Your thoughts on this passage?

[Truthmatters]

Not the same ONLY in the minds of idiots like you

 

[Intense]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

I find it flawed and manipulative. We are not pet's, we are not property. Why should the whole reward bad decision making of the individual or group without consequence?

Who said they should? And since when is being an ill child a decision. Since when is starving to death not a consequence?

I find it frightening that you picture a starving child or an old and ill man as somehow deserving of their suffering because they simply must have been lazy and should have known better than to be born poor or to get ill.

I can only think of a single word to describe such thinking. Such maliciousness is simply evil. From where does such malice and darkness of thought come?

I have said no such thing. What you do to help Anyone is your personal choice, what, when, how much, it is not for the Government to decide for you. We are all Human Beings first, with Liberties and property rights. It is not for any entity to determine for any of us, what is the due of the imaginary collective. Where starvation and disease exist, there are obviously problems that need to be addressed, more often than not, they are brought on by incompetence and misappropriation. It is not the act of giving that I criticize, but the command structure.

 

[Intense]

I didn't hear anybody bitching about collectivism when my generation was getting drafted to go to Viet Nam, folks.

We had an obligation to our society and we paid the bill.

Now suddenly nobody has any obligation to the society that spawned them?

Selfish children.

We do have an obligation to our Society, that is true, however, it is to include reason, not blind faith, especially when that blind faith is contrary to reason.

 

[Madeline]

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

A society that permits undue concentrations of wealth via inheritance will eventually cannabalize itself. I have a legitimate interest in preventing that from occurring.

Madeline, you are advocating what you are trying to prevent.
Then again I might be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.

Lemme explain, bigrebnc. Back in the day (way back, before I was born) much American wealth was held by the Robber Barons. After their deaths, the heirs had a tendency, perfectly understandable, to marry one another as opposed to anyone else. Over time, this concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and doing so is detrimental to the middle class and to the nation.

Various laws exist to prevent this, to a degree. One of them is the estate and gift tax, and IMO it has value quite apart from its revenue generating utility because of this.

 

[Madeline]

Okay. Now can you please explain why?

First, can you two define 'government'? Because when boiled down to its fundamental nature, is not 'government' merely an organized body of persons and the machinations, bodies, and procedures they establish for collective decision and action?

You don't get to play semantics. You ARE arguing that the Government should take from those that can to give to those that won't or can't. Then you pretend otherwise in other posts. It is NOT the Federal Governments job and they do not have the Authority from "we the people" to do so. It may be a State power but that is up to the individual States and the people that control those Governments.

(Ignoring the states' rights nonsense for the moment.) The "taking" you complain of is for the benefit of all, RGS. Spending to alleviate the suffering of the poor benefits us all, the wealthy most. Besides, a person on welfare today need not remain there all his life.

You call it "redistribution"; I call it "an essential government service". I say we all have an interest in seeing to it that children, the elderly, and other vulnerable citizens get care. If you disagree, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

 

[boedicca]

A society that permits undue concentrations of wealth via inheritance will eventually cannabalize itself. I have a legitimate interest in preventing that from occurring.

Madeline, you are advocating what you are trying to prevent.
Then again I might be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.

Lemme explain, bigrebnc. Back in the day (way back, before I was born) much American wealth was held by the Robber Barons. After their deaths, the heirs had a tendency, perfectly understandable, to marry one another as opposed to anyone else. Over time, this concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and doing so is detrimental to the middle class and to the nation.

Various laws exist to prevent this, to a degree. One of them is the estate and gift tax, and IMO it has value quite apart from its revenue generating utility because of this.

Again, flawed logic.

You are assuming that the government can handle the wealth better than the heirs.

This is such a tiny group of people to use as a basis for national tax policy. You neglect the real agenda of applying this wealth seizure policy to the broad middle class.

The truly fabulously wealthy shield their wealth in charitable trusts. This nonsense of taxing estates above $5M results in small businesses and farms being sold to pay the tax bill (and thus destroying jobs).

It would help you to understand who is really backing the estate tax: the life insurance lobby.

Report: Giant life insurance lobby key force behind estate tax | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

 

[Madeline]

Madeline, you are advocating what you are trying to prevent.
Then again I might be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.

Lemme explain, bigrebnc. Back in the day (way back, before I was born) much American wealth was held by the Robber Barons. After their deaths, the heirs had a tendency, perfectly understandable, to marry one another as opposed to anyone else. Over time, this concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and doing so is detrimental to the middle class and to the nation.

Various laws exist to prevent this, to a degree. One of them is the estate and gift tax, and IMO it has value quite apart from its revenue generating utility because of this.

