Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ecommerceman who wrote (127814)	2/18/2001 10:31:52 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

desirable for large landholdings to be broken up I am sure that you can't comprehend this but that is what the communist's did. Didn't work by the way.

To: ecommerceman who wrote (127814)	2/18/2001 11:38:47 AM
From: Aggie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

ecommerceman, I'll take another stab at it, then my interest may be gone. Unlike many on this and other threads, I am keenly interested in hearing opposing views, but only if they are focused and objective. Let's look at your post: 1/ "Aggie--No, the "personal experience" stories don't change my view of the desirability of estate taxes in the slightest." Well...if specific examples and simple, obvious scenarios of middle to upper middle class people getting whacked don't influence you, then why do you carry on the discussion? These are the people most affected by the estate tax burden, as they are with other tax burdens. How did you form your views? Because it appears to me that your views are formed from a sense of entitlement-resentment, i.e., you're entitled to advocate taxes on to others because you resent their wealth. I haven't heard you volunteering yours yet. 2. "--the truth is that the surest way to kill small towns (and the social fabric that they make up) is to ensure that the size of farms gets bigger and bigger. " Who said anything about family farms getting bigger? My argument is that a family farm should be allowed to continue its existence without interference, and not die with the patriarch/matriarch. And by the way, I agree that the social fabric of small towns is valuable and should be preserved. I think the essence of the problem here is a skewing of your perspective which does not jibe with secular (i.e., modern and easily checked) demographics. If a family farm folds and is sold off to pay estate taxes, who do you think buys it up? The answer usually is: the corporate farmer does, and has been over the past 30 years. I have lived in the same rural agrarian area for 20 years, and it's happening. Now. Check your demographics, they are readily available from your county extension agent, or, since you're based in DC, the Department of Agriculture and Library of Congress. Romantic notions aside, the US is not full of people who want to try their hand at farming on some barely affordable carved-up piece of an already marginal farm - which nearly all family farms are. 3. "Forcing wealthy estates to sell off some land to small or beginning farmers makes sense from a social policy point of view.." Who (among our leaders) said anything about taxes being an instrument of social policy? Taxes are a way for government to raise funds to protect the borders and create a safety net. As a representative republic, we determine social policy through our elected officials, not through the IRS. I must say that I find it disturbing when I raise the point that some rather ordinary, hard working people feel burdened by our tax culture, only to have your reply that 120 millionaires think estate taxes are great! What kind of counterpoint is that? If our conversation continually diverges in this way, i.e., you answer some different question, it will lead nowhere. An objective and civil discussion can only progress if both parties stick to the point. Regards, Aggie

To: ecommerceman who wrote (127814)	2/18/2001 12:02:10 PM
From: cAPSLOCK	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Forcing wealthy estates to sell off some land to small or beginning farmers makes sense from a social policy point of view, and also is a way to equitably fund the government from those who can afford to pay, as opposed to low to middle-income families who will be forced to make up the difference if the estate tax is repealed. This sort of 'looter's mentality' has in the past produced failure in other economies. And it would destroy the very engine that drives our economy if it were allowed to happen now. In fact this sort of mentality will destroy our society if it is left unchecked. In a free market economy the farms with the most crops, with the highest quality, and/or the best prices win the most money. They therefore can make the largest investment into what they believe the market wants and needs (read: will buy). Can 'big businesss' go bad? Of course. But the free market system will not allow 'big businesss' (big farms) to gain and keep undeserved marketplace. When large companies hurt their customers it just gives the opportunity for small new businesses, or even re-tooled previous failures to rise up in the gap. IBM went blind, and Microsoft grabbed the ring (IBM is MUCH better off for it too!!!)... The music industry has turned it's back on the public, and now they are scrambling in the face of their own destruction. This is how the free market economy uses greed to artfully fuel it's quality and equity. The greed will be a constant in ANY system. What YOU want requires people to be truly selfless. That is not only impossible, but it is in my opinion undesirable. At least the sort of selflessness that I believe we are talking about. A prediction: Smart people, motivated by profit, will architect the way for musical artists to be paid, and still let the public listen for free. We live in the twilight of one of the most free economic systems in the history of the world. We can criticize it all day long. Our country has serious problems in the arena of medicine for example... But show me a country that has contributed more to the conquering of disease and sickness. You can't. Our culture has ravaged the environment and been a polluter. But it is the very machines that have caused this pollution that have also enabled us to elevate the lives of not only the people of this nation, but those of the world, to a status that only a KING lived at just a few hundred years ago. And it will be this country, and the other across the world that have followed in it's footsteps that will clean up the mess it has made, and improve the lives of citizens even more. As long as we don't do what you suggest and cripple the talented and successful in the name of equality. As long as we do not loot the ideas and resources of smart men and women who's desire for riches lead them to create newer and better products, processes, and services. As long as we don't foolishly destroy every great company, idea, business, or market that threatens those that cannot achieve as high an accomplishment. You see... if we do things the way you want then we cut down the producers in our world. We slay those the create new wealth and ideas. We injure the strong. We weigh down the graceful. And we incapacitate those the carry the rest of us up behind them. You talk about 'big farms' as 'the surest way to kill small towns (and the social fabric that they make up)'. I say that if those small towns are valuable parts of our social fabric, then they will survive. Even rise again. But if they are not, then we need to change, grow, and cut them off like dead branches so that productive new buds (here is the equality you rightly want!) have room to grow into strong limbs. It is a fool's game to save for the sake of saving... ask any gardener. You clip off the dead leaves. This is not only fair and wise, it is compassionate to the whole. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story about this (In his book "Welcome to the Monkey House")... I wish I could remember the name of the story. The idea was that those that were beautiful had to wear masks. Those that were strong had to carry more weight. Those that were smart had to listen to insane noises in a headset to interrupt their thought. This to make the world an equal place. This is the world you desire when you want to break up riches, and destroy success in the name of an 'equal chance'. Respectfully - I don't want your world. regards, cAPSLOCK (just a poor unsigned musician and composer - new work uploaded soon) mp3.com