"A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy."

[piasabird]

This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

I don't hate the rich at all. I wish I were one of them. I just want them to pay more so I pay less. It's as simple as that!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

No, it's not, you brainwashed righty. It's a love of the human race.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

Who worked for it again? Right. So tax the unearned income that has fallen upon the heirs through no effort of their own. To do less would be robbing those who do work for a living and would have to pay higher taxes to cover the taxes not being paid by the heirs.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, it's not, you brainwashed righty. It's a love of the human race.

You're FOS... you've already admitted your real motivation and intent... please see below:

Originally posted by: Craig234
You clearly lack any concept of the idea of dynasties and the threat they can pose to democracy and economic well-being for most Americans and to productivity.

So you object to the reigning in of the dynasties...

It has nothing to do with love, and everything to do with hate, jealousy, and bitter revenge.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

Who worked for it again? Right. So tax the unearned income that has fallen upon the heirs through no effort of their own. To do less would be robbing those who do work for a living and would have to pay higher taxes to cover the taxes not being paid by the heirs.

*cough* "the rich" already cover roughly 80% of the total tax burden in America *cough*

When do their contributions become "enough"?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

Who worked for it again? Right. So tax the unearned income that has fallen upon the heirs through no effort of their own. To do less would be robbing those who do work for a living and would have to pay higher taxes to cover the taxes not being paid by the heirs.

*cough* "the rich" already cover roughly 80% of the total tax burden in America *cough*

When do their contributions become "enough"?

Why do the rich pay this much in taxes? Could it be because they have 80% of the money (rhetorical only, they have more)? Hence the clear need for the estate tax.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: senseamp

And thus decline of America, which is where "conservative" policies under Republican administrations are driving us, with their astronomic borrowing.

QFT.

You get political popularity by spending money on interests. You get political popularity by having lower taxes.

Some would say that means you have to find a tradeoff, where you balance the two.

The republicans have decided you can have the best of both worlds, as long as you are willing to sell out the long-term interests of the nation with huge debt, for short-term political power.

So you want to bitch about their spending too? Welcome to the club.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
As an alternative to a tax, people with great wealth could have the option of donating to approved charities of their choice. Setting up something to funnel money to a relative would be prohibited of course, but one could donate to education, medicine, disaster relief etc with no tax penalty. The remainder could go to the heirs. If I had a few billion, I'd rather donate it to energy research than Uncle Sam.

:thumbsup:

Even if government FORCED this upon us through tyranny, it is a far better option than giving that money for government misuse. Your solution absolves the crux of my problem. Even though I may not agree with forcing the payment, least the payment isn?t going to the foundation of a dictatorship.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

Who worked for it again? Right. So tax the unearned income that has fallen upon the heirs through no effort of their own. To do less would be robbing those who do work for a living and would have to pay higher taxes to cover the taxes not being paid by the heirs.

*cough* "the rich" already cover roughly 80% of the total tax burden in America *cough*

When do their contributions become "enough"?

Why do the rich pay this much in taxes? Could it be because they have 80% of the money (rhetorical only, they have more)? Hence the clear need for the estate tax.

I'm not quite sure how your first point proved a "clear need" for anything...??

Why is it too much to ask that the remaining 80% of the population cover the remaining 20% of tax burden? Just how big a burden should the rich have to cover? 90%? 95%? All of it!?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Why is it too much to ask that the remaining 80% of the population cover the remaining 20% of tax burden? Just how big a burden should the rich have to cover? 90%? 95%? All of it!?

Just enough that they don't have worry about passing such large amounts money down to their heirs that they need to abolish the inheritance taxes.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74


Why is it too much to ask that the remaining 80% of the population