Again, flawed logic.

You are assuming that the government can handle the wealth better than the heirs.

This is such a tiny group of people to use as a basis for national tax policy. You neglect the real agenda of applying this wealth seizure policy to the broad middle class.

The truly fabulously wealthy shield their wealth in charitable trusts. This nonsense of taxing estates above $5M results in small businesses and farms being sold to pay the tax bill (and thus destroying jobs).

It would help you to understand who is really backing the estate tax: the life insurance lobby.

Report: Giant life insurance lobby key force behind estate tax | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

No, I am not assuming the government can handle the wealth better -- I'm saying allowing the heirs to retain it all is anti-American. And BTW, the old estate and gift tax laws had provisions to allow relief for family farms and businesses whose former owners failed to take steps to protect them. Presumably, those will be present in the new law.

Under the old law, a charitable trust did not shelter assets from tax unless the owner severed his ownership interest in them. At death, if not sooner. Presumably, this would be continued as well.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you that anything touted by the insurance industry is suspect but not in this case.

 

[midcan5]

"The uncertain association of money and intelligence has already been suggested. In the financial world the good society must assume less than perfect performance, especially as each generation returns with enthusiasm to the derelictions and frequent insanities of the one before." John Kenneth Galbraith, 'The Good Society'


The OP was not bad. I would suggest John Kenneth Galbraith's 'The Good Society' for a view that coincides with the more realistic poster's comments. See below.

In terms of what we owe to society, the idea of limited government sounds fine except no one can define it, and as soon as something tragic happens, it serves as the scapegoat. Simon outlines well what we - the wealthy - owe.

"At that point we reached our destination. Had the journey continued, I might have tried to persuade him that people can earn large amounts only when they live under favorable social circumstances, and that they don’t create those circumstances by themselves. I could have quoted Warren Buffett’s acknowledgment that society is responsible for much of his wealth. “If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru,” he said, “you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil.” The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Good-Society-Humane-Agenda/dp/0395859980/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Good Society: The Humane Agenda (0046442859981): John Kenneth Galbraith: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Good-Society-Robert-N-Bellah/dp/0679733590/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292172010&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Good Society (9780679733591): Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, Steven M. Tipton, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler: Books[/ame]

 

[boedicca]

No, I am not assuming the government can handle the wealth better -- I'm saying allowing the heirs to retain it all is anti-American. And BTW, the old estate and gift tax laws had provisions to allow relief for family farms and businesses whose former owners failed to take steps to protect them. Presumably, those will be present in the new law.

Under the old law, a charitable trust did not shelter assets from tax unless the owner severed his ownership interest in them. At death, if not sooner. Presumably, this would be continued as well.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you that anything touted by the insurance industry is suspect but not in this case.

Absolute Nonsense.

The estate tax is class warfare crap.

 

[boedicca]

Keynesian Crap:

"The uncertain association of money and intelligence has already been suggested. In the financial world the good society must assume less than perfect performance, especially as each generation returns with enthusiasm to the derelictions and frequent insanities of the one before." John Kenneth Galbraith, 'The Good Society'


The OP was not bad. I would suggest John Kenneth Galbraith's 'The Good Society' for a view that coincides with the more realistic poster's comments. See below.

In terms of what we owe to society, the idea of limited government sounds fine except no one can define it, and as soon as something tragic happens, it serves as the scapegoat. Simon outlines well what we - the wealthy - owe.

"At that point we reached our destination. Had the journey continued, I might have tried to persuade him that people can earn large amounts only when they live under favorable social circumstances, and that they don’t create those circumstances by themselves. I could have quoted Warren Buffett’s acknowledgment that society is responsible for much of his wealth. “If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru,” he said, “you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil.” The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9


Amazon.com: The Good Society: The Humane Agenda (0046442859981): John Kenneth Galbraith: Books
Amazon.com: Good Society (9780679733591): Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, Steven M. Tipton, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler: Books

 

[Madeline]

No, I am not assuming the government can handle the wealth better -- I'm saying allowing the heirs to retain it all is anti-American. And BTW, the old estate and gift tax laws had provisions to allow relief for family farms and businesses whose former owners failed to take steps to protect them. Presumably, those will be present in the new law.

Under the old law, a charitable trust did not shelter assets from tax unless the owner severed his ownership interest in them. At death, if not sooner. Presumably, this would be continued as well.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you that anything touted by the insurance industry is suspect but not in this case.

Absolute Nonsense.

The estate tax is class warfare crap.

"Class warfare"? That's an overly-emotional response, coming from you, boedicca. Explain to me please how permitting wealth to become concentrated from one generation to the next is better for the country.

