a rich society! - the Government can not oppose the strongly held views of the overwhelming majority of people. Which is that abortion should remain available, that discrimination should not have the force of law, and that the conservation of the natural and human environment is an important priority.
3. Conservatives joining the Supreme Court are likely to remain conservative. Access to abortion has been settled law for 27 years - conservatives do not over-turn precedents with the impetuosity of liberals.
As far as Star Trek vs. Star Wars goes, I tend to vote for Star Wars. Better actors (William Shatner, an actor?) and better production values. More realistic too. Star Trek is an over-long government-sponsored Lewis & Clark Expedition, lost in the wilderness with no apparent goal. The Star Wars characters in contrast have understandable goals and pursue them in an enterprising (sic) way.
The problem with a flat rate is that it is either too low, and the government doesn't have enough money for things like public school, roads, etc. (I imagine even libertarians see the need for these things), or the rate is high enough that it is an unfair burden on the lower class.
As I said in another post, 30% of $100k/yr still gives you $70k NET to live on (more than I gross a year, and I have a pretty good job). Take 30% a year away from someone making $25k/yr, and you leave them with $18.75k/yr. That hurts.
Now before you gripe about that amount, $25k/yr works out to around $12.50/hr, about what a construction worker makes around here. I'm not talking about some welfare mother with 5 kids, but about an everyday blue-collar worker doing a very important job. Hell, policemen around here (in RTP, NC) only make about $30k/yr. They had to remove the clause in their contracts stating they had to live in the county in which they worked. The police force realized they weren't paying enough for them to live on in Wake Co., so they were allowed to move to an adjoining county. The same thing is going on in SV, CA as well.
Eric
Hogwash. This is the same kind of scaremongering nonsense employed by gun controllers, anti-home schoolers, and most other nanny-statists. Do you honestly believe that there's enough of a market for sawdust-laden food that an industry that produced it as opposed to clean, healthy food could remain profitable for very long? Do you honestly believe there are not and could never be market alternatives to sawdust-laden food producers?
Might I suggest you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, published in 1905... This is the book that brought about the existence of the FDA. In that book, there are things that will make you want to eat nothing you didn't grow/kill yourself. I haven't read it since senior year of high school, over a decade ago, but when I think of it, I still get somewhat nauseaous.
If corporations were not forced to adhere to strict rules on food production, the result would be that, because it is cheaper not to follow these rules, they would be producing foodstuffs of lower quality. If a competitor came along, and offered high quality food at a higher price, which do you think the lower class would choose? Most likely the stuff that will allow them to eat their fill (who really wants to 'enjoy' the feeling of an empty stomach all day?). This already happens. When was the last time you saw someone buy a round of brie and a bottle of Mouton-Rothschild on food stamps?
Eric
"Ah, how to refute this? Let me count the ways:"
One of the functions of government is to factor in social obligations to its people, especially the ones who need the most help.
Just out of curiousity, I'm wondering why and how charity is a responsibility or function of the government, because I know it's not in the constitution. The more any government stops being a government and starts being a charity or wealth-redistribution facility, the more inefficient and unable to deal with true goverment issues -- like the establishment and enforcement of laws and national defense -- it will become.
A purely economical standpoint leads to a corporate strategy, not a national one. Or in
other words, a fascist state.
A fascist state is not based on the ultimate corporate strategy, but rather the ultimate social strategy. The ultimate involvement of the goverment in the lives of the people.
You do *not* want to maximize the total output of a national economy.
-snip-
As Brin explained, top-heavy taxation leads to redistribution of wealth through charitable giving.
You do want to maximize the output, but you want to keep it runnning in as efficient a way as possible. The reality is that if the richest paid a proportionate tax they would have much, much more money on hand, and they would redistribute the wealth themselves, much more efficiently than the government and its bureaucracies. You can deny this and say they are evil, idle rich if you want, but the history of the U.S. tells a different tale.
I suggest you read a book by Adam Smith entitled The Wealth of Nations...
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
I've always understood mentions of the "United States" like that to refer to the states themselves, as general entities, not to individuals within the State, but I can't think how you would define the Welfare of an entire State. Fair enough :)
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
How about a tattoo that instead says "I feel no need to pay for YOUR share of government services" instead? That would be more honest.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
I'm not saying the abolition of taxes here. I'm saying a REDUCTION in the already LARGE amount I pay! And I'm not "rich." I'm dirt poor!
