I believe you should bracket all of the major taxes. Estate tax should be there but not to cripple those who take over the estate. It should be taxed fairly depending on the kind of assets involved. You can't tax the value of the house at 50% if given to a single heir, the heir may not be able to afford it and who says the value of the house is correct given the up-turn or down-turn of the housing market.
We may feel that our heirs are entitled to 100% of our wealth but the estate tax is fair.
The Estate Tax is a double tax. The money was already taxed once, when it was earned. Now the government is taxing it again. It's double dipping and it applies to everyone, not just the wealthy. Look at George Steinbrenner. He was very wealthy, but had there not been a lull in the estate tax at his time of death, his family would have had to sell their interest in the Yankees to pay the government its second round of taxes on earned income.
I think Gates Senior isn't thinking this through. Yes, begin in the U.S. made his fortune possible, but his investment also made jobs, brought income to the U.S., and a million other advantages. The government taxed the money the first time around, why tax it again? If Gates wants to give it away....more power to him and he's a cool guy. Why should it be mandated though?
This guy just warms my heart: he has his facts straight, acknowledges the roll of the system in allowing him to amass heaps of wealth, recognizes that there's a controversy on the subject, and gives his clear opinion. Hats off to him, I say.
Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
@drizztmay And the cost of your food would skyrocket as the financial burden of for food transport would be shifted, the actual cost of roads would go up as the administration costs would increase dramatically, and some areas just wouldn't get roads so you'd get more people moving into cities and again higher food prices. Same goes for most other services you run like that. ESPECIALLY if you privatize them (that's what happened here - worse service that costs more).
@drizztmay If by 'private' you mean isn't subject to laws, then no, of course not. You can't do whatever you want on your land or with your land. The only countries in the world that let you do whatever the hell you want have no rule of law, and you wouldn't want to live there.
Mr. Bill Gates Sr., sir, direct taxation (such as an estate tax) is money taken by force. It's theft. That makes it an immorality. There are ways to morally fund a limited...let's say Constitution-sized...government that does nothing more than protect the individual liberties of its citizens. If you think there's a crying public need that could use more funding, persuade your son, and others, to fund it *voluntarily.* Don't use the guns of government to steal.
@bradwatson7324 The same kind of fuzzy reasoning can also be applied to ownership. If you own something you're can only stop others from using it at their leisure with force. The government enforces these laws (trespassing, theft), just like they enforce the mandatory paying of taxes. These taxes are levied in return for services received anyway: Roads, police, defense, healthcare (in civilized countries), unemployment, education etc. You are free not to pay them, just leave the country.
We're losing our ranch because of this tax. It's been in my family for 4 generations, and although we don't make a lot of money from it, we'd like to keep it going and continue to pass it down. Some rich multi-millionaire will buy it so he can play cowboy. Thanks for letting us down America.
@Raxarax In some states trusts don't 'die' so they're not subject to death tax. You can set up a trust with your family as trustees (shouldn't be too expensive) and hand over the ranch to that trust.
Personally I'm pro death tax though. Regardless of your awkward situation, for the most part it adds to the government coffers without impacting business, economic growth or the ability for the poor to live comfortably.
@JAROSLAVAGINA Actually, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know GE paid no tax because most of their profits were made OVERSEAS, and most of their write-offs were from bad LOANS by GE Capital!
Their tax status has almost nothing to do with green energy or "cap and trade." So, your global warming Denier propaganda is false again. Duhh???
BTW, I also watch Lawrence O'Donnell & Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
So are you arguing that GE does not receive any kind of tax subsidies and tax credits for "Ecomagination?" And by receiving those tax credits, GE's income tax was not reduced?
In what way does Maddow and O'Donnell attacking GE affect their support of Legislation which will highly benefit GE?
and i'm not a global warming denier. I just happen to have actually read the scientific evidence provided by the cult of the falling sky, and they're conclusions have no evidence to back them.
@JAROSLAVAGINA Listen VAGINA, all that green energy stuff is less than 1% of GE's tax write-offs. Your financial knowledge is as ignorant as your scientific knowledge.
Watch the latest scientific info:
Unwinding "Hide the Decline
/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=channel_video_title
Or search: NASA's Eyes on the Earth: Global Climate Change.
1:47, "The ability to amass a substantial fortune." It's not down to 'abilities', all the people who don't have a fortune, have a lot of abilities. It's down to the family you were born into, the connections you have...
@dewinthemorning While chance affects everyone's fortune, it's utterly wrong to say that fortune does not relate to ability. Nor is it correct to say that it's all about the connections. Bill Gates had some background of wealth, but the deal with IBM that ultimately turned Microsoft into a behemoth was all on his own account, demonstrating remarkable foresight and understanding of the impact of externalities.
@dkt80 Fortune relates to ability only to a certain extent. And I wasn't implying that "chance affects everyone's fortune" entirely. If you think more deeply (or if you have read Marx), you'll have to admit that people who have fortunes are predominantly people, who got inheritance, or the family gave them money to start with and develop their abilities further. The poor... if you think they don't have any abilities, you're mistaken! Also, if you think that ANYBODY can become a president, ditto.
@dewinthemorning Inherited wealth certainly conveys advantages. But I don't take such a strong view on it (I'm from a middle class background btw). Inherited wealth plays a role in the competitive structure of our society like anything else. Each of us is a collection of genes, memes and background. The combination of these ultimately determines success _on a statistical basis_ (i.e. not individually). Gaming the system towards or away from inheritance doesn't really shift the dynamic...
@dewinthemorning ...(cont'd) since inheritance is largely a hysteresis effect (i.e. it simply carries over the success of previous generations to future ones). This is not necessarily a bad thing from the point of view of the population, since you'd want to skew the distribution of resources towards pools that have a history of success. All for the greater good.
There, I used a utilitarian argument to refute Marx ;-).
@dkt80 "Inheritance... it simply carries over the success of previous generations to future ones." Often in the past the 'success' has been the result of dishonesty or exploitation of other people... But I'm not only against inheritance per se, the private ownership of the means of production is, to me, unfair.
Again, there are poor, underprivileged people, through no fault of their own. Don't tell me their gene pool is rubbish, I won't believe you. "The greater good" is no good for them.
@dewinthemorning That's the classic Marxist mistake - talking about the "ownership" of the "means of production". Wealth is not a static quantity which simply gets moved around! Wealth is *produced*. This is why the average living standard of Americans (including poor ones) is so much higher than that of, say, North Koreans. For that matter, contrast North and South Korea. The factory is useless without the mind, means and motivation that drives it. What was Gates' "means of production"?
@dkt80 No need to put the words 'ownership' and 'the means of production' in inverted commas, as if they don't mean anything. I agree, Bill Gates is exceptionally bright, but if you think the motivation for such flashes of good ideas and inventing can result only from the desire for profit, you are, again, mistaken... I think. :)
@dewinthemorning The quotes were there to indicate that I'm quoting Marx's wording, but don't necessarily agree with it. In particular I _don't_ find the term "means of production" to be meaningful (not in the sense he used it).
I'm not arguing that the motivation to build things is exclusively incentivized by profit (although Microsoft certainly was). If that were the case, we wouldn't have the pyramids. However the vast majority of everyday working activities are for profit.
@dkt80 Don't forget, Marx wrote in the 19th century. We don't have to take everything he said as 'holy' or 'sacred'. But I still think that he sussed out good the political economy of capitalism. But what I admire most of him, is his turning on its head the idealistic and religious philosophy of his times - the materialist foundation of human life and thinking. "The vast majority of everyday working activities are for profit" could very well be Marx's words. I like his idea of social evolution.
@dewinthemorning I don't admire Marx. I think his ideas stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of both economics and human nature. Economics, because he doesn't realize that wealth is not the same as the means of production, and that money and resources are only as good as the mind that puts them to use. Human nature, because he imagines that your motivation to put bread on my table is as strong as your motivation to put bread on your own.
@dkt80 Maybe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both economics and Marx's writings. Marx never said that wealth is the same as the means of production. Rather, that the former comes from the private ownership of the latter, which entails exploiting workers and appropriating the surplus value they create. "The money and resources are only as good as the mind that puts them to use" True. If the mind is no good, it goes faillite.
True about human nature, but that's not what Marx imagined
@dewinthemorning Marx imagines this utopia where the marginal cost of production is zero. That's never the case, and in any situation where that's not the case, private interests prevail. And I find the "exploitation" argument offensive: if you don't want to be exploited, don't work for the exploitative employer. Trade (including trade of labor) can only involve willing partners, and consequently it benefits both (even if asymmetrically).
@dkt80 It's very probable you know about Marx's philosophy only from what you've been told. Most people do. His philosophy is often presented in a twisted, and incorrect way. My mention of exploitation is not offensive. It's not that people (capitalists) exploit people, the economic system itself entails creation of surplus value, i.e. more capital. If you are interested, I have a video about the origin of surplus value and accumulation of capital. Not a very good presentation, but still... smth
@dewinthemorning ...and it's unwise to assume from 250-character snippets that I don't know what Marx was talking about. I'll watch your video and critique it when I have the time.
