The government has to put a fuck ton more effort in to protecting a 500k estate than a 50k estate.
Of course, it's kind of irrelevant to this thread since neither of those estates wouldn't be taxed by the estate tax.
Show me. Prove it.
It doesn't matter. It costs more to insure $500k worth of assets than it does to insure $50k worth of assets. I don't see why the source of the insurance being the government rather than the private sector should make a difference.
The cost of private insurance is irrelevant. If your house burns down, government isn't going to compensate you for the loss. At most, the fire department will save you from burning to death, but it doesn't cost ten times as much to save someone in a $1 million house as in a $100K house. Furthermore, the poor person who loses their house is going to need a lot more in the way of government assistance after the fact than the rich person, who probably has insurance to begin with and has money in the bank to pay for a hotel or whatever.
In the even of anything but a catastrophic fire, the fire department is likely to save a shitload of your stuff and probably your house, too.
I don't really give all that much of a shit if the fire department saves that $4000 worth of stuff in my apartment. The owner of my apartment building, however, probably cares a great deal if the fire department saves the building.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
Yes, because opening up three savings accounts in order to make sure your money is FDIC-insured is so difficult, especially for someone with $500,000.
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
You're thinking strictly in terms of direct expenditure on bodily protection rather than legal protection of assets.
Legal protection of assets, is not paid for by the government. You do know that the SEC is mainly used for prosecution, not protection, right? Owners have to pay for legal recourse (accountants, lawyers, etc.). last time I checked, the government was not sending me a check for $4000 to cover the expense of drafting a will for my family.
Last I checked, the shareholders in failed companies weren't losing their homes in order to cover the debts of said companies.
In terms of lost investment, sure they do. As well, assets are repackaged and sold off to resolve lingering debt. The taxpayers are not paying for the debt incurred by companies folding.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
I'll respond that anyone with a liquid $500k in a single fucking bank account is a retarded goddamn bovine and they would deserve to lose every single penny.
Last I checked, the shareholders in failed companies weren't losing their homes in order to cover the debts of said companies.
In terms of lost investment, sure they do. As well, assets are repackaged and sold off to resolve lingering debt. The taxpayers are not paying for the debt incurred by companies folding.
The fuck is that supposed to mean? "In terms of lost investment, sure they do?" Sure they do what? They're not losing their homes; all they're losing is the money they had invested in that company. And yeah, the taxpayers are paying for the government that created the infrastructure that supports that protection. And it's not the assets of the shareholders that are sold off to resolve lingering debt; it's the assets of the company. And if the company's assets don't cover the lingering debt, it's the debtholders that are SOL; they aren't allowed to go after the shareholders of the company.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
Yes, because opening up three savings accounts in order to make sure your money is FDIC-insured is so difficult, especially for someone with $500,000.
And do you realize how few actually do that? And most private banks will put a limit on same name accounts. Nice try.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
I'll respond that anyone with a liquid $500k in a single fucking bank account is a retarded goddamn bovine and they would deserve to lose every single penny.
Or that they're even hurt as much. Even if that happens, they have five times as much money as the other guy. It sucks that it happened, but all things equal they're still five times richer.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
Yes, because opening up three savings accounts in order to make sure your money is FDIC-insured is so difficult, especially for someone with $500,000.
And do you realize how few actually do that? And most private banks will put a limit on same name accounts. Nice try.
Wha...?
Bank of America doesn't give a shit if I have an account with Chase Manhattan or not; neither of them give a shit if I have an account with Wells Fargo or not. They're going to take my fucking money. And if you're asking whether or not I have any idea how few people with $500,000 put it all into savings accounts with banks, then yes, I do, and they're practically nonexistant.
Last I checked, the shareholders in failed companies weren't losing their homes in order to cover the debts of said companies.
In terms of lost investment, sure they do. As well, assets are repackaged and sold off to resolve lingering debt. The taxpayers are not paying for the debt incurred by companies folding.
The fuck is that supposed to mean? "In terms of lost investment, sure they do?" Sure they do what? They're not losing their homes; all they're losing is the money they had invested in that company. And yeah, the taxpayers are paying for the government that created the infrastructure that supports that protection. And it's not the assets of the shareholders that are sold off to resolve lingering debt; it's the assets of the company. And if the company's assets don't cover the lingering debt, it's the debtholders that are SOL; they aren't allowed to go after the shareholders of the company.
So, let me clarify as I was not clear.
No, not losing their homes, they are losing their investments. As for the taxpayers paying for the government that supports that protection, it's not governmental protection, it's a contractual protection between the company and the shareholder.
And yes, I meant the assets fo the company, not the shareholders. Of course they can't go after the shareholders of the company. Not what I meant, even if it was not clear.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
Yes, because opening up three savings accounts in order to make sure your money is FDIC-insured is so difficult, especially for someone with $500,000.
And do you realize how few actually do that? And most private banks will put a limit on same name accounts. Nice try.