I'm all ears.

 

[boedicca]

Agitating for property to be taken from its lawful owners just because they are Rich is class warfare.

Trying to assign some noble rationale to it doesn't shield the agenda.

 

[Madeline]

Agitating for property to be taken from its lawful owners just because they are Rich is class warfare.

Trying to assign some noble rationale to it doesn't shield the agenda.

The estate and gift tax does not and never has been based off a measure of the heirs' own wealth, boedicca. It is based off a measure of the value of the assets transferred by inheritance.

Once again, you refer to nonpayment of a tax bill as a class of criminal activity that is somehow "noble". Once again, I am baffled as to why.

 

[JBeukema]

So Maddie want to sterilize people on welfare?

Didn't we do that in the 20's?

Not sterilize, JB. Use norplant or whatnot so that for a period of time, they cannot conceive. Does that make me a monster?

Temporary measures have a tendency to become extended indefinitely

 

[Madeline]

So Maddie want to sterilize people on welfare?

Didn't we do that in the 20's?

Not sterilize, JB. Use norplant or whatnot so that for a period of time, they cannot conceive. Does that make me a monster?

Temporary measures have a tendency to become extended indefinitely

Well, it could cut both ways. Most people have a fairly strong desire to have a family....so getting up on your own hind legs would be even more desirable. For those who never can, I'm not sure preventing them from reproducing is so bad.

 

[JBeukema]

Okay. Now can you please explain why?

First, can you two define 'government'? Because when boiled down to its fundamental nature, is not 'government' merely an organized body of persons and the machinations, bodies, and procedures they establish for collective decision and action?

You don't get to play semantics. You ARE arguing that the Government should take from those that can to give to those that won't or can't. Then you pretend otherwise in other posts. It is NOT the Federal Governments job and they do not have the Authority from "we the people" to do so. It may be a State power but that is up to the individual States and the people that control those Governments.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Where have I advocated any such thing?
Was it here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Here?

Stop the projecting and the hackery

 

[JBeukema]

I didn't hear anybody bitching about collectivism when my generation was getting drafted to go to Viet Nam, folks.

We had an obligation to our society and we paid the bill.

Now suddenly nobody has any obligation to the society that spawned them?

Selfish children.

Not the same thing at all, but then you are pretty damn stupid sometimes.

Yes, totally different


The rich man's kids should die when told but God forbid the rich man be expected to spare a dollar to help a starving child

 

[asterism]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

My morals compel me to take care of those less fortunate, my reward for doing well is the true gift of the life I am able to live doing so.

Nowhere does my moral foundation compel me to outsource that role to the government, nor tolerate its ineffectiveness at doing so. It also does not provide any means to listen to those commanding something of me that which they have not done themselves.

Firstly, who said anything about government?

Liberals. Some, most or all that think more government programs in helping the poor is a correct path. Liberals, those who immediately say that without government more people would starve. Liberals who justify increases in the amount of money "the rich" are forced to pay by saying it will help the poor.

Secondly, why do you assume the People and the Government are two wholly distinct things?

Because it's the nature of a system where those who write the rules with the absolute authority also get to participate as a beneficiary and get their own special rules.

Think GM and the government's participation as a beneficiary in the market while at the same time outlawing any private entity from doing what it does.

Social Security is another example, it's against the law for any private person or company to do what it does.

I'll give you the caveat of nuclear weapons and control of the military, things where the government is the ONLY proper entity with that sort of power.

If that is the case, then thing are already very wrong with the society in question.

You got that right, society has something very wrong with it. A significant portion of it is still thinking Communism, Socialism, and/or Marxism could work if only the right people are put in charge.

 

[asterism]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

Unfortunately government is that higher source of morality for many people.

I find it revealing that so many on the right can not imagine a poor man or a sick child being aided or shown compassion by any agent other than the State. I never mentioned the State, yet you can only imagine the State acting to aid the poor- not a person here has imagined themselves, their neighbor, or even the Salvation Army fulfilling this role in society.

Why is that?

Speaking for me, it's because this isn't my first rodeo and I know where liberals are headed when they start out like this. You want more government. You think it's the best option.

 

[asterism]

So Maddie want to sterilize people on welfare?

Didn't we do that in the 20's?

Not sterilize, JB. Use norplant or whatnot so that for a period of time, they cannot conceive. Does that make me a monster?

Mebbe it does....but I look around at all the 12 year old with Mommies in their 20's, and see a collection of people with very little chance of ever escaping poverty. Born to a single teen mom is pretty much the end of hope.....why not prevent it, if we can?

Forced contraception - eugenics - "pro choice"