Recently it's been learned that a prominent SB'er is living off of daddy while simultaneously saying things like:

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: Socks most of these people have government jobs, they're not interested in learning how most of America works in the private sector"

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: I got a private sector job out of college without working for the government...i work in the real world"

Quote :

"TreeTwista10:i guess you were just jealous though, being a public school teacher and all..."

What do you all think about this? Is this something that an American should be ashamed of, or is income income, regardless of how it's earned?

There's definitely a debate over it. Another prominent recipient of Daddy's money recently said this in regards to inherited wealth:

Quote :

"TKEshultz: as long as he pays taxes, he can say/do whatever the fuck he wants"

I think quite a few people would take issue with that-- clearly someone leeching off their parents doesn't share any moral ground with people who have earned their money through their own efforts.

Personally, I tend to believe that inherited wealth tends to run against the American work ethic, and our historic distaste for aristocracy. While I certainly believe that our government has no right to deny inheritance, I think there's plenty of moral justification for maintaining a significant estate tax.

Discuss.


[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2008 10:19:19 PM

daddy's boi?

10/31/2008 10:21:46 PM

Inherited money has sustained me through a period of fairly constant unemployment over the past year and a half or so. It also bought my car (used and cheap) and allowed me to participate in some educational programs I would not otherwise have had the chance to enjoy.

I am also very much in favor of a higher estate tax.

[self-justification]

(Now I'm going to dig myself into the awkward position of having to ask people to take me at my word on some things regarding what I'm about to say. This inheritance is a fairly recent thing and it's not enough to keep me cruising for much longer. The opinions on inheritance I am about to state were formed before I received or expected to receive the money. If I were another person on this board I would find that hard to believe given that what I'm about to say seems pretty self-serving given the circumstances, but it's the truth and you can take it or leave it.)

[/self-justification]

By "inherited wealth" I assume you mean wealth in the way most people tend to think of it -- a lot of money, enough to set you up pretty much for life or at least a few years of very extravagant living. In that case I agree with your sentiment and have done so vocally on this board for some time. Aristocracy is essentially the practice of heriditary power, and since money largely equates to power, large inheritances with no strings attached tend to fly in the face of American ideals of equality and meritocracy. It's for the same reason that I am rabidly opposed to the idea of "legacies" in universities.

Then again, there's not many people who would raise the same concerns over a modest inheritance, something that might provide for a college education or future nest-egg but which won't sustain a reasonable standard of living for any length of time.

I don't know how much money TKEshultz or TreeTwista10 have, or, for that matter, whether they even have it, so I won't comment on them specifically. I also realize that it's pretty goddamn hard to draw a line between "this much inheritance is OK" and "this much is getting pretty ridiculous, and would you please not land your private helicopter in my yard anymore because it scares the dogs."

The common argument against the estate tax is, "So it's wrong for a man to want to leave something to his family?" And of course that's not the case. I would argue that it's wrong for a man to give his kids no motivation to study and work hard, but it's not the sort of thing I'd legislate. But legislatively speaking, I am willing to see inheritance as income. "But that's double-taxing the same income!" No it isn't, at least not any more than taxing a company's income and then taxing its employees' income. The dead person has no grounds for complaint because he's fucking dead. The live person has tenuous grounds for complaint, given that they're getting a lapful of free fucking money.

Long story short: tax the shit out of it on a progressive scale like the one we use for income. Inherit a fuckton? Get taxed a fuckton. Inherit $300 and a nonfunctioning Yugo? Not so much.

10/31/2008 10:51:04 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I tend to believe that inherited wealth tends to run against the American work ethic, and our historic distaste for aristocracy. While I certainly believe that our government has no right to deny inheritance, I think there's plenty of moral justification for maintaining a significant estate tax."

I've always wondered why no one seems to talk more openly about the dirty secret of our tax system.

Any political science class will tell you that a significant part of politics is "social engineering," but rarely is taxes brought up as one of these mechanisms.

Despite this reality, the right will start to laugh and mock anyone who tries to shed light on this fact. The arguments about who should pay taxes and how much are completely meaningless unless you establish what taxes are for, and the reality is that one reasons for our tax system is social engineering. This is really what people should be arguing about, is this right or wrong?

A tax without any mechanisms of social engineering leads to oligarchy, but a tax WITH this recognition is automatically "communist/marxist/socialist," which is probably valid in certain ways, but in modern politics, when something earns these labels, it's like the real-world Godwin's law, people shut their brains down, and rationality goes out the window.

Quote :

"PRESIDENT WILSON, when Governor, declared in 1911: "The great monopoly in this country is the money monopoly. So long as that exists, our old variety and freedom and individual energy of development are out of the question. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men, who, even if their actions be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who, necessarily, by every reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all; and to this, states- men must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men." "

(the full book this came from "Other People's Money" is here: http://tinyurl.com/5gtbt3 )

Inheriting money is not bad, if you can build on what your forefathers did to help the country and society, that is good. But when you have people who had the advantage of accumulated wealth condemn people who didn't as being lesser, that's when it can lead to problems for society as a whole.