The GOP/Tea Party assume that government programs, paid for by taxes, are an encumbrance to wealth creation, and does not engender it. The Gates family proves this is a myth. Bill Gates Sr. was able to go to college, and become a lawyer because of the G. I. Bill (see Wikipedia), a bill signed by liberal president FDR. This BIG GOVERNMENT program allowed a man to flourish, and as a result Gates Sr. became successful enough to pave the way for Gates Jr., who has produced a lot wealth.
@alphacause the GI bill (something you earn through volunteer service) is much different that "Free Health Care!!!" (something your forced to subsidize where you use it or not). huge difference. epic fail.
@JAROSLAVAGINA If a person pays taxes into a system that provides free healthcare, when their particular job doesn't provide healthcare, and they utilize it, how is that any different? You are participating in the creation of a program, and hence you have the right to benefit from it, especially when you are out of a job.
Earn benefits vs Somebody else is most likely paying for these benefits that the person in question is receiving to a greater extent than the person in question is paying.
@goog2k the suddenly huge increase in wealth inequality was caused by the housing market crash. the housing bubble was created by (are you ready for this? i don't think you are) Big Government Programs (remember fannie and freddie?)
if anything you should be increasing taxes on things like credit cards and consumer spending. if you want to really close the inequality gap, you'll advocate programs which create incentives for savings and investing, not consumer debt as the gov currently does.
@JAROSLAVAGINA Incorrect. The top 1% has been steadily gaining ground on the rest of the US since 1976. The stock market crash wasn't caused by Freddie and Fannie, although they played a part. But yes, government backed private corporations are often a really bad idea. In this instance the regulators put into place rang the alarm bells, and Bush's government ignored them.
Some of the BEST economic multipliers are education, research, and infrastructure. Things private companies do very poorly.
@goog2k also, things like "Green Tax Initiatives" helped GE pay no income tax this past year. And we wonder why MSNBC (a subsidiary of GE) is pro "cap and trade"
the problem with the argument for an estate tax is that many people in the history of this country were born into poverty, and worked hard their entire lives, established a small amount of wealth, and expected to pass on this wealth to ensure their children and grandchildren would have better lives than themselves.
However, as is typical of democrat policy, it is better to keep people down and nurse them for votes, than it is to allow them to create success on their own. see the "safety net".
That's good, they should be able to pass on the benefits to their children, but not so many millions thet never have to work, or are idiots promoted way above their qualifications or abilities just because of their connections, and I'm thinking G W Bush here!!!!!
@Wordavee1 what about the farmer/rancher who has 2 million dollars worth of land which has been in his family for 3 generations. before expenses the ranch never brought in more than $60,000 in revenue, but now that he has passed, his children and grandchildren would like to keep it in the family. However, the 2 million dollar value of the ranch would put the person set to inherit it into the "rich" category, and the inheritance tax prohibits him from inheriting it. please elaborate your posi.
No idea, I'm not a tax lawyer or work for the IRS, I just comment on youtube for the fun of the reaction and don't expect to change the world (or the US tax system) by doing so!!
@JAROSLAVAGINA and the estate tax wouldn't touch the farmer ! get it in your head, the estate tax is for MULTI-MILLIONAIRE, currently at over 5 millions.
EVEN there, that don't mean the children wouldn't inherit millions. If the decease leave 10 million, it would be taxed (grossly without all the tax loophole and deduction) 35% of 5 millions. ie: 1.75 million,that still leave 8.125 million to the "POOR" children.
and the children can retire and do NOTHING for their entire life!
"A man who dies rich dies thusly disgraced." ~ Andrew Carnegie ~
I have to add a suggestion to put a tax in happiness. If anyone had it, he or she must pay tax. If one doesn't have it must receive it as a equivalent of money. THEN everyone must EQUALLY HAPPY although they had unequal properties and money. If everyone has enormous happiness and love I don't care if some few had a all factories and the money. I also assume that the happiness worth more than money.
If you are the child of a millionaire, you will probably already have had a good education, have money in the bank, a car and good connections for a job, shouldn't that be enough? There are people in the US dying because the have no medical insurance, while others have the problem of deciding which Yacht to buy.
The US is one of the most unequal societies in the world & the rich are getting richer & the poor poorer, it is led by greed.
@Wordavee1 the poor stay poor because they are paid to do so through welfare.
the ultra rich stay rich because the gov't will bail them out if they fail and give them loans for free/dirt cheap (interest rates at the banks)
Couple this with war and a gigantic public sector, money is tied up in government nonsense, funded by the taxpayer, who are alwasy burdended with more taxes/fines etc...
Gov't i the problem, needs to be neutered, or abolished. Read Practical Anarchy --Stephan Molyneux
Abolish the government? And then what, Anarchy is only good for the powerful. Who would grow food if someone with a gun could take it from you? Who would open a shop if it could be robbed without police to stop it. Who would be a policeman with no laws to uphold? Who would generate electricity if people just did not pay their bills? Who would build roads if someone could make a roadblock half a mile away and charge for it's use?
Who would defend the country from attack? Think again.
@Wordavee1 Yuo obviously never looked into wha anarchy really is, it's what an honest Libertarian becomes.
If you're ever bored, check out Molyneux's practical anarchy book, he has a free audio version online
I don't think people would be redy for anarchy for quite some time, if ever at all, but the less monopolistic powers we give the gov't, the better. There has to be competition, sound money and liability, gov't offers little, which is why corporations own gov't, benefits them
How do you know? Have you seen such a society, I'd rather think that without greed there are no super-rich who have billions more than the poor, without greed you would have a happier, fairer egalitarian society, with no big winners or loser.
@Wordavee1 And where is the wealth to come from in this utopia? Greed - the desire for material things - is what motivates us to build, manufacture, sell, work. Without these there is no prosperity for anyone. Certainly there are many for whom labor is an act of love, but if there is no relationship between the work you do and the material benefits you receive, then do you really, honestly think that most people will be motivated to be productive?
@dkt80 While I think you are overstating the motivations of work & reward, I don't disagree; there should be a correlation between ability, hard work & renumeration, BUT, does a bank president work 1000 times harder than a bank clerk?
For most people, the motovation to work is to provide a home for himself and family; a person who earns 5 million one year, & gets a 25% raise the next year, and 25% the next when his employees get 2% is not just greedy but immoral & exploitative.
@Wordavee1 I agree with you. The raise differential is unjustified - *if* of course the performance of the two relative to the expectation of their positions was the same. Unfortunately top management do tend to over-reward themselves, partly because of the agency problem and partly because it's easier to reward people you know relatively well.
Remuneration committees are supposed to crack down on this sort of thing, but they tend to be ineffective. But ultimately investors will punish them.
The government doesn't keep the taxes, it distributes the money to various sources. Now if you want to dispute HOW and WHERE the money goes, that should be argument, not wether there should be taxes at all.
@Wordavee1 I'm not saying there shouldn't be taxes. The guy here at work always tries to argue they should abolish all taxes (income, property, etc), department of education, sanitation, state police, fire/emergency, etc. and it drives me nuts.
I was just point out that having the money end up in the hands of the government will make at least half of it go away just in red tape and procedures, before it's even allocated for anything, useful or not.
What happens to a family business? Does the gov't force it to be sold to some Wall Street equity firm? The estate tax benefits huge corporations more than anyone
Dying with millions? It wasn't long ago that the estate tax was 55% for anything over $600,000 in assets. The money to create those estates has already been taxed too at least once. The tax can ruin small businesses and family farms. If folks want to donate their money, then more power to you. Shouldn't be seized by the government merely because they can and some folks supposedly have too much. Not everyone can create fancy trusts to keep controlling their money post death either, Mr. Gates.
When did Bill Gates' dad's opinion become important?
The Estate tax is principally stupid. What right does the government have to tax a parent giving their wealth away to their children? It's just ridiculous. So what if only the rich are affected, the principle remains. It's their money, as long as they earned it legally, what does it matter who they give it to?
The gig is up: the estate tax and other confiscatory income taxes are a creation of the elite whose wealth is not from income both overseas assets to keep the poor and middle class from improving their station and threatening the power of the elite. Taxes are a device to protect the effete.
Two people that profited heavily because of their relationship/ties with the government. And why all public sector workers/ and those who profited because of their ties to government should have their estates taxed at 100%.
Bill Gates, Sr. served on the board of Planned Parenthood. As you may know Margaret Sanger founded Planed Parenthood and was an ardent eugenicist. She wrote in her book "Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography", the following liberal, loving statement: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
@raguila11 she write "We do not want" ... because that is NOT what they do but some could have that idea. not as in "we do have a conspiracy".. why the hell would she write it in a book if she wanted to hide it !