As for roads, they should be paid for under a fuel tax. Why should someone pay for a road that they do not use? Take a drug not recommended by the FDA? Happens all the time. You can buy 4 or 5 illegal drugs at the school right down the street.
Banks pretty much already decide what they want to charge. We the people can't even pass a law making it illegal for them to overcharge us to use the ATM! Utilities are also charging pretty much what they want, since they purchase polititians all the time...
What I want is for people to stop asking for handouts and start learning to do for themselves instead.
I choose not to have children, so I'm penalized at tax time (especially if AlGore gets in) by having to pay a higher percentage than a breeder. I work, so I'm fleeced to pay for someone else's food, drugs, smokes, booze, and cars. Perhaps if it wasn't quite so easy to scam the system I wouldn't be so upset about paying for it.
Let's CHANGE the welfare system in America:
1. Food stamps are used only for FOOD. Meat, bread, cheese, milk, lettuce. Make it so that people using my taxes to live can't get luxuries I can't afford. No soda, chips, candy, junk food, pizza, etc.
2. Anyone caught buying drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes while accepting food stamps should lose them.
3. Get rid of section eight housing. That is a rip off scam run by slumlords for the most part.
4. Give people an incentive to work. Change the draconian rules so that if someone gets assistance and gets a job, their health coverage isn't cut off until their job benefits kick in or they can make enough money to pay for it themselves.
5. Bring back the WPA! If you want a government check, you'll be doing government work. They can dig ditches, lay pavement, build bridges, and all at the same time get valuable work experience.
I'm not opposed to helping someone in a hard time. I am however opposed to generations living off the sweat of my brow. The problem is that the Democrats don't WANT people off the dole, nor do most social workers. If people get off the dole and start making their own money, they won't feel an urgent need to vote the Dems in for more bread and circuses. And social workers would have to go out and get honest jobs. And the other problem is when you have no incentive to work, and in fact could lose something you really need (ie: health insurance) by getting a job, why would you? There are many people on welfare that are only there because it pays their medical bills. And there are also many people that are on their because it's easier than working.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
First, let me me be clear on the fact that I am not voting for Gore or Bush. I am voting for Harry Browne, in part because he does not find things like Internet censorship as appealing as Gore and Bush. However, I do want to refute the notion that Gore is some sort of intellectual. Look at some of the many lies he has been caught in (the union song that was created when he was 27 that he said his Mom sung to him as a lullaby; the arthiritis drug that he said his mom paid $100 and his dog paid $37; the fact that he claims extensive law knowledge from the law school that he dropped out of; etc, etc). I expect politicians to lie to me (I am a cynic), but Gore's lies are so blantently obvious that I am convinced that either he is a moron or he believes the American puplic are morons. Either way, I would never vote for him.
>>A vote for Bush would, unsurprisingly, be a vote for a socially conservative Supreme Court, which is almost certainly what we want to avoid in the near future if we want privacy and free speech to continue on the Internet. Are you kidding. With a liberal Supreme Court you would only have freedom to do and say those things that fit in with their liberal social agenda. With a liberal Supreme Court say good-bye to true freedom.
Before I get on my soapbox, let me thank David Brin for many hours spent reading and re-reading his writings. I would rank his books up with Azimov, Hienlien, and Herbert. Hear is the question I would like to see answered by Gore: "Mr. Gore, one of the unstable nuclear powers, take your pick, Russia, Pakistan, India or China, has launched a large scale missile attack against the United States. This is every Presidents nightmare. Given your long term commitment to the environment, how could you use our own nuclear arsenal knowing that it most likely would result in the destruction of most of the earth's biosphere?" As much as we would like to think the end of the Cold War has reduced the risk of nuclear war, it has not. If anything it is worse now then ever before. Gore position on the environment conflicts heavily with the required mental state to carry through with MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction, for those who did not grow up in the shadow of the mushroom cloud). Despite how incredibly insane this philosophy is, it has nonetheless kept the use of Atomic weapons to a minimum. Who can't wonder if Gore will waiver when ICBM head for major US cities and he must decide to launch? He may decide that 50/100/150 American lives are a small price to pay to have a chance at saving the biosphere from total destruction? Problem is, once the "First Strike" country is able to even rationalize the thought that we might or might not respond we have made a fatal mistake. It is only the guarantee that we WILL retaliate and destroy the world keeps them from firing at us. Even worse, what if Israel decides that it can use its weapons (assuming they have them) because they know we won't launch if it escalates? What if Pakistan or India decides the same? I know this whole discussion fails to pass the logic test, because it is illogical to build and have nuclear weapons. Yet even Brin resorts to this in many of his books. In Earth, the Grazers are turned off because the treat of all out destruction is just too great. The Grubu Prince is terminated by his underling at the end of Uplift Wars, precisely because victory is not worth the destruction of one world. Gore is too much of wild card. Nader would be better, at least we, and the rest of the world, would know he would not use them at all. Period. You can work with that, but Gore's uncertainty is the killer.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Seems strange to me that the default assumption is that money should be given to corporate barons to be "trickled down" at their whim on the lowly serfs. To me it is more natural that money trickle *up*. *Ensure* that there is a livable wage. *Ensure* that people have a baseline of health and education. And guess what? Those people will be healthier and more prosperous and have more leisure time. And they'll do strange things like -- wait for it -- *buy stuff*!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It certainly makes no sense to me why this impetus for a very rich person to become very much richer, is more important than perhaps thousands of people eating, or getting proper health care, or for fuck's sake, breathing clean air.
