Any wasteful spending in the DoD?

[davdesid]

Nov 6, 2010 16:41:12 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Nov 6, 2010 16:04:50 GMT -8 davdesid said:

I think it is wonderful that she could direct her assets to a cause she believed in, instead of having any of it go to a bunch of filthy politicians who would turn it into earmarks designed to buy votes for their re-election campaigns.

Sorry to hear about your loss.

Glad to hear that she gave it to a good cause.

Most don't.

It oughtta go to the military.

Well, I don't think the military needs that kind of pocket change. they won't miss the one or two Tomahawk missiles it could buy.

At least it won't be going to ACORN or the CTA.

[waztec]

Nov 7, 2010 14:25:41 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Nov 7, 2010 9:41:28 GMT -8 waztec said:

"We would have to really change things among Federal workers. . ."

I was a federal worker in DOD as you well know. So why don't you tell me just how should I have changed things, sailor fella?

Hard for me to say. I have no idea what level you were at and what control you had over spending. I think you said that you worked in the NEX organization, but don't remember the level.

I had to make a profit. I made a profit-everywhere I went. I controlled the expenses. I controlled the buying. I controlled the labor. I did that without advertising, credit cards and the ability to sell many kinds of goods.

I had two advantages. 1. I did not have to pay for land (we did pay for our buildings though). 2. Our employees made from 20-50% less than our contractors, who often provided the same services concurrently with ours.

I made about forty percent what a person of my responsibility did in the major companies also providing the service. I was lazy though, I only worked 50-60 hours a week. (while attending night school)

I competed successfully with some pretty big operations. Not one of the private sector managers I worked with thought I was any different in skill or industry from them. Occasionally, I would be offered a job in private industry. That happened in San Francisco a couple of times. I liked the security of government work, although I escaped RIF five times in twenty years.

In those twenty years I cost the taxpayers of the U.S. not one single dime. As a matter of fact, we contributed large sums to the welfare and rec funds.

So if you think people, like I was, need to change their ways, then or now, I would have to respectfully disagree.

I never liked it when some hydro cephalic moron would say that government workers got paid too much, were lazy, were incapable of competing, or needed to change their ways. Those comments would always generate an in your face response from me. The people I worked with were dedicated, well educated, creative and competitive.

You get real good value from Federal employees. But all that is not your issue. You do not want to pay taxes.

[aztecwin]

Nov 7, 2010 15:32:02 GMT -8 waztec said:

Nov 7, 2010 14:25:41 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Hard for me to say. I have no idea what level you were at and what control you had over spending. I think you said that you worked in the NEX organization, but don't remember the level.

I had to make a profit. I made a profit-everywhere I went. I controlled the expenses. I controlled the buying. I controlled the labor. I did that without advertising, credit cards and the ability to sell many kinds of goods.

I had two advantages. 1. I did not have to pay for land (we did pay for our buildings though). 2. Our employees made from 20-50% less than our contractors, who often provided the same services concurrently with ours.

I made about forty percent what a person of my responsibility did in the major companies also providing the service. I was lazy though, I only worked 50-60 hours a week. (while attending night school)

I competed successfully with some pretty big operations. Not one of the private sector managers I worked with thought I was any different in skill or industry from them. Occasionally, I would be offered a job in private industry. That happened in San Francisco a couple of times. I liked the security of government work, although I escaped RIF five times in twenty years.

In those twenty years I cost the taxpayers of the U.S. not one single dime. As a matter of fact, we contributed large sums to the welfare and rec funds.

So if you think people, like I was, need to change their ways, then or now, I would have to respectfully disagree.

I never liked it when some hydro cephalic moron would say that government workers got paid too much, were lazy, were incapable of competing, or needed to change their ways. Those comments would always generate an in your face response from me. The people I worked with were dedicated, well educated, creative and competitive.

You get real good value from Federal employees. But all that is not your issue. You do not want to pay taxes.

I agree with all. I have trouble sometimes in thinking about non-apprropriated funded activities and how they fit in. All in all, my question lack of a sense of responibility above may not be in the best taste. Your cutting costs benefits MWR while mine should benefit taxpayers directly. I say should, because Congress gets to stick its finger in the pie.

[waztec]

Nov 7, 2010 16:35:47 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Nov 7, 2010 15:32:02 GMT -8 waztec said:

I had to make a profit. I made a profit-everywhere I went. I controlled the expenses. I controlled the buying. I controlled the labor. I did that without advertising, credit cards and the ability to sell many kinds of goods.

