Poor poor USA

[Janus1]

im against people who inherit enough money that they never work as well, but you cant really do anything to stop it without being grossly unfair. I think what should happen is, you dont get the inheritance until an older age, so that you have to hold a job for so long, or you have to hold a job for x number of years to get the inheritance. this way, the govt does not take your money unfairly, but you have done something to deserve it.

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

im against people who inherit enough money that they never work as well, but you cant really do anything to stop it without being grossly unfair. I think what should happen is, you dont get the inheritance until an older age, so that you have to hold a job for so long, or you have to hold a job for x number of years to get the inheritance. this way, the govt does not take your money unfairly, but you have done something to deserve it.

None of your business.
i have to agree with D:S to some degree here. Why does anyone care that someone else inherits a ton of cash that they didn’t work for/earn. Same thing with the lottery. I worry about me in this regard. I don’t take money i didn’t earn (although i will borrow from my parents until i’m done school). If some jerk down the street inherits a BILLION dollars - that’s none of my business, its not my problem, and lucky for him. So what if he doesn’t improve his work ethic - not my problem. Should i care that he doesn’t have to work anymore? Not at all. Hopefully the schmuck will spend lots of money - keep the economy running, but inheriting it from his parents - not my problem.

[Janus1]

nope. i have to disagree with you on this CC. people like that are a waste of humanity. they serve no purpose, and are no help to anybody. obviously, i cant make them work before they get their inheritance, and i dont know if the govt could either. but i think it should. otherwise, they are just wasted lives. their money would serve a better purpose in the hands of someone else, be it a charity, the govt, or someone/thing else. not my place to decide who, im no economist.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

…does the government deserve it? Of course they do…some of it. But, they’ll take whatever you give them, and once they’ve satisfied the needs of the basic neccessities (defense, judicial, etc.) then they’ll waste it on needless social programs.

Sometimes they waste it even before they satisfy the basic necessities.
That’s what we need, to eliminate govt. waste. I could do that, I’m the cheapest person I know. :P

As far as the rich people, I guess you’re right. Who cares?

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

…

You have a brain, why don’t you use it?

Oh, and yes, you should never call yourself christian at any times. Look who JC dined with…prostitutes and tax-agents.

For taking away what is mine… it is ok to be taken away though, when i start to use my money against the state (see what happened to the money of Al-Quaeda)… but, only if i use it in an openly agressive way. If i use it against something after having founded some company, it suddenly all turns business and freedom of business and trade and stuff. I mean if i start a business and get as many subsidies (correct word?) that is ok then, right? And don’t tell me that the US economy doesn’t have any subventions granted… well, you can, but you can tell “lies into your own pocket” on my behalf.

[Janus1]

is guest Falk?

[Yanny]

That guest has never posted as a registered user… from that IP

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

@Anonymous:

Oh, and yes, you should never call yourself christian at any times. Look who JC dined with…prostitutes and tax-agents.

Why not? If you believe in something, there’s nothing wrong with telling people IMO, unless you then proceed to attempt to get them to believe the same thing.

[Guest]

The guest has been me. Again my apologies. For the IP… Uni network :)

To the calligng oneself christian: GI, you said something along the line of “believe”. But then, if i believe christianity to be about worshipping Satan and defying JC, would i still eligible to call myself christian?
Who can someone who agrees with any kind of violence call him/herself christian? non-violence is one of the most important parts of christianity. Another important part is feeling for and helping the poor and what-so-ever-challenged, not the healthy and wealthy.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

@F_alk:

To the calligng oneself christian: GI, you said something along the line of “believe”. But then, if i believe christianity to be about worshipping Satan and defying JC, would i still eligible to call myself christian?
Who can someone who agrees with any kind of violence call him/herself christian? non-violence is one of the most important parts of christianity. Another important part is feeling for and helping the poor and what-so-ever-challenged, not the healthy and wealthy.

First of all, I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen any references to christianity up until your post about not calling someone christian.

Wrt sentence two, no, because there are a specific set of beliefs involved with christianity.

“Helping the poor and challenged” yes, but like I said, the burden for that rests upon the individual, and it’s their decision.

[cystic crypt]

Still not sure why any of this has anything to say about why the money i earn should not be given after i die to my children. Of course, I might well just give it to my children before i pass with the proviso that they take care of me through the last few years of my life.
Janus - you really should have no say in the matter. Look after yourself, and others if you are looking to help them. Otherwise, none of your business.

