It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
##ATTENTION##

It has been determined by staff that the original article, while plagiarized in the true sense of the word, was not a malicious or intentional act to mislead members and readers. After investigation, all appropriate action over this matter has been taken, considering the circumstances.

The staff considers this a closed issue from this point on. Any further speculation about this will be reviewed as Off Topic or Intentional Derailing of the thread.

The discussion here has been vigorous and informative, and we want to go forward with those ideas in mind.

NGC2736

[edit on 29-10-2008 by NGC2736]




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537

**Please Read - Apology**



I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize to the members and moderators of ATS for unintentionally misleading everyone on the origin of my original post.......


Nyk...I strongly disagree with your poltics and tactics and find this argument without merit or credibility... BUT you get a star from me for this post.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Thank you.

I hope we can continue our discussion now.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Maybe, just maybe, it was before he died they were able to suck 2 salaries out of the company, but afterward, only 1 salary was justified and she could not stay afloat. Maybe it was some other reason you are not aware of. But I guarantee you that it wasn't due to inheritance tax. Unless, the way they had the business structured made a difference, but it was NOT due to inheritances tax. Even if she told you that was the case, most of the time people oversimplify things to save themselves from having to tell the LONG story. I dunno.

But push that aside....lets look at inheritance in the "intended" sense. Looking back at my earlier question posed: What makes someone born with silver spoon entitled to their ancestors wealth? does that not make them just as lazy as the poor unemployed fellow who inherited lack of wealth?

I'm just curious to see how others justify one person being lazy and wealthy (i.e., Paris Hilton) and think they are upper crust and deserving...while others that inherit nothing are not AS DESERVING and these poor folks are looked at as the scum of the earth...or at least less than entitled or less than deserving.

EDIT: Tell your dad WHOOP and GIG "EM


[edit on 29-10-2008 by Aggie Man]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Thanks for posting this. I suppose the best Obama supporters could do to counter the message you were trying to get across was that it was plagerized. And in typical form they attack the messenger when they have no defense.

The redistribution of wealth is not the American way. If you work hard you will be rewarded. Socialism breeds laziness, complacency, poor work habits and lower productivity and that is terrible for our country. Why work hard if you are going to get your piece of the pie anyway?

Anyone in the great USA can get ahead if they put their mind to it.
I came from nothing. I went into the military after high school, took out loans to go to college (took me 10 years of hard work to pay it off), worked my butt off to establish a career. Now I am making good money and have a nice home and family. I worked hard to get where I am and I pay my share of taxes. I earned every penny and got no handouts. No way will I accept paying more taxes to redistribute my money to people who do not deserve a penny.

Before I get flamed by the socialist/marxists here on ATS. I have no problem helping out people that truely need help (disabled veterans, mentally ill, etc..) I give to charity every year to help people in need.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


So is it your belief that you should not try to accumulate wealth or property for your posterity?That by handing down your property to your children somehow makes them lazy?
Your arguement holds no water.Inheritance taxes should be illegal.Any money you have saved or property you have has had taxes paid on them already.It should be your decision what you do with it.Why should the government be entitled to nearly half of your estate?All the taxes have been paid.Inheritance taxes are the most socialist blight ever laid upon us.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


So is it your belief that you should not try to accumulate wealth or property for your posterity?That by handing down your property to your children somehow makes them lazy?
Your arguement holds no water.Inheritance taxes should be illegal.Any money you have saved or property you have has had taxes paid on them already.It should be your decision what you do with it.Why should the government be entitled to nearly half of your estate?All the taxes have been paid.Inheritance taxes are the most socialist blight ever laid upon us.


Accumulate wealth: My parents always taught me that you can't take it to the grave with you, so spend it, but spend it sensibly.

Posterity: Why, for what? for bragging rights? no one likes a bragger and what good does posterity do you when you are dead? Nothing!

People that survive off hand downs, handuots: YES! they are lazy...poor or rich...it makes no difference.

Whey entitled to half your estate? Because: When you are daed you have no rights. Oh, lets let the dead dictate our economic situation from their rotting grave.

I believe I answered all your questions...the rest is just your opinion.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Maybe, just maybe, it was before he died they were able to suck 2 salaries out of the company, but afterward, only 1 salary was justified and she could not stay afloat. Maybe it was some other reason you are not aware of. But I guarantee you that it wasn't due to inheritance tax. Unless, the way they had the business structured made a difference, but it was NOT due to inheritances tax. Even if she told you that was the case, most of the time people oversimplify things to save themselves from having to tell the LONG story. I dunno.


Well, honestly you had me questioning my own memory so I had to ask my husband just now what the facts were. He did indeed say they co-owned a construction business and had a lot of bulldozers (sorry- I mentioned earlier I thought it was a tractor business). He said it was indeed due to inheritance taxes so I don't know what else to say. Unless my husband's information is faulty, he says it was definitely inheritance tax issues. lol I did get one thing wrong, though: He said it wasn't his friend who died while we were married- it was his parents, and it was not the husband, but the wife who died and the father is the one who couldn't pay the taxes and ended up losing the businesses. So it might not make sense to us but that is how my husband said it went.


But push that aside....lets look at inheritance in the "intended" sense. Looking back at my earlier question posed: What makes someone born with silver spoon entitled to their ancestors wealth? does that not make them just as lazy as the poor unemployed fellow who inherited lack of wealth?


They're not entitled to any of it really in the scheme of things. But let me ask you this- why on earth would the government be more entitled to it? Seriously- that is a much better question than the one you pose. In your scenario, it's the government making more choices that should be the people's choice. It's more big government, more big brother, sticking it's nose into the business of the people. What makes that right. you know? Nothing you say could justify the government taking away that money from citizens because they would have 'better plans' for it.

