Ostriig on 13/12/2009 at 17:50
Christ. Dura lex sed lex much? Shit like this is truly depressing.
Quote Posted by SD
I don't have any, but supposing I did - what exactly have
they done to merit the entire fruits of
my hard work?
I hope here you're being pedantic with regards to SubJeff's use of the term "merit", and not objecting to the concept itself - whether they deserve the results of "
your hard work", entirely or in part, should be left to
you to decide, as the owner of said already taxed results. Given that we're starting off the premise it's
your hard work, I'd say you merit its control.
You're right that inheritance tax isn't inherently anti-meritocratic. It's only bog standard abusive.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 17:55
Quote Posted by Starrfall
See the REALLY funny thing about that is that in trying to do so you just ended up repeating a variation of a conservative talking point so no one but you got the joke.
It is a talking point, but its a mistake to call it a "conservative" talking point. Its an ideology-neutral talking point, used by anyone who is advocating an authoritarian mentality. And the good Lord knows that an overbearing, authoritarian way of thinking isn't exclusive to any one political faction.
Quote:
You're right that inheritance tax isn't inherently anti-meritocratic. It's only bog standard abusive.
Very true, its all in the administration. Though, here in the US it does provide an inherent advantage to Corporate business because the owner never "dies", and they are therefore never subject to the tax. A good example was the company which made the Slinky: when Richard James died, his family was forced to sell the company to a larger corporation in order to pay the tax.
In other words, the US version of the tax helps the rich more than it hurts them because it hinders effective competition against the "super rich".
SubJeff on 13/12/2009 at 17:55
Quote Posted by SD
Congratulations, you just proved you know
fuck all about what meritocracy is.
I dunno man. Here's some stuff I found on the web for you.
"In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition"
"A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement."
And your offspring have done nothing to benefit from the fruits of your hard work, you are correct. Your attitude is seriously fucked up though. People wonder why families are so splintered these days too. I'm sorry your parents didn't love and nurture you and now you lack any filial piety but please don't crap on your kids because of it. I don't even know any Jews who have this attitude ffs.
As to the cold hard facts stuff; its not that my children will benefit from my work, its that if
I work hard
I should have the choice to do with my wealth what I want.
I'm not talking about double taxation, just extra taxation. I agree with capital gains tax and inheritance tax. I don't agree with sticking a 50% tax rate on people who've only just made it though. You want to put it on the super-rich, fine, but the Lib Dems wanted to put it earnings over 100k. 100k? Insane. And mansion tax is the dumbest thing ever. Just the name... what next, driveway tax, big tv tax? Don't people who would pay mansion tax already pay hella council tax, and probably income tax too?
Look, if we're being strict on the definitions then yes inheritances should not be a feature in a meritocracy. By definition. But by taxing the shit out of people who make it you don't offer any incentive for people to try to make it in the first place. It's like the worst kind of messed up socialism and its this attitude, which Labour share, that mean I'm voting Tory next time, no doubt about it. 5 years ago I never would have said such a thing but Labour have done so much crazy stuff, in and out of the NHS, that there is no way I'd vote for them again. Lib Dems, like I said, have some good (liberal) ideas but some god-awful ones too.
Starrfall on 13/12/2009 at 18:03
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It is a talking point, but its a mistake to call it a "conservative" talking point. Its an ideology-neutral talking point, used by anyone who is advocating an authoritarian mentality. And the good Lord knows that an overbearing, authoritarian way of thinking isn't exclusive to any one political faction.
Ah yes, the very nuanced south park view of politics.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 18:09
Well, sometimes they do make more sense than the mainstream pundits do.
Besides, its hardly nuanced to think that there's intolerant, nasty people on both sides. A simple stroll down your average internet forum is proof enough of that.
edit: Also, nature's creme cookies are superior to Newman-O's
Starrfall on 13/12/2009 at 18:25
That's exactly the point. It's also not very nuanced to assume that since there happen to be nasty people on both sides, both sides must be equally bad.
"Its the rules so too bad for you" is one of the current underpinnings of the conservatives' justifications for preventing people who love each other from getting married, for denying illegal immigrant children health care and education, for accepting unconstitutionally overcrowded prison systems, and for tossing self-medicating cancer patients into those prison systems. (Those obviously vary in degree of acceptance but broadly speaking I think it's safe to say they're party line issues.) What's the equivalent on the liberal side?
