Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[ThatRobGuy]

I would put the inheritance tax in the category of stealing, and one of the most egregious as well

That's one that I've always disagreed with my fellow conservatives on...

I put "getting a large inheritance" in the same bucket as "winning the lottery".

Having a rich relative die isn't a skill, didn't involve any work on the recipients part, so I don't think it should be treated as "earnings"

In fact the founders were split on the matter and it seemed as if it was a lesser of two evils thing in their mind.

Some abhorred the notion of the government levying another tax, however, some, like Jefferson and Paine, had the following to say about it.


"...keeping large estates together has served only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic"

I'd be okay with a high estate tax, to me, it would encourage that wealthy person to spend or donate more while they're alive (thus stimulating the economy), and within 3-4 generations, the Hiltons have to actually work for a living.

 

[MachZer0]

That's one that I've always disagreed with my fellow conservatives on...

I put "getting a large inheritance" in the same bucket as "winning the lottery".

Having a rich relative die isn't a skill, didn't involve any work on the recipients part, so I don't think it should be treated as "earnings"

In fact the founders were split on the matter and it seemed as if it was a lesser of two evils thing in their mind.

Some abhorred the notion of the government levying another tax, however, some, like Jefferson and Paine, had the following to say about it.


"...keeping large estates together has served only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic"

I'd be okay with a high estate tax, to me, it would encourage that wealthy person to spend or donate more while they're alive (thus stimulating the economy), and within 3-4 generations, the Hiltons have to actually work for a living.

Let's say your dad owns a family farm valued at $5million dollars and leaves it to you when he dies. That leaves you with a tax liability that you likely can't pay unless you sell the farm and put yourself out of business

 

[MachZer0]

 

[MachZer0]

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Let's say your dad owns a family farm valued at $5million dollars and leaves it to you when he dies. That leaves you with a tax liability that you likely can't pay unless you sell the farm and put yourself out of business

Unless your uncle had you working on it as an employee I don't see nothing wrong with it. You didn't earn that $5 million farm yourself. Sell it and move on then.

 

[MachZer0]

Unless your uncle had you working on it as an employee I don't see nothing wrong with it. You didn't earn that $5 million farm yourself. Sell it and move on then.

What do you think is meant by "family farm"?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

What do you think is meant by "family farm"?

Unless your uncle had you working on it as an employee I don't see nothing wrong with it. You didn't earn that $5 million farm yourself. Sell it and move on then.

 

[MachZer0]

No answer?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

No answer?

Nope plenty answer here let me post it again.

Unless your uncle had you working on it as an employee I don't see nothing wrong with it. You didn't earn that $5 million farm yourself. Sell it and move on then.

I underlined it this time.

 

[MachZer0]

Nope plenty answer here let me post it again.



I underlined it this time.

Let's go back to what I said, and I will follow your lead and embolden and underline it:

Let's say your dad owns a family farm valued at $5million dollars and leaves it to you when he dies. That leaves you with a tax liability that you likely can't pay unless you sell the farm and put yourself out of business

 

[whatbogsends]

Good to see you finally arguing against businesses taking advantage of their laborers.

"Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide.
...
From 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation, after inflation, grew by just one-eighth that amount, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. And since 2000, productivity has risen 23 percent while real hourly pay has essentially stagnated."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/s...ductivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0

What is an employers "fair share" of the work done by their employees? The employers share has been increasing and the employees share of their own labor has been decreasing.

I agree that there are parasites in our economic system, but it's not the working poor (who are often the recipients of wellfare), but some of the business owners (generally large business owners, rather than small business owners) who are confiscating increasing amounts of the productivity of their labor force.

The CEO of Walmart didn't earn that $20 million all by himself.

Don't worry, at least bonuses are fair and balanced...

"The New York Times reports that Walmart US CEO William Simon’s contract gave him the opportunity to earn a $1.5 million bonus last year on top of $10 million in salary and stock awards if the company’s American net sales grew by 2 percent. But net sales grew only 1.8 percent last year and Simon still received his bonus. That’s because Walmart calculated an “adjusted” sales growth over 2 percent that “corrected” for a series of factors that it said were beyond Simon’s control. Similarly, the company’s proxy statement reveals that executives would still receive a cash incentive even if the company’s total operating income declined by 1.5 percent.
Simon’s “performance pay” can be compared to the pay structure for Walmart associates revealed in an internal document last year. It lays out the hourly wage bonus that associates receive based on five different levels of performance. After calculating the annualized bonus associates receive if they work 52 40-hour weeks per year, it’s clear that Walmart doesn’t use the same pay structure for its executives that it uses for its associates. An associate who is graded “below expectations” or “needs improvement” won’t get any extra pay. A “solid performer” will receive $832, “exceeds expectations” nets $1,040, and a “role model,” the highest grade, is awarded $1,248. This means an associate can get an 8 percent bonus over the minimum wage when she is a role model, and a CEO can still get an 11 percent bonus when he misses his objectives."


Walmart US CEO Gets A $1.5 Million Bonus For Missing Expectations While A Worker Gets $0 | ThinkProgress

 

[HonestTruth]

In this society it is the rich who are the parasites.

 

[MachZer0]

Envy rules the day in the social justice/income inequality debate

 

[MachZer0]

What is an employers "fair share" of the work done by their employees? The employers share has been increasing and the employees share of their own labor has been decreasing.

There's no such thing as the employer's fair share of the work done by the worker. There is an agreement between the two as to how much the worker gets and how much he is expected to produce

 

[whatbogsends]

Envy rules the day in the social justice/income inequality debate

Incorrect. Envy isn't part of the debate, except as an unsupported claim that prefer to cast aspersions on the character of their opponents rather than support their positions with arguments/facts.

 

[whatbogsends]

There's no such thing as the employer's fair share of the work done by the worker. There is an agreement between the two as to how much the worker gets and how much he is expected to produce

It's an agreement made where employers have leverage over the worker due to disparity in capital of the two.

Unions were originally designed to help mitigate the disparity in bargaining power, although they (like all other man-made institutions) have been corrupted from their original purpose.

 

[MachZer0]

It's an agreement made where employers have leverage over the worker due to disparity in capital of the two.

Unions were originally designed to help mitigate the disparity in bargaining power, although they (like all other man-made institutions) have been corrupted from their original purpose.

It's an agreement based on supply and demand. Where workers are scarce, the wage is higher. Where workers are plentiful, the wage is lower.

 

[MachZer0]

Incorrect. Envy isn't part of the debate, except as an unsupported claim that prefer to cast aspersions on the character of their opponents rather than support their positions with arguments/facts.

Envy is central to the debate. If one feels victimized by income inequality, the solution is to increase one's income by taking appropriate steps. If one determines the steps to take are to take the income of others rather than earn one's own income, that's envy

 

[MachZer0]

 

[Veritas]

The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes.

Top 40% of taxpayers pay ALL the tax. The lowest40% pay NOTHING! The very bottom 10% actually get tax credits that make them negative taxpayers!

But keep hating on the rich even though they are providing most of the wealth redistribution the lower 40 enjoy!