Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 5 of total 5 in this topic |
nutjob
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 22, 2009 - 12:13pm PT
|
I recognize the ideal that all folks should start on a level playing field and have the same opportunities to pursue a life of their choosing, which may or may not include accumulation of wealth. On some level it seems unfair that folks born in a slum or a ghetto have so many obstacles to overcome to reach a certain lifestyle, while other folks are automatically granted more than that.
On the other hand... if through my own labor of a lifetime I amass some wealth, is it not right that I can give it to my kids? Give them a better education than I had? Travel to more places, try more things, and generally give them the opportunity to lead a fuller life and experience more of this planet?
How can these two things be reconciled? Maybe this is at the root of "capitalism" versus "communism" and the forces that shape global conflicts as humans compete to enforce two different ideologies.
One might argue that material wealth does not in itself confer happiness, and that happiness is a more real measurement of justice and equality. But this just exposes another dimension of heritability... just like we inherit a certain socio-economic position by nature of where/ to whom we are born, and we inherit physical traits like intelligence or strength, we also inherit a level of emotional maturity that to a great extent defines the range within we will grow. As is the case with all inherited traits, it is possible through some extraordinary achievement to overcome the limitations of where we were born. But these tend to be the exceptions more than the rule.
So after this wide-ranging ramble, I'm left with a few simple phrases learned from my mother and grandmother that tend to map out most of the landscape:
"life isn't fair"
"you can't get out of your rightful place"
As a society, we seem to struggle with creating fairness and justice according to rules of our choosing, but ultimately this is a precarious struggle toward a repelling point of unstable equilibrium. I think it is a more noble, a more elegant creation, than any piece of art or architecture or technology that humans have created. It is a bolder statement of creating possibility out of daunting improbability. Creating fairness takes a lot of work. I guess it gives us something to do while we're visiting planet Earth.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2009 - 12:15pm PT
|
Life IS fair.
It's just not equitable.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2009 - 12:34pm PT
|
I guess it depends on whether or not that one incident serves as your definition of "life".
In my experience, the cops are equal-oportunity ass-holes.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2009 - 12:40pm PT
|
Apparently we are incorrect when we think the historical basis for the estate tax in the US is to combat the development of a monied class. Certainly the accumulation of wealth in this manner has been a source of ills in other societies in the past.
Everyone can point to individuals who have not responsibly benefitted from inherited status. That is a very old and highly visible phenomenon.
Another of the really important and interesting questions on the table in front of us.
A History and Overview of Estate Taxes in the United States
by Patrick Fleenor
Special Academic Paper
Executive Summary
The federal government imposes taxes on wealth transfers through its unified transfer tax system. The unified system is comprised of three parts: an estate tax, a gift tax, and a generation -skipping tax .An estate tax is paid on the contents of estates. Transfers of wealth between living persons are subject to the gift tax. Transfers to grandchildren or more distant descendants are subject to the generation-skipping transfer tax.
The federal government did not rely on transfer taxes as a permanent source of revenue for most of the nation's history. Rather, such levies were used as temporary sources of revenue during national emergencies. This pattern changed in 1916 when, along with instituting the income tax, the federal government enacted an estate tax. Sixteen years later, largely to prevent avoidance of the estate tax, it enacted a gift tax.
A series of legislation passed in 1976, 1981, and 1986 overhauled and modified the federal transfer tax system. Portions of the separate estate and gift tax systems were unified and levies were imposed on generation-skipping transfers. These Acts also lowered marginal transfer tax rates and significantly reduced the number of transfer tax returns filed each year by raising the filing requirements.
Prior to the 1976 Act, estate taxes were paid by approximately seven percent of estates in any given year. After 1987, the estate tax was paid by no more than three-tenths of one percent in a given year
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/627.html
|
|
| Messages 1 - 5 of total 5 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!