We are talking about different moralities here, really. You would shoot Robert to save Steve, particularly when Steve is a pitiable case and Robert is not. Now that is speaking figuratively, of course, but it describes the essense of the point: you would prefer to remove the rights of individuals in the name of what you believe is a higher moral cause.
I say we should respect essential, fundamental indvidual rights, particularly because that course stands the best chance of leading all of us to the greatest happiness. If you assert your right to do with my property as you see fit, then you are asserting your right to do with my life as you see fit. You make me your slave. It doesn't satisfy me that you propose to do this to only a select few. It is fundamentally wrong.
Now, I agree completely with you on the need to provide relief to those who couldn't survive otherwise. I think there is a role government can serve here (as well as private efforts) and taxation would obviously be needed to fund government action. But, the taxation should be fairly and evenly applied to those who can be taxed. And, if tax reductions are to be implemented, they should likewise be applied fairly and evenly. And, we should stop this absurd, semi-subtle implication that the "rich" are somehow "evil" and deserve to have it socked to them.
Especially when, eventually, if this money is kept hidden away from the consumer-level economy, it will weaken the government to the point where ecological regulation will become impossible, and without that, we will all, with 100% certainty, bake like potatoes, choke, shrivel up, and die. Private enterprise cannot do this task. Well, if humanity's survival isn't important enough, then I guess we need to cut the taxes. We all die anyway, at least those super-rich people will die happy.
Gee, I don't think I agree with any of your points here! The super-rich hiding their money from the consumer-level economy? How? They won't spend it? Invest it? Just hide it in their closet? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't literally mean it is 100% certain we will die from global warming w/o ecological regulation. I don't see a particular connection between taxation and human survival. And, I wouldn't be the first to tell you that money does not necessarily buy happiness.
The Socviet Union is gone now largely because of Regan's stance towards it and their attempt to keep up with our military spending broke their ability to spend.
Respond to s
People have been getting tax refunds because of their ecconomic scale for much longer than that (think dependents and such). Believe me I am much older than 16.
Respond to s
To use the term "double taxation" wrt the estate tax is a common misconception, and inaccurate.
When the person who earned the money in the first place earned it, it got taxed. That person is never taxed again on it. However, when other people receive money from that estate, they do get taxed. But it's not the same person getting the income, so it's not "double taxation."
Put it another way, why should income one gets as inheritance be preferentially taxed to income one earns? At the bottom, even if it may feel kinda like your money because it's your parents, it isn't: it's theirs. You as the inheritor are getting something you didn't have before. Why shouldn't it be taxed?
Additionally, there's also a massive windfall when it comes to inheritance: the base value for purposes of capital-gains tax calculation is reset at death. That means that if your dad bought rode CSCO for a 100x return but never sold it, then you never have to pay cap-gains on that 100x ride.
Gore proposes targeted estate-tax relief: not taxing estates up to $5M, easing up on family-owned businesses and farms (so they need not get sold to pay the estate tax on the death of the owner), etc. Bush's proposal to flat-out get rid of it is downright irresponsible.
