Estate Tax Amendment Both Unnecessary and Unaffordable

[Jagger]

On April 2 the Senate adopted an amendment to the budget resolution by Senators Blanche Lincoln and Jon Kyl that would substantially weaken the estate tax.

Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_1.htm

The amendment is fiscally irresponsible. It would pave the way for a significant increase in long-term deficits and debt.

It is unnecessary to protect small businesses and farms because nearly all of them are already exempt from the tax under the 2009 estate tax rules, which President Obama has proposed to extend.

The amendment would lead to significant reductions in charitable contributions, while benefiting only the wealthiest 0.28 percent of estates.

[glockmail]

Why do you want to tax the dead?

[Jagger]

The proposal would benefit only a tiny number of estates but it would carry a large cost.

[glockmail]

The proposal would benefit only a tiny number of estates but it would carry a large cost.The costs are burdened by the surviving relatives. Please explain to me how you think that is compassionate, or even fair.

[hjmick]

Nice, double taxing.

[PostmodernProphet]

The proposal would benefit only a tiny number of estates but it would carry a large cost.

can you give us an estimate of the cost of this amendment....it is surprising it would be that expensive, since it benefits such a "tiny number of estates"......

also, can you point out which amendment you are referring to.....your link lists 154 different votes....

[5stringJeff]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.

[Kathianne]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.

Tried to rep, alas. Indeed.

[PostmodernProphet]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.
you buy something from me and you pay a 6% sales tax.....I take that money and buy something from Fred.....I pay a 6% sales tax.....Fred buys something from you and pays a 6% sales tax.....it's the same money, taxed three times....it's all immoral.....

[sgtdmski]

The estate tax my ass, it is the Death Tax. Tell me why is it that liberals and their Democrats in Congress insist on taxing people twice. If you want a Death Tax, then get rid of all other taxes and tax people only when they die, for if you continue to tax them during their life, you have no right to tax them when they die. To the families this is not income, and to consider it so is to tax it twice.

Perhaps we the people should demand a bill be passed that taxes all members of Congress when they die to be taxed in the amount of the monies they spent during their time in Congress. IF they do not have the full amount upon their death, we can collect it from their families until the amount is paid in full. See how they like it.

dmk

[Jagger]

The costs are burdened by the surviving relatives. Please explain to me how you think that is compassionate, or even fair.

The proposal would reduce tax revenues by $91 billion in the first ten years that its effects would be fully felt. The advocates of the proposal did not propose $91 billion in spending cuts.

[Jagger]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.

Our nation’s founders viewed concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation.

[PostmodernProphet]

The proposal would reduce tax revenues by $91 billion in the first ten years that its effects would be fully felt. The advocates of the proposal did not propose $91 billion in spending cuts.

actually, they proposed far more than $91 billion in cuts....they proposed reducing the stimulus package by $1trillion.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Our nation’s founders viewed concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation.

odd....the estate tax was first imposed in 1916.....why did our nation's founders wait so long to let their views be known?......

[glockmail]

The proposal would reduce tax revenues by $91 billion in the first ten years that its effects would be fully felt. The advocates of the proposal did not propose $91 billion in spending cuts.
As usual you failed to even address, never mind answer, my question. Try again.

[Jagger]

actually, they proposed far more than $91 billion in cuts....they proposed reducing the stimulus package by $1trillion.....

Read the resolution, dude.

[Jagger]

odd....the estate tax was first imposed in 1916.....why did our nation's founders wait so long to let their views be known?......

The first estate tax was enacted July 6, 1797, to help pay for naval rearmament.

The estate tax is an American institution, like "under God" in the Pledge. Anti-American Conservatives who hate the United States and its traditions should go live in North Korea.

[Kathianne]

The first estate tax was enacted July 6, 1797, to help pay for naval rearmament.

The estate tax is an American institution, like "under God" in the Pledge. Anti-American Conservatives who hate the United States and its traditions should go live in North Korea.

Not quite (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9706):


Estate Tax History Versus Myth

The U.S. Senate has followed the House in voting to repeal the estate tax. Estate tax supporters claimed that from the beginning, it was designed to redistribute wealth. But history shows the it existed solely for revenue purposes until the 1930s.

The first estate tax -- enacted July 6, 1797, to help pay for naval rearmament -- required only the purchase of federal stamps for wills and estates, but was terminated four years later because the need for the revenue passed.
A direct tax on inheritances imposed in 1862 during the Civil War ranged from 0.75 percent to 5 percent.
The top rate was raised to 6 percent in 1864; but the tax was then abolished July 14, 1870.
In 1898, an estate tax with a top rate of 15 percent on estates over $1 million was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War -- then repealed on April 12, 1902.
America's fourth estate tax, enacted in 1916, set a top rate of 10 percent on estates over $5 million. It was raised to 25 percent in 1917, but this rate applied only to estates over $10 million. Unlike its predecessors, it was not repealed after the war, although the top rate was dropped to 20 percent in 1926.

President Franklin Roosevelt raised the top rate to 60 percent in 1934, and to 70 percent in 1935. The same bill increased the top income tax rate to 75 percent and increased corporate taxes. Altogether the law raised just $250 million annually.

