As usual, these 'grass roots' movements are overwhelmingly scams.

Not to say they aren't effective; they rope in millions of gullible 'conservatives' who play 'Follow The Leader' better than any 6 year old can.


The Opposition:

A number of modern-day millionaires-who are themselves subject to the tax-understand its historical importance. As part of the opposition to repeal, over 1,200 wealthy individuals signed a petition calling for preserving-but reforming-the tax. The signers (who include William H. Gates, Sr., George Soros, and Ted Turner) argue that the tax is an essential means to moderate the excessive build-up of hereditary wealth and power. Investor Warren Buffett argued in the New York Times that repealing the estate tax would be comparable to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics...Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit." Petition-signers and other activists say they support raising the cap on exemptions to further reduce the already-miniscule number of small businesses and farms affected by the tax. For some, the call to raise exemption levels is in part tactical-a means to gain congressional support for tax preservation.

Of course, these are 'self made' people, utterly unlike those who invented the 'grassroots movement' for repeal:

Repeal backers describe their movement as "grassroots," but peek behind the curtain and you find a well-funded public relations, lobbying, media, and research apparatus (led by sophisticated operatives, many with deep connections to the Republican Party).
In the early 1990s, a group including the heirs to the Mars and Gallo family fortunes embarked on a long-term effort to eliminate the tax. They enlisted the help of Patricia Soldano, an Orange County, California, advisor to wealthy families. She formed a lobbying organization (the "Policy and Taxation Group") to provide an "outlet" for wealthy families "interested in communicating their concerns to members of Congress." Soldano channeled funds to congressional backers of repeal and hired the powerful lobbying firm Patton Boggs.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/DeathTax_Deception.html

Never underestimate the gullibility and laziness of the conservative public

The overwhelming portion of these 'movements' were plopped by billionaire financed think-tanks who polish up these turds and wrap them in soundbites ready to fertilize the AM radio - FOX "news" networks

There is a lot more fertilizer than grass these days

The original United for a Fair Economy report (http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/EstateTaxFinal.pdf). Walton, Mars, Nordstrom . . . not exactly self-made billionaires, are they? No self-interest there, nope, no sir. Really fighting for poor Aunt Jane who had to sell the family farm to pay the estate tax . . . even though anti-estate-tax activists couldn't find a single actual Aunt Jane despite months of trying. Never mind that the actual self-made billionaires like Soros and Turner actually came out against estate-tax repeal. Nope, the Walton and Mars folks who inherited their money instead of earning it know what's best for all of us.

In the book "Fast Food Nation" there was a chapter about a rancher whose family had to sell the family ranch when he passed away because they couldn't afford to pay the death tax. Naturally, the ranch was purchased by a corporation, which doesn't have to fear such an event.

More wealth envy, how pathetic.

That's funny; I've read that book and don't remember any such example. Which chapter was it? I can check when I get home.

The original United for a Fair Economy report (http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/EstateTaxFinal.pdf). Walton, Mars, Nordstrom . . . not exactly self-made billionaires, are they? No self-interest there, nope, no sir. Really fighting for poor Aunt Jane who had to sell the family farm to pay the estate tax . . . even though anti-estate-tax activists couldn't find a single actual Aunt Jane despite months of trying. Never mind that the actual self-made billionaires like Soros and Turner actually came out against estate-tax repeal. Nope, the Walton and Mars folks who inherited their money instead of earning it know what's best for all of us.

I was looking for that outfit in your link, but I got lazy and just C-and-P'd the first one that had what I was looking for in it.:nice:

In the book "Fast Food Nation" there was a chapter about a rancher whose family had to sell the family ranch when he passed away because they couldn't afford to pay the death tax. Naturally, the ranch was purchased by a corporation, which doesn't have to fear such an event.

well, it should be easy enough to find them, then ... and see if that was real story, or merely a bunch of kids wanting to lay their hands on quick cash. A ranch big enough to kick in an inheritance tax isn't exactly going to make them look like the Jodes running from the Dust Bowl ...

That's funny; I've read that book and don't remember any such example. Which chapter was it? I can check when I get home.

i'll find it when i get home if i remember to.

although i probably won't because it's friday and debating the death tax is nowhere near the top of my list of things to do this weekend.

Never underestimate the gullibility and laziness of the conservative public
Yeah, okay...whatever.:rolleyes:

For all of you that support the inheritance tax, please tell me what Right the government has to the money. Why does the government have the right to steal your money simply because you've died? Why shouldn't the heirs of the deceased have the benefit of that wealth?

If my father died, wouldn't you say that I'd have more right to his assets (however large or small) than the government? If not, why?

So, let me understand the situation...the government taxes every dime you make as income and then if you manage to save something that you want to pass on to your children, they tax it again? That is just plain unfair and stupid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard that all inheritance over $300,000 is subject to the tax. This does not only effect the "rich". I'm only 34 years old. I am middle-class. I work and pay taxes. But, if you include the equity in my home, my 401K and my regular savings I'm already dangerously close to that level of assets. I imagine by the time most people reach retirement age, they're well above that figure. I don't see any reason why the government should be stealing that money.

Another few questions...why do liberals love taxes so much? Why do you despise the wealthy so much?

If Turner and Soros want to pay more taxes, they're perfectly welcome to do so. They can write a check to the Treasury any time.

The signers (who include William H. Gates, Sr., George Soros, and Ted Turner)


More wealth envy, how pathetic.

Hahaha.

Turner and Soros must be self-hating billionares. Maybe they feel guilty about being rich.

they rope in millions of gullible 'conservatives' who play 'Follow The Leader' better than any 6 year old can.

Insulting.

Never underestimate the gullibility and laziness of the conservative public

Insulting.

