If giving money to the government and the government helping people got them out of poverty we still wouldn't have the amount of people not eating it in poverty that we have. We are constantly having to supplement government programs with private donors because they don't do enough to feed the hungry or how's the homeless or any other goddamn thing. The government doesn't do it. They do just enough to keep people from dying that's it.
The Death Tax
Posts
Total:
125
-->
@Double_R
I’m sorry your inability to comprehend logic.
Explain the logic of having a 1000 page bill written by lobbyists for 2 pages of infrastructure?
Why do you tolerate this?
-->
@Athias
How is that luck?
I explained that starting with the very next sentence. You don’t have to respond I to every sentence I write, just keep reading.
Taxing inheritances because you believe wealth should be excluded--even from one's family--to just the person who generates it, much less provide an "offering" to everyone else should one decide to share his/her wealth with his/her family, is nothing more than jelly for my PB&J sandwich.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
First off, if you read the thread you would know that my position is the first few million (I said 5 earlier) should not be taxed at all, so no one is saying wealth should be excluded from anyone.
Second, what does that even mean? We’re not talking about excluding people from wealth, we’re talking about whether the wealth generated by one individual should flow tax free to their beneficiaries.
Do you have an actual position of the estate tax, or like I asked for in the OP, a substantive reason for opposing it?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you know what social security is?
If you want more money to go to help people in need then tell us how you would reorganize the government’s expenditures. Perhaps we can start with our bloated military budget?
-->
@Greyparrot
Explain the logic of having a 1000 page bill written by lobbyists for 2 pages of infrastructure?Why do you tolerate this?
Biden made clear since the campaign that infrastructure was not the only thing they wanted in this bill. If you actually followed politics you would know that.
-->
@Double_R
Biden made clear since the campaign that infrastructure was not the only thing they wanted in this bill. If you actually followed politics you would know that.
By "they" You must mean the lobbies that wrote the bill. Biden isn't authoring anything, and your insistence that he is (or has the capacity to) borders on fanatical delusion with the man.
-->
@Double_R
I explained that starting with the very next sentence.
No, you didn't. This:
We’re not talking about the man who made his fortune, we’re talking about the people who did nothing to help build it but yet will reap all the rewards.
Is not an explanation of "luck."
You don’t have to respond I to every sentence I write, just keep reading.
I read everything before I respond. My parsing your statements reflects particular points which I intend to address.
First off, if you read the thread you would know that my position is the first few million (I said 5 earlier) should not be taxed at all, so no one is saying wealth should be excluded from anyone.
How generous of you. Tell me: who are you to dictate "how much is okay" for someone to enjoy their estate or inheritance before getting taxed on it? Your argument's impetus is entirely rested on the platitude that the beneficiary of an inheritance or estate is "lucky" to receive it--a platitude informed by, as my friend Greyparrot so eloquently put it, as jealousy; hence, an un-taxed transfer of wealth is only legitimate if it's only excluded to just oneself.
Second, what does that even mean? We’re not talking about excluding people from wealth, we’re talking about whether the wealth generated by one individual should flow tax free to their beneficiaries.
Why do YOU OR ANYONE ELSE get a say as to how the wealth generated by one individual transfers to one's beneficiaries?
Do you have an actual position of the estate tax,
Yes: like all taxes, eliminate them.
or like I asked for in the OP, a substantive reason for opposing it?
Taxation is robbery. And let me remind you, you initiated my argument; not the other way around.
-->
@Greyparrot
By "they" You must mean the lobbies that wrote the bill. Biden isn't authoring anything, and your insistence that he is (or has the capacity to) borders on fanatical delusion with the man.
Let’s try a very simple test of Occam’s razor:
A) The president of the United States is making his own decisions as to which legislation he approves
B) The executive branch of the United States government has been taken over by shadowy forces deciding what the president does while the guy who actually won the election and constitutionally has the final say in everything just pretends to be in charge.
Which of these do you find to be the simplest assertion? If A, you can stop here. We apparently share the same delusion.
If B, do you have any evidence of this?
If you do not have any evidence, please explain how such an assertion can be falsified.
If you have no evidence nor any practical mechanism to falsify said assertion, please explain the difference between an unfalsifiable unsupported belief and a delusion.
-->
@Athias
No, you didn't. This:We’re not talking about the man who made his fortune, we’re talking about the people who did nothing to help build it but yet will reap all the rewards.Is not an explanation of "luck."
Context matters. You’re entire argument about luck was focused entirely on the deceased. We’re not talking about the deceased, we’re talking about the beneficiaries. If you really need me to explain how one would be considered lucky to be handed a fortune they did nothing to earn, we have much bigger problems to address than estate taxes.