I had two advantages. 1. I did not have to pay for land (we did pay for our buildings though). 2. Our employees made from 20-50% less than our contractors, who often provided the same services concurrently with ours.

I made about forty percent what a person of my responsibility did in the major companies also providing the service. I was lazy though, I only worked 50-60 hours a week. (while attending night school)

I competed successfully with some pretty big operations. Not one of the private sector managers I worked with thought I was any different in skill or industry from them. Occasionally, I would be offered a job in private industry. That happened in San Francisco a couple of times. I liked the security of government work, although I escaped RIF five times in twenty years.

In those twenty years I cost the taxpayers of the U.S. not one single dime. As a matter of fact, we contributed large sums to the welfare and rec funds.

So if you think people, like I was, need to change their ways, then or now, I would have to respectfully disagree.

I never liked it when some hydro cephalic moron would say that government workers got paid too much, were lazy, were incapable of competing, or needed to change their ways. Those comments would always generate an in your face response from me. The people I worked with were dedicated, well educated, creative and competitive.

You get real good value from Federal employees. But all that is not your issue. You do not want to pay taxes.

I agree with all. I have trouble sometimes in thinking about non-apprropriated funded activities and how they fit in. All in all, my question lack of a sense of responibility above may not be in the best taste. Your cutting costs benefits MWR while mine should benefit taxpayers directly. I say should, because Congress gets to stick its finger in the pie.

I know that you get it. I sometimes get irritated by people who think Federal employees are not as good as they are.

[aztec70]

Nov 7, 2010 14:41:10 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Nov 7, 2010 12:45:04 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

None of your Aunt's estatewould have gone for estate tax in any year. There is an unlimited exemption estate tax for gifts to charity.

It is wonderful that she can direct her estate to a cause she bleieved in. It has always been that way.

Your post is pointless.

No, it isn't pointless.

Exemption or not; none of it will be going to the greedy politicians to use to buy votes for themselves.

That's the point, and I'm mighty gleeful about it.

Let's see, your first sentence was that you Aunt died in 2010 so she had no estate tax to pay. Great timing, you say. Timing had nothing to do with it. If she gave it all to charity she NEVER HAS TO PAY ESTATE TAX.

If your point is that she is paying no estate tax because she left it all to charity, just say so. Timing of her death has nothing to do with it.

[aztecwin]

Nov 7, 2010 21:12:32 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Nov 7, 2010 14:41:10 GMT -8 davdesid said:

No, it isn't pointless.

Exemption or not; none of it will be going to the greedy politicians to use to buy votes for themselves.

That's the point, and I'm mighty gleeful about it.

Let's see, your first sentence was that you Aunt died in 2010 so she had no estate tax to pay. Great timing, you say. Timing had nothing to do with it. If she gave it all to charity she NEVER HAS TO PAY ESTATE TAX.

If your point is that she is paying no estate tax because she left it all to charity, just say so. Timing of her death has nothing to do with it.

You are like a dog worrying a bone. He knows that. The discussion should be around the idea that there should never ever be any estate tax under any conditions. This year, as you know, you can die and that is the case.

[davdesid]

Nov 8, 2010 11:05:34 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Nov 7, 2010 21:12:32 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Let's see, your first sentence was that you Aunt died in 2010 so she had no estate tax to pay. Great timing, you say. Timing had nothing to do with it. If she gave it all to charity she NEVER HAS TO PAY ESTATE TAX.

If your point is that she is paying no estate tax because she left it all to charity, just say so. Timing of her death has nothing to do with it.

You are like a dog worrying a bone. He knows that. The discussion should be around the idea that there should never ever be any estate tax under any conditions. This year, as you know, you can die and that is the case.

Yes, he's worrying the bone, and I KNEW when I was typing that post that he would growl and snap at it. He's an E.A. doncha know?

The point is that auntie could have given it all to her garbageman, and the scumbags in Congress wouldn't have a penny of it to use to buy votes by giving it to ACORN, the SEIU, or some construction of some goddam building in West Virginia named after the KKK Cyclops, or for building a bridge to nowhere.

Better the garbageman than Congress.

As it is, she did good.

[aztec70]

Nov 8, 2010 11:05:34 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Nov 7, 2010 21:12:32 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Let's see, your first sentence was that you Aunt died in 2010 so she had no estate tax to pay. Great timing, you say. Timing had nothing to do with it. If she gave it all to charity she NEVER HAS TO PAY ESTATE TAX.

If your point is that she is paying no estate tax because she left it all to charity, just say so. Timing of her death has nothing to do with it.