For all of you that support the inheritance tax, please tell me what Right the government has to the money. Why does the government have the right to steal your money simply because you've died?
Because you're dead, and dead people don't have rights. It's ridiculous to treat the estate tax as a tax on the deceased, when it's really a tax on the only live party to the transaction - the inheritor. To the inheritor the inheritance is income, and to them it's income on which they have not paid a penny of tax before. The whole "double taxation" canard is based on a self-serving and dishonest framing of who the estate tax affects, and I reject it completely. Paris Hilton should pay tax on her income just as you and I pay tax on ours, and no less because it's derived from inheritance instead of work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard that all inheritance over $300,000 is subject to the tax.
You're wrong. (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html) ;) The amount hasn't been below $500K for a long time. Currently it's $2M.
I'm only 34 years old. I am middle-class. I work and pay taxes. But, if you include the equity in my home, my 401K and my regular savings I'm already dangerously close to that level of assets.
Sorry, but if you have that level of assets at 34 then you're probably not "middle class" by any common definition.
I imagine by the time most people reach retirement age, they're well above that figure.
...and then they start drawing it down. By the time they die it's likely to be well below its peak.
I don't see any reason why the government should be stealing that money.
Of course they shouldn't, but only if you (circularly) assume your conclusion that it's stealing. :rolleyes:
Another few questions...why do liberals love taxes so much? Why do you despise the wealthy so much?
Liberals don't love taxes or despise the wealthy. They just realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch, and they don't try to buy votes by telling people there is. Someone has to pay to maintain this politico-economic system from which we all - especially the wealthy - have benefited so much. If one group doesn't pay, other groups do. In the absence of anything resembling fiscal responsibility in the White House, supporting repeal of the estate tax is equivalent to supporting an increase in the income tax the rest of us pay. Why do you love taxes so much, soylentgreen?

Y
For all of you that support the inheritance tax, please tell me what Right the government has to the money. Why does the government have the right to steal your money simply because you've died? Why shouldn't the heirs of the deceased have the benefit of that wealth?

If my father died, wouldn't you say that I'd have more right to his assets (however large or small) than the government? If not, why?

So, let me understand the situation...the government taxes every dime you make as income and then if you manage to save something that you want to pass on to your children, they tax it again?


You know why Republicans always drive up the public debt? It's because they lvoe spending money, but they never want to have to pay the bill. In order to keep operating the government, including the massive elective military campaigns you love, we have to pay for it somehow. You can tax spending, you can tax earning, and you can tax hand-me-downs. In the US, we do all three, and still run a 7 trillion dollar debt.

If you want to cut inheritance taxes, that means either you're going to have to increase other taxes, or increase the debt, because we sure as hell won't spend any less.

Inheritance tax is the least unfair kind of tax, because it's a tax on freebies that you didn't work for. YOu'd rather tax people's hard-earned wages than tax the handout the son of a billionaire got for free?

Inheritance tax is the least unfair kind of tax, because it's a tax on freebies that you didn't work for. YOu'd rather tax people's hard-earned wages than tax the handout the son of a billionaire got for free?
That's exactly the point that needs to be made here. It's pointless to ask whether we like this tax or that tax or the other tax, each in isolation, because the answer will always be no. Nonetheless, some kind of tax is necessary so we must ask which kind of tax is the best morally and/or practically. A tax on those who earn is worse than a tax on those who don't. A tax on those whose opportunity and lifestyle will be severely affected is worse than a tax on those whose opportunity and lifestyle will remain basically the same. A tax on income is actually one of the worst options available. A tax on consumption is somewhat better, but consumption does contribute to the economy so a tax on hoarding is even better and that's what the estate tax is.

If you want to eliminate the estate tax, you had better be prepared to say what other tax you think should be raised to compensate. If you demand that repeal opponents explain why they hate the idle rich, you had better be prepared to reciprocate by explaining why you hate the working poor or middle class. Class warfare is indeed being waged here, but not by the left. The left would prefer that each individual should succeed or fail by their own actions and not based on which class they were born into. It's the people who favor a New Aristocracy who are doing the shooting.

More wealth envy, how pathetic.

Exactly.

ON the other side, the "meritocracy" crowd are all those that have huge trust funds, like Katrina Vanden Huevel and Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

How is it that these trust fund babies of the left have avoided the "meritocracy" that they are so fond of expounding?

Hypocrites.

Turner and Soros must be self-hating billionares. Maybe they feel guilty about being rich.

They don't feel guilty about being rich. Soros especially.

Inheritance tax is the least unfair kind of tax, because it's a tax on freebies that you didn't work for.
As a liberal, I disagree. The money has already been taxed. How is taxing money multiple times fair?

As a liberal, I disagree. The money has already been taxed. How is taxing money multiple times fair?

I'm not worried about being fair to the money.

I would expect Califorians to whine; it's the Land Of $40,000 Houses Selling For $800,000!, so naturally it's full of little weasels who can't wait for Aunt Martha to croak so they can latch onto to her big old house on Nob hill or where ever, then go piss the money away in Reno or Vegas. Most Americans don't care about California's stupid self-inflicted problems, though.

It's unfair to the deceased and their family. Multiple taxation on earned money should never happen in my opinion.

I'm not worried about being fair to the money.

Or to the owners of it apparently.

As a liberal, I disagree. The money has already been taxed. How is taxing money multiple times fair?

It's most probably not 'multiply taxed' at all. Depends on how it was made, and in what it was made.

Well it doesn't really matter what the class warfare, failed Marxist morons think anyway.

They are so far out in the fringe that no one listens to them anyways.

It's most probably not 'multiply taxed' at all. Depends on how it was made, and in what it was made.
Explain how anything my father has that I could inherit from him hasn't already been taxed.

It's unfair to the deceased and their family. Multiple taxation on earned money should never happen in my opinion.
It's not multiple taxation; the recipient has not paid taxes on it before. It's only multiple taxation in a totally meaningless sense, because any kind of transfer "resets the clock" and always has. It's not multiple taxation when wages are taxed, even though that same money was probably subject to corporate income tax before and will probably be subject to sales tax after. Why does it suddenly become multiple taxation when the transfer is in the form of inheritance instead of wages? It doesn't. That's what BooRadley was getting at with his humorous comment about being fair to money, and he's absolutely right. Taxes are levied on people, not on money.

Some people here apparently favor consumption taxes over estate taxes, and I have a question for them. How is it better not to tax money when it's inherited, then to tax it when the inheritance is spent, vs. the other way around? How is it better morally, or economically? Either the two money flows are exactly equal, or you're taxing the more economically beneficial of the two. Furthermore, in the latter case you'll have less revenue (at the same tax rate) and you'll have to make up the difference with something besides magic pixie dust. What other tax will you raise? Who will you screw, to give Paris Hilton a break?

Explain how anything my father has that I could inherit from him hasn't already been taxed.
Sorry, but the unit of society is the individual, not the clan. Society does not and should not care whether the money came to you from a blood relative or a stranger. All that matters is that the money came into your pocket, therefore it's income, and you have not paid tax on that income.

Lest anyone think I don't care about passing advantages to my offspring, let me just say that I intend to give my daughter every advantage of education and character and attitude that I can. I also hope to pass on material wealth, but I will not steal from other people's children to do so.