Today the estate tax goes up to 60 percent. It exists only to redistribute income, since its revenue yield is negligible. But estate planning makes the tax virtually voluntary, according to estate tax experts.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, July 19, 2000.

[PostmodernProphet]

Read the resolution, dude.

I previously asked which one you were objecting to....your link referred to over a hundred different amendments.....you haven't stated which one, yet.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The first estate tax was enacted July 6, 1797, to help pay for naval rearmament.


not sure where you studied history, but they fucked you over.....

what you claim as an "estate" tax was a recording stamp tax for wills.....probate fees.....every state still has them....


On inventories of the effects of deceased persons, ten cents.
On receipts for legacies, or shares of personal estate, where the sum is above $50 and not exceeding $100, twenty-five cents; more than $100 and not exceeding $500, fifty cents; for every further sum above $500, a dollar. Not to extend to wives, children or grandchildren.
On probates of wills, and letters of administration, fifty cents

probably enough to buy a cannonball, but not "naval rearmament"....

our current "estate tax" was put in place in 1916.....as I said.....

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:AdXfAdQPyRkJ:digital.library.unt.ed u/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-5392:1+estate+tax+history&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[PostmodernProphet]

Our nation’s founders viewed concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation.

odd then that the "tax" you claim they imposed exempted spouses, children, and grandchildren from payment.....

[Jagger]

I previously asked which one you were objecting to....your link referred to over a hundred different amendments.....you haven't stated which one, yet.....

Cease your repetitive spamming.

[glockmail]

Cease your repetitive spamming. Delicious irony. :laugh2:

[Jagger]

not sure where you studied history, but they fucked you over.....

what you claim as an "estate" tax was a recording stamp tax for wills.....probate fees.....every state still has them....



probably enough to buy a cannonball, but not "naval rearmament"....

our current "estate tax" was put in place in 1916.....as I said.....

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:AdXfAdQPyRkJ:digital.library.unt.ed u/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-5392:1+estate+tax+history&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The estate tax is a time honored American Institution. Only traitors like Rush Limbaugh and the Flying Monkey Right would be in favor of ending it.

[Jagger]

odd then that the "tax" you claim they imposed exempted spouses, children, and grandchildren from payment.....

The estate tax helps to break up concentrations of power and promote equality of economic opportunity. As Congress put it back in 1916 when the estate tax was first adopted, the intent was to "break up the swollen fortunes of the rich."

[PostmodernProphet]

Cease your repetitive spamming.

tell us which amendment you are objecting to....in the meantime, admit that the Republicans DID propose reductions in spending that would more than pay for the amendment.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The estate tax is a time honored American Institution.

agreed, so long as you admit that the time in which it was honored began in 1916 and that your initial claim was bogus.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The estate tax helps to break up concentrations of power and promote equality of economic opportunity. As Congress put it back in 1916 when the estate tax was first adopted, the intent was to "break up the swollen fortunes of the rich."

First of all, you have just admitted that the estate tax was first adopted in 1916, which contradicts your earlier bullshit.....

second, the quote you provide is incorrect and actually comes from Teddy Roosevelt, not Congress....

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_History_Grote.html

[Jagger]

Breaking up concentrations of power and promoting equality of economic opportunity is a goal that ought to be shared across the political spectrum. Free-market types generally believe government should promote equality of opportunity. We'll never have perfect equal opportunity, but why not use the tax code to discourage a gigantic head start?

[Mr. P]

Breaking up concentrations of power and promoting equality of economic opportunity is a goal that ought to be shared across the political spectrum. Free-market types generally believe government should promote equality of opportunity. We'll never have perfect equal opportunity, but why not use the tax code to discourage a gigantic head start?

Why use tax law to destroy a family business?

[Jagger]

A tax that gathers all of its revenues from the wealthiest 1.2% — and over 60 percent of its revenues from the wealthiest 0.1 percent — is obviously very progressive. From the point of view of most taxpayers, that's a very good thing. Progressivity allows most people to pay less because those who are rich like me pay more.

[Mr. P]

Why use tax law to destroy a family business?


A tax that gathers all of its revenues from the wealthiest 1.2% — and over 60 percent of its revenues from the wealthiest 0.1 percent — is obviously very progressive. From the point of view of most taxpayers, that's a very good thing. Progressivity allows most people to pay less because those who are rich like me pay more.

It's a simple question, DUDE. Most families aren't at the 1.2% either..but are being raped with tge death tax.

[Jagger]

The family farmer is the poster child of the anti-estate-tax movement, but the truth is that few farmers leave a taxable estate. In 2001, the American Farm Bureau, which supports estate tax repeal, admitted to the New York Times that it could not provide any example of a family farm that had to be sold to pay estate taxes.

I challenge you to produce one instance of a family farm being sold to pay the estate tax.

[PostmodernProphet]

The family farmer is the poster child of the anti-estate-tax movement, but the truth is that few farmers leave a taxable estate. In 2001, the American Farm Bureau, which supports estate tax repeal, admitted to the New York Times that it could not provide any example of a family farm that had to be sold to pay estate taxes.