THINK! damn it.. such a hard thing to do ?
another PP basher without a shred of evidence beside theory and smearing from shaddy video editor ideologue (dumb o'keeffe)
I would like to give a big 'fuck you' to mister Bill Gates. Selling the vision of a capitalism with a human face in order to hold on to your own wealth is immoral.
Tax is theft, extortion, and a violation of the non-aggression principle. It's uncivilized & unjust.
If you don't want to die with millions of dollars, you don't have to. You can voluntarily give your money to the government so they can waste it on needless wars, locking peaceful people in cages for victimless crimes, lowering the standards of living for everyone with retarded regulations & coercive government monopolies.
But leave my property alone. I will choose the cause to which I give.
@truthadvocate Taxes pay many of the services you use. If you want to recind ALL taxes, I hope you are perpared to defend your own property, as there will be no police to help you. Or put out your own fire.
@RadarKat73080 There were no police until 1834 in boston not national until 1935. Even then the police were not a political force until after ww2. The world made it pretty far without police. The problem with police is simple they protect and serve the status quo not the people. Further more they are only effective if individuals talk to or comply with police. The constitution prevents many searches and questioning leaving the cops rather pacified. Yes the cops can be useless but i welcom the FD
@anthonyww713 No argument about the cops. Seems like every day there's a report of police brutality on the news. If you sneeze the wrong direction in my town, the cops are over you like syrup on pancakes.
@anthonyww713 Ha, and only someone who'd never opened a history book would want to live pre 1834. You know there are countries without police. Like I said above, these are unsurprisingly shitholes.
You made a strawman argument. anthonyww713 did not say he wants to live pre 1834. He was pointing out that a civilized society can exist without a central coercive monopoly on protection called the police.
You also make another logical fallacy when you assume that the quality of life is better because of the police. Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other more important factors that have improved our lives, ie advances in technology and the creation of wealth.
@truthadvocate My point was there was a reason 1834 was crap, and 2011 is great, this is in large part thanks to the stability of government and police. Police are required as a function of stuffing people in close proximity to one another. Taking police away doesn't reduce crime, and having overly powerful private security appears to increase crime and abuses of power too. It also means that the poor don't have access to justice, and thinking that's good is a pretty disgusting attitude IMO.
People need food. The government doesn't provide everyone with food. Do we all starve? No. There are businesses competing to provide us with food.
The same would apply to any service including protection from criminals & fire. Unfortunately our government forces us to pay it to provide these services. By doing so it gives us no choice. Thus the police & fire department are coercive monopolies with no competitive inventive to serve us well.
@truthadvocate Do you think that if you sign up for police protection and then get robbed, you won't be dropped? I'm not saying that privatizing social services couldn't work, I think we need to evolve as a society a bit more before this can be done.
I'm not necessarily arguing for the privatization of social services. Usually when the government "privatizes" a service, they just transfer the coercive monopoly from one group to another.
I think they should auction off their capital and allow competing companies to figure out how to use it.
I don't think I would choose police as my protection of choice. But what do you mean they would drop me if I was robbed?
@truthadvocate Like insurance. You buy health insurance and then get cancer. You might actually be better off if it killed you because nobody would cover you after you recover. Trust me, I am not a huge fan of government. But I do disagree that "taxation is theft." Money, which is printed and issued by the government not by me or you so how can we say it's ours, only has what value WE assign to it. If we refused money, it would lose it's value and power.
@truthadvocate That argument is so asinine. They've tried private police before - many countries without a functioning police force have them too. It's incredibly expensive, and doesn't work very well.
@truthadvocate you using internet for free is theft. Please stop using it you hypocrite.
If you truly believed what you preached you should show by example that you are one who pays for all the roads and bridges you drive on. One who pays for a private company to police your property, firefighting, schools, mail etc.
You could perhaps take all those 100s of subscriptions to companies with fees and surcharges and shove them up your ass.
So after the government robs me, I should use the money I no longer have to buy services that don't exist, because the government monopoly has forced them out of business? That's impossible. How about just not stealing from me in the first place? Why is that so radical?
I did enjoy your "shove all those subscriptions up your ass" argument.
@truthadvocate "How about just not stealing from me in the first place? Why is that so radical?" you live in a democracy and it turns out, most people are not morons who wants an anarchistic mad max society. You could opt out of the democratically decided rules of this country, bye!
People want a justice system that works, a currency, infrastructure, regulations etc. They want to be able to drive from Bronx to New York without having to drive over some cunts bridge that "costs $800 just today"
You think we have a justice system that works? I don't. You make predictions based on action packed fantasies in movies. I don't. You think only morons would want a mad max society. I agree. I don't want a mad max society either. You think we need a government to print paper money that can easily lose it's value, a monetary system that allows men in high places to steal your wealth and give it to bankers. I don't. I'd prefer a decent medium of exchange that retains it's value.
@truthadvocate your system works well. Wether you agree with every ruling is irrelevant. But you have a system where Exxon cant bulldoze off 10 houses to build a warehouse. They would be sued out of their pants. If you removed the law Exxon could hire the bigger army and win by might.
I think you need a currency that all agree to use administration of this. Anticounterfeiting. Printing etc, designing bills etc. Sure that could be fee #1767 you pay. Or not. I wouldnt, Id let the dollar fail.
I agree with you that no legal system can satisfy me with every ruling. That's not what I'm advocating. Exxon hiring an army to bulldoze houses is another example of chaos, similar to the Mad Max example in which people live in fear, and there is no stability. Once again, I agree with you. I too do not desire chaos.
You are assuming that a government is necessary for law and order. That is a myth. Laws can be created without government. & would result in more justice, not less.
@truthadvocate "You are assuming that a government is necessary for law and order" Im not assuming. I have seen the law and order that you get without a government. I have seen vigalante justice which is free of charge, I have seen justice that you could pay for -that was sold to the highest bidder.
You say that can imagine a system that is better. For whom? The victim? The perp? The majority? The one with the money?
Government or not, guess what is the system that consistently works the best?
You say you've seen all these things. Can you provide me with specific examples that do not involve governments?
Why would anyone feel the need to become a vigilante if the current system works so well?
The U.S. has rarely experienced peace. It is constantly at war. But Ireland had a legal system that was not centralized and it survived without any war for a thousand years. Which works the best? That's a great question. The answer may not be as obvious as you think.
@truthadvocate there are plenty of theatres devoid of rule of government. What power does the government have in Libya for example. Its in the vacuum of government that the chaos thrives. Nigeria, Afghanistan. Jungle tribes. In pakistan 1% pay taxes. They have local mob-rule though where might rules, sorry I meant they have "polycentric law".
Ireland really? They were controlled by kings, england, feudal lords etc NOT an actual democracy. And what would they attack? England, who is a Giant?
"I have seen the law & order that you get without a government" I ask for examples, & you give me examples of conflicts that resulted from oppressive governments.
"Ireland... what would they attack?" Consider nation wide civil war. The U.S. had one that killed hundreds of thousands after less than a century of existence. Yet the surety system in Ireland lasted for a thousand years without one.
But who would enforce the laws? A millitia? How would they be financed? Would they only protect the people who payed & ignore the rest? Or if everyone be made to pay, how is that different to tax?
Government tax is a more efficient system than everyone only paying for the services they think they will need. If you think we need an army & I don't, would you be happy paying, knowing that I would be protected as you can't get an invader to shoot certain people & not others.
These are many excellent questions. It's difficult to explain free market law in a single comment box. To learn more research the following: polycentric law, common law, watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
Details of a free market legal system would be determined by consumer choices. But here's an example. Bob stabs Dan. Dan is poor. So Tom, the investor, pays a court to resolve dispute. Court finds Bob guilty & orders Bob to pay Dan restitution. Bob pays. Dan shares restitution with Tom.
Who enforces the decision of the court if Bob refuses to attend & says stuff you Dan?
Or Bob is a serial "stabber" he pays the money & goes on to stab several others, paying them off as he goes. Does he go to prison, who pays for the prison & his warders?
Sorry, decentralisation and privatisation seems to be to be inefficient, inconsistent & dependent on "consumer choices" which could be different fom town to town, so you could be jailed for blasphemy in Texas but not in NY.
Prison is a poor system. It forces victims to financially support crooks.
In a free society, people are free to protect themselves with firearms. If Bob attempts to murder he is more likely to die in the attempt. Thus, Bob is less likely to attempt murder.
But if he pulls it off & ignores court rulings, courts will make the public aware. He would then be ostracized, cutting off his access to food, shelter, clothing, water, & legal protection.
Oh get real!! Have you never heard of the Mafia, the Chicago Gangeters, the Tongs, the Colombian drug barons? Never heard of Papa Doc, Idi Amin, Mugabe,Pinochet As soon as there is a power gap, it is filled with opportunist thugs. Try ostracising them!! The country would be like Afganistan, controlled by warlords, ruled by whoever had the biggest guns and the most ruthless henchmen, you are naive to think such a system would work.
