Why do liberals think ineheritance is evil? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why do liberals think ineheritance is evil? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 7/20/2008 11:26:24 AM EDT

[#1]

It is to prevent people like us from accruing multi-generational wealth, not people like them. They want to limit the amount of people that get wealthy and the means for how which they do it, thus keeping the peasant class down and hopeless.

Posted: 7/20/2008 11:27:04 AM EDT

[#2]

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto#10_Planks_of_the_Communist_Manifesto

Looks like the leftists' plan is just about complete in this country, doesn't it.

Posted: 7/20/2008 11:29:15 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto#10_Planks_of_the_Communist_Manifesto

Looks like the leftists' plan is just about complete in this country, doesn't it.

Wait until January 2009. You ain't seen nothin yet.

Posted: 7/20/2008 11:30:09 AM EDT

[#4]

Liberals think like this:

Conservative inherited money is old money.

Old money was accumulated as a result of slavery.

Inherited money is blood money, and the curse can only be lifted by taking this money for the greater good.

Liberal inherited money is different.

Liberals that have inherited money are allowed to keep it. Since they care about liberal things, and do good liberal things, they are thus deemed worthy to have personal wealth.

Who gets hit with estate taxes?

Ted Kennedy et al?

or the third generation farmer with 1000 acres worth 2 mil to some developer?

What kind of tax laws is ol Ted gonna propose? Whose wealth would be wiped out?

Posted: 7/20/2008 11:36:41 AM EDT

[#5]

For true progressive leftists, it's perfectly acceptable to inherit grievance based on skin color, history, ethnicity, and so forth... but the incarnation of evil to inherit wealth.

Go figure.

Posted: 7/20/2008 11:52:53 AM EDT

[#6]

They like the idea of working for your money, and being rewarded based on performance, ie capitalism. The flip side of their attitude is that they despise people who inherited wealth, and don't work for it. What they don't understand is that capitalism is about freedom of your earnings as well, which means you can give them to your children if you like.

Posted: 7/20/2008 12:06:36 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The brightest folks don't always produce the brightest offspring. When looking at some of Americas politically entrenched families, I do find the thought of a two generation 100% inheritance tax somewhat intriguing.

Don't need it.
Eventually they breed themselves into stupidity and they lose their money.

Except the money isn't lost. It's spent. The people receiving it are people who earn it and generally use it wisely.

Thus the cycle begins anew. The results are far more beneficial than any government seizing it for the purposes of redistribution to lazy people.

Posted: 7/20/2008 12:06:38 PM EDT

[#8]

Post 4000!!!!!

I don't think jelousy has anything to do with this. The hate any wealth that they do not directly control. You can't control a populace that does not depend on you for survival. Since classical liberals like myself do not believe that the government should have any control over me and mine, they hate it when I have enough money to be completely self sufficient.

They need poor, ignorant people to vote for them as well as self important, guilt ridden, rich, elitest liberals who really didn't do anything but "win lifes lottery".

Posted: 7/20/2008 12:53:07 PM EDT

[#9]

The problem liberals have is that you might own something. Accumulation of wealth is evil in the minds of a liberal.

Posted: 7/20/2008 2:25:28 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Because they believe that people should earn their position in life through hard work on their own individual merits, and not based on some handout.

Inheritances give children an excuse to not work hard to earn their own place in life.

You forgot to do the little sarcasm on/off thingy or something.

The second part of my statement was meant to be dead serious. Have you ever meet any trust fund hippies? People whose parents left them a fortune (often locked in a trust where they only get a check every month) and the kids never amount to anything?

The first part of my statement was meant very tung-in-check. Considering that the Republican party has put forth the Horatio Alger myth as one of its tenants, you would think that they would be opposed to the large transfers of wealth to those who had not earned it.

Neither the Republican or Democratic party have an monopoly of rich elites who are interested in telling us how to live our lives or what to do with our money. They both share a common theme: Hypocrisy.

You don't have a clue.

Whose money is it that we are talking about?

Yours? Mine? The Gooberment's?

Nope. It belongs to the person that made it. If he wants to leave it to his stupid brats, then he is perfectly free to do so.

Why? Because it's his money, and he can do whatever he wants to with it.

It's not your, nor the Gooberment's business what he does with it. It's his.

That concept is called "Freedom". Read about it.

Re-read my posts OP. I am not saying the government should be telling him what someone should do with his money. I am pointing out the contrast between the stated Horatio Alger beliefs of the Republican party and the insistence that estates not be taxed (for the benefit of those who did not work for the accumulated wealth).

