quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Carefull NG your shifting to the right, have you been having a shit a shave a shampoo and a rethink ?

Inheritance Tax is completely wrong and I intend to have it stopped forthwith !

Why people appear to believe that governments create wealth I dont know.
Governemnts create wealth the same way lawyers do, come to think of it many members of govnt. are lawyers !
I've just had a Eureka moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Crappydom said....
GDP under Raygun and Brush ONLY rose because of government  spending.  Republicans can only get the economy going by using government spending to boost the economy, it would be ironic if they also didn't do so much damage.

GDP is a measure of the total value of goods and services in an economy therefore if the government Democrat or Republican either prints or borrows money and spends it the GDP will rise, this is Left Wing or in your terms Democratic party solution to the problem of the trade cycle starting to slow. The New Deal of Roosevelt applied this solution to the depression in the 30's in the face of intense opposition from the Republicans. Note that it is NOT the government that creates the wealth but the fact that they are in a position tax/borrow or create money that allows them to prime the motor so to speak.

It does not necessarily work, since Raygun as did our Thatcher left the state ie the taxpayer deeply in debt. Where do we disagree there ?

With regard to Iraq where your and our government went wrong was in not planning for the viscious hatred that exists between the different Islamic sects. To hold G Bush RESPONSIBLE for these hatreds seems to me to be unfair.
Thats how I see what is happening in Iraq anyway.

Just edit to say ,I wonder if I know as much as I think I do. lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

In other words, inheritance taxes were never designed to discourage people from handing down heirlooms, or even entire businesses, family farms, etc. with the intention of keeping them in business - it's a tax on transfers of capital, just like any other cash transfer.


I believe this is not the case in all countries, the toital value of estate is taxed in some. This has a particulalr impact with houses which in some developed countries have risen in value to the point where they reach the tax threshold when sold the inheritor is then taxed and the deceeased parent has been unable to pass on sufficient wealth to help put a "suitable roof" over the head of their children & grandchildren. Of particular importanc where rural communities have house prices rising because of "city folk" buying second / third houses in tourist / picturesque areas and so the natives are priced out of the market and are then taxed on the supposedly additional value of their parents houses.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


My gut instincts are quite far to the left of centre but my brains and experience tells me it doesn't work and society has to be run with the grain of human nature to be successful. I was born and brought up in a very poor area and I didn't want to wait until government fixed things to make that area worth living in and if I did, I would still be waiting for government action so I'm not a great believer in the efficiency of government. However, I don't believe in greed being the only motivating factor in human activity either so raw capitalism isn't an answer for me either. I wish I had a simple answer such as socialism but having been a trade union activist and a member of the Labour Party when I was younger, I witnessed too much petty corruption in both organisations to have blind faith in politicians or unionists.

There has to be motivation for individuals to be active in society, whether that is entrepreneurial or through political and social activism, both are necessary. The only financial mechanism is through tax, price regulation has been tried and doesn't work, you either make things too expensive or too cheap and destroy parts of the economy elsewhere. The other problem is to do with social activism, the more people are educated and hence more likely to be active in society the less they want to do the crap jobs in society, yet society could cope better without doctors than workers at the local sewage plant. The nearest i've seen anything to working is in Denmark where top jobs such as Judges can only earn seven times that of the lowest paid workers (or did) but that doesn't work for business which is an international market.

As for banning inheritence tax, people will get rid of their money before they die or open trust funds or someother tax avoidence scheme. The government can only tax something so much before people start to look for loop holes in the tax system. I would prefer more of people's tax being collected locally and spent locally. This would encourage activism because people could have more control over how their taxes are spent. People would also see the benefits of those taxes and if they don't, they would be able to do something about it rather than just belly aching about central government while feeling inpotent. However, to do this and I'm talking about Britain now, the political system would have to be reformed to stop political parties and their ideologues hijacking the system. I've thought about this often and I think it can be done with a local civil service that is there as an advisary council for independents. The internal petty politicking of political parties means that many talented people that join them wanting to do something for their community, soon get disillusioned and leave. I sat through hours of meetings in my youth, totally frustrated by people who knew how the party worked more than those people who wanted to get things done but couldn't because of the points of order and party rules which ideologues used for their own engrandisement in their little fish bowl.

Damn, you've got me on a rant CD. But trying to be concise, I think the answer is bringing everything down to a local level that is possible. People who are active locally also take interest in national politics too on the whole.