Tell me: who are you to dictate "how much is okay" for someone to enjoy their estate or inheritance before getting taxed on it?
I’m an American citizen, which gives me the right to cast a vote for the candidate who best represents my views on what US policy should be. Is there some other credential I’m supposed to have?
Your argument's impetus is entirely rested on the platitude that the beneficiary of an inheritance or estate is "lucky" to receive it
Please tell me what word you would use to describe that person.
Yes: like all taxes, eliminate them.
I suppose you don’t believe we should have a government then either.
Taxation is robbery
No, it’s not. If you choose to participate in our economic system then you are choosing to follow its rules. If you don’t like it move to a deserted island where you can live in isolation and do whatever you want.
-->
@Double_R
Or...
C):
Legislation originates in the House of representatives where Pelosi gathers all the proposals from all the DC lobbyists and makes a multi-thousand page monstrosity and declares it "the will of the people." (most of the Democrats don't even read the whole thing, they are just told the lobbyists are happy)
After Schumer is done with it, he hands Biden an ice cream and a pen.
Yeah I will go with option C here.
You go on with your Biden writes the thousand pages of bullshit theory though. He can't even make it through a teleprompter session.
Context matters. You’re entire argument about luck was focused entirely on the deceased. We’re not talking about the deceased, we’re talking about the beneficiaries. If you really need me to explain how one would be considered lucky to be handed a fortune they did nothing to earn, we have much bigger problems to address than estate taxes.
My entire argument is not focused on the deceased. Read my arguments again. And don't make excuses. You are claiming that the beneficiaries receiving wealth exemplifies "luck." If there's a problem in explaining this, then it is with you; nothing else.
I’m an American citizen
So what?
which gives me the right to cast a vote
Which makes you an habitual member of a "gang."
for the candidate who best represents my views on what US policy should be.
Your "gang leader."
Is there some other credential I’m supposed to have?
Yes: proprietorship. You are not the proprietor of said wealth? Then you have NO say.
Please tell me what word you would use to describe that person.
Anything but "lucky" and its synonyms.
I suppose you don’t believe we should have a government then either.
You already know this.
No, it’s not. If you choose to participate in our economic system then you are choosing to follow its rules.
Rules that are enforced with a proverbial gun to one's face.
If you don’t like it move to a deserted island where you can live in isolation and do whatever you want.
All of my neighbors vote and unanimously decide to rape me. Instead of condemning their acts as immoral, I should pick up and leave, abandoning my property--their society; their rules, right?
-->
@Double_R
Everybody gets social security that has nothing to do with the poor and if you don't want to pay any social security and plan your own retirement the government won't let you. So you're stuck with whatever they put you in even if you could invest it in a way that makes more money. I have no problem reducing our military budget we should not have bases in any country but our own we should not have military in any country but our own and what military we have in this country should be doing things like infrastructure and other things on the interstate that would save the state's money.
-->
@Greyparrot
Or...C):Legislation originates in the House of representatives where Pelosi gathers all the proposals from all the DC lobbyists and makes a multi-thousand page monstrosity and declares it "the will of the people."
You made the claim that Biden isn’t authorizing anything. Do you have any evidence or argument supporting that position or not?
-->
@Athias
I’m an American citizenSo what?
If you’d actually make it to the end of the sentence you would have a better idea.
which gives me the right to cast a voteWhich makes you an habitual member of a "gang."
If you don’t like being part of a society then move, or at the very least stop taking part in an taking advantage of all the perks that come along with it.
All of my neighbors vote and unanimously decide to rape me. Instead of condemning their acts as immoral, I should pick up and leave, abandoning my property--their society; their rules, right?
If the group I lived amongst decided to rape me, I wouldn’t be living amongst them. It’s not complicated.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Social security is the reason we have a lot less people in poverty. This is classic confirmation bias, you’re only looking at those who are still in poverty and ignoring those whom the government actually helped.
The reason you don’t get to opt out of social security is because your tax dollars are paying for today’s seniors, just as today’s seniors paid for the previous generation’s. That’s how it works, imagine when you become a senior the next generation decided to all opt out and plan their own retirements leaving you with nothing after all those years of paying into it. I’m pretty sure you’d have a problem with that.
Glad we agree on a bloated military budget.