It's not multiple taxation; the recipient has not paid taxes on it before. It's only multiple taxation in a totally meaningless sense, because any kind of transfer "resets the clock" and always has. It's not multiple taxation when wages are taxed, even though that same money was probably subject to corporate income tax before and will probably be subject to sales tax after. Why does it suddenly become multiple taxation when the transfer is in the form of inheritance instead of wages?
I understand what you're saying, but I am of the opinion that something that belongs to a person also belongs to that person's family, if they so choose it to be.

Or to the owners of it apparently.

The owner's dead. How about if we make a deal. When the estate is about to be settled, if the deceased voices any complaint about the rate of taxation, then the deceased can opt out.

It's unfair to the deceased and their family. Multiple taxation on earned money should never happen in my opinion.

A: You don't know the deceased earned it. He may have inherited it, also.

B: There's always multiple taxation. If I get my paycheck, I'm taxed on my income. If I then take what's left of my paycheck to your store and buy something, and you make a profit, then you're taxed on that income. It's the same thing with inheritance.

Grandma's dead. She doesn't count any more. Now Junior is getting a half a million dollars, and he's whining about having to pay taxes on it. Evidently, that's only for working stiffs. People who don't do anything for their money shouldn't have to pay taxes, either. Or so goes the argument.

I don't see how that's so ethical. "If you work for a living, you're penalized with taxes. If you just sit around and live off of grandma's estate, then you're not."

Explain how anything my father has that I could inherit from him hasn't already been taxed.

Your father doesn't have your income. When your father dies, and you get the estate, it's now income for you. You're saying that you shouldn't have to pay taxes since you didn't work for it.

Your father doesn't have your income. When your father dies, and you get the estate, it's now income for you. You're saying that you shouldn't have to pay taxes since you didn't work for it.
I am of the opinion that something that belongs to a person also belongs to that person's family, if they so choose it to be.
herein lies our difference of opinion.

herein lies our difference of opinion.
Fair enough, but it brings us back to an important question: what other tax will you raise instead?

Fair enough, but it brings us back to an important question: what other tax will you raise instead?

Why is that the default solution?

Why not ask which stupid government programs should be cut or completely eliminated?

I suggest the entire education department.

Fair enough, but it brings us back to an important question: what other tax will you raise instead?
Why not ask which stupid government programs should be cut or completely eliminated?
Yes
I suggest the entire education department.
No

Why is that the default solution?

Why not ask which stupid government programs should be cut or completely eliminated?
That's a valid question too, but orthogonal to the one I was asking. Regardless of how big or small you want the government to be, the question remains of how it should be funded. Besides the fact that the current regime seems disinclined to rein in spending in any way whatsoever, even if you cut all the programs you want you'd still be faced with a decision of whether to tax industry or idleness. It's simply not realistic or useful to posit spending cuts as the counterbalance for estate-tax repeal.

I suggest the entire education department.
Might as well. It's clearly doing a poor job of producing an educated populace.

Why is that the default solution?

Why not ask which stupid government programs should be cut or completely eliminated?


Because Republicans and Democrats use federal spending to buy votes and to buy campaign contributions. Neither will let go of it, and they both get enough votes to keep it going.

We're convinced, rightly or wrongly, that we need public roads, we need to replace Iraqi government and culture, we need to fly to Mars, we need to educate children, we need police departments, investigative agencies, public parks, food and drug regulation, defense research, an army, a navy, an airforce and a marine corpse, including stockpiles of million dollar missiles and billion dollar bombers, satallites, arts, sciences, courts, FEMA, DEA, NSA, DHS, INS, FBI, CIA, and all sorts of other things.

And to have those things, we need to raise taxes. Your argument is that taxes should only be collected from people who work for their money, not from people who are born into wealth, and don't earn their money.

I propose we eliminate social spending(SS, medicare, medicaide, welfare,food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.) since it consumes almost 60%(1.7 trillion per year) of the federal budget. Many of the programs Boo suggested should be eliminated as well. Then all kinds of taxes could be cut.

Because you're dead, and dead people don't have rights.Actually, you are wrong. The dead do have rights. When a living person produces a Will, it still has legal force after that person dies. If the will says they want their money to go to their offspring, to a charitable organization, or to an random person, it ought to be upheld.


Paris Hilton should pay tax on her income just as you and I pay tax on ours, and no less because it's derived from inheritance instead of work.I imagine Paris gets her money from a trust or as a salary paid by the hotel chain (plus the money she gets from her various media ventures). That is legitimate income. Inheritance is something different, in my mind. Believe me, I do not like Paris Hilton...but I don't think people should pay stupid taxes just because I don't like them.

You're wrong. (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html) ;) The amount hasn't been below $500K for a long time. Currently it's $2M.I stand corrected.


Sorry, but if you have that level of assets at 34 then you're probably not "middle class" by any common definition.No, I do not have assets of $2M...yet. And, I am very middle class. But, instead of spending my money foolishly and then complaining how the "rich man" is exploiting me, I am using my money wisely to build wealth for myself and my family...and for my heirs should I suffer an untimely death. I am not accumulating wealth for the benefit of the government or the public at large. Sorry I'm so "greedy" by saving money.

That's right, I don't drive a fancy new car like all those people below my income level. I don't go out and party it up every weekend. I don't have a 50"HDTV.

...and then they start drawing it down. By the time they die it's likely to be well below its peak.Unless you suffer an untimely death. Let's say you make $75K per year. Around this area, it is difficult for a family to survive on that salary. Now, let's say you die. How much money do you think you'd need to have invested in order to replace that income so that your children could have a home, food, clothing, and a college education? $1.5M plus a home that's worth $300-$500K? As I said, it is not difficult for me to see how real middle class people might be effected by this sort of tax.

Of course they shouldn't, but only if you (circularly) assume your conclusion that it's stealing. :rolleyes:Taxation is stealing no matter how you look at it. When one person or entity takes something from one person or entity without their consent, that is called stealing.

Liberals don't love taxes or despise the wealthy.Could have fooled me.

They just realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch, and they don't try to buy votes by telling people there is.That's funny, because all I ever hear is liberals explaining how they're going to give you "free" stuff like healthcare by taxing rich people. If that isn't a scam to buy votes, I don't know what is.