QUERY: Why should earned incomes be taxed over inheritances? If you were in Congress, would you vote to eliminate the inheritance tax at the expense of lowering the income tax?

Tax issues are about choosing one tax over another. These issues are not decided in a vacuum. If you are opposed to one type of tax, it must be because you are in favor of another type of tax.

Posted: 7/20/2008 2:50:10 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Tax issues are about choosing one tax over another. These issues are not decided in a vacuum. If you are opposed to one type of tax, it must be because you are in favor of another type of tax.

That is a silly Liberal zero-sum argument.

I am in favor of neither.

I am in favor of shutting down very large portions of the Federal Government and cutting taxes across the board.

I am pointing out the contrast between the stated Horatio Alger beliefs of the Republican party and the insistence that estates not be taxed (for the benefit of those who did not work for the accumulated wealth).

And I am pointing out that it is not the business to the Federal Gooberment to decide who "worked or did not work" to accumulate the wealth. It belongs to the guy that earned it. He can do with it as he pleases. Give it to his worthless kids, give it to his wife, give it to his friends, give it to charity, or pile it in a big pile and pour gasoline on it and burn it.

It's his money. He ought to be able to do with it as he pleases.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:11:37 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Liberals are against traditionalists being able to leave an inheritance to their traditionalist-raised middle-America offspring.

They are NOT against their own elite living generation after generation off of trust funds and doing things like going off to the family business Board of Directors conference on global warming in Tahiti.

That's entirely different... somehow.

That's ridiculous! Name me ONE, just one Liberal family like that?

*cough*Kennedy's*cough*

Here on Arfcom if you ever bring up whether parents should pay for college, you get some posters who say that 'they should work their way through college like I did.'

Gee, I thought the whole reason I'm saving for my kid's college education was to make it easier for him so he can focus on his schoolwork. Silly me.

If you take that mentality to the extreme, we should abolish Arfcom and burn down the libraries so that people can 'earn' all that knowledge themselves.

I run into the blue bit fairly often...my parents saved up so that they could send their kids (my brother and me) to college and we wouldn't have to be worried about whether we could get enough work to cover tuition, while still getting our classwork done.
I get flak whenever I mention it, as if my parents' planning ahead for their kids is somehow one of my sins.

ETA: and I definitely do have my sins, but I didn't realize, until ARFcom told me so, that my parents' decisions to help their children are among them.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:23:48 PM EDT

[#13]

When I was at a buddy of mine's wedding a few weeks ago, I had a long conversation with the bride's sister's husband who happens to be a huge liberal obama supporting lawyer.

Besides razing his anti gun arguments wholsesale, the conversation drifted to various topics related to the free market. I had shown my disdain for all taxation and gave him a few examples of redistributing wealth and why they were counterproductive to their goals, and he then asked me what I thought about the inheritance tax, as if it was his trump card. I approached it as the fact that it was the grantor's right to do with his private property as he wished. Taxing that takes away incentive to gain the fortune in the first place which would surely hurt the economy.

These people have little regard for private property, and even less understanding of economics, besides having a hard on for big government programs and the associated redistribution of wealth. I thought his opinions were ironic considering he was a patent lawyer

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:30:59 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tax issues are about choosing one tax over another. These issues are not decided in a vacuum. If you are opposed to one type of tax, it must be because you are in favor of another type of tax.

That is a silly Liberal zero-sum argument.

I am in favor of neither.

I am in favor of shutting down very large portions of the Federal Government and cutting taxes across the board.

OP,

My question was not intended to require a zero sum solution. If you were voting on a budget that eliminated 90% of the budget, you would still need to fund 10% of the budget. The source of the funds for the budget is what I am getting at. Let me see if I can reword it more clearly.

1) Do you believe that .gov should be supported by taxes? If not, from what source should the .gov be financially supported?

2) If you believe in taxation as a method of supporting the .gov, what form should those taxes take? Income tax, sales tax, sin taxes, import tariffs, inheritance taxes, or whatever?

The point I am trying to make is that by supporting the repeal of the inheritance tax, you have made a value judgment that other taxes are preferable, or that other tax would have been repealed instead. Even if you repeal 90% of the taxes, your choice for the remaining 10% indicates that you believe that those taxes are preferable for whatever reason than the 90% that you have repealed.

Is my question clear?

I am pointing out the contrast between the stated Horatio Alger beliefs of the Republican party and the insistence that estates not be taxed (for the benefit of those who did not work for the accumulated wealth).

