Labour lunacy

[rubato]

"...

What I'm suggesting is that a 100% estate tax would not stop rich families from continuing to be rich, which is what rubato said it would do.
.... " .

No, You seem to have trouble reading and understanding. Either that or you willfully lie about what others have and have not said. I said it would be fairer and people would start out at a lesser disadvantage. I also pointed out that there are other ways of avoiding it (which contradicts your false assertion of what I said).

You will never be able to argue very well until you learn to respond to what others have actually said.


yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

I don't think a response is needed. Just leave the estate tax the way it is now or eliminate it.

Why in the world would you eliminate it? Do you think heritable concentrations of wealth -- and therefore power -- are a good thing for a democratic society? Do you think the economy is best served by encouraging such concentrations of wealth over generations of plutocrats for their exclusive use and benefit? Do you think increasing the disparity between the rich (particularly the super-rich) and the middle/working classes is a good thing?

Is a $5.3 million exemption so "ridiculous" if the estate is being divided between (say) the surviving spouse, three children, the DNC, the family servants and the Pilates instructor?

Even such an apparently benificent sum, divided by 7+, can hardly be said to equal a rich family continuing to be rich. Maybe the exemption should be $5.3million per legatee?

That might be one approach, if you strictly limit the class of potential beneficiaries, because the policy goal is to encourage distributions before death rather than to accumulate assets until death. (However, $5.3M per person is still too much.) And in fact, you can make tax-free transfers to as many people as you want during life as long as you keep those transfers below the gift tax limit.

[Joe Guy]

"...

What I'm suggesting is that a 100% estate tax would not stop rich families from continuing to be rich, which is what rubato said it would do.
.... " .

No, You seem to have trouble reading and understanding. Either that or you willfully lie about what others have and have not said. I said it would be fairer and people would start out at a lesser disadvantage. I also pointed out that there are other ways of avoiding it (which contradicts your false assertion of what I said).

Actually, the problem I have with you is that I have trouble sorting out what you write from what you later say you meant when you wrote it.

For example, you now claim that you didn't mean what you wrote here -

The benefit is that both begin life with equal resources which is the most simple and direct example of "fair". If a 'fair' society is good then this is good.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I said it would be fairer and people would start out at a lesser disadvantage. I also pointed out that there are other ways of avoiding it

Once again I point out,
you are for a strong (100%?) inheritance tax because it is fair and puts people at a lesser disadvantage. Then in the next sentence you point out there are ways to avoid it (inheritance tax).
In other words, you are for the tax (so that it makes you feel good and can say you are for things that make life more fair) AND you support the ways to avoid it (so you really don't have to subject yourself to the gov taking it all away)?

You are right when you said:

You routinely misunderstand things in a bizarre and mentally disorganized way.

OR
Maybe you should explain the seemingly contradictions in your statement of being for the inheritance tax, yet talk about the ways people can avoid it.
am I the only one who finds this perplexing? If so I will be quiet and attempt to readjust my bizarre and mental disorganization and misunderstanding

[rubato]

"...
Once again I point out,
you are for a strong (100%?) inheritance tax because it is fair and puts people at a lesser disadvantage. ... "

I did not say I was FOR it I described what advantages it might have. Go back and read carefully. Often people discuss the advantages of this or that idea without advocating for them. This is one form of you persistent mmisunderstanding.

You routinely misunderstand things in a bizarre and mentally disorganized way.

OR
Maybe you should explain the seemingly contradictions in your statement of being for the inheritance tax, yet talk about the ways people can avoid it.
am I the only one who finds this perplexing? If so I will be quiet and attempt to readjust my bizarre and mental disorganization and misunderstanding

I said that -even though- there are means of avoiding some of its effects it will still have some effect.

Part of your confusion is that you do not understand that one can present both the pros and cons of an argument. One is not always a blind partisan for one position or another. Perhaps you have never been around people like that before? It might explain your perpetual confusion.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Thanks for the explanation. I did not realise you were "presenting" both sides rather than endorsing either or both.
Thanks again

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well done, oldr

[rubato]

Thanks for the explanation. I did not realise you were "presenting" both sides rather than endorsing either or both.
Thanks again

Responding to what I wrote would have made it clear.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Why do you always have to have a condescending tone to your posts?

I responded to what you wrote and I asked for explanation. Only when you finally explained that you were showing both sides did I finally get it.
The posts before that did not explain what you were saying.

Sorry for asking for clarity.

I will not in the future.

You can go on thinking you have the only "right" position (even when you present two conflicting positions) and that what you say is understood completely. (when in fact only you understand yourself completely).