Good News Everyone! Paris Hilton loses inheritance

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2007-12-30 01:57pm

Broomstick wrote:
General Schatten wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:I'd rather have the elephant man.
At least he could claim to be half human.
AND Mr. Merrick was reported to be a gentleman - that is, polite, considerate of others, and well-behaved.

You guys shouldn't leave out Phineas Gage when talking 19th century freaks!

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-12-30 11:04pm

Broomstick wrote:
Phantasee wrote:I've noticed this trend has been expanding lately. Namely, the Warren Buffet School of Child-Rearing: You give them a decent life growing up, a decent education, and then give them a few pennies, and donate the rest.
Actually, [inserted] Andrew [/inserted] Carnegie was the first proponent of that style of raising rich kids - he didn't leave a dime to any of his, instead endowing universities, libraries, charities, etc. but it didn't matter 'cause his kids were all independently wealthy long before the old man kicked off.

So with the, as intended, statement above I wanted to continue on a bit. He actually advocated a 100% estate tax on all property left at death. His fundamental philosophy was that government should force men of power and wealth to distribute their wealth to such organizations as they could best serve the public interest by their close attention and if they didn't to have the government take the money they held for the public use. It was a truly prescient point that spoling rich brats gives them no true skills and it is far better parenting to provide them with a good home and good educaiton then leave their buisness sense to their own resources and acumen as large trust funds just serve as an incitement to sloth or rash dealings.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-12-30 11:25pm

yes, carnagie hated the little person, because he was for the death tax loathed by our current administration...

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2007-12-30 11:49pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:So with the, as intended, statement above I wanted to continue on a bit. He actually advocated a 100% estate tax on all property left at death.

Wouldn't the uber-wealthy would-be hyphen-using empire-builders just give their wealth over prior to their deaths, or into some sort of trust, if they wished to avoid such a tax? Instead of having their deathbeds attended by priests, I could see lawyers and accountants being the ones performing the last rites.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-12-31 12:28am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:yes, carnagie hated the little person, because he was for the death tax loathed by our current administration...

Hey genius - that death tax then fucks over the little people. You can't inherit your parent's stamp collection, or whatever now.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-31 12:29am

MKSheppard wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:yes, carnagie hated the little person, because he was for the death tax loathed by our current administration...
Hey genius - that death tax then fucks over the little people. You can't inherit your parent's stamp collection, or whatever now.

Yeah, how horrible for people to have to earn their own possessions.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-12-31 12:46am

Darth Wong wrote:Yeah, how horrible for people to have to earn their own possessions.

Death taxes primarily hit family owned businesses; and usually, they take a severe hit; which leads to them falling into economic difficulties; and closing, paving the way for more WALMARTS

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-31 12:48am

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Yeah, how horrible for people to have to earn their own possessions.
Death taxes primarily hit family owned businesses; and usually, they take a severe hit; which leads to them falling into economic difficulties; and closing, paving the way for more WALMARTS

Actually, certain types of family-owned business are exempted from death taxes, just as personal residences are. And other types of family-owned business are no more specially family-oriented than any incorporated business; why should they be treated differently?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-31 12:49am

IIRC, the Estate Tax only applied to estates worth over $1,000,000.

I don't know if income tax applies to inheritance.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-31 12:54am

Flagg wrote:IIRC, the Estate Tax only applied to estates worth over $1,000,000.

I don't know if income tax applies to inheritance.

The thing is, there are plenty of family businesses which are worth many millions of dollars. I've dealt with several such businesses myself. The problem is that the nature of inherited wealth applies 100% to these businesses; the fact that this wealth is in the form of a business rather than a mountain of cash doesn't change the argument for or against allowing rich-kid syndrome.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-31 12:58am

Darth Wong wrote:
Flagg wrote:IIRC, the Estate Tax only applied to estates worth over $1,000,000.

I don't know if income tax applies to inheritance.
The thing is, there are plenty of family businesses which are worth many millions of dollars. I've dealt with several such businesses myself. The problem is that the nature of inherited wealth applies 100% to these businesses; the fact that this wealth is in the form of a business rather than a mountain of cash doesn't change the argument for or against allowing rich-kid syndrome.

Don't most family owned businesses wortyh money like that already have a situation set up where they're incorporated so only the shares they inherit have to to be paid tax on?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-12-31 01:00am

thanks for dealing with that strawman Mike....

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-31 02:02am

MKSheppard wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:yes, carnagie hated the little person, because he was for the death tax loathed by our current administration...
Hey genius - that death tax then fucks over the little people. You can't inherit your parent's stamp collection, or whatever now.

You're totally full of shit. There were existing business and farm protections, not to mention why is it that this "small business" (the endless excuse for corporate/plutocrat welfare) class hasn't taken off. Rather, the top 1% of earners before the tax cuts are the ones who got richer? Hm? You wouldn't know a competent economic analysis if someone were to stuff it into a shotgun and shoot your dad with it.