I'm wearing my -4 Helm of Idiocy today but... Just a point of Economics here. One of the economic theories that applies here is that taxation is to be directed toward "disposable" income. This means that it is supposed to hit the money you spend on yachts harder that the money you spend on food. This is why a sliding scale of %'s exists on income. Certainly it fails badly in many areas because of geographic concerns (Housing in IN vs. CA). The flat-tax angle must disagree w/ that premise if it is to hold true. I for one, while appreciating the simicity a flat tax proposes, do not believe that taxing my dollar for food is the same as taxing my dollar on my Lexus. Therefore, i cannot agree.
How many people do you know with $100,000 in the bank that you wouldn't call rich? The protection of less wealthy consumers is a nice side benefit, but what does the FDIC do for people who don't even take enough home to have a savings account? And guess what - I never claimed anything about these agencies being for the protection of business, merely the rich.
The SEC also protects against bogus stock filings, conealing information, and yes, insider trading, things that tend to, when they are discovered, degrade the performance and value of stocks as a whole. The rich, who are the ones most heavily invested in the stock market, are once again the winners, while the poor do not have enough to invest, period.
Argue all you want about the middle class, but let's be honest - the fact that any of these programs help the middle class at all is just for political buy-in (and I'll grant you that social assistance programs are the same way). If rich Americans hadn't wanted the government to insure their deposits, or protect their stock investments, it wouldn't have happened. You can be certain that those below the poverty line have no stake in the matter whatsoever.
Right...
Why, exactly, are the numbers required? If lowering the tax rate increases revenue (as it did in the 80s under Reagan), then the tax rate should continue to be lowered until the revenue peaks. Theoretically, it's a simple economics experiment.
Practically speaking, it's even simpler. We already have a surplus to work with. Lower the tax rate immediately and observe the results over the next five years with regard to revenue. There's nothing complicated about this whatsoever.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
I can understand economics without being a raving fan of capitalism - it is possible. There are ways to moderate the effects of capitalism on the disadvantaged without bringing the wheels of commerce to a halt. A graduated tax structure with deductions is one of them, because it stimulates private charity.
I don't know what history you read, but social assistance programs have typically had a positive effect on the economy, and they have been started in economic bad times. If you will remember Keynesian economics, government spending is necessary to offset shortfalls in private investment to generate full productivity. While government doesn't often pay up front for these programs in tax increases, neither do they tax economic booms into recession. If you'll notice, we are finally seeing the effects of inflation in this latest economic boom, and it's in the midst of a round of reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest 1-5%. Kinda makes you think, or at least it would if you were more interested in the truth of the matter than in having your Rush Limbaugh ditto-head say on things.
Can you point to even one historical instance of an economic downturn that was caused by taxes being too high? Or is it more likely that, like a good economist knows, it is from a decrease in the available labor pool, or the effects of inflation, or a series of supply-side shocks, or any number of other factors that have nothing to do with taxation alone?
Right...
others would find punitive taxation fair (e.g. 98% income tax in the >$500,000 bracket. Has been tried in Europe long time ago).
Try again. It was tried in the US around 50 years ago. The page seems to have been taken down, but you can check out Google's cache. 92%!!!
Del
No, silly. Hardware!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The besetting sin of Western Civilization for at least the past hundred and fifty years has been the ongoing effort to upgrade Envy from a mortal sin to a sacrament. Apparently Mr. Brin agrees with the upgrade.
I'm not talking about shooting anybody, I'm talking about -er, compelling Robert and Steve to work together so neither of them die. Robert can still have a much, much, unimaginably higher lifestyle than Steve. He worked for it, he deserves it, he can have it. Maybe he has to sacrifice solid-gold toilet seats for gold-plated, eh?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What the hell is a left-handed table? A table is a table!
+++ATH0
Let's try a thought experiment and look at Commieville. In Commieville, all people make the same amount of money, by their age. A 20 year old makes $10K/Year for ten years. A 30 year old makes $20K/Year for ten years. A 40 year old makes $30K/Year for ten years and so on. At age 70, all people in Commieville retire. Each person requires $5K per year to live, and saves half of the amount that they make more than $5K/year, and uses the other half to increase their standard of living.
In Commieville the top 17% of of income earners have five times the income of the bottom 17% of income earners and the top 17% of people have 45% of all of the wealth.
Thus, the statistics that are used to show the inequality of income, do not, by themselves, show inequality of income over a lifetime.
