Trust fund socialists, the world's lowest life form.
Posted on 04/15/2011 8:41:21 PM PDT by massmike
Taking the hypocrisy and depraved sanctimony that characterize liberalism to a new extreme of self-parody, useless trust fund moonbats have formed a tax-exempt corporation to enforce their demand that other rich people who,unlike themselves,actually earned their money turn over more of it to be flagrantly wasted by bureaucrats.
"Our current tax system perpetuates inequality," [bleats] Elspeth Gilmore. "Wealthy people can really change that narrative." Gilmore is the co-director of Resource Generation, a national nonprofit [i.e., tax exempt] organization that supports and challenges young, progressive people with wealth to leverage their privilege and resources for social change.
(Excerpt) Read more at moonbattery.com ...
Trust fund socialists, the world's lowest life form.
“A tax exempt corporation!?” OMG....they are beyond stupid!
Propose a tax on assets for an individual instead of earnings. They will crap in their pants.
All ‘Rats should send in 1/2 of their gross assets each and every year. Then the gov’t would be solvent or the ‘rats would stop trying to loot everybody else to pay for their wet dreams.
“a national nonprofit organization that supports and challenges young, progressive people with wealth to leverage their privilege and resources for social change.”
Useful idiots....they will be the first to be put against the wall...
Marxism always leads to the same result...
Liberalism really is a mental disease. And the more unearned income you have in your portfolio, the more mental you are.
At least some of the loonies in Hollywood have actually done something to earn their wealth.
Trust fund socialists apparently have more faith that the government can spend their money wisely than they can themselves. That speaks volumes about their intelligence and competence (of course, if they really believe this, perhaps their assessment about the government’s ability to spend money intelligently vs. their own is quite correct).
What’s interesting is that there is nothing stopping them from spending their entire wealth on “do-gooder” projects. Their failure to do so even as they advocate massive redistribution suggests that either a) they are hypocrites; or b) they are so weak-willed that they need the government to FORCE them to spend on the “needy,” as they lack the self-discipline to do so voluntarily.
A wealthy person who actually cared about the “needy” would recognize that a) some people don’t deserve help until/unless they change their own behavior; and b) teaching someone to fish is far preferable to simply giving that person a basket of fish. This has profound implications for the types of programs into which it is worth investing their wealth (e.g., micro-lending programs as opposed to giveaways; programs that make assistance contingent on behavioral change as opposed to programs that assume that poverty is “society’s” fault).
A wealthy person who recognized these truths (regardless of whether their wealth was inherited or earned) would be fiercely protective of their wealth to avoid its being squandered down the rathole of big government.
You have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it.
...useless trust fund moonbats have formed a tax-exempt corporation to enforce their demand that other rich people who,unlike themselves,actually earned their money turn over more of it to be flagrantly wasted by bureaucrats...Tax reform should rid us all of trust fund babies. If that's not practical, then the alternative should be obvious.
“You have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it.”
Here’s my problem with that perspective. If kids have no “right” to inherited wealth, it implies that even parents who have EARNED every penny of that wealth (think Bill Gates) have NO RIGHT to allocate that wealth as they please. It implies that it is perfectly appropriate for the government to levy confiscatory taxes to seize such wealth to ensure it doesn’t end up in the hands of people with no “right” to spend it. I agree with NONE of these implications.
I’m perfectly comfortable living in a world where some kids spend “undeserved” wealth. They didn’t take that wealth away from me (or anyone else): it was GIVEN to them by parents (and unless we’re talking about mob wealth or other ill-gotten gains whose acquisition is NOT legal or defensible, somewhere along the line, that wealth had to be earned by someone even if that happened generations ago).
If these children are wise and intelligent, they will grow their wealth or at least not consume it in self-destructive ways (think Charlie Sheen). In the worst case, these kids will squander their wealth quickly, which means that it will end up in the hands of others anyway. In the latter case, perhaps one could legitimately argue that the government would have made better use of the funds. But I’m not willing to preemptively accord the government the right to seize great gobs of wealth through an inheritance tax merely to avert the small share of cases in which recipients of inheritances completely squander what they never earned in the first place.
The reality is that most people on the Forbes 400 list EARNED their wealth: they did NOT inherit it. That being the case, we are best served by policies that encourage acquisition of wealth rather than confiscatory policies that imply we think that government, on average, is superior to individuals in deciding how to allocate wealth.
Why don’t they just send in their money to the IRS voluntarily?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.