Such a system did work for a thousand years in Ireland.
Chicago gangsters resulted from government control. The government imposed the prohibition of alcohol. By artificially lowering supply, the government created incentive for criminals to get involved, to sell it for immense profit, & to fight bloody turf wars. It was easy for the mafia to create a monopoly on protection because all they had to do was to buy off the centralized police.
"Such a system did work for a thousand years in Ireland" Source? What system, warlords?
You picked out one example out of all the ones I mentioned and still got it wrong.
The gangsters simply saw an opportunity & took advantage of it. If you take away a police force & a system of justice which depends on policing by consent, plus civil & criminal laws, and replace it with a sort of community concience, as you seem to be advocating, there'd be open house for criminals.
As I mentioned, type watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0 into the youtube search bar. View the video "Obliterating Statist Myths Episode One" (parts 1 through 5) In the video description, there is a list of sources.
I noticed you are critical of religious dogma. So am I. It seems to me like you are clinging to your own religious dogma. The belief that we need the state. That without the state, our existence would be a sort of hell on earth.
@truthadvocate yes some goverment control has been disasterous. But no government is not the answer. Better government is the answer. You dont cut off your nose to spite your face.
Think about robber gangs raiding the country. You have no FBI no police. Everyone is a "vigalante deputy" and shoots a lot of civilians because they cant do forensics, canvasing, policing for shit. I dont have time to lie awake guarding my house every night. I dont have time to police the state. I have a fucking job.
"You dont cut off your nose to spite your face" No, but if my nose had cancer, I'd cut it off. The government is like cancer. It never stops growing & increases human suffering. The best way to improve the service provided by a coercive monopoly is to end the coercive monopoly so service providers can freely compete to provide you with the services you need.
Why do you assume only government agents can do forensics?
You don't have time to raise cattle, yet you eat meat. How?
The law does not vary that much. Murder, rape, burglary, the main ones all have sever punishments.
Prison is a poor system, so we kill them? Or try to rehabilitate them, make them contributing citizens? Dont leave us hanging.
Yes my mom would be great with a gun. Almost no murders end in firefight unless the murderer is stupid or its in your gun-fantasy. We would have no FBI or police to keep track of them.
USA have 65 million with criminal record would I get constant tweets on this?
@truthadvocate While you're obviously insane, and your system of government would be horrible (as if the US system isn't horrible enough, try looking to Europe) I do think the US should trial a libertarian society on a fairly uninhabited bit of land somewhere. Preferably an island. That way you could see within, ohh I'd say about 6 months why a government with some power is a good idea.
I believe people should be free to voluntarily form communities according to their own values & the systems they support. That way as you suggest, we could see whether such a system succeeds or fails. The fact that you would support an effort by libertarians to set up a libertarian island, makes me respect you much more than other critics, even if you expect it to fail.
Unfortunately, governments use coercion to prevent such an effort, because if it succeeds they would lose their power
@moestietabarnak If I have a strong objection to paying taxes, then tax IS theft - the fact that it is the majority thieving from the minority does not change the moral evaluation of the act. The basis of any civilization should be the _voluntary_ participation of its citizens - isn't that what freedom is all about?
@dkt80 it is voluntary, you don't want to pay tax to uncle sam ? simple, go live in another country ! Why would you not pay for the common good you use ?
You have an issue to pay for an apple ? why then having an issue to pay to have road, army,police, and any other service you may use ? ..some service you don't use ? no problem, you pay for those service because the other that do use them pay their part of the one YOU use. Like people without car pay for road.
@moestietabarnak Yeah, see my objection is precisely the mixing of payments. What's wrong with direct payment for services rendered? If I don't have a car, I don't want to subsidize other people's use of roads, and conversely I don't expect them to subsidize my use of public transport. Decentralize the mechanism of government services; this has the happy side-effect of wiping out the grubby center of power where politicians ply their trade (and their special interests).
Why do people need to be threatened with imprisonment to pay for a product or service? Why can't we allow them to choose the products and services they want to purchase? That way they would still be paying the cost of every aspect of civilization they use. And they wouldn't be forced to pay for aspects of civilization that they don't want or don't use.
Forcing people to pay taxes, ensures that government products & services will not reflect the needs & desires of the people.
@truthadvocate They can choose by electing people that want the same thing.
Also, human been fallible and greedy, they would decide, as I said before, not to pay for road because they don't have car. Then strangely you cannot get an IPhone because there is no road to deliver them to you.
@truthadvocate Property and ownership are also enforced with threat of violence, what's your point? You know if you don't want to pay taxes there are actually countries out there that don't charge tax, or have incredibly low rates. You can go there if you want but most of them are shit (surprise surprise).
This gentlemen's arguments might carry if most of the federal outlays went to things like prisons, court systems, or police and regulators, Federal institutions that disproportionately benefit the rich corporate stakeholders.
But that's not where it goes. it goes to welfare, entitlements, and the military, institutions which do NOT benefit fat cats like Bill gates or Warren Buffet.
If we had a truly fair system of taxation, poor and old people would pay more than rich people.
@migkillertwo It DOES profit the rich, by having a stable society, a society where the poorest can survive and BUY their products etc.. That a pretty little mind ya got there, i pity you
We would have a stable society without social security, medicare, and medicaid. Better? maybe maybe not, but we would still have a functioning society where extremely large businesses can exist and prosper.
Furthermore, it doesn't benefit the rich when you tax them and they get back lost money by selling products to eachother. This is just deadweight loss, not economic growth
@migkillertwo an healthy population is a productive population and a consuming population. economic activity aside. Taking care of the elderly and the sick is a sign of mature society. Taking only care of protecting the wealth of the riches is a sociopaths society en route toward repetitive revolution.
if it was what you want, you may never has been able to get an education or having the chance to comment on the internet.
For many the 50s were the golden age of the USA.. tax were up to 90% !
I believe you should bracket all of the major taxes. Estate tax should be there but not to cripple those who take over the estate. It should be taxed fairly depending on the kind of assets involved. You can't tax the value of the house at 50% if given to a single heir, the heir may not be able to afford it and who says the value of the house is correct given the up-turn or down-turn of the housing market.
We may feel that our heirs are entitled to 100% of our wealth but the estate tax is fair.
ysdom 4 weeks ago
The Estate Tax is a double tax. The money was already taxed once, when it was earned. Now the government is taxing it again. It's double dipping and it applies to everyone, not just the wealthy. Look at George Steinbrenner. He was very wealthy, but had there not been a lull in the estate tax at his time of death, his family would have had to sell their interest in the Yankees to pay the government its second round of taxes on earned income.
MewCat100 1 month ago
I think Gates Senior isn't thinking this through. Yes, begin in the U.S. made his fortune possible, but his investment also made jobs, brought income to the U.S., and a million other advantages. The government taxed the money the first time around, why tax it again? If Gates wants to give it away....more power to him and he's a cool guy. Why should it be mandated though?
MewCat100 1 month ago
This guy just warms my heart: he has his facts straight, acknowledges the roll of the system in allowing him to amass heaps of wealth, recognizes that there's a controversy on the subject, and gives his clear opinion. Hats off to him, I say.
FiverBeyond 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
vechorik 6 months ago
Father and son eugenicists????????
ericjaynelson 6 months ago
@drizztmay And the cost of your food would skyrocket as the financial burden of for food transport would be shifted, the actual cost of roads would go up as the administration costs would increase dramatically, and some areas just wouldn't get roads so you'd get more people moving into cities and again higher food prices. Same goes for most other services you run like that. ESPECIALLY if you privatize them (that's what happened here - worse service that costs more).
shraka 9 months ago
Make estate tax high enough and people will end up leaving the country to die!!!
zieben64 9 months ago
@drizztmay If by 'private' you mean isn't subject to laws, then no, of course not. You can't do whatever you want on your land or with your land. The only countries in the world that let you do whatever the hell you want have no rule of law, and you wouldn't want to live there.
shraka 9 months ago
Mr. Bill Gates Sr., sir, direct taxation (such as an estate tax) is money taken by force. It's theft. That makes it an immorality. There are ways to morally fund a limited...let's say Constitution-sized...government that does nothing more than protect the individual liberties of its citizens. If you think there's a crying public need that could use more funding, persuade your son, and others, to fund it *voluntarily.* Don't use the guns of government to steal.
bradwatson7324 9 months ago
@bradwatson7324 The same kind of fuzzy reasoning can also be applied to ownership. If you own something you're can only stop others from using it at their leisure with force. The government enforces these laws (trespassing, theft), just like they enforce the mandatory paying of taxes. These taxes are levied in return for services received anyway: Roads, police, defense, healthcare (in civilized countries), unemployment, education etc. You are free not to pay them, just leave the country.
shraka 9 months ago
Shows what that asshat knows. It DIDN'T happen.
mikerotcherson 9 months ago
Read Raxarax 's comment.
razorflown2 9 months ago
We're losing our ranch because of this tax. It's been in my family for 4 generations, and although we don't make a lot of money from it, we'd like to keep it going and continue to pass it down. Some rich multi-millionaire will buy it so he can play cowboy. Thanks for letting us down America.
