The moral imperative for a 100% estate tax...

I guess the moral imperative to have 100% estate tax trumps the moral imperative to allow gays to wed for inheritance benefit reasons now.

 

You don't understand.

The same logistical concepts can not always be applied to one country like it can another. It isn't the same costs to perform function x per person from one country to another, usually due to geography (the distance to get an items to the next person in the supply chain, or the terrain involved, etc, etc). but there are other factors as well (climate, for example) It makes it difficult to apply a concept that works for country a to country b.

 

What I'm reading into this, public schools are being funded by the district, not the state or federally. Is this the case?

The high school I went to in the late 1960-early 1970s is smack in the middle of a large multicultural public housing estate. The entire suburb was built as public housing for migrants from Europe and the UK in the 1960s.

My old high school has always done well academically at a state level. This is because schools in Australia are funded by the state and not the district. So in theory, all schools should get the same funding. The electorate I live (and where the school is situated) in has always been a strong Australian Labor Party seat.

 

Their education system spends less on education per student and still finds a way to pay teachers more. That is less tax dollars being used not more. They also recognize/understand that there are two types of personalities at work for the most part. Some people are good at academics while others are better suited for technical aspects of employment. There are also those that can/could do either remarkably well, but there is not a one size fits all.

Everybody in this country can't be upper management or doctors/scientists for the rest of the world, the way some people insist is the direction we should be headed. Every student is not going to graduate high school with entry level college skills. It's a nice thought but it definitely isn't realistic. 1/2 of the people out there are of average or more to the point below average intelligence.

Our current systems answer to this dilemma is to just declare them unworthy and/or less deserving and place them on a path to government dependency. If this country is going to get back on track, it has to find this attitude unacceptable, and we as a nation must stop financing communism and totalitarian dictators, so that profits can be unrealistically maximized for a minority of rich/elites and pretend that is what is best for the nation as a whole. It's not.

The more people who are educated to the maximum of their abilities, what ever those abilities are, the less control this corrupt government has on the populous. Media brainwashing, and a divide induced by scripted propaganda and talking points, "IS" doing most of the damage, so unless future generations learn to see past all the BS, our days are numbered. We are already sliding off the relevance chart.

 

You are correct, I don't understand. I do not understand why so many excuses are being made and used that are either irrelevant or completely unnecessary for the efforts to assure a jr high student can't balance a bank account or fill out something as simple as a job application, and yet we have high school graduates with diplomas who can't seem to conquer these simple tasks. All I am hearing is, "It's not fair, whaaa..., it's a geographical thing..., and did I mention whaaa...?"

If it is too complicated looking at and comparing how other countries do it, let's focus on what we spend in this country (almost $13,000.00 per student). We are spending enough for each child to receive 1 home and 1 laptop computers annually and pay a teacher with 30 students a salary of way more than they are making now, if the resources were properly managed, free lunches, and there isn't one reason in the world why each school shouldn't be state of the art. One computer has the capabilities of holding every book a student might need from preschool to graduation at a University. They have the capabilities of holding any and all information needed to guide a student through a complete educational process, yet we are not utilizing the capabilities to the full potential.

Instead our worthless government is wasting billions of dollars annually on monotonous bureaucratic nonsense. Constant changing of the goal post (when the goal is still reading, writing and arithmetic for the most part), and manipulative funding (crony socialism). Resources are going to everything under the sun including illegal aliens and their offspring, and we are losing the direction, a consistent coherent set og realistic goals that are imperative to make our educational system this work properly. Controlled chaos, and misguided misdirection.

 

All schools should get the same funding? What kind of communist/socialist fanatic are you? [don't take that crack serious] Poor kids need poor educations so they can keep the family values of poverty alive and well for generations to come, and rich kids shouldn't have to be brought down to the peasants level. Are you mad? Have you lost your ever loving pea picking mind [also shouldn't be taken seriously for this exercise]? Fair is communism, and equality is socialist poppy (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Do you think he is honestly serious about 100% estate tax? Even if he is, there would be loopholes and exemptions for the richest of the rich (as there always are). That is the way the two party scam works and why it is in place, bought and paid for by the rich elite they serve. What is good for the peasants will not be tolerated by the elites. We are still a monarchy of sorts only blood line stops when the check stop coming in.

No there shouldn't be a 100% estate tax, but if you are going to establish an 18-20% tax commitment on the average wage earner per household then a 20% tax commitment for an estate tax seems more than reasonable. It might not be fair according to the ones who have to forfeit the money, but it is fair to the person who actually had to work for their money, and are not getting what actually falls under the category of a family gift, or having the privilege of falling out of the right vagina. Besides there are so many loopholes and tax havens, you know damn good and well this isn't a problem for the richest of the rich anyway.

It only hurts successful families who worked their entire lives to create a family farm or a small business, that has all the money tied up in assets, with no way of accumulating large quantities of cash flow to pay such fees except by dissecting/destroying what has been created. So who really benefits, their competitors, and the richest of the rich still left standing.

 

My views and Obama's views are completely different. He wants to have a plutocracy along with a welfare state for the rest. I want a complete meritocracy. Neither Republicans or Democrats come anywhere close to this view.

 

A meritocracy sounds nice, but you fail to realize how much of a person's success is derived from others, and from society at large. What you end up doing is, after 100 steps are taken to achieve a major goal, financially rewarding the person lucky enough to have taken the final step.

Look at Bill Gates. What did he do to "merit" his financial success? Did he give the world billions of dollars worth of invention and creativity and technological advance? No, he bought a pre-written operating system program from some one else, and then shrewdly licensed rather than sold it to short-sighted computer manufacturers who did not take the long view. The he leveraged some stolen ideas from Apple, among others perhaps, to keep his business enterprise close enough to the cutting edge to maintain its dominating position.

