Blogcritics: Comments on Don't Believe the Hype

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:59:34 EDT

I'm with Michael in shrugging and saying that at least Ronald Ray-gun wasn't Nixon. Best I can do: Condolences to his family. Do all you can to fund Alzheimer's research, because no one deserves that fate.

Comment by David Fiore

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:09:05 EDT

Craig said: "I believe in the familial legacy of passing money. In honor of full disclosure, I feel that I have been priveleged in my lifetime because of my parents. I have no trust fund or anything like that, but my parents did the college thing for me and have helped me at various other times as I get started. Why shouldn't they also be able to help me when they eventually die?" That's fine Craig--but they wouldn't have needed to help you if the college thing was free, as it should be (to all who prove that they deserve to be there, I mean--I'm not advocating keeping D students in drinking money here...) And you're right, a 100% estate tax is sure to trigger a lot "Brewster's Millions"-type behaviour, but there's much we can do about that. All I'm saying is that I'm in favour of any government measures which acknowledge that money is an abstraction and that, as such, NO ONE has any "right" to mountainloads of it. Our resources ought to be used to make sure *more* people have a chance to do what they want. I'm not advocating the "legislation of happiness"--I'm saying that life has enough heartbreaking aspects (falling out of love, losing people and pets that we care about, failing to achieve some personal/artistic goal) without completely unneccessary hurdles to the individual's pursuit of happiness like: "your parents are poor--no bloodtest for you" or "work your way through college and get C's cause you don't have time to do the reading"... Dave

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:04:09 EDT

In this country with this president, you are wanting to do away with nepotism. Good luck. But seriously, why would you take away one of the benefits of getting rich? I believe in the familial legacy of passing money. In honor of full disclosure, I feel that I have been priveleged in my lifetime because of my parents. I have no trust fund or anything like that, but my parents did the college thing for me and have helped me at various other times as I get started. Why shouldn't they also be able to help me when they eventually die? Plus, if you start taxing estates at 100% there won't be any more estates when someone dies. Rich people will buy things for their kids and relatives before they die so that there is hardly anything there when they die and the government wants to take it. The whole thing is ridiculous and I am quite glad we don't live in your world.

Comment by Dirtgrain

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 11:16:55 EDT

How about setting the rate here (from my post, "Racial Inequlity vs. Economic Inequality"):

We should do away with inheritance. Let the money go to the state. Let each person, on achieving adulthood, after having had an education just as good as any other's, set out to make his or her own life/career/fortune. I know it's counter to that parental instinct to provide for one's children. We should strive to be good parents and provide our children with fulfilling childhoods and happy homes. This does not require money--at least, not in a society that does not allow poverty to exist.Taking money away from the rich is no easy task--even after they are dead. But isn't it in the spirit of trickle down? Dave, this is an awesome post. An economic bill of rights--I love the idea. But tough luck in trying to get libertarian Al Barger to embrace it. To your given points I would only add the following: down with corporations.

Comment by Michael Croft

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:44:03 EDT

I'm not a big fan of Reagan. "At least he wasn't Nixon" is about as close as I can come to praise. I'm sorry for his wife and family, and that's all I have to say about RWR. Craig, I'd agree with you that "100% tax on estates over 1 million dollars" isn't right, but "it's already been taxed once" is equally incorrect. "Money" isn't taxed, transactions are taxed. I go to work and get paid, I pay taxes. I spend some of that money that has "already been taxed" at Wal-Mart, and it's taxed again! Wal-Mart gives some of it to an employee who pays tax on it. Wal-Mart (hypothetically) pays corporate income tax on their profits. Wal-Mart buys more stuff and the vendor pays taxes on their profits and even more in fees to run the trucks they used to deliver the goods. This money gets taxed every time a transaction takes place, in ratios that balance the government's social engineering desires to encourage some behavior and discourage others and the governments' need for revenue to pay for programs. So, yeah, talk of "money" being taxed as opposed to "transactions" being taxed is potentially useful to agitate for a particular social policy in the tax policy, but it's a bogus distinction. It's redefining the game in such a way that it can't be played. Hey, it's got some political traction though. There are people who will never, ever benefit from the repeal of the estate tax that are worked up about it. If you're really opposed to the rate and floor listed, what amount would you suggest?

Comment by David Fiore

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:28:16 EDT

Craig, Well, those are just "counsels of perfection" really! I only threw them out there in order to demonstrate that Reagan's policies are pretty much diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. But I'm happy you seem to have liked the stuff about "hero-worship". That was my main focus with this post. On the tax: If you're going to fund universal higher education, you're gonna need a lot of money, and seizing the estates of dead millionaires sounds like a great way to do it. Of course, the children of millionaires wouldn't like it, but, well, so what? I Dave

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:00:50 EDT

You made a lot of good points, but you skidded out of control when talking about your own beliefs. "100% tax on all estates over 1 million dollars" You want to literally just take anything over 1,000,000? You do realize the money that you are talking about was already taxed once, right? Now you are going to seize it? Right. You don't have many allies politically do you?