I don't know how many times I have to say that stupid financial decision-making is not an argument against the tax in question. I'm starting to believe it will be in the triple digits, especially seeing how certain posters are asking the same questions that were asked multiple times throughout this thread.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
I'll respond that anyone with a liquid $500k in a single fucking bank account is a retarded goddamn bovine and they would deserve to lose every single penny.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
I'll respond that anyone with a liquid $500k in a single fucking bank account is a retarded goddamn bovine and they would deserve to lose every single penny.
Irrelevant to the point.
Not really, as you apparently wanted to talk about the FDIC's policy in relation to a person with $500k in an individual bank account.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
Yes, because opening up three savings accounts in order to make sure your money is FDIC-insured is so difficult, especially for someone with $500,000.
And do you realize how few actually do that? And most private banks will put a limit on same name accounts. Nice try.
Wha...?
Bank of America doesn't give a shit if I have an account with Chase Manhattan or not; neither of them give a shit if I have an account with Wells Fargo or not. They're going to take my fucking money. And if you're asking whether or not I have any idea how few people with $500,000 put it all into savings accounts with banks, then yes, I do, and they're practically nonexistant.
Yes, because opening up three savings accounts in order to make sure your money is FDIC-insured is so difficult, especially for someone with $500,000.
And do you realize how few actually do that? And most private banks will put a limit on same name accounts. Nice try.
Wha...?
Bank of America doesn't give a shit if I have an account with Chase Manhattan or not; neither of them give a shit if I have an account with Wells Fargo or not. They're going to take my fucking money. And if you're asking whether or not I have any idea how few people with $500,000 put it all into savings accounts with banks, then yes, I do, and they're practically nonexistant.
Wow...within the same bank.
I was assuming someone smart enough to have $500,000 in the first place had better financial acumen than, say, a jar of mayonnaise. Though, yes, you're right, if the Republicans get their way with financial deregulation, we're probably on-course to have just the one bank, so that would be a problem.
No, a $50k estate would not be able to utilize or benefit from those agencies to the degree that the $500k one would. This is not tough.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
I'll respond that anyone with a liquid $500k in a single fucking bank account is a retarded goddamn bovine and they would deserve to lose every single penny.
Irrelevant to the point.
Not really, as you apparently wanted to talk about the FDIC's policy in relation to a person with $500k in an individual bank account.
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
Oh okay so you want the government to take a more active role in banking. Cool.
You don't have to open an account with the same bank.
Also, you never explained how the fire department isn't more valuable to Thanatos's apartment manager rather than Thanatos himself.
They are equally important. If Thanatos lost all worldly possessions in the fire and the apartment manager lost an asset that can be replaced under his legally required insurance, who is worse off?
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
Oh okay so you want the government to take a more active role in banking. Cool.
Never said that, just offered a reason as to why someone might have $500K in a single bank.
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
You... you do realize there are much smarter ways of making your assets liquid for those reason that don't involve doing about the dumbest thing possible short of trying to stuff it in a mattress, right?
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
You... you do realize there are much smarter ways of making your assets liquid for those reason that don't involve doing about the dumbest thing possible short of trying to stuff it in a mattress, right?
Why should people who stuff money in their mattress lose their money? Exactly. And that's why the estate tax is bad.
You don't have to open an account with the same bank.
Also, you never explained how the fire department isn't more valuable to Thanatos's apartment manager rather than Thanatos himself.
They are equally important.
Only if you think 4k and 1 million are the same.
Added to above post:
They are equally important. If Thanatos lost all worldly possessions in the fire and the apartment manager lost an asset that can be replaced under his legally required insurance, who is worse off?
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
jeddy lee on
Backlog Challenge: 0%
0/8
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't generally spend a comparable amount of money, and poor people have strict limits on how much they can afford to spend.
Sales tax is actually one of the less useful taxation forms. It makes people feel good, but income taxes are much easier on the society as a whole.
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
You... you do realize there are much smarter ways of making your assets liquid for those reason that don't involve doing about the dumbest thing possible short of trying to stuff it in a mattress, right?
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Oh goddamnit
I swear to fucking god you had better not be trolling
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
You... you do realize there are much smarter ways of making your assets liquid for those reason that don't involve doing about the dumbest thing possible short of trying to stuff it in a mattress, right?
Again, not the point.
Then quit making points, or positing situations, that I can use to make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
one of the main problems, economically, with the super wealthy is that they don't spend their money, so it doesn't really do anything
override367 on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
It doesn't sound dumb, but it would be a very regressive tax.
Think about it this way, you make $200 a week and have to spend all of it on taxable goods. If the sales tax is 10% you're paying 10% of your income in taxes.
Now, say you make $5000 a week and only spend $1000 on taxable goods and investing/saving the rest. You're only paying 2% of your income in taxes.
You don't have to open an account with the same bank.
Also, you never explained how the fire department isn't more valuable to Thanatos's apartment manager rather than Thanatos himself.
They are equally important.
Only if you think 4k and 1 million are the same.
Added to above post:
They are equally important. If Thanatos lost all worldly possessions in the fire and the apartment manager lost an asset that can be replaced under his legally required insurance, who is worse off?
