Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for March 21, 2015

F. Scott Fitzgerald may have been a preppy but he didn’t come from a rich family. He died penniless because he drank too much and lived beyond his means.

All the screaming about the ‘Death Tax’, but it only applies to an estate over $5,430,000 in 2015. Not likely to apply to most of the 99%, eh?

The estate tax is important in making sure the children of rich people have to come up from merely extremely wealthy, just like their parents.

The rich want to be sure that the only people lying around not working are their kids.

What makes anyone think they (or the government) have any right to the wealth I’ve accumulated during my life? If the required taxes were paid on that wealth then it’s mine to give to anyone I want including my heirs.

And no, I’m not rich. In fact a far cry from it, just middle class like most people. I just recognize that wealth doesn’t just suddenly appear out of nowhere. Whoever earned it got it by being smart about an opportunity or by getting an education or by taking a risk. And after accumulating that wealth it is theirs to keep and not have it confiscated after their death by a government to give to others who didn’t take advantage of their opportunity to get an education or take a risk. Too many people want what they don’t earn today.

Interestingly, those who are wealthy have protected their money by setting up trusts and foundations which produced the same results other than having to pay accountants.

My brush with celebrity: My brother-in-law once dated a woman whose ex-husband had been married to Scottie Fitzgerald at one time. Maybe there was another generation squeezed in there somehow, but it did go back to Scottie.

There are some who would contend that the wealth of the 1% has “trickled up,” so to speak, from the underpaid work of the 99%.

Trudeau is a wus for ignoring his beloved Obamma.

the founding fathers wanted this to be a country without inherited wealth leading to a fixed ‘ruling’ class which would function like a monarchy which it now does

I’ve come to expect a backhanded swipe at President Obama, with the always-classy misspelling, but what does he have to do with a strip from 1981?

Seems Wadiglow stops by here every couple of months and makes essentially the same post about “Obamma”. He’s well aware these are reruns.

If you’re rich, why would you want to support the country that participated in your becoming rich? I know, you all did it _all by yourself _.As for those not rich, I know you’ll say “Don’t tax the rich. I want to be rich someday.” And you’ll be happy to pay their taxes until you die with nothing to pass on.

I think all toonmaster was saying was that our money should not be taxed more than once.

“Quality of life is more important than merely existing. I sincerely hope you are not one of those who has that bumper sticker “He who dies with more toys wins.” You cannot, in fact, take it with you.”.I see I failed to get that across if you feel the need to tell me.That was EXACTLY my point.When we look at the wealth of different people, we only compare the material goods you are using to measure the upper whatever percent.Those of us near the bottom have chosen to enjoy other things than large bank accounts or expensive toys..Having made that decision, I disagree with the people who then complain about the ones who took the other paths..“Time spent reading or drinking or playing games or fishing or hiking is time not spent earning wealth by producing something others need or want. Those of who do those things are implicitly saying we are satisfied with less”This is not disingenuous (not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.)It is the truth and I don’t see where you had a problem with the statement.

“While residents of India and China are overall better off than they were 30, 20, or even 10 years ago, their standards of living do not even approach those in the West, as I’m sure you know.”.Of course I do.The fact that they are better off and getting even better off due to the recognition that rewards work better than force doesn’t mean they will instantly have everything.They can skip many of the mistakes we made but all improvements require time..My main point is that they exist.They are part of the picture.Those who assume American wealth can only come from American underclass do not understand America can draw on the wealth of the world and enrich the world in the process.People who complain about low wages elsewhere are free to pay them higher wages but aren’t really concerned about their well-being, they just want to complain about their exploitation.In a more free world, people freely work for those who improve their lives.In this world, many would stop them from having that choice if they could.