Your social security money should be paying you back because that's what the government's taking it for. There's not enough money in there to pay back the people who paid into it where the hell did the money go. Is 17 people were paying in the social security there should be 17 people's worth of money in social security. Oh that's right the government takes money out of social security and doesn't put it back. I hate to break it to you but the generation paying into social security right now is a third the size of the generation that's collecting it. Which is why there won't be any there when I retire.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your social security money should be paying you back because that's what the government's taking it for. There's not enough money in there to pay back the people who paid into it where the hell did the money go. Is 17 people were paying in the social security there should be 17 people's worth of money in social security. Oh that's right the government takes money out of social security and doesn't put it back. I hate to break it to you but the generation paying into social security right now is a third the size of the generation that's collecting it. Which is why there won't be any there when I retire.
This is not actually the way social security works.
The way social security works is that you pay in, and the money paid in is used to pay the people claiming; that’s how it was able to be out in places almost overnight for everyone rather than anyone who was already 53 being screwed in 12 years because they had not paid in enough compared to someone who was 18.
This has produced a surplus in payments in vs payments out over multiple decades until some of the baby boomers began retiring. Where the amount paid out exceeded the amount paid in 2010.
The big surplus generated over the preceding decades was invested in US treasury bonds; save for a default in debt payments - each month the social security fund receives interest on debt held, and returns the value when the bond matures; so the money hasn’t really disappeared any more than it would have if that money was simply placed in a bank savings account (which would then go on to invest that money in something else).
-->
@Double_R
If you’d actually make it to the end of the sentence you would have a better idea.
Once again:
I read everything before I respond. My parsing your statements reflects particular points which I intend to address.
If you don’t like being part of a society then move
Non sequitur. My "liking" or disliking my being part of society has nothing to do with it. It isn't "society" I intend to undermine--only the government which subjugates it.
or at the very least stop taking part in an taking advantage of all the perks that come along with it
Taking advantage of which "perks"?
If the group I lived amongst decided to rape me, I wouldn’t be living amongst them
So your response to a violent act is to tell the victim to leave or that they should have left before it happened? I shouldn't be surprised. This so-called government which implements "rules" with which you are so consumed are devoid of any moral economy.
-->
@Athias
I read everything before I respond. My parsing your statements reflects particular points which I intend to address.
There was no point to address, it was literally half a sentence.
Non sequitur. My "liking" or disliking my being part of society has nothing to do with it. It isn't "society" I intend to undermine--only the government which subjugates it.
The government is a direct reflection of the society you live in. The people in government are the representatives they sent there in their behalf. You cannot coherently separate the two as of one has nothing to do with the other.
Taking advantage of which "perks"?
How are you communicating with me right now? Through what device, made by who, connected to what, powered how, and… how are you paying for this?
Or to ask it slightly differently… do you think you did all this yourself?
-->
@Double_R
I said Authoring.
-->
@Double_R
There was no point to address, it was literally half a sentence.
If there was no point in addressing it, then there was no point in making said statement in the first place. Exclaiming your American citizenship--and all that which followed--neither justifies nor explains the reason you should have a say in someone else's inheritance or Estate.
The government is a direct reflection of the society you live in.
No it isn't. The government is nothing more than a gang terrorizing those in proximity.
he people in government are the representatives they sent there in their behalf.
Those "representatives" are nothing more than gang members who've risen through farcical electoral pageants.
How are you communicating with me right now?
Through both Transfer Control and Internet Protocol.
Through what device
A computer.
made by who
Dell.
connected to what
the Internet.
powered how
Low-voltage regulated direct current power subjected to Advanced Technology eXtended specification controlled by signals from my computer's motherboard.
and… how are you paying for this?
Labor which I exchange for compensation. In other words, a job which generates income I earn.
Or to ask it slightly differently… do you think you did all this yourself?
Not the point. I have no qualms with "society." And I've not claimed I've done anything by myself. I object to government. Your conflation of the two is nothing more than delusion especially considering the binary political environment in and over which you and others frequently engage and argue.
-->
@Athias
If there was no point in addressing it, then there was no point in making said statement in the first place. Exclaiming your American citizenship--and all that which followed--neither justifies nor explains the reason you should have a say in someone else's inheritance or Estate.
If you didn’t find that part of my sentence relevant to the point I was making then why single that part out to respond to it?
It’s as if you don’t understand what context is or why it matters. Thoughts and ideas are typically expressed in more than just one word or one sentence.
The people in government are the representatives they sent there in their behalf.Those "representatives" are nothing more than gang members who've risen through farcical electoral pageants.
Do you believe in elections?
If not, do you have any actual ideas on how a society should ensure it’s functionality and prosperity or is “I hate government” all you have to offer?
