Michael McKelvy wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that.


Yes. Unless there's a voluntary tax collection method.

It's called zero tax on inheritence or wages, but a 30-40% tax
on sales other than basic items(food, clothes, gas, etc).

It works. You are frugal and invest your money, you pay less taxes.
You but that new jet plane or SUV, though, and you end up paying
some tax on it.

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that.


Yes. Unless there's a voluntary tax collection method.

It's called zero tax on inheritence or wages, but a 30-40% tax
on sales other than basic items(food, clothes, gas, etc).

It works. You are frugal and invest your money, you pay less taxes.
You but that new jet plane or SUV, though, and you end up paying
some tax on it.

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.

But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.


But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

I know, but it fails in two ways.
1: It is onerous to the point of moving overseas before you die
that 70% of everything you managed to make in your life is
taken by the government when you die. This is hardly any different
than your King taking back his land. 70% is outrageous considering
you paid 20-30% your whole life into the system.

2:The loopholes that the wealthy have via trusts and corporations
and so on allow them to keep 100% of their wealth. So all it
really deos is keep the small guys from getting ahead.

But we both know this. That's why it's more correct to call it
a death tax.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.


But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

I know, but it fails in two ways.
1: It is onerous to the point of moving overseas before you die
that 70% of everything you managed to make in your life is
taken by the government when you die. This is hardly any different
than your King taking back his land. 70% is outrageous considering
you paid 20-30% your whole life into the system.

2:The loopholes that the wealthy have via trusts and corporations
and so on allow them to keep 100% of their wealth. So all it
really deos is keep the small guys from getting ahead.

But we both know this. That's why it's more correct to call it
a death tax.


Agreed. So in other words, Joseph, what you're saying, is that the above
typical anti-leftist propaganda is just another red herring thrown out with no
substantiation to support it.



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Agreed. So in other words, Joseph, what you're saying, is that the above
typical anti-leftist propaganda is just another red herring thrown out with no
substantiation to support it.

It's wrorse than that - it never HAS been about left or right - but
the wealthy elite versus the rest of us. Democrat or Republican -
note how little Kerry and Bush differed. Both part of the same
club of billionare rich boys with delusions of power.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Agreed. So in other words, Joseph, what you're saying, is that the above
typical anti-leftist propaganda is just another red herring thrown out
with no
substantiation to support it.


It's wrorse than that - it never HAS been about left or right - but
the wealthy elite versus the rest of us. Democrat or Republican -
note how little Kerry and Bush differed. Both part of the same
club of billionare rich boys with delusions of power.

Class war! Class war!

You will be banished to that bastion of socialism: Vermont!

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.


But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

I know, but it fails in two ways.
1: It is onerous to the point of moving overseas before you die
that 70% of everything you managed to make in your life is
taken by the government when you die. This is hardly any different
than your King taking back his land. 70% is outrageous considering
you paid 20-30% your whole life into the system.

2:The loopholes that the wealthy have via trusts and corporations
and so on allow them to keep 100% of their wealth. So all it
really deos is keep the small guys from getting ahead.

But we both know this. That's why it's more correct to call it
a death tax.

No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.

Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's
where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live
near
new money folks.

Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

Thank you for the party line. Nice to know you have no problem with stealing
the property of those who earned it. You do know that so long as people do
not have equality of intellect, there will always be people who earn more
than others, or are you guys working on a way to make everybody equally
stupid?

The simple fact is that money left in the hands of citizens is more likely
to be of benefit to others than in the hands of government. Even if the
private citizen ****es it away it will still be fueling the economy and
investment. In the hands of government it will go to whatever bull****
government decides to spend it on, minus the transfer fees for the
paperwork.

Either people have the right to property and the ability to transfer it or
they don't. If they do, the government has no claim on it. If they don't
you have no right to anything unless the government says so.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:37:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Either people have the right to property and the ability to transfer it or
they don't. If they do, the government has no claim on it. If they don't
you have no right to anything unless the government says so.

Nope these are two abstract positions between which there is an ocean
of territory. The U.S. today is somewhere in between.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

The simple fact is that money left in the hands of citizens is more likely
to be of benefit to others than in the hands of government. Even if the
private citizen ****es it away it will still be fueling the economy and
investment. In the hands of government it will go to whatever bull****
government decides to spend it on, minus the transfer fees for the
paperwork.

I can assume you never step off your property, or drive, or
send your kids to school?

Under these absurd assumptions, you have created a new
anti-war rationale: the gubmint stole your money and gave it
to the military so it could go off and kill people.

Woohoo!

Law of Storms

jak163 wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

But - there is no such thing as equal opportunity as long as
people exist, since while all people may be created equal in
terms of rights, they are not in terms of ability.

It's a huge land-grab by the government.

Q: what countries do NOT have a death tax?

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 06:45:40 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

jak163 wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

But - there is no such thing as equal opportunity as long as
people exist, since while all people may be created equal in
terms of rights, they are not in terms of ability.

It seems to me you are confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome
or equal ability. If two runners start at the same point, it's still
equal opportunity to win if one is slower than the other. On the
other hand, if one starts 10 meters in front of the other, it's not
equal opportunity. That's exactly the situation with inherited
wealth.

It's a huge land-grab by the government.

Q: what countries do NOT have a death tax?

I don't know the answer. However "estate tax" or "inheritance tax" is
the legal terminology. "Death tax" is a propaganda term.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news


jak163 wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's
where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to
live near new money folks.


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

But - there is no such thing as equal opportunity as long as
people exist, since while all people may be created equal in
terms of rights, they are not in terms of ability.

It's a huge land-grab by the government.

Q: what countries do NOT have a death tax?

Who cares how many people do the same wrong thing?

The death tax is not for the purpose you describe. That's just the excuse
they use to keep it. If it did what you think it's supposed to, why are the
Kennedy's, Kerry's, Bush's and Rockefeller's still rich.

The simple fact is this tax does harm and no good at all.

"jak163" wrote in message
...


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

Only in that it provides an equal opportunity for the rich to become poor.
It doesn't' provide squat, as far as opportunity
for the poor to become rich.

Clyde Slick wrote:
"jak163" wrote in message
...


Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.


Only in that it provides an equal opportunity for the rich to become poor.
It doesn't' provide squat, as far as opportunity
for the poor to become rich.

So only the middle-class should become poor?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...



. That's where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not
wanting to live near new money folks.

You don't know ****.
Zoning doesn't differentiate between old and new money

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...



. That's where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not
wanting to live near new money folks.

You don't know ****.
Zoning doesn't differentiate between old and new money

The first zoning laws IIRC were in New York and they were passed for the
reason I gave.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...



. That's where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not
wanting to live near new money folks.

You don't know ****.
Zoning doesn't differentiate between old and new money

Here's a link to a history of zoning law. My memory wasn't exact but at
least I got the state right.
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa072801a.htm

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...



. That's where our first zoning laws came from, old money families not
wanting to live near new money folks.

You don't know ****.
Zoning doesn't differentiate between old and new money

Here's a link to a history of zoning law. My memory wasn't exact but at
least I got the state right.
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa072801a.htm


That is entirely consistent with this, from the NYC government

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.html

Basically, it was about building heights, and separation of commercial and
residential zones.