Your momma and daddy may have to give away much of your inheritance to someone else

If you think it's morally acceptable to take money from people with more than you, where do you draw the line?

How much more? How much do you take?

Do you think those who are having their money taken might takes steps to protect themselves and their money?

Where will that leave you?

May the last person with money left in their pockets lock the doors on their way out...

a reply to: jrod

You haven't answered my question about how much of our income we need to give up to the ones who are sitting on the couch playing video games when they aren't out becoming "baby daddies." You evidently want to "tax the rich," take by force part of their income, let government take a portion of that money then turn around and give some small portion to those who have made foolish and destructive behavior a lifestyle.
So if my well-educated and well-employed relatives are making salaries of $250k/yr. with both partners working, how much of that money would you require them to turn over to the government so that government can subsidize the foolish and destructive lifestyle of the video-playing burger-jocks who say they shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours a week to have a good life.
This is real life---as I see it developing in my own family. Those of us who worked upwards of 40 years, raised our kids, paid for their education and set them on a path that values hard work, lived frugally because we didn't believe that Social Security would be around by the time we came to retirement---now we must pony up more on our investments because a percentage of yahoos have decided that they should have all the amenities that their parents worked 20-40 years to have?
All our lives we were warned that Social Security wouldn't be around when the boomers got to retirement age. So a goodly portion of us heeded that warning and became participants in saving for our Golden Years. We didn't want to have to depend on our children in those Golden Years so we piled up money in savings and investments. We didn't want to end up having SS as our only income in retirement after hearing of the stories of old folks eating dog food. So, for being responsible citizens and acting like ants instead of grasshoppers, we are now labeled "the evil rich."
I'm not for one minute saying that "evil rich" people don't exist. I personally don't know any "evil rich" people. I know a lot of really slimy people who attempt to live the rich lifestyle but they're doing it on credit. I know a lot of really poor people who attempt to live the rich lifestyle and that ain't workin' out too well for them either. I know a few multimillionaires and every single one of them give more to our community on an annual basis than they could ever take.
But you are perfectly free to go on believing what MSM and your Progressive educators tell you----that you deserve to have the right to take by force that which others have worked a lifetime, or even two or three lifetimes, to accumulate and give it away to people who refuse to take responsibility for their own welfare. Grasshoppers will be grasshoppers.

a reply to: Jamie1

Think of it this way. Money is a symbolic link and means to the procurement of resources greater than can be used all at once. It was created as a universally accepted medium of exchange that solved the issue of needing to carry large, and heavy physical goods.

One problem solved, others created. In the context of this thread, the main problem would be the ability to accumulate and secure more resources than would otherwise be possible without it's creation. If we think back to pre-agrarian times, there were merely physical goods which could be accumulated, and power could be held in concentration through the usefulness of your actions and words. In the 21st century, it's gone way beyond this. There is inherent leveraging from the creation of money, and the multitude of financial mechanisms in play in today's world, whereby those most successful within the current structure are able to acquire more than a couple orders of magnitude greater control, expanding to much larger spheres of influence.

Now, I'm not hinting at a solution in the form of the abolishment of money all together, rather trying to bring perspective. Theft is wrong, but allowing the system to play out without various counter mechanisms is just not wise in the least. I'm all for something else to be done. So how do we go about leveling the playing field, and course correcting our path?

This "theft" you speak of, has been going on for a very long time in the form of taxing the rich. There is no evidence of a slippery slope which you seem to be alluding to. There is a tension of forces at play, which tug and pull from a little more this, to a little more that way.

If you think it's morally acceptable to take money from people with less than you, where do you draw the line?

How much less? How much do you take?

Do you think those who are having their money taken might takes steps to protect themselves and their money?

Where will that leave you?

May the last person with money left in their pockets lock the doors on their way out...