I challenge you to produce one instance of a family farm being sold to pay the estate tax.

we didn't have to sell it, but we did have to come up with $49,000 in cash when my mother in law died...that was back when the tax threshold was under $1mill........if that had happened at a time when the economy was down and it was difficult to borrow money, something would have had to have been sold.....I expect though, that you wouldn't have wanted us to get a gigantic head start over you, so it's all good......


last year, Iowa farm land was selling for over $4000 an acre......that means every farmer with 875 acres of land has an estate in excess of the current tax threshold of $3.5 million....for every 25 acres they own over that amount they need to pay a federal estate tax of over $40,000.......my brother in law farms just over 2000 acres.....farming that land brings him an annual net income of under $75k a year.....do you expect his kids are going to be able to pay the taxes and continue farming his land?........or will they have to sell his land to ConAgra and let another family farm turn into a corporate asset?.......

my father in law spent his entire life operating that land and paying off a mortgage....paying it off with money left after he paid his taxes.....his son worked along side his father from the time he was old enough to carry a shovel, and still works the farm the same now that he is 54......every penny they earned they paid taxes on, just like you.....now, since the land is paid off, you figure that they ought to pay more taxes than you, simply because they have the land paid off......why?.......just because they managed to pay off their debts?......

I'll tell you the truth, "dude".....while you were busy having daydreams about beating up special forces troops and making it big in the stock market, those guys were putting in 12 hour days putting in and taking out a crop......now that they have something to show for it and you don't is no reason to demand that they pay more taxes than you.....

[PostmodernProphet]

and by the way, "dude", you're a chickenshit for not responding to posts 26-28

[Mr. P]

The family farmer is the poster child of the anti-estate-tax movement, but the truth is that few farmers leave a taxable estate. In 2001, the American Farm Bureau, which supports estate tax repeal, admitted to the New York Times that it could not provide any example of a family farm that had to be sold to pay estate taxes.

I challenge you to produce one instance of a family farm being sold to pay the estate tax.

Who said family farm? I said family business..but post #34 is a good example of a lucky family farm.many more aren't so lucky..and the there are MANY other family businesses that are forced to sell just to pay the death tax..

[Jagger]

we didn't have to sell it
Scoreboard.


we did have to come up with $49,000 in cash when my mother in law died You should have invested in some good estate planning.


While you were busy having daydreams about beating up special forces troops and making it big in the stock market, those guys were putting in 12 hour days putting in and taking out a crop They should have gone to college like my more intelligent West Texas Hill Billy relatives did.

[PostmodernProphet]

Scoreboard.

You should have invested in some good estate planning.

They should have gone to college like my more intelligent West Texas Hill Billy relatives did.

listen up, "dude".....lets make sure we all understand something.....you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, even when you aren't lying your ass off......."good estate planning" doesn't change the IRS regulations and if you think you can totally avoid taxes with planning you're a fool.....

you asked for a real life situation, I gave you a real life situation.....in light of the shit you've posted on this board, I realize you aren't acquainted with real life, but I set it squarely between your eyes.....

now, respond intelligently for a change, eh?.......

[Agnapostate]

It's simply a matter of marginal utility and its derivatives. Greater felicific utility is provided to those who benefit from the estate tax than those who suffer from the imposition of such a tax in that increased equality of opportunity for a future generation is a more pressing concern than fulfilling the demands of dying individuals who will soon lack the capacity to understand or appreciate what is done with their wealth anyway.

[PostmodernProphet]

for the benefit of those of you too proud to admit you don't know wtf he's talking about.....


fe·li·cific (fē′li sif′ik)

adjective
... producing or tending to produce happiness

Etymology: < L felix (see felicity) + -fic

in English, he said "You're going to favor the argument that shakes your stick the hardest"..........

[Agnapostate]

And the diminishing rate of marginal utility effectively necessitates that a dollar will be worth more to a man with ten dollars than to a man with a thousand dollars.

[Jagger]

In 2001, the Democrats proposed legislation that would have tripled the family business exemption to $4 million for individuals, $8 million for couples. That reform would have exempted the vast majority of farms and small businesses that currently pay estate taxes.

[DannyR]

I've got no problem with the concept of an estate tax. Folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are on record for wanting to keep it too and their reasons are sound. Its almost a historical law that a nation will topple when its wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few citizens and the gap between rich and poor widens too much. The estate tax helps prevent that from happening. Other benefits are the impact it has on charitable giving, and forcing our citizens to base their advancement upon merit rather than inheritance.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm

But I do think such a tax should be based on cash, stocks or other more flexible instruments rather than land and capital. And to prevent someone from just buying property right before they die, make the exemption only be on such things owned longer than 20 years or so.

That would likely eliminate the "small business" owner and farmer problem wouldn't it? Also it would take away the danger of a family like the current owner of the Biltmore from losing it when he dies, as most of his wealth is based on the value of the property itself.

[glockmail]

... Its almost a historical law that a nation will topple when its wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few citizens and the gap between rich and poor widens too much. .... I don't think that is true, maybe using ancient theories of economics where wealth is based on objects of limited availability, hence "there must be poor in order for there to be rich", but not in the modern definition where there is essentially no limit to the cumulative wealth of a society. That fact that Gates and Buffet are incredibly rich doesn't reduce my ability to obtain and accumulate wealth- in fact it could enhance it.