Not to mention, that usually these figures are for households, not people. Rich households usually have multiple income earners, poor households usually have single income earners. So what looks like high income inequality across households, becomes much less unequal when looked at per capita.
...well, maybe not in the top 1% but certainly the top five.
And my objective is not to collect more tax dollars but to hava a tax policy that recognized the value of work for hire by not taxing it at near twice the rate of capital gains. Most people work for hire and they're the people without which investments don't become reality. Ignore them at your peril!
Now, if this could be accomplished by cutting the top income tax rate to the level of capital gains, reducing the lower tax brackets accordingly, then great, that's ideal. Unfortunately, I don't think it's realistic.
And I still think it's immoral that unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
This is all just a question of where you are going to make your error. If paying down the debt actually makes "less" revenues appear, then you've still got less debt. If giving tax breaks makes less revenues appear, then you've got a few new luxury items for the wealthy but the same sized debt w/ less money to pay it off with.
I'd prefer my government play it safe in this case.
There is no reasonable argument for the death tax. After paying a life time of HIGHER TAXES it is decided that the wealthy have not given/contributed enough. What is it about death that makes it right to take something from them? Other then the fact they can no longer defend themselves. Why take just 50%, why not take it all? See #3 from Marx quote at bottom. It could be argued that the death tax causes individuals to make poor economic decisions (that harm the public) they would not normally make had the death tax not been there. This is wrong, the argument should not be based in idea that the ends justify the means that is how we got the tax burdens we currently have. The argument must be based on the idea of property rights. I AM SO GLAD THE GOVERNMENT GIVES US THE FREEDOM TO DONATE OUR MONEY TO WHO THEY DEEM WORTHY!!!!! (this is tongue in cheek, just in case you think I am being serious). Maybe if the Europeans were not taxed @ > 50% they would donate more to charities. Or maybe if the government did not promise to cover all their needs they would do more to help their fellow man. Why donate when the government claims to solve all your problems? No your right the answer is to tax them more. The bottom line is there are limits to what a person can spend the rest is invested in some manner or another. Either use of money does more to help the general public then SS, Medicare, welfare, ect. Argument that Margaret Thatcher's elimination of the property tax was bad because people could no longer rummage through another's house is laughable. If it were not for MT the UK would be no better off then France. Much better to have the money go to taxes then invested? Property tax is the most evil tax. Paying ever increasing amounts for the same damn thing. Once you own the land what gives the government the right to take it away from you? The only reason the house/land property tax now exists is because someone justified the money grab by diverting the money to education. Sometimes I wonder if I don't own the land or if I am just paying rent to an OVER BEARING LAND LORD. If you want an argument for socialism you should really stick with the basics you know Marx, LBJ, Hitler, ect.. PLEASE NOTE number 3. Marx...."Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. " .. END OF MARX
There are no natural superiors (bourgeoisie) in the US this only happens when the government believes that is solely responsible for the well being of its people.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of working harder and harder while getting less in return. With the prospect of never being able to retire because of never ending and ever increasing property taxes. It is a rat race the government does not want to let you out of, they need the tax base.
I do not exploit people by earning money nor should the "many" exploit my ability to make money.
There is no reasonable argument for the death tax. After paying a life time of HIGHER TAXES it is decided that the wealthy have not given/contributed enough. What is it about death that makes it right to take something from them? Other then the fact they can no longer defend themselves. Why take just 50%, why not take it all? See #3 from Marx quote at bottom.
.. END OF MARX
It could be argued that the death tax causes individuals to make poor economic decisions (that harm the public) they would not normally make had the death tax not been there. This is wrong, the argument should not be based in idea that the ends justify the means that is how we got the tax burdens we currently have. The argument must be based on the idea of property rights.
I AM SO GLAD THE GOVERNMENT GIVES US THE FREEDOM TO DONATE OUR MONEY TO WHO THEY DEEM WORTHY!!!!! (this is tongue in cheek, just in case you think I am being serious).
Maybe if the Europeans were not taxed @ > 50% they would donate more to charities. Or maybe if the government did not promise to cover all their needs they would do more to help their fellow man. Why donate when the government claims to solve all your problems? No your right the answer is to tax them more.
The bottom line is there are limits to what a person can spend the rest is invested in some manner or another. Either use of money does more to help the general public then SS, Medicare, welfare, ect.
Argument that Margaret Thatcher's elimination of the property tax was bad because people could no longer rummage through another's house is laughable. If it were not for MT the UK would be no better off then France. Much better to have the money go to taxes then invested?
