-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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?
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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!
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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:
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
weeee ha ha ha fun! yay! Good back and forth. hee tee hee hee.
And no I am not drunk. Yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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. 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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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:
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN article
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........
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ME
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ME
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ME
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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?
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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:
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRS
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
(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.
Quote:
(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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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?
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
... but something else entirily.
I can only hope that you were being intentionally ironic here. :laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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!
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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:
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRS Table
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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)...
Quote:
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...?
-
Re: World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty
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.