And I am pointing out that it is not the business to the Federal Gooberment to decide who "worked or did not work" to accumulate the wealth. It belongs to the guy that earned it. He can do with it as he pleases. Give it to his worthless kids, give it to his wife, give it to his friends, give it to charity, or pile it in a big pile and pour gasoline on it and burn it.

It's his money. He ought to be able to do with it as he pleases.

The same can be said of any tax. It is the person's money. How can the .gov require him to pay it to it? The answer is that without taxation, their can be no .gov. Unless you are a Utopian Communist or Anarchist, you probably believe in some form of government.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:40:30 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
The answer is that without taxation, their can be no .gov. Unless you are a Utopian Communist or Anarchist, you probably believe in some form of government.

I certainly do support a government and taxes to run it.

I just believe it needs to be much, much smaller and that would require much less in taxes.

Edited to add: And to answer your other question, I support a sales tax, to tax all men more equally.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:49:59 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tax issues are about choosing one tax over another. These issues are not decided in a vacuum. If you are opposed to one type of tax, it must be because you are in favor of another type of tax.

That is a silly Liberal zero-sum argument.

I am in favor of neither.

I am in favor of shutting down very large portions of the Federal Government and cutting taxes across the board.

I am pointing out the contrast between the stated Horatio Alger beliefs of the Republican party and the insistence that estates not be taxed (for the benefit of those who did not work for the accumulated wealth).

And I am pointing out that it is not the business to the Federal Gooberment to decide who "worked or did not work" to accumulate the wealth. It belongs to the guy that earned it. He can do with it as he pleases. Give it to his worthless kids, give it to his wife, give it to his friends, give it to charity, or pile it in a big pile and pour gasoline on it and burn it.

It's his money. He ought to be able to do with it as he pleases.

Yep, the transfer of wealth WITHIN a family should not be penalized in any way.

Posted: 7/23/2008 1:23:17 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

I am in favor of shutting down very large portions of the Federal Government and cutting taxes across the board.

Not going to happen, as everyone will have their favorite part of government operations that they'll want to see preserved. Not to mention that in our complex 21st century society, you're not going to see a much smaller Fed gov't; much of what it does is important, even if it gets bogged down in red tape.

Posted: 7/23/2008 1:32:27 AM EDT

[#18]

They think it creates an aristocracy. And they want what you have.

Posted: 7/23/2008 1:43:46 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
They think it creates an aristocracy. And they want what you have.

Welp, seeing the end and short of an Heir, of which I have one, I will/would destroy my assets/land entirely just to spite their thieving commie' asses.

Posted: 7/23/2008 2:55:16 AM EDT

[#20]

They just want the money to go to their cocaine culture, it makes them feel better about themselves by taking it away from it's rightfull owners.

Hurting the rightfull owners is a more important power to them than their culture having the power of spending the money.

Liberals like to hurt people, that's what liberalism is all about.

Posted: 7/23/2008 3:16:58 AM EDT

[#21]

As a former liberal I can tell you that there isn't much thought involved. Ask them how they would feel in such a situation and they will either lie and say it wouldn't bother them or they are honestly unable to conceive what they want done to others being done to them, it's like doublethink.

"It's complicated" means they don't really know, and are just parroting the opinions of others.

Posted: 7/23/2008 3:17:10 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Because they believe that people should earn their position in life through hard work on their own individual merits, and not based on some handout.

I ALMOST spewed coffee all over my keyboard when I read that. I think you forgot the punchline though?

Posted: 7/23/2008 3:49:55 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Because they believe that people should earn their position in life through hard work on their own individual merits, and not based on some handout.

I ALMOST spewed coffee all over my keyboard when I read that. I think you forgot the punchline though?

You are killing me!

It all goes back to the "class envy thing" and how they think that everyone who is "rich" gets ahead in life because they were given riches and how they will never be "there."

They are simply jealous.

Posted: 7/23/2008 3:56:27 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Because they believe that people should earn their position in life through hard work on their own individual merits, and not based on some handout.

Inheritances give children an excuse to not work hard to earn their own place in life.

Wow, just wow.

You didn't happen to live in MA at one time?

Was that a bit dry for you?

Some of the most successful people in the country have used inheritances as a spring board to more wealth. Donald Trump ring a bell?

The taxes have already been pain in most cases in inheritances and estates. Whst do you propose should be done?

What's you position? a)tax the inheritance again., or b) Inheritances should be the property of the state.

The benefit of the inheritance tax is I am likely to not be effected by it.

You could've stopped right there. That's all we really need to know about you.

I'll likely not inherit a dime nor do I really care to, but I hope to put away enough to leave something for my daughter when I die. I'd really prefer the gov't to not perform necrophilia on me.