Someone has to pay to maintain this politico-economic system from which we all - especially the wealthy - have benefited so much.I think the "rich" pay quite a lot. Last time I checked, the highest bracket was something like 35%. That's more than you or I pay, I'm willing to bet. In fact, no matter how you look at it, by percent or by dollars, the rich pay more per person than the rest of us.

If one group doesn't pay, other groups do.Here we go...pitting one group against the other. Typical class warfare crapola.

In the absence of anything resembling fiscal responsibility in the White House, supporting repeal of the estate tax is equivalent to supporting an increase in the income tax the rest of us pay.
So, let me get this straight...our government spends too much money. Therefore, we should try our best to make a small number of people pay disproportionately high taxes to fund it? If that's the case, perhaps we should weight a person's vote at the ballot box by how much income they earn. As it is now, a poor person's vote is just as valuable as a rich person's...and since the poor and middle class far outnumber the rich, we can just force them to give up their wealth for our own personal benefit (lower taxes) and the benefit of society at large?

Concerning the White House and its spending habits, the opposition party will have it's chance to take the Congress in November. If they do, I will fully expect them to pull in the reins...but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Why do you love taxes so much, soylentgreen?Actually, I hate taxes of all types...even those paid by other people. The way you seem to look at it is, you don't care about the tax...as long as someone else pays. That's pretty selfish of you to spend other people's money for your benefit.

What percentage of liberals have this tyrannical mindset that all property is communal and that government can simply confiscate whatever, whenever it wants?

You know why Republicans always drive up the public debt?That's a fallicy. You'll probably complain abour Reagan...but don't forget the Congress was controlled by the Democrats at that time. All appropriations start in the House of Representatives, not the White House. You'd know that if you'd read the Constitution.

It's because they lvoe spending money...All politicians do.

...but they never want to have to pay the bill.No one seems to want to pay.

But, you know, the medicare prescription plan that Bush and the Republicans put through is going to cost TRILLIONS too. Yet, I don't see any liberals complaining about that.

In order to keep operating the government, including the massive elective military campaigns you love, we have to pay for it somehow. You can tax spending, you can tax earning, and you can tax hand-me-downs. In the US, we do all three, and still run a 7 trillion dollar debt.Who loves military campaigns? Are you talking to me?

I don't know. Maybe we should divide up the revenues from the inheritance tax among the number of citizens in the country. That will give us an idea of how little each person benefits (either through "free" stuff or lower taxation). Then, we should look at how much individuals that pay this tax are hurt. I'm willing to bet that the concentration of the hurt does not justify the diluted benefits.

If you want to cut inheritance taxes, that means either you're going to have to increase other taxes, or increase the debt, because we sure as hell won't spend any less.Yeah, okay. So? Perhaps we should base our system of taxation on something resembling fairness. If you drive on the roads built with government money, perhaps you should pay a tax on cars or licensing or gas. If you want a government retirement program, then you should pay a tax like Social Security. But, taxing one person to pay for a program for another person is just plain unfair.

Inheritance tax is the least unfair kind of tax, because it's a tax on freebies that you didn't work for. YOu'd rather tax people's hard-earned wages than tax the handout the son of a billionaire got for free?It's none of your business or mine what a billionaire does with his money when he dies. If a woman has the right to exterminate her unborn baby under the guise of "privacy", why shouldn't a billionaire's bank account be similarly protected? What do you care...other than the fact that you'll have to pay something to make up the difference? For as much as liberals claim the rich are "greedy" they sure do like to save taxes by forcing other people to pay it on their behalf.

Let's assume that one out of three Americans are taxpayers. Now, that means that out of every dollar in inheritance tax the government brings in, each taxpayer saves $0.00000001. Woo hoo!!:rolleyes:

Taxation is stealing no matter how you look at it. When one person or entity takes something from one person or entity without their consent, that is called stealing.


So are you an anarchist now? You don't believe in any government at all? Or are you a Republican, who thinks the money will magically appear?


Yeah, okay. So? Perhaps we should base our system of taxation on something resembling fairness. If you drive on the roads built with government money, perhaps you should pay a tax on cars or licensing or gas. If you want a government retirement program, then you should pay a tax like Social Security. But, taxing one person to pay for a program for another person is just plain unfair.


Great, so who's going to pay for attacking and occupying Iraq? Investors in the weapons and war industry and soldiers?

Actually, you are wrong. The dead do have rights. When a living person produces a Will, it still has legal force after that person dies. If the will says they want their money to go to their offspring, to a charitable organization, or to an random person, it ought to be upheld.
The instructions in a will do not override law. What if the deceased had unpaid debts? Should those be ignored because the wishes of the dead override the interests of the living? Ridiculous. The terms of a will are and must be secondary to the requirements of law - including tax law.
I imagine Paris gets her money from a trust or as a salary paid by the hotel chain (plus the money she gets from her various media ventures). That is legitimate income. Inheritance is something different, in my mind.
How is Paris Hilton's income made more or less legitimate by the schedule of its disbursement? It's not. Whether the inheritance comes as a lump sum or as proceeds from a trust fund doesn't make a bit of difference. If it's income and the recipient has not paid tax on it, then it is subject to tax. IMO it should be taxed just like other income, but I'm willing to settle for the more generous estate tax as a matter of realpolitik.
Let's say you make $75K per year. Around this area, it is difficult for a family to survive on that salary.
...and yet, that's well above median income even for a family of four. You say you don't have extravagant spending habits, but if you think it's difficult to live on $75K/year then you must be doing something wrong. If nothing else, you're living in an area that's above your means and should move. We can't all live in Beverly Hills, you know.
Taxation is stealing no matter how you look at it. When one person or entity takes something from one person or entity without their consent, that is called stealing.
Again, you're being ridiculous. If I have something that should never have belonged to me in the first place, and I don't consent to its being taken, then by your definition taking it from me is stealing. Here in reality, property rights are defined by law and stealing is defined as taking something that is not yours by law. If the law reassigns ownership, e.g. during divorce or bankruptcy proceedings, then taking it is not stealing regardless of whether you consent. That does not mean that all property is communal or any stupid strawman such as F&L presents, because the government is bound by law too and the laws that we have actually tend (too much IMO) toward a "finders, keepers" definition of property rights.
I think the "rich" pay quite a lot. Last time I checked, the highest bracket was something like 35%. That's more than you or I pay, I'm willing to bet.
You assume a lot, and you're wrong. In fact I'm in that highest tax bracket, and my net worth is several times yours (I won't give the exact number) so all of these "class envy" cheap shots just make you look stupid. I am the rich, but I'm the educated rich. I believe and argue as I do because my education included subjects like economics and ethics. I suggest you look into them.
So, let me get this straight...our government spends too much money. Therefore, we should try our best to make a small number of people pay disproportionately high taxes to fund it?
There you go again, assuming your conclusion - in this case that the taxes are disproportionate. We'll determine what's proportionate at the end of the discussion, thank you very much, not at the beginning.
Actually, I hate taxes of all types...even those paid by other people. The way you seem to look at it is, you don't care about the tax...as long as someone else pays.
Now you just look stupid again, because the taxes we're talking about will affect me far more than you. Retaining the estate tax also happens to be fairer and more economically beneficial than the alternative, though, and I don't always argue from self-interest like some people. I especially don't argue from delusional self-interest, like those who seem to believe they'll be among the few "lottery winners" in a less equitable system even though all empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Most of them will be in the bottom half no matter what our economic system looks like; they need to stop blaming Big Bad Gummint for their lack of success and actually take responsibility for their own outcomes. I did, and that's why I'll be OK with or without an estate tax.

