Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?

by Justitia Themis 82 Replies latest social current

• 

  james_woods

  I understand the need to spin some sort of 'hatred for the wealthy,' but that is just a desperate attempt to change the topic and avoid the real issues.

  The real issue is that a certain socialistic (or Marxist) view holds that large amounts of wealth should be confiscated (or prevented from happening in the first place) for the perceived "good" of society.

  Items 2 and 3 from Marx's own 10 elements of communist principles:

  2) - A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

  3) - Abolition of all right of inheritance.

  Whether you call such "hatred" of the very rich or not is pretty much up to your individual taste - but certainly the elements of trying to eliminate or greatly diminish the higher levels of wealth is clearly visible.
• 

  talesin

  A highly complex set of laws and exemptions from laws and taxes has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes.

  Are you deliberately missing this point, JW? The same ppl who have all the money, made up the rules. It's not about true capitalism. It's called "feudalism". The notion of a 'fair marketplace' is just that,,, a notion.

  There is no 'American dream',,,, it's over .... Johnny said it "the dream is over" .... spend a few months researching the trail of wealth from the mid-19th century up till now. I did,,, it was an eye-opener.

  t
• 

  Justitia Themis

  But, are you really saying that the grandparents should not have been able to set up such a trust fund, and that the kid should have the freedom to blow through it removed by law? Really? Wow...how could anyone get THAT out of Jeff's comment?!!!!! Correction: How could anyone who is interested in serious, reasoned debate, get that out of Jeff's commment? Jefferson, however, had some interesting views concerning inheritance. The introduction to my Wills & Trust's casebook has this nice quote: "The earth belongs in usufruct to the living; the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when he himself ceases to be, and reverts to society." (Letter to James Madison, dated Sept. 6, 1789.) (emphasis mine) The views of Jefferson and Blackstone prevailed over John Locke's until the late 80s when the right to transmit or inherit property became constitutionally protected. Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, (1987). There is a medium point of reason between the extremes of socialism and feudalism. History has repeatedly documented that when wealth is held by a select few in a society, disruptions and revolutions result. That's why a thriving middle-class is so important to democracy and the continuing existence of the United States.
• 

  JeffT

  James, I said nothing about what ought to happen legally. I just note a moral difference, one is making a positive contribution to society, the other isn't. As far as I'm concerned this problem is largely self-correcting. Trust fund hippie's kids or grandkids are going to end up having to do it the hardway all over again.
• 

  james_woods

  Are you deliberately missing this point, JW? The same ppl who have all the money, made up the rules.

  What rules are you saying that they made up, exactly?
• 

  Justitia Themis

  What rules are you saying that they made up, exactly?

  Corporations, all financial instruments, all mechanisms of transmitting wealth from one generation to the next, etc., are creatures of civil or municipal laws. So a better question is what rules did they NOT create.

  And of course, if one has access to power via wealth, one will naturally seek to have beneficial rules written into law.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Property rights involve the right to use a good, to earn income from it, the right to transfer it to another party.

  If I do not have the right to transfer my property to someone else, then I do not have property rights. That is all inheritance is, and wills are made to dispose of a person's property according to their wishes while they are still alive. Many of us work very hard not so much for ourselves, but to be able to give good gifts to our children now and later.
• 

  james_woods

  Corporations, all financial instruments, all mechanisms of transmitting wealth from one generation to the next, etc., are creatures of civil or municipal laws. So a better question is what rules did they NOT create.

  These laws were created indirectly from the public vote via congress. They are the basis of legal and economic society in the United States. Are you saying they should be overturned? What would you replace them with?

  a family enters the top 1% or so today with somewhere around $300k to $400k in pre-tax annual income and over $1.2M in net worth.

  Actually, back on the original topic - I think that the issues of class warfare are probably with the top 0.05% (or even less) - the above is not really very much money in modern terms. I would be in the top 1% or so by that kind of measurement and I consider myself only upper middle class at the most. I certainly have never personally influenced any lawmakers to do my will on any particular bill - other than voting.
• 

  james_woods

  James, I said nothing about what ought to happen legally. I just note a moral difference, one is making a positive contribution to society, the other isn't. As far as I'm concerned this problem is largely self-correcting. Trust fund hippie's kids or grandkids are going to end up having to do it the hardway all over again.

  I understand. Jim Hall, creator and driver of the famous Chapparal sports racing cars was once accused of being a trust fund baby. He came from west Texas oil money in Midland. He admitted it freely - and then asked: "Well - what did you expect me to do with it? Just piss it all away?"
• 

  Justitia Themis

  These laws were created indirectly from the public vote via congress. They are the basis of legal and economic society in the United States. Are you saying they should be overturned? What would you replace them with?

  James Woods Posting= person makes a statement > James Woods takes the statement to an extreme (reductio ad absurdum) rather than addressing the real statement.

  I like red > Are you saying green is ugly?

  I think something needs to be done to revitalize the middle-class and stop our trend towards repeating the 1920s. > Are you saying no one should be able to own property?

  There is a big difference between a doctor (or lawyer) who drowns in student loans and a trust fund baby. > Are you saying we should not allow any inheritance and trust funds should be done away with?

  W. T. F. ?