| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Bill Gates' dad leads campaign for estate tax | |
|
||
| Time: 18:19 EST/23:19 GMT | News Source: Knight Ridder | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
What is the father of the world's richest man doing lobbying for a tax on the wealthy? Fighting against the rise of dynasties, says William H. Gates Sr., the 77-year-old father of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. The elder Gates, a retired Seattle attorney who helps run the charitable foundation started with his son's fortune, is leading an unlikely nationwide campaign to defend the federal estate tax that President Bush and others want to abolish. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 219 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:08:32 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/9/2003 7:34:32 PM |
|
“Inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.”
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt “Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit.” - Warren Buffet Those with a predisposition to populist rhetoric will have something to say, I'm sure. But those issues raised are of a different nature and may be most easily addressed via reform. They are not new issues, they have been dealt with in the past as well... "The death of a father, to such of his children as live in the same house with him, is seldom attended with any increase, and frequently with a considerable diminution of revenue, by the loss of his industry, of his office, or of some life-rent estate of which he may have been in possession. That tax would be cruel and oppressive which aggravated their loss by taking from them any part of his succession. It may, however, sometimes be otherwise with those children who, in the language of the Roman law, are said to be emancipated; in that of the Scotch law, to be forisfamiliated; that is, who have received their portion, have got families of their own, and are supported by funds separate and independent of those of their father. Whatever part of his succession might come to such children would be a real addition to their fortune, and might therefore, perhaps, without more inconveniency than what attends all duties of this kind, be liable to some tax. " - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/9/2003 7:44:41 PM |
|
monkeydog - Why do you care?
I'm just curious, because it is self evident that the Gates family is directly effected by this, so he is minding his own business. Are you? |
| #3 By 1896 (216.78.252.226) at 2/9/2003 8:35:15 PM |
| Why, after I paid taxes all my life, I should pay a tax on my death too? You are correct Sodablue, this tax was introduced during the Roman Empire but it is also true that Roman Citizens paid very few taxes during life, a lot of services were free and nobles, senators and knights had special tax exemptions. Here the situation is different, you pay lot of taxes on your properties all your life, Medical and other social services are almost non existing. Estate tax is probaly the only issue I agree with the President and just as a matter of principles because, unfortunately, I already paid this tax years ago. |
| #4 By 3653 (216.153.67.116) at 2/9/2003 9:02:44 PM |
|
I'm a little surprised more older people dont get upset about estate taxes. I'm no where near old enough to consider such, but if I save for my children... it seems very reasonable that I should be able to give them the savings.
But then again, if the gov is gonna grab tax from somebody... there's no easier target than a dead person. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Sunday, February 09, 2003 at 21:03. |
| #5 By 2231 (68.98.150.221) at 2/9/2003 9:45:07 PM |
|
Isn't it enough that the wealthiest 5 percent pay more than half the income taxes in this country?
This sounds like a major case of envy: "If I couldn't inherit a zillion dollars then neither should anyone else." If you want to give your money to the poor after you're dead please be my guest, that's what wills are for. In the mean time keep your grubby bleeding-heart mitts off my wallet. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/9/2003 10:01:07 PM |
|
Fritzly - There is no tax on wealth when you die. If you choose to give this wealth to someone, then that person pays taxes. It's not like the giftee actually earned the wealth, all they managed to do to obtain it was accidentally be in the right place at the right time.
The real fact is that taxes are a necessity. The question then becomes what and how should you tax. Adam Smith wrote on this to great lengths, and the purpose behind his thinking was that you should setup a tax system which encourages the creation of wealth. Not individual wealth, per se, but national wealth. The point being, we can drop the estate tax but now what are you going to replace it with? And this replacement, is it better for the long term growth and health of our nation? The President doesn't answer those questions. Without said answers how do you really know if you should or should not be in favor of his proposal? mooresa56 - If only your posts had thought, they would add value and be worth responding to. monkeydog - "gee wiz sodablue - you can pull a few quotes off the web and bingo! you've made your point. " Gee wiz, monkeydog... Are you saying I shouldn't research the history of decisions made in this great nation of ours? History is unimportant, we should repeat the mistakes of the past? We should just remain blissfully ignorant? What kind of lame ass stupid response is that you are trying to make? Why don't you answer my question... Why do you care? You accuse Gates of not minding his own business, yet it is clear that it is *HIS* business. So why aren't you doing that which you claim Gates should do and mind your own business? Read the quotes, as they offer a small amount of insite into the reason why the estate tax was first implemented. Respond to the points raised in the quotes. If you are unable to do so in any convincing manner, then perhaps your argument lacks merit. A wise person is willing to see the lack of merit in his own arguments. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/9/2003 10:06:52 PM |
|
schwit - "Isn't it enough that the wealthiest 5 percent pay more than half the income taxes in this country?"
So we should push the tax burden down onto the middle classes, and prevent them from becoming wealthy? "This sounds like a major case of envy: "If I couldn't inherit a zillion dollars then neither should anyone else." " In what way is William Gates, Sr. envious of anybody? "If you want to give your money to the poor after you're dead please be my guest, that's what wills are for. In the mean time keep your grubby bleeding-heart mitts off my wallet. " Why don't you go out and get a bloody job and actually make something out of your life, instead of sitting around like a pansy waiting for an inheritance from your parents? I find it unlikely that anyone would listen to my opinion on basketball over Michael Jordan's. Why then should I listen to your opinion on wealth building over those of William Gates or Warren Buffet when you don't have the stats to back up the talk? |
| #8 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/9/2003 10:08:19 PM |
|
The problem I have is the Robin Hood mentality of the left that assumes that all rich people have obtained their wealth through inheritance or underhanded means. We already punish the successful and reward failures in this country.
I could be persuaded to support the estate tax if we didn't already tax successful people 6-ways from Sunday to begin with. What the left doesn't understand is that if you allow rich people to be rich, they invest their money into the stock market, or into their own businesses thereby creating jobs and more wealth in our society. When you punish the rich, they hoarde and no one benefits from the rich hoarding their wealth. Also, Sodablue, I would advice you not quoting FDR when discussing social issues, it's kinda like quoting Bill Clinton in morality issues. |
| #9 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/9/2003 10:12:08 PM |
|
#10: Should we push the tax burden down onto the middle classes, and prevent them from becoming wealthy?
See, there your logic is flawed. 1.) There shouldn't be such a heavy tax burden in the first place. Spending is the biggest problem, not distribution of tax collection. 2.) When you tax rich less, you get more revenue from them. It sounds funny, but it's true and has been proven in the 80's and the early 90's if not many other times. Why don't you go out and get a bloody job instead... Who says they don't have a job? Who says they won't take that money and invest it or build a new business and create new jobs with it? Why is it your business or the government's what they should do with their money? |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/9/2003 11:31:39 PM |
|
daz - "The problem I have is the Robin Hood mentality of the left "
Well there's your first problem. Theodore Roosevelt wasn't a Liberal. Now onto your second problem... "See, there your logic is flawed. " Actually no, my logic is quite astute, thank you. "1.) There shouldn't be such a heavy tax burden in the first place. Spending is the biggest problem, not distribution of tax collection. " Now we can have several debates. We can talk about how much money the government should spend. Once we get past that we are still left with how we pay for this spending. This latter debate you don't seem to want to engage in, as you keep trying to go back to the former without realizing the reality is that's already decided. Now moving forward... There are two trains of thought on how to pay for the govt budget... Raise money through Taxes. Raise money through Debt. Debt is a short term solution, and should only be used for short term problems(like say a war), or for infrastructure buildup that has a tremendous long term payoff(like say roads). The newly proposed budget for 2004 increases the size of government by over 4%, which is actually nothing compared to the 6-9% increases in 2002 and 2003, but quite a lot compared to the 2-4% increases we saw from 1993-2000 when the era of big government was supposed to have been over. This lust to spend more is baffling, especially in light of the decreased revenues into the treasury. That can't happen at the state level, as most states are constitutionally forbidden from running a deficit. Now let's go back to that latter argument. Would we need to be borrowing if the government wasn't increasing in size so rapidly? I don't think so, and either did President Clinton or Robert Rubin or the others who fought to maintain budget increases close in line with inflation. BTW, if you want to read more... http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/hist.html "2.) When you tax rich less, you get more revenue from them. It sounds funny, but it's true and has been proven in the 80's and the early 90's if not many other times. " The problem with your logic is that while it is true that taxing at a rate of say 98% results in less revenue than taxing at say 40%... there is no evidence to suggest taxing at 30% instead of 35% results in more revenue. In fact the opposite is true, in the 1990's the top tax rates were raised slightly in 1993 and the end result was phenomenal growth, as well as increased revenues into the treasury. Meanwhile the Bush tax cut of 2001 has been followed by a stumbling economy, slow growth and decreased tax revenues, the exact opposite of what you claim. Now if you wish to argue the economy is more complicated than tax policy, I'll agree. But that undercuts your argument even further. "Who says they don't have a job? Who says they won't take that money and invest it or build a new business and create new jobs with it? " According to GW Bush they'll blow it on Ferarri's. "Why is it your business or the government's what they should do with their money? " Ahh, go back to the arguments presented by Gates, Buffet, Roosevelt, Paine, etc. Instead of asking whose business is it, why don't you respond to the arguments and show how they are wrong? |
| #11 By 1896 (216.78.252.226) at 2/9/2003 11:32:02 PM |
| Sodablue let us say that I work, earn money and than pay taxes on my earnings; after that instead to buy a new car each year, dining out five times a week etc. I save the money. After a couple of years I buy a house because I want to leave my daughter with a roof over her head. As soon I buy the house I begin paying taxes for it and I keep paying until I die. Now if my daughter wants the house not only she will have to pay the relative property taxes but she will also have to pay a "una tantum" tax. You speak about national wealth but in a capitalistic society the wealth of the nation is a consequence of the wealth of the individuals. I should be rewarded being someone who save money to invest in durable goods because these are the wealth of a nation. What we are living through nowadays is a false sense of wealth because, in the reality, we have only debts. Why should you save all your life knowing that at the moment of your departure a hidden partner will show up taking away from your children part of what you struggled to leave to them? |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/9/2003 11:50:22 PM |
|
macrosslover - I am more convinced than ever that it is the Republican agenda to borrow this nation into bankruptcy, and then blame the resulting collapse upon the Left. daz's pattern of blame mongering certainly establishes this. :(
Fritzly - "After a couple of years I buy a house because I want to leave my daughter with a roof over her head." That is a very noble cause. "Now if my daughter wants the house not only she will have to pay the relative property taxes but she will also have to pay a "una tantum" tax. " No she won't. Not unless this house of yours costs several million dollars, in which case your story of having a "roof over her head" is quite a bit of hyperbole. "You speak about national wealth but in a capitalistic society the wealth of the nation is a consequence of the wealth of the individuals." Short term yes, long term no. The wealth of a nation is it's ability to generate wealth for all. Innovation is the key, rising to the need all that sort of stuff. A society which is dominated by a few aristocrats who are content with their lot and strive for no more is a society that is stagnant. That is what happened with Old Europe, and the reason why the United States outpaced her. "What we are living through nowadays is a false sense of wealth because, in the reality, we have only debts." Debt is what allowed the middle class to be born in this nation. Specifically in 1938 with the creation of FannieMae. Managed/Responsible debt is good. (Sorry, I work for a mortgage company) "Why should you save all your life knowing that at the moment of your departure a hidden partner will show up taking away from your children part of what you struggled to leave to them?" Hmm. It does not sound like you live in the United States for you do not seem to understand the way our Estate Tax works, and your understanding of debt and so forth speaks of situations not presently true in the US but still ahold in other nations. Forgive me for berating you for not understanding the issues we deal with in our nation. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/9/2003 11:58:36 PM |
|
Though it is contrary to my nature to openly agree with a Democrat, blue's arguements certainly make more sense than those to the contrary that have been expressed here.
I'm not interested in arguing right wing/left wing fiscal policy, so I'll not comment on that. I am very interested, though, in pondering why one of the richest men in this country - Warren Buffett - is in favor of a particular fiscal policy. I'll not say that I agree with Buffett in all of his views, but I'll certainly say that from an economic perspective he is one of the wisest men this country has yet seen. Perhaps when considering finance, it would make sense to look at those who know the most about it and those who would be affected most by it. If Buffett is in favor of it (and he meets both of the previous criteria), perhaps we should wonder why. This post was edited by BobSmith on Sunday, February 09, 2003 at 23:58. |
| #14 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/10/2003 12:00:47 AM |
| It seems to make sense to also add that, those who are rich enough to be affected by an estate tax are likely wise enough to make provisions for it when they are yet living. If you are wise enough to gain untold wealth in your lifetime, you are probably capable of passing it on. |
| #15 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/10/2003 12:17:28 AM |
|
For the record, you'll note that I do not blame the spending problems in this country on Democrats/Liberals. Republicans share a large burden of that.
I will say, however, that Democrats make a policy of it, while Republicans do so against their policy (for their own political gain in their own constituencies). Congress has become a big grab-bag for every special interest group or corporation with a couple photos of a Senator with a young intern or few extra million $$ to burn. The problem with deficit is not taxes, it's the ridiculous spending problems we have in this country. There are several watchdog groups that catalog the outrageous pork spending we have in this country and it's quite shocking to see their results. It appears that we have reached a point in our Republic/Democracy where people are literally voting money into their pockets. Senators and Representatives now openly brag about how much cents on the dollar they bring back to the state/district they represent. This is a mockery of the constitution. We now have taxes for this and taxes for that that go far beyond anything ever imagined in the constitution. While Bush's tax panderings are a step in the right direction, I doubt they are really for the reason they seem to be. True tax reform would have to be sweeping and radical and no politician alive today knows anything about making changes, Status Quo is the motto in the beltway. #20 is right, though. The rich usually figure a way around the estate tax by using offshore accounts and intermediaries, etc. It's the poor (middle-class or upper-middle-class) saps with their retirement accounts that get nailed the hardest, as always. |
| #16 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/10/2003 9:13:37 AM |
|
Americans have one of the lowest overall tax rates of any industrialized nation.
One would think that instead of complaining about how much you pay in taxes (which, as I mentioned is very little), you would instead complain about how your money is spent. Instead of insisting on tax cuts, insist on spending reform. #8 - "Isn't it enough that the wealthiest 5 percent pay more than half the income taxes in this country?" To paraphrase Adam Smith, those that benefit the most from a country's saftey and infrastructure (i.e., the rich) should also bare the brunt of the tax burden. If the goal of taxation is to fund a country while at the same time minimizing the financial impact on its citzens, a progressive tax policy is the only logical solution. #11 - "The problem I have is the Robin Hood mentality of the left that assumes that all rich people have obtained their wealth through inheritance or underhanded means. We already punish the successful and reward failures in this country." Hardly. This "Robin Hood" mentality is a mentality supported by both Smith and Friedman, the two pillars of conservative economic policy. I don't think the motivation behind the estate tax has anything to do with punishing anybody. If you honestly think that it really hurts people, why not simply raise the minimum dollar amount? The fact is, it is the very rich who are complaining about the tax... people who have such vast amounts of money that those who inherit it would be set for life even if they got only a fraction. #12 - "When you tax rich less, you get more revenue from them. It sounds funny, but it's true and has been proven in the 80's and the early 90's if not many other times." Show me some graphs. Show me some data. Show me anything to back this up. The rich didn't get rich by spending what they have simply because they have it. When a rich person, who has all their basic needs me, gets more money... and the economy is bad, they save it. This is one reason why they are rich. |
| #17 By 2231 (164.86.99.3) at 2/10/2003 10:12:40 AM |
|
Sodablue -
Here's the source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Tax2002/taxes_rich_020415.html It is enough that the rich pay more up front. Nobody has a moral right to take somebody elses property just because they have more. Personally I believe the country needs to eliminate all taxes except those related to consumption. A national sales tax on everything except food, shelter(1 home), medical and education. |
| #18 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 2/10/2003 5:36:31 PM |
|
#24 - "It is enough that the rich pay more up front. Nobody has a moral right to take somebody elses property just because they have more."
Moral right? What are you talking about? These are taxes. You implicitly agree to paying them by living in the United States. The power to tax is defined in the Constitution, as is the power to pass laws that define who gets taxed, and how much. That is where the government gets the right to tax rich people more than poor people. There are plenty of logical defenses of why taxing the rich more than the poor is a good economic policy, and this is the very reason why both Smith and Friedman support the policy. #25 - "I'm amazed at how many cling to the ideals of a man who died 200 years ago." Who cares how old the ideas are? The idea that there are 180 degress in all triangles or that representative democracy is the best form of government are also very old ideas, but that doesn't mean they're out of date or wrong in any way. Attack the ideas, not their age. "So the larger question should be, if the wealthiest 5% are paying half the income tax in this country... why is there such a massive deficit?" Well, for a couple reasons. First, corporations get away with tax murder. An accountant friend of mine recently told me a story about how one company she helped do the taxes for paid a little more than $500 in taxes for 2001. This was on a profit of over $17 million. Second, rich people may pay more than most, but they still are able to cheat their way out of paying a huge percent of what they really owe through countless loopholes left there by politicans. "If you want to increase taxes, fine. But first we should figure out where it is going because obviously there is a hole somewhere we are throwing our tax money into because the numbers people are throwing around just don't add up." Absolutely. We spend lots of money on things which we don't need to spend lots of money on. A big thing that pops into my mind are things like the Joint Strike Fighter. Granted, the PBS special on the competition between Lockheed and Boeing to build the thing was extremely cool, but WE DON'T NEED IT. Now, I'm all for securing the "homeland", but building a fighter like the JSF just isn't going to do that. Nor is spending BILLIONS of dollars on a missile defense shield that has absolutely no hope of working in its current form, nor would it really help us against the current nuclear threat - terroism. They bring the boom in suitcases, not on ICBMs. (Don't even talk to me about North Korea. They would never launch against us or any of our allies... it makes MUCH more sense for them to sell the nukes to terrorists, who would then put them in suitcases and cary them across from Canada.) There are plenty of places in the budget that we can trim the fat (like subsidies to "farmers"... who are actually giant multinational corporations that make BILLIONs without the help from Uncle Sam), but there are also plenty of places we need more money. (Basic science research, energy programs, education - yes more, etc.) All that, plus now we need to pay off the debt given to us by GW. The answer is not to lower or cut taxes (not yet, at least), but instead to have a massive overhaul of the budget. |
| #19 By 2231 (164.86.99.3) at 2/10/2003 5:51:54 PM |
|
... and the tax system.
The 2003 edition of 'Taxes for Dummies' is out and is 656 pages. The US tax system has become a jobs program. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 219 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:08:32 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