I also notice that you, like the others, are afraid to offer any alternative that is both politically and economically feasible. It's easy to suggest alternatives that might work in fantasyland (or sometimes not even then) but it's not very useful. Yet again, I'll repeat my earlier questions. Why is it better to make Paris Hilton's inheritance tax-exempt and then tax her consumption instead of the other way around, and who else do you want to screw so she can have wealth without ever having done anything to earn it?

T
Here in reality, property rights are defined by law and stealing is defined as taking something that is not yours by law. If the law reassigns ownership, e.g. during divorce or bankruptcy proceedings, then taking it is not stealing regardless of whether you consent. That does not mean that all property is communal or any stupid strawman such as F&L presents, because the government is bound by law too and the laws that we have actually tend (too much IMO) toward a "finders, keepers" definition of property rights.That's because you refuse to understand that property rights are required for freedom to exist. THe government is bound by law, but you want to substitute the laws set forth in the constitution with some unconstitutional, twisted utopian fantasy version of environmental, communal, fuedalistic nonsense. Some form of federal taxation is necessary, but it should only provide that which is constitutionally mandated. Both of us hate it, but you're a socialist plain and simple.

Why is it better to make Paris Hilton's inheritance tax-exempt and then tax her consumption instead of the other way around, and who else do you want to screw so she can have wealth without ever having done anything to earn it?Because, unlike inheritance tax or death tax or any other federal tax, consumption tax is completely voluntary. Let's eliminate dozens of programs so government doesn't need to steal from Paris. She receives no benefit from the vast majority of them, so why should she have to pay for them? The common good, nor the general welfare clause justify theft from anyone.

That's because you refuse to understand that property rights are required for freedom to exist.
Untrue on three points. First, I understand the theory just fine; I merely see the logical flaws in it and therefore refuse to accept it. Second, what I reject is a very particular absolutist definition of property rights; I do more to support reasonable definitions than you ever will (see the Kelo thread for an example). Third, I reject the notion of property rights as a basis of other rights but that doesn't mean I reject them entirely. Property rights are a form of freedom, but they can exist (or not) independently of other forms.

Of course, you knew all that. You just got tired of getting pounded into a tiny greasy spot every time you tried to dispute what I really believe, so you made up a more convenient set of beliefs and attributed them to me.

Because, unlike inheritance tax or death tax or any other federal tax, consumption tax is completely voluntary.
Nope. You can decline an inheritance. It's voluntary too.

Repeal of the death tax is not about Paris Hilton. It's about her parents' ability to direct where they want the fruits of their lives' labors to go. If I am wildly successful, and accumulate vast wealth by working hard and taking big risks, I wouldn't want a government vulture just waiting for me to die so he could swoop in and take a huge chunk of it. The government did nothing to earn that money, and if I don't want to give it to them, they shouldn't be able to confiscate it.

Repeal of the death tax is not about Paris Hilton. It's about her parents' ability to direct where they want the fruits of their lives' labors to go. If I am wildly successful, and accumulate vast wealth by working hard and taking big risks, I wouldn't want a government vulture just waiting for me to die so he could swoop in and take a huge chunk of it. The government did nothing to earn that money, and if I don't want to give it to them, they shouldn't be able to confiscate it.

So you'd rather they "confiscate" it while you're working, reducing your capital and limiting your options to become "wildly successful"?

So you'd rather they "confiscate" it while you're working, reducing your capital and limiting your options to become "wildly successful"?

I'd rather they tax what I buy instead of what I earn so I can opt out of paying taxes if I wish. I'd rather they reduce spending so they don't take as much in the first place and so they'd reduce the influence they have over everyday life. I'd rather be in control of what I pay for.

All Money has already been taxed if your going to take that view. The money you are paid when you work has already been taxed. However thats a pointless argument. Its not the money that is being taxed, Its YOU. And YOU haven't been taxed yet for the inheritance money.

Hugs

lilnymph

I'd rather they tax what I buy instead of what I earn so I can opt out of paying taxes if I wish. I'd rather they reduce spending so they don't take as much in the first place and so they'd reduce the influence they have over everyday life. I'd rather be in control of what I pay for.

And perhaps the government could opt out of letting you use things the money is spent on too? maybe decide that you personally can't use roads on some days? ;)

hugs

lilnymph

Untrue on three points. First, I understand the theory just fine; I merely see the logical flaws in it and therefore refuse to accept it. Second, what I reject is a very particular absolutist definition of property rights; I do more to support reasonable definitions than you ever will (see the Kelo thread for an example). Third, I reject the notion of property rights as a basis of other rights but that doesn't mean I reject them entirely. Property rights are a form of freedom, but they can exist (or not) independently of other forms.

Of course, you knew all that. You just got tired of getting pounded into a tiny greasy spot every time you tried to dispute what I really believe, so you made up a more convenient set of beliefs and attributed them to me.What you really believe is unconstitutional and has been adequately disputed. You simply find it easier to deny the facts and create your own greasy reality. If the federal government were given the power you wish, at what point would you consider taxation an afront to freedom? 10%, 25%, 50% ...where should it end? Most liberal socialists at least have the balls to say that the constitution is just a piece of paper and we don't really have to pay any attention to it.

Nope. You can decline an inheritance. It's voluntary too.The difference is that other forms of taxation aren't voluntary.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.You obviously don't understand this or conveniently choose to ignore it.

