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

a reply to: xuenchen

Look it up.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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. ^^^^^

I'm talking about guns because ultimately taxes come down to taking money from somebody, and if they don't agree, somebody from the government shows up at their house with a gun.

Not sure why you don't want to answer the question.

How much money does your neighbor need to have before you feel justified in walking over to his house to take his money so you can use it for yourself?

And we're not even talking about income taxes. We're talking about money your neighbor has saved AFTER he already paid his taxes.

originally posted by: Jamie1

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

I don't think it's "cool", but it's also not "cool" to force the use of financial tools which benefit your class and harm others.

The line is drawn with the pen in law, and that changes through the years. This should be obvious, is it not?

a reply to: thesaneone

I'm pretty sure nobody is going answer 'NO' or debate if taking someones earnings or inheritance is ok. I'm ppositive most answers are going YES and unlikey ones where someone saying NO because defending a criminal act is almost like being a criminal due to support of a decision describing a criminal act and opinions whether its ok to or not is out of question and makes you a supporter of crime.

a reply to: Jamie1

How much money does your neighbor need to have before you feel justified in walking over to his house to take his money so you can use it for yourself?

And we're not even talking about income taxes. We're talking about money your neighbor has saved AFTER he already paid his taxes.

This is a ridiculous question. If I lived next to someone who had that much money, how would I know it? Because his house is a mansion, and mine is a shack? Or if my house is just as nice as his, but lacks the garden gnomes?

Well, if my house is as nice as his (or maybe almost), I'd have no reason to go and "take" his money.

If I'm living in a shack made of sticks, yes, I might want to knock and see if he might help me.

But - I guess in YOUR neighborhood, no one lives in shacks, or needs help. "Lucky You"!
*god I miss the eyeroll smiley*

This whole stupid fracas is about the inheritance or estate tax. IT ONLY APPLIES to people who have bajillions of dollars. It doesn't touch your precious $100,000. Are you sitting on $5 MILLION? Yes?? - then you have more than you need and it's time to pony up to make sure your fellow citizens are housed, healthy, and secure enough to WORK rather than feeling desperate and hopeless.
gha

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It's actually over $5 million at this point.

Estate Tax

I would agree with people who say this potentially affects farms which would otherwise be handed down. Most other cases don't make much sense.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I would agree with people who say this potentially affects farms which would otherwise be handed down.

Farms are an entirely different thing than 'Stocks'. Wall Street and all its children (nasdaq, dow, S&P) are fake.

LAND is what matters. So, yes, I agree with the farm thing, too.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: Jamie1

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

I don't think it's "cool", but it's also not "cool" to force the use of financial tools which benefit your class and harm others.

The line is drawn with the pen in law, and that changes through the years. This should be obvious, is it not?

Yes, of course it's written in the law.

I'm curious to learn people's personal views about when they think it's ok to take somebody else's money for themselves, just because the other person has more money.

What is your personal view? If somebody has $10,000 more than you, is it ok to take 1/2 for yourself? $100,000? $1 million?

a reply to: Jamie1

I wonder what your threshold is. What do you think is a reasonable amount of money for an individual to earn over a 1 year period?

If you're willing to answer that, would you be willing to discuss the merits of the concentration of wealth and whether or not it's good for 1 person to hold more wealth than 100 million people?

Do you view extreme wealth inequality as a good thing or a bad thing?

If extreme wealth inequality is a bad thing, should it be rectified through taxation or at all?

As to your question on where I would 'draw the line,' I believe in progressive taxation. Starting at the bottom at near 0% effective taxation on the poor and upwards of 90% on the ultra-rich making more than $10 million/year. That's just on income tax though. We would do well to have some sort of national or statewide Value Added Tax also.

a reply to: links234

awesome
post
thank you

a reply to: Jamie1

Now you are just milking the question. Doing a research paper?

originally posted by: Jamie1

Yes, of course it's written in the law.

I'm curious to learn people's personal views about when they think it's ok to take somebody else's money for themselves, just because the other person has more money.

What is your personal view? If somebody has $10,000 more than you, is it ok to take 1/2 for yourself? $100,000? $1 million?

Yea, that's called a loaded question.

You are shaping the question with the supposition that I would take money for the sole reason that they earn more. The answer to this would be never, because I would not do that ever on those terms.

You should try to shape the question in a way which reflects reality a bit better.

Here's a suggestion:

At what point does the system have to be designed to benefit a certain class before the other classes feel the need to enact laws which will help to level the playing field?

You see the difference? I've included a lot more context which reflects reality in my question.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Jamie1
BuzzyWigs wants to know, besides all she knows or seems to know, which is probably everything ever thats knowledge, if you're doing research. You know, like a project for school or something like similar.

a reply to: diggindirt

That totally defines the truth about wealth and how honest decent people create that wealth, and it also defines exactly how the tax lovers and re-distributors of other peoples money make their pitch to take it away and give to those who don't deserve it, but they voted for the persons making the pitch, or the person pitching the manure hope they get votes by promising to redistribute that wealth they don't deserve, by telling others they will get it as soon as their guy gets in office, or is re-elected. And they know beforehand that the dregs of the country won't have any qualms about taking someone Else's hard earned money, and many of them even think they deserve it by believing on purpose, the lie that those who have that money got it from slave labor or some other method of absconding that the politician told them.

Torches and pitchforks are about the only real remedy left at this point .

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
This whole stupid fracas is about the inheritance or estate tax. IT ONLY APPLIES to people who have bajillions of dollars. It doesn't touch your precious $100,000. Are you sitting on $5 MILLION? Yes?? - then you have more than you need and it's time to pony up to make sure your fellow citizens are housed, healthy, and secure enough to WORK rather than feeling desperate and hopeless.
gha

So why don't you ever answer the question?

In your opinion, how much is more than somebody needs? How much money do you need?

If somebody gave you $5 million, you wouldn't take it? What would you do with $5 million dollars if somebody gave it to you?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

Here's a suggestion:

At what point does the system have to be designed to benefit a certain class before the other classes feel the need to enact laws which will help to level the playing field?

You see the difference? I've included a lot more context which reflects reality in my question.

It's not a loaded question. It's a direct question.

How much money does your neighbor need to have for you to believe you're justified in taking money from him for yourself?

It's a very simple question.

a reply to: Jamie1

If you bothered to look at the link I provided, surely you would see what you ask is a loaded question.

If you still don't think so, then I don't think we have anything further to discuss on this issue.

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.

Link

I most certainly don't agree with the presupposition that I would choose to take someone else's money for the sole reason that they earn more. I've befriended an individual with 9 digits in the bank, and never did the thought cross my mind that I should take his money because he earned so much. It's a ridiculous question, that has no bearing on the issue within this thread.

a reply to: Jamie1

I dont get why you keep saying "you". I dont believe anyone said they were gonna go take by force anyones money in here. I think maybe "you" are confusing this thread with the SOTU thread where they counted all the "yours" and "ours" to decode Obamas evilness.

The real issue is their secrecy when being confronted with serious accusations. Just plain need to uncover the truth is unfortunately never enough with these people. Die happy of natural causes in old age while going through life without stress from many types things, including government corruption and theft, is something i hope to be the ending of my life story.

What you need is education for success in life and most cant afford to be educated to make a decent living and dont have enough income to do so and this makes it difficult to do anything, many things, including running a company, especially starting one. To put it more precisely, building one from the ground up.