Estate Taxation and Social Responsibility

In order to keep my promise of not hijacking sets thread anymore, I thought I would pm you my response.

Cyclo:

Quote:

First, they are taxed more in order to prevent the creation of a 'noble' class based upon money. By breaking up the 'old money' stranglehold, our society is kept away from the stratification that led to problems in Europe.

First, there are many selfmade millionaires that has nothing to do with "old money." Of course even if all the millionaries were of old money, you would have to assume that none of that money ever did any social good if we were to believe the premise that old money has a strangle hold on our society. I don't think this is the case. Many affluent people contribute heavily, not only in tax dollars, but also in charitable contributions. I think you are equating rich with greedy/bad and that is just not the case. Sure some people hold onto every red penny until their death but there are people like that in all aspects of life and have nothing to do with the amount of income they earn.

Furthermore, estates like this are often (not always but sometimes) go from one person or couple to multiple children. That may not be the distribution of wealth you had in mind but it is certainly within their right to do so and is in effect distributing wealth.

Many Progressive Era (1900-1918) reforms resulted from this period, such as: child labor laws, voting rights for women, and the establishment of an income tax, which required the extraordinary step of amending the constitution. The estate tax was another one of these reforms. Those who made the case for the estate tax advanced arguments that are vital to the contemporary debate.

First, there was the belief that the hereditary transfer of concentrated wealth is incompatible with American values and democratic aspirations. Several decades after the passage of the tax, Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security … Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government."

A second belief was that society played a significant role in the creation of individual wealth and therefore had some claim upon the wealth of the very rich. In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed a federal inheritance tax, saying, "The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government." Roosevelt recognized that wealthy citizens benefitted particularly from government protection of wealth and property rights.

Cyclo:

Quote:

Second, estates this large have far surpassed any reasonable question of standards of living. The inheritors are no worse off if they inherit 5 million instead of ten million; they are still disproportionally wealthy compared to everyone else on the planet, by a long shot.

So what? Are you going to start setting "reasonable" standards of living that peope have to abide by?

What is the government going to do with ithe money that is any more effective than what the heirs would do with it? Spend more on a war that you don't support? Build a bridge in Alaska that serve no more than a couple of hundred people? Perhaps another obscure museum to some dead actor that noone cares about anymore? You might persuade me to agree with you if our government actually made life for the majority of people better. However, I bet our government wastes more money each day than all the inheritance taxes they could collect in a year with a 50% estate tax.

Quote:

Third, because without a society of hard-working individuals the deceased would never have been able to amass so much wealth.

So?

Quote:

They owe that money to the society which allowed them to reach the point they reached.

Pure BS. They paid them a wage, perhaps benefits, perhaps a pension, profit sharing, job/income stability with none of the risk investors take every day. They have been paid in full (unless the estate was made illegally on the backs of these people).

I believe that we need some re-distribution of wealth in our society in order for America to continue on safely.

Now for a couple of declarative statements for you to chew on:

I believe that the Rich have greater responsibilities to society than the poor do, for they and their families benefit more from society and government than the poor do.

I believe that the rich enjoy no special inherent advantage in our governmental system, but have manipulated and bribed their way into advantage, weaking our system as a whole.

I believe that the Rich class has fought as hard as it could to not only stay on top, but to become even richer in comparison, no matter the cost to society at large, because for the most part they don't care about society at large.

I believe that the Estate Tax is a fair method of redistributing wealth to the society which provided the wealth in the first place. I believe that 99% of those affected by it are no worse off than they were before they were taxed.

I believe that we need some re-distribution of wealth in our society in order for America to continue on safely.

Quote:

Now for a couple of declarative statements for you to chew on:

I believe that the Rich have greater responsibilities to society than the poor do, for they and their families benefit more from society and government than the poor do.

I believe that the rich enjoy no special inherent advantage in our governmental system, but have manipulated and bribed their way into advantage, weaking our system as a whole.

So which is it here? If one accepts that "...the Rich have greater responsibilities to society than the poor do, for they and their families benefit more from society and government than the poor do. " is true then "I believe that the rich enjoy no special inherent advantage in our governmental system..." can't be true.

