son of sam crash

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Buffett, in particular, praised "'the critical role' that he said the
estate
tax played in promoting economic growth,

Buffet is a good investor but a hore**** economist.

My point was not necessarily to endorse his economic views, but rather to
cite him and the other billionaires I mentioned as examples of estate-tax
advocates who obviously do not "get sick when they see someone
successful".

by helping create a society in
which success is based on merit rather than inheritance"

So replace it with a society of parsites. Yeah, like socialism was so
successful at creating economic growth!

Hm, so parasitism occurs not when some people are arbitrarily rich by
aristocratic birthright, but rather when a slightly leveler at-birth
playing
field makes the process slightly more dependent on an individual's effort
and ability. I'm glad we cleared that up.

We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one or
two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two generations.

Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
who they leave it to.

Glad we've cleared THAT up.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news

So replace it with a society of parsites. Yeah, like socialism was so
successful at creating economic growth!

Hm, so parasitism occurs not when some people are arbitrarily rich by
aristocratic birthright, but rather when a slightly leveler at-birth
playing
field makes the process slightly more dependent on an individual's effort
and ability. I'm glad we cleared that up.

We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

Still going off on a tangent I see. Odd, isn't it, that the four wealth men
you mention are likely going to pay peanuts in estate taxes, what with theri
foundations, shelters...

Wanna bet how many of their executors pay out 75% or more?

We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one or
two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two generations.

Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
who they leave it to.

Glad we've cleared THAT up.

And BTW
http://www.poorandstupid.com/2005_06...36529591024018

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message
link.net...
Robert M. Gary wrote:
The liberals of the world get
sick when they see someone successful and will want to try to play
Robin Hood.


I'm sorry, but this statement is crap. Not everyone defines "success"
the same way (i.e. the accumulation of great wealth), but even if you
accept that definition most people I know would applaud the guy's
success - to the extent that he earned it.

The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
them "successful"?

So to follow your line of thinking every successful business that is started
should be closed when the founder goes west to prevent his/her heirs from
benefiting from dad's success.

"Matt Barrow" writes:

We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one or
two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two generations.

Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
who they leave it to.

Yep, if somebody makes something all by himself, I tend to think of it
as solely "his" also. The thing is, nobody ever makes a *fortune* all
by himself. His doing so depends on the laws and infrastructure
within which he works, other people, and very often the government.
The "rail barons", as an obvious example, got rich because they were
the people the govnerment chose to have build the railway, and gave
the land to put it on. That's a really far cry from doing something
*yourself*.

We live in a complex, highly entangled, society.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message
The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
them "successful"?

So to follow your line of thinking every successful business that is
started
should be closed when the founder goes west to prevent his/her heirs from
benefiting from dad's success.

Not necessarily. It's possible to acknowledge a variety of competing factors
that legitimately bear on ownership and inheritance, and accordingly to
forge a policy that compromises among them--a policy of taxation, for
example, that preserves incentives but still opposes the unlimited
cross-generational accumulation of wealth by some people (an accumulation
that can occur regardless of the heirs' merit) while other people, due to
the circumstances *they* inherit, face almost insurmountable obstacles from
birth (again regardless of their merit). Inheritance (like anything else)
needn't be all or nothing.

--Gary

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

Really? In 1789, even the right to vote was limited by law to white males
and (in most states) to land owners--that is, a purely hereditary criterion,
a purely congenital criterion, and a largely hereditary criterion that
effectively established an aristocratic class of voters. The principle of
one person, one vote (regardless of hereditary factors) was not even
nominally established until 1924, and remained largely fictitious until
1965.

Odd, isn't it, that the four wealth men
you mention are likely going to pay peanuts in estate taxes, what with
theri
foundations, shelters...

Do you, by any chance, have any factual substantiation for this claim? Or
any explanation of how it would even be relevant to the point I was making
about those individuals? The point, you may recall, was simply that they are
prominent examples of estate-tax supporters who (contrary to an earlier
claim) are obviously not "sickened" by the prospect of financial success.

And you can count on about one or
two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two
generations.

Do you have any substantiation for *that* claim? (Unless you define
"fortune" as wealth so extreme that it is posessed only by the wealthiest
handful of families, in which case your claim becomes a mere tautology.)

Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it, or
who they leave it to.

First, as David's post pointed out, vast wealth isn't acquired without
substantial public assistance of various sorts. But let's put that aside,
and pretend that everyone really does earn all the wealth their enterprises
accumulate. I still don't agree that an absolutist right to retain all of
one's earnings is morally or logically defensible (though *some* substantial
right to benefit from the fruits of one's labors is certainly important).
The philosophical basis for (some form of) property rights is an important
matter that I'd be glad to engage in a serious discussion of, if you're
interested.

But it's also tangential to your claim that an estate tax that redistributes
a portion of a family fortune (in order to give others more of a chance to
work to develop *their* talents and contributions to society) thereby
promotes "parasitism". On the contrary, even if the wealthy *did* have an
absolute moral right to give away their (entire, untaxed) wealth even to
completely idle, undeserving heirs, that would just mean that they have a
right to promote (aristocratic) parasitism at the expense of a more
merit-based system.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

Really? In 1789, even the right to vote was limited by law to white males
and (in most states) to land owners--that is, a purely hereditary
criterion,
a purely congenital criterion, and a largely hereditary criterion that
effectively established an aristocratic class of voters. The principle of
one person, one vote (regardless of hereditary factors) was not even
nominally established until 1924, and remained largely fictitious until
1965.

First, it had noting to do with aristocratic birthright.
Second, most everyone owned land.
Third, there was no aristocracy (see Jefferson's comments about aristocracy
Fourth, you again go off on a tangent after shoving your foot in your mouth
(like with George Patterson reciting state laws).
Fifth, you're full of ****.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message
The question I would ask, though, is what have his heirs done (other
than have better luck choosing their family) that would justify calling
them "successful"?

So to follow your line of thinking every successful business that is
started
should be closed when the founder goes west to prevent his/her heirs
from
benefiting from dad's success.

Not necessarily. It's possible to acknowledge a variety of competing
factors
that legitimately bear on ownership and inheritance, and accordingly to
forge a policy that compromises among them--a policy of taxation, for
example, that preserves incentives but still opposes the unlimited
cross-generational accumulation of wealth by some people (an accumulation
that can occur regardless of the heirs' merit) while other people, due to
the circumstances *they* inherit, face almost insurmountable obstacles
from
birth (again regardless of their merit). Inheritance (like anything else)
needn't be all or nothing.

Did you read Luskin's article?

I didn't think so.

Parasite.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" writes:

We've haven't had aristocratic birthright in this country since 1789.

We HAVE had blatant parasitism, though. And you can count on about one
or
two hands at most the fortunes that have endured more than two
generations.

Besides, if they earned it, who are YOU to allocate how they spend it,
or
who they leave it to.

Yep, if somebody makes something all by himself, I tend to think of it
as solely "his" also. The thing is, nobody ever makes a *fortune* all
by himself. His doing so depends on the laws and infrastructure
within which he works, other people, and very often the government.

So the restrains work for him...christ-on-a-bike,

The "rail barons", as an obvious example, got rich because they were
the people the govnerment chose to have build the railway, and gave
the land to put it on. That's a really far cry from doing something
*yourself*.

Try this example for your railroad: Jay Gould vs all his competitors.


We live in a complex, highly entangled, society.

Full of people that haven't a clue what the hell their talking about.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Fifth, you're full of ****.
...
Parasite.

I find that people who rely on name-calling instead of civil, informed,
rational debate do so because they've discovered that their views do not
thrive in the latter sort of contest.

--Gary