All Money has already been taxed if your going to take that view. The money you are paid when you work has already been taxed. However thats a pointless argument. Its not the money that is being taxed, Its YOU. And YOU haven't been taxed yet for the inheritance money.

Hugs

lilnymphYou are being taxes on the amount of money you inherit. With a consumption tax everyone, except those below the poverty level, will pay federal sales tax. The amount of money you have, or may inherit should be of no concern to government until it's voluntarily spent.

You are being taxes on the amount of money you inherit. With a consumption tax everyone, except those below the poverty level, will pay federal sales tax. The amount of money you have, or may inherit should be of no concern to government until it's voluntarily spent.

Why? Why should hoarding money be rewarded but spending it be punished? Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy stuff without having to pay a toll to the government? Why do you hate commerce? Why should it be penalized?

You know why Republicans always drive up the public debt?

Your explanation is stupid.

One thought, that is legitimate, is that by running up debt it will force the democrats to deal with it when they inevitably get back in power and hence they won't be able to create any new {and doomed to failure** govenment programs.

One thought, that is legitimate, is that by running up debt it will force the democrats to deal with it when they inevitably get back in power and hence they won't be able to create any new {and doomed to failure** govenment programs.

I ROBBED THAT STORE SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A BETTER INVENTORY!

Your explanation is stupid.


Oh, I'll say.

I ROBBED THAT STORE SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A BETTER INVENTORY!

.

You know...the explanation I provided to you doesn't make my side look good.

But that is the funny thing about you guys. You can never recognize anything that doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.

The difference is that other forms of taxation aren't voluntary.
Now you're contradicting yourself, when you said "consumption tax is completely voluntary" in a previous post. Anybody can see that you're confused.
You obviously don't understand this or conveniently choose to ignore it.
You obviously didn't see the "without due process of law" and "without due compensation" parts, or conveniently chose to ignore them. There's a reason the amendment doesn't say "under any circumstances whatsoever"; it recognizes that some government takings are justified, and anybody who can't see that is in no position to be criticizing anyone else's understanding.

Now you're contradicting yourself, when you said "consumption tax is completely voluntary" in a previous post. Anybody can see that you're confused.

I know people with retail businesses, and they really, really hate being tax collectors for umpteen levels of local, county, state, and Federal tax authorities, and imposing another 10%-15% tax on top of already high sales taxes is just stupid any number of ways, but, it's in all the Libertoon editorials and shill rags like National Review, so the nonsense is going to be repeated over and over as gospel from on high. Many of these people are looking with envy on Oregon's tax system, not crackpot nonsense like the bogus 'Fair Tax' scam. Not necessarily the same rate levels as Oregon, of course, but something that puts the burden of collection on somebody besides the little guys.

Thankfully, sane people are starting to look at many of these taxpayer subsidized 'free trade' deals, like the massive 'NAFTA Superhighway' boondogle, and seeing that they are little more than intracompany transfers and have little to do with actual 'trade', so maybe in the coming decade there will be a return to tariffs in some degree. There is not really a lot of steam behind repealing the estate tax, and the Bush plan of looting the treasury for our own good' is falling kind of flat, even in a corrupt Congress.

The government is grabbing moiney from the working public at the highest level in history, while running up a billion a day in interest on the debt. They are awash in revenues, yet as usual, it's never quite enough.

They need to get their greedy hands off of OUR cash (or electronic credits and debits; which is what about 96% of our "money" really is). Abolishing the estate tax is a good step no matter who's behind it, because any time we can reign in the heavy hand of government, especially when it comes to our m oney, we win.

Sure, the rich will make out better, but they make always out better no matter what happens to the tax code. They stay rich, and if the tax burden gets too high, they move the money offshore,or lock it up in tax free and tax deferred investments such as municipal bonds. They're paying the burden anyhow, because regular people simply don't have access to the kind of revenue that the government needs to devour endlessly.

If someone inherits some land or any other estate of any kind, they shouldn't be taxed on it at such high rates, if at all. They can actually get taxed up to 60% and higher on large estates, and that's just plain wrong. The taxes on those estates have already been paid, and the government is engaging in double taxation on the survivors, who just happen to be fortunate enough to have aquired a nest egg. They should be allowed to keep it, and spend the money as they see fit.

The government claims that they know best how to spend the money, but history has proven time and time again that they don't; although they are well adept at squandering the life savings of hard working people.

It's time for the US to stop paying for the entire world to operate. That's what we do, and many countries feel that we're obligated to do so. We already police the world, because no one else has the will or firepower to do it. We buy China's products so that they can move from the stone age into the space age. Without us, they're done. Unfortunately, without them, we're done too, because we don't manufacture at nearly the level we used to.

The government is grabbing moiney from the working public at the highest level in history, while running up a billion a day in interest on the debt.


Cutting taxes while paying interest on an out of control debt just means that you'll pay more interest on the debt. The time to worry about taxes isn't while you're paying them, it's before you're paying them, while your government is spending money like a drunken sailor.

We were paying down the debt five years ago. Every since then, we've been running record new high debts. What do you think changed?

We were paying down the debt five years ago. Every since then, we've been running record new high debts. What do you think changed?

The dot-com collapse, Clinton's recession, 9/11, the successful war on terror, Bush's reluctance to reign in Congress' spending.

Cutting taxes while paying interest on an out of control debt just means that you'll pay more interest on the debt. The time to worry about taxes isn't while you're paying them, it's before you're paying them, while your government is spending money like a drunken sailor.

We were paying down the debt five years ago. Every since then, we've been running record new high debts. What do you think changed?

We weren't paying down any debt five years ago. We were creating more of it, as the record shows. There has not been a single year over the past five, or even twenty years where the debt dropped by a single cent. Also, many Americans don't even know the difference between the annual deficit and the national debt, which leads to the spreading of even more disinformation.

Our current deficit, as large as it seems is only about 2.6% of GDP, which is more than managable. It's comparable to someone making 50,000 a year owing out about 1,300 dollars, which is nothing. put in the proper perspective, it's easy to see that the deficit is no great threat to our economy. The debt is another story, but it will NEVER be paid, nor does it have to be. It could be monetized at the stroke of a pen if necessary, which would create hyperinflation, but that's not going to happen either.

Waht will happen ultimately is tax increases to cover the interest on the debt, followed by a recession, which occurs anyway roughly every ten to eleven years like clockwork. Again, history proves this to be the case.

We had recessions in 1970, 1981, 1990, and 2001. Youi can bet we'll have another around 2010 or 2011. It's a cycle that always repeats itself.

