World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty [Archive]

Divinus Arma

06-21-2006, 03:18

Yep.

Remember, I am an ardent capitalist and conservative who believes in literal and originalist interpretation of the constitution.

It is my opinion that individual liberty and true capitalism will be overrun by socialist autocracy, and that the people are powerless to stop it. It is inevitable.

I have come to the realization that the values of the United States have died in the cradle. Our infant idealism of the individual as sovereign and people's power to limit government died a very very long time ago.

We are no longer a collection of sovereign states, united for the common good by a federal government of limited specifically written powers. The concept of the sovereign state is no more. America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more. The power of the federal government has completely eclipsed "those powers left to the States". The "States" are nothing more than geographically determined divisions of local administration.

Individua liberty has been stolen. Economic freedom has been stolen. And we Americans are all blinded by an educational institution that indoctrinates us into the illusion that we are somehow morally superior. We are inspired by the goodness of our founding fathers and the moral duty we feel to protect those that seek self-determination. Our revolution was one of inspired rejection of elitism and autocracy. But America has become the elitist autocracy we rejected more than 200 years ago. What makes our revolution any better than that of Over Cromwell, France, Russia, Mexico, or any other? We are not unique. The idealism of our founding fathers was nothing more than a brief anomaly in the world history of autocratic socialist governance.

America is no longer the "States United". It is ONE state.

That said, I have come to the conclusion that this is inevitable across the world. There will continue to be brief moments of liberty in pockets of the world, and populist libertarians will continue to sound their cries so long as free mediums of speech are available.

Now let me explain why this is inevitable:

Freedom and capitalism lead to economic propserity. This prosperity leads to both complacency and a sense of entitlement in the masses. They become sedated and demand greater benefit for reduced effort. As this occurs in capitalism, an economic disparity occurs where the selfish ignorant complacent entitled masses begin to engage in less and less work. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the educated driven visionary entrepreneurs achieve great economic success. The safe and complacent masses at the bottom then feel jealousy and entitlement towards the earnings of the fewer successful risk-takers. They pressure legislators to give them greater and greater benefits and the entrepreneurs are left with less and less. The middle class, meanwhile, are just as complacent and don't give a damn what the hell is going on. The politicians, interested only in their personal benefit, appeal to the lowest common denomitors and steal from the wealthy to give to the self entitled masses.

Capitalism will remain in highly regulated form. Free speech will become more and more regulated and conviluteed to meet the demands of the shallow masses and political elite. Land rights are taken away. Guns are taken away. The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

And any resistance will be met with manipulation, distortion, and isolation.

Violence as a control measure is a thing of the past. We will socailly evolve towards this end because natural selection has been disrupted to allow the dregs and waste of the world to overpower the survivors and liberty loving capitalists among us.

Thus, we are doomed to be ruled over by a very few elite who manipulate the masses like the dogs and scum that humanity ultimately is.

And it has already begun. The United States of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin has been destroyed. And so the transition into the New American State has already occurred before we realized it.

But is is inevitable the world over. It isn't bad, good, or indifferent. It's just the way it is. And I'm done fighting for a cause that cannot win. I will continue to serve my community. I will continue to care for my fellow man. And I will continue to believe in the ideals of individual liberty so long as I live. But humanity cannot sustain that which it is incapable of.

Reverend Joe

06-21-2006, 03:23

That's called COMMUNISM, . One of the two bases of Socialism is absolute freedom (the other being financial equality.) Saying "Socialist Autocracy" is like saying "democratic facism." It doesn't make any sense.

And it doesn't work like that- yes, we will become an autocracy, but why in the hell is the government going to steal from the rich?! They will leave them in their place, because they are being paid to do so.

Crazed Rabbit

06-21-2006, 03:32

One of the two bases of Socialism is absolute freedom

Theoretically, perhaps. In practice, definately not so.

And it doesn't work like that- yes, we will become an autocracy, but why in the hell is the government going to steal from the rich?! They will leave them in their place, because they are being paid to do so.

Rich and poor people have the same amount of votes (one), and there are many more poor than rich.

Crazed Rabbit

Reverend Joe

06-21-2006, 03:36

Theoretically, perhaps. In practice, definately not so.

Oh... never mind. :wall:

Rich and poor people have the same amount of votes (one), and there are many more poor than rich.

Even Stalin admitted that it doesn't matter who votes, but rather who directs the votes, and who counts them. As long as their are two parties, they will tell us who to vote for; and no matter who wins, the Rich win too.

Crazed Rabbit

06-21-2006, 03:45

Oh... never mind.

Alright, how many socialist countries allow you to choose not to wear a seatbelt?

As long as their are two parties, they will tell us who to vote for; and no matter who wins, the Rich win too.

A bit less of the class warfare, please. Certain parties base their platforms on socialism, 'redistribution of wealth', etc. Don't try telling me the rich win with the democrats in the USA.

DA, I have a bad feeling that you are right. I read once that civilizations go through stages of rise and decline. Socialism could become triumphant in this country, but I do not think it would be so in the long run, perhaps just another phase in a cycle.

Crazed Rabbit

Reverend Joe

06-21-2006, 03:50

Alright, how many socialist countries allow you to choose not to wear a seatbelt?

Whoop de damn doo. This country isn't socialist- it is far too rightwing and far too totalitarian- and we require a hell of a lot more than just that.

A bit less of the class warfare, please. Certain parties base their platforms on socialism, 'redistribution of wealth', etc. Don't try telling me the rich win with the democrats in the USA.

YES! Yes, they frickin' do! Do you seriously believe that there are more than maybe 3 or 4 honest politicians in Washington?! It doesn't matter one bit what they say- they are all rolling in the money the rich give them, and there is no way in hell that they will do anything to harm that. If you get right down to it, the only reason they hate each other is because they have different talking points.

And it isn't class warfare any more than smashing bugs is interspecies warfare.

Redleg

06-21-2006, 04:09

Whoop de damn doo. This country isn't socialist- it is far too rightwing and far too totalitarian- and we require a hell of a lot more than just that.

Your sadly mistaken - I have been to a few countries that are a lot more totalitarian then the United States could even dream about being.

YES! Yes, they frickin' do! Do you seriously believe that there are more than maybe 3 or 4 honest politicians in Washington?!

He didn't claim any were honest now did he.

His point is that the Democratic Party panders to social entitlement programs, (and the Republican Party is not to far behind them on that pandering.)

It doesn't matter one bit what they say- they are all rolling in the money the rich give them, and there is no way in hell that they will do anything to harm that.

Actually they are rolling in money from the Special Interest groups - many of them such as the AARP who recieve donations from the elderly who can barely afford the denotation so that the AARP can attempt to influence congress on certain bills. (Again both parties are guilty of this.)

If you get right down to it, the only reason they hate each other is because they have different talking points.

Not at all - you might want to check into it some more.

And it isn't class warfare any more than smashing bugs is interspecies warfare.

Now that is funny.

AntiochusIII

06-21-2006, 05:02

Really, bless your heart. Yes, socialism is evil. Yes, McCarthy was right. Yes, those damn commies. Yes, the Left is naturally totalitarian, whereas the freedom-loving righteous right is always right. Yes, fascism is just a Leftist in right-clothing. Yes, social democrats earlier last century are lies, or maybe they're just right-wing. Oh yes. WHAT ELSE IS NEW? :dizzy2:

What's with the Backroom these days? Either it's civilization, socialism, liberalism, or evolution that gets demonized. :no:

Papewaio

06-21-2006, 05:11

You do realise that you can have components of both socialism and capitalism to create a synthesis, a best of both worlds...

Divinus Arma

06-21-2006, 05:15

I don't think you people even read the whole post. I think you just glance over it, pick a sentence or two, and then make a comment on what you think it may be about.

I actually adress just about everything that has been mentioned here in reply.

Socialism is the modern norm. Free-wheeling capitalism and individual liberty is the anomaly.

Total communism/socialism is just as impossible as total capitalism. Heavily heavily regulated capitalism is the eventuality.

Xiahou

06-21-2006, 05:15

Zalmoxis

06-21-2006, 05:19

You do realise that you can have components of both socialism and capitalism to create a synthesis, a best of both worlds...That's compromise, and IMO compromise doesn't work in the long run.

Divinus Arma

06-21-2006, 05:30

Great article Xiahou. But it is an eventuality because the masses of ignorant self-entitled will override the entrepreneurs, climbing them like ladders in the waters of capitalism, eventually drowning both.

Just look at France, where the people scream and fight for government jobs and the youth demand no change in order to preserve an artifical social system.

A world socialist economic environment is an eventuality. Limited capitalism will be allowed for the exact reason that Zorba pointed out: someone has to pay for everyone else and there must be at least some incentive to excel. Complete and total taxation results in a lack of incentive for productivity and entrepreneurialsim.

But watch as the the size of government swells to encapsulate the whole of this planet, leaving geogrpahically designated regions to "administer" themselves while lacking actual self-determination. Heck, the interdependancy of the global economy alone is driving that force. It is only a small step forward beyond economic integration to international governance. It starts with a confederation, and intra-national enforcement , and ends with complete consolidation with far-removed "state" representatives under an unelected global autocracy.

GoreBag

06-21-2006, 05:36

There never was individual freedom. Your post makes no sense to me.

Papewaio

06-21-2006, 05:37

That's compromise, and IMO compromise doesn't work in the long run.

No, its like going to a food hall and picking out the best foods from the nations on selection. Sushi from the Japanese stand, Chicken nuggets smothered in a syrup of chilli and sugar from the Korean guys and a Latte from the Italian run cafe... it ain't compromise it is cherry picking.

AntiochusIII

06-21-2006, 06:33

Bah.

First of all, I have read the entire first post, thank you. It simply doesn't make sense from so many standpoints that I decided not to bother with.

But if you so insist, here are the three key points roughly gathered up:

1) You clamor for something that never exist. From your own--pardon me--biased standpoint, you present a lament towards, quote, "Capitalism...Land Rights...Guns...Free Speech," and a bunch of other stuff you can see in just about any conservative blogging site as of, I don't know, today. First: you imply that all those are perfect, that they even existed in the first place, fully functional, noble, ideal. False, that is. Whatever human civilization was, it was never this so-called ideal (and only to select individuals) that you present as the past. This alone is worth dismissing the rant for.

2) Second, you never define what kind of meaning are you using in the terms, socialism, Free Speech, Capitalism, and a whole bunch of other stuff, what definitions, what impact, what claim, what warrant, what connections, what justifications. So what choice for disagreeing (disagreeable, if you wish) readers are left to conclude? Rant. Unfounded. Using the same old standards of propaganda that is the tool of the day. The rallying cry of "Capitalism," "Free Speech," and such; not mentioning, of course, the possible, if not likely contradiction that one could create by drawing connections between these terms. What else? Socialism has been used as a synonym for totalitarianism, for globalization, and everything you and those of your viewpoint choose to hate. Of course, socialism is not the same as totalitarianism, globalization, or even communism. And I'm even generalizing here: socialism is a term far too broad, far too general, and far too dynamic for stereotyping. Alas. That makes such terms even better for aggressive rallying cry. Not many cares for "Down with Maoism"--many, including the population you mentioned as the majority, the slaves, the plebians, if you might, will follow "Down with Communism!"

3) Your prediction is a Doomsday scenario, calling for a historical inevitably (hmm...where have I heard such terms before? :no: ) of the domination of "socialism," as you called it. And your supporting reasons are unfounded; this also ties to the first point, calling for a past that never exist. When was this perfect, completely free, utterly capitalistic (are those...oxymorons?), and incredibly moral society existed? Not the Washington regime? Not Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, Lincoln, heck, Davis, the two Roosevelts, Hoover, Eicke, for God's sake, Kennedy, Reagan, God be damned, or Bush, by any chance? You are aware the Revolution was basically for tea and taxes for the common masses, the majority of Americans in 1776 who never read the oh-so-glorious minds of English utilitarians, right? And what false claims of these "survivors of liberty," against "the dregs" being hunted down like dogs or whatever you prefer! And what false claims that quantity of states make better? And what false claims that the world of humanity was ever truly free for once in its entire existence, that there never were rulers and the ruled, that the rich would always be the target, the righteous, the good, the victimized, the betters?

Better?

:bow:

Zalmoxis

06-21-2006, 07:20

No, its like going to a food hall and picking out the best foods from the nations on selection. Sushi from the Japanese stand, Chicken nuggets smothered in a syrup of chilli and sugar from the Korean guys and a Latte from the Italian run cafe... it ain't compromise it is cherry picking.
It's like picking those out, having this great tasting food in your mouth one day, and having diarrhea for the next 3 days in a row.

Papewaio

06-21-2006, 07:59

Meh! You just go back and keep eating until you adjust.

Ironside

06-21-2006, 09:16

On a semi-related note.

Where will the jobs exist when the "service sector" (counting in quite a bit here, like administration, sellers, etc, etc) ends up as effectivitized as agriculture and heavy industry?

Major Robert Dump

06-21-2006, 10:08

There are just as many rich liberals with power as there are rich conservatives, and this can be construed as a class war. The liberal redistribution of wealth benefits the liberal leaders doing it, as well as the liberals recieving it, the ones who are neither get hosed, and this empowers the ruling class more. Then in steps the other side to take a go at it, things get shuffled around a bit, but in the end the same people benefit on each side. Its elected officials living out their own little role playing game, pundits turning into prophets and making a nice buck doing it, wealthy donors and interests buying their security via a defunct democratic process, and people like us paying for it with taxes and rabid consumerism. Our suffering, our needs both real and imagined, are their bread and butter and it is entirely feasible that this country could fall into a deep socialist trend, securing the elites powers even further

Sometimes I wish it were still a barter economy, the soap opera would be a lot less dramatic.

Major Robert Dump

06-21-2006, 10:16

World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty? No. Because socialist nanny-states cannot succeed economically.

Investor's Business Daily Editorial (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=3&issue=20060612)

Just because a socialist nanny-state cant succeed doesn't mean that nations don't try it, and when they end in disaster it tends to get ugly for a lot of people, and the nations tend to lose stability and, worse even, lose land

BDC

06-21-2006, 12:11

200 years ago in the USA there was only freedom as a rich white male. Even then there is more freedom now. Try being a gay rich white male 200 years ago. Miserable time.

Everyone always dreams of a time of milk-and-honey, of plenty and freedom and justice. Be that pre-Norman England or 19th century America. But it's rubbish, it was never that good.

lancelot

06-21-2006, 12:29

Yep.
We are no longer a collection of sovereign states, united for the common good by a federal government of limited specifically written powers. The concept of the sovereign state is no more. America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more. The power of the federal government has completely eclipsed "those powers left to the States". The "States" are nothing more than geographically determined divisions of local administration.

America is no longer the "States United". It is ONE state.
.

That has been the case since the end of the civil war when politicians began to say the 'United States is' as opposed to the 'United States are'...

Time for an other civil war?... The South will rise again!! :2thumbsup:

caravel

06-21-2006, 13:11

I'm confused as to why some Americans are afraid of this big mythical "socialist takeover". Where are these socialists? Does this stem from the cold war era communist histeria, where an evil communist was to be found hiding under every bed? The US is a virtual two party system: Republicans and Democrats, neither of which have anything to do with republics or democracies let alone solialism. Basically there is no freedom, because you have two choices: Representation of the rich elites or representation of the rich elites. In simple terms the OP seems to be referring to the welfare state and the hangers on this type of system amasses. Those that don't better themselves but apparently demand the same benefits as those that do?

Socialism won't benefit these select elites, capitalism obviously does. If you're referring to the restrictive almost totalitarian approach of the modern nanny state, apparent here in the UK under Blair, then you may have a point, but this is in no shape or form "socialism".

Lemur

06-21-2006, 14:28

DA, if there's one thing you can confidently predict about the future, it is that current trends will not continue in a linear fashion. They never do.

Does anybody know if there's a term for the linear-trend prediction fallacy? I.E., "If Oklahomans continue to have babies at their current rate, by 2050 all of American will be Oklahomans." Or, "If the Isle of Man's economy continues to grow at its current rate, by 2060 everyone in the world will speak Manx."

The one thing you can say with confidence about the future is that it will gob-smack you with all sorts of crazy things you never saw coming.

Right now you're despairing over the presumed triumph of nanny-state socialism over liberty and capitalism. To which I say -- pffffft. Nothing lasts forever, the only constant is change, and linear trends never play out to their theoretical maximum.

rory_20_uk

06-21-2006, 14:53

Look at the UK. We've had a Nanny State in the parst far more extensive than is present at the moment. In some areas of the UK it is in fact crumbling (privatisation of government assets, the NHS).

~:smoking:

Reenk Roink

06-21-2006, 14:54

What's with the Backroom these days? Either it's civilization, socialism, liberalism, or evolution that gets demonized. :no:

Come now...

Religion and America are always demonized in the Backroom; it's time for something new... :laugh4:

Seamus Fermanagh

06-21-2006, 16:12

...Trust Div to stir up the pot this well. :2thumbsup:

1st:

Euro-socialism and Yanko-socialism are fairly different breeds.

In Europe, there was a fairly rigid class structure -- bordering on a caste system -- for the better part of millenium prior to the First World War. The Rothschilds, for example, have had a good bit of chink since before Cristoforo Colomb blundered into Santo Domingo. They have also had a population density that is much higher than that of the USA for most of the last 400 years. Issues of equity, ownership of capital, and building an adequate standard of living have been intensified by this. Moreover, the USA was never the colonial power that any of the major European nations were -- and our "baggage" is therefore different -- instead we were a frontier (see below).

Here in the USA our would-be socialists are mostly trying to create equity and promote efficiency. Implicitly, leaving things in the hands of 50 legislatures makes little sense when you can have consistent, uniform, and single-source laws, regulations, etc. They also feel it is wrong on a moral level for some to enjoy plenty when others are in need -- the government being their chosen "neutral" tool to assure some redistribution.

Note, however, that the "old money" here has still bent the system to their will. We have an INCOME tax as our primary source of revenue, not a value added or point of purchase tax system. Most of the "old money" doesn't even have the money, per se, anymore -- just a tax-resistant trust that provides them what they -- the trustee -- needs. Thus the income tax serves to re-distribute wealth but also to partially insulate and protect extent wealth empires. The number of Bill Gates class success stories are few.

2nd

Div, what I believe you are actually bemoaning is the lack of a "frontier." All of the cherished values you describe are central tools for success in a frontier environment, but less valued in a developed and limited population zone, where "panem et circum" socialism becomes a primary means of defusing social tensions. In our past, we simply told the restive ones to "Go West." Sadly, I don't see a full resurgence of that attitude until some form of diaspora gives us a new frontier to explore. We will be forced to accede to some of the same governmental and social tools that Europe has adopted, because we no longer have the "frontier" that characterized so much of our history from 1607 through 1917 (and a little longer in Alaska).

Duke Malcolm

06-21-2006, 16:42

Capitalism will remain in highly regulated form. Free speech will become more and more regulated and conviluteed to meet the demands of the shallow masses and political elite. Land rights are taken away. Guns are taken away. The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

Do you come to Scotland often?

Sasaki Kojiro

06-21-2006, 17:03

Alright, how many socialist countries allow you to choose not to wear a seatbelt?

What state are you from? Seat belts are mandatory in Ohio and lots of other states, as they should be. Your tax dollars are paying the bills of seatbelt-less car crash victims if you prefer the typical republican "it costs me money" objection to the the the "people die and get injured because they aren't wearing their seatbelt" objection.

You do realise that you can have components of both socialism and capitalism to create a synthesis, a best of both worlds...

That's the way to go imo. Can you imagine a capitalist library system? Nothing on the shelves but stephen king and harry potter. They're already leaning too far in that direction anyway.

Tribesman

06-21-2006, 18:43

I think you just glance over it, pick a sentence or two, and then make a comment on what you think it may be about.

isn't that what this forum is for ~;)

I have come to the realization that the values of the United States have died in the cradle.
Can you think of a revolution whose values didn't die in the cradle , or shortly after weaning ?

America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more.
Now that isn't true is it~;)

I will continue to serve my community. I will continue to care for my fellow man. And I will continue to believe in the ideals of individual liberty so long as I live.
:2thumbsup:

Cronos Impera

06-21-2006, 19:22

Sigurd

06-21-2006, 19:55

World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty? No. Because socialist nanny-states cannot succeed economically.

Investor's Business Daily Editorial (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=3&issue=20060612)
Sweden has socialistic neighbour that don’t quite fit this theory... sorry to burst your :balloon2: .

JAG

06-21-2006, 23:12

DA - I am sorry to say that your post is possibly the biggest piece of tripe I have ever read on these forums, ever. What a load of sterotypical, groundless and aimless 'projections', which you would expect in an active 12 year old. It would probably take all day to go through that post and give any kind of response, because it is - all of it - simply put, a whole heap of words with no common purpose other than to fill space and time.

Watchman

06-21-2006, 23:27

If you ask me DA should go and read up on the history and developement of the sovereign centralized state. Half of what he seems to consider some sort of new and terrible threat to whatever has already been well tried and had its worst bugs worked out from hundreds of years ago, and the results seem to have worked pretty well overall. Better than the competition anyway.

And, IMHO, stop being a drama queen with sectarian delusions of what the US of A was, is and will be, what it was built on, what it became a superpower with, and how it will try to remain so.

PS: I also kinda wonder if he's been reading Hobbes' Leviathan or something inspired by it. If so he'll probably be relieved to hear centralized states didn't really work out that way in practice, and more importantly evolved further away from those pessimistic visions.

AntiochusIII

06-22-2006, 00:16

The problem with democracy is universal suffarage and every democratic power has it.
Every poor, materialistic idiot over the age of 18 ( 20 in other places) has the same power as a more wealthy, more concious citizen.The curent democratic system allows corruption and idiocy to rule supreme, while competence is throw to the dumpster in the name of political correctness and equality.
Since democracy is based on the power of the masses and masses are usually dumb, it is natural that geneticly superior men will be bullied and pushed to the edge of society because stupid people are green with envy on everyone with a well-diserved edge.

But, since the world would be a more dull place without stupid masses, I thank the stupid masses for their very existance.Yeah...

Who's the Superior Guy again? Don't, please, ever say something along the lines of Aryan. Those dumbarses genocided their way through the natives of India anyway, if the theories are correct. And don't tell me Romans either.

The masses are dumb; the rulers are not dumb; so the rulers got to exploit the masses--is that your thesis? Because that's crap.

Genetically superior men...you actually believe that?

Stupid people and well-deserved edge...seriously?

A class of genetically superior people...what in the world?

Jeez. What a tripe. What's the skin color that designate the Superior Man? What's his or her required height; his or her gender preference; his or her looks; his or her lineage; his or her...political affiliation? :no:

Watchman

06-22-2006, 01:18

Didn't some wit observe that democracy isn't so much a method to arrive at the best decision as to avoid the worst ones...? And another that it substituted the stupidity of the many for the cruelty of the few ?

Papewaio

06-22-2006, 01:57

Since democracy is based on the power of the masses and masses are usually dumb, it is natural that geneticly superior men will be bullied and pushed to the edge of society because stupid people are green with envy on everyone with a well-diserved edge.

But, since the world would be a more dull place without stupid masses, I thank the stupid masses for their very existance.

Dumb agents in mass can normally outperform a single smart agent in speedily finding a solution.

A quick look at countries that are democracies for a long time vs short time vs non-democractic and it is a pretty clear picture that the uber-leader idea isn't everything it is cracked up to be... uber-leaders ego rarely matches reality.

Divinus Arma

06-22-2006, 02:44

Well. I certainly seemed to have rubbed the socialist/communist/redistribution theorist the wrong way.

I theorize that (a) Socialism is inevitable, (b) This is neither bad nor good but inevitable, and (c) as a prallel point for demonstartion I cite the decline of America's founding ideals. In return, I get borderline ad hominem attacks and unrestrained anger. It seems to me that I have touched a nerve, and as is my custom, I shall continue to dig. ~;)

Allow me to elaborate, since my incoherent unorganized ramblings have caused such rage in some of our leftist members.

I am conceding that the "American" Ideals as written in the constitution have been steadily eroded to the point where the American state is no longer recognizable from its original founding form.

Granted, the original form was imperfect. Western culture at that point was not evolved enough to allow for race and gender blind suffrage. I acknowledge that, and fortunately the definition of citizenship has evolved to include the rest of our populace.

Here are the key points where I see evidence of the American decline (or assent, if you so choose to view it that way) to socialism.

(1) States were essentially sovereign, but for the unity as required under the enumerated powers of the federal government. The framers were very specific in outlining the powers of the entity unifying the states. It was recognized that confederation failed because of a lack of "glue". Fair enough. I agree with the need to form a government unifying the states under standardized and specifically outlined powers. But all other powers were left to the states. What do we have now? Under the commerce clause and supremacy clause, the national government has expanded its potential for power into almost every aspect of state level governance, ultimately undermining state self-determination under the guise of "commerce". As Justice O'Conner wrote in Ashcroft v. Raich, "We enforce the “outer limits” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protecthistoric spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution ofpower fundamental to our federalist system of government". Further, O'Conner wrote: "Today’s decision suggests that the federal regulation of local activity is immune to Commerce Clause challenge because Congress chose to act with an ambitious, all-encompassing statute, rather than piecemeal. In my view,allowing Congress to set the terms of the constitutional debate in this way, i.e., by packaging regulation of local activity in broader schemes, is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause." "...little may be left to the notion of enumerated powers."

FULL CASE TEXT FROM RAICH (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06june20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf)

The errosion of the enumerated powers under the commerce-supremacy formula began with Wickard, and will continue into the future.

The consequence is the absolute elimination of State sovereignty as envisioned and demanded under the Consitution of the United States.

(2) Citizens of this country had a right to land ownership, free from government theft unless it benefited the greater public good. Land ownership was guaranteed and protected. The only instances where a man's land could be taken from him under eminent domain was for government use where it was necessary; roads, utilities, extreme instances of blight, and et cetera. Now, under Kelo v. New London, local government may take a man's land and grant it to another private citizen if that private citizen is able to devlop the land and improve the tax base. Thus, no property is safe and the feeding frenzy has already begun.

Now Gentleman, how long do you think it will be before there is a synthesis of power under a supremacy-commerce-eminent domain formula?

That is federal-level socialism.

Why is this eventual? Because the ignorant masses wil demand it, the middle class will ignore it, the liberal elite will support it, and the rest of us will go to hell.

Papewaio

06-22-2006, 03:03

(1) States were essentially sovereign, but for the unity as required under the enumerated powers of the federal government. The framers were very specific in outlining the powers of the entity unifying the states. It was recognized that confederation failed because of a lack of "glue". Fair enough. I agree with the need to form a government unifying the states under standardized and specifically outlined powers. But all other powers were left to the states.

States consolidating into Federal... modern communications and infrastructure could mean the removal of tiers of government.

But state rights are independent of individual rights. I don't think having strong states means any more or less socialism.

(2) Now, under Kelo v. New London, local government may take a man's land and grant it to another private citizen if that private citizen is able to devlop the land and improve the tax base. Thus, no property is safe and the feeding frenzy has already begun.

Surely that is unfettered capitalism... it seems you do not like the conclusion and hence would want a system that protects individuals first and has a capital economy second. A neo-socialist.

Which some democratic-neo-socialist governments crossed with capitalistic economies do.

Divinus Arma

06-22-2006, 05:43

Surely that is unfettered capitalism...

Private property rights are essential to capitalism.

It is not capitalism to take away another's property against their will and give it to somebody else. That is not a market economy.

Reverend Joe

06-22-2006, 05:56

Papewaio

06-22-2006, 06:03

Capitalism involves privately owned property that is operated for profit.

Corporations are open to having a hostile takeover. All the current law does is create a similar strategy on the private user in which capital will be maximised for profit. The capital will still be privately owned, it just will be operated for more (maximum) profit by the new owner. It does cross the older free market philosophical boundary that all trades should be voluntary.

Lehesu

06-22-2006, 06:56

The point that I don't understand in the rant is why the strengthening of federal power over state power heralds a Socialist world?

Huh?

Perhaps for centralized totalitarianism, but socialism? And the idea that the Federal Government insidiously winds and wends itself to take over state powers is absurd. The states have, individually, shown enough incompetence in a wide variety of issues and practically asked or forced federal intervention. Civil rights? Whoops, the states dropped that ball. Economic safety nets? Uh, let the Federal government handle it. And don't stop those block grants, by God!

The states are really not some bastion of capitalism.

And with that redistribution of property to turn more capital? Isn't that extreme capitalism? The incompetent being crushed under the desire for profit? In an extreme capitalist system, some people have to die because they end up in the bottom of the skill pool due to genetics or socio-economic standing. Stripping someone's land because he can't or won't use it to turn a profit strikes me as rather capitalist in the extreme, like firing an employee because he isn't helping the company only on a larger scale.

Perhaps you are lamenting the loss of "American values", the existence of which others can debate, because your definition of socialism isn't gelling with your arguments.

Watchman

06-22-2006, 10:59

(2) Citizens of this country had a right to land ownership, free from government theft unless it benefited the greater public good. Land ownership was guaranteed and protected. The only instances where a man's land could be taken from him under eminent domain was for government use where it was necessary; roads, utilities, extreme instances of blight, and et cetera. Now, under Kelo v. New London, local government may take a man's land and grant it to another private citizen if that private citizen is able to devlop the land and improve the tax base. Thus, no property is safe and the feeding frenzy has already begun.

Now Gentleman, how long do you think it will be before there is a synthesis of power under a supremacy-commerce-eminent domain formula?

That is federal-level socialism.I fail to perceive anything particularly "socialist" in this. Socialism would involve all the land being state (here in the more common meaning of nation-state, not the jumped-up province the Americans use the term for) property and under its direct adminstration in the first place rather than being just moved from one private owner to another, now wouldn't it ?

What it does smack of (at least as presented here), however, is runaway capitalism where the local adminstration has become willing to cooperate with influental private interests to sacrifice individual rights for economic expediency and profit. I don't really see any federal connection here, it being the local governement at work according to the quote above, except perhaps on the judicial side (I presume the case eventually went fairly high up in the courts).

Something in the whole scenario actually kind of reminds me of those old practices of monarchs granting prominent people land, though. In some cases that very nearly led to the introduction of de facto serfdom where none had previously existed, too. All of which has nothing at all to do with socialism - which is pretty much diametrically opposed to such favoritistic and unequal ancien regime style practices anyway as far as basic ideology goes - but could probably be construed as corruption in the context of modern adminstrative bureaucracy, although I'd refrain from doing so without knowing more details of the case.

In any case, I'd say it has much more to do with the self-destructive short-term profiteering of too unrestricted market economy (and related values which subordinate virtually everything else to money and profit), which by its inherent logic of accumulating capital for investement in the accumulation of more capital cannot but lead to eventual concentration of influence and other resources in the hands of a comparatively small elite unlikely to be altogether too restrained by legislation, than socialism in any commonly accepted meaning.

Put this way: a wholly (or practically) unregulated market is practically quaranteed to produce a in practice parasitical class of tax-exempt aristocrats who have a functional stranglehold on various vital resources and can duly exert influence to skew the "rules of the game" to ensure the continuation of their own power and position and stifle any threats to it. Total freedom is its own worst enemy, as it has no safeguards against the already powerful becoming even more powerful and subordinating others for their own ends.

Which in my opinion is really the just about single biggest problem in the US socioeconomy; not enough checks and balances on the "power elite" of the private sector, hence allowing them to run roughshod and try to subvert the sociopolitical structures to their own ends and Devil take the "free market" if it doesn't profit them...

Point (1), however, is rather dubious. The internal structures of states are not some eternal perfect creations; they are subject to changes over the time and in response to stimuli (those that weren't rarely met good ends...), and the US of A certainly has had quite enough of reasons to move towards a more centralized system for much of the past century. Strongly centralized state structures, you see, have proven themselves really good for mustering and deploying the resources for fighting conflicts; that's what the first ones in the modern sovereign "Westphalian" tradition specifically evolved for during the war-torn 1600s in the first place, although the basic principle is in hindsight apparent from way earlier on. And the US fought in two total wars as well as shouldered the better part of the burden of paying for the wars-by-proxy and arms race of the potentially apocalyptic Cold War, if only by the default of being just about the only state in its block that wasn't figuratively or literally a smouldering rubble-field at the start...

And now it has the questionable honour of trying to maintain its imperial pre-eminence in the post-Cold War world where its extremely sophisticated and hideously expensive extant military-intelligence structures are very much a liablity if not employed to "pay themselves back" one way or another, and quite possibly way too thoroughly integrated in the economy, society and political system to be dismantled if necessary.

And guess who rakes in the real profits ? Pretty much the same folks as back in the 1600s - arms manufacturers and merchants and similar unscrupulous tycoons, as well as those capitalists fortunate enough to be in a position where they can otherwise make a profit out of the policies the state pursues for its own reasons.

Aenlic

06-22-2006, 11:44

Typical. Someone with faulty understanding puts socialism at one end and individual liberty at the other. I blame the total lack of education received in our so-called education systems.

Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. More BS propaganda given weight by the fools who subscribed to the bastardization of socialism which Lenin created with his "war communism" and which was completely warped beyond all relation to socialism by Stalin and Mao and their toadies.

Just in case you're wondering, Eric Arthur Blair - otherwise known by his pen name George Orwell - was a socialist. He was also against state-controlled Stalinist centrally-run capitalism. That's right I said Stalinism in the same breath as capitalism. Stalinism has more in common with capitalism than with socialism. George Orwell as anti-socialist is just more BS propaganda, too readily believed by the credulous.

Lenin was not and never was the be-all and end-all of socialist theory. Read some Bakunin. Read some Kropotkin. Read any of the number of other socialist libertarian thinkers since those two. That's right. I said socialist libertarian. The Libertarians with a capital L are just dupes of the corporatists. They've been brainwashed into believing that capitalism and corporatism are the same thing. They aren't. They've been duped into believing that capitalism and freedom are the same thing, when in fact corporate consumerism is the real issue and is the exact opposite of true libertarianism - i.e. individual liberty. Corporatists are perfectly happy as long as their freedom to do as they please economically is furthered. Getting the gullible to buy into it by mouthing platitudes about capitalism and freedom is just part of the dogma. In reality, corporatists and corporations couldn't give a rat's ass about your individual freedoms. But they dupe you into thinking capitalist liberty is the same thing as individual liberty. They're just as happy if their freedom to act as they please is guaranteed without your personal freedoms mucking it all up. See fascism for a description of this other side of the coin. :wink: Corporations would be perfectly satisfied with laws requiring you to buy their products. Don't kid yourself. Corporations are not the same thing as capitalism.

Will socialism ultimately prevail over the corporate consumerism which parades around calling itself capitalism when it really is not capitalism at all? I hope so. Will socialism AND individual liberty triumph over corporatist so-called capitalism and fascism? Again, I hope so. :wink:

And just as an aside, the whole literalist, original intent stuff about the U.S. Constitution means the original poster is in favor of slavery and women not having the right to vote? Just checking. Because both of those were originally intended by the framers of the Constitution and were later overturned by amendment. Not to rain on your parade or anything. :laugh4:

rory_20_uk

06-22-2006, 16:03

I find that using mere labels to describe complex socioeconomic systems is not merely pointless, but unhelpful.

Capitalism can be free. It can just as easily bea plutocracy.
Socialism can be free. It can also be taken as one of the dictatorships (military or beaurocratic) that we have at the moment.

Better to describe the government that is supported and the one that is feared. My guess is often we'll be using different names for essentially the same thing :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Cronos Impera

06-22-2006, 16:53

Yeah...

Who's the Superior Guy again? Don't, please, ever say something along the lines of Aryan. Those dumbarses genocided their way through the natives of India anyway, if the theories are correct. And don't tell me Romans either.

The masses are dumb; the rulers are not dumb; so the rulers got to exploit the masses--is that your thesis? Because that's crap.

Genetically superior men...you actually believe that?

Stupid people and well-deserved edge...seriously?

A class of genetically superior people...what in the world?

Jeez. What a tripe. What's the skin color that designate the Superior Man? What's his or her required height; his or her gender preference; his or her looks; his or her lineage; his or her...political affiliation? :no:

No, geneticly superior men aren't Aryan. They are just competent, hard-working individuals who are smart enough to think outside their box, regardless of race, sex,...blablabla. The state was designed as a kidden garden where some uber-leaders are summend to rule over masses of idiots who can't rule by themselves.
Masses of poorly-trained democratic individuals allow autocratic tyrants rise to power. Geneticly inferior men/women are materialistic persons who can't distinguish between propaganda and truth, who belive any utopic crap and head towards it like lemmings towards the sea. They usually vote for the wrong reasons ( eg: Traian Basescu (http://domino.kappa.ro/election/locale2000.nsf/Toate/Poze/$File/Basescu.jpg) is funnier than other candidates so we vote him) or ( He's a true christian believer so he must do somethin good).
Naive idiots like these often encourage tyrany ( Hittler didn't stage a coop to rise to power, instead he got promoted)..
To vote or get elected, citizens should pass a series of exams ( History, Culture, Ethics, Law) before they put their hands on a stamp. Undemocratic as this may sound, it will help preserve democracy and encourage progress.

Redleg

06-22-2006, 18:13

Lehesu

06-22-2006, 19:51

Cronos Impera scares me. I'm sure he would have scared black voters right after the Civil War as well. "Hell yes we need poll questions! Hey you, how exactly was pre-colonial land in Georgia divvied up? By a straight up lottery system, or a tiered first-come-first-serve system? Don't know the answer? Well, you obviously have no business voting!"

Seriously though, anybody that thinks the German people were a stupid race of people or individuals are sadly mistaken. Autocratic governments form for a variety of reasons, and universal suffrage is hardly a threat to democracy. The devil is in the details, and who is to say what qualifies one to vote on an intellectual level.

Lehesu

06-22-2006, 19:51

*Double Post*

Silver Rusher

06-22-2006, 19:58

Ironside

06-22-2006, 21:00

To vote or get elected, citizens should pass a series of exams ( History, Culture, Ethics, Law) before they put their hands on a stamp. Undemocratic as this may sound, it will help preserve democracy and encourage progress.

The ironic thing is that you would end up with educated, intelligent morons instead.

For example, when they had a debate about the humanification of animals in "debatt" (a debating program), a professor in the subject (yeah quite weird huh :inquisitive: ) was saying somewhat surpriced that humans were burying their dead pets as if they were family members.
I mean a professor in the subject who hadn't realized that pets are considered family members for most people. He probably never had a cat or dog either.

The point is that unless someone could come up with a absolute meassurment on people's abillities to get sensible ideas that works very well in practice and has the intention on improving the situation for humans in both the short and long run, all ways to meassure people's abillity to vote well, will end up with an elitism that won't improve the situation, but only add strife into it.

Isn't communism a TYPE of socialism?
Communism is more a way to reach a final stage that if I understood it correctly will resemble Anarchism (no state, people lives in small cummunities). The huge flaw in Communism is that it intends that the state will own everything and after dividing the resources of the state up fairly among the population it will abolish itself. That it pass a stage of Absolute Power gives it the problems that we have seen with Communism.

Any ideas on my question yet?
Why I'm wondering is that the only way (that I can see) to have a functional society if only 60% of the workforce is needed, but it can easily sustain the entire population, is to have some kind of socialistic governing (the easiest way is simply to reduce the working days though, but that's not capitalistic thinking).
Any ideas on alternative scenarios and/or alternative solutions if this situation occurs?

rory_20_uk

06-22-2006, 21:56

Reducing work for all is missing one very important thing: some can do work better than others.

So you'd be giving important jobs to people who are known to be worse at doing them than others. It would cause a reduction in output, and deaths in sectors such as healthcare.

~:smoking:

Aenlic

06-22-2006, 22:22

Except that experience tells us that the least capable workers usually go into management and end being promoted up the line until the least capable are the ones making the decisions. And those promoted who actually are capable will continue to be promoted until they reach the level of their incompetence (the second part is called the Peter Principle). The cream isn't what rises to the top and floats on the surface in a corporation. :wink:

Reverend Joe

06-23-2006, 03:30

Isn't communism a TYPE of socialism?
ACTUALLY, not really. The extreme forms of both have a common goal of eliminating the market economy entirely; however, whereas Socialism does this by granting absolute freedom to the people and creating a true democracy where every man is involved, Communism attempts to harness the power of totalitarianism to "wipe the slate clean" and create a new system from the ground up. Neither can ever really work, but lesser forms can certainly exist.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-23-2006, 04:02

Getting back to DA's original points, I think the federal government in the US will continue to expand, absorbing more and more duties held by the state governments and providing more and bigger government-run services, leading to increases in spending and taxes. This won't be called socialism or anything; it will simply be. Few will care as Americans become more sedentary both physically and intellectually. Our politicians will demonstrate time and again that they can agree on taking as much power for themselves as possible. Our rights will decay - like a lobster in a pot with the heat slowly rising, the general populace won't realize it.

Our only hope may lie in a civil war one day. Hopefully not, but I don't see much other course. We haven't found people willing to change the current trend. Though Lemur, you give me a little more hope.

Lehesu

06-23-2006, 04:26

God, not another Civil War. The South will lose again and we will have to put up with their bitching for another 200 years...:embarassed:

Reverend Joe

06-23-2006, 04:38

AntiochusIII

06-23-2006, 05:02

The dreams of a dramatic, revolutionary change that has been expressed, ironically, by the more rightist members of our forum simply do not have a force to grow beyond a pipe dream. If one simply looks at the histories of revolutions, it would be a most easy observation that revolutions do not happen overnight, and not simply by ideology. The driving force of revolutions have always been the socio-economic conditions and the political atmospheres of that particular system which have to be in quite an extremity before anything close to such situations are possible. The American Revolution, indeed, is an exception--one could, in fact, make a case that this is far less a revolution as opposed to a rebellion directed by and an establishment of another government by the new elite of the colonials, whose interests contradict the motherland's elite.

That they happen to endorse the ideas of the English social philosophers and federalism as opposed to centralism are based on the nature of the situation and the "upbringing" of that particular class itself.

Again, this call that "World Socialism" would dominate the world is both unfounded and futile. Not to mention the fact that this general trend of a decrease in civil rights has nothing to do with socialism.

Aenlic

06-23-2006, 06:22

Well said, AntiochusIII.

Socialism is more than a little utopian. I'd make the case that free market capitalism is also utopian, considering the way it's been twisted into corporate consumerism with all of the rather non-free market conglomerates and multinationals and transnationals and government collusion with such.

What will happen if technology manages to change the basic equations on which we base our philosophies? Both socialism and capitalism are products of the Industrial Age and depend upon the same fundamental concepts, like scarcity and work and value. What happens when, or perhaps I should say if considering our predilection for living on the edge of annihiliation, technology manages to produce a paradigm shift into what has been dubbed a cornucopia economy? Will that make the respective utopian philosophies more or less likely and which?

AntiochusIII

06-23-2006, 06:45

What will happen if technology manages to change the basic equations on which we base our philosophies? Both socialism and capitalism are products of the Industrial Age and depend upon the same fundamental concepts, like scarcity and work and value. What happens when, or perhaps I should say if considering our predilection for living on the edge of annihiliation, technology manages to produce a paradigm shift into what has been dubbed a cornucopia economy? Will that make the respective utopian philosophies more or less likely and which?Indeed, quite frankly, the human utopia is just about as fickle as the humans themselves (ourselves...) are. If one but look at the examples, it would be most obvious that a utopia from one person's view is directly tied to his or her own conditions and the societal norms at the time. A peasant utopia is one of the most enduring, if I might use such a word, of all the utopian dreams. It's a utopia based on absolute equality, conformity, free of pomp, "civilized" luxury, and landlords. It's a utopia of milk and honey rivers flowing, of gardens prospering, of fruits growing, and green fields expanding 'til the end of the horizon. And this is the case whether it's an Italian miller during the Inquisition in Italy (the Counter-Revolution, that is) or the Russian peasants of the Russian Revolution.

Why? Certainly there is an antagonism against the landlords, the rulers, the rich, and even the townsmen in this view. The equality is an expression against the lords who owned most of the land; the lack of pomp the extravagances of the towns and the governmental institutions that the peasants associate them with. The milk and honey flowing river is based on religious expositions, popular folklore, and basic view--a world without the daily threat of starvation, of working hard just to get food on your table, and natural.

And what is a peasant's God? A study of the actual "popular masses," the "lower classes," the "popular culture" will show a fundamental distortion--though that might not be a best word for the phenomenon--between the so-called popular masses and the established higher classes. A peasant's God, even in, say, the sixteenth century, can be as simple as "the world." An old English farmer used to picture God as a kindly old man and Jesus as a bright young fellow--heretical if anything compared to the predominating opinions of the church institutions. A different condition, a different utopia.

Now, if we but look at the utopia of the industrial workers, we'll see a different perspective: a classless society, as opposed to just being landlord-less, priest-less, or such specification, a worker's share of all work, as opposed to perfectly equal individual farms of the farmers, and various other fundamental differences.

And if we look further into more "sophisticated" utopias like Moore's writings, we'd see a fundamental demand for order, regulation; the wishes of the upper classes. There is still work, if not so much any more. There is a system, if all (supposedly) perfect. It's not quite as natural as the peasant's utopia or industrial as the, well, industrial workers of the 19th-20th century.

And what is our utopia? Ask yourself what do you want the world to look like. What is your perfect world; and you'll get the answer.

Indeed, when we consider that these various conditions--and countless variations--coexist in a particular timeline at any time in history, it could be argued as a thesis that such opposing forces make it impossible to create everyone's utopia at any time.

A capitalist utopia, I think, can be read from Divinus Arma's first post.

Major Robert Dump

06-23-2006, 10:38

I think its totally bogus DA that you blame all this only on the LIBERAL ELITE and conveniently leave out your beloved conservative elite. The more socialist an economy is, the more the people with wealth and power solidify their wealth and power, and the harder it becomes for lower class citizens to move up because they pay more taxes, enjoy the comforts of a complacent lifestyle and have fewer choices in commercial trade.

Big business would still prosper in a socialist economy, as their would be less competition and the public could be easily victimized.

Certain socialist trends that are commonly blamed on liberals, like the estate tax, social security, medicaid welfare and progressive taxation
have been around through countless "conservative" presidents and congresses, yet nary a change has come to them. I guess running ones mouth removes all blame, even if one does nothing.

Keep playing the game, folks, its all the hippies fault. BTW, I have a feeling we're all gonna get a nasty surprise come death tax repeal time.

Aenlic

06-23-2006, 23:40

The estate tax thing is a joke.

The liars got up in Congress and went on and on about how the estate tax was hurting Mom and Pop businesses and destroying the entrepreneurial spirit which made this country great, blah blah etc. and so on.

The estate tax only affects .27% of the US taxpayers. That's it. Just a little more than 1/4 of a percent of the nation pays estate taxes. Is giving them a tax cut really a priority when we're already desperately in debt and in a war too?

Let's find out the truth, OK?

The previous law sets the estate tax on estate beginning at $675,000. Estates worth less than that were exempt. The exemption under the current law rises, in 2006, to $2 million per couple.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a $2 million exemption (what the new law makes the exemption level in 2006) means that less than 123 American farms this year might owe any estate tax. And with the increase in the exemption to $3.5 million in 2009, only 94 farms would owe any estate tax. That's it. According to the USDA, the average farm household net worth ranged from $546,000 up (the original estate tax margin was set at $675,000) to $1.5 million for the very largest family farms.

Sooo...

We're now told that the estate tax should be repealed altogether. Why? Again we get the crap about helping the family farmer and Mom and Pop businesses. But look at those numbers above. With the current estate tax, as passed in 2005, set to be $3.5 million in 2009, who is being helped by repealing it altogether. What? 94 farms? That's it? This is about helping 94 family farms not pay tax? Those 94 family farms are somehow responsible for all future economic progress in this country? I don't think so.

Look at it another way...

Less than 1% of US citizens are millionaires. But 20% of Congress members are multi-millionaires, as are Bush and Cheney.

Sooo...

Now we're getting a clearer picture of who is really being helped by a repeal of the estate tax altogether. Help for the American family farmer my ass.

The repeal of the "death" tax wasn't about helping anyone but the rich. That's it. Don't buy into the crap about how it hurts businesses and family farms. That's a blatant lie. Disgusting. And yet, the gullible and the credulous buy into it like good little lap dogs. As Carlos Mencia would say... Dee dee dee!

Redleg

06-24-2006, 00:50

How funny, so the estate taxes repeal only will effect .27 percent of all tax payers.

I wonder why my family was hit back in 1992 when my mother passed away, with an estate (a family farm of 20 acres) where the land value had increased over time to effect her net worth to above the cap for the time.

To quote

Let's find out the truth, OK?

Don't for a second believe that the estate tax only effects .27 percent of the population, especially given the old exemption levels, the new cap does indeed effect a smaller percentage and well it should.

Aenlic

06-24-2006, 01:03

Divinus Arma

06-24-2006, 01:33

weeee ha ha ha fun! yay! Good back and forth. hee tee hee hee.

And no I am not drunk. Yet.

Getting back to DA's original points, I think the federal government in the US will continue to expand, absorbing more and more duties held by the state governments and providing more and bigger government-run services, leading to increases in spending and taxes. This won't be called socialism or anything; it will simply be. Few will care as Americans become more sedentary both physically and intellectually. Our politicians will demonstrate time and again that they can agree on taking as much power for themselves as possible. Our rights will decay - like a lobster in a pot with the heat slowly rising, the general populace won't realize it.

Our only hope may lie in a civil war one day. Hopefully not, but I don't see much other course. We haven't found people willing to change the current trend. Though Lemur, you give me a little more hope.

This is well articulated Alexander the Pretty Good. Exactly my point: The expansion of the federal government feeds onto itself like the blob, consuming more and more aspects of societal governance be they private or public.

However, I disagree on the premise that it will end in civil war. I am actually conceding to liberals that socialism will ultimately prevail as the natural order of human civilization.

So all of you angry socialist out there can chill out. Look, let's be frank. Humanity is filled with living breathing dung. An overwheliming number of people are just poops floating down the river of life. It isn't society that's too blame, or capitalism, or even socialist programs that encourage government reliance. It's a physiological defect which leads to an inability to adapt. Nature would normally take its place and allow these genetic rejects to kill themselves. Sometimes they do (http://www.darwinawards.com/). But more often than not, they breed. And in large numbers. (And btw, race has NOTHING to do with this. :bow:)

This means that two events are going to occur: (1) The gentically inferior will numerically overwhelm the genetically superior and will be taken advantage of by politicans, socialists, and capitalists alike (2) The genetically superior will be forced to carry the burden of the inferior.

If the talent of the world does not support the talentless, then ultimately the talentless will destroy the talented. Thus, in order to ensure their own prosperity, the successful will be required to support the dregs and wastes of humanity. It simply become a cost of doing business.

This is what I mean by socialism taking over the world. We will have an obligation to support the retarded masses. And its already occurring.

So. I am not arguing that this is a bad thing or a good thing. I am arguing that it is inevitable and something that the rest of us will have to deal with.

There is no way to identify these wasteful beings ahead of time. Look at PAris Hilton: She's a human piece of crap, and she inherited a ton of loot. Thus she is being supported by the very system I am talking about. Does she actually contribute anything other than what publicists exploit and promote? Nope. On the other hand, look at Bill Gates. That little nerd made a fortune and he is leaving virtually nothing to his kids in comparison to his fortune so that he can engage in long-term philanthropy. So, you never know who will be a turd and who won't be. But usually if the breeding is reeeeally bad, most of the kids will be nasty too.

AntiochusIII

06-24-2006, 02:38

Redleg

06-24-2006, 02:40

Nice try at obfuscation, Redleg. Won't work. You can dispute the numbers all you like. They're the actual numbers. It's .27%. If the land value was worth more than $675,000 then too bad for you. Because according to that horrid liberal institution, the USDA - the ones who might actually know the facts, the average net worth of family farms is only $546,000. But at least now we're getting a clearer picture of where you come from, politically. :wink:

Talk about obfuscation.......I didn't state it was the $675,000 cap now did I? So try again - I will give you a hint my mother passed away before Clinton came into office - where her property value increased because of the urban sprawl happen to reach where her property was located. I wonder how many farmers and ranchers are effected by that. Just in the Dallas Area alone I know of several hobby farms and ranches that are close and or exceeding the $675,000 cap when the total value of their estate is calulated.

This happens to more people then the .27 percent that one would like to claim when there is a $675,000 value for expection for estate purposes. Estates consist of items beyond just farms and ranches. Many small business can and do achieve that valuation. In 1989 the last tax year the IRS gives for tracking the data states that over 50,000 individuals died that year that exceed the $600,000 dollar cap but less then $1 Million. Now think about the total number of people in the population that file income returns in excess of $250,000. Care to guess how many of them will exceed the estate tax excemption of $675,000? How many will exceed the new rate of $2 million? Now think on the subject for a second if only .27 percent of the population is effected by Estate Taxes on estates valued at in excess of $675,000 why is a whole sector of ligation devoted to Estate Tax Law, and a whole industry is devoted to estate planning?

Its really simple - and a point that you seem to want to be misleading people on yourself, is that the number of people effected at the $675,000 is more then .27 percent of the population. Hell I its not hard to be halfway there when one owns a home, and carries a life insurance policy on themselves.
(now you can accuse me of attempting obfuscation)

At 2 Million the number of people could be close to .27 percent but even that is questionable.

So do you seek the truth or are you only seeking to delude others into the misconcept that raising the cap to $675,000 does not benefit the same farmers and ranchers who would of suffered under the old cap - given that the average value of farms is considered by the USDA at $546,000. You might also want to look into what all counts toward the calulation of estate taxes before you accuse others of being obsure in their comments. Futhermore look into what the old cap was for the exmeption before accusing others of something you yourself are attempting. If one's farm is valued at $546,000 and they had any sort of other asset that was calculated into the estate tax - it was not hard for that estate to reach the old cap. The $675,000 cap buts most small business owners and farm and ranch owners below the max estate tax rate. This is a good thing regardless of what your attempting to argue here regrading the $2 million cap on estate taxes.

I guess in essence do you support punishing those who work at achieving something in their lives with a double and yes even triple taxation of their assests? Remember everything in an estate has had taxes paid on it alreadly at least once during the life of the now deceased individual. Are you for punishing the individuals who attempted to save so that they could enjoy some leisure time with a secured income source other then the government for their retirement? Why have a savings plan for retirement if the government will penalize you for dying early. (Which it does with the Social Security program - but that is an acceptable outcome because Social Security benefits many who can not afford to save.)

Now considering that the last report I saw on the number of milionaries in the United States from last year

The total number of U.S. millionaires came to nearly 2.5 million, thanks to strong economic growth, low interest rates, tax relief and solid performances by small- and mid-cap stocks, according to the World Wealth Report from Merrill Lynch and CapGemini.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/09/news/world_wealth/

Lets see what is 2,500,000 divided by 300,000,000 is it .27 percent or is it .83 percent.... When one adds in the number of people with estates that are below $1,000,000 in value one gets an even bigger number.

Hmm I wonder how the .27 percent stands and where it came from........

Divinus Arma

06-24-2006, 03:06

What's with this obsession with genetics? The implications of inherent with genetics made is, pardon me, disgusting.

Science have made very little headway into the study of human genetics compare to many other branches of science and to popular understanding which assumes it to be farther than it actually is, and yet people insist on using genetics as a definitive social trait, a difference of superiority and inferiority, a defining class, inherent in lineage, unavoidable. The genetically superior and the inferior. The superficial difference between this implication and, say, skin color (which, anyway, is genetics-defined) does much to anger me. It's a you-are-born-weak attitude, even if the user himself/herself isn't aware of that implication.

I really hate this neo-social-darwinist attitude. :no:

I made it clear that it has nothing to do with race, color, or ethnicity.

So don't imply that I am a racist unless you want a thread meltdown. I certainly don't so I shall consider that particular issue solved right here and now.

My point is that some people are born stupid. And I have seen with my own eyes how stupid people breed more stupid people.

I have also seen exceptions to that rule as well.

When you crawl out of the suburbs and explore the surrounding areas, you may get a glimpse of what I am talking about here. If you want to argue that stupid genes are not passed down, fair enough. I don't know enough about genetics to affirm this beyond all doubt. I'm making a social observation and nothing more.

What I would like to know, Antiochus II, is why you keep wandering off of the topic with rage at petty details instead of addressing the essence of this discussion? You're a socialist. I'm saying that you are going to win. You may not like how I come to conclusion of how you will win, but the point still remains and there is enough evidence out there to at least make this discussion a reasonable one. I raised a valid point and sought to hold a discussion on its merits. So far all I have gotten is a bunch of whining from you leftists.

Let's meet in the middle and determine whether this is possible, probable, or insane and why. And if I'm correct, or close to correct, then let's discuss how to turn the situation into a positive development for humanity.

Sensei Warrior

06-24-2006, 05:39

To help out Redleg's and Aenlic's mathematical quandry I will provide some numbers.

Current Population of the USA according to the US Census Bureau: 299,049,703

.27% of the Total US Population: 807,434.1981
The above number rounded to the nearest whole number: 807,434

I don't know if this helps, but carry on I always wondered who the Estate Tax actually helped.

AntiochusIII

06-24-2006, 06:19

I made it clear that it has nothing to do with race, color, or ethnicity.

So don't imply that I am a racist unless you want a thread meltdown. I certainly don't so I shall consider that particular issue solved right here and now.

My point is that some people are born stupid. And I have seen with my own eyes how stupid people breed more stupid people.

I have also seen exceptions to that rule as well.

When you crawl out of the suburbs and explore the surrounding areas, you may get a glimpse of what I am talking about here. If you want to argue that stupid genes are not passed down, fair enough. I don't know enough about genetics to affirm this beyond all doubt. I'm making a social observation and nothing more.

What I would like to know, Antiochus II, is why you keep wandering off of the topic with rage at petty details instead of addressing the essence of this discussion? You're a socialist. I'm saying that you are going to win. You may not like how I come to conclusion of how you will win, but the point still remains and there is enough evidence out there to at least make this discussion a reasonable one. I raised a valid point and sought to hold a discussion on its merits. So far all I have gotten is a bunch of whining from you leftists.

Let's meet in the middle and determine whether this is possible, probable, or insane and why. And if I'm correct, or close to correct, then let's discuss how to turn the situation into a positive development for humanity.Let's see, this is what you said:

This means that two events are going to occur: (1) The gentically inferior will numerically overwhelm the genetically superior and will be taken advantage of by politicans, socialists, and capitalists alike (2) The genetically superior will be forced to carry the burden of the inferior.

Which is an implication, whether you meant it or not (and all due respect, I am sure you did not meant it), that there is an inherent, unavoidable, genetically-defined superiority and inferiority. You are basically claiming, and I know very well you did not meant this, but this is unavoidably implied, that some people are inherently inferior, the defects, the weak, that will overwhelm the good, the righteous, the strong. And the keypoint is that it is by lineage, by blood, by your father and mother (your as in a general rhetorical sense, of course, not "you") being bad, being weak, being the defects and the inferiors.

That I find disgusting. It is social darwinism all over again. It's "the losers, eww", "the evil losers", "the burdens of society", "the unnecessary", and soon it will be "the undesirables."

My point is that by saying some people are born stupid you have just degraded them into a position of a permanent inferior.

In this post you noted that you did not meant it to be genetics, but you maintained it to be the fault of a birth accident. The result is the same. The victims to be faulted, the unfortunate becomes the unnecessary. That I find not very nice.

If stupid people simply breeds more stupid people, what is the difference if we add genetics to the equation or not? What are we subjecting the offsprings to? A struggle; a survival of the fittest; a cruelest and most fundamental of the ways of the nature that civilization was precisely meant to stop.

Also, I am not a socialist. Far from it. If my views are leftist, well, that's how it's been developed into. I've seen little in life but believe me--I've seen far more than "suburbs" that you asked me to crawl out of. I was not born American. I appreciate America much more than many who took America for granted. I appreciate its benefits, its life, its very existence. But I do not, never, ever, appreciate the so-called Protestant ethic and the Victorian survival-of-the-fittest attitude. I know how these kinds of things go. I've seen them, not in America, sure, but the same nonetheless; they're not happy. And I do not find this partisan position--this "us" and "them", our victory, their defeat--to be false. Do you think every communist is the same, that a Leninist is a Stalinist, that one's perfect world, one's utopia, is the same as the other's? How about every monarchist, every creationist, heck, every capitalist? You claim we all do but whine, but you fail to respond to many earlier posts rebuffing your original claim yourself. It would be for the benefit of the debate if you return over to those posts and then present your counter-arguments.

You've asked for us to meet in the middle and discuss on whether your presented thesis is possible, probably, insane, and why; kindly look over the earlier posts, my included, if you wish to. My reiteration of many's arguments, their observations, pointing flaws in your original thesis, would be redundant, and might even offend the original posters of those said observations for "stealing" so blatantly their points and make them mine.

But for the benefit of the discussion, I will point out a few:

Major Robert Dump pointed out that you are blaming the liberal elite for what is the work of the entire "elite" class.

Watchman pointed out that the details of your narrated "apocalypse" is runaway capitalism, not socialism as you claimed. That also ties to the futility of the position that the "socialists are winning."

rory_20_uk pointed out that using such complex socioeconomic, dynamic terms to expound upon your ideas only makes things worse.

Lehesu argue for the futility of the "state's right" position.

Among many others.

Feel free to respond to each of their points.

Divinus Arma

06-24-2006, 07:30

Although someone may be genetically predisposed to inferiority, that does not mean they are also predisposed to unproductivity. And this is the glory of capitalism. As I said however, the free-wheeling capitalism and liberty of today shall fall to a socialist economy and government tomorrow. Complete socialism? No. But a modified form as I suggested, wherein all humanity is given their basic needs in maslow's heirarchy. These needs were formerly decided upon by natural selection and intra-civilization competition. The civilization benefitted from it, as did humanity. That time has passed, for the good or bad I leave to others to decide.

Make no mistake. The masses will now be provided for, despite their lack of ability. And this is the new socialist environment I speak of.

You still have not attempted to address my point, instead deferring to others.

Fair enough. let's play.

Major Robert Dump pointed out that you are blaming the liberal elite for what is the work of the entire "elite" class.

Humanity is filled with living breathing dung. An overwhelming number of people are just poops floating down the river of life. It isn't society that's too blame, or capitalism, or even socialist programs that encourage government reliance. It's a physiological defect which leads to an inability to adapt. Nature would normally take its place and allow these genetic rejects to kill themselves.

The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

Thus, we are doomed to be ruled over by a very few elite who manipulate the masses like the dogs and scum that humanity ultimately is.

Watchman pointed out that the details of your narrated "apocalypse" is runaway capitalism, not socialism as you claimed. That also ties to the futility of the position that the "socialists are winning."

Actually it was Pape first:

Surely that is unfettered capitalism... it seems you do not like the conclusion and hence would want a system that protects individuals first and has a capital economy second. A neo-socialist.

Which some democratic-neo-socialist governments crossed with capitalistic economies do.

Corporations are open to having a hostile takeover. All the current law does is create a similar strategy on the private user in which capital will be maximised for profit. The capital will still be privately owned, it just will be operated for more (maximum) profit by the new owner. It does cross the older free market philosophical boundary that all trades should be voluntary.

rory_20_uk pointed out that using such complex socioeconomic, dynamic terms to expound upon your ideas only makes things worse.

Pretty vague and brief comments from him. Not irrelevant, just insufficent.

Lehesu argue for the futility of the "state's right" position

And so do I. Because the leftist masses will win by sheer numbers alone.

Now what is YOUR argument amigo? Or are you just a flamer cheerleading the left from the sidelines?

Reverend Joe

06-24-2006, 07:43

Divinus Arma

06-24-2006, 07:47

Okay... Divinus, you are stoned. This is some freaky shit you're writing, and I mean, pulp conspiracy magazine freaky. This is the kind of stuff you expect to hear from people in insane asylums and on talk radio.

The only one stoned here is you, or maybe the guys in Amsterdam.

What is it about my comments that you take issue with? Point them out, and explain your argument, please.

Reverend Joe

06-24-2006, 07:55

The only one stoned here is you, or maybe the guys in Amsterdam.

What is it about my comments that you take issue with? Point them out, and explain your argument, please.
Uh... everything?

None of the stuff you write is based on anything but random opinion. None of it can be really based on or backed up by real facts. Just wild rambling.

Aenlic

06-24-2006, 08:17

Long post full of bad math too long to quote

Redleg, really now. Enough with the bad math. You should know better.

Just for you, I went and dug up the actual IRS numbers. This shows I care. :wink:

First, income does not equal size of the estate. Claiming so just isn't appropriate for the discussion. We were, as I recall, talking about estate taxes. But, just to be clear and to remove any confusion caused by your bad numbers...

The number of tax returns in 2003 (most recent year with complete results tabulated by the IRS) with an adjusted gross income over $200,000 was 2,533,613 - that's for adjusted gross income over $200,000 not $1 million. (source: IRS, Statistics of Income, Individual Complete Report 2003, Pub.1304, Oct. 2005). The above came directly from the IRS. We are talking taxes here, right? That would mean adjusted gross income for individuals (we'll talk about other income types momentarily). And this is the number above $200,000. The number above $1 million is even lower; but that's not how the IRS breaks down the numbers in the bulletins.

Now...

Estate taxes.

The number of estate tax returns filed in 2003 (that would be 706 and 706NA returns, in case you were wondering. :smile:) was:

Total estate tax returns filed: 66,042
Total taxable estate tax returns: 30,626
Total non-taxable estate tax returns: 35,415 (not all returns filed result in taxes needing to be paid due to exemptions, etc.) And the IRS lost one return too, it seems. Figures. :laugh4:

Sooo...

That was 30,626 estate tax returns filed in 2003 with taxable estate taxes. Not 2,500,000 million. Not even close. As I said, income does not equal estate tax liability. Might as well use the real numbers, eh? :wink:

Now we come to income tax returns filed in 2003. Please note that the number of income tax returns does not equal the population of the US. Just so you don't go the 2.5 million out of 300 million route again. Babies don't file tax returns. Just wanted to clear that up.

Total number of returns filed: 130,423,626
Total taxable returns filed: 88,921,804
Total non-taxable returns filed: 41,501,722 (again, not every return results in taxable income, with exemptions and 401K's and various and sundry other loopholes)

Are we having fun with numbers yet? Good, good. Because we're not done. The above total taxable returns filed does not include fiduciary income, such as from trust funds and estates. And since many of those people will be ones who might pay estate taxes, they must be included as well. Still following along? So, without further ado, I give you 2003 fiduciary income tax returns! (can I get a cheer please?)

Total fiduciary income tax returns filed: 3,669,698
Total taxable returns: 720,380 (I'm sure Paris Hilton is in here somehwere)
Total non-taxable returns: 2,949,318 (or maybe she's exempt for being a complete waste of good air)

That's a grand total of 89,642,607 taxable returns (both individual and fiduciary) in 2003. Of those, how many would have taxable estates? We don't know the exact amount, because they haven't died yet, and thus the size of the estates hasn't been fgured out. However, we might use the number of taxable estate tax forms filed in 2003! (Brilliant!)

So...

30,626 out of 89,642,607 is .03%

Why so low? Because we're trying to compare estate tax returns to income tax returns, and not everyone who pays income tax has an estate worth which would be taxable.

Hmm, so what do we do?

We look at personal wealth! Tada! Unfortunately, the IRS only does periodic statistical studies of personal wealth, every three years. The last year with compiled data is 2001. So, we have to look at 2001.

In 2001, according to the IRS, the top wealth holders with a net worth of $1 million or more totaled 3510. That's it. 3,510 people with a net worth of 1 million or more in 2001. Not 2.5 million. And the IRS even breaks that down into types of assets! Number of individuals with farm assets of more than $1 million? 425. That's it. 425 people in 2001 with farm assets worth more than $1 million. And remember the exemption is $2 million as of 2006.

Sooo...

We need to repeal the estate tax altogether to save family farms? Ummm, a couple of hundred? While we're in a war? While we're running up a huge debt? I don't think so! Even if we drop it back down to $1 million (which, by the way, is exactly how the current law with the sunset provision for 2010 is structured), then only a few thousand people actually fall into the liability!

So, was .27% correct? Looks like my number was actually rather high! Ten times too high or so. And your number was in orbit compared to mine. :wink:
Shall we play again, Redleg? This is fun. ~:wave:

AntiochusIII

06-24-2006, 11:22

Okay, now that I've recovered from being insulted by a 3000+ posts stranger I think I can respond to your post. ~;)

Jeez, DA. What's with the new name? :balloon2:

Although someone may be genetically predisposed to inferiority, that does not mean they are also predisposed to unproductivity. And this is the glory of capitalism. As I said however, the free-wheeling capitalism and liberty of today shall fall to a socialist economy and government tomorrow. Complete socialism? No. But a modified form as I suggested, wherein all humanity is given their basic needs in maslow's heirarchy. These needs were formerly decided upon by natural selection and intra-civilization competition. The civilization benefitted from it, as did humanity. That time has passed, for the good or bad I leave to others to decide.You still maintain that people are predisposed to inferiority, eh? I'm gonna give up changing your mind on this. Look, claiming that a person is genetically inferior just because he or she isn't the most productive, most leet of peoples equals regulating them to a permanent second class. That's your glory of capitalism?

And you still maintain that it's a modified form of socialism, whereas it's a modified form of capitalism. Please, stop with this Leftish bashing. You have no point on that. Whatsoever. We got it; you hate half the world like most of us do.

Quite frankly, your tone is antagonistic to this hypothetical scenario and yet you maintain it to be neutral to your eyes. What is your exact point? A discussion of the implications of this scenario? Many points have been provided of the implausibility of it; and since this is what you seem to want discussed, why don't you respond to those 3-pages worth of posts saying your hypothetical scenario is bull?

Make no mistake. The masses will now be provided for, despite their lack of ability. And this is the new socialist environment I speak of.Okay, so you define socialism as "the masses will be provided despite their lack of ability." That's one thing cleared.

What does that has to do with the all-powerful Leviathan government your doom-and-gloom rants have been attacking?

Clearly those kinds of governments will be built upon capitalistic principles of gouging the most profits and serving the most successful rather than the socialistic principle of equality?

You still have not attempted to address my point, instead deferring to others.Yes I did, on the first page. You did not respond.

It starts with "bah," just for a clue. Answer that first, please.

Major Robert Dump pointed out that you are blaming the liberal elite for what is the work of the entire "elite" class.So you blamed the liberal elite and then later exert that it is the entire elite. Okay...

Watchman pointed out that the details of your narrated "apocalypse" is runaway capitalism, not socialism as you claimed. That also ties to the futility of the position that the "socialists are winning."

Actually it was Pape first:So I missed him, eh? You haven't even responded to it. The point is there, both pointed that out, now it's your turn to respond.

Indeed, I might even missed earlier posts about that. It's far too obvious for just two or three people to see it.

rory_20_uk pointed out that using such complex socioeconomic, dynamic terms to expound upon your ideas only makes things worse.

Pretty vague and brief comments from him. Not irrelevant, just insufficent.The burden of defining those terms in your context lies with you, the ranter, not him.

Many, including me, earlier than rory in fact, in the counter-argument post on page one that you completely ignored and later now accusing me of not providing, expresses that you fail to define these very dynamic complex terms in your context, thus failing to define what the heck is your socialism, and what world of capitalism are you talking about.

Lehesu argue for the futility of the "state's right" position

And so do I. Because the leftist masses will win by sheer numbers alone.Conspiracy theory there. "The leftist masses" ha! That is one big completely utterly gigantic misunderstanding of the nature of "masses" that you so much in this thread condemn and expound on their inferiority. The masses are not ideologically-bounded. They--us--are socioeconomic creatures first, political second. We care more about the stomach and the wallet than the Great Equality of All Soviet Socialist Republics or whatever you are thinking. And you miss Lehesu's point completely also. He expresses his bafflement at this mysterious rightist (as in that particular American political spectrum) obsession with "state's right." Which makes absolutely no sense to me either. So what's the difference if the government is Maryland instead of the United States of America? He doesn't express that those who protect this oh-so-glorious state's right position will be defeated in a Texan heroic last stand or something like that.

In other words, he expresses bafflement at your rant about how the feds are taking power from the state as a form of oppression.

Now what is YOUR argument amigo? Or are you just a flamer cheerleading the left from the sidelines?Cute.

By the way, Lemur said that you did not take into account the natural ways of history, the non-linear nature of it. After all, trends do not go in one direction. They stop; they change; other forces push for change or they lost momentum on their own. And you miss that completely too. And you say it's we who fail to provide arguments? :no:

Redleg

06-24-2006, 13:43

So, was .27% correct? Looks like my number was actually rather high! Ten times too high or so. And your number was in orbit compared to mine. :wink:
Shall we play again, Redleg? This is fun. ~:wave:

Making ad hominem responses indicate a flaw in the arguement and demonstrates the desire to not have an actual discussion on an issue. But what the hell I will play without the tit for tat ad hominem arguements on your postion like you have tried with mine.

Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong - your arguement consists of the actual estate taxes paid and the actual taxes paid - that number is adjusted each year by the actual deaths of each year. For instance in 1989 the number of deaths that resulted in estate taxes being paid was indeed over 50,000.

My arguement is based upon the potential number of individuals that are can be effected by the current exception rate of 675K versus the old rate of 600K.

Using tax return numbers is a good starting point - but like we both know it is only another statastical method to calculate a number. I used the data in the CNN linked article to make a point, your counter involves using the IRS - so I will counter from the exact same table.

Your statement.

The number of tax returns in 2003 (most recent year with complete results tabulated by the IRS) with an adjusted gross income over $200,000 was 2,533,613 - that's for adjusted gross income over $200,000 not $1 million. (source: IRS, Statistics of Income, Individual Complete Report 2003, Pub.1304, Oct. 2005)

Now when you go to the column of % of returns that fall into that catergory - the data shows 1.5% for income of 200K but not over 500K.

Now if I go futher down into that same table I find this little bit of information.

Income $200,000 or more Total number of Returns 2,536,439 Percent of returns 1.9

Now my so called bad number taken from the CNN article seems to fall more in line with exactly what I stated, still slightly off in total number because in this arguement we are assuming income has a correlation to net assets and we are assuming above 200K is a good reference point. What we are both failing to realize in this postion is that net assets calualated in the probate process of estate taxes can easily reach above that number when one begins adding in 401Ks and IRA investments into the caluations (See edit note below). Notice that the IRS precent is even higher at the 1.9% of Returns. So using the base of a tax exemption of 675K anyone with assets totaling more then 675K do indeed recieve a benefit with the higher exemption.

This is the arguement I used in stating that the potential of benefit of having an increased exemption. One can not predict exactly how much each estate will be valued because of two simple things. People send their income differently and then one can never predict when they might depart. The figures you site do not cover the potential of the middle class to exceed the exemption rate of 600K of old, or even the new one of 675K.

I agree raising the exemption value to 2 million is not a good move by the government - but I do believe from exerience that the 675K does allow for the middle class to actually have a greater ability to plan for retirement, and not have the government take from them because an individual dies an early death.

Then add what is included in the caluations for estate tax. Again from the IRS website -

Estate Tax

Estate tax may apply to your taxable estate at your death. Your taxable estate is your gross estate less allowable deductions.

Gross Estate

Your gross estate includes the value of all property in which you had an interest at the time of death. Your gross estate also will include the following.

Life insurance proceeds payable to your estate or, if you owned the policy, to your heirs.
The value of certain annuities payable to your estate or your heirs.
The value of certain property you transferred within 3 years before your death.
Trusts or other interests established by you or others in which you have certain powers.

Taxable Estate

The allowable deductions used in determining your taxable estate include:

1) Funeral expenses paid out of your estate,
2) Debts you owed at the time of death, and
3) The marital deduction (generally, the value of the property that passes from your estate to your surviving spouse).

For additional information, refer to Instructions for Form 706.

So other factors are included into the estate taxes then just property and its valuation.

Care to guess the lesson I learned from my mother's death who by the way died at the early age of 48? It is rather easy - don't let your net assest valuation be more then the death exemption rate before you retire, after retirement the government can have what I don't spend. This is one of the valid criticisms against estate Taxes, one that might be a myth in your opinion, but to others it is not. In fact there are many studies out that point to that postion rather clearly. Is the number effected by that exemption only to be counted when they depart - or does the number affected by the exemption also include those that are alive. The size of the estate tax ligation sector and the estate planning sector in this country gives testiment that the number effected by the Estate Tax exemption is greater then the .27 percent in your claim. Is it as high as the estimate taken from using the number of millionaries claimed by the linked article - maybe not - but one can not rule it out either.

So the current estate exemption does indeed effect many more people then the .27 percent, which is the point, especially since I am using the arguement of potential effect.

And then I noticed that your arguement skips several points, and your use of bombastic arguementive style to make counters to points that were not even made or could be assumed..

Answer this simple question.

Did I ever claim that the Estate Tax needs to be repealed - or did I question the numbers effected by the $675,000 exemption?

So do you want to answer the previous questions asked of

I guess in essence do you support punishing those who work at achieving something in their lives with a double and yes even triple taxation of their assests?

Are you for punishing the individuals who attempted to save so that they could enjoy some leisure time with a secured income source other then the government for their retirement?

Edit: If you don't believe me about the potential number of people effected by the Death Tax exemption rate - take a look at the 401K and IRA investment tables available on the web for wage earners in the 40K to 60K income levels that contribute 4-5% of their before tax income to the investment schemes, especially ones that begin contributing into the funds at age 30. Most schemes will but that wage earner near 500 to 600K when they reach retirement age. Add other assests and they would easily break the old 600K exemption. 675K gives a break to those that attempt to plan for retirement versus depending upon the government for Social Security.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-24-2006, 19:55

Of COURSE the Estate tax should be abolished. The money in question has already been taxed. Taxing it again seems usurious on the part of government. Its simply a revenue tool to add to the government coffers at the expense of those who can be expected to put up less of a struggle.

The implied premise behind the estate tax is:

You -- the recent decedant -- may have earned the money and deserved it, but since all your heirs did was get shot out of womb "B" as opposed to womb "A," they do not; whereas we the government can use those funds to make better the more numerous lives of those shot out of a "A" womb, garner their more numerous votes, and retain our positions of power and privilege. Your heirs are already well off and don't deserve the whole of your estate any more than someone from category "A." If you don't think it's fair, tough -- we're the government and we know better.

I am endlessly appalled by the deleterious effects of Constitutional Ammendments 16-18 inclusive -- with the 16th exceeding all of the others for damage done.

Aenlic

06-24-2006, 22:42

Making ad hominem responses indicate a flaw in the arguement and demonstrates the desire to not have an actual discussion on an issue. But what the hell I will play without the tit for tat ad hominem arguements on your postion like you have tried with mine.

Redleg, you do this all the time. It's your modus operandi. I really don't think you understand what ad hominem means; since you misuse it all the time. As soon as you start to lose an argument, you whip out the ad hominem statement. Instead of refuting my numbers, you go straight to the accusation of an ad hominem fallacy. (<--- this too is not an ad hominem fallacy. I'm refuting your statement, arguing against your argument, not arguing against you.)

The quote you chose to call ad hominem was:

So, was .27% correct? Looks like my number was actually rather high! Ten times too high or so. And your number was in orbit compared to mine.
Shall we play again, Redleg? This is fun.

Where is there a personal attack? "And your number was in orbit compared to mine" is an argument only against your argument, not against you. Really. Either learn what ad hominem means or stop using it. Ad hominem means "against the man" and in a debate means the person is not arguing against the content of the opponent's statements but is instead arguing against the opponent himself. If you'd care to explain how arguing that your number was in orbit compared to mine is an argument against you rather than your point, I'm sure we'd all like to hear your explanation. :smile:

Let me give you an example. If you say, "the sun rises in the west!" and I then I argue "you're wrong!" then that it not ad hominem. Simply saying you're wrong is not arguing against you, it's arguing against your argument. I'm arguing against your statement, not you. If I said "you're wrong, you idiot!" then that would be ad hominem. Get it?

Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong - your arguement consists of the actual estate taxes paid and the actual taxes paid - that number is adjusted each year by the actual deaths of each year. For instance in 1989 the number of deaths that resulted in estate taxes being paid was indeed over 50,000.

My arguement is based upon the potential number of individuals that are can be effected by the current exception rate of 675K versus the old rate of 600K.

Ok, I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Bad numbers again, Redleg. The current exemption rate was $1 million in 2003 and it goes up to $2 million for filings made for 2006. Your argument is based upon faulty numbers. but I'm still trying gamely to argue around that problem to the heart of the matter. It doesn't help that you're using a faulty set of numbers at the outset.

(stuff...)

Income $200,000 or more Total number of Returns 2,536,439 Percent of returns 1.9

As I stated in my post, and which you seem to have ignored, you said 2.5 million millionaires. I proved this wrong. I don't care if you quoted it from CNN. I'm using the IRS. There were just above 2.5 million returns total with adjusted gross incomes over $200,000 in 2003. That's $200,000 not millionairs. If we use personal worth instead of income (which happens to be a much more accurate gauge of wealth than just income since it includes fiduciary income such as trust funds as well), then in 2001 there only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. That's net personal worth now, not total worth. It includes things like debts and liabilities which decrease the total worth. It's also a value which more closely relates to estate. In fact, the IRS uses estate tax filings when compiling the personal worth data every 3 years.

(more stuff...)

So using the base of a tax exemption of 675K anyone with assets totaling more then 675K do indeed recieve a benefit with the higher exemption.

(more stuff) The figures you site do not cover the potential of the middle class to exceed the exemption rate of 600K of old, or even the new one of 675K.

Look, if we're going to have an argument about estate taxes, the least you could do is learn about the estate tax first. I'll repeat it, for like the 4th or 5th time, the current exemption is not $675,000. For 2005, the exemption is $1.5 million (You have up to 6 months after the death to file and a person who died at the end of 2005 can file up until the end of this month). For 2006, that exemption increases to $2 million. In 2009, that exemption increases to $3.5 million, then it drops to $0 in 2010, then it reappears in 2011 at $1 million from then on. That's the current law as signed by Bush, in 2001. What is happening now, is that Republicans are calling for it to be eliminated altogether. No estate tax at all. That is why I've been using $1 million, because that is what the number is currently set to be from 2011 on.

I agree raising the exemption value to 2 million is not a good move by the government - but I do believe from exerience that the 675K does allow for the middle class to actually have a greater ability to plan for retirement, and not have the government take from them because an individual dies an early death.

Then why are we arguing? I haven't been arguing that the estate tax shouldn't be reformed. I've been arguing that it shouldn't be repealed altogether which is the current state of the debate. The estate tax exemption is currently $2 million. If you think that raising it to $2 million is not a good move, then you should be on the phone to Kay Bailey right this minute; because it's already at $2 million, as we argue.

So the current estate exemption does indeed effect many more people then the .27 percent, which is the point, especially since I am using the arguement of potential effect.

No it doesn't. I'm not going to go through the numbers again. The current exemption rate is $2 million for 2006, so the number of people affected is even lower. But using the rate which will go into effect if Congress doesn't repeal the current law altogether, then from 2011 on (and in 2001 when the numbers were compiled), the IRS says only 3510 people in the US had a net personal worth over $1 million. Estate taxes are based on net worth, not income. In fact that personal worth number which the IRS is required to compile every 3 years (we'll have 2004 numbers soon), is actually based on the number of estate tax filings! I'm not making this up, Redleg. I'm using the IRS data from the IRS SOI. Since the IRS breaks it up into a $1-2.5 million bracket, I can't get a number for people with net worth over $2 million (which is the current exemption level). But since the exemption was $1 million in 2001, and it will be again from 2011 on, and that happens to be the last year of compiled personal worth data, we're talking about 3510 people in the US under the estate tax law who would be liable. Remember that the number of people who have to file is not the same as the number of people who have actual tax liability. :wink: And the number of people with "taxable" returns is also greater than the number of people who have tax liability, because of exemptions and exclusions and debts that decrease the actual estate value from the value which requires a filing. Got it?

Did I ever claim that the Estate Tax needs to be repealed - or did I question the numbers effected by the $675,000 exemption?

The exemption is not $675,000 and hasn't been since 2000. And did I ever claim that the estate tax shouldn't be changed from where it was or did I claim that it shouldn't be repealed and have since argued from that standpoint? :smile:

So do you want to answer the previous questions asked of

I guess in essence do you support punishing those who work at achieving something in their lives with a double and yes even triple taxation of their assests?

When did Paris Hilton ever work? Do I support taxing the inheritence of the very rich? Sure do. And those very rich are just a fraction of 3510 people with a net worth over $1 million in 2001.

Are you for punishing the individuals who attempted to save so that they could enjoy some leisure time with a secured income source other then the government for their retirement?

All 3510 of them? Including Paris Hilton? Yep. They scrimped and saved and worked their little tushies off, didn't they? I would be in favor of exemptions and exclusions to protect Mom and Pop and family farms. But when you get right down to it, and actually take a look at who funds the front organizations which pressure Congress to repeal the estate tax, then you'll find some interesting names. Mom and Pop? No. The Walton family? Yes.

Edit: If you don't believe me about the potential number of people effected by the Death Tax exemption rate - take a look at the 401K and IRA investment tables available on the web for wage earners in the 40K to 60K income levels that contribute 4-5% of their before tax income to the investment schemes, especially ones that begin contributing into the funds at age 30. Most schemes will but that wage earner near 500 to 600K when they reach retirement age. Add other assests and they would easily break the old 600K exemption. 675K gives a break to those that attempt to plan for retirement versus depending upon the government for Social Security.

Again, it's $2 million and soon to be $3.5 million then for one short year it's no exemption at all, then it's back up to $1 million. You've been arguing using a faulty set of starting data from the beginning.

Aha! I think I see an additional problem. You've managed to confuse gross assets with net assets. Redleg, I hate to break the news to you; but it isn't gross assets and gross worth which is taxed on estates. It's net assets and net worth. We could have avoided this whole discussion if I'd realized that you were simply using an entirely wrong assumption from the beginning.

Redleg

06-25-2006, 04:54

Redleg, you do this all the time. It's your modus operandi. I really don't think you understand what ad hominem means; since you misuse it all the time. As soon as you start to lose an argument, you whip out the ad hominem statement. Instead of refuting my numbers, you go straight to the accusation of an ad hominem fallacy. (<--- this too is not an ad hominem fallacy. I'm refuting your statement, arguing against your argument, not arguing against you.)

The quote you chose to call ad hominem was:
[/quote]

That happen to be a the end of the post that I was responding to - you know the last paragraph of your response. Making assumptions often need to something - you know what ass-u-me means don't you?

Where is there a personal attack? "And your number was in orbit compared to mine" is an argument only against your argument, not against you. Really. Either learn what ad hominem means or stop using it. Ad hominem means "against the man" and in a debate means the person is not arguing against the content of the opponent's statements but is instead arguing against the opponent himself. If you'd care to explain how arguing that your number was in orbit compared to mine is an argument against you rather than your point, I'm sure we'd all like to hear your explanation. :smile:

Let me give you an example. If you say, "the sun rises in the west!" and I then I argue "you're wrong!" then that it not ad hominem. Simply saying you're wrong is not arguing against you, it's arguing against your argument. I'm arguing against your statement, not you. If I said "you're wrong, you idiot!" then that would be ad hominem. Get it?

So your attempting to state you don't use ad hominem

This earlier statement by yourself defeats your attempt in this post very well.

Redleg, really now. Enough with the bad math. You should know better.

Saying that I am wrong is indeed not an ad hominem statement. However this statement doesn't say that I am wrong - but something else entirily.

But then I am only an ignorant Redneck from South Texas who doesn't understand anything about the use of the english language. LOL

Ok, I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Bad numbers again, Redleg. The current exemption rate was $1 million in 2003 and it goes up to $2 million for filings made for 2006. Your argument is based upon faulty numbers. but I'm still trying gamely to argue around that problem to the heart of the matter. It doesn't help that you're using a faulty set of numbers at the outset.

The arguement used by myself is clearly based upon the exemption rate of 675K versus the old exemption rate of 600K.

As I stated in my post, and which you seem to have ignored, you said 2.5 million millionaires. I proved this wrong. I don't care if you quoted it from CNN.

Your about to disprove your own point, here once again.

I'm using the IRS.

The IRS quotes yearly income, the CNN article mentions people who are considered millionaries not because of income but because of net worth.

Pointing out the CNN article is wrong by using declare yearly income is a continuation of the same error your accusing me of.

There were just above 2.5 million returns total with adjusted gross incomes over $200,000 in 2003. That's $200,000 not millionairs. If we use personal worth instead of income (which happens to be a much more accurate gauge of wealth than just income since it includes fiduciary income such as trust funds as well), then in 2001 there only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. That's net personal worth now, not total worth. It includes things like debts and liabilities which decrease the total worth. It's also a value which more closely relates to estate. In fact, the IRS uses estate tax filings when compiling the personal worth data every 3 years.

Your number is low I suspect. Only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. Because that means I know a higher percentage of wealthly people then could be suspected as being normal for one in the middle class.

Care to site the source of the number 3510? Given that you earlier posted a significantly higher number having had to file estate taxes.

Look, if we're going to have an argument about estate taxes, the least you could do is learn about the estate tax first. I'll repeat it, for like the 4th or 5th time, the current exemption is not $675,000. For 2005, the exemption is $1.5 million (You have up to 6 months after the death to file and a person who died at the end of 2005 can file up until the end of this month). For 2006, that exemption increases to $2 million. In 2009, that exemption increases to $3.5 million, then it drops to $0 in 2010, then it reappears in 2011 at $1 million from then on. That's the current law as signed by Bush, in 2001. What is happening now, is that Republicans are calling for it to be eliminated altogether. No estate tax at all. That is why I've been using $1 million, because that is what the number is currently set to be from 2011 on.

Lets review your statement shall we....The previous law sets the estate tax on estate beginning at $675,000. Estates worth less than that were exempt. The exemption under the current law rises, in 2006, to $2 million per couple.

Again your own words in a previous post actually states something else, that I responded to that post seems to mean that I am using faulty information, Hmmmm.... Interesting.

Then why are we arguing? I haven't been arguing that the estate tax shouldn't be reformed. I've been arguing that it shouldn't be repealed altogether which is the current state of the debate. The estate tax exemption is currently $2 million. If you think that raising it to $2 million is not a good move, then you should be on the phone to Kay Bailey right this minute; because it's already at $2 million, as we argue.

I questioned the .27 percent and you chose to accuse me of something, Does this ring a bell

Nice try at obfuscation, Redleg.

Maybe you should of focused on the subject of the discussion versus attempting other courses of action.

No it doesn't. I'm not going to go through the numbers again. The current exemption rate is $2 million for 2006, so the number of people affected is even lower. But using the rate which will go into effect if Congress doesn't repeal the current law altogether, then from 2011 on (and in 2001 when the numbers were compiled), the IRS says only 3510 people in the US had a net personal worth over $1 million. Estate taxes are based on net worth, not income. In fact that personal worth number which the IRS is required to compile every 3 years (we'll have 2004 numbers soon), is actually based on the number of estate tax filings! I'm not making this up, Redleg. I'm using the IRS data from the IRS SOI. Since the IRS breaks it up into a $1-2.5 million bracket, I can't get a number for people with net worth over $2 million (which is the current exemption level). But since the exemption was $1 million in 2001, and it will be again from 2011 on, and that happens to be the last year of compiled personal worth data, we're talking about 3510 people in the US under the estate tax law who would be liable. Remember that the number of people who have to file is not the same as the number of people who have actual tax liability. :wink: And the number of people with "taxable" returns is also greater than the number of people who have tax liability, because of exemptions and exclusions and debts that decrease the actual estate value from the value which requires a filing. Got it?

More then you will ever understand - but that is not the subject of the discussion now either.

The exemption is not $675,000 and hasn't been since 2000. And did I ever claim that the estate tax shouldn't be changed from where it was or did I claim that it shouldn't be repealed and have since argued from that standpoint? :smile:

A previous comment answers this statement.

When did Paris Hilton ever work? Do I support taxing the inheritence of the very rich? Sure do. And those very rich are just a fraction of 3510 people with a net worth over $1 million in 2001.

All 3510 of them? Including Paris Hilton? Yep. They scrimped and saved and worked their little tushies off, didn't they? I would be in favor of exemptions and exclusions to protect Mom and Pop and family farms. But when you get right down to it, and actually take a look at who funds the front organizations which pressure Congress to repeal the estate tax, then you'll find some interesting names. Mom and Pop? No. The Walton family? Yes.