You are like a dog worrying a bone. He knows that. The discussion should be around the idea that there should never ever be any estate tax under any conditions. This year, as you know, you can die and that is the case.

Of course there should be an estate tax.

[aztecwin]

Nov 8, 2010 22:43:10 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Nov 8, 2010 11:05:34 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

You are like a dog worrying a bone. He knows that. The discussion should be around the idea that there should never ever be any estate tax under any conditions. This year, as you know, you can die and that is the case.

Of course there should be an estate tax.

One half of one percent over 50 million would be OK.

[aztecron]

Nov 8, 2010 22:43:10 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Nov 8, 2010 11:05:34 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

You are like a dog worrying a bone. He knows that. The discussion should be around the idea that there should never ever be any estate tax under any conditions. This year, as you know, you can die and that is the case.

Of course there should be an estate tax.

I enjoy reading this part of the board and the back and forth between the regular participants, left and right. I do get enlightened every now and then.

I'd like to get enlightened now if possible. Why should there be an estate tax? I'd really never payed close attention to this particular matter until this thread came about.

It looks like a lose, lose scenario to me. My hard work is taxed once again even after I've paid taxes on all components of the estate while alive, and my heirs lose part of my hard work and profit to yet again another tax on it after I die.

So, I ask why do we need an estate tax?

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, and am not looking to get between the participants in this thread. It's the fact both sides have brought up some points I'm not sure I get, or that I may in fact get, but don't think is fair.

[aztecwin]

Nov 9, 2010 11:28:45 GMT -8 aztecron said:

Nov 8, 2010 22:43:10 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Of course there should be an estate tax.

I enjoy reading this part of the board and the back and forth between the regular participants, left and right. I do get enlightened every now and then.

I'd like to get enlightened now if possible. Why should there be an estate tax? I'd really never payed close attention to this particular matter until this thread came about.

It looks like a lose, lose scenario to me. My hard work is taxed once again even after I've paid taxes on all components of the estate while alive, and my heirs lose part of my hard work and profit to yet again another tax on it after I die.

So, I ask why do we need an estate tax?

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, and am not looking to get between the participants in this thread. It's the fact both sides have brought up some points I'm not sure I get, or that I may in fact get, but don't think is fair.

From what you said, you get it!

[waztec]

Nov 9, 2010 11:28:45 GMT -8 aztecron said:

Nov 8, 2010 22:43:10 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Of course there should be an estate tax.

I enjoy reading this part of the board and the back and forth between the regular participants, left and right. I do get enlightened every now and then.

I'd like to get enlightened now if possible. Why should there be an estate tax? I'd really never payed close attention to this particular matter until this thread came about.

It looks like a lose, lose scenario to me. My hard work is taxed once again even after I've paid taxes on all components of the estate while alive, and my heirs lose part of my hard work and profit to yet again another tax on it after I die.

So, I ask why do we need an estate tax?

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, and am not looking to get between the participants in this thread. It's the fact both sides have brought up some points I'm not sure I get, or that I may in fact get, but don't think is fair.

Conservatives would say, and not completely without justification, that assets earned over a lifetime of work should be disposed of at death as the owner sees fit. They would call that freedom. I think that they would also say that the removal of the Estate Tax would stimulate the economy with funds that were heretofore not added to commerce. That addition, they would say, creates jobs.

Conservatives would see the infusion of funds as stimulating and beneficial to the economy. Conversely, they see the Estate Tax as a disaster for small businesses, who they say are broken up and sold as a result of the tax, thereby destroying jobs.

Conservatives do not want the government taking their money.

I would also say that conservatives would see passing their assets in total to their heirs would serve as a powerful incentive to the rest of us to work hard and save.

Some of their arguments make good sense. But great concentrations of wealth tend to become more concentrated and that has the effect of also concentrating power. One need only see the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to know the pernicious effects caused the infusion of great unregulated sums into the political process. This infusion had the affect of creating an insurmountable political advantage to astonishingly well off people and corporations. Since anyone who meets the tests to pay this tax, and there are few of them, are solvent to a degree most of us can only dream about.

I would say that our system benefits these people to an astonishingly greater degree than any poor person who receives, what conservatives would call, a Federal hand out. Making these people pay for that advantage is fair. Making these people pay allows the government to even the enormous inequity which, if left to become too extreme causes political and economic instability. And that inequity will create the conditions historically found in unstable countries like Argentina. And as a matter of fairness, why shouldn't they pay? There is no evidence that the accumulation of great wealth over generations causes any measurable stimulative effect on the economy (see Bush Tax cuts). Our most productive era occurred, ironically, when taxes were relatively high and taxes have not been shown to have a damping affect on our economic growth.

The argument that small businesses are decimated by this law does not hold under scrutiny. Very few,if any, family owned businesses are affected and those who are have extraordinary assets and should be taxed anyway. And since they have access to competent financial legal and financial advice, they can escape much of the responsibility anyway.

In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us.

Another reason I favor the Estate Tax is that income derived from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages, which means that in tax law, the holders of large assets have a tremendous advantage the rest of us can never take advantage of in any material way. They should be made to pay back that advantage.

[The Aztec Panther]

Nov 13, 2010 8:41:48 GMT -8 waztec said:

[Conservatives would say, and not completely without justification, that assets earned over a lifetime of work should be disposed of at death as the owner sees fit. They would call that freedom. I think that they would also say that the removal of the Estate Tax would stimulate the economy with funds that were heretofore not added to commerce. That addition, they would say, creates jobs.

Conservatives would see the infusion of funds as stimulating and beneficial to the economy. Conversely, they see the Estate Tax as a disaster for small businesses, who they say are broken up and sold as a result of the tax, thereby destroying jobs.

Conservatives do not want the government taking their money.

I would also say that conservatives would see passing their assets in total to their heirs would serve as a powerful incentive to the rest of us to work hard and save.

Some of their arguments makes sense. But great concentrations of wealth tend to become more concentrated and that has the effect of also concentrating power. Since anyone who meets the tests to pay this tax, and there are few of them, are solvent to a degree most of us can only dream about.

Maybe, but that money was earned in the first place, and the person earning it has the right to pass it along to their children. Taking that money away is stealing, nothing more, nothing less. It was already taxed multiple times on multiple levels.

I would say that our system benefits these people to an astonishingly greater degree than any poor person who receives, what conservatives would call, a Federal hand out. Making these people pay for that advantage is fair. Making these people pay allows the government to even the enormous inequity which, if left to become too extreme causes political and economic instability. And that inequity will create the conditions historically found in unstable countries like Argentina. And as a matter of fairness, why shouldn't they pay? There is no evidence that the accumulation of great wealth over generations causes any measurable stimulative effect on the economy (see Bush Tax cuts). Our most productive era occurred, ironically, when taxes were relatively high and taxes have not been shown to have a damping affect on our economic growth.

That money is often used to invest in companies, which creates growth. Growth leads to more jobs - and the money is spent much more efficiently than it would if it were dropped into that black hole known as government.

Government spends money inefficiently. A huge percentage is lost in middle management bureaucracy (salaries). Businesses have a much more efficient model for how they run things. Businesses are generally much more streamlined than government. That wasted money is lost forever (only a small portion is recaptured in taxes on the government employees).

The argument that small businesses are decimated by this law does not hold under scrutiny. Very few,if any, family owned businesses are affected and those who are have extraordinary assets and should be taxed anyway. And since they have access to competent financial legal and financial advice, they can escape much of the responsibility anyway.

So those who are decimated (a company with greater un-liquid assets than income, for example) and have to be sold off or broken up don't count? Too bad, so sad??

In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us.

In other words, it's ok to steal money from them that was already taxed. It's ok to disregard the wishes of parents who just want to provide a better life for their children. It's the parents' money - they should get to decide where it goes, not a draconian government.

Another reason I favor the Estate Tax is that income derived from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages, which means that in tax law, the holders of large assets have a tremendous advantage the rest of us can never take advantage of in any material way. They should be made to pay back that advantage.

The fact that the money that is invested in the first place was ALREADY taxed on multiple levels means nothing, right? Just tax and tax again!! It's never enough, right?

Come on. There needs to be a limit to government greed. That money does NOT belong to the government (or The People/The Proletariat). It belongs to those who earned it (or inherited it from those who earned it and were taxed on it) - and if they want to leave it to their children they should be free to do so.

[aztecwin]

Nov 13, 2010 8:41:48 GMT -8 waztec said:

Nov 9, 2010 11:28:45 GMT -8 aztecron said:

I enjoy reading this part of the board and the back and forth between the regular participants, left and right. I do get enlightened every now and then.

I'd like to get enlightened now if possible. Why should there be an estate tax? I'd really never payed close attention to this particular matter until this thread came about.

It looks like a lose, lose scenario to me. My hard work is taxed once again even after I've paid taxes on all components of the estate while alive, and my heirs lose part of my hard work and profit to yet again another tax on it after I die.

So, I ask why do we need an estate tax?

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, and am not looking to get between the participants in this thread. It's the fact both sides have brought up some points I'm not sure I get, or that I may in fact get, but don't think is fair.

Conservatives would say, and not completely without justification, that assets earned over a lifetime of work should be disposed of at death as the owner sees fit. They would call that freedom. I think that they would also say that the removal of the Estate Tax would stimulate the economy with funds that were heretofore not added to commerce. That addition, they would say, creates jobs.

Conservatives would see the infusion of funds as stimulating and beneficial to the economy. Conversely, they see the Estate Tax as a disaster for small businesses, who they say are broken up and sold as a result of the tax, thereby destroying jobs.

Conservatives do not want the government taking their money.

I would also say that conservatives would see passing their assets in total to their heirs would serve as a powerful incentive to the rest of us to work hard and save.

Some of their arguments makes sense. But great concentrations of wealth tend to become more concentrated and that has the effect of also concentrating power. One need only see the effects of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to know the pernicious effects caused the infusion of great unregulated sums into the political process, by a few astonishingly well off people and corporations. Since anyone who meets the tests to pay this tax, and there are few of them, are solvent to a degree most of us can only dream about.

I would say that our system benefits these people to an astonishingly greater degree than any poor person who receives, what conservatives would call, a Federal hand out. Making these people pay for that advantage is fair. Making these people pay allows the government to even the enormous inequity which, if left to become too extreme causes political and economic instability. And that inequity will create the conditions historically found in unstable countries like Argentina. And as a matter of fairness, why shouldn't they pay? There is no evidence that the accumulation of great wealth over generations causes any measurable stimulative effect on the economy (see Bush Tax cuts). Our most productive era occurred, ironically, when taxes were relatively high and taxes have not been shown to have a damping affect on our economic growth.

The argument that small businesses are decimated by this law does not hold under scrutiny. Very few,if any, family owned businesses are affected and those who are have extraordinary assets and should be taxed anyway. And since they have access to competent financial legal and financial advice, they can escape much of the responsibility anyway.

In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us.

Another reason I favor the Estate Tax is that income derived from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages, which means that in tax law, the holders of large assets have a tremendous advantage the rest of us can never take advantage of in any material way. They should be made to pay back that advantage.

Pretty good and fair assessment. I would emphasize the idea that family farms are destroyed and small business ruined when they have to be liquidated to pay the taxes should be given very heavy consideration.

There is some truth to the idea that inherited wealth creates a class of people without much of a sense of reality and what it takes to earn your own way. The sad destruction of hard earned wealth through redistribution through inefficient bureaucracy of government should also be considered.

Since wealth is never idle no matter whose hands it is in other than government, I favor no estate tax. Money owned by some idle rich person is still in stocks, bonds, savings accounts and the like. All of those things are part of the capital formation that creates jobs. Government waste and destruction of that wealth destroys the ability to have that money stay at work for all of America. We need a stable non-punitive tax policy in place to insure that we are not timid in our investment policy both as individuals and as businesses.

[waztec]

Nov 13, 2010 9:03:22 GMT -8 The Aztec Panther said:

Nov 13, 2010 8:41:48 GMT -8 waztec said:

[Conservatives would say, and not completely without justification, that assets earned over a lifetime of work should be disposed of at death as the owner sees fit. They would call that freedom. I think that they would also say that the removal of the Estate Tax would stimulate the economy with funds that were heretofore not added to commerce. That addition, they would say, creates jobs.

Conservatives would see the infusion of funds as stimulating and beneficial to the economy. Conversely, they see the Estate Tax as a disaster for small businesses, who they say are broken up and sold as a result of the tax, thereby destroying jobs.

Conservatives do not want the government taking their money.

I would also say that conservatives would see passing their assets in total to their heirs would serve as a powerful incentive to the rest of us to work hard and save.

Some of their arguments makes sense. But great concentrations of wealth tend to become more concentrated and that has the effect of also concentrating power. Since anyone who meets the tests to pay this tax, and there are few of them, are solvent to a degree most of us can only dream about.

Maybe, but that money was earned in the first place, and the person earning it has the right to pass it along to their children. Taking that money away is stealing, nothing more, nothing less. It was already taxed multiple times on multiple levels.


That money is often used to invest in companies, which creates growth. Growth leads to more jobs - and the money is spent much more efficiently than it would if it were dropped into that black hole known as government.

Government spends money inefficiently. A huge percentage is lost in middle management bureaucracy (salaries). Businesses have a much more efficient model for how they run things. Businesses are generally much more streamlined than government. That wasted money is lost forever (only a small portion is recaptured in taxes on the government employees).


So those who are decimated (a company with greater un-liquid assets than income, for example) and have to be sold off or broken up don't count? Too bad, so sad??


In other words, it's ok to steal money from them that was already taxed. It's ok to disregard the wishes of parents who just want to provide a better life for their children. It's the parents' money - they should get to decide where it goes, not a draconian government.

Another reason I favor the Estate Tax is that income derived from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages, which means that in tax law, the holders of large assets have a tremendous advantage the rest of us can never take advantage of in any material way. They should be made to pay back that advantage.

The fact that the money that is invested in the first place was ALREADY taxed on multiple levels means nothing, right? Just tax and tax again!! It's never enough, right?

Come on. There needs to be a limit to government greed. That money does NOT belong to the government (or The People/The Proletariat). It belongs to those who earned it (or inherited it from those who earned it and were taxed on it) - and if they want to leave it to their children they should be free to do so.

No matter what you say, the well off have a tremendous advantage. I disagree with your assessment that anything is stolen from anyone or that the rich are subject to any unfair disadvantage. If that were true the rich would no longer be rich, right? Despite your loud protestation, the divergence between the assets of the rich and the rest of us continues apace. As Warren Buffet said "the rich are winning". How do you parse that fact?

I tried to be fair to your side of the issue, and I acknowledged the truth in some of your arguments, but I just made you angry. All I did was offer my opinion.

Astonishing. Simply astonishing.

[The Aztec Panther]

Stealing is stealing.

Whose money is it? Does it not belong to those who earned it?

Look, I'm FAR from rich, but if I were able to make some wise investments and turned my earnings into a tidy sum I would want it to go to my daughter, not the government. That's all. (And if she wanted to give it to her kids then more power to her - I would have already paid taxes on the income I invested, and then paid capital gains taxes on the investment earnings. The money would have been taxed multiple times.)

And I'm not angry with you at all - I just strongly disagree with the idea from the left that money does not really belong to those who earn it.

If people want to keep earnings in the familiy on down the line they have a right to do so. It's their money.

Warren Buffett didn't start out wealthy. Not even close. He was just smart and had a great work ethic. Anyone can do what he did if they have the drive and ambition that he did.

I don't. Not to that extent. So I don't begrudge him his billions at all. Of course, if he had his way a system would be set up that would make it MUCH harder for everyone else to do what he did. That I've got a problem with.

[aztecwin]

Nov 13, 2010 9:20:34 GMT -8 waztec said:

Nov 13, 2010 9:03:22 GMT -8 The Aztec Panther said:

Maybe, but that money was earned in the first place, and the person earning it has the right to pass it along to their children. Taking that money away is stealing, nothing more, nothing less. It was already taxed multiple times on multiple levels.


That money is often used to invest in companies, which creates growth. Growth leads to more jobs - and the money is spent much more efficiently than it would if it were dropped into that black hole known as government.

Government spends money inefficiently. A huge percentage is lost in middle management bureaucracy (salaries). Businesses have a much more efficient model for how they run things. Businesses are generally much more streamlined than government. That wasted money is lost forever (only a small portion is recaptured in taxes on the government employees).


So those who are decimated (a company with greater un-liquid assets than income, for example) and have to be sold off or broken up don't count? Too bad, so sad??


In other words, it's ok to steal money from them that was already taxed. It's ok to disregard the wishes of parents who just want to provide a better life for their children. It's the parents' money - they should get to decide where it goes, not a draconian government.


The fact that the money that is invested in the first place was ALREADY taxed on multiple levels means nothing, right? Just tax and tax again!! It's never enough, right?

Come on. There needs to be a limit to government greed. That money does NOT belong to the government (or The People/The Proletariat). It belongs to those who earned it (or inherited it from those who earned it and were taxed on it) - and if they want to leave it to their children they should be free to do so.

No matter what you say, the well off have a tremendous advantage. I disagree with your assessment that anything is stolen from anyone or that the rich are subject to any unfair disadvantage. If that were true the rich would no longer be rich, right? Despite your loud protestation, the divergence between the assets of the rich and the rest of us continues apace. As Warren Buffet said "the rich are winning". How do you parse that fact?

I tried to be fair to your side of the issue, and I acknowledged the truth in some of your arguments, but I just made you angry. All I did was offer my opinion.

Astonishing. Simply astonishing.

I don't see any anger in B5's response. I see an honest assessment and concern for irresponsible tax policy. I see no down side for the rich to get richer as they take a lot of the rest of us along for the ride. Down sizing government to those functions aligned with the Constitution would keep all of us better off both financially and emotionally. Maybe if DOD was a much larger part of what we do we would be able to focus on making it more efficient. I see that as a better use of tax money than screwing around with and screwing up Education at the Federal level.

[aztecron]

Nov 13, 2010 8:41:48 GMT -8 waztec said:

Nov 9, 2010 11:28:45 GMT -8 aztecron said:

I enjoy reading this part of the board and the back and forth between the regular participants, left and right. I do get enlightened every now and then.

I'd like to get enlightened now if possible. Why should there be an estate tax? I'd really never payed close attention to this particular matter until this thread came about.

It looks like a lose, lose scenario to me. My hard work is taxed once again even after I've paid taxes on all components of the estate while alive, and my heirs lose part of my hard work and profit to yet again another tax on it after I die.

So, I ask why do we need an estate tax?

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, and am not looking to get between the participants in this thread. It's the fact both sides have brought up some points I'm not sure I get, or that I may in fact get, but don't think is fair.

Conservatives would say, and not completely without justification, that assets earned over a lifetime of work should be disposed of at death as the owner sees fit. They would call that freedom. I think that they would also say that the removal of the Estate Tax would stimulate the economy with funds that were heretofore not added to commerce. That addition, they would say, creates jobs.

Conservatives would see the infusion of funds as stimulating and beneficial to the economy. Conversely, they see the Estate Tax as a disaster for small businesses, who they say are broken up and sold as a result of the tax, thereby destroying jobs.

Conservatives do not want the government taking their money.

I would also say that conservatives would see passing their assets in total to their heirs would serve as a powerful incentive to the rest of us to work hard and save.

Some of their arguments make good sense. But great concentrations of wealth tend to become more concentrated and that has the effect of also concentrating power. One need only see the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to know the pernicious effects caused the infusion of great unregulated sums into the political process. This infusion had the affect of creating an insurmountable political advantage to astonishingly well off people and corporations. Since anyone who meets the tests to pay this tax, and there are few of them, are solvent to a degree most of us can only dream about.

I would say that our system benefits these people to an astonishingly greater degree than any poor person who receives, what conservatives would call, a Federal hand out. Making these people pay for that advantage is fair. Making these people pay allows the government to even the enormous inequity which, if left to become too extreme causes political and economic instability. And that inequity will create the conditions historically found in unstable countries like Argentina. And as a matter of fairness, why shouldn't they pay? There is no evidence that the accumulation of great wealth over generations causes any measurable stimulative effect on the economy (see Bush Tax cuts). Our most productive era occurred, ironically, when taxes were relatively high and taxes have not been shown to have a damping affect on our economic growth.

The argument that small businesses are decimated by this law does not hold under scrutiny. Very few,if any, family owned businesses are affected and those who are have extraordinary assets and should be taxed anyway. And since they have access to competent financial legal and financial advice, they can escape much of the responsibility anyway.

In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us.

Another reason I favor the Estate Tax is that income derived from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages, which means that in tax law, the holders of large assets have a tremendous advantage the rest of us can never take advantage of in any material way. They should be made to pay back that advantage.

All good points for consideration, but I take exception to the following quote

"In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us. "

The first is what are our values?

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't want the government telling my kids that no matter what your parents have done for your future, we think it's better that you start at the bottom so you can accumulate your own assets like the rest of us.

My wife's culture is the parents do everything they can in their power to raise great kids, provide education and potential, and then pass on the fruits of our hard work to heirs when we pass. My culture growing up was poor, poor, poor. I don't want my kids to have to feel what I felt when growing up, ever. There's simply no need for anyone to intervene in my affairs and tell me what I can and cannot leave to my kids. Specially if it will cause them even greater stress in that period of loss.

It sounds like the paragraph I quote from your post is simply a matter of putting people in their place, for lack of a better term.

Just my thoughts, I really appreciate the explanations by all, on all sides of this subject.

[waztec]

Nov 13, 2010 10:04:01 GMT -8 aztecron said:

Nov 13, 2010 8:41:48 GMT -8 waztec said:

Conservatives would say, and not completely without justification, that assets earned over a lifetime of work should be disposed of at death as the owner sees fit. They would call that freedom. I think that they would also say that the removal of the Estate Tax would stimulate the economy with funds that were heretofore not added to commerce. That addition, they would say, creates jobs.

Conservatives would see the infusion of funds as stimulating and beneficial to the economy. Conversely, they see the Estate Tax as a disaster for small businesses, who they say are broken up and sold as a result of the tax, thereby destroying jobs.

Conservatives do not want the government taking their money.

I would also say that conservatives would see passing their assets in total to their heirs would serve as a powerful incentive to the rest of us to work hard and save.

Some of their arguments make good sense. But great concentrations of wealth tend to become more concentrated and that has the effect of also concentrating power. One need only see the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to know the pernicious effects caused the infusion of great unregulated sums into the political process. This infusion had the affect of creating an insurmountable political advantage to astonishingly well off people and corporations. Since anyone who meets the tests to pay this tax, and there are few of them, are solvent to a degree most of us can only dream about.

I would say that our system benefits these people to an astonishingly greater degree than any poor person who receives, what conservatives would call, a Federal hand out. Making these people pay for that advantage is fair. Making these people pay allows the government to even the enormous inequity which, if left to become too extreme causes political and economic instability. And that inequity will create the conditions historically found in unstable countries like Argentina. And as a matter of fairness, why shouldn't they pay? There is no evidence that the accumulation of great wealth over generations causes any measurable stimulative effect on the economy (see Bush Tax cuts). Our most productive era occurred, ironically, when taxes were relatively high and taxes have not been shown to have a damping affect on our economic growth.

The argument that small businesses are decimated by this law does not hold under scrutiny. Very few,if any, family owned businesses are affected and those who are have extraordinary assets and should be taxed anyway. And since they have access to competent financial legal and financial advice, they can escape much of the responsibility anyway.

In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us.

Another reason I favor the Estate Tax is that income derived from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages, which means that in tax law, the holders of large assets have a tremendous advantage the rest of us can never take advantage of in any material way. They should be made to pay back that advantage.

All good points for consideration, but I take exception to the following quote

"In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us. "

The first is what are our values?

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't want the government telling my kids that no matter what your parents have done for your future, we think it's better that you start at the bottom so you can accumulate your own assets like the rest of us.

My wife's culture is the parents do everything they can in their power to raise great kids, provide education and potential, and then pass on the fruits of our hard work to heirs when we pass. My culture growing up was poor, poor, poor. I don't want my kids to have to feel what I felt when growing up, ever. There's simply no need for anyone to intervene in my affairs and tell me what I can and cannot leave to my kids. Specially if it will cause them even greater stress in that period of loss.

It sounds like the paragraph I quote from your post is simply a matter of putting people in their place, for lack of a better term.

Just my thoughts, I really appreciate the explanations by all, on all sides of this subject.

Our national narrative is best described by the Horatio Alger story. One of the things our founding fathers hated was hereditary power. All of those Kings and royalty they rebelled against were hereditary, were they not? (Hereditary power also meant hereditary wealth). There is considerable pressure in this country to be useful. Conservatives, for example have little use for people who are not economically useful. Those who are not useful are put down-hard. What is the first thing you think of when you hear about Paris Hilton, for example?



". . .but I don't want the government telling my kids that no matter what your parents have done for your future,. . . "

"There's simply no need for anyone to intervene in my affairs and tell me what I can and cannot leave to my kids."

These comments indicate that you do have a fully formed point of view and it is strongly held. Interesting.

[The Aztec Panther]

There is no freedom without economic freedom, which includes the freedom to leave your money to your children.

Our founding fathers didn't like monarchies and inherited power, true, but they also wanted a system that allowed people to keep the money they earned and to do with it what they chose to do - a big part of which was leaving whatever money was left in their estate to their children. They would have been horrified at the thought of the government stepping in and taking a large percentage of that money, and rightly so.

Anyone can become successful in this country. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, etc, etc, etc - none of those guys were born rich. They all had a drive and a work ethic coupled with insight and/or foresight that allowed them to make money. Good for them.

What was the topic again?

Oh, yeah - wasteful spending at the DOD. There's wasteful spending - big time - in every branch or arm of the government. Each and every part of the government is wasteful and blows a lot of money on needless middle management, outdated or inefficient systems and procedures, etc. The DOD is no exception.

Let me in there and I'll cut 20% right off the top of each and every governmental budget without the people even noticing a difference. I'd be able to implement the same kind of efficiency processes that the company I work for uses. Simplify workflows, eliminate needless steps, and increase productivity and you need less people to do the same amount of work. Government, unfortunately, does it the opposite way. They complicate workflows, add needless steps, and decrease productivity requiring more employees to get the same amount of work done.

I don't know why anyone would trust government to do anything important well besides kill people and break things.