The so called balanced budget of the mid nineties was a paper projection that left many factors out of the picture, and never really existed in real dollars.

Cutting taxes has always increased revenue for many reasons. The problem isn't, and never has been tax cuts at all, but out of control spending by Congress, and NOT presidents, because presidents by law cannot spend a dime. The more revenue we create,the more the spending increases. History has proven this to be an undeniable fact, regardless of what people may claim.

This notion that we must "pay for" tax cuts is nothing but leftist propoganda, because they always pay for themselves many times over through job creation, which creates more taxpayers and investment and entrepenuerism, which also creates revenue.

The politicians know full well that we're awash in revenues, as we have been under every tax cut this century. There were four. The first was under Calvin Coolidge, the second under JFK, the third under Ronald Reagan, and the fourth under George W. Bush. Yet they continue to lie and pretend that we're somehow hurting for money, when the problem is on the spending side. Politicians just can't resist spending every penny that they collect, and more; much more. I would suggest to ignore the propoganda and look at the numbers. They don't lie, but people do, as they will continue to. We're now operating at almost a trillion dollar budget, when in 1980 it was roughly half of that. It has grown each and every year under presidents of both parties.

Creating envy of the wealthy is a great way to secure votes for Democratic candidates, and they do it time and time again in order to retain power. Most of the time, it works at the Congressional level, along with gerrymandering of districts. Those two tactics work veryu well to create career politicians.

The last time the US was debt free was when Andrew Jackson was president. That gives an idea of how long this has been going on. So when you hear a politician claim that tax cuts are only helping the rich, and are driving up the debt, know that you're being lied to, check the real numbers, include the money stolen from Social Security by both parties, and calculate the real bottom line.

"The rich" aren't the problem; politicians are. To punish those who succeed destroys job creation and reduces federal revenues, because the rich are, and always have payed the overwhelming majority of revenues almost from the very inception of the income tax. It also slows down the development of new technologies and the rate at which they make their way to the average consumer, which slows down the overall growth of the economy.

Politicians bash the rich to divert the blame that belongs on their own shoulders. They aren't the answer; they're the problem.

If someone inherits some land or any other estate of any kind, they shouldn't be taxed on it at such high rates, if at all.
OK then, how about this? If it's income (which it is to the inheritor) then tax it as income. That means a lower rate, but it also means giving up the $2M exemption (actually $3M if the lifetime gift exemption is also considered). It most certainly does not mean making it exempt from taxation entirely.
The taxes on those estates have already been paid,and the government is engaging in double taxation on the survivors
Have the survivors paid tax on it before? No. Then it's not double taxation. How many times must that stupid canard have to be refuted before the lesson penetrates?
who just happen to be fortunate enough to have aquired a nest egg
In other words, who "just happened" to have been born into a higher economic class, and the notion of inheritable class seems just fine to you. It's a good thing our founders felt differently, or we wouldn't be able to have this conversation.

Turning Career Politicians into an Inherited Class (which is what giving them access to the hard earned and saved wealth of private citizens actually is) is far more dangerous than allowing individuals to decided to whom they should bequeath the assets upon which they have ALREADY BEEN TAXED. I would rather see a small business, farm, or family home stay in the family than squandered by politicians to BUY VOTES.

The dot-com collapse, Clinton's recession, 9/11, the successful war on terror, Bush's reluctance to reign in Congress' spending.


Wow..

Why? Why should hoarding money be rewarded but spending it be punished?Money is property and we sould be allowed to own property without government interference,

Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy stuff without having to pay a toll to the government? Up to the poverty level you can. Why can't I make money without paying a toll to goverment?

Why do you hate commerce?I don't. It's just a fairer, easier and less invasive way of collecting taxes.

Why should it be penalized?Commerce wouldn't be penalized at all. Other than collecting the sales tax, nothing changes for them.

Now you're contradicting yourself, when you said "consumption tax is completely voluntary" in a previous post. Anybody can see that you're confused.No contradiction intended. Consumption tax is voluntary, the current forms of taxation are not voluntary.

You obviously didn't see the "without due process of law" and "without due compensation" parts, or conveniently chose to ignore them. There's a reason the amendment doesn't say "under any circumstances whatsoever"; it recognizes that some government takings are justified, and anybody who can't see that is in no position to be criticizing anyone else's understanding.I would never ignore them. This portion of the 5th amendment hasn't been followed for decades and Kelo is just another example of that. How does paying for someones elses medical care, or someones retirement, or someones welfare, or the interest on the debt compensate me? There are legitimate reasons for the government to take property, but owning too much of it shouldn't be one of them.

Turning Career Politicians into an Inherited Class (which is what giving them access to the hard earned and saved wealth of private citizens actually is) is far more dangerous than allowing individuals to decided to whom they should bequeath the assets upon which they have ALREADY BEEN TAXED. I would rather see a small business, farm, or family home stay in the family than squandered by politicians to BUY VOTES.

Once again, Assets aren't Taxed. PEOPLE are taxed because of assets. Its only double taxation if YOU are forced to pay tax on the same asset twice. When you are paid by the company you work for, they will have already paid tax on the money they give you. Why aren't you complaining about this double taxation? How is this any different?

hugs

lilnymph

OK then, how about this? If it's income (which it is to the inheritor) then tax it as income. That means a lower rate, but it also means giving up the $2M exemption (actually $3M if the lifetime gift exemption is also considered). It most certainly does not mean making it exempt from taxation entirely.

Have the survivors paid tax on it before? No. Then it's not double taxation. How many times must that stupid canard have to be refuted before the lesson penetrates?

In other words, who "just happened" to have been born into a higher economic class, and the notion of inheritable class seems just fine to you. It's a good thing our founders felt differently, or we wouldn't be able to have this conversation.

Millions of average income people inherit properties and estates that happend to appreciate significantly. My father built his house himslef in 1954 for less than 12,000 dollars on a 25 year loan. It's probably worth at least 200,000.00 now in this market. That doesn't make me, or any of my siblings rich by any standard. That's a misnomer.

So many people have been taught, or brainwashed into believing that people who have aquired money either inherited it, or somehow aquired it by doing something wrong or unethical. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this is absolutely false.

My Dad died over 5 years ago, but had he sold his 12,000 dollar house and made a big profit, that would in no way change the fact that in his whole life, he never earned over 35,000 dollars a year, which he worked very hard for as a simple carpenter.