Raxarax 9 months ago 2
@Raxarax You should look into handing the ranch over to a trust fund.
shraka 9 months ago
@shraka How is that going to help. I don't know a lot about trust funds, and googling doesn't seem to be of much help...
Raxarax 9 months ago
@Raxarax In some states trusts don't 'die' so they're not subject to death tax. You can set up a trust with your family as trustees (shouldn't be too expensive) and hand over the ranch to that trust.
Personally I'm pro death tax though. Regardless of your awkward situation, for the most part it adds to the government coffers without impacting business, economic growth or the ability for the poor to live comfortably.
shraka 9 months ago
amazing team
archaedemos 9 months ago
Coo honesty no forkedTonguel, no more silverSpons like the Kock brothers.... ; D
rwcbanzai 9 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Actually, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know GE paid no tax because most of their profits were made OVERSEAS, and most of their write-offs were from bad LOANS by GE Capital!
Their tax status has almost nothing to do with green energy or "cap and trade." So, your global warming Denier propaganda is false again. Duhh???
BTW, I also watch Lawrence O'Donnell & Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
They BOTH attack GE regularly.
LOL!!!
goog2k 9 months ago
So are you arguing that GE does not receive any kind of tax subsidies and tax credits for "Ecomagination?" And by receiving those tax credits, GE's income tax was not reduced?
In what way does Maddow and O'Donnell attacking GE affect their support of Legislation which will highly benefit GE?
and i'm not a global warming denier. I just happen to have actually read the scientific evidence provided by the cult of the falling sky, and they're conclusions have no evidence to back them.
JAROSLAVAGINA 9 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Listen VAGINA, all that green energy stuff is less than 1% of GE's tax write-offs. Your financial knowledge is as ignorant as your scientific knowledge.
Watch the latest scientific info:
Unwinding "Hide the Decline
/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=channel_video_title
Or search: NASA's Eyes on the Earth: Global Climate Change.
Then look at Evidence & Key Indicators numbskull.
goog2k 9 months ago
1:47, "The ability to amass a substantial fortune." It's not down to 'abilities', all the people who don't have a fortune, have a lot of abilities. It's down to the family you were born into, the connections you have...
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning While chance affects everyone's fortune, it's utterly wrong to say that fortune does not relate to ability. Nor is it correct to say that it's all about the connections. Bill Gates had some background of wealth, but the deal with IBM that ultimately turned Microsoft into a behemoth was all on his own account, demonstrating remarkable foresight and understanding of the impact of externalities.
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 Fortune relates to ability only to a certain extent. And I wasn't implying that "chance affects everyone's fortune" entirely. If you think more deeply (or if you have read Marx), you'll have to admit that people who have fortunes are predominantly people, who got inheritance, or the family gave them money to start with and develop their abilities further. The poor... if you think they don't have any abilities, you're mistaken! Also, if you think that ANYBODY can become a president, ditto.
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning Inherited wealth certainly conveys advantages. But I don't take such a strong view on it (I'm from a middle class background btw). Inherited wealth plays a role in the competitive structure of our society like anything else. Each of us is a collection of genes, memes and background. The combination of these ultimately determines success _on a statistical basis_ (i.e. not individually). Gaming the system towards or away from inheritance doesn't really shift the dynamic...
dkt80 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning ...(cont'd) since inheritance is largely a hysteresis effect (i.e. it simply carries over the success of previous generations to future ones). This is not necessarily a bad thing from the point of view of the population, since you'd want to skew the distribution of resources towards pools that have a history of success. All for the greater good.
There, I used a utilitarian argument to refute Marx ;-).
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 "Inheritance... it simply carries over the success of previous generations to future ones." Often in the past the 'success' has been the result of dishonesty or exploitation of other people... But I'm not only against inheritance per se, the private ownership of the means of production is, to me, unfair.
Again, there are poor, underprivileged people, through no fault of their own. Don't tell me their gene pool is rubbish, I won't believe you. "The greater good" is no good for them.
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning That's the classic Marxist mistake - talking about the "ownership" of the "means of production". Wealth is not a static quantity which simply gets moved around! Wealth is *produced*. This is why the average living standard of Americans (including poor ones) is so much higher than that of, say, North Koreans. For that matter, contrast North and South Korea. The factory is useless without the mind, means and motivation that drives it. What was Gates' "means of production"?
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 No need to put the words 'ownership' and 'the means of production' in inverted commas, as if they don't mean anything. I agree, Bill Gates is exceptionally bright, but if you think the motivation for such flashes of good ideas and inventing can result only from the desire for profit, you are, again, mistaken... I think. :)
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning The quotes were there to indicate that I'm quoting Marx's wording, but don't necessarily agree with it. In particular I _don't_ find the term "means of production" to be meaningful (not in the sense he used it).
I'm not arguing that the motivation to build things is exclusively incentivized by profit (although Microsoft certainly was). If that were the case, we wouldn't have the pyramids. However the vast majority of everyday working activities are for profit.
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 Don't forget, Marx wrote in the 19th century. We don't have to take everything he said as 'holy' or 'sacred'. But I still think that he sussed out good the political economy of capitalism. But what I admire most of him, is his turning on its head the idealistic and religious philosophy of his times - the materialist foundation of human life and thinking. "The vast majority of everyday working activities are for profit" could very well be Marx's words. I like his idea of social evolution.
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning I don't admire Marx. I think his ideas stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of both economics and human nature. Economics, because he doesn't realize that wealth is not the same as the means of production, and that money and resources are only as good as the mind that puts them to use. Human nature, because he imagines that your motivation to put bread on my table is as strong as your motivation to put bread on your own.
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 Maybe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both economics and Marx's writings. Marx never said that wealth is the same as the means of production. Rather, that the former comes from the private ownership of the latter, which entails exploiting workers and appropriating the surplus value they create. "The money and resources are only as good as the mind that puts them to use" True. If the mind is no good, it goes faillite.
True about human nature, but that's not what Marx imagined
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning Marx imagines this utopia where the marginal cost of production is zero. That's never the case, and in any situation where that's not the case, private interests prevail. And I find the "exploitation" argument offensive: if you don't want to be exploited, don't work for the exploitative employer. Trade (including trade of labor) can only involve willing partners, and consequently it benefits both (even if asymmetrically).
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 It's very probable you know about Marx's philosophy only from what you've been told. Most people do. His philosophy is often presented in a twisted, and incorrect way. My mention of exploitation is not offensive. It's not that people (capitalists) exploit people, the economic system itself entails creation of surplus value, i.e. more capital. If you are interested, I have a video about the origin of surplus value and accumulation of capital. Not a very good presentation, but still... smth
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning ...and it's unwise to assume from 250-character snippets that I don't know what Marx was talking about. I'll watch your video and critique it when I have the time.
dkt80 9 months ago
The GOP/Tea Party assume that government programs, paid for by taxes, are an encumbrance to wealth creation, and does not engender it. The Gates family proves this is a myth. Bill Gates Sr. was able to go to college, and become a lawyer because of the G. I. Bill (see Wikipedia), a bill signed by liberal president FDR. This BIG GOVERNMENT program allowed a man to flourish, and as a result Gates Sr. became successful enough to pave the way for Gates Jr., who has produced a lot wealth.
alphacause 9 months ago
@alphacause the GI bill (something you earn through volunteer service) is much different that "Free Health Care!!!" (something your forced to subsidize where you use it or not). huge difference. epic fail.
JAROSLAVAGINA 9 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA If a person pays taxes into a system that provides free healthcare, when their particular job doesn't provide healthcare, and they utilize it, how is that any different? You are participating in the creation of a program, and hence you have the right to benefit from it, especially when you are out of a job.
alphacause 9 months ago
@alphacause your logic is full of fallacies.
differences again
GI Bill vs "Free Health Care"
Volunteer to get benefits vs don't have a choice
Earn benefits vs Somebody else is most likely paying for these benefits that the person in question is receiving to a greater extent than the person in question is paying.
epic fail.
JAROSLAVAGINA 9 months ago
In 1979, the top 1% got 9% of GDP. Last year the top 1% took 23.5% of our GDP!
Forbes' 400 Americans' combined wealth is now MORE than the combined wealth of 50% of Americans - PolitiFact.
Corporations paid an average 6.6% income tax, and many, like G.E., paid NO federal taxes last year, even though they made $14+ billion!
Then in 2010 American CEO's gave themselves an average 27% raise!
Welcome to our new American "Corporate Plutocracy!"