[Agnapostate]

I don't think that is true, maybe using ancient theories of economics where wealth is based on objects of limited availability, hence "there must be poor in order for there to be rich", but not in the modern definition where there is essentially no limit to the cumulative wealth of a society. That fact that Gates and Buffet are incredibly rich doesn't reduce my ability to obtain and accumulate wealth- in fact it could enhance it.

On the contrary, I'd posit that an industrialized society serves to maintain and exacerbate class disparities to a far greater extent than an agrarian society. The state served its role in class creation during the primitive accumulation phase; it now reinforces that creation through protection of private control of the means of production, a condition inherited from the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation.

From that point on comes the institution of wage labor. Indeed, the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

Considering the positive relationship between equity (which must be distinguished from total equality), and efficiency, a capitalist economy will therefore tend towards firm mismanagement due to the creation of artificial and costly management techniques. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but it captures the chief point.

[glockmail]

On the contrary, I'd posit that an industrialized society serves to maintain and exacerbate class disparities to a far greater extent than an agrarian society. The state served its role in class creation during the primitive accumulation phase; it now reinforces that creation through protection of private control of the means of production, a condition inherited from the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation.

From that point on comes the institution of wage labor. Indeed, the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

Considering the positive relationship between equity (which must be distinguished from total equality), and efficiency, a capitalist economy will therefore tend towards firm mismanagement due to the creation of artificial and costly management techniques. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but it captures the chief point. So what? That doesn’t dispute my argument that because someone else is rich it makes someone else poor. Anyone who works for someone else knows that they have to produce more than they take in to enrich their boss. They can either accept that fact and maintain mediocrity, become more valuable to the company so they pay him greatly not to leave and compete against them, or he can leave and start his own business.

Right now in the US the main impediment to building that small business into a more successful, larger one is government bureaucracy and a wildly complex tax code.

[Agnapostate]

So what? That doesn’t dispute my argument that because someone else is rich it makes someone else poor.

I don't understand where this inappropriate disparagement of cogent analyses of the role of the exploitation of wage labor in the use of greater capital accumulation as "zero-sum economics" is derived from, but I encounter it unfortunately often.


Anyone who works for someone else knows that they have to produce more than they take in to enrich their boss. They can either accept that fact and maintain mediocrity, become more valuable to the company so they pay him greatly not to leave and compete against them, or he can leave and start his own business.

I don't know why you would consider that an acceptable structure to begin with. If we've encountered a firm ownership and managerial structure that clearly undercuts efficiency, why would it not be in the interest of those affected by inefficiency to alter this by establishing public control over such firms and entire industries, and then implementing a democratic framework that relied on the elimination of artificial management techniques?


Right now in the US the main impediment to building that small business into a more successful, larger one is government bureaucracy and a wildly complex tax code.

The main impediment to the establishment of competitive enterprises is the consolidation of ownership and control of the means of production in the hands of the financial class, which undercuts efficiency and has other deleterious consequences.

[Mr. P]

On the contrary, I'd posit that an industrialized society serves to maintain and exacerbate class disparities to a far greater extent than an agrarian society. The state served its role in class creation during the primitive accumulation phase; it now reinforces that creation through protection of private control of the means of production, a condition inherited from the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation.

From that point on comes the institution of wage labor. Indeed, the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

Considering the positive relationship between equity (which must be distinguished from total equality), and efficiency, a capitalist economy will therefore tend towards firm mismanagement due to the creation of artificial and costly management techniques. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but it captures the chief point.

So, with all yer 50 cent words and convoluted BULLSHIT I get the idea you don't think a business owner shouldn't make a profit. Even thought that owner IS the one taking ALL the risk and making ALL the investment into a business that may employee many that will benefit from the owners risk.

Do I understand you correctly?

[Agnapostate]

So, with all yer 50 cent words and convoluted BULLSHIT I get the idea you don't think a business owner shouldn't make a profit. Even thought that owner IS the one taking ALL the risk and making ALL the investment into a business that may employee many that will benefit from the owners risk.

Do I understand you correctly?

Not quite. Perhaps you need a visual presentation?

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/ed4a754f.png

[Mr. P]

Not quite. Perhaps you need a visual presentation?

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/ed4a754f.png

I don't converse in toons...sorry. You either think a business owner should be able to make a profit, or ya don't..which is it lefty?

[Agnapostate]

I don't converse in toons...sorry. You either think a business owner should be able to make a profit, or ya don't..which is it lefty?

Consolidation of business ownership in the hands of a financial class plays a critical role in the undermining of efficiency. I merely support transition of ownership and managerial control to workers and employees of a firm or enterprise in order to increase productivity gains associated with autogestion.

[Jagger]

It's simply a matter of marginal utility and its derivatives. Greater felicific utility is provided to those who benefit from the estate tax than those who suffer from the imposition of such a tax in that increased equality of opportunity for a future generation is a more pressing concern than fulfilling the demands of dying individuals who will soon lack the capacity to understand or appreciate what is done with their wealth anyway.

How does one measure marginal utility and its derivatives? What about the loss of opportunity of those who would have benefited from a tax free transfer of the estate according to the wishes of the deceased?

[Jagger]

And the diminishing rate of marginal utility effectively necessitates that a dollar will be worth more to a man with ten dollars than to a man with a thousand dollars.