Not to mention there are a whole host of other psychological effects of a safety net, not just the money itself, from having a wealthy family that help out beneficiaries. Easily accessible health care, I think, is one "equalizer" for this psychological effect. Most people won't ever get catastrophically sick, which is the principle insurance companies are based off of, but just knowing that if you do you'll be okay goes a long way to make people be more motivated in their lives.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2008 10:54:39 PM

tinyurl.com plz

10/31/2008 10:57:53 PM

To quote Dogbert:

"There are two ways to get rich in America. 1: Steal, and 2: Inherit. Preferably you have your parents steal, and then you just inherit."

10/31/2008 11:27:21 PM

I call bullshit. The estate tax is bad because it damages economic efficiency.

What I think would be much more fair would be an accumulated wealth tax. Set the rate ungodly low. But it should exist.

For those already rich it will act as an income tax you cannot avoid just by retiring or offshoring your income. That increase in payment from the unproductive rich would be offset by a reduction in the income tax which would allow small and medium firms to grow faster and compete more vigorously.

It would also tax Tony Soprano, which may be able to hide his income but would find it difficult to hide his house.

10/31/2008 11:59:58 PM

Quote :

"I call bullshit. The estate tax is bad because it damages economic efficiency."

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "I call bullshit," but anyway, could you elaborate on the second part before going off on your alternative plan? Admittedly economics isn't my speciality, but I don't recall the crucial part of it that deals with "people suddenly acquiring large sums of free money by largely random chance."

11/1/2008 12:20:10 AM

"The Sidbury Group"

AHAHA, what a douchey name for a contracting company.

But, seriously, is anybody surprised?

Young people, especially college kids, often suffer financial hardship. It's not until they're older and distanced from that time in their lives that they starting douching it up. So when you meet a young person who is wholly unsympathetic to the plight of the poor, you can safely assume they're being provided for by another party.

Unless they're like super amazing and "make it" really young. But Twista doesn't seem particularly bright or talented or creative or original so...

11/1/2008 12:34:43 AM

what do you expect. he's a customer support rep for some two-bit blackberry service provider. he obviously can't support himself.



no wonder he lashes out at people who can cut it on their own.

11/1/2008 1:03:42 AM

Part of the problem with taxes like this is that because there's no clear line that we're willing to draw in the sand and say "here and no further" it means that the tax often hurts those close to the line, while having no effect on the people we're really targeting. For example, does anyone really think that anything other than a completely unreasonable and burdensome estate tax is going to affect Paris Hilton's inheritance? On the other hand, consider a family farmer, who's wealth is tied up in land rather than liquid cash. When he passes that on to his offspring, they either need to come up with the cash for the tax, or sell off part or most of the farm to pay for it.

11/1/2008 9:24:29 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "I call bullshit," but anyway, could you elaborate on the second part before going off on your alternative plan? Admittedly economics isn't my speciality, but I don't recall the crucial part of it that deals with "people suddenly acquiring large sums of free money by largely random chance.""

Oh, sorry. The 'I call bullshit' part was left over from before I rewrote the post. Forget the bullshit part.

Now, the issue is not money. The vast majority of all inheritance is property such as ownership of a business. Now, the form this takes is very important and introduces an important distinction. The super rich tend to own companies in the form of stock and bonds, liquid assets which can be liquidated in time for paying the tax bill at face value.

But the lower rich tend to own their own companies which are not traded on exchanges. If I own a trucking company, it may be worth millions as a going concern but to pay the tax bill I would need to find a buyer with millions just lying around to buy the company whole because it would take longer to set up an IPO than you have to pay the taxes. As such, if the family is lucky they can sell it off whole for a fraction of what it was worth. But, as they sometimes cannot in time, they could be forced to cease operations and liquidate the company for a fraction of what it was worth, destroying jobs and leaving their customers in the abrupt cold, with almost all of the proceeds going to the government.

This is why I think an accumulated wealth tax is preferrable. You tax the inheritance before it is inherited and after it is inherited for as long as it exists, but always at a low enough rate to avoid destroying value.

11/1/2008 10:16:07 AM

I missed it, did TreeTwista ask Obama a question or something? Why the personal attack? You envious of his money too?

BTW, the estate tax blows. Tax has already been paid on that money.

11/1/2008 10:39:00 AM

this thread reeks of sour grapes

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM. Reason : oops]

11/1/2008 11:18:44 AM

reeks?