Yes, GOP/Tea Party, please cut taxes on the rich again??
goog2k 9 months ago
@goog2k the suddenly huge increase in wealth inequality was caused by the housing market crash. the housing bubble was created by (are you ready for this? i don't think you are) Big Government Programs (remember fannie and freddie?)
if anything you should be increasing taxes on things like credit cards and consumer spending. if you want to really close the inequality gap, you'll advocate programs which create incentives for savings and investing, not consumer debt as the gov currently does.
JAROSLAVAGINA 9 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Incorrect. The top 1% has been steadily gaining ground on the rest of the US since 1976. The stock market crash wasn't caused by Freddie and Fannie, although they played a part. But yes, government backed private corporations are often a really bad idea. In this instance the regulators put into place rang the alarm bells, and Bush's government ignored them.
Some of the BEST economic multipliers are education, research, and infrastructure. Things private companies do very poorly.
shraka 9 months ago
@goog2k also, things like "Green Tax Initiatives" helped GE pay no income tax this past year. And we wonder why MSNBC (a subsidiary of GE) is pro "cap and trade"
JAROSLAVAGINA 9 months ago
the problem with the argument for an estate tax is that many people in the history of this country were born into poverty, and worked hard their entire lives, established a small amount of wealth, and expected to pass on this wealth to ensure their children and grandchildren would have better lives than themselves.
However, as is typical of democrat policy, it is better to keep people down and nurse them for votes, than it is to allow them to create success on their own. see the "safety net".
JAROSLAVAGINA 9 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
That's good, they should be able to pass on the benefits to their children, but not so many millions thet never have to work, or are idiots promoted way above their qualifications or abilities just because of their connections, and I'm thinking G W Bush here!!!!!
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 what about the farmer/rancher who has 2 million dollars worth of land which has been in his family for 3 generations. before expenses the ranch never brought in more than $60,000 in revenue, but now that he has passed, his children and grandchildren would like to keep it in the family. However, the 2 million dollar value of the ranch would put the person set to inherit it into the "rich" category, and the inheritance tax prohibits him from inheriting it. please elaborate your posi.
JAROSLAVAGINA 9 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
No idea, I'm not a tax lawyer or work for the IRS, I just comment on youtube for the fun of the reaction and don't expect to change the world (or the US tax system) by doing so!!
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA and the estate tax wouldn't touch the farmer ! get it in your head, the estate tax is for MULTI-MILLIONAIRE, currently at over 5 millions.
EVEN there, that don't mean the children wouldn't inherit millions. If the decease leave 10 million, it would be taxed (grossly without all the tax loophole and deduction) 35% of 5 millions. ie: 1.75 million,that still leave 8.125 million to the "POOR" children.
and the children can retire and do NOTHING for their entire life!
moestietabarnak 9 months ago
The rich will always find a way to get richer no matter what the tax rate.
Besides taxes are an investment in the natiion, state or community, not a penalty.
humanist7117 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"A man who dies rich dies thusly disgraced." ~ Andrew Carnegie ~
I have to add a suggestion to put a tax in happiness. If anyone had it, he or she must pay tax. If one doesn't have it must receive it as a equivalent of money. THEN everyone must EQUALLY HAPPY although they had unequal properties and money. If everyone has enormous happiness and love I don't care if some few had a all factories and the money. I also assume that the happiness worth more than money.
kalimeraHellas 9 months ago
If you are the child of a millionaire, you will probably already have had a good education, have money in the bank, a car and good connections for a job, shouldn't that be enough? There are people in the US dying because the have no medical insurance, while others have the problem of deciding which Yacht to buy.
The US is one of the most unequal societies in the world & the rich are getting richer & the poor poorer, it is led by greed.
Wordavee1 9 months ago 11
@Wordavee1 the poor stay poor because they are paid to do so through welfare.
the ultra rich stay rich because the gov't will bail them out if they fail and give them loans for free/dirt cheap (interest rates at the banks)
Couple this with war and a gigantic public sector, money is tied up in government nonsense, funded by the taxpayer, who are alwasy burdended with more taxes/fines etc...
Gov't i the problem, needs to be neutered, or abolished. Read Practical Anarchy --Stephan Molyneux
GtheMVP 9 months ago
@GtheMVP
Abolish the government? And then what, Anarchy is only good for the powerful. Who would grow food if someone with a gun could take it from you? Who would open a shop if it could be robbed without police to stop it. Who would be a policeman with no laws to uphold? Who would generate electricity if people just did not pay their bills? Who would build roads if someone could make a roadblock half a mile away and charge for it's use?
Who would defend the country from attack? Think again.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 Yuo obviously never looked into wha anarchy really is, it's what an honest Libertarian becomes.
If you're ever bored, check out Molyneux's practical anarchy book, he has a free audio version online
I don't think people would be redy for anarchy for quite some time, if ever at all, but the less monopolistic powers we give the gov't, the better. There has to be competition, sound money and liability, gov't offers little, which is why corporations own gov't, benefits them
GtheMVP 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 ...and yet without greed there is no wealth.
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80
How do you know? Have you seen such a society, I'd rather think that without greed there are no super-rich who have billions more than the poor, without greed you would have a happier, fairer egalitarian society, with no big winners or loser.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 And where is the wealth to come from in this utopia? Greed - the desire for material things - is what motivates us to build, manufacture, sell, work. Without these there is no prosperity for anyone. Certainly there are many for whom labor is an act of love, but if there is no relationship between the work you do and the material benefits you receive, then do you really, honestly think that most people will be motivated to be productive?
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 While I think you are overstating the motivations of work & reward, I don't disagree; there should be a correlation between ability, hard work & renumeration, BUT, does a bank president work 1000 times harder than a bank clerk?
For most people, the motovation to work is to provide a home for himself and family; a person who earns 5 million one year, & gets a 25% raise the next year, and 25% the next when his employees get 2% is not just greedy but immoral & exploitative.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 I agree with you. The raise differential is unjustified - *if* of course the performance of the two relative to the expectation of their positions was the same. Unfortunately top management do tend to over-reward themselves, partly because of the agency problem and partly because it's easier to reward people you know relatively well.
Remuneration committees are supposed to crack down on this sort of thing, but they tend to be ineffective. But ultimately investors will punish them.
dkt80 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 So taxing those kids to give money to the government, that will in no way help any of the dying people in your example is a good thing?
A better plan would be the tax, but instead of the government getting it, the money gets split to all of the state's schools.
squirreljester2 9 months ago
@squirreljester2
The government doesn't keep the taxes, it distributes the money to various sources. Now if you want to dispute HOW and WHERE the money goes, that should be argument, not wether there should be taxes at all.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 I'm not saying there shouldn't be taxes. The guy here at work always tries to argue they should abolish all taxes (income, property, etc), department of education, sanitation, state police, fire/emergency, etc. and it drives me nuts.
I was just point out that having the money end up in the hands of the government will make at least half of it go away just in red tape and procedures, before it's even allocated for anything, useful or not.
squirreljester2 9 months ago
@Wordavee1 Not only that the estate tax isn't 100%.
shraka 9 months ago
What happens to a family business? Does the gov't force it to be sold to some Wall Street equity firm? The estate tax benefits huge corporations more than anyone
ThePoliticalMoose 9 months ago
Get rid of all tax and those who advocate for war will just have to go fight it themselves.
TiMMYSQUibbLES 9 months ago
Dying with millions? It wasn't long ago that the estate tax was 55% for anything over $600,000 in assets. The money to create those estates has already been taxed too at least once. The tax can ruin small businesses and family farms. If folks want to donate their money, then more power to you. Shouldn't be seized by the government merely because they can and some folks supposedly have too much. Not everyone can create fancy trusts to keep controlling their money post death either, Mr. Gates.
MegF142857 9 months ago
Looks like there is a spicy debate going on here.
Any communists/anarchists representing?
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=3NCRZ1iUZBk&feature=feedu
marvelstryfe 9 months ago
When did Bill Gates' dad's opinion become important?
The Estate tax is principally stupid. What right does the government have to tax a parent giving their wealth away to their children? It's just ridiculous. So what if only the rich are affected, the principle remains. It's their money, as long as they earned it legally, what does it matter who they give it to?
98nafets 9 months ago
@98nafets
When did YOUR opinion become important?
Abnormalized 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Abnormalized "When did YOUR opinion become important?"
Never said it was, that's why it's limited to a comment on a Youtue video, not put in front of a large audience or uploaded by ForaTv.
98nafets 9 months ago
The gig is up: the estate tax and other confiscatory income taxes are a creation of the elite whose wealth is not from income both overseas assets to keep the poor and middle class from improving their station and threatening the power of the elite. Taxes are a device to protect the effete.
blogbat 9 months ago
"A man who dies rich dies thusly disgraced." ~ Andrew Carnegie ~
JCJasion 9 months ago
i personally have 300 dollars and drive 10y old polo, but estate tax is unfair just as any income tax is
zahaj 9 months ago
Two people that profited heavily because of their relationship/ties with the government. And why all public sector workers/ and those who profited because of their ties to government should have their estates taxed at 100%.
jag10 9 months ago
Eugenicist Bill Gates meet eugenicist Bill Gates.
jag10 9 months ago
Bill Gates, Sr. served on the board of Planned Parenthood. As you may know Margaret Sanger founded Planed Parenthood and was an ardent eugenicist. She wrote in her book "Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography", the following liberal, loving statement: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
raguila11 9 months ago
@raguila11 she write "We do not want" ... because that is NOT what they do but some could have that idea. not as in "we do have a conspiracy".. why the hell would she write it in a book if she wanted to hide it !