That's a good argument for progressive taxation.

I'm starting to like you.

Where did you study the dismal science?

[Jagger]

...an industrialized society serves to maintain and exacerbate class disparities to a far greater extent than an agrarian society. The state served its role in class creation during the primitive accumulation phase; it now reinforces that creation through protection of private control of the means of production, a condition inherited from the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation.

Please elaborate on the role the state served in class creation?

Please tell us what the "primitive accumulation phase" is, exactly?

[Jagger]

From that point on comes the institution of wage labor. Indeed, the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

Surplus value, what is that?

[Mr. P]

Consolidation of business ownership in the hands of a financial class plays a critical role in the undermining of efficiency. I merely support transition of ownership and managerial control to workers and employees of a firm or enterprise in order to increase productivity gains associated with autogestion.

So, what if the owner shuts down the business instead of allowing the employees to control it, or relocates out of the country, who will work there then? Who will and won't benefit?

Your idea of efficiency is destructive BS.

[DannyR]

I don't think that is true, maybe using ancient theories of economics where wealth is based on objects of limited availability, hence "there must be poor in order for there to be rich", but not in the modern definition where there is essentially no limit to the cumulative wealth of a society. That fact that Gates and Buffet are incredibly rich doesn't reduce my ability to obtain and accumulate wealth- in fact it could enhance it.Not all that ancient a system. Some things are always limited. Things like land are still plentiful here in the USA, but the time will come when we will end up like Europe and owning property is much more difficult. I've seen it myself in my hometown, as much of the land near where I grew up has been owned by the same family for ages. Now I'm not advocating taking land away from those who use it (in fact I specifically mentioned property being exempt), but just pointing out that the time may come when its impossible for the average person to own their own home because the wealthy control that resource.

On the world scale, scarce resources like oil certainly have caused their share of wars.

[Kathianne]

Not all that ancient a system. Some things are always limited. Things like land are still plentiful here in the USA, but the time will come when we will end up like Europe and owning property is much more difficult. I've seen it myself in my hometown, as much of the land near where I grew up has been owned by the same family for ages. Now I'm not advocating taking land away from those who use it (in fact I specifically mentioned property being exempt), but just pointing out that the time may come when its impossible for the average person to own their own home because the wealthy control that resource.

On the world scale, scarce resources like oil certainly have caused their share of wars.

Solution: Kill all those not rich that own land. Where do we set the bar at 'rich'?

The rich will see us through. Indeed.

[Kathianne]

Or maybe it should be, set the bar at 'those too poor to own.' Then let them rule.

[glockmail]

I don't understand where this inappropriate disparagement of cogent analyses of the role of the exploitation of wage labor in the use of greater capital accumulation as "zero-sum economics" is derived from, but I encounter it unfortunately often.



I don't know why you would consider that an acceptable structure to begin with. If we've encountered a firm ownership and managerial structure that clearly undercuts efficiency, why would it not be in the interest of those affected by inefficiency to alter this by establishing public control over such firms and entire industries, and then implementing a democratic framework that relied on the elimination of artificial management techniques?



The main impediment to the establishment of competitive enterprises is the consolidation of ownership and control of the means of production in the hands of the financial class, which undercuts efficiency and has other deleterious consequences.

1. You took my statement out of context (although it could have been worded better so your confusion is understandable). Please read post 44 for better clarification.
2. A better solution is the capitalist one, where one of more employees leave to become the competition, thereby making both firms better. Government control of the original firm will only make it less efficient.
3. Actually, the main impediment is as I said earlier- government intervention and overly complex tax laws that require a corporation with one employee to hire the same accounting consultant as a firm of ten.

[glockmail]

Not all that ancient a system. Some things are always limited. Things like land are still plentiful here in the USA, but the time will come when we will end up like Europe and owning property is much more difficult. I've seen it myself in my hometown, as much of the land near where I grew up has been owned by the same family for ages. Now I'm not advocating taking land away from those who use it (in fact I specifically mentioned property being exempt), but just pointing out that the time may come when its impossible for the average person to own their own home because the wealthy control that resource.

On the world scale, scarce resources like oil certainly have caused their share of wars. Land is only an issue with agriculture, and farmers are able to grow more food on less land because of technical advances that have so far easily kept up with population growth. Since there is more proven oil reserves no than in any other time in history (again due to technological gains) the same is true for oil. When that runs out we have natural gas, coal, and nuclear.

[PostmodernProphet]

Land is only an issue with agriculture

not true.....your typical 32 unit apartment building or small factory are just as much an inheritance problem as a 2000 acre farm......

[Kathianne]

not true.....your typical 32 unit apartment building or small factory are just as much an inheritance problem as a 2000 acre farm......

even less. My parents sold their 'lot' for $225k in 1993. 60X130. It's worth over $500k today, hits and all. If you held over an acre there, you were 'rich.' They bought that home & lot in 1947 for $18k.

[glockmail]

not true.....your typical 32 unit apartment building or small factory are just as much an inheritance problem as a 2000 acre farm...... We are talking about land as a limiting resource.