You can't have it both ways. Either they have an advantage that allows them to benefit or they don't have an advantage. Earlier in your post you stated "In essence, the rich man benefits far more from our system than the poor man. It doesn't matter if he made the money himself, or not; our system of taxation, property, investment, law, and government are all highly preferrential to the rich." So which is it here? You seem to be confused about what you believe.

Quote:

I believe that the Rich class has fought as hard as it could to not only stay on top, but to become even richer in comparison, no matter the cost to society at large, because for the most part they don't care about society at large.

Of course, you have absolutely no basis for this claim. It may be what you believe but that demonstrates your own misguided thinking more than anything else. The rich, by and large, got there by playing within the rules society set for them and they were successful at it. How is it "fair" (see below) that they should be penalized for playing within the rules and their money should be redistruibuted to people who either didn't play by the rules or weren't successful?

And who exactly is this "rich class"? According to census data, 90% of those who fall within the top 5% of wealth holders at the time of any one census aren't in that same 5% 20 years later. The fact of the matter is that wealth moves. There are very few that manage to hold onto it for very long.

Quote:

I believe that the Estate Tax is a fair method of redistributing wealth to the society which provided the wealth in the first place. I believe that 99% of those affected by it are no worse off than they were before they were taxed.

Fair? What happened to equeal treatment under the law? When do I get to decide what is "fair"? Who are you to decide when someone is better off or not? This sounds more like jealousy on your part than anything else. I suspect if someone showed up at your door and took your assets with the excuse that someone else didn't have them you'd be screaming about how that isn't "fair" either.

Quote:

I believe that we need some re-distribution of wealth in our society in order for America to continue on safely.

I believe this is a load of poop.

And who exactly is this "rich class"? According to census data, 90% of those who fall within the top 5% of wealth holders at the time of any one census aren't in that same 5% 20 years later. The fact of the matter is that wealth moves. There are very few that manage to hold onto it for very long.

Not at all. Read carefully. The rich don't have an inherent advantage in our system. In no governmental documents relating to the founding of our nation will you find rules stating that the Rich constitute a seperate class.

But they have achieved an advantage through many years of bribery and manipulation of the system to their advantage.

There is no contradiction in my statements. Though our political system did not inherently prefer the rich, it now does so, in no small part to the ceaseless work of the rich to make this so.

Got a link to that census data?

I think you drastically underestimate the influence the rich have had on creating the 'rules society set for them.' They certainly have created numerous ways to not only maximize fortunes, but to do it at the expense of the American taxpayer and society at large through manipulation of legal and tax codes. Just look at Cheney - he pocketed an extra cool million on his tax return by using loopholes related to Katrina donations. A sterling example of manipulating the system.

Every time I get into a conversation about wealth redistribution, the 'jealousy' card always comes up. It's funny to me. What makes you think that rich people are any happier than anyone else, eh? You don't need stuff to be happy.

The Estate tax, and wealth redistribution, aren't about stuff or extra money for me or jealousy. It is about recognizing that we all have a duty to support the society which supports us; and we should give back according to what we get. Our country will not survive if we don't support the country, and the idea that people don't owe anything to society is purely ridiculous.

Uh huh... It's not about extra money for you? It's just about someone else having more money. Just, ya know, so those poor people can not be happy and all...

I agree though, that each of us owes something to society. I disagree that it's up to society to decide what I or anyone else owes above and beyond the same equitable standard taxes that everyone else pays. What someone should pay beyond that is, IMO, their own decision to make.

Fortunately for society, it doesn't matter whether you agree that society has the right to decide what you owe in taxes or not. Your opinion is immaterial to our governement's ability to tax you.

This has been amply proven many times in the past, much to the disgust of those who espouse the viewpoint that a multi-millionare paying 15% taxes is equal to a middle-class family paying 15% taxes.

Unfortunately for you, I have just as much say in the matter as anyone else does.

Yes, of course.. Because paying the same percentage of their income in taxes would be FAIR wouldn't it? Oh wait... "Fair" was supposedly what you wanted earlier in this thread. But once again YOU want to be the person that decides what is fair and what isn't. Only the rich have responsibilities in your world. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.