To your other silly question in the thread - I'd rather see income taxed than estates since the estates have already been taxed. I prefer the FairTax above all.

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:00:18 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted: I prefer the FairTax above all.

Amen!

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:01:57 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Because they believe that people should earn their position in life through hard work on their own individual merits, and not based on some handout.

Inheritances give children an excuse to not work hard to earn their own place in life.

You forgot to do the little sarcasm on/off thingy or something.

The second part of my statement was meant to be dead serious. Have you ever meet any trust fund hippies? People whose parents left them a fortune (often locked in a trust where they only get a check every month) and the kids never amount to anything?

The first part of my statement was meant very tung-in-check. Considering that the Republican party has put forth the Horatio Alger myth as one of its tenants, you would think that they would be opposed to the large transfers of wealth to those who had not earned it.

Neither the Republican or Democratic party have an monopoly of rich elites who are interested in telling us how to live our lives or what to do with our money. They both share a common theme: Hypocrisy.

You don't have a clue.

Whose money is it that we are talking about?

Yours? Mine? The Gooberment's?

Nope. It belongs to the person that made it. If he wants to leave it to his stupid brats, then he is perfectly free to do so.

Why? Because it's his money, and he can do whatever he wants to with it.

It's not your, nor the Gooberment's business what he does with it. It's his.

That concept is called "Freedom". Read about it.

Re-read my posts OP. I am not saying the government should be telling him what someone should do with his money. I am pointing out the contrast between the stated Horatio Alger beliefs of the Republican party and the insistence that estates not be taxed (for the benefit of those who did not work for the accumulated wealth).

QUERY: Why should earned incomes be taxed over inheritances? If you were in Congress, would you vote to eliminate the inheritance tax at the expense of lowering the income tax?

Tax issues are about choosing one tax over another. These issues are not decided in a vacuum. If you are opposed to one type of tax, it must be because you are in favor of another type of tax.

I don't know, maybe instead of only looking at ways of increasing gov't revenue we could look for ways to cut gov't spending? It seems liberals - like yourself - are only concerned with filling the gov't coffers. Gotta keep the meal ticket going I guess

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:06:05 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
[I don't know, maybe instead of only looking at ways of increasing gov't revenue we could look for ways to cut gov't spending? It seems liberals - like yourself - are only concerned with filling the gov't coffers. Gotta keep the meal ticket going I guess

Problem is, conservatives and liberals both claim to want to cut the budget but want to cut in different areas. liberals want to cut the military, conservatives want to cut social programs. You'll never have agreement.

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:07:21 AM EDT

[#28]

What is the mindset going on here?

The redistribution of wealth.

YOUR wealth to THEM.

I've asked them and the only answer I get is that it's " complicated "

There's nothing complicated about it.

It's your money They want it.

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:11:10 AM EDT

[#29]

.

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:22:58 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
What is the mindset going on here?

The redistribution of wealth.

YOUR wealth to THEM.

I've asked them and the only answer I get is that it's " complicated "

There's nothing complicated about it.

It's your money They want it.

The answer is found in the post above. :)

Fair Tax! Fuck Yeah!

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:27:32 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I'm guessing they are thinking of people like the Hiltons, Rockerfellers, etc, who inherit multi-generational wealth. Its the liberal perspective that these people are inheriting this money almost tax free, and paying no tax on the wealth as it compounds. I don't believe they see it as an issue that affects the average American. After all, every time the inheritance tax is mentioned in the media that I have seen, the articles invariably state that the first half million ( or whatever figure it is ) isn't taxed, so probably your average Liberal thinks that the only people hit by the tax are the massively wealthy.

Because all money belongs to the government in their opinion. They don't want wealthy people because wealthy people don't depend on the government. If we're all poor & own nothing we become the voters they target. If we're rich we can fight them.

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:29:55 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Liberals are against traditionalists being able to leave an inheritance to their traditionalist-raised middle-America offspring.

They are NOT against their own elite living generation after generation off of trust funds and doing things like going off to the family business Board of Directors conference on global warming in Tahiti.

That's entirely different... somehow.

Two words: Kennedy family

Posted: 7/23/2008 6:15:45 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I am in favor of shutting down very large portions of the Federal Government and cutting taxes across the board.

Not going to happen, as everyone will have their favorite part of government operations that they'll want to see preserved. Not to mention that in our complex 21st century society, you're not going to see a much smaller Fed gov't; much of what it does is important, even if it gets bogged down in red tape.

Someday, a future historian is going to say, "And when the people began to believe this myth, that is when things started to go wrong."

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why do liberals think ineheritance is evil? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us