And you would find names of a few people I know who happen to run family business and farms that do indeed have a net assest valuation of close to 1 million. A figure that is not all that hard to reach given careful investiments and long term planning. Again care to provide the source of the number used, or would you rather just accuse me now of using faulty information and bad numbers?

Again, it's $2 million and soon to be $3.5 million then for one short year it's no exemption at all, then it's back up to $1 million. You've been arguing using a faulty set of starting data from the beginning.

Since the discussion I entered into was based upon this post.

The estate tax only affects .27% of the US taxpayers. That's it. Just a little more than 1/4 of a percent of the nation pays estate taxes. Is giving them a tax cut really a priority when we're already desperately in debt and in a war too?

Let's find out the truth, OK?

The previous law sets the estate tax on estate beginning at $675,000. Estates worth less than that were exempt. The exemption under the current law rises, in 2006, to $2 million per couple.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a $2 million exemption (what the new law makes the exemption level in 2006) means that less than 123 American farms this year might owe any estate tax. And with the increase in the exemption to $3.5 million in 2009, only 94 farms would owe any estate tax. That's it. According to the USDA, the average farm household net worth ranged from $546,000 up (the original estate tax margin was set at $675,000) to $1.5 million for the very largest family farms.

You got me on not paying attention to when it went to 1.5 million - but that doesn't give one sufficient reason to make certain statements now either does it? Maybe instead of stating this

Nice try at obfuscation, Redleg. Won't work. You can dispute the numbers all you like. They're the actual numbers. It's .27%. If the land value was worth more than $675,000 then too bad for you. Because according to that horrid liberal institution, the USDA - the ones who might actually know the facts, the average net worth of family farms is only $546,000. But at least now we're getting a clearer picture of where you come from, politically.

You should try a different tact.

Aha! I think I see an additional problem. You've managed to confuse gross assets with net assets. Redleg, I hate to break the news to you; but it isn't gross assets and gross worth which is taxed on estates. It's net assets and net worth. We could have avoided this whole discussion if I'd realized that you were simply using an entirely wrong assumption from the beginning.

No confusion on my part - other then a simple one concering the change to 1.5. But given the initial arguement - maybe you could of avoided it by simply clarifying your own statement versus launching into several attempts at arguing the person versus the subject.

Aenlic

06-25-2006, 09:36

That happen to be a the end of the post that I was responding to - you know the last paragraph of your response. Making assumptions often need to something - you know what ass-u-me means don't you?

Ah, Redleg, here you go. Typical. Since you're losing the argument, rather badly too, we're now going from accusations to thinly veiled insults. Do you really think calling me an ass in a way designed to try and hide it from the mods is a good argument in a forum debate? Shame on you. If you want to play that game, I'll be happy to oblige. You appear to be unable to distinguish between sarcasm and insults. You use both, all the time; but if someone else replies with sarcasm to your sarcasm, they're the ones guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. It's rather ironic; because as soon as you make the accusation, you've resorted to it yourself just by making it.

So your attempting to state you don't use ad hominem

This earlier statement by yourself defeats your attempt in this post very well.

Redleg, really now. Enough with the bad math. You should know better.

Saying that I am wrong is indeed not an ad hominem statement. However this statement doesn't say that I am wrong - but something else entirily.

Umm, no. The statement says that you are wrong. It certainly doesn't say that you are right. Maybe you're reading more into the statement than is really there? You got caught using bad math. Remember now, bad math isn't just screwing up the operands. It's also bad math if you're using the wrong numbers entirely. And since this all began with your first sarcastic response to my post, to which I then responded with sarcasm, the fault is all yours. :smile:

But then I am only an ignorant Redneck from South Texas who doesn't understand anything about the use of the english language. LOL

Comes right after:

... but something else entirily.

I can only hope that you were being intentionally ironic here. :laugh4:

The arguement used by myself is clearly based upon the exemption rate of 675K versus the old exemption rate of 600K.

First, the old exemption rate is $675,000! It hasn't been $675,000 since 2001, when Bush signed the new tax into law.

And, No. You directly argued all of my points specifically, entirely ignoring the correct numbers and compared my numbers, based on the correct exemption amounts to your numbers, based on the incorrect exemption amounts. You even tried to use IRS data for years in which the exemption rate was already $1 million and then somehow connect that to the old exemption rate of $675 thousand.

Your about to disprove your own point, here once again.

The IRS quotes yearly income, the CNN article mentions people who are considered millionaries not because of income but because of net worth.

Pointing out the CNN article is wrong by using declare yearly income is a continuation of the same error your accusing me of.

I didn't say the CNN article was wrong. I said you were wrong. Entirely different thing, isn't it? Which is why you've got such a big bee in your bonnet.

We've already been over the IRS numbers. I suppose we have to do it again. I didn't just use the IRS info on yearly income, I also used the IRS tables on personal net wealth. The IRS has all kinds of fun statistics derived from returns. All available on their website. And every three years, they are required by law to complile the personal net worth wealthiest people. Did you just not see that part; or did you just ignore it in this rant about how my numbers are wrong? They aren't my numbers, sport. They're the IRS numbers. You remember them, the people who actually collect the taxes and compile the data?

I used the IRS Statistics of Income data to get my data on personal wealth. It's right there in my paragraph on personal wealth. I didn't use declared yearly income alone. I used personal wealth. Sorry about the multiple bold, but I'm having trouble understanding why you can't see it. Net personal wealth. From the IRS. On the IRS SOI pages dealing with personal net worth. In fact, the 2001 table for personal wealth which I used is right here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in06pw.xls)!

It's not difficult to understand, Redleg. The title of the Excel sheet is, in fact, Top Wealthholders with Net Worth of $1,000,000 or more by State of Residence. Please notice that it says net worth not income. The table breaks down net personal wealth by state. The total is 3510 in 2001, which is the last year for which the data has been compiled. That's it. 3510 people with a net personal wealth of over $1 million. Why can't you grasp that? The CNN article discusses millionaires. But you're using it the numbers in an erroneous way. Income and assets (which CNN used to come up with the number, apparently) does not equate with net wealth. Debts and liabilities also figure into that, as they figure into estate taxes, which is what we're discussing (well I am anyway). I explained this too. Multiple times. Estate taxes aren't based on income. Income is what the CNN article used. Clearly. Because the IRS, you know - the people who should know, states quite clearly exactly how many people have a net worth over $1 million by state. End of story. Those are the numbers I used. Refute them as you like. And yet, you continue in this fantasy that my numbers are wrong. Would you like the number to the IRS so you can complain about their math skills?

Your number is low I suspect. Only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. Because that means I know a higher percentage of wealthly people then could be suspected as being normal for one in the middle class.

Care to site the source of the number 3510? Given that you earlier posted a significantly higher number having had to file estate taxes.

I just cited it (Hint: look for the underlined word). But I told you in the previous posts where I got it too; but I figured you were smart enough to be able to type "irs.gov" into a web browser.

As for the number of people who filed estate tax returns, that would be form number 706 and variants such as 706NA, as I stated, care to guess where those numbers came from? No, really! Take a big guess. Do I need to post that link for you, too? It's about one page over and two pages up from the other link. Look under - GASP - estate taxes. I'm not posting another link for you. Try I...R...S... then a . and then G...O...V. Works wonders.

As I took great pains to explain, and which you quite obviously ignored completely, the number of estate tax filings does not equal the number of estate tax returns which are taxable. And the number of estate tax returns which are taxable does not equal the number of people who are actually liable for some estate tax debt. Why? Well, that's usually pretty simply; but I'm not going to hold my breath hoping you get it. I'll try anyway.

Your estate is required to file a 706 within 6 months of your death if your gross estate plus gifts plus specific exemption (see the "Who has to file" portion of any form 706... duh) exceeds the exemption limit (please don't make me go over what it is again, my fingers are worn to the bone over your insistence that it's $675,000 when it hasn't been that since 2001). Your executor files a 706. That's the number of returns filed. Out of those, some will have debts which lower their liability below the specific exemption limit and some will drop off because of the marriage exemption. Those are the non-taxable returns. That leaves the taxable returns. I quoted these numbers way way back in a previous post. 66K some odd returns, 30K+ taxable returns and 35K+ non-taxable returns. I even noted that the numbers didn't quite add up and that the IRS had lost a return somewhere! I used the 2003 tables as I recall. They're right there on the IRS SOI pages.

Now we're left with 30K some odd taxable returns with an estate minus debts which is above the line. But...

And this is the tricky part and you're probably lost back at I...R...G.gov somewhere, but I'll try...

You deduct the specific exemption! For 2005, this exemption was $1.5 million and it will be $2 million for those who die in 2006. Please note that it's not $675,000 and hasn't been since 2001. So, out of all those 30K some odd taxable returns, only those left after the specific exemption actually have any tax liability.

Think of it like this:

Let's say you make $12,000 in a year. This puts you well below the entry point for actually owing any taxes; but you still have to file!. You had taxable income, but because of tax levels and exemptions you don't actually owe any taxes. You had to file a taxable return; but you didn't have any tax liability. Same thing as for estate taxes. Get it? Probably not.

Lets review your statement shall we....The previous law sets the estate tax on estate beginning at $675,000. Estates worth less than that were exempt. The exemption under the current law rises, in 2006, to $2 million per couple.

Again your own words in a previous post actually states something else, that I responded to that post seems to mean that I am using faulty information, Hmmmm.... Interesting.

Yes indeed it does. Very faulty information. In fact, right up there in this last post of yours you said - again:

The arguement used by myself is clearly based upon the exemption rate of 675K versus the old exemption rate of 600K.

Wrong. The old rate was $675,000, and while using that number you used income (also wrong) for years in which it was already higher than $675,000! It was raised to $1 million then $1.5 million then $2 million and it'll go up again to $3.5 million in 2009, then it drops to zero for one year in 2010, then it goes back up to $1 million in 2011 and stays there - unless something is changed in the law. That's it. This is fact. It's part of the EGRRA, signed into law by Bush in June of 2001. Simple, easy to understand... for most people.

I questioned the .27 percent and you chose to accuse me of something, Does this ring a bell

Nice try at obfuscation, Redleg.

Maybe you should of focused on the subject of the discussion versus attempting other courses of action.

When I did the math and it turned out that .27% was, in fact too high, I went straight to the source and used the exact numbers from the IRS itself.

Does his ring a bell?

So, was .27% correct? Looks like my number was actually rather high! Ten times too high or so.

Looks like I did focus on the subject. It's not my fault that you wandered off into magic number lala land.

And you would find names of a few people I know who happen to run family business and farms that do indeed have a net assest valuation of close to 1 million. A figure that is not all that hard to reach given careful investiments and long term planning. Again care to provide the source of the number used, or would you rather just accuse me now of using faulty information and bad numbers?

I've provided the source multiple times. It's up to you to read it. It's not like it was that difficult to type "irs.gov" into a web browser; but, oh well. (sigh)

Anyway, you know these (http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/EstateTaxFinal.pdf) people? You're richer than I thought. I expect you probably won't read that article. It's a long .pdf and details exactly who has been funding the nearly decade-long campaign to repeal the estate tax, through front groups and trade associations run by their own businesses. It details how they've misled people (like you) using bad numbers (like you), faulty logic and ridiculous rhetoric. Poor Mom and Pop business owners, those 18 families. The heirs of Sam Walton, the Gallo family, the Cox family and more. Those poor family farmers got used by the super-wealthy and you bought into it. Not my problem.

No confusion on my part - other then a simple one concering the change to 1.5. But given the initial arguement - maybe you could of avoided it by simply clarifying your own statement versus launching into several attempts at arguing the person versus the subject.

Lots of confusion on your part. In this same post, you were still using $675,000! It wasn't simple confusion. You used income numbers from years in which the exemption was already $1 million or more and then compared that income to the $675,000 to make the numbers look better for you. If it wasn't intentional, which I'm willing to give you, then it certainly wasn't just a simple error. It was bad math.

But that isn't all. You continued to use personal income numbers, even after I made a long post explaining all of the differences, using personal income, fiduciary income (which is also part of estates), and actual estate filings. I stated, clearly I thought, that I was using the IRS information. And yet, here you are, still acting like I'm making up the numbers and asking for the site.

Your first response to me in this began with "how funny" and I responded in kind. But who draws out the ad hominem card? You do. Do you really want me to go back through your posts here in the backroom and find all the instances where you used that phrase when someone questioned your facts? I recall one just a few months back. It's your standard tactic. You make incorrect posts usually with a great amount of sarcasm ("how funny..."), and when you get called on it, you accuse the other person of the ad hominem fallacy. If you direct responses at me with that kind of sarcasm, then I'll respond in kind. Every time. If you're going to post like that, then you'd better grow thicker skin or learn to find out the facts and use the numbers properly. :wink:

Want to play again?:balloon2:

Aenlic

06-25-2006, 09:59

I apologize to everyone else for making all these long posts way off topic. Mea culpa. I have a very low tolerance for arguments made with faulty data or faulty logic or which arise from plain old-fashioned ignorance.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

World socialism will prevail over capitalism because most people can't add two plus two and get four; while those who can are either robbing them blind and getting rich from it or patiently explaining to them why it's a bad thing to be robbed blind.

And I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned surplus value, which is averaging about $33/hour per worker in the US at the moment. Whoops! I just lost a bunch of people who claim to not like socialism because they understand it. :oops:

Rodion Romanovich

06-25-2006, 10:01

It is my opinion that individual liberty and true capitalism will be overrun by socialist autocracy, and that the people are powerless to stop it. It is inevitable.

If the state becomes totalitarian it seldom tends to keep socialism values of equal rights to all and good living standards and social security for all. Rather, totalitarianism is a system that promotes something similar to the differences in wealth of capitalism, only that the way the money is distributed is different from a free market. But on the other hand we've never had a free market either and no country has it today - much of distribution of wealth in European countries too is ruled by friendship and stuff going on behind the scenes. For example how many missions are given to friends of the rulers at a higher production cost rather than being given to other companies who happen to be less good friends of the rulers etc. It's for instance funny with all these things when billions of tax payer money is spent on finding a slogan or similar, I believe that exists in all European and American countries. Or when some building, design or architecture mission is given to someone, then billions are spent on repairing the first version of the work after the first version was clearly not working as it should. Free market is an utopia that has never existed and probably never will. Only time such freedom has ever existed was before civilization (which was before homo sapiens during homo erectus), and quite conveniently at that time there was also the best ever social security. Social security can never be 100% and free market can never be 100%, but both can be 99% at the same time if people would try to strive for both rather than for unrealistic utopias.

I have come to the realization that the values of the United States have died in the cradle. Our infant idealism of the individual as sovereign and people's power to limit government died a very very long time ago.

We are no longer a collection of sovereign states, united for the common good by a federal government of limited specifically written powers. The concept of the sovereign state is no more. America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more. The power of the federal government has completely eclipsed "those powers left to the States". The "States" are nothing more than geographically determined divisions of local administration.

The same would be true for most unions. The same is on the way of happening in the EU - which would be a disaster, recreating the late Roman Empire, which as we all know was a pretty horrible place. Early Rome has some virtues worth striving for, but the late roman empire is a horrible thing we should never create again. One really bad thing about having a centralized power very far from the home of most is that there's really no way of launching a successful rebellion in the case of a madman gaining power and using a coup or hidden means of acquiring totalitarian power. If the government that has most of the power lives close to your own house you can go and kill them if they go nuts and do coups, but if they're moved to Brussels then there's little possibility of gaining freedom in the case of a constitutional disaster such as a madman getting totalitarian power. That's why both EU and the USA should be careful and be preserving the local power and keeping the power of the central institutions limited, preferably as limited as possible.