THINK! damn it.. such a hard thing to do ?
another PP basher without a shred of evidence beside theory and smearing from shaddy video editor ideologue (dumb o'keeffe)
moestietabarnak 9 months ago
I would like to give a big 'fuck you' to mister Bill Gates. Selling the vision of a capitalism with a human face in order to hold on to your own wealth is immoral.
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
Tax is theft, extortion, and a violation of the non-aggression principle. It's uncivilized & unjust.
If you don't want to die with millions of dollars, you don't have to. You can voluntarily give your money to the government so they can waste it on needless wars, locking peaceful people in cages for victimless crimes, lowering the standards of living for everyone with retarded regulations & coercive government monopolies.
But leave my property alone. I will choose the cause to which I give.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate Taxes pay many of the services you use. If you want to recind ALL taxes, I hope you are perpared to defend your own property, as there will be no police to help you. Or put out your own fire.
RadarKat73080 9 months ago 15
@RadarKat73080 There were no police until 1834 in boston not national until 1935. Even then the police were not a political force until after ww2. The world made it pretty far without police. The problem with police is simple they protect and serve the status quo not the people. Further more they are only effective if individuals talk to or comply with police. The constitution prevents many searches and questioning leaving the cops rather pacified. Yes the cops can be useless but i welcom the FD
anthonyww713 9 months ago
@anthonyww713 No argument about the cops. Seems like every day there's a report of police brutality on the news. If you sneeze the wrong direction in my town, the cops are over you like syrup on pancakes.
RadarKat73080 9 months ago
@anthonyww713 Ha, and only someone who'd never opened a history book would want to live pre 1834. You know there are countries without police. Like I said above, these are unsurprisingly shitholes.
shraka 9 months ago
@shraka,
You made a strawman argument. anthonyww713 did not say he wants to live pre 1834. He was pointing out that a civilized society can exist without a central coercive monopoly on protection called the police.
You also make another logical fallacy when you assume that the quality of life is better because of the police. Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other more important factors that have improved our lives, ie advances in technology and the creation of wealth.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate My point was there was a reason 1834 was crap, and 2011 is great, this is in large part thanks to the stability of government and police. Police are required as a function of stuffing people in close proximity to one another. Taking police away doesn't reduce crime, and having overly powerful private security appears to increase crime and abuses of power too. It also means that the poor don't have access to justice, and thinking that's good is a pretty disgusting attitude IMO.
shraka 9 months ago
@RadarKat73080,
People need food. The government doesn't provide everyone with food. Do we all starve? No. There are businesses competing to provide us with food.
The same would apply to any service including protection from criminals & fire. Unfortunately our government forces us to pay it to provide these services. By doing so it gives us no choice. Thus the police & fire department are coercive monopolies with no competitive inventive to serve us well.
I want to choose a service provider.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate Do you think that if you sign up for police protection and then get robbed, you won't be dropped? I'm not saying that privatizing social services couldn't work, I think we need to evolve as a society a bit more before this can be done.
RadarKat73080 9 months ago
@RadarKat73080,
I'm not necessarily arguing for the privatization of social services. Usually when the government "privatizes" a service, they just transfer the coercive monopoly from one group to another.
I think they should auction off their capital and allow competing companies to figure out how to use it.
I don't think I would choose police as my protection of choice. But what do you mean they would drop me if I was robbed?
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate Like insurance. You buy health insurance and then get cancer. You might actually be better off if it killed you because nobody would cover you after you recover. Trust me, I am not a huge fan of government. But I do disagree that "taxation is theft." Money, which is printed and issued by the government not by me or you so how can we say it's ours, only has what value WE assign to it. If we refused money, it would lose it's value and power.
RadarKat73080 9 months ago
@truthadvocate That argument is so asinine. They've tried private police before - many countries without a functioning police force have them too. It's incredibly expensive, and doesn't work very well.
shraka 9 months ago
@RadarKat73080 Or deliver your own mail.
Pundit2k 9 months ago
@Pundit2k As Zen-Master Cosmo Kramer taught us; nobody needs mail.
RadarKat73080 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I hope you are perpared to defend your own property, as there will be no police to help you. Or put out your own fire."
or invade your own countries...
CRAPCANNONS 9 months ago
@RadarKat73080 Personally, I'd hire someone to defend me against theft and fire. Job opportunities for everyone!
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 How much do you have to pay this person? And so you're saying that the poor don't deserve protection? Nice.
shraka 9 months ago
@shraka Someone always has to pay. Who's it going to be? Justify your answer.
dkt80 9 months ago
@truthadvocate you using internet for free is theft. Please stop using it you hypocrite.
If you truly believed what you preached you should show by example that you are one who pays for all the roads and bridges you drive on. One who pays for a private company to police your property, firefighting, schools, mail etc.
You could perhaps take all those 100s of subscriptions to companies with fees and surcharges and shove them up your ass.
CognosSquare 9 months ago
@CognosSquare,
So after the government robs me, I should use the money I no longer have to buy services that don't exist, because the government monopoly has forced them out of business? That's impossible. How about just not stealing from me in the first place? Why is that so radical?
I did enjoy your "shove all those subscriptions up your ass" argument.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate "How about just not stealing from me in the first place? Why is that so radical?" you live in a democracy and it turns out, most people are not morons who wants an anarchistic mad max society. You could opt out of the democratically decided rules of this country, bye!
People want a justice system that works, a currency, infrastructure, regulations etc. They want to be able to drive from Bronx to New York without having to drive over some cunts bridge that "costs $800 just today"
CognosSquare 9 months ago
@CognosSquare,
You think we have a justice system that works? I don't. You make predictions based on action packed fantasies in movies. I don't. You think only morons would want a mad max society. I agree. I don't want a mad max society either. You think we need a government to print paper money that can easily lose it's value, a monetary system that allows men in high places to steal your wealth and give it to bankers. I don't. I'd prefer a decent medium of exchange that retains it's value.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate your system works well. Wether you agree with every ruling is irrelevant. But you have a system where Exxon cant bulldoze off 10 houses to build a warehouse. They would be sued out of their pants. If you removed the law Exxon could hire the bigger army and win by might.
I think you need a currency that all agree to use administration of this. Anticounterfeiting. Printing etc, designing bills etc. Sure that could be fee #1767 you pay. Or not. I wouldnt, Id let the dollar fail.
CognosSquare 9 months ago
@CognosSquare,
I agree with you that no legal system can satisfy me with every ruling. That's not what I'm advocating. Exxon hiring an army to bulldoze houses is another example of chaos, similar to the Mad Max example in which people live in fear, and there is no stability. Once again, I agree with you. I too do not desire chaos.
You are assuming that a government is necessary for law and order. That is a myth. Laws can be created without government. & would result in more justice, not less.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate "You are assuming that a government is necessary for law and order" Im not assuming. I have seen the law and order that you get without a government. I have seen vigalante justice which is free of charge, I have seen justice that you could pay for -that was sold to the highest bidder.
You say that can imagine a system that is better. For whom? The victim? The perp? The majority? The one with the money?
Government or not, guess what is the system that consistently works the best?
CognosSquare 9 months ago
@CognosSquare,
You say you've seen all these things. Can you provide me with specific examples that do not involve governments?
Why would anyone feel the need to become a vigilante if the current system works so well?
The U.S. has rarely experienced peace. It is constantly at war. But Ireland had a legal system that was not centralized and it survived without any war for a thousand years. Which works the best? That's a great question. The answer may not be as obvious as you think.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate there are plenty of theatres devoid of rule of government. What power does the government have in Libya for example. Its in the vacuum of government that the chaos thrives. Nigeria, Afghanistan. Jungle tribes. In pakistan 1% pay taxes. They have local mob-rule though where might rules, sorry I meant they have "polycentric law".
Ireland really? They were controlled by kings, england, feudal lords etc NOT an actual democracy. And what would they attack? England, who is a Giant?
CognosSquare 9 months ago
@CognosSquare,
"I have seen the law & order that you get without a government" I ask for examples, & you give me examples of conflicts that resulted from oppressive governments.
"Ireland... what would they attack?" Consider nation wide civil war. The U.S. had one that killed hundreds of thousands after less than a century of existence. Yet the surety system in Ireland lasted for a thousand years without one.
watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate
But who would enforce the laws? A millitia? How would they be financed? Would they only protect the people who payed & ignore the rest? Or if everyone be made to pay, how is that different to tax?
