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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (9955)	1/27/2006 11:54:51 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541348

This is known as "strawman" reasoning. I don't think that's a strawman at all. He was just trying to frame the options for explaining your arguments. My own tentative potential explanations for your position is either that you favor the notion of equality of outcome or that you harbor an inherent distrust of capitalism or both. We don't often see examples of people legitimately trying to understand alien points of view so we are not as familiar as in a better world we would be with what that looks like. When we try to understand alien points of view, we have to probe and turn things over until we can understand them in a way that makes sense to us, which is not a perfect replica from the way the owner of the position understands them. It cannot be, obviously, because if we thought that way, the position wouldn't be alien and we wouldn't have to try so hard to understand it. So he should enjoy his success, but that doesn't mean he deserves a dynasty while others who have contributed as much to the economy and fabric of the nation get only tears. I hear what you're saying but it doesn't resonate with me so I'm still struggling to make sense of it. I imagine that Tim is doing something similar. So what looks to you like a strawman isn't, it's a kind of pinging, a way of asking "is this what you mean or is that what you mean" as we try to close in on it.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (9955)	1/27/2006 12:44:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541348

The valid comparison is between a recently deceased with a functioning business and an equally hard working and successful recent corpse who worked within the corporate world. Both had equal contribution and sucess while alive, but one gets a much better deal upon their death. If the worker was equally successful and contributed as much to the economy than he made a lot of money. The heir will get that money. If the worker spent it all, while the business owner kept enough money in the business to keep it profitable and expand it I don't see why the spendthrift worker's heir should get subsidized by the government, or why the business owner's investment should be taken from him. A business is not inherently different than any other investment. If Bob invested in a business than his daughter Mary can inherit the business. If Jane bought stocks, her son Tom can inherit the stocks. If Fred spent all of the money from his large salary on travel or non-durable goods than his kids inherit the pictures from his vacations. They all might be equally hard working, and contributed just as much to the economy, and have had the same income, but they had differing levels of wealth depending on what they did with it. Maybe Bob's daughter Mary gets less inherited wealth than Jane's son Tom. Jane's stocks might have done better than Bob's small business. Why should Bob's heir get penalized? Why should she get penalized even if the business did better than the stock investment? So he should enjoy his success, but that doesn't mean he deserves a dynasty while others who have contributed as much to the economy and fabric of the nation get only tears. Few people have dynasties even in the lose sense that you are apparently using the term. "Contributed as much", I'm not so sure. A worker worked hard, a business owner might have enabled many workers to have jobs and work and contribute. But I don't really care who contributed as much. Take the most extreme example of wealth/dynasty (a multi-billionaire passing on his wealth) or the most extreme example of disparity in hard work vs. wealth (say someone who is rich because they won the power ball lottery and they have never worked a day in their lives). To me the issue comes down to who's money is it. Bill Gate's money is his. The lottery winner's money is his or hers. I don't really care to spend to much time arguing if they deserve it or not. If we assume they didn't deserve it, it is still their money. The government deserves it even less. Some judgment about how someone doesn't deserve their money, even if it is somehow true, would not justify stealing it from them.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (9955)	1/28/2006 1:03:55 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541348

TP...I'm assuming you are speaking of a company that the Government classifies as "small business." Unless the rules have been changed again, that means fewer than 500 employees. Larger companies generally have good benefits, including retirement options....but unless it's the Government that one works for, by in large, the pensions of our parents are gone. Companies can no longer afford to offer them, with all the other benefits, and time off that we have today. So, say you are talking about a company under 500 employees, small business. IF the estate tax after death is allowed to happen, what will happen to these employees after all? The heirs probably don't have the huge percentage of cash required hanging around for estate tax. So, they have to sell the company to raise the funds. Then what? The new owner/s most probably will vastly decrease the workforce for the old company. So who wins? The valid comparison is between a recently deceased with a functioning business and an equally hard working and successful recent corpse who worked within the corporate world. Both had equal contribution and success while alive, but one gets a much better deal upon their death.