That said, I have come to the conclusion that this is inevitable across the world. There will continue to be brief moments of liberty in pockets of the world, and populist libertarians will continue to sound their cries so long as free mediums of speech are available.

One reason why this seems inevitable is that the crucial steps towards totalitarian rule are steps that don't immediately look like steps towards totalitarian rule. The increasing of central EU power is a step towards totalitarian rule and restriction of liberty of the individual, but who would make a rebellion against a slow, gradual constitutional change? When finally something is done that is illegal - a coup - the people working against liberty have already received too much power to be able to stop easily. We should perhaps be ready to launch rebellions in response merely to constitutional changes, rather than waiting for actual coups, if we want to avoid disasters (disasters both for ourselves and outsiders) such as communism and nazism from happening again.

Freedom and capitalism lead to economic propserity. This prosperity leads to both complacency and a sense of entitlement in the masses. They become sedated and demand greater benefit for reduced effort. As this occurs in capitalism, an economic disparity occurs where the selfish ignorant complacent entitled masses begin to engage in less and less work. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the educated driven visionary entrepreneurs achieve great economic success. The safe and complacent masses at the bottom then feel jealousy and entitlement towards the earnings of the fewer successful risk-takers. They pressure legislators to give them greater and greater benefits and the entrepreneurs are left with less and less. The middle class, meanwhile, are just as complacent and don't give a damn what the hell is going on. The politicians, interested only in their personal benefit, appeal to the lowest common denomitors and steal from the wealthy to give to the self entitled masses.

I agree that classes turning against each other is seldom as much a deliberate action from rulers, as it is an inevitable development. But remember that the "jealousy" of the poor towards the rich isn't entirely unfounded in modern society. One of the main methods of getting rich is by buying and selling stock - hardly anything that helps society because you produce neither products nor services for others - but the stock market is very unpredictable and it's less about skills than about luck, or having a large amount of money when you start buying and selling, and/or the influence that allows you to buy/sell before the average customers so you can take more advantage of the fluctuation in the stocks. Jealousy towards those who make benefits from stock and interest of money inherited from their parents without them doing any real work for the common good at all is justified. Jealousy towards a hard-working medic, engineer, author, actor etc. is not. The poor tend to see the successful stockbrokers, the rich tend to look at the medics and engineers etc., unless they're stockbrokers in which case they're glad the society form temporarily happens to favor people in their line of work without caring about the consequences for society of that. The jealousy doesn't only lie in laziness, it lies in unpredictability and randomness. The best way of getting motivation for work is belief that you can affect your future by choosing how to act. It's a fact that a decent job such as medic, engineer or lawyer doesn't make you part of the richest elite by working hard - the economists, stockbrokers, investors and people who were born by rich parents get richest.

Capitalism will remain in highly regulated form.

With my definition, socialism as seen in for instance many European countries are a form of capitalism, not a rival ideology. All societies since the invention or money have been capitalistic societies at the bottom, since they've been based on economical success, whether regulated or not.

Violence as a control measure is a thing of the past. We will socailly evolve towards this end because natural selection has been disrupted to allow the dregs and waste of the world to overpower the survivors and liberty loving capitalists among us.

Notice that economical success hasn't been proportional to amount of work, to intelligence, to good organizational ability, or just and ethical behavior. It has been based on what was most economically profitable, whether that required strength or not. An common pattern already in the earliest civilizations: A weak, stupid man with rich parents buys 10 slaves who cuts out gold from a mine for him. He gets richer than a farmer who is strong, intelligent and caring for his family. The farmer has to pay taxes because the influence of people like the first one causes tax raises and similar. At the end the slave-owner gold miner buys prositutes and wives and gets ten children, while the farmer is inprisoned for theft when he tries to steal food for his family after the tyrannic taxes made them nearly starve. Economical profit is not proportional to how strong or good human being you are. That's why most forms of capitalism since the beginning of civilization have worked so badly.

Free speech will become more and more regulated and conviluteed to meet the demands of the shallow masses and political elite. Land rights are taken away. Guns are taken away. The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

And any resistance will be met with manipulation, distortion, and isolation.

This sounds like a typical conspiracy theory to me. Since we live in a capitalism it's far more likely for rich people to get influential and affect politics, and rich people tend to favor capitalism more than socialism. They also tend to favor unjustly regulated forms of capitalism more than normal capitalism or socialism. With unjustly regulated forms of capitalism I'm referring to the above system where friends of the rulers get missions to construct things etc. Please show some proof of your alleged "socialist world conspiracy". Your current ruler is for instance conservative, not left wing or middle.

Thus, we are doomed to be ruled over by a very few elite who manipulate the masses like the dogs and scum that humanity ultimately is.

Isn't the point of the capitalism you're advocating that the elite should rule the masses? I assume what you're really meaning is that a group will be an elite measured in society terms, while as humans being scum? That's nothing unique but something that has existed since the dawn of civilization. There have been exceptions local in time and space, and studying those suggests that it's very well possible to spread liberty, freedom and justice all over the world or at the very least create an isolated Eden of such virtues that can remain over a long time.

And it has already begun. The United States of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin has been destroyed. And so the transition into the New American State has already occurred before we realized it.

But is is inevitable the world over. It isn't bad, good, or indifferent. It's just the way it is. And I'm done fighting for a cause that cannot win. I will continue to serve my community. I will continue to care for my fellow man. And I will continue to believe in the ideals of individual liberty so long as I live. But humanity cannot sustain that which it is incapable of.
What exactly is it you're saying has changed to the worse recently? You seem to be confusing the regulation of capitalism with totalitarianism and also with socialism. You also seem to be claiming you've once had economical liberty and free market and that it's being taken away from you - the fact is you've never had any free market. Secondly, your current rulers are conservative, not socialists. Thirdly, the theoretical unregulated capitalism has never existed and if it would it wouldn't favor strong and ethical human beings, but whatever happens to be most economically benefitial at a certain time. Fourthly, capitalism in theory isn't the same as capitalism in practise, because capitalism in practise involves regulation of the market, regulating it based on friendships behind the scenes, and in benefit of those who happened to already be rich.

Redleg

06-25-2006, 14:54

I apologize to everyone else for making all these long posts way off topic. Mea culpa. I have a very low tolerance for arguments made with faulty data or faulty logic or which arise from plain old-fashioned ignorance.

Pot calling the Kettle Black,

It seems you missed something in the table that you claim there are only 3510 millionaires. Did you look at the key before claiming that there are only 3510 millioniaries in the United States.

All figures are estimates based on samples-- numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars.

The IRS never uses normal numbers in any spread sheet or table - the key is the most important thing to read before going to the table to interpate the data contained.

Now if you add the thousand on the end of your number - you get the actual number that the IRS is using. For instance in this case its 3,510,000.

I have been rather amused by this exchange, accusations of using faulty numbers and bad math. Accusations of not understanding the IRS and the Estate Tax. Claims of not using ad hominem arguements and that I started ad hominem with my initial comment of how funny.

ass-u-me makes its meaning clear each and every time its done.

The .27 percent is questionable when one looks into what the report you linked is advocating. The group does some of the same faulty misinterpation of the IRS data as you - except that they are better at it, because they are out to prove a specific point. They focused soley on the group above the 2 Million cap. 4 million for couples.

Rather interesting.

I happen to have some detailed inside information on taxes given that in any given year from the time period of 1985-1988 I personally saw over enough tax returns that would blow the claim of 3510 millionaires out of the water - and I only worked at the Ogden Internal Revenue Service Center for three years. Has nothing to do with my personal wealth which defeats an earlier statement of yours about my personal wealth.....

I have personally fix tax returns so that the tax payer would not get an audit from the government, working with people who made a simple mistake on their returns.

Oh well that ends my amusment for awhile - I will be away for a week so feel free to educate me on how I misread the IRS table that you used.

Aenlic

06-25-2006, 21:04

Now if you add the thousand on the end of your number - you get the actual number that the IRS is using. For instance in this case its 3,510,000.

You are indeed correct. I misread the table. I was flat out, dead wrong on that part. :bow:

That only slightly changes the nature of the argument; however. The 30,000+ 706 forms filed number still stands. That's it and it doesn't appear to vary much over the last few decades, hovering around 100K returns, until the 2001 law was passed, then it decreases dramatically. And that was before the number went up again this year. Just around 30,000 people filed taxable estate tax returns. You can refute that now if you wish.

Are you prepared to admit you were using the wrong estate tax limit numbers yet? Probably not.

I have been rather amused by this exchange, accusations of using faulty numbers and bad math. Accusations of not understanding the IRS and the Estate Tax. Claims of not using ad hominem arguements and that I started ad hominem with my initial comment of how funny.

ass-u-me makes its meaning clear each and every time its done.

And yet, you seem to think that that isn't an ad hominem attack. You do it all the time in these forums. It's on of your favorite phrases. It there such a thing as a pompous ass-u-me? You're the poster child. That's OK, as long as you're making pompous ass-umptions, I'll be here to call you on it.

The .27 percent is questionable when one looks into what the report you linked is advocating. The group does some of the same faulty misinterpation of the IRS data as you - except that they are better at it, because they are out to prove a specific point. They focused soley on the group above the 2 Million cap. 4 million for couples.

Why wouldn't they? That's the cap! No one is really this stupid. It's got to be an act. Why would they focus on those below the cap? Those below the cap don't have a tax liability!

Rather interesting.

I happen to have some detailed inside information on taxes given that in any given year from the time period of 1985-1988 I personally saw over enough tax returns that would blow the claim of 3510 millionaires out of the water - and I only worked at the Ogden Internal Revenue Service Center for three years. Has nothing to do with my personal wealth which defeats an earlier statement of yours about my personal wealth.....

I have personally fix tax returns so that the tax payer would not get an audit from the government, working with people who made a simple mistake on their returns.

Tax examiner, eh? How funny (your phrase not mine). I know the qualifications needed for the job. In fact, I know a couple of people with just GEDs doing it right now. You haven't impressed me.

Oh well that ends my amusment for awhile - I will be away for a week so feel free to educate me on how I misread the IRS table that you used.

Run away child. Enjoy your time away from our lovely forum. Unlike you, I can readily admit an error. Are you heading out to take a pompous ass-umption class? :laugh4:

When you return, I promise to bow before your superior pompous ass-umptions. Or is that anterior? Hmmm...

Major Robert Dump

06-26-2006, 09:17

LOL you guys started a long debate over an ambiguous comment I made about the estate tax repeal. Oh well, its a dead bill now as I understand it, so the conspiracy theory I was going to float is moot.

Watchman

06-26-2006, 22:10

Excuse me, but where exactly is the "not socialist" USA not in stark financial difficulties as well ? By what I know of it the national foreign debt alone is something awesome, plus the society is displaying all the symptoms of too great income inequalities (ie. lots of serious poverty on the lower end of the scale) - and this despite all the somewhat questionable little feats of economic legerdemain used to lessen the budget imbalances (such as creative currency exchange)...

Another reason socialism is unreasonable in America is that it requires a population to be very compliant--which won't happen. Americans won't give up their guns, Americans won't give up their rights.Americans have their silly guns, which are worth Jack Fertilizer as far as political influence goes. The French have the institution of La Rue, and their popular demonstrations can actually have effects on official policy.
France = teh win here.
You were saying...?

Aenlic

06-26-2006, 22:21

I agree there, Watchman. Here we are in the USA, supremely confident in our guns protecting us from our own government. Meanwhile that very government has spent the last few years vigorously and rather effectively chipping away at the very freedoms those guns are supposed to be protecting, with many of the gun owners actively supporting that policy! It's insane. Meanwhile, it seems the only people speaking out about those individual liberties are the ones labelled as "socialists" and "liberals" and "traitors" and are seen as the enemies of those freedoms. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Watchman

06-26-2006, 23:17

I'm also pretty sceptical of the supposed ability of those privately-owned firearms to "protect the People from the Governement" in the first place - look at the West Bank or Iraq to see just how well untrained civilians, no matter how motivated, can fight against well-equipped modern armies. And over there the "governement" side doesn't have good legal records on the gun-owners in the first place like it does in the US...

Seems to me a way more sensible way to curtail "tyranny" or whatever would be to actually pay attention to and participate in the actual politics and governing of the state so the possession of firearms as a defense against "the Man" doesn't become an issue in the first place, rather than to strut and posture and gesticulate at the Sacred Gun and refuse to have anything to do with "damn Feds".
:no:
Anyway. A bit of a peeve of mine and not necessarily wholly relevant to the topic, that.

rory_20_uk

06-27-2006, 14:01

Reason has no place in the gun debate, OK? Please forget about modern day tanks etc etc and think of the industry as a whole.

If you stop Americans killing each other not only are there going to be more unemployed from reduction in manufacturing, but also due to the increased people that won't be killed.

~:smoking:

Redleg

07-01-2006, 04:02

You are indeed correct. I misread the table. I was flat out, dead wrong on that part. :bow:

Oh I am surprised that you admitted that your incorrect. Very good.

That only slightly changes the nature of the argument; however. The 30,000+ 706 forms filed number still stands. That's it and it doesn't appear to vary much over the last few decades, hovering around 100K returns, until the 2001 law was passed, then it decreases dramatically. And that was before the number went up again this year. Just around 30,000 people filed taxable estate tax returns. You can refute that now if you wish.

That was never my point. My point has always been potential.

Are you prepared to admit you were using the wrong estate tax limit numbers yet? Probably not.

You might want to go back and read one of the posts - been away for a week but a remember clearly stating this statement.

You got me on not paying attention to when it went to 1.5 million - but that doesn't give one sufficient reason to make certain statements now either does it?

And yet, you seem to think that that isn't an ad hominem attack. You do it all the time in these forums. It's on of your favorite phrases. It there such a thing as a pompous ass-u-me? You're the poster child. That's OK, as long as you're making pompous ass-umptions, I'll be here to call you on it.

How funny might or might not be an ad hominem fallacy or it could be simple sarcasm at the arguement. What is an ad hominem arguement is making accusations of bad math and bad numbers directed at the individual when one is indeed themselves guilty of doing exactly that.

What does ass-u-me mean?. Break it down you might begin to get a clear picture of the term. Here I will help. Assume makes rearends of both and all involved. (And I thought you spent time in the military - its a pretty basic saying. The saying has been around for many years.)

Why wouldn't they? That's the cap! No one is really this stupid. It's got to be an act. Why would they focus on those below the cap? Those below the cap don't have a tax liability!

I questioned the percentaged based upon what I knew. That I did not pay attention to the cap being raised to 2 million this year is indeed my error. However we both have clearly demonstrated by the IRS numbers that the potential to be greater then .27 percent does indeed exist when one considers that their is 3510000 millionaries in the United States. You may believe it to be correct - that is your choice my opinion is something else. However when you yourself are guilty of using incorrect data - it is easy to see how the data can be used to develop the picture that one wants to paint.

Tax examiner, eh? How funny (your phrase not mine). I know the qualifications needed for the job. In fact, I know a couple of people with just GEDs doing it right now. You haven't impressed me.

Making assumtions again - you might want to re-read what was written.

Run away child. Enjoy your time away from our lovely forum. Unlike you, I can readily admit an error. Are you heading out to take a pompous ass-umption class? :laugh4:

ad hominem comments because I had to go on a business trip. To bad your still haven't learned a few simple lessons about behaviors.

When you return, I promise to bow before your superior pompous ass-umptions. Or is that anterior? Hmmm...

Not necessary - you have demonstrated exactly the reason why one fails to learn from their own mistakes quite well.