My grandfather worked in a stone quarry doing backbreaking work for over 40 years, and collected social security alone for his retirement, which lasted about a year before he died. His wife collected for less than one more year, then she died. Niether were ever rich, yet they did buy some cheap land long ago that just happened to appreciate dramatically.

Class envy is the same old worn out tactic used to promote certian taxes, and in reality, many of the people being targeted struggled their entire lives just to put food on the table. It doesn't fly, and anyone willing look into the figures can see the truth. Most Americans will never get rich. If they happen to get a couple hundred thousand in their old age by selling a piece of land that they bought years ago, they should be allowed to enjoy it before they die, and pass it along to whoever they choose without the government snatching it away.

I for one am glad that gifts can't be taxed, and that there are good reasons that certian stipulations and exemptions apply in certian cases. It's to protect average people from being robbed from the government.

It just amazes me how many people actually believe that if successful people have to pay more taxes, that they will somehow be better off, when the truth is, it won't affect most people one way or another. The truth is that many people think that it's unfair that others have done better than they have, and they somehow want to "get even" and punish them, evenm though it won't change their own lives one bit. It's the epitome of JEALOUSY.

Trying to "make things right" after the people who earned the money are dead and gone is pointless, and the only people who benefit from it are those in government, who for the most part squander the money anyway. They put it in one of their ratholes, then stick their hands out trying to grab more, so that they can squander that as well.

Capitalism doesn't work by having a level playing field. It can't work that way, and tryinmg to create something like that usually winds up taking from those who need the money the most. The government certianly doesn't need more money. they need to slash their out of control spending and implement some real discipline, instaed of concocting new and better ways to squeeze all of the money they possibly can from average citizens.

People on unemployment always seem to find work rather quickly when the benefits run out, so instead of encouraging non production by paying people to do nothing, we should spend those resources helping people find work from the start. Granting temporary benefits is fine, but it should be done fopr the shortest possible duration, so that the dignity of those affected can be restored as soon as possible.

No one ever succeeds by living off of their fellow citizens. Better to spend that money on those who are truly incapacitated and unable to work, while helping the able bodied back on their feet, while leaving the life savings of the dead where it belongs, which is in the hands of their heirs, who the dead in question decided should receive it.

Those who desire to leave their money to the government are free to do so. I can assure you that the government would be more than happy to oblige them in their wishes. Those who feel that they're undertaxed are also free to give the IRS as much money as they see fit. No one will stop them.

As for the rest of us, the government should leave us alone to work, to save and invest our money as we see fit, and decide for ourselves who we think should receive the fruits of a lifetime of hard work. That's true freedom, and the more we're dictated to as to how we should spend our own money, the less freedom we have. taxing the dead was a bad idea from the beginning, and it's time to put an end to it.

After all, the dead were taxed all of their lives, and despite that fact, some were able to sock away something for their heirs. Let's honor their wishes and keep our paws off of their hard earned money. The country will survive without it. We've taken enough, and enough is enough.

Turning Career Politicians into an Inherited Class
That's just gibberish. Political office is not inherited in this country. Elections must still occur. In cases where multiple people from one family have held office, it is because wealth was inherited and is too readily converted into political power - not because the office itself was inherited. Comparing the government's interest in taxing inheritance to the inheritor's interest is just

:bs:

but it's what I've come to expect.


P.S. The "envy" rant wasn't even worth that much of a response, since that particular pile of horse-droppings has already been addressed.

I couldn't care less who is "behind" the repeal. As long as it succeeds! What an un-American tax!

The death tax tax is nothing but a class warfare, socialist tinged piece of junk.

I couldn't care less who is "behind" the repeal. As long as it succeeds! What an un-American tax!

The death tax tax is nothing but a class warfare, socialist tinged piece of junk.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

But liberals and class eviers needn't worry, there are plenty more weapons in the class warfare arsenal to be used, even if this "taxation without respiration" is eventually repealed, as it should be.

They can always claim that people are in poverty because the wealthy have all of the money, as if there is a finite amount (as there used to be under the gold standard, before there was such a thing as inflation and fiat money).

They can continue to propogate the lie that most wealthy people are unethical and were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Although this is true in many cases, most people earned their money through good old fashioned hard work, and smart investing.

They can continue to try and convince people that taxing the rich will miraculously change the circumstances of the poor overnight, even though 4 or 5 minutes of critical thinking on the idea would lead anyone to the conclusion that this is just completely unrealistic, and would only boost federal revenues by a small percentage and stifle investment, jobs and overall economic growth. It would have a reverse effect, which would thenm be used to bash the wealthy even more.

They can continue the lie that the middle class and the poor are paying the majority of federal revenues, and that the rich aren't paying their "fair share", when a closer look obviously shows that the rich are carrying the government more than anyone, due to the fact that the poor don't have nearly enough money to fund the huge budget that we currently have.

They can propogate the lie that the rich are racist (even though that word is presented as what is actually called prejudice), and want to keep minorities down, when in fact, it's the left that MUST have a perpetual segement of the population in a poverty class in order to retain power. After all, the left must have someone to promise assistance to, and the middle class has no desire to live off of their fellow citizens.

They can also promise to deliver "free" assistance to these people, when in reality, nothing is free. Someone has to pay for anything that someone else receives.

They can also convince many that they're "underprivelaged, when the word itself is a complete oxymoron.

And ultimately, they can continue the tactic of dividing and conquering, by creating the illusion that a huge gulf exists that cannot be overcome in any way, no matter how hard anyone works to better themselves. Never mind the fact that millions of the poor have picked themselves up, worked hard, and created lives for themselves that are just as good, if not better as anyone else's.

They can continue to accuse black conservatives of being "Uncle Tom's", and that they aren't "real" black people, because they've sold themselves out to "the man", and abandoned their real roots.

The bottom line is, class envy is alive and well, and liberal politicians will continue to use it to convince the lower classes that they have no chance without their help. This is a great injustice to the poor, minorities, and others who fall into particular categories. They're being convinced that they haven't a chance before they even get started at anything. They're being told that they're incapable of making it by their own intelligence and human dignity.

If these lies are repeated over and over, they will be believed, to the detriment of those who belive them. These people are being robbed of achieving their potential through deception.

We need people who will encourage these people, and remind them constantly that they're quite capable of achieving whatever they put their mind to, and are willing to work toward. It's time to get rid of the folks who desire to keep these people down so that they can continue to be reelected and deliver nothing but more lies to the people who need truth more than anyone.