Government tax is a more efficient system than everyone only paying for the services they think they will need. If you think we need an army & I don't, would you be happy paying, knowing that I would be protected as you can't get an invader to shoot certain people & not others.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1,
These are many excellent questions. It's difficult to explain free market law in a single comment box. To learn more research the following: polycentric law, common law, watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
Details of a free market legal system would be determined by consumer choices. But here's an example. Bob stabs Dan. Dan is poor. So Tom, the investor, pays a court to resolve dispute. Court finds Bob guilty & orders Bob to pay Dan restitution. Bob pays. Dan shares restitution with Tom.
No taxes
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate
Who enforces the decision of the court if Bob refuses to attend & says stuff you Dan?
Or Bob is a serial "stabber" he pays the money & goes on to stab several others, paying them off as he goes. Does he go to prison, who pays for the prison & his warders?
Sorry, decentralisation and privatisation seems to be to be inefficient, inconsistent & dependent on "consumer choices" which could be different fom town to town, so you could be jailed for blasphemy in Texas but not in NY.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1,
The law already varies town to town.
Prison is a poor system. It forces victims to financially support crooks.
In a free society, people are free to protect themselves with firearms. If Bob attempts to murder he is more likely to die in the attempt. Thus, Bob is less likely to attempt murder.
But if he pulls it off & ignores court rulings, courts will make the public aware. He would then be ostracized, cutting off his access to food, shelter, clothing, water, & legal protection.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate
Oh get real!! Have you never heard of the Mafia, the Chicago Gangeters, the Tongs, the Colombian drug barons? Never heard of Papa Doc, Idi Amin, Mugabe,Pinochet As soon as there is a power gap, it is filled with opportunist thugs. Try ostracising them!! The country would be like Afganistan, controlled by warlords, ruled by whoever had the biggest guns and the most ruthless henchmen, you are naive to think such a system would work.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1,
Such a system did work for a thousand years in Ireland.
Chicago gangsters resulted from government control. The government imposed the prohibition of alcohol. By artificially lowering supply, the government created incentive for criminals to get involved, to sell it for immense profit, & to fight bloody turf wars. It was easy for the mafia to create a monopoly on protection because all they had to do was to buy off the centralized police.
Power gaps had nothing to do with it.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate
"Such a system did work for a thousand years in Ireland" Source? What system, warlords?
You picked out one example out of all the ones I mentioned and still got it wrong.
The gangsters simply saw an opportunity & took advantage of it. If you take away a police force & a system of justice which depends on policing by consent, plus civil & criminal laws, and replace it with a sort of community concience, as you seem to be advocating, there'd be open house for criminals.
Wordavee1 9 months ago
@Wordavee1,
As I mentioned, type watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0 into the youtube search bar. View the video "Obliterating Statist Myths Episode One" (parts 1 through 5) In the video description, there is a list of sources.
I noticed you are critical of religious dogma. So am I. It seems to me like you are clinging to your own religious dogma. The belief that we need the state. That without the state, our existence would be a sort of hell on earth.
Policing is not by consent.
You have not proven me wrong
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate yes some goverment control has been disasterous. But no government is not the answer. Better government is the answer. You dont cut off your nose to spite your face.
Think about robber gangs raiding the country. You have no FBI no police. Everyone is a "vigalante deputy" and shoots a lot of civilians because they cant do forensics, canvasing, policing for shit. I dont have time to lie awake guarding my house every night. I dont have time to police the state. I have a fucking job.
CognosSquare 9 months ago
@CognosSquare,
"You dont cut off your nose to spite your face" No, but if my nose had cancer, I'd cut it off. The government is like cancer. It never stops growing & increases human suffering. The best way to improve the service provided by a coercive monopoly is to end the coercive monopoly so service providers can freely compete to provide you with the services you need.
Why do you assume only government agents can do forensics?
You don't have time to raise cattle, yet you eat meat. How?
truthadvocate 9 months ago
The law does not vary that much. Murder, rape, burglary, the main ones all have sever punishments.
Prison is a poor system, so we kill them? Or try to rehabilitate them, make them contributing citizens? Dont leave us hanging.
Yes my mom would be great with a gun. Almost no murders end in firefight unless the murderer is stupid or its in your gun-fantasy. We would have no FBI or police to keep track of them.
USA have 65 million with criminal record would I get constant tweets on this?
CognosSquare 9 months ago
@truthadvocate While you're obviously insane, and your system of government would be horrible (as if the US system isn't horrible enough, try looking to Europe) I do think the US should trial a libertarian society on a fairly uninhabited bit of land somewhere. Preferably an island. That way you could see within, ohh I'd say about 6 months why a government with some power is a good idea.
shraka 9 months ago
@shraka,
I believe people should be free to voluntarily form communities according to their own values & the systems they support. That way as you suggest, we could see whether such a system succeeds or fails. The fact that you would support an effort by libertarians to set up a libertarian island, makes me respect you much more than other critics, even if you expect it to fail.
Unfortunately, governments use coercion to prevent such an effort, because if it succeeds they would lose their power
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate Tax is NOT theft. retrain your brainwashed mind. Tax are the cost of civilization.
moestietabarnak 9 months ago 2
@moestietabarnak If I have a strong objection to paying taxes, then tax IS theft - the fact that it is the majority thieving from the minority does not change the moral evaluation of the act. The basis of any civilization should be the _voluntary_ participation of its citizens - isn't that what freedom is all about?
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 it is voluntary, you don't want to pay tax to uncle sam ? simple, go live in another country ! Why would you not pay for the common good you use ?
You have an issue to pay for an apple ? why then having an issue to pay to have road, army,police, and any other service you may use ? ..some service you don't use ? no problem, you pay for those service because the other that do use them pay their part of the one YOU use. Like people without car pay for road.
moestietabarnak 9 months ago
@moestietabarnak Yeah, see my objection is precisely the mixing of payments. What's wrong with direct payment for services rendered? If I don't have a car, I don't want to subsidize other people's use of roads, and conversely I don't expect them to subsidize my use of public transport. Decentralize the mechanism of government services; this has the happy side-effect of wiping out the grubby center of power where politicians ply their trade (and their special interests).
dkt80 9 months ago
@dkt80 You can move to another country.
shraka 9 months ago
@shraka,
"move to another country" What country has no taxes?
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@moestietabarnak,
Why do people need to be threatened with imprisonment to pay for a product or service? Why can't we allow them to choose the products and services they want to purchase? That way they would still be paying the cost of every aspect of civilization they use. And they wouldn't be forced to pay for aspects of civilization that they don't want or don't use.
Forcing people to pay taxes, ensures that government products & services will not reflect the needs & desires of the people.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate They can choose by electing people that want the same thing.
Also, human been fallible and greedy, they would decide, as I said before, not to pay for road because they don't have car. Then strangely you cannot get an IPhone because there is no road to deliver them to you.
moestietabarnak 9 months ago
@moestietabarnak Here here.
shraka 9 months ago
@truthadvocate Property and ownership are also enforced with threat of violence, what's your point? You know if you don't want to pay taxes there are actually countries out there that don't charge tax, or have incredibly low rates. You can go there if you want but most of them are shit (surprise surprise).
shraka 9 months ago
This gentlemen's arguments might carry if most of the federal outlays went to things like prisons, court systems, or police and regulators, Federal institutions that disproportionately benefit the rich corporate stakeholders.
But that's not where it goes. it goes to welfare, entitlements, and the military, institutions which do NOT benefit fat cats like Bill gates or Warren Buffet.
If we had a truly fair system of taxation, poor and old people would pay more than rich people.
migkillertwo 9 months ago
@migkillertwo It DOES profit the rich, by having a stable society, a society where the poorest can survive and BUY their products etc.. That a pretty little mind ya got there, i pity you
moestietabarnak 9 months ago 4
We would have a stable society without social security, medicare, and medicaid. Better? maybe maybe not, but we would still have a functioning society where extremely large businesses can exist and prosper.
Furthermore, it doesn't benefit the rich when you tax them and they get back lost money by selling products to eachother. This is just deadweight loss, not economic growth
migkillertwo 9 months ago
@migkillertwo an healthy population is a productive population and a consuming population. economic activity aside. Taking care of the elderly and the sick is a sign of mature society. Taking only care of protecting the wealth of the riches is a sociopaths society en route toward repetitive revolution.
if it was what you want, you may never has been able to get an education or having the chance to comment on the internet.
For many the 50s were the golden age of the USA.. tax were up to 90% !
moestietabarnak 9 months ago
@moestietabarnak fantastic post.
endauthority 9 months ago
@moestietabarnak lol not all rich people produce goods. thats ignorant.
Ramsez 9 months ago
booooo you suck. asshole
greenghost2008 9 months ago
FIRST
jbstrunk10122 9 months ago