At which point the wealthy insurance company is out over a million dollars.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't generally spend a comparable amount of money, and poor people have strict limits on how much they can afford to spend.
Sales tax is actually one of the less useful taxation forms. It makes people feel good, but income taxes are much easier on the society as a whole.
Wasn't it linked off of here onetime that the VAT is actually one of the more useful ways to raise money. It is regressive, but it does not necessarily indicate that you have a regressive society. I'll see if I can find the links.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
And none of it is coming close to the same percentage as a poorer person's consumption.
Poor people spend nearly all of their income. When rich people do the same we can talk about lowering taxes.
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
You... you do realize there are much smarter ways of making your assets liquid for those reason that don't involve doing about the dumbest thing possible short of trying to stuff it in a mattress, right?
Again, not the point.
Then quit making points, or positing situations, that I can use to make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
It was an example of the limits of policies or services, like the FDIC, have where they can be detrimental to the wealthy. Perhaps not the best example, but not off point like your "arguments".
Posts
I don't really give all that much of a shit if the fire department saves that $4000 worth of stuff in my apartment. The owner of my apartment building, however, probably cares a great deal if the fire department saves the building.
Oh, now we are back to potential use as a rational, something I was smacked for earlier in this thread. Wish people would make up their mind.
It's not tough, you are wrong. And, in the case of the example of the FDIC, the person with the $500K would be hurt MORE under the same service as the person with the $50K as the funds are only insured up to $250K (until 2014). And this assuming that the money is kept in an FDIC insured bank.
In terms of lost investment, sure they do. As well, assets are repackaged and sold off to resolve lingering debt. The taxpayers are not paying for the debt incurred by companies folding.
And do you realize how few actually do that? And most private banks will put a limit on same name accounts. Nice try.
Or that they're even hurt as much. Even if that happens, they have five times as much money as the other guy. It sucks that it happened, but all things equal they're still five times richer.
Bank of America doesn't give a shit if I have an account with Chase Manhattan or not; neither of them give a shit if I have an account with Wells Fargo or not. They're going to take my fucking money. And if you're asking whether or not I have any idea how few people with $500,000 put it all into savings accounts with banks, then yes, I do, and they're practically nonexistant.
So, let me clarify as I was not clear.
No, not losing their homes, they are losing their investments. As for the taxpayers paying for the government that supports that protection, it's not governmental protection, it's a contractual protection between the company and the shareholder.
And yes, I meant the assets fo the company, not the shareholders. Of course they can't go after the shareholders of the company. Not what I meant, even if it was not clear.
I don't know how many times I have to say that stupid financial decision-making is not an argument against the tax in question. I'm starting to believe it will be in the triple digits, especially seeing how certain posters are asking the same questions that were asked multiple times throughout this thread.
Irrelevant to the point.
Wow...within the same bank.
And they would deserve to lose it why? Perhaps it was in there for a short term for medical expenses, to buy a house, business investment. Seriously, damn.
Also, you never explained how the fire department isn't more valuable to Thanatos's apartment manager rather than Thanatos himself.
Oh okay so you want the government to take a more active role in banking. Cool.
They are equally important. If Thanatos lost all worldly possessions in the fire and the apartment manager lost an asset that can be replaced under his legally required insurance, who is worse off?
Never said that, just offered a reason as to why someone might have $500K in a single bank.
Only if you think 4k and 1 million are the same.
Apparently one bank = all banks, so its not much of a jump to reach 4k = 1 mil.
Why should people who stuff money in their mattress lose their money? Exactly. And that's why the estate tax is bad.
Added to above post:
They are equally important. If Thanatos lost all worldly possessions in the fire and the apartment manager lost an asset that can be replaced under his legally required insurance, who is worse off?
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
Rich people don't generally spend a comparable amount of money, and poor people have strict limits on how much they can afford to spend.
Sales tax is actually one of the less useful taxation forms. It makes people feel good, but income taxes are much easier on the society as a whole.
Again, not the point.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
Oh goddamnit
I swear to fucking god you had better not be trolling
This is reaching tinfoil-hat levels of dumb.
one of the main problems, economically, with the super wealthy is that they don't spend their money, so it doesn't really do anything
It doesn't sound dumb, but it would be a very regressive tax.
Think about it this way, you make $200 a week and have to spend all of it on taxable goods. If the sales tax is 10% you're paying 10% of your income in taxes.
Now, say you make $5000 a week and only spend $1000 on taxable goods and investing/saving the rest. You're only paying 2% of your income in taxes.
(overly simplified, but yeah)
At which point the wealthy insurance company is out over a million dollars.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
Wasn't it linked off of here onetime that the VAT is actually one of the more useful ways to raise money. It is regressive, but it does not necessarily indicate that you have a regressive society.
And none of it is coming close to the same percentage as a poorer person's consumption.
Poor people spend nearly all of their income. When rich people do the same we can talk about lowering taxes.
It was an example of the limits of policies or services, like the FDIC, have where they can be detrimental to the wealthy. Perhaps not the best example, but not off point like your "arguments".