The lower classes have been being raped by oligarchs and monopolists for decades now. I'm not going to shed a tear when their empires crumble.

a reply to: jrod
Do you not take all the tax breaks afforded you? Which tax breaks do you refuse to take on principle?
Why do you care how much others pay in taxes? How did it become your business how much anyone pays in taxes?
My problem with "taxing the rich" is that nobody who wants to do it will define "the rich" with any amount of specificity. To certain members of my family, I am "the rich" because I don't live paycheck to paycheck. But if I lived as they do, I'd be in the same situation they endure today.
I never believed it was anyone else's responsibility to educate me or my children. But that doesn't mean that I and they didn't take the scholarships and grants made available---just as we took the tax breaks available. However, taking advantage of those things means taking the time and making the effort to discover what is there and working to be deserving of those perks.
I'm fully aware that there are times when hard working folks fall on hard times. But those folks dust themselves off, adjust their lives and go on. I've worked with Habitat for Humanity for a few decades now and have seen those folks on an up-close and personal basis. But if the only basis you have for making political decisions is the word of msm and your Progressive educators, you will believe that the root of all the problems is that "evil rich" don't pay enough taxes.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Are you TOTALLY unaware of history? Do you know about the New Deal (Roosevelt)?

The New Deal was a series of domestic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1938, and a few that came later.

They included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term (1933–37) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Learn.

a reply to: diggindirt

I never believed it was anyone else's responsibility to educate me or my children. But that doesn't mean that I and they didn't take the scholarships and grants made available---just as we took the tax breaks available. However, taking advantage of those things means taking the time and making the effort to discover what is there and working to be deserving of those perks.

And later, you said: dust themselves off.....

I'm fully aware that there are times when hard working folks fall on hard times. But those folks dust themselves off, adjust their lives and go on.

Bah.

Do you know that when taxes were HIGH, the country did better? No. You are too worried about 'you' and 'yours'.

Exactly how much do you REALLY NEED?

a reply to: gorf2

To them we're the equivalent of a dog. Your money is whats important to them

And,
AND!
They have no concept of 'how much is enough?'. It's sickening. Truly sickening. This 'inheritance tax' thing only applies to families who are ALREADY IN THE ONE PERCENT!

And any of them whining about it, well -
T&C.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Jamie1

Think of it this way. Money is a symbolic link and means to the procurement of resources greater than can be used all at once. It was created as a universally accepted medium of exchange that solved the issue of needing to carry large, and heavy physical goods.

One problem solved, others created. In the context of this thread, the main problem would be the ability to accumulate and secure more resources than would otherwise be possible without it's creation. If we think back to pre-agrarian times, there were merely physical goods which could be accumulated, and power could be held in concentration through the usefulness of your actions and words. In the 21st century, it's gone way beyond this. There is inherent leveraging from the creation of money, and the multitude of financial mechanisms in play in today's world, whereby those most successful within the current structure are able to acquire more than a couple orders of magnitude greater control, expanding to much larger spheres of influence.

Now, I'm not hinting at a solution in the form of the abolishment of money all together, rather trying to bring perspective. Theft is wrong, but allowing the system to play out without various counter mechanisms is just not wise in the least. I'm all for something else to be done. So how do we go about leveling the playing field, and course correcting our path?

This "theft" you speak of, has been going on for a very long time in the form of taxing the rich. There is no evidence of a slippery slope which you seem to be alluding to. There is a tension of forces at play, which tug and pull from a little more this, to a little more that way.

No slippery slope.

Just wondering if somebody thinks it's cool to take money from other people for themselves, where do you draw the line?

The govnarment and most wealthy people are in complete control of this whole continent. I believe it's similar or identical situation in every continent and every system authority and control. I dont know about United States but here in Canada the government taxes most of, if not all products except lowering it on items like alcohol, which makes little to no sense whatsoever considering alcohol a danger for adults and especially to minors because theres a problem with minors consuming alcohol pretty much everywhere, not just in Canada or US. Garbage, whether legal or illegal is bought, used and consumed everyday. Alcohol Beverages Can disable your emotions durring intoxication and lower ability maintaining balance. Also lowers hand-eye coordination, making it most leading cause of car accidents not to mention the loss and suffering from family loved ones. So, who is or who can be held responsible or at least take part for this unfortunate event? Most would assume it drivers mistake but others can take responsibility for this as well, being driving school instructors or the lack of police officers available to monitor street for intoxicated drivers, making it a serious situation where solutions like increased fines or even training for employees of places where alcohol is available for purchase, to observe and report drivers who demonstrate the basic indication of being intoxicated make job easier for the police prevent in future, are great ideas. Dumb decisions can always be expected from pretty much anyone but theres never going to be a time when nobody makes mistakes and for people quit on effort prevent this, based on the decisions people make, is wrong and probably wont ever happen, i hope. Vrtually, you can tie the government, wealth and most wealthy to anything seemingly wrong, suspicious or flat-out illegal happening within any country. My number one concern, including government apparently, is security and safety of citizens beyond and within our borders. World governments need realise secrecy is never answer but a gateway even more trouble.

a reply to: Jamie1

Just wondering if somebody thinks it's cool to take money from other people for themselves

Look it up. Taxation in the USA.
Roosevelt. New Deal. en.wikipedia.org...

