What is "rich"?

My experience is that the harder you attempt to cling to any values outside of making money, the harder it is to break through that 40-50k ceiling. The only job I ever had that gave me a shot that did not also feel like selling out was independent insurance adjusting, but I wimped out over the months and months on the road necessary to really make that work.

I thought, though, that we were speaking of the utility of progressive taxes, which I find perfectly moral and ethical and quite useful in order to balance the effects of things like Intellectual Property, banking practices, and limited liability. These are all in place specifically to create and to defend the centralization of power through the amassing of vast sums of money, and I think it is entirely necessary to have laws in place to make up for the inequalities such practices set up.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things and evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think a stricter inheritence tax would have a bigger and better impact than the progressive income tax. You'd end the cycle of certain families hoarding wealth fairly quickly if you didn't allow them to pass so much on to the next generation. If you took a big chunk from them on their way out (when they have no more use for it), you could probably get that national debt wiped out in 3 or 4 generations.
Another postivie side effect of that would be that everyone would be starting on a more level playing field, nobody would start off with 10 million dollars of daddy's money.

Firstly, I do not think someone's DEATH is the ideal time to come with a bat in hand and demand all their money. Secondly, if amassing that sort of money is ok, what is the moral foundation for robbing them after they die?

The issue is close to what you are saying, but I do not understand why you refuse to take the next logical step. People are abusing a system and hording. So, fix the system such that it is harder to horde, and tax excess to get the money being horded back into circulation.

Let people horde PRODUCTS, not MONEY.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things and evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

I know it seems harsh to go for the green when someone has died, but I think that's the most effective way to accomplish the goal.

I have no issue with someone amassing the money in their own lifetime if it's the result of their own hard work, I do have a problem with someone who inherits $10mil from dad and gets to take the free ride into business ownership without having to work for it.

If you look at the 1940's, the estate tax was 70% for estates over 5 million. Now, if you look at it for 2012, you get a 5 million dollar exclusion and then everything on top of that is only taxed at 35%. I would prefer something like 95% honestly. If someone excels over me financially, I want them to have earned it, not having it handed to them on a silver platter. That 35% they're getting taxed now, they'll make up in interest in 20 years and the estate tax would end up being essentially pointless...right back a square one.

That means if you look at someone with a lot of old money, let's say a person with 6 billion dollar fortune.

Under the current plan,
The only have turn $2,098,250,000 over to the government, essentially leaving $4 Billion dollars to a bunch of people who haven't lifted a finger for it.


If we go with the 95% and look at this for a couple generations

1st) 6,000,000,000 (Filthy rich patriarch who's untouchable)
2nd) 300,000,000 (Kids are still rich)
3rd) 15,000,000 (Wealthy, but not enough to fund corruption)
4th) 750,000 (They have enough to pay their houses off)
5th) 37,500 (Nice little bonus, but they still have to work like the rest of us)

Obviously these generations could still make some more of their own money in their lifetime, but they're going to eventually get to the point where they have to work again.

From a practical standpoint, they will simply pass the money along to their kids in some other way. Most likely something to do with investing in their businesses.

An ounce of prevention.... I still am not fully comprehending why you seem to think amassing large fortunes in ones own lifetime is some sort of right we are morally obligated to defend, and especially after all we have discussed about regulation and how the system is directing resources to a small minority, why you would not prefer to deregulate and force real competition on these chumps.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things and evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

There's tax on gifts larger than $10k and on investments so that would take care of some of the problems that you described.

I don't think it's a moral obligation. It's a selfish position, and I'll openly admit that. I like having a nice house, car, and eating in nice restaurants. That's why I work. If I didn't care about those things, I would just move to a warm state and live on the streets and not even mess around with the whole career nonsense. I do, however, want this to be based on work merit. I want to know that I've earned it. You don't appreciate things given to you as much as you appreciate things you've worked for. (Look at a rental car's condition vs. a car that's owned by someone)

As far as deregulation, I think that's a double-edge sword in some cases. I like the idea of getting the government out of the business sector to allow for better competition in the market. However, you take a bad guy and give him an environment with no boundaries, you could end up with an even worse situation. But I guess if the government regulation is corrupt and already allowing the bad guys to do what they want, it couldn't hurt to deregulate. It's hard for me to decide on this one, I could see it going both ways...

I would be deregulating things that prevent competition, not things that protect the environment. That is an important distinction that seems to be lost on a lot of people, but you hit on it pretty quickly there.

Not sure if you are going to address the issue of LLC's and the tendency they have to draw large sums of capital into a very few hands.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things and evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

Unfortunately, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know as much about LLC's as I should. From what little I do know, it seems like it was a well-meaning idea that people quickly found a way to take advantage of.

It was well meaning in that a regular middle class person could take a stab at running their own business without the risk of losing their home. However, it can easily be abused by a shifty person who has multiple LLC's, racks up huge debts against one to make the other ones flourish, then lets the "scape goat" LLC burn to the ground without risking their personal funds since the LLC considered a separate entity from the person.
(don't quote me on that, as I said, my knowledge of LLC's isn't what it should be)

If there was a way to make it air tight against this sort of thing I would suggest that, however since I can't think of a way, then I'll say let's get rid of them since I can see where they would do more harm than good.

Ugh, my bad. Corporations in general, I mean, and the limited liability aspect of corporate law.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things and evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

I think any kind of structures that allow the business and the person to be separate entities in the eyes of the IRS could present these types of risks (not sure what kinds of corporations apply). It would essentially allow them to reap all the benefits of owning the business, but no responsibility if things go south. It would allow them to carve what they want out of the system, then walk away when they're done.