[Janus1]

O, i absolutely have no say. and despite my fiercest protests, it will likely never change in my lifetime. however, i can still argue against it until i die.

[Guest]

Gi, let"s skip that, it was not meant by me to create a new thread in this thread, just one of my “usual” lashings at stereotypical USie-traits.

CC, as you don’t like taxing heritages, then surely the children of composers and writers should not get a drop of the royalities once the creative parent dies.

[Yanny]

One owns the royalties on a published material. The ownership of the material simply passes on to the child like other property.

[Guest]

Well, but they have done no work at all for that. Why should someone earn something for nothing? That is very bad for econmy, it contradicts the very basics of that (which is “you only get something when you give something”).
Why should these people get something for nothing, but on the other hand many here feel very well when bashing any social security system.

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

Well, but they have done no work at all for that. Why should someone earn something for nothing? That is very bad for econmy, it contradicts the very basics of that (which is “you only get something when you give something”).
Why should these people get something for nothing, but on the other hand many here feel very well when bashing any social security system.

again - the rights of the property/equity holder i think should surpass your desire to see everyone “earn” their inheritance.
Gov’t is everyone’s business. Lennon’s progeny is Lennon’s business.
I don’t give a s**t if he does nothing but pick his nose and gets 1 billion$ from daddy in equity. Not my problem. The crypt looks after the crypt, and people who needs the crypt’s help. Your societal benefit at the risk of your parent’s autonomy is nothing that i need to pay attention to.

[DeviantScripter]

@F_alk:

Well, but they have done no work at all for that. Why should someone earn something for nothing? That is very bad for econmy.

CC’s right, this is not your obligation to teach that person about “work ethic” by taking his father’s money. That’s absurd.

This really has little to do with economy, F_alk, and more to do with personal property. Okay, so if I want to give my teenage kid a car instead of making him take the bus to school, I shouldn’t be allowed to? What if someone thinks that my kid needs to learn the value of taking public-transportation? Should they be able to take that car from me simply because they don’t agree with what I’m giving to someone else?

it contradicts the very basics of that (which is “you only get something when you give something”)./

That money wasn’t pulled out of thin air. Somebody had to work for it, whether it be the father, great-grandfather, etc. it was earned at some point and time, which made it that person’s property, which allows them to give it to whoever they want.

[TG Moses VI]

I have to agree with DS and CC, as long as we live in a capitalistic society, it’s not my buisness that some son should inherit his father’s multi-million dollar fortune. It was his father’s call in the first place, and if he doesn’t agree with his son getting it, he can say so in his will.

[Janus1]

um, i may be mistaken, but i thought copyrights expired? or is that only patents and trademarks?

D:S and CC, i see your point, and acknowledge it, its not my job to teach them the value of money, and a work ethic, or any other bs like that. but they should be tought those, and i will criticize the way it is as long as it is like this.

giving your teenage kid a car is oversimplified. its the same idea as a massive inheritance, but a much smaller scale. whereas the car may be something for nothing,
A) they probably still need to work to pay for it (insurance, gas) and pay for other teenager expenses
B) even if they dont need a job for any of that, they are only teenagers, and are generally expected to have a low work ethic, and not know the value of money (i personally have a very low work ethic right now, because ive never had to work. but im not getting a fat inheritance check, so i will have to eventually)
C) a car may be something for nothing, but its not like getting a free ticket to life, as with an inheritance check. you may have a free car, but that doesnt mean you wont ever have to work.
D) its funny, because i just realized that was a very long-winded attack on a very small point

That money wasn’t pulled out of thin air. Somebody had to work for it, whether it be the father, great-grandfather, etc. it was earned at some point and time, which made it that person’s property

yes, true, true. but we dont visit the sins of the father upon the son/daughter, why give them the fruits of his labor?
and yes, it is his to give to whoever he wants, and me saying something wont change it, i acknowledge and accept that. but i still think its shameful that they get a free ride through life.

[TG Moses VI]

yes, true, true. but we dont visit the sins of the father upon the son/daughter, why give them the fruits of his labor?

I thought if the father dies in debt, the sons/daughters are obligated to see too it that that debt is repaid… or is the just canon law?