It was Reagan who started this whole crap system. ALL of the happiest, most prosperous countries in the world (Scandinavia) have high tax rates and AWESOME social services.

Do your homework and stop being so self-centered.

The "threshold" is when you have more money than even your pal called 'God' could spend.
Get with the program.

How much do you REALLY NEED?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Reagan who had a Democrat House of Representatives all 8 years.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Lol, you quoted Jamie but you did not answer the question.

Do you think it okay to take money from other people?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
The "threshold" is when you have more money than even your pal called 'God' could spend.
Get with the program.

How much do you REALLY NEED?

I'm asking YOU where YOU draw the line when it comes to taking other people's money for yourself.

What's your threshold?

Do you get to decide how much somebody else needs?

Who gets to decide how much you need? Your poor neighbor?

a reply to: thesaneone

LOL!!! This is what I said to 'jamie':

Look it up. Taxation in the USA.
Roosevelt. New Deal. en.wikipedia.org...

It was Reagan who started this whole crap system. ALL of the happiest, most prosperous countries in the world (Scandinavia) have high tax rates and AWESOME social services.

Do your homework and stop being so self-centered.

The "threshold" is when you have more money than even your pal called 'God' could spend.
Get with the program.

YES - I THINK IT'S OKAY for people to share. If I have 95 bananas, and there are 50 people who need a banana, I'm FINE with that, because if I eat more than 4 bananas a day, I get indigestion. That leaves me about 10 days' worth of bananas.

Am I suffering? No. Is that other person suffering? No, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BANANA.

God.

a reply to: Jamie1

You know very well what I'm talking about. If a person is so wealthy that he would never, ever be wanting, then he is wealthy enough to share.

This 'inheritance tax' that everyone is frothing about only applies to people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it (except, of course, to hide it off-shore and spend a few incognito months look for another super-yacht while they continue to earn 350% MORE per hour than the employees who make it all happen).
Disgusting.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Jamie1

You know very well what I'm talking about. If a person is so wealthy that he would never, ever be wanting, then he is wealthy enough to share.

This 'inheritance tax' that everyone is frothing about only applies to people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it (except, of course, to hide it off-shore and spend a few incognito months look for another super-yacht while they continue to earn 350% MORE per hour than the employees who make it all happen).
Disgusting.

So you still are avoiding the question and you're talking in hyperbole.

Sharing is something willfully done.

I don't know what you're talking about. What amount of money does you neighbor need to have for you to feel justified to walk into his home with a gun and demand he give you his money because he has more than you?

a reply to: xuenchen

I guess you are unaware that the 'parties' flip-flop with their ideologies.

Hm. Who woulda thunk?

le sigh

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

I guess you are unaware that the 'parties' flip-flop with their ideologies.

Hm. Who woulda thunk?

le sigh

How so prey tell.

a reply to: Jamie1

Sharing is something willfully done.

I don't know what you're talking about. What amount of money does you neighbor need to have for you to feel justified to walk into his home with a gun and demand he give you his money because he has more than you?

W T F are you talking about?

Who said anything about guns and demands? We are talking about TAXES. In the past, in the United States of America (USA), taxes on the wealthiest have been as high as 90% OR MORE. And those people STILL had enough to live on. Their taxes built the highways you drive on, and the dams for the lakes you go to, BY PAYING PEOPLE AND GETTING STUFF DONE.

You know what? I'm done with you. Go listen to Rush, or read some Glenn.

But no matter what, DO NOT listen to NPR, or read CNN, or pay attention to any rational person who realizes what is going on. Do NOT think about the kids lacing soccer balls together for 19 hours a day, or the people who survive on a dime per week. Don't even consider it. MMkay? Nice to meet ya.

Have a good time with all your wealth.

^^^^^ This is my message to the wealthy who refuse to recognize that there are people starving right here in the USA. ^^^^^