Blog powered by Typepad

Photos

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from bbbustard. Make your own badge here.
My Photo

Stuff

« Rove on the Attack | Main | Lies: Part I »

June 27, 2006

Comments

Rick

It is a marvelous tribute to American society that the likes of Gates and Buffet have had the freedom to create the means for them to be enormously generous. Having said that, where does the left believe it has derived the authority to confiscate the wealth of the deceased? I do not ask you to articulate all those wonderful things you believe that government can do with this confiscated wealth. I simply ask you to point to the authority moral or otherwise. I know what Marx and Engles believe. How has your side become infected with this virus? Many believe it to be simple greed and class envy. Perhaps there is more to it, eh?

bbbustard

The wealth of the deceased?
You may not have noticed - but we're talking about dead people.
Your assertion that the dead have property rights makes me wonder what other rights you believe they have.
Certainly Irish Catholic Democrats in cities like Boston and Chicago thought that the dead had a right to vote, but I had hoped we had moved beyond that point.
You can now tell me what a naieve elitist I am, again.

Rick

If you cannot answer the question, an honest response would be to say that you do not know. That which a person accumulates during their lifetime, becomes their estate at the time of death. That estate is then divided among the person's designated heirs. You evidently believe that the state is automatically an heir. I am asking you if you are able to justify that position. What do you see as the source of the state's (government) legal claim? If this is purely emotional, and that is just how you "feel" about the matter, then it would be intellectually honest to admit to that. You are certainly free to have an opinion without having any basis whatsoever. Those who stand in opposition to the estate tax believe that a persons accumulated wealth at the time of death is a net estate. It is net because the state had taxed the gross wealth (revenues) during that time when the estate was accumulated and therefore has no legal claim at death. Again, please spare me those wonderful things you believe that the state would be able to do with the confiscated wealth. I will allow that you and I will never agree on that issue.

I am not sure what Irish Catholic Democrats in Boston and Chicago have to do with this particular subject.

I have never called you a naive elitist and take exception to the inference that I have.

Pax tecum.

bbbustard

Catholics in cities like Boston and Chicago traditionally held your view - that the dead maintained legal rights after their demise. But they thought that a far more precious right than mere money lived on after the grim reaper called for you. They believed that one had the right to keep on voting after death.
The reason for my not answering your question was it's fundamental silliness. You appear to be arguing that while it is ok for the State to confiscate your wealth when you are alive, it's immoral to do so after your death.Why?

Rick

You did not answer the question because you cannot answer the question. You take the fundamental position that the state has the right to confiscate the already taxed wealth of the deceased, and you are utterly unable to explain why. The best you are able to offer is to scoff at the question. And you wonder why your side loses arguments. Substantive? And you use the word substantive with a straight face?

bbbustard

The majority of the wealth that is subject to estate tax has not already been taxed.
Your refusal to clarify your question renders it meaningless. Why does the state not have the right to tax the dead? Does the state have the right to tax the living? If so, why can't it tax the dead? Does the state have the right to tax different type of taxes at different rates? I am guessing that you are trying to make some argument about "double taxation."
The simple repetition of a question without a willingness to define the question is just silly.
Depending on its definitions of right and wrong, the government of the United States has asserted its right to take all of one's property, and in fact even one's life.

bbbustard

Correction -
I meant to ask if the state has the right to tax different types of income (not tax) at different rates?

Sorry

Rick

"Depending on its definitions of right and wrong, the government of the United States has asserted its right to take all of one's property, and in fact even one's life."

Thank you. That is a crystal clear answer to a simple question. You know, we fought a revolution over similar matters.

By the way, if I were on your side, I would not waste my effort trying to figure out what Rove did or did not know. The real "tell" will be to see what a Republican controlled Congress does about matters. If they do nothing at all it will hint that something is "smelly" somewhere. They have an opportunity to go after this with fangs flashing. If they do not, I will be firing off some angry emails.

Cheerio.

bbbustard

Fair Enough - I look forward to receiving copies of your angry e-mails. The House will express outrage and grab as many headlines as possible; they won't actually do anything.
I want to be clear: the sentence that you quote of mine is a description of the rights which the U.S. asserts. I did not give it my seal of approval; I only described them

The comments to this entry are closed.