Property tax is the most evil tax. Paying ever increasing amounts for the same damn thing. Once you own the land what gives the government the right to take it away from you? The only reason the house/land property tax now exists is because someone justified the money grab by diverting the money to education. Sometimes I wonder if I don't own the land or if I am just paying rent to an OVER BEARING LAND LORD.
If you want an argument for socialism you should really stick with the basics you know Marx, LBJ, Hitler, ect.. PLEASE NOTE number 3.
Marx...."Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "
There are no natural superiors (bourgeoisie) in the US this only happens when the government believes that is solely responsible for the well being of its people.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of working harder and harder while getting less in return. With the prospect of never being able to retire because of never ending and ever increasing property taxes. It is a rat race the government does not want to let you out of, they need the tax base.
I do not exploit people by earning money nor should the "many" exploit my ability to make money.
Look at all this! This is the most active discussion I've ever helped spawn on /.! I guess it's all politics for me from now on. ;)
Your conception of "interest" as purely bad is flawed.
Agreed. I considered arguing with your above post, but this one really brings the point home: as long as your investments (be they stock or R&D) bring in a higher rate of return than your debts, then leave the debts be. There was a recent article on Slate (I can't find it now, though) that argued that the national debt should be left alone. I was forced to disagree with his numbers, though, because he assumed a best-case scenario (continued economic expansion for two generations!).
I would be remiss, though, if I didn't point out a counter-argument: paying off an interest-bearing debt is a risk-free investment. If I spend $1000 to pay down a debt at 8% APR, I've just saved $80 for the year; an 8% return on investment (it helps to visualize overall net worth). The question then becomes: Is it worth the risk to invest that $1000 on something that might generate a 12% return (but might have a negative return), when I can get a guaranteed 8% return through other means? Unfortunately, the answer varies on an individual basis, so applying this analysis to the national debt is nigh impossible.
I haven't seen a pimply-faced teen working at McDonald's in a long time. I only see foreign workers. For a lot of these people, McDonald's is a career, because they can't get other jobs with their poor English skills.
I've tried to communicate with these people, for example if they screwed up my order. It doesn't work. They are taught "When you hear "Quarter Pounder with Cheese", hit this button". They don't actually understand the words, they just connect sounds to finger motions.
These people aren't biding their time, waiting for their webpage hobby to attract venture capital.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
The record-level disparity between rich and poor is precisely the reason that Greens and many others believe we need to take steps to build a healthy democracy in the US. Mr. Gore has done little to address this important issue in his official duties as Vice President or on the campaign trail.
But stuff like school vouchers won't change this. The rich will still send their kids to private schools, but with school vouchers they get a nifty rebate...which comes out of money that would otherwise have gone to public schools. So the public schools--which are already running on shoestring budgets in many communities, especially large cities--have even less money for day-to-day operations. This leads to two possible outcomes:
Since most groups who advocate school vouchers are also in favor of reducing taxes, (1) isn't an option...it defeats the purpose of vouchers anyway. So I can only come to the conclusion that these groups want (2)...the complete abolishment of public education.
This of course leads to the inability of poor children to get any education at all. Which leads to them being unable to get higher paying jobs, which prevents them from getting out of poverty, which prevents their children from getting an education...ad nauseum.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Hilarious and appropriate sig.
--
I hope gore wins so he can get blamed for the impending recession (minor depression if he gets any of his campaign economic items passed...)
'Perhaps always?' Wow! Let's see, how would you suggest one go about 'fixing' the geocentric viewpoint? Or the flat earth theory? Or the crusades? Or the witch hunts? Or prohibition? Or Mir? Are these not examples where it is better to abandon than to try to fix?
The fact that you think it might be possible for it to always be better to fix than to abandon seems to say something about your own education.
"How is a gutted science curriculum different from a gutted reading curriculum?"
How are these different from a gutted music program or a gutted arts program? While you are I may agree that science and reading are even more important than music and art, we should not assume that all parents feel that way, and we should not force them to make the sacrifices we choose for them, particularly if those sacrifices involve giving up something that may be even more important to them, like religion (whether it be the Christ on a stick flavor, the sacrificial goat flavor, or something else).
wow, talk about offbase.
/. boogeymen to win the argument.
