On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 11:52 -0500, Randy Edwards wrote: > > About 4% of Americans have $1M in net worth, only a > > fraction of a percent have $2M. > > This is interesting. In a previous post I noted that if we kept the > estate > tax (the so-called death tax), we could fund social security out past the end > of the century. > > The estate tax impacts only people with more than $1M. > > Thus we can say the administration wants to sacrifice the gov'ts most > popular social program, one that benefits tens of millions of people, all to > save money for the wealthiest 4% of the population so that those rich people > can pass unearned wealth to others.
You make it sound as though it's a bad thing to be "rich". Unearned Wealth? Somebody had to earn it. If my estate were worth $2 million, built my decades of my own blood, sweat, and tears, you mean to tell me I don't have a right to give *every penny* to my kids? That the government has a right to rob my family of its wealth that was earned at the sweat of my -- well, brain, I guess -- to *others* that did nothing for it, to *others* that are strangers to me? To the big collective where it's not clear at all where the money goes? Or perhaps it goes to help pay off the government's interest on the debt it never keeps in check because it wants to keep Pax Americana going strong? > A gov't "for the people" -- which class of people? Oh, so now it becomes a "class war". I would become "the other" simply by virtue of having worked hard to earn some wealth. And my kids, who had to live through my BS&T period with all the attendant sacrifices and what not now does not get to reap the full rewards? Keep in mind that I would've *already* been taxed getting that wealth, and so now yet another tax is levied on already tax income. Let's do the math: I pay 40% in taxes on the wealth I build over the many years. Then I die. Then estate taxes chop another 50% out of what remains. That means that a whopping 70% of my blood, sweat, and tears went to the government, stolen from me and my heirs. Now, boys and girls, what is left over from $2 million after the 70% bite? $600,000. Now, can someone please tell me why a 70% tax is OK? And what incentives I would have to create valuable services, goods, etc. *for the community* knowing that 70% of my efforts will just be ripped away from me by the end? I may as well not even bother. Most people in the $2 million level of "wealth" (I still consider that peanuts -- lets talk when it gets above $100 million) got there because someone valued their service or ideas that much. Take away the incentives to "become rich", and what will you have? Far fewer innovations, far fewer ideas, far fewer products. A decline in productivity, only to be snatched up by other countries around the world. Gee, isn't this happening already? And now you know why. Well, not the whole story, but still. You just can't win with taxes. The more you tax, the less incentives there will be to produce and innovate. The less wealth there will be, and the less there will be to tax anyway. Some of our bigger cities have been hit by this head-on for some time now, yet refuse to learn the lesson. And now the whole country is due for a wake-up call. It just incenses me to hear about all the cool high-tech consumer items in Japan that will never reach our shores. Or reach it years later after they become obsolete in Japan. And not just Japan, but elsewhere in Asia and even in Europe. I saw the first plasma TVs in England back in 1999 -- you could barely find any here. Here, in the States, everyone has their collective thumbs up their -- where the sun never shines -- and just don't get it. -Fred _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