[PostmodernProphet]

We are talking about land as a limiting resource.
I know, but why is it a limiting resource only in agriculture?.....it's only a question of land usage.....if the cost of food goes up, land is converted to agricultural use.....if housing is more expensive the land is converted to subdivisions with ever decreasing greenspace until you have fifty story apartment buildings....

if the goal is to break up family ownership of limited resources, it would apply to all land, not just agricultural......

[glockmail]

I know, but why is it a limiting resource only in agriculture?.....it's only a question of land usage.....if the cost of food goes up, land is converted to agricultural use.....if housing is more expensive the land is converted to subdivisions with ever decreasing greenspace until you have fifty story apartment buildings....

if the goal is to break up family ownership of limited resources, it would apply to all land, not just agricultural...... I think the goal is crappy and don't advocate it. If some one wants to give Junior what he earned over his lifetime then why should the government interfere?

I'm just talking about resources that are limited and how that relates to modern economic theory. As a practical matter very few resources are, which means that there is basically no limit to wealth creation, which means that a rich man doesn't take away from the earning potential of others.

With regards to land and housing, Multi-story buildings can increase the capacity of an acre to house people by a large factor. I would thus argue that this factor is so large that as a practical matter land is not a limiting resource.

[Jagger]

You're a slack-jawed FOX News-humping coward.

[PostmodernProphet]

You're a slack-jawed FOX News-humping coward.

he must be talking about you, glock....my jaw is quite firm.....

[glockmail]

he must be talking about you, glock....my jaw is quite firm..... I dunno, maybe. I think he's getting lonely and wants some man-love. Maybe moderate democrat can help him out.

[DannyR]

Solution: Kill all those not rich that own land. Where do we set the bar at 'rich'?Um, killing off the land holders is usually the traditional way this problem has been solved historically. Thus again back to my point that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater likelihood the government will fail.


Land is only an issue with agriculture, and farmers are able to grow more food on less land because of technical advances that have so far easily kept up with population growth.Not just agriculture. My own example was that of home ownership. Sure we can pile people into high rise buildings, or even small tubes like the Japanese. But if the extreme wealthy are living on million acre ranches (ala Ted Turner) while the majority of citizens are calling a 100 sq ft. cube their home, you are going to have the potential for unrest and revolution.

All hypothetical here in the USA thankfully at the moment, but we are certainly starting to see it in places like Europe where home ownership is much more difficult and civil unrest against "wealthy" is rising, visible in such examples as the increase in burning vehicles, etc.

[Jagger]

Um, killing off the land holders is usually the traditional way this problem has been solved historically. Thus again back to my point that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater likelihood the government will fail.


First we kill all the Conservatives.

--James Madison

[glockmail]

Not just agriculture. My own example was that of home ownership. Sure we can pile people into high rise buildings, or even small tubes like the Japanese. But if the extreme wealthy are living on million acre ranches (ala Ted Turner) while the majority of citizens are calling a 100 sq ft. cube their home, you are going to have the potential for unrest and revolution.

All hypothetical here in the USA thankfully at the moment, but we are certainly starting to see it in places like Europe where home ownership is much more difficult and civil unrest against "wealthy" is rising, visible in such examples as the increase in burning vehicles, etc.

You don't want to live in a high rise but apparently lots do. The burning vehicles was in France due to their veiled ethnic policies against Muslims.

[Agnapostate]

How does one measure marginal utility and its derivatives? What about the loss of opportunity of those who would have benefited from a tax free transfer of the estate according to the wishes of the deceased?

Marginal utility, in an oversimplified manner, implies that ten dollars is worth more to a man with one hundred dollars than it is to a man with one thousand dollars. More than that, if two hundred and fifty dollars is required for comfortable living, ten dollars is worth more to a man with one hundred dollars than five hundred dollars is worth to a man with one thousand dollars since all in excess of two hundred and fifty dollars is used for expenditure on commodities rather than essential necessities.


That's a good argument for progressive taxation.

I'm starting to like you.

Where did you study the dismal science?

It's a rather fundamental tenet of progressive taxation that's too often ignored by uninformed rightists, unfortunately. If you're referring to economics by "the dismal science," I never formally studied economics. My formal training is in philosophy, specifically ethics.


Please elaborate on the role the state served in class creation?

Please tell us what the "primitive accumulation phase" is, exactly?

Primitive accumulation (and this is relevant to your first question also), refers to the process in which the means of production (or more technically, the productive resources that were the basis for modern, industrialized means of production), were placed under private ownership and control. This phase of economic history was characterized by coercive state prejudice in favor of certain groups and parties (the enslavement and later disenfranchisement of blacks in America is an obvious example), thus resulting in the ultimate conditions that prevail today, perpetuated by state protection of private property. As Marx commented in Volume One of Capital:


This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work.

This process lends great credence to Kevin Carson's observation in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy regarding the nature of primitive accumulation:


Capitalism has never been established by means of the free market. It has always been established by a revolution from above, imposed by a ruling class with its origins in the Old Regime...by a pre-capitalist ruling class that had been transformed in a capitalist manner. In England, it was the landed aristocracy; in France, Napoleon III's bureaucracy; in Germany, the Junkers; in Japan, the Meiji. In America, the closest approach to a 'natural' bourgeois evolution, industrialisation was carried out by a mercantilist aristocracy of Federalist shipping magnates and landlords.