Worst case scenario it would end up in the hands of drug addicted welfare recipients [Edit to add: And before someone rips my head off: Not everyone on welfare are drug addicts and derelicts who refuse to work), go towards a million dollar space toilet, a senator's private jet, or whatever it is going on in Iraq. Best case scenario it would go to the betterment of society like education, public parks, community hospitals, etc. Regardless, this would still come down to the case of bigger government prying into our lives and taking our money before we even touch it. Sure the Paris Hiltons of the world irritate the snot out of me but I would still want them to keep it over the government. Just my honest opinion.


EDIT: Tell your dad WHOOP and GIG "EM


I'll try but he's usually the one running around saying that.


[edit on 10/29/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


So is it your belief that you should not try to accumulate wealth or property for your posterity? That by handing down your property to your children somehow makes them lazy?


Not necessarily. Reasonable wealth, say $1 million per family member, is totally justifiable in my mind. Perhaps $10 million -- with some conditions.

But how about $100 million or $1 billion or $10 billion?

Should we have a country ruled by families? That is what we have now.

Unless you are one of these 1000 or so ruling class members of our society, I can't see how you can argue any further.

The fact that there is such opposition to limiting this extreme wealth points to how dangerous these families actually are. Through such channels as conservative talk radio, they are able to influence otherwise reasonable people to accept a subservient and untenable position in this debate.

www.breitbart.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
But let me ask you this- why on earth would the government be more entitled to it?


I don't think the government is entitled to it. They would only be the collector of it under MY PLAN
I would see the govt. as the collectors and they would place the collected inheritance taxes in a fund that would annually pay out economic stimulus checks to EVERYONE. It would continuously stimulate the economy and stops the "elite" from accumulating wealth and SITTING on it.

It's not like it will be hurting anyone. I mean, if you inherit any money at all, you should feel blessed, not ripped off because you had to give half of it to "the people". Whether its $100 or $1-billion, it shouldn't matter. If you were depending on your inheritance for your survival, then that certainly qualifies you as being just as lazy as the unemployed homeless person.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Although somewhat flawed in its excecution, this experiment cleary illustrates the general misconception of liberal processes that occur within a liberal democracy. The waiter, when initially informed of Obama's redistribution plan, expected resources to be redistributed from someone else, rather than from his own pocket.

One has to distinguish between the theoretical and practical dillemas facing the implementation of liberal (especially sosialist) ideals. If one should take a glance at socialist theory, one would be a fool to deny that a perfect society can be achieved by simply applying theories of shared wealth and common ownership. History has however shown us that the practical application of this utopian theory is, in fact, impossible.

According to Karl Marx, wealth would be distributed from one, according to his abilty, to another, according to his need. The homeless man might, most likely, be in more dire circumstances than the waiter and might need the money more, but can the waiter afford to give up his $10? The major problem with redistribution is who decides where the money goes?

It will be interesting to see how Obama plans on PRACTICALLY implementing this redistribution across the board, if indeed elected.

Point of interest, where will the money come from? The government cannot touch my personal funds, so it would have to be accomodated in new tax legislature. How will this affect the already dire situation in the economy?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Very funny thread
I am already good to go if that socialist bastard wins. My money is nice and safe out of this craphole. As with everybody I know. If he wins, I am not working for 4 years. Going to kick back, drink beer, and collect unemployment. Let the middle class pay for my vacation...Oh and my boat is now my biz, and damnit it will be rough hanging out at the lake all week getting sun and "working".



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
lets talk about distribution of wealth.
I make 12,500 anually, no health care, no dental, no car, no car insurance
Whats the bloody point of taxing me?
on the other hand, typical CEO executive businessman makes a million dollars a day by not giving affordable medical or dental benefits to his employees, by paying the minimum wage and firing anyone that doesnt like it because theres a million other grubby jobless needy people who will smile and do your job.
I totally think that these guys should be spreading the wealth before the peasants decide to have an uprising. capische?

cities burn and napalm is the easiest thing in the world to make. It really brings to mind some lyrics from a recent Slipknot song



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I make over that when you add my wife in. WE have worked it out with her biz so that we sprad out what we make to stay under 200K while we re invest in ourselves. Oh and EAT THE POOR


JK..kind of



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


I was one of the people who pointed out that this appeared elsewhere on the internet.

I also thought that this was brilliantly written and do not support taking money from some and giving it to others.

Read more carefully.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by guyopitz
 


In general terms it is the middle and upper class that pay taxes because they are the ones that have money.

Like you said, you don't make much so how much can the government take from you.

However, even if you don't make much money, I don't think that the government should take money from me and distribute it to people who don't have my income.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I think that if you work hard and acquire some wealth that you should be able to leave this to your children and/or grandchildren. I would never support a 1 million dollar cap on the death tax.

In my area, a typical house costs 1 million. If inflation continues at a reasonable rate it could be worth several million (undervalued) dollars before I die. Why should my kids have to sell the family home because it's worht too much.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by nyk537
 

I suppose the best Obama supporters could do to counter the message you were trying to get across was that it was plagerized. And in typical form they attack the messenger when they have no defense.


This is so obviously wrong. All that McCain is doing these days is attacking the messenger (Obama.) Please consider this remark in the context of our current political climate, and reconsider that statement.

It is funny that you attack the messenger in the very comment where you criticize this act.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think that if you work hard and acquire some wealth that you should be able to leave this to your children and/or grandchildren. I would never support a 1 million dollar cap on the death tax.

In my area, a typical house costs 1 million. If inflation continues at a reasonable rate it could be worth several million (undervalued) dollars before I die. Why should my kids have to sell the family home because it's worht too much.


I agree. Exempt one house, provided it has been in the family for at least 10 years. Same goes for a farm.

Which one of your kids or grandkids will get that house, by the way? And what about the others? How will you decide?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join