@Liverlips McCracken" I get the impression from one of your later comments that you must have been severely picked on and bullied as a kid. Perhaps by poor kids, certainly by poor, as in low quality, people. You are by no means alone in that category".I thought I made that clear.They seem to have picked on everybody but you.Their wealth — or lack thereof - does not justify their actions.Many were poorer but did not torment others.Many of the tormented were even poorer than I was..My bullies survived only because I allowed them to do so. I had the means and knowledge to end them. I had the self control to let them live with unbroken arms and skulls..Every now and then one went too far and I would knock him into the principal’s office - for which I got in trouble.One time I actually carried one in and set him down on the principal’s desk —- for which I got in trouble.(The life of a principal is not an easy one.).Most of them stopped bullying when they realized some of what I could do about their bullying. They just went to other targets, though.Some of those targets gave up and or killed themselves..And, yes, I still see some of them and, no, they have not changed for the better, those who are still alive.

@Liverlips McCracken“Human nature being what it is, all people are loath to move. The greater the distance, the greater the hesitancy. This is true for many reasons. Family ties are especially important. We may be unwilling to leave family members behind. We may be loath to leave friends behind.”.Which is to say again, there is value in things other than just money or materials..I have no idea how this affects Smith, but anything which ignores it is flawed..This is fine as long as long as folks realize and don’t lie to others or themselves..I used to be amused at how our union would point out some other employer paid more than ours did as a negotiating ploy, while ignoring our higher, untaxed benefits.

@Liverlips McCracken“I don’t think your assessment of their goals is accurate. I did not interpret anything they wrote to mean “Their stated purpose of taxation is not to pay for services rendered but rather to punish and impoverish the wealthy so they can make the impoverished wealthy.” Even if that were to be achieved, then the money would simply go back and forth as the two groups changed places.”.Obviously you are right regarding the result of that form of wealth redistribution, but I doubt they have thought it through or intend to give up their new, ill-gained wealth..Regardless, I direct your attention to the following exemplar:

“All the absence of the “Death Tax” is is a perpetual flow of money toward the already obscenely wealthy and often undeserving offspring and away from the average people.”.I can’t see how any would read this as other than the desire to do exactly what I said..I’m not claiming all are so avaricious or simpleminded, just that they exist. Any who think the purpose of estate taxes should be as a mechanism for stopping accumulation of wealth are essentially the same, just not as blatantly so.

@Liverlips McCracken

“Regarding the rights vs. powers discussion, the following is my original statement, which you saw fit to correct: “Your country has a right to some of what you have earned, which is taken in the form of taxes.” I stand by my use of the word “right”, as opposed to “powers”, in that context.”.As is your right.You have the right to use your own definitions for words separate from the rest of the world..I didn’t correct your statement, simply disputed it as given for an important semantic purpose.People frequently claim the government doesn’t have the right to do something, but since nobody has the power to stop them, it is the power which decides.

.

RightIn an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law.Each legal right that an individual possesses relates to a corresponding legal duty imposed on another. For example, when a person owns a home and property, he has the right to possess and enjoy it free from the interference of others, who are under a corresponding duty not to interfere with the owner’s rights by trespassing on the property or breaking into the home.In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

“My definition of “redistribution of wealth” is not the same as yours. Mine is that of an economist.”.Are you sure of that?Payment for goods and services is not a redistribution of wealth so much as an exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value.If you sell me a lollipop, you get my money but I get your lollipop.We both gain.We have just converted one form of wealth into another, more desirable form.You had more lollipops than you wanted, I had fewer.I had more pennies than I wanted, you had fewer.Afterwards, the balance of the universe is closer to optimal.

The spoken word, in face to face conversation, offers so many more ways to evaluate the truthfulness and sincerity of the speaker than does the written word. It is far more difficult to be precise when writing.

@DavidHuieGreenI think we’ve about exhausted this line of discourse. Nice chatting with you. I enjoy a reasonable debate with reasonable people who have (at least some) views that contrast with my own. In the end, we’re all citizens of the same country – a fact it seems to me the WW II vets appreciated better than the talking heads of today. As I read various commenters who post on this site, there are some, like Harley Quinn & ConserveGov, who are simply trolls. Maybe they’re just kids. Others, such as yourself. make a rational case for their views without making up “facts” and resorting to broad-brush attacks against large segments of the population. Too many are influenced by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, & Coulter.