Perhaps his presence as some sort of intermediary for technology was worth something, but to make him one of the richest men in the world? I think not.

You should also read my thread on the two great problems with capitalism. One of the problems is the inherent corrupting of any meritocracy as those who rise up through bona fide merit to take the top rungs on the ladder of success -- and thereby claim the power that goes with it -- subsequently and inevitably use their power to skew the playing field, to protect their business interests and their less meritorious family members (getting mediocre offspring into top schools is a classic example of this corruption). There is simply no way, consistent with human nature, to maintain a meritocracy. However, a 100% estate tax would be a step in the right direction, since it forces each person to make it on his or her own without claiming vast familial inheritance.

ken2esq

 

Paris Hilton is a successful businesswoman. She's parlayed her ditzy image into a lot of money. She started off rich, and is richer due to her business acumen. She's not a good example of the rich just squandering money and not being productive. She makes over $10 million a year in sales of products at her stores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton

How do you keep parents from giving away their stuff before they die? Basically speaking, the uber-rich (like the Hiltons or the Gates or the Waltons) have figured out ways around the estate tax. They always have, and they always will. The estate tax mainly effects people with family businesses or family property, who end up having to pay a lot of taxes or lose their business/property. It's just a way of keeping the well to do from becoming truly rich.

 

That's his choice, and he has the right to it. That doesn't mean it's an appropriate choice for everybody.

 

Did the heirs not work also? I know people who's parents own small businesses--in most cases, the children are working to help the business--if not actually at the business, then they are taking up the slack at home by helping more around the house.

 

And herein lies the problem. What gives you, or anyone else the right to steal someone's money? If they want to leave a fortune to their kin, they can. It does not belong to you or anyone else. It is not for you to decide what one does with THEIR money! It is not YOURS!

 

so your saying you do not thing people should get a 5 million dollar tax free estate amount?

- - - Updated - - -

to the kin it's income, why do you think they should not pay taxes on that income?

we already give every estate a tax free credit up to 5 million... over that and you pay takes on that income

this is how capitalism works, otherwise it becomes like a monopoly game and a few players have all the money, earn more interest then we can print..... game over

Mexico has a system like republicans want, they are a Christian nation, they treat the poor terrible, why they not fleeing there for their better system?

I have a car that can do over 100, why can't I drive that fast... why cause we are a nation of laws.... they make the system run smoothly

.

 

Total BS! There is no moral imperative for total inheritance tax. You can't manufacture enough excuses to support it.

 

Get this through your head. That money does not belong to you. It is not yours. You have no right to steal other people's money.

 

So, you marry your high school sweetheart, and live a long, happy life together. You work hard and are successful. Your wife enjoys being a home maker, and never has to work an outside job. Over the years, you earn enough to buy a house, two cars, and put a nice nest egg away to support you and your wife when you retire. Suddenly, after eating a monstrous pastrami on rye, you have a heart attack and die. The feds come along and take the house, cars, and bank accounts, leaving your wife out on the street with a cardboard sign. This is what a 100% estate tax is. You feel this is 'right'?

 

I do not believe Paris Hilton should be viewed as a successful person. Should we try to get our kids to emulate her? If everyone was more like her, would the human race be better off? Don't we want our kids to grow up to give back to the world, to advance our knowledge and technology, to help their fellow man, etc.? If you determine success as simply one's annual income, you have a serious problem with your values.

Further, all those who respond with claims that, "Hey, if you do this, they rich will just use gifts or trusts to get around it." Duh. That's why if you want 100% estate tax to mean something, there would need to be some companion laws related to permissible gifts, permissible uses of trusts, and probably a governmental auditing agency that would enforce this. In other words, this thread raises the issue whether we SHOULD do this, and I argue we should. To respond that we CAN'T do this, as a practical matter, sidesteps the critical issue. And it's not too important because if we, as a society, can agree that we SHOULD do this (that the benefits outweigh the costs), then we can surely work out solutions to any practical obstacles. Saying we should not do it because some people might dodge their obligation, is like saying we should not have income taxes because some people might under-report their income despite our best efforts. Practical impediments are merely challenges to be overcome, they are not an excuse to forego making an effort to make the world a better place.

ken2esq

 

it's not stealing it's a tax.... same as your employer giving their money to you is taxed as income

and the tax only applies if over 5 million dollars, nice of you to be so concerned for those inheriting more then 5 million dollars, give it to me, I will happily pay the tax

it's how capitalism works, I prefer it to keep working for a long long time.....

.

 

I did not authorize the government to take my money, either. They do it by force, therefore it is theft. They steal my money at the cash register when I buy goods. They steal my money when I have my tag renewed for my car.

 

somebody is lying, cause in his biography, SNOWBALL, he left them MANY millions of $ each, in the form of stock in his Berkeshire Hathaway company.

 

that's called "communism' and everywhere and every time that it's been tried, what happens is people leave, and they take their wealth with them, by buying gold coins, diamonds, etc, and smuggling it out. If I were them, I'd burn the rest of it, sow the earth with salt, and leave NOTHING for you parasites. WHAT claim do you have on money that EYE earned, hmm? NONE, and I will do with it whatever I see fit, prior to my death. There will be nothing for you looter/ticks to get.

 

Context, mate. The other guy proposed - I'm pretty sure in the OP - that we have a 100% estate tax - no "beyond x" qualifiers.

 

I wouldn't give you a hamburger if you were starving to death.