What's most ironic is that this conflicts rather heavily with the nature of "just acquisition" that capitalist apologists (most notably Robert Nozick), claim must characterize market exchange.


Surplus value, what is that?

Surplus value in the context that I use it is the difference between the marginal production output of the worker and his or her wage, or in Charlotte Wilson's more frank terms, "the difference between the value produced by the workers and the wages they receive." Again, this is somewhat of an oversimplification and surplus value may be considered differently in alternative contexts. But this is its nature in the labor market.


So, what if the owner shuts down the business instead of allowing the employees to control it, or relocates out of the country, who will work there then? Who will and won't benefit?

Your idea of efficiency is destructive BS.

Not at all! If the means of production undergo nationalization during a period of crisis, there is no reason that their owners would not be willing to part with these productive assets, provided that their compensation matches the fair market value. As to the nature of efficiency in a socialist economy, there's extensive empirical evidence that indicates the superior efficiency levels of worker-owned and managed firms and enterprises. We can extrapolate a good deal of that data into socialist economic models.


1. You took my statement out of context (although it could have been worded better so your confusion is understandable). Please read post 44 for better clarification.

Your comment in post #44, considering that it relies on the utopian conception of political economy that you've been maintaining throughout this exchange. Vastly differing access to productive resources and utilization of wage labor on the part of the financial and coordinating classes (and extraction of surplus value generated from that wage labor), effectively inhibit vast segments of the population from obtaining the equality of opportunity that you allege exists.


2. A better solution is the capitalist one, where one of more employees leave to become the competition, thereby making both firms better. Government control of the original firm will only make it less efficient.

This is based on an absurdly crude and utopian conception of political economy, which is particularly flawed when addressing the nuances of the labor market. I've also not referred to "government ownership" of firms; I've referred to worker ownership and participatory management of firms, which has proven efficiency benefits.


3. Actually, the main impediment is as I said earlier- government intervention and overly complex tax laws that require a corporation with one employee to hire the same accounting consultant as a firm of ten.

We've already gone over the ways in which government acts as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy. The anti-government tantrums of so many alleged "capitalists" are thus rather ironic.

[glockmail]

...The anti-government tantrums of so many alleged "capitalists" are thus rather ironic. "Tantrums"? We conservatives wish to hold federal government to its enumerated powers. Its really rather simple.

[Agnapostate]

"Tantrums"? We conservatives wish to hold federal government to its enumerated powers. Its really rather simple.

And the programs that you disavow play an integral role in maintaining capitalism. Welfare, for instance, is necessary to maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce, and thus upholds economic stability. To consider a random sample, let's consider unemployment benefit. Considering the role that imperfect information plays in a worker's job search, unemployment benefit thus ensures that he or she can conduct a thorough search and ensure appropriate skills set matches with employers, thus preventing underemployment. If this were not so, underemployment would increase in the capitalist economy, thus increasing inefficiency.

Again, as a socialist, I do have a certain preference for conservatives over liberals. The implementation of their ideas will ensure the ultimate collapse of capitalism and will perhaps spark the revolution. :salute:

[glockmail]

And the programs that you disavow play an integral role in maintaining capitalism. Welfare, for instance, is necessary to maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce, and thus upholds economic stability. To consider a random sample, let's consider unemployment benefit. Considering the role that imperfect information plays in a worker's job search, unemployment benefit thus ensures that he or she can conduct a thorough search and ensure appropriate skills set matches with employers, thus preventing underemployment. If this were not so, underemployment would increase in the capitalist economy, thus increasing inefficiency.

Again, as a socialist, I do have a certain preference for conservatives over liberals. The implementation of their ideas will ensure the ultimate collapse of capitalism and will perhaps spark the revolution. :salute: I fully support your agenda, both to institute a purely socialist state and a purely capitalist state. My support, however, is on a State-wise basis. Reduce the Federal government to its enumerated powers, and have your way with individual states. Then let the residents decide which one they like better, in other words, "vote with their feet".

[Agnapostate]

I fully support your agenda, both to institute a purely socialist state and a purely capitalist state. My support, however, is on a State-wise basis. Reduce the Federal government to its enumerated powers, and have your way with individual states. Then let the residents decide which one they like better, in other words, "vote with their feet".

Democratic choice necessarily includes abandonment of capitalism, because capitalism is an economic system in which a phase of primitive accumulation has enabled the consolidation of private ownership of the means of production into the hands of a few. Capitalism isn't equivalent to market exchange and trade; hence, while some may wish to retain a market economy, it's likely that it will be socialist in nature nonetheless.

You've also presented no evidence that the federal government currently exceeds its "enumerated powers."

[Mr. P]

Democratic choice necessarily includes abandonment of capitalism, because capitalism is an economic system in which a phase of primitive accumulation has enabled the consolidation of private ownership of the means of production into the hands of a few. Capitalism isn't equivalent to market exchange and trade; hence, while some may wish to retain a market economy, it's likely that it will be socialist in nature nonetheless.

You've also presented no evidence that the federal government currently exceeds its "enumerated powers."

Oh BS!!! When I was 10yrs old I sold fruit on the highway, shined shoes in front of the local barber shop. Anyone with the desire and drive can have some "ownership" in capitalism not just a private few.