11/1/2008 11:24:43 AM

this thread reeks of dads money

11/1/2008 12:11:50 PM

Quote :

"this thread reeks of dads earned money"

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 12:12:48 PM

Most folks leech off of the parents to some extent, to use your wording. I doubt any of us earned a living at eight. Must this immediately and completely change at eighteen?

11/1/2008 12:16:45 PM

Quote :

"I doubt any of us earned a living at eight. Must this immediately and completely change at eighteen? "

If I remember correctly, you can be claimed as a dependent for several years after turning 18. That gives you a pretty sizeable transition period in which you can continue to leech while establishing yourself independently.

Quote :

"BTW, the estate tax blows. Tax has already been paid on that money."

Tax has already been paid on all money. Whoever gave it to you got taxed for getting it. When you buy a candy bar, you get taxed on money that's already been taxed.

Quote :

"Now, the form this takes is very important and introduces an important distinction. The super rich tend to own companies in the form of stock and bonds, liquid assets which can be liquidated in time for paying the tax bill at face value. But the lower rich tend to own their own companies which are not traded on exchanges. If I own a trucking company, it may be worth millions as a going concern but to pay the tax bill I would need to find a buyer with millions just lying around to buy the company whole because it would take longer to set up an IPO than you have to pay the taxes."

Of course, property such as businesses can be used in order to take out loans to pay the taxes. But regardless, I think there is probably a workaround to this problem, and I'm going to think on it for a bit and get back to you.

11/1/2008 1:25:59 PM

hey look at me I earned my money because my dad got me a job!

11/1/2008 1:44:42 PM

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM. Reason : -]

11/1/2008 2:01:23 PM

my dad has been retired, somebody lock this stupid fucking thread and suspend Boone

11/1/2008 2:32:00 PM

Hypocrites cry so hard when they get exposed.

11/1/2008 2:44:03 PM

tell your boy Ch Dizzle he needs to do some fact checking

i've never inherited shit

11/1/2008 2:45:15 PM

you do not live in a vacuum.

11/1/2008 2:54:11 PM

surprised

11/1/2008 5:28:57 PM

fantastic personal attack, Boone. keep up the good work

seriously, though, the estate tax is bullshit. Why should I work half my life to give the government something that should have gone to my kids? That is absolute and utter bullshit. You've already taxed my income, you've already taxed my savings for retirement. At least let me pass on to my kids what you didn't fucking steal from me already and leave me the hell alone.

What's that? you are mad that someone else might get some money "tax free?" Boo-fucking-hoo. Guess what, when that person SPENDS it, it'll get taxed. Quit stealing what others have worked hard for

11/1/2008 5:50:15 PM

the people inheriting someone else's money worked hard for it?

11/1/2008 6:37:19 PM

11/1/2008 6:40:57 PM

good answer

11/1/2008 6:41:49 PM

remind where I mentioned that those who inherit money "earned it." Never did. thus, the

11/1/2008 6:44:15 PM

Quote :

" What's that? you are mad that someone else might get some money "tax free?" Boo-fucking-hoo. Guess what, when that person SPENDS it, it'll get taxed. Quit stealing what others have worked hard for"

gosh, how in the world would someone come to the conclusion that you're railing against the tax the inheritors pay with your "stealing" comment?

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2008 6:47:16 PM

it's pretty fucking obvious from THE REST OF THE POST that I am talking about the hard work of the deceased, fucktard. thanks for a brilliant show of reading comprehension, though

11/1/2008 6:49:43 PM

but he's dead

and the money is no longer his?


how is that stealing from him?

11/1/2008 6:51:02 PM

well shit, why don't we just take everything, then?

11/1/2008 6:51:39 PM

Quote :

" Boo-fucking-hoo. Guess what, when that person SPENDS it, it'll get taxed."

What if they don't spend it, and live off the capital gains? If you're against capital gains tax, or support capital gains tax rate lower than the average tax rate, you have someone living off of someone else's hard work, and paying less tax than the average american (or their peer who actually works for their money).

Not to mention that it puts the people whose families were able to accumulate wealth (ie most white people) at a significant advantage in society opposed to people whose families didn't have this benefit (most american blacks). Note this is a net effect, obviously there are exceptions. If you are against affirmative action, and support a flat tax, you would essentially be supporting policies that directly line up against a significant demographic of americans.

You would make a terrible dictator.

11/1/2008 6:52:39 PM

oh shit, a racism argument! good work!

If a guy can impose the financial responsibility on himself in order to live off of the capital gains, then good for him! But you know that won't happen enough to matter. In the cases where it could reasonably happen, the person gaining the wealth is so used to a lavish lifestyle that he won't be able to do that. Do you really think Paris Hilton will live off of the interest on what she inherits?

Furthermore, an inheritance tax would hurt blacks far more than it hurts whites, especially due to the fact that blacks don't have the accumulated wealth of whites. Those today who do manage to accumulate some wealth will have that money stolen from them, leaving them unable to pass it along to their children. More than likely, though, they will have a business stolen from them in the manner LoneSnark has already mentioned, thus perpetuating the cycle against which you so viciously rant.

11/1/2008 7:05:37 PM

Estate tax is retarded.

Not quite as much as TreeTwista claiming to be a hardworking blue color man though.

11/1/2008 7:06:03 PM

^^ You realize that your argument is not based on reality, instead you're depending on a few outside cases?

What do you think the net effect on inheritances on society is? Do you think it has no effect?

Quote :

"Furthermore, an inheritance tax would hurt blacks far more than it hurts whites, especially due to the fact that blacks don't have the accumulated wealth of whites. Those today who do manage to accumulate some wealth will have that money stolen from them, leaving them unable to pass it along to their children. More than likely, though, they will have a business stolen from them in the manner LoneSnark has already mentioned, thus perpetuating the cycle against which you so viciously rant."

This is a plausible scenario, but you'd have to know more about how many generations on average wealth lasts. But it's certainly true that family farms, for example, that have been in families for hundreds of years have provided a bigger advantage to that family, that a black person who only gained significant capital recently, due to new tax laws. But, we have to draw a line somewhere.

It's absurd though that you don't think wealth can accumulate anymore. It obviously can and will.

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 7:11 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 7:08:21 PM

you do realize that almost all liberal arguments are based on outside cases, right?

I accept that wealth can accumulate. But, the effect of such a dastardly estate tax will hit blacks much harder than it will whites when said groups try to accumulate new wealth. that was my point

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2008 7:11:09 PM

okay...?

do you realize all conservative arguments are based off their own delusions?

11/1/2008 7:12:23 PM

...

11/1/2008 7:13:21 PM

Quote :

"I accept that wealth can accumulate. But, the effect of such a dastardly estate tax will hit blacks much harder than it will whites when said groups try to accumulate new wealth. that was my point"

Oh wow, this is such an amazing stretch of reasoning.

11/1/2008 7:15:40 PM

Quote :

"I accept that wealth can accumulate. But, the effect of such a dastardly estate tax will hit blacks much harder than it will whites when said groups try to accumulate new wealth. that was my point "

The estate tax rate can be (and currently is) progressive, and assuming wealth is gained gradually, this minimizes the effect on new black (and other historically poor subgroups) wealth.

11/1/2008 7:24:09 PM

even if it is progressive, forcing someone to have a firesale on a successful business in order to pay a ludicrous tax will still destroy the wealth that was accumulated. And, last time I checked, there aren't all that many ludicrously rich black people out there. So, my point stands.

11/1/2008 7:26:51 PM

Quote :

" forcing someone to have a firesale on a successful business in order to pay a ludicrous tax will still destroy the wealth that was accumulated."

I don't think this ever happens. The estate tax currently phases in at such a high value, it's extremely unlikely a business could be worth that much, and not be able to pay the tax. Secondly, estate taxes for most people who pay it is well below the average tax rate, or the capital gains tax rate (so they're better off willing it than selling it).



(note the title is misleading, read the axes)

11/1/2008 7:31:15 PM

Yes Aaronborro

Because a tax established nearly a century ago has truly prevented Americans from becoming wealthy. In fact, one can say "because of the estate tax, American's today aren't an order of magnitude richer then American's a century ago."

But you actually can't, because American's are an order of magnitude richer. So using traditional TSB conservative linear thinking, I say that American's are richer because of the estate tax.

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 7:39 PM. Reason : .<.]

11/1/2008 7:39:08 PM

give me a break. It's easy to have a business that on paper is worth in excess of several million dollars. Few businesses at that size, though, have the monetary assets to pay off 16% of their value. You know this

^ if only the tax were the only thing that affected the accumulation of wealth Tell me, though, since its inception, how many JP Morgans or Rothschilds have been created from absolutely nothing? I can't think of very many. The few that existed were absolute flukes, such as Gates. The net effect of the estate tax is to preserve the status of the super-wealthy, and that's mainly why they instituted it in the first place. it's why we have such high tax-rates in the first place. The truly wealthy can avoid the tax, and the aspiring-to-be-wealthy cannot.

11/1/2008 7:39:23 PM

Quote :

""The destruction of family businesses is often used as a motivation for repealing the estate tax, but there is very little proof that many family businesses are devastated by the tax," said Samuel Donaldson, a law professor at the University of Washington and a nationally known expert on estate tax matters."

--http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08223/903229-66.stm

11/1/2008 7:43:55 PM

Quote :

"how many JP Morgans or Rothschilds have been created from absolutely nothing? I can't think of very many. "

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html

Thats because you lack any ability to do minimal amount of research.

[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 7:45 PM. Reason : an individual in the top 10 is worth more then Standard Oil ever was. btw.]

11/1/2008 7:45:11 PM