This talk about farmers & businessmen makes no sense because the estate tax proposals have nothing to do with these warm, fuzzy characters. This is about landed wealth & big business, not Jed with 500 acres in Iowa or Sue with her corner store in Boise.
both of your claims here are completely false.
1) estate taxes hit farm owners the hardest. if you don't believe me, you can look through the comments for several cases of farm and small business owners who have been hurt or nearly hurt by inheritance taxes. the problem is, that the assets that one inherently has when one owns a farm are almost invariable worth more than the minimum at which the estate tax kicks in full force. the problem is, unlike with the very rich people, all of these assets are physical, and the only way to pay the taxes on them is to sell them in order to convert physical assets to liquid cash. the heirs of bill gates wouldn't have it nearly so bad, as most of what thy would inherit would be liquid assets or assets that could easily be made liquid. and i know something about this from experience too. my grandfather decided to sell his entire farm to my father and his brothers in order to keep it from being taxed when they inherited it from them. i don't know how effective that will actually be, as i imagine now the money they payed him will be taxed instead, but at least they won't have to sell of the farm.
2) big business???? excuse me, could you please explain to me how in the world the estate tax has anything at all to do with big business? businesses don't die, and no one inherits anything from them. now you're just calling up one of the
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Down payment only.
Of course -- don't argumentam ad absurdam me, boy
How are these different from a gutted music program or a gutted arts program?
They aren't, of course -- I just didn't want to delineate every facet of a well rounded education as you seem to. But you're right, they're all important -- the arts equally as much as the sciences (kids need Michealangelo & da Vinci & Mozart every bit as much as they need Galileo & Newton & Einstein). And the fact that they need all of these things is exactly why I think that we need to publicly step in & provide them.
<diversion>I know it's a confrontational idea, but people really do need to be taught about, for example, both science and religion, and I wouldn't favor excluding either. Science does an excellent job of explaining the "how" questions we face, including all the "how to" questions that enable a technological society. But science fails utterly on the "why" questions, and only religion and philosophy can fill that void. I'm a raging athiest, but I cannot escape that conclusion, and I can see where just about everyone, on either side of that divide, probably has to grapple with the same split. Only by providing a balanced education can we give a future generation to decide which it prefers -- science's useful but sometimes bitter truths, or (in my opinion) religions heart-warming, sweet lies. Either way, that will likely tick off the current generation of parents, but I think it's necessary, and I think a comprehensive public education system is a very necessary component of that.</diversion>
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
i read with interest your article on slashdot entitled "a minor political screed". i found it boisterously naive and uninformed, a typically american trait. endearing on the one hand, infuriating on the other. i find it mind-boggling that you dismiss the wealth of europe as being in-bred, while failing to account for the huge disparity between very rich and very poor that america's system has produced. you also gloss over the fact that, unlike europe, the US is the only first-world nation which does not have universal healthcare. i suppose you believe that the competitive drive applies also to human health: obviously the poor haven't tried hard enough to be "competitive" (in your words), and don't deserve a decent quality of life. how do you think your article would read to poor people? condescending, naive, and mind-bogglingly self-centered, i would guess. as to your financial analysis, when everyone in the US becomes a millionaire, what do you think will happen? goods and services will rise to the price that the market will bear. this is how inflation in a free market system works. so better start working on that billion, if you really want to be at the top of your so-called "diamond". disgusted, stephen
I grew up during the civil rights movement in a family of Quaker heritage where interracial marriage was considered the proper solution to ethnic conflict. I grew up with mass media telling me the same thing, I went to public schools and higher education where I was told the same thing and I've been working in multiethnic urban centers like Miami, San Diego and Silicon Valley since 1981, but I've yet to see a case where the words "racism" etc. were used in conjunction with critical thought as opposed to mere ad hominem critique.
Jim Bowery: Since I made no mention of Hispanics, and you are writing anonymously, there is a very good chance you are not Hispanic at all, but merely posing as one for rhetorical advantage.
Anonymous Coward: You have just confirmed for me that you really are a bigot. Do you think Hispanics are only concerned with matters directly involving Hispanics?
Hispanics are just as "bigoted" as other ethnic groups. If you don't believe me, visit the gang-lands of various urban centers sometime. But, of course, you knew that already. Furthermore, you knew I knew it, etc. Your denial is simply part of the pathological social contract imposed by the real organs of propaganda.
Anonymous Coward: If I wanted to propagandize I'd have claimed to be an English immigrant. That would have caused you considerable cognitive dissonance...
Not really, but even assuming it would cause me congitive dissonance, my point about rhetorical advantage was not concerning that which would cause me the most cognitive dissonance. What I actually had envisioned was someone who wanted to hide behind a Hispanic identity to cause any resulting negative backlash to fall on Hispanics rather than on whatever ethnic group they were actually servicing. This is a fairly common tactic in anonymous communications involving ethnic conflict.
Jim Bowery: I don't have a particular problem with Hispanics, but if you are Hispanic, you're correct to be concerned.
Anonymous Coward: I think you do have a problem with Hispanics;
I said I don't have a particular problem with Hispanics. As I said above: Hispanics are just as "bigoted" as other ethnic groups. To that I would add that the current population ascendency of Hispanics, while not shared by all other ethnic groups, is not unique to Hispanics in the US. I do have a problem with ethnic groups that did not create this nation coming here, flourishing and then labeling people like myself, all of whose known ancestors were here before the revolutionary war with smear words like "bigots" and "racists", and then claiming that all stages of immigration groups are essentially the same. Hispanics aren't the only ethnic group that is prone to this treacherous abuse of hospitality. Pointing to the abuses of native Americans by the founding British subjects as justifying abuse by later immigrant groups fails to accord proper respect the profoundly different situation that existed when the first settlers to the British colonies were suffering a 1 in 4 mortality rate in the first year of immigration. This is a far cry from the challenges facing immigrants showing up today to a country with a technological civilization and political system more advanced than the one from which they were fleeing.
you prove your bigotry in the following passage:
I prove only that Hispanics are just as guilty of nepotism and "bigotry" as any other ethnic group.
Jim Bowery: Next time, try addressing the arguments -- especially if they are based on documented and reference facts -- as presented rather than launching into ad hominem rhetoric.
Anonymous Coward: Don't be so condescending. All you did was launch an ad hominem attack on David Brin, who launched his own ad hominem attack on the presidential candidates.
You are the only person in this context who is actually relying on ad hominem attack.
David Brin admitted he was acting a bit "over the top" with his comments on "preppies" and I excused that behavior on his part by pointing to the probable historic causes. This is a far cry from attacking Brin on an ad hominem basis. I then went on to point out, via facts and figures with references, that the definition of "preppy" has changed so much that it is now Brin's own ethnic group, Jews, who are most properly thought of as "preppy" in the very university, Yale, that Brin was attacking by attacking Bush, from a Yale educated family line, as an archetypal "preppy". This points out a faulty premise in his thinking and possible hypocrisy. I don't know whether Brin actually identifies with Jews as an ethnic group or not. For all I know Brin may be like many WASPs; quite ready and willing to attack those of their own ethnic group they see as weilding undue privilege within a universalist society. Although I doubt Brin is so universally motivated from a number of his statements I've heard and read in the past, and may therefore be a hypocrite, that is not the main point which is, again, it is Jews, not WASPs who are the Yale "preppies" of today -- the ethnic group that is apparently holding down non-"White" enrolement at Yale while keeping their numbers in that institution at a disproportion so high it cannot be completely accounted for by other factors. If Brin wants to distance himself from the epithets to which he almost certainly would subject others, then he can consider this a challenge to be more forthcoming with his critiques of his own ethnicity or stand accused of being a hypocrite.
Further, if people want to get bent out of shape over the distribution of wealth and power in the US, they are best served by looking at which ethnic group has the most millionaires and which ethnic group has most influence on mass media -- neither of which are WASPs. Again, it is those new "preppies" who are holding down the non-"whites" at Yale while holding their own in those halls of ivy: Jews.
This is not simply the result of hard work, intelligence etc. as amply calculated Yggdrasil's document "Diversity's Losers II", which you should try reading instead of just maligning.
Anonymous Coward: I'm praying for you.
Your sanctimonious public posturing is of little interest to me except as evidence that you are spiritually as well as intellectually bankrupt.
Seastead this.
I hate tit for tat but I had to respond.
I work for a non-profit. The majority of them deal directly with people they are trying to help.
Bill Gates DOES have a foundation but I don't think he uses it for art; we get a lot of his money for funding programs that help disadvantaged people. There might be a few foundations out there whos goal is to help Reginald and Buffy's friends out but the majority are there to help The Little People (tm) who need a leg up or just some plain help.
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long