Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: Culture wars out of the closet

  1. #21
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,009
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    So, what do you propose that he and his wife should have done with the money from the house she inherited? Buy some hair shirts or something?
    I think he should do whatever he wants with his family money, but I also think he should allow the same courtesy to others. A more authentic person might be expected to practice what he preaches, or perhaps not to preach at all.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  2. #22
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,226
    And I think that just has we have a progressive income tax, so too should there be a progressive inheritance tax. Or at an absolute minimum that there shouldn't be a "get out of capital gains tax free" benefit for assets at the time of death. There's no reason in the world, other than rich people avoiding tax, that the cost basis for assets should be reset at the time of a person's death.

  3. #23
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,009
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    And I think that just has we have a progressive income tax, so too should there be a progressive inheritance tax. Or at an absolute minimum that there shouldn't be a "get out of capital gains tax free" benefit for assets at the time of death. There's no reason in the world, other than rich people avoiding tax, that the cost basis for assets should be reset at the time of a person's death.
    I don't understand why the government feels entitled to another person's wealth. Have you ever wondered how many times, in the course of one year, is every single dollar in circulation taxed? I once read somewhere that every dollar in circulation returned approximately 84 cents in taxes during the course of a year. Of course, that's cash not hard assets, but shouldn't 84% of all money in circulation be enough without also claiming a portion of whatever wealth a person accumulates for their descendants?

    If the government wanted more money, shouldn't they be doing everything possible to grow the economy, thereby putting more money into circulation, rather than confiscating hard assets.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,284
    A $575K house doesn't mean much these days. Around here, the simplest cottage imaginable goes for that or more. Bernie seems to me to have been the farthest thing from a greedy oligarch all his life; he's been walking the talk for decades.
    it's like a crack house in the ghetto around here. Either the neighborhood is terrible, it needs massive repairs and is half termite eaten or has a cracked foundation, etc.. I mean true he has multiple houses but "the house costs $575k!" is just like: giant eye roll.
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  5. #25
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I don't understand why the government feels entitled to another person's wealth. Have you ever wondered how many times, in the course of one year, is every single dollar in circulation taxed? I once read somewhere that every dollar in circulation returned approximately 84 cents in taxes during the course of a year. Of course, that's cash not hard assets, but shouldn't 84% of all money in circulation be enough without also claiming a portion of whatever wealth a person accumulates for their descendants?

    If the government wanted more money, shouldn't they be doing everything possible to grow the economy, thereby putting more money into circulation, rather than confiscating hard assets.
    And I don't understand why my dad was able to purchase stocks decades ago, hold them until his death and then I could inherit them and reset the cost basis to their value at the day of his death. These stocks sitting in my dad's brokerage account and now my etrade account for a combined total of more than 30 years are doing nothing to grow the economy.

    And Kansas has pretty much put to death the concept that ultra low taxes are the salvation of the economy or government finances. The republican legislature there admitted as much when they recently overrode Brownback's veto on their tax increase. Looking at GDP growth by state it appears that taxes don't necessarily play that big of a role in what the economy does. After all, I may be incorrect on this, but I assume Texas's taxes are significantly lower than California, yet both are in the top 5 in GDP growth from 2015 to 2016. It actually appears that the state's GDP is much more dependent on what types of industry are dominant as to whether the economy is growing.

    http://muninetguide.com/2016-state-gdp-growth/

  6. #26
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,009
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    And I don't understand why my dad was able to purchase stocks decades ago, hold them until his death and then I could inherit them and reset the cost basis to their value at the day of his death. These stocks sitting in my dad's brokerage account and now my etrade account for a combined total of more than 30 years are doing nothing to grow the economy.

    And Kansas has pretty much put to death the concept that ultra low taxes are the salvation of the economy or government finances. The republican legislature there admitted as much when they recently overrode Brownback's veto on their tax increase. Looking at GDP growth by state it appears that taxes don't necessarily play that big of a role in what the economy does. After all, I may be incorrect on this, but I assume Texas's taxes are significantly lower than California, yet both are in the top 5 in GDP growth from 2015 to 2016. It actually appears that the state's GDP is much more dependent on what types of industry are dominant as to whether the economy is growing.

    http://muninetguide.com/2016-state-gdp-growth/
    So, the only real impact of the estate taxes you mentioned earlier would be to ensure that someone doesn't get their full due if everyone (through government confiscation) can't have a slice?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I think he should do whatever he wants with his family money, but I also think he should allow the same courtesy to others. A more authentic person might be expected to practice what he preaches, or perhaps not to preach at all.
    For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a man with three houses to credibly lecture others about their excessive possessions.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,572
    Quote Originally Posted by razz View Post
    Just a simple question. Do you as an individual or country decide to respond to those in desperate need due to war, persecution and risk of annihilation or turn away and deny support based on your and their race, religion etc?
    Is our moral obligation, if any, discharged by accepting refugees? Do we have a similar obligation to intervene in the places that are persecuting these people, thereby saving everyone rather than a few? If that's the case, is it immoral to maintain an inadequate military capability?

  9. #29
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    So, the only real impact of the estate taxes you mentioned earlier would be to ensure that someone doesn't get their full due if everyone (through government confiscation) can't have a slice?
    So it's my full due that I should get a tax free gift when my father dies? I guess I consider it reasonable for people, including myself, to pay taxes for all of the benefits that we get from living in this country. But then I've never thought that my success was entirely self-made. A sizable chunk of it comes from simply being fortunate enough to be born in this country as opposed to, say, Zimbabwe. Others may feel differently I suppose, and they can advocate for shutting down and disbanding the federal government so that they can keep "their full due".

  10. #30
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,009
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    So it's my full due that I should get a tax free gift when my father dies? I guess I consider it reasonable for people, including myself, to pay taxes for all of the benefits that we get from living in this country. But then I've never thought that my success was entirely self-made. A sizable chunk of it comes from simply being fortunate enough to be born in this country as opposed to, say, Zimbabwe. Others may feel differently I suppose, and they can advocate for shutting down and disbanding the federal government so that they can keep "their full due".
    On a more personal level, let's say that as a teenager (perhaps 18 or 19 years of age), your parents bought you a car. Should you pay income tax on that?
    Or, let's say that they paid your way through four years of college at a cost of approximately $100,000. How much of that benefit do you then owe the government in the form of taxes?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •