Support NeoGAF

[Mandark]

Can we please

please

PLEASE

PLEASE

retire the "taxed twice" meme for inherited wealth?



If those fathers, grandfathers, or great grandfathers gave that money to someone in exchange for goods or labor, it would be taxed.

Yes, I know. Libertarians want to do away with sales and income taxes too.

But singling out the "death tax" as being singularly unfair is just beyond silly.

 

[Gaborn]

You searched for "smoot hawley caused stock market crash" on google.

lol, no, actually I pulled it off the wikipedia page, just as a quick reference for him.

Thekad - no problem, it happens

KR57 - I'm not ignoring it though. Most of their tariffs against us were in response to Smoot-Hawley, we initiated a cascade of barriers and tariffs which inhibited free trade.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, yes, absolutely [I believe that a dollar has the same utility to everyone regardless of how much that person already has/owns]. People that make more money have more spending power and can get more use out of it. I don't actually see that as a problem.

Yeah, the problem there is that's simply empirically false. It's not a matter of opinion; it's simply a matter of not having enough brain power to wrap your head around the concept of utility != dollars and cents.

It's a pretty fundamental failing of economic interpretation... and yet, you give the impression it forms the basic underpinnings of your entire world/economic view.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Ummm, disproportionate taxation? The capital gains tax is 15% while the average worker is taxed 36-39%. The truly wealthy don't make their money from earned income, they make them from investments that use the capital gains tax.

>:|

Someone answer me

Also, the idea of an inheritance tax is to make sure that part of the money goes back into society and doesn't stay permanently in the vault of a family. Besides, isn't there a limit below which inheritances aren't taxed, which would spare the work of the granddads and grandmoms put forth to give something to their children.

 

[Hitokage]

and liberals ignore the great depression which started 20 years after the fed started artificially inflating the money supply and was exacerbated by the smoot-hawley tariff act.

Uh, what about the whole "Roaring Twenties" business?

 

[User 10639]

>:|

Someone answer me

Also, the idea of an inheritance tax is to make sure that part of the money goes back into society and doesn't stay permanently in the vault of a family. Besides, isn't there a limit below which inheritances aren't taxed, which would spare the work of the granddads and grandmoms put forth to give something to their children.

I think it's something like up to $1 million for singles, $4 million for couples untaxed.

Hitokage: let's just pretend that whole thing didn't happen and that it was all the fed's fault, mmmkay

 

[Gaborn]

Yeah, the problem there is that's simply empirically false. It's not a matter of opinion; it's simply a matter of not having enough brain power to wrap your head around the concept of utility != dollars and cents.

It's a pretty fundamental failing of economic interpretation... and yet, you give the impression it forms the basic underpinnings of your entire world/economic view.

Well, the thing is, your characterization of my position is false, I understand that the utility of someone who makes a lot of money is much higher than someone that makes a lot less, a person with a lot less money is going to have an entirely different diet, different buying pattern, etc than someone with a lot. a "Luxury" for a poorer person might be a candy bar every so often, maybe saving up for a couple months to buy a cheap TV if they're lucky (depending on how poor they are), whereas for a wealthier person there are fewer barriers of those kinds and where they exist they're at a higher level (even most people with a decent income aren't exactly buying fleets of cars for example, or those custom personal movie theaters there was a thread about earlier).

I understand all of that. I just don't see it as a problem. When you have less money your goal is to get more money to gain more flexibility with your purchasing power.

Hitokage - the roaring 20s were caused as a direct result of the fed inflating the money supply from 1913 on, as well as a slew of new and novel inventions, such as something much closer to the modern dishwasher (1920s along with indoor plumbing which was more developed then), the garbage disposal, (1927), heck washing machine sales took off and over 900k people owned them in 1928 along with a variety of others. More money saturating the economy and more goods to interest people is bad.

 

[avatar299]

>:|

Someone answer me

Also, the idea of an inheritance tax is to make sure that part of the money goes back into society and doesn't stay permanently in the vault of a family. Besides, isn't there a limit below which inheritances aren't taxed, which would spare the work of the granddads and grandmoms put forth to give something to their children.

Isn't the money eventually going to go back into society? It's not like the inheritee doesn't have his/her own expenses at the very least.

Uh, what about the whole "Roaring Twenties" business?

What about it?

 

[NewLib]

Uh, what about the whole "Roaring Twenties" business?

Living life everyday was your last. Ive heard the Roaring Twenties lifestyle had more to do with the descent into radicalism for many people than actually causing the Great Depression. Of course, Ive heard the argument that the money was all gone.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, the thing is, your characterization of my position is false, I understand that the utility of someone who makes a lot of money is much higher than someone that makes a lot less, a person with a lot less money is going to have an entirely different diet, different buying pattern, etc than someone with a lot. a "Luxury" for a poorer person might be a candy bar every so often, maybe saving up for a couple months to buy a cheap TV if they're lucky (depending on how poor they are), whereas for a wealthier person there are fewer barriers of those kinds and where they exist they're at a higher level (even most people with a decent income aren't exactly buying fleets of cars for example, or those custom personal movie theaters there was a thread about earlier).

I understand all of that. I just don't see it as a problem. When you have less money your goal is to get more money to gain more flexibility with your purchasing power.

The utility of someone who makes a lot of money is much higher?

I hope you mean much lower. I'm talking about dollar for dollar here.

A thousand dollars is going to be much more valuable for someone that's trying to pay off his mortgage, than for someone that's already got 3 mansions, and is using 100 dollar bills to snort cocaine.

And holy crap how disconnected are you from reality? Luxury is a candy bar? You're fucking kidding right?

When you don't have enough money to stave off your debtors for a semi-decent living, which involves shelter, food, water and work, you're simply not going to be able to devote many if any resources towards figuring out ways to make exponentially more money that would help you get out of the shit hole. Essentially, you simply wouldn't have many opportunities even if you knew how or tried.

In your ideal society, people get to control every penny that passes through their hands (so that inevitably the market stagnates and goes poor).

In my ideal society, (money moves and flows and ebbs; if need be, by help of a governing hand,) so that everyone with necessary desire and ability can achieve the means and goals of their comfort, (in turn allowing the market to grow and flourish).

I've put brackets around the conditions required and the results of our ideals.

 

[KRS7]

KR57 - I'm not ignoring it though. Most of their tariffs against us were in response to Smoot-Hawley, we initiated a cascade of barriers and tariffs which inhibited free trade.

I was not just talking about retaliatory tariffs. But also many of the other events going on in the geopolitical sense. The threat of war was looming and you had many countries in Europe and Asia moving towards a more self sufficient economy. There was a collapse in world trade occuring at the time that cannot be solely attributed to the Smoot Hawley act.

 

[Gaborn]

The utility of someone who makes a lot of money is much higher?

I hope you mean much lower. I'm talking about dollar for dollar here.

A thousand dollars is going to be much more valuable for someone that's trying to pay off his mortgage, than for someone that's already got 3 mansions, and is using 100 dollar bills to snort cocaine.

And holy crap how disconnected are you from reality? Luxury is a candy bar? You're fucking kidding right?

When you're poor enough? (as I was once?) Yes, a luxury can be ANYTHING simple that you normally wouldn't be able to get every day or have access to generally. I agree that money is more valuable when you have less of it, I don't see why you think that justifies punishing people for acquiring more of it.

When you don't have enough money to stave off your debtors for a semi-decent living, which involves shelter, food, water and work, you're simply not going to be able to devote many if any resources towards figuring out ways to make exponentially more money that would help you get out of the shit hole. Essentially, you simply wouldn't have many opportunities even if you knew how or tried.

That's your opinion. It sounds to me though like you're talking about drive, motivation. And I don't see how you're justifying punishing those driven to succeed at a higher level above and beyond expectations simply because some people AREN'T as driven.

In your ideal society, people get to keep every penny of their money so that inevitably the market stagnates and goes poor.

In my ideal society people can use their capitol to their advantage or not, as they wish. There's no artificial block on earning a profit by having it stolen by a robin hood government.

In my ideal society, money moves and flows and ebbs; if need be, by help of a governing hand, so that everyone with necessary desire and ability can achieve the means and goals of their comfort, in turn allowing the market to grow and flourish.

The problem is that a "governing hand" has never been shown to be particularly effective, ultimately you get big crashes like the great depression when you try to regulate because ultimately the "governing hand" will meddle too much, and over correct and there will be a backlash. Markets are elastic, but they also respond to changes eventually and seek an equilibrium.

KRS7 - Ok fair enough, though you'd certainly acknowledge that the tariff didn't just have an affect in the US, it was at least partially responsible for trade markets collapsing in other countries because they suddenly took a more protectionist bent. I agree with you about the dawning of WW2, but I'd say when that started to take off as much as it destroyed Europe in large part it SAVED the US economy.

 

[Zaptruder]

That's your opinion. It sounds to me though like you're talking about drive, motivation. And I don't see how you're justifying punishing those driven to succeed at a higher level above and beyond expectations simply because some people AREN'T as driven.

The problem with this notion is that you conflate effort, merit, productive utility... all these sorts of positive qualities towards an economy, with how much the person already earns or makes.

Those that do succeed are not necessarily those with effort, merit nor productive utility, nor are those with effort, merit or productive utility those that do succeed.

 

[Mandark]

I agree with you about the dawning of WW2, but I'd say when that started to take off as much as it destroyed Europe in large part it SAVED the US economy.

THROUGH EXPANSIONARY FISCAL POLICY!

BOO-YAH!

 

[Gaborn]

THROUGH EXPANSIONARY FISCAL POLICY!

BOO-YAH!

Not directly, through the increased need for manufacturing jobs. Essentially it wasn't the war itself, it's that there was suddenly a need for a large number of manufacturing jobs.

The problem with this notion is that you conflate effort, merit, productive utility... all these sorts of positive qualities towards an economy, with how much the person already earns or makes.

Those that do succeed are not necessarily those with effort, merit nor productive utility, nor are those with effort, merit or productive utility those that do succeed.

True, life's not always fair, so? On balance you've got a lot better chance to succeed the more effort you put in, but not every endeavor is equal. For example I'd have a much higher chance at opening a successful restaurant even though I don't know much about the business side of it than I would developing a new form of energy simply because I know nothing about going about that.

 

[Mandark]

Not directly, through the increased need for manufacturing jobs. Essentially it wasn't the war itself, it's that there was suddenly a need for a large number of manufacturing jobs.

Because the government was borrowing money to buy a lot of weapons.

 

[Zaptruder]

True, life's not always fair, so? On balance you've got a lot better chance to succeed the more effort you put in, but not every endeavor is equal. For example I'd have a much higher chance at opening a successful restaurant even though I don't know much about the business side of it than I would developing a new form of energy simply because I know nothing about going about that.

It's an example, like sitting in front of a computer and playing a top down go kart flash game with the direction keys is an example of Forumla 1 style driving.

Seriously though, the example you have given; it would be your failing if you don't use your ability to do a little research on the subject matter before realising that with a small capital and no know how, you're not going to get anywhere in that field. Only your failling.

On the other hand, to be born into a situation that doesn't allow for you to properly maximize your potential, or at least be granted enough opportunities to is not exactly your fault; you react to your environment, and your environment has failed you to some extent. Of course you can try to change that environment, but it's not easy to even recognize you need that change, much less actually go through that change... nor can you turn back the hands of time and change the environment in retrospect.

As we attempt to move towards the future, trying to develop a more egalitarian society, where people are people are people, libetarian views like yours stand as an anathema to the empathy and broadview approach that's required for a more optimized take on society.

 

[Gaborn]

Because the government was borrowing money to buy a lot of weapons.

No, the government was making a lot of weapons. The government really wasn't borrowing a lot of money, I mean, from who? Most of europe had their own problems, south americans were still poor and Africa... well it wasn't exactly BETTER off than it was today. Asia was still mostly cut off from us too.

Seriously though, the example you have given; it would be your failing if you don't use your ability to do a little research on the subject matter before realising that with a small capital and no know how, you're not going to get anywhere in that field. Only your failling.

Got it in one, your claim that the middle class aren't going to care about getting more money once they get out of poverty was predicated on a lack of incentive, so I postulate that if you put more time into doing something well you're more likely to have a chance to succeed at it. No, it's not a guarantee, but there are none in life.

 

[User 10639]

Because the government was borrowing money to buy a lot of weapons.

And pay for a lot more soldiers.

 

[Mandark]

The government really wasn't borrowing a lot of money

...

 

[Gaborn]

...

During the lead up to WW2? The US was a major banker FOR Britain and the other soon to be allies. We GAVE money, we didn't borrow it.

 

[Mandark]

...

 

[Zaptruder]

Got it in one, your claim that the middle class aren't going to care about getting more money once they get out of poverty was predicated on a lack of incentive, so I postulate that if you put more time into doing something well you're more likely to have a chance to succeed at it. No, it's not a guarantee, but there are none in life.

my claim that the middle class aren't going to care about getting more money?

Nowhere do I make that claim, nor would I ever suggest having anyone unable to move beyond their current station through effort, fortune or talent.

But I do firmly think that resources should be allocated with the greatest utility. If a dollar is a dollar is a dollar to the government, but not for an individual... it would make most sense for the government to destroy least utility for their populace through taxation. A dollar taxed from a rich man represents far less utility than a dollar taxed from a poor man.

 

[Hitokage]

 

[avatar299]

The threrad has gone all over the place today. I like.

Mandark, you have a source for all of our government borrowing during WW2?

my claim that the middle class aren't going to care about getting more money?

Nowhere do I make that claim, nor would I ever suggest having anyone unable to move beyond their current station through effort, fortune or talent.

But I do firmly think that resources should be allocated with the greatest utility. If a dollar is a dollar is a dollar to the government, but not for an individual... it would make most sense for the government to destroy least utility for their populace through taxation. A dollar taxed from a rich man represents far less utility than a dollar taxed from a poor man.

So much for that "egalitarian society"

 

[Mandark]

Mandark, you have a source for all of our government borrowing during WW2?

Hmmmmmmmm...

 

[KRS7]

Nope the US government did not borrow a cent during WWII.

 

[Mandark]

Screw the lot of ya, Hito and KRS!

I never get to have any fun around here.

 

[Zaptruder]

So much for that "egalitarian society"

How so?

 

[avatar299]

Nope the US government did not borrow a cent during WWII.

Um okay, I didn't deny that we didn't have a debt in WW2. i wanted to know who we borrowed money from?

 

[Mandark]

Um okay, I didn't deny that we didn't have a debt in WW2. i wanted to know who we borrowed money from?

...

 

[avatar299]

...

I should have made that more clear. It public knowledge that America entered heavy debt during WW2 due to creating infrastructure for the war, but the idea that American industry didn't solve it, borrowing did is a little much.

I want to know who we borrowed from, and how much we borrowed before i believed that is what solved our debt.

How so?

In the sense that it is equal to a point. You use forced equality by justifying inequality becuase you(the government) assume you have the best interests of everyone at heart.

 

[Mandark]

What are you talking about?

Borrowing created the debt. Also...

I want to know who we borrowed from

...

 

[KRS7]

Um okay, I didn't deny that we didn't have a debt in WW2. i wanted to know who we borrowed money from?

Mostly through borrowing from private institutions, then war bonds and war stamps. The Feds did not want to overly tax the average individual, so they borrowed most of the cost of the war. Taxes only paid for about 40% of the total cost. Even to get to that level they needed to restructure the tax code. Take a look at the Revenue Act of 1942. It will make libertarians blood curl. 90% excess profit tax, etc...

Anyhow I just posted the graphs for the hell of it. I really lost track of where this thread was going a few pages back. Maybe we can start arguing about the SEC and FDIC next.

 

[avatar299]

What are you talking about?

Borrowing created the debt. Also...



...

I think I misinterpreted what you said.

 

[Mandark]

Gaborn said that WW2 saved the US economy.

I pointed out that if that's the case, it's because of expansionary fiscal policy, ie temporary borrow-and-spend.

Gaborn said the government didn't borrow money during WW2.

I started spamming ellipses to communicate how nonplussed I was, and hopefully to make Gaborn look up some facts on his own (a hope quickly scuppered by Hito and KRS).

 

[avatar299]

Gaborn said that WW2 saved the US economy.

I pointed out that if that's the case, it's because of expansionary fiscal policy, ie temporary borrow-and-spend.

Gaborn said the government didn't borrow money during WW2.

I started spamming ellipses to communicate how nonplussed I was, and hopefully to make Gaborn look up some facts on his own (a hope quickly scuppered by Hito and KRS).

ahh, yeah i did misinterpret you.

 

[User 10639]

No, the government was making a lot of weapons. The government really wasn't borrowing a lot of money

Oh man. :lol

Anyhow I just posted the graphs for the hell of it. I really lost track of where this thread was going a few pages back. Maybe we can start arguing about the SEC and FDIC next.

I guess it started out with the guy with the Reagan avatar bitching about progressive taxation, and we somehow shifted from a discussion of that to Depression-era and WWII-era fiscal policies.

None of which has much of anything to do with the general election or veepstakes. Wheeeeeeeeeeee

 

[Hitokage]

Eh, until veeps get picked we're just killing time.

 

[Dhx]

That last part should really read Cold War/Gulf War -> Newt/Contract w/ America -> 9-11/Iraq War if you want to actually put it in context. That Rep -> Dem -> Rep bit is staggeringly humorous.

 

[Mandark]

That last part should really read Cold War/Gulf War -> Newt/Contract w/ America -> 9-11/Iraq War if you want to actually put it in context. That Rep -> Dem -> Rep bit is staggeringly humorous.

Why not have it read Reagan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 -> Clinton Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 -> George W. Bush Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 & Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003?

Those are the major shifts in tax as a share of GDP, I think.

 

[Amir0x]

This last page was fascinating.

 

[User 10639]

That last part should really read Cold War/Gulf War -> Newt/Contract w/ America -> 9-11/Iraq War if you want to actually put it in context. That Rep -> Dem -> Rep bit is staggeringly humorous.

The Cold War started in the early 50s, buddy, and the national debt went down almost the entire time - even through the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

edit: wow, I read that chart badly! public debt went down as a % of GDP, not in actual numberzzz but the point stands methinks

 

[scorcho]

well that was a hell of a way to wake up in the morning :lol

edit: McCain continues to run one of the most bipolar candidacies in recent memory.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080623/D91FI1EG1.html

who would've thought it'd be hard to keep a unified message while constantly vacillating between his conservative (hellooooo offshore drilling) and 'maverick' (goodbyeeeee oil dependency) messages?

 

[SouthernDragon]

Now this is a PoliGAF thread.

 

[Tamanon]

well that was a hell of a way to wake up in the morning :lol

edit: McCain continues to run one of the most bipolar candidacies in recent memory.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080623/D91FI1EG1.html

who would've thought it'd be hard to keep a unified message while constantly vacillating between his conservative (hellooooo offshore drilling) and 'maverick' (goodbyeeeee oil dependency) messages?

So I guess McCain owes these guys 300 mill?

http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/charging_and_batteries.php

It's a silly idea, like the idea of something that energy efficient wouldn't already be worth over 300 million.

 

[User 10639]

So I guess McCain owes these guys 300 mill?

http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/charging_and_batteries.php

It's a silly idea, like the idea of something that energy efficient wouldn't already be worth over 300 million.

I sometimes wonder if McCain has a random idea generator from which to pull something ridiculous before quietly retiring it again and confusing us all as to his actual motives and plans.

 

[adamsappel]

The same way Bill Clinton did with Iraq. President only needs congressional approval for allocation of funds and declare war.

Edit: Also Kristol is an idiot. Bush would not bomb Iran just for the sake of fucking up a future administration. Despite everything, I still think he legitimately loves his country more than his party. Also the big T word would come into serious play if he did this.

I doubt that Bush would do this (if this is even true) to make Obama's administration more troubled and likely one-term. I imagine he thinks that an Obama administration would do nothing to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions and it's the last chance for action. With McCain, he knows the Bush Doctrine will continue forward.

 

[pxleyes]

Up to page 122...if only we had an actual reason for a new thread, but as Hito said we're just killing time.

 

[Fatalah]

THE MCCAIN CHALLENGE: YOU CAN WIN $300 MILLION

...because scientists, engineers, and researchers don't have any monetary incentive to solve this problem.

I'm not really complaining about this "challenge" am I? I mean, it's a really GOOD thing he's bringing more attention to the infamous battery issue. I'm just questioning the effectiveness of this "call to action". Wouldn't that $300 mil be better off invested in the research?

It's like going to a caveman and saying,"I'll give you a piece of flint once you solve the mysterious puzzle of how to start a fire."

Well wouldn't the caveman be much more grateful if the flint was given to him right in the beginning?