[Agnapostate]

Oh BS!!! When I was 10yrs old I sold fruit on the highway, shined shoes in front of the local barber shop. Anyone with the desire and drive can have some "ownership" in capitalism not just a private few.

This relies on a utopian conception of political economy. Actual statistical analysis into the nature of limited class mobility in a capitalist economy indicates differently. This is unsurprising, considering the role that wage labor and the utilization of surplus value acquired in the production process in the circulation process (as a means of sustaining capital accumulation), plays in a capitalist economy. A critical factor to consider is the role that a coercive phase of primitive accumulation (wherein capitalists were openly aided by the state), has played in consolidating private control over the means of production (or the resources or assets from which the means of production were in some way derived), and ensuring that such "private property" was the inheritance of the modern financial class.

[Mr. P]

This relies on a utopian conception of political economy. Actual statistical analysis into the nature of limited class mobility in a capitalist economy indicates differently. This is unsurprising, considering the role that wage labor and the utilization of surplus value acquired in the production process in the circulation process (as a means of sustaining capital accumulation), plays in a capitalist economy. A critical factor to consider is the role that a coercive phase of primitive accumulation (wherein capitalists were openly aided by the state), has played in consolidating private control over the means of production (or the resources or assets from which the means of production were in some way derived), and ensuring that such "private property" was the inheritance of the modern financial class.

"Private Property" should be inherited. Why should the state take my shoeshine box when I die instead of my family or whomever I want it to go to for that matter? I worked for it paid for it including taxes, all without any help. Now because I die it isn't my choice to do as I want with it? BS!

[glockmail]

Democratic choice necessarily includes abandonment of capitalism, because capitalism is an economic system in which a phase of primitive accumulation has enabled the consolidation of private ownership of the means of production into the hands of a few. Capitalism isn't equivalent to market exchange and trade; hence, while some may wish to retain a market economy, it's likely that it will be socialist in nature nonetheless.

You've also presented no evidence that the federal government currently exceeds its "enumerated powers." OK the gig is up. You are now clearly, obviously full of shit. I can't believe that I was so gullible. :bow2:

[Agnapostate]

"Private Property" should be inherited. Why should the state take my shoeshine box when I die instead of my family or whomever I want it to go to for that matter? I worked for it paid for it including taxes, all without any help. Now because I die it isn't my choice to do as I want with it? BS!

No one cares about your shoeshine box. What is considered to be of more relevance is massive amounts of wealth, since equality of opportunity among an emerging generation is a more critical concern than the "right" of a dying person to bequeath wealth that they'll not see used anyway. Considering the fact that massive amounts of wealth were not "justly acquired" (since extreme inequities have relation to the private ownership of the means of production established as a condition during a coercive phase of primitive accumulation), it's not as though this violates some integral tenet of the free market anyway.


OK the gig is up. You are now clearly, obviously full of shit. I can't believe that I was so gullible. :bow2:

What could you possibly refer to? Federal welfare programs or some similar nonsense? :lame2:

[Mr. P]

No one cares about your shoeshine box. What is considered to be of more relevance is massive amounts of wealth, since equality of opportunity among an emerging generation is a more critical concern than the "right" of a dying person to bequeath wealth that they'll not see used anyway. Considering the fact that massive amounts of wealth were not "justly acquired" (since extreme inequities have relation to the private ownership of the means of production established as a condition during a coercive phase of primitive accumulation), it's not as though this violates some integral tenet of the free market anyway.




Bullshit!
Say I have 1000 shoeshine stands, when I die the gov and you are very interested. The question is WHY?

[Agnapostate]

Bullshit!
Say I have 1000 shoeshine stands, when I die the gov and you are very interested. The question is WHY?

This odd crudity aside, I've just explained that ensuring a greater degree of equality of opportunity amongst a generation (which the estate tax alone cannot do, incidentally), is a more pressing concern than honoring the alleged "right" of a dying person to bequeath wealth he or she won't see used anyway. It's simply a matter of utility.

[Mr. P]

This odd crudity aside, I've just explained that ensuring a greater degree of equality of opportunity amongst a generation (which the estate tax alone cannot do, incidentally), is a more pressing concern than honoring the alleged "right" of a dying person to bequeath wealth he or she won't see used anyway. It's simply a matter of utility.

Nonsense!

It's the "right" of an owner dead or alive to do what he/she wants with their business, not the gov or yours..this "utility" BS is just that.

You explained no one cares about my shoeshine box...Ooooo but when I have 1000 it suddenly becomes of interest, huh?..splain why please. What's the difference in taking 1 or 1000, besides the obvious 999?

[Agnapostate]

Nonsense!

It's the "right" of an owner dead or alive to do what he/she wants with their business, not the gov or yours..this "utility" BS is just that.

From what is that derived? Currently owned private property (mainly the means of production), doesn't exactly satisfy the criteria for just acquisition put forth by any pro-capitalist theorist or political philosopher, such as Robert Nozick, for instance. It has been inherited from an openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation.


You explained no one cares about my shoeshine box...Ooooo but when I have 1000 it suddenly becomes of interest, huh?..splain why please. What's the difference in taking 1 or 1000, besides the obvious 999?

The diminishing rate of marginal utility is a necessary factor to consider when considering the higher number.