(edit: Broader point against south park politics being that its so utterly useless and lazy to just say "oh well both sides are the same" when we still need to pick one side and hopefully have good reasons for doing so. We can't really do that without looking at what actually happens in real life, even if we disagree about what a good reason is.)
SD on 13/12/2009 at 18:32
Quote Posted by Ostriig
I hope here you're being pedantic with regards to SubJeff's use of the term "merit", and not objecting to the concept itself - whether they deserve the results of "
your hard work", entirely or in part, should be left to
you to decide, as the owner of said already taxed results.
In that case, maybe we should abolish tax altogether, let wealth become even more entrenched and ensure that social mobility is close to zero. Recipe for a truly wonderful society, that.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
You're right that inheritance tax isn't inherently anti-meritocratic. It's only bog standard abusive.
Congratulations, you're an imbecile.
Inheritance tax affects about 4% of estates in the UK. Someone inheriting £1m for doing precisely nothing will pay £270,000 tax on that and "only" receive £730,000. Cry me a fucking river.
I'll tell you what really
is abusive, and it's not that the Paris Hiltons of this world have a minor portion of their inheritance appropriated by the state. Abusive is 30% of children in the UK living in poverty. Abusive is an average male life expectancy of 54 in parts of the UK. Abusive is city executives paying less of their income in tax than the people who clean their offices.
Here is (
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/10/inheritance-tax-iht-death) an article from someone who isn't an imbecile.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
And your offspring have done nothing to benefit from the fruits of your hard work, you are correct.
Oh good, does this mean you're going to drop the nonsensical idea that IHT is anti-meritocratic, then?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Your attitude is seriously fucked up though. People wonder why families are so splintered these days too.
'the fuck? Families are so splintered because 4% of them have to pay tax on a whopping great inheritance? I think you just set a new record low benchmark for non-sequiturs on this forum.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I'm sorry your parents didn't love and nurture you and now you lack any filial piety but please don't crap on your kids because of it.
Ad hominems, appeal to emotion... the logical fallacies just keep flowing from you, don't they?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I don't agree with sticking a 50% tax rate on people who've only just made it though. You want to put it on the super-rich, fine, but the Lib Dems wanted to put it earnings over 100k. 100k? Insane.
And now you're hammering the Lib Dems for policies they dropped in March 2006. GG.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
And mansion tax is the dumbest thing ever.
Oh, what's your intellectual argument against it this time? Here it comes...
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Just the name... what next, driveway tax, big tv tax?
Superb. 0.5% tax on house values over £2m is the "dumbest thing ever" because... it has a silly name?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Don't people who would pay mansion tax already pay hella council tax, and probably income tax too?
Not necessarily. But even if they do, so what? The UK has some of the lowest property taxes in the developed world. We also had one of the most inflated housing bubbles. The two are not unrelated.
The super-wealthy might be able to hide their income or corporate profits from the taxman; somewhat more difficult to hide that big pile of bricks and mortar, though.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But by taxing the shit out of people who make it you don't offer any incentive for people to try to make it in the first place.
Eh what? Property taxes don't reduce incentives to work, unlike income taxes.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
It's like the worst kind of messed up socialism and its this attitude, which Labour share, that mean I'm voting Tory next time, no doubt about it.
Translation: I've made
my money, and the rest of you can eat cake.
I'd have far more respect for you if you just admitted you're a greedy bastard.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 18:37
Before addressing your points
Quote:
both sides must be equally bad.
Never said that, I just said that both sides use the "its the rules, idiot" argument. Usually they do this when there isn't any good, logical grounds to defend it on so they simply defer to (legal) authority.
First off, [citation needed].
Second, stuff like (
http://www.expatica.com/de/news/local_news/home-school-family-flees-after-father-jailed-32641.html) arresting homeschooling parents in Germany or putting people in jail for five years because they found a gun.
AR Master on 13/12/2009 at 18:46
high property tax results in archetectual abortions
Starrfall on 13/12/2009 at 18:47
Hahahahah if you need proof that "GOD SAYS GAYS CAN'T GET MARRIED" is used to justify banning gay marriage then I can't help you at all.
Pretty much the same for the others, these are comments that have come up so frequently in their respective contexts that if you need someone else to show you where they come from then I can only assume that you actually do get all of your information from south park.
edit: And if you need to take it international (but you do know that "liberal" and "conservative" don't necessarily mean exactly the same thing everywhere else as they do here, right? Right?) then punishing a girl (or boy) for getting raped is in the picture. Or do you need me to cite that one for you as well?