Or to ask it slightly differently… do you think you did all this yourself?Not the point. I have no qualms with "society." And I've not claimed I've done anything by myself. I object to government. Your conflation of the two is nothing more than delusion especially considering the binary political environment in and over which you and others frequently engage and argue.
What’s delusional is pretending they’re two separate things, as of one has nothing to do with the other.
The argument is not that government is society, the argument is that government is the means by which society solves its problems and imposes obligations amongst its citizenry. If you disagree with a representative government then again, what is your solution? Do you believe criminals should be locked up? If so, who locks them up and under what authority?
-->
@Double_R
If you didn’t find that part of my sentence relevant to the point I was making then why single that part out to respond to it?
Thus, my stating: "so what?" It wasn't just part of your sentence that was irrelevant, it was this statement in its entirety:
I’m an American citizen, which gives me the right to cast a vote for the candidate who best represents my views on what US policy should be.
It hasn't changed my contention: your being an American citizen with the capacity to cast a vote for a candidate who best represents your views neither justifies nor explains the reason you should have a say in someone else's inheritance or Estate.
It’s as if you don’t understand what context is or why it matters. Thoughts and ideas are typically expressed in more than just one word or one sentence.
I appreciate the lesson in semantics.
Do you believe in elections?
No.
If not, do you have any actual ideas on how a society should ensure it’s functionality and prosperity
Yes.
or is “I hate government” all you have to offer?
Never stated, "I hate government." Hate is irrelevant.
The argument is not that government is society
Then you never should have made it.
the argument is that government is the means by which society solves its problems and imposes obligations amongst its citizenry.
Government is a means not the means.
If you disagree with a representative government then again, what is your solution?
Private arbitration and dispute resolution.
Do you believe criminals should be locked up?
No.
If so, who locks them up and under what authority?
I don't believe criminals should be "locked up" so the question of "who" is irrelevant.
If not, do you have any actual ideas on how a society should ensure it’s functionality and prosperityYes.or is “I hate government” all you have to offer?Never stated, "I hate government." Hate is irrelevant.The argument is not that government is societyThen you never should have made it.the argument is that government is the means by which society solves its problems and imposes obligations amongst its citizenry.Government is a means not the means.If you disagree with a representative government then again, what is your solution?Private arbitration and dispute resolution.Do you believe criminals should be locked up?No.If so, who locks them up and under what authority?I don't believe criminals should be "locked up" so the question of "who" is irrelevant.
This is just pointless. If you have an actual deep thought, something that requires more than one word or sentence to be expressed let me know.
-->
@Double_R
This is just pointless. If you have an actual deep thought, something that requires more than one word or sentence to be expressed let me know.
Have I not answered your questions to your satisfaction? Perhaps, you should ask better questions. Here, I'll start it off: what would you like explored?
-->
@Athias
Have I not answered your questions to your satisfaction?
No. Here’s an example:
If not, do you have any actual ideas on how a society should ensure it’s functionality and prosperityYes.
… ??? that’s it? Would you like to share any of them? This is the closest you came in the entire post…
If you disagree with a representative government then again, what is your solution?Private arbitration and dispute resolution.
What? How do you resolve issues with private arbitration? The entire idea of arbitration is that both sides appoint an arbiter to rule on a dispute, but that ruling is entirely meaningless without the law behind it and you don’t accept government as an authority so what are you talking about? How could this possibly work? What happens when one side does not accept the arbiters ruling? (Those questions are all along the same thread so no need to answer each individually).
And then there’s this one:
Do you believe criminals should be locked up?No.
Again… that’s it? Any thoughts on how we should actually deal with criminals? Just hand everyone a gun and expect no one will violate any laws? In fact there are no laws cause you don’t accept government so is there any such thing as a criminal in your view? Is there such thing as murder or just an unfortunate end to someone’s life that others can take retribution on if they should so choose? (Again, one in depth thought on this topic will suffice).
-->
@Double_R
No.
Then don't ask questions that merely require a "yes" or "no" response.
Would you like to share any of them?
Would I "like" to? No. But I will. My ideas which provide alternatives for the current hegemony of government is to privatize everything, even the resolution of conflict. Since the government itself provides no service, but instead forces itself into an intermediary capacity, my solution to the absence of government would simply be to facilitate the real providers of these services to function in a private capacity. So whether it's health care, dispute resolutions, education, etc. my response is simply to privatize.
What? How do you resolve issues with private arbitration?
It's quite simple: the affected parties submit their issues/disputes to a private arbiter or arbiters of their choosing. The arbiter renders a decision based on what he or she has seen or heard from the affected parties. The decision is to be accepted, not acquiesced. The fairness of these decisions determines the reputation of the arbiter/arbiters.
The entire idea of arbitration is that both sides appoint an arbiter to rule on a dispute, but that ruling is entirely meaningless without the law behind it and you don’t accept government as an authority so what are you talking about?
Not even the slightest bit true. The only thing needed to validate the decision of the arbiter are the parties involved.
How could this possibly work?
It already does work.
What happens when one side does not accept the arbiters ruling?
Then either side is welcomed to suggest a different arbitration, or they can continue to dispute. But the fact that they'd seek arbitration in the first place is plenty incentive to resolve their dispute.
(Those questions are all along the same thread so no need to answer each individually).
Then don't ask individual questions.
Any thoughts on how we should actually deal with criminals?
Outlawry and complete ostracism.
Just hand everyone a gun and expect no one will violate any laws?
Who's handing them guns?
In fact there are no laws cause you don’t accept government so is there any such thing as a criminal in your view?
Yes, one who commits an egregious, immoral act.
Is there such thing as murder
Yes. Murder has description outside of legal purview.
just an unfortunate end to someone’s life that others can take retribution on if they should so choose?
If the criminal is ostracized then yes, the end to someone's life may induce retribution, which made it and makes it quite an effective deterrent, as early Germanic law would show.
-->
@Athias
My ideas which provide alternatives for the current hegemony of government is to privatize everything, even the resolution of conflict.
Do you have a single example anywhere in human history where a large civilization has successfully functioned through such a system?
Not even the slightest bit true. The only thing needed to validate the decision of the arbiter are the parties involved.How could this possibly work?It already does work.
No, it doesn’t. You’re pointing to arbitration systems that have the backing of the government, so if the party ruled against does not follow the ruling they can be held legally liable for violating their contract in addition to being ruled against. That’s entirely different from what you’re suggesting.
Let me ask it this way… under your privatized arbitration system, who is the ultimate authority enforcing these rulings? If I were to be ruled against, who ultimately ensures that I follow the ruling should I decide not to? (That’s all one question, since I have to specify).
In fact there are no laws cause you don’t accept government so is there any such thing as a criminal in your view?Yes, one who commits an egregious, immoral act.
And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?
And as an added question, how would a completely privatized society defend itself against the rise of a dictatorship?
-->
@Double_R
Do you have a single example anywhere in human history where a large civilization has successfully functioned through such a system?
The Mongol Empire was the last great meritocracy.
-->
@Double_R
Do you have a single example anywhere in human history where a large civilization has successfully functioned through such a system?
Why does that matter? Feudal systems historically and currently have "successfully functioned." Dictatorships have functioned and do function "successfully." If you're going to qualify the merit of my arguments by: (1) the scale of "civilization," and (2) historically "successful" example, then please elaborate on the reason such metrics matter with respect to my objection toward government and the capacity to put my ideas into practice.
No, it doesn’t. You’re pointing to arbitration systems that have the backing of the government, so if the party ruled against does not follow the ruling they can be held legally liable for violating their contract in addition to being ruled against. That’s entirely different from what you’re suggesting.
There's a difference between Binding and Non-binding Arbitration:
A form of arbitration where the arbitrator recommends, but does not impose, a decision regarding the parties' rights and/or obligations. Non-binding arbitration includes the procedures of binding arbitration but without the conclusiveness of a binding decision. This type of arbitration can benefit parties to a simple dispute with perspectives that differ too greatly to engage in mediation, but who want a neutral analysis of their respective viewpoints.
Let me ask it this way… under your privatized arbitration system, who is the ultimate authority enforcing these rulings? If I were to be ruled against, who ultimately ensures that I follow the ruling should I decide not to? (That’s all one question, since I have to specify).
Each individual is his or her own ultimate authority. One can either heed the recommendation/decision of the arbiter or not. Essentially, it's up to the individual to decide to follow the decision, or face the consequences of continuing the dispute whatever they may be. In actuality, you're really asking me "who coerces either party into following a ruling?" And that is a nonsensical question to ask me since its the very concept against which I argue. That would be like asking a vegetarian, "then, how do we eat meat?" You would first have to justify how an "ultimate authority" coercing the populace informs and is necessary for a functioning and prosperous society.
And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?
It isn't "who?"; it's "what?" And that would be individualist moral philosophy.
And as an added question, how would a completely privatized society defend itself against the rise of a dictatorship?
The better question is: how does a dictator rise in a privatized society? If each individual is his/her own authority, then what power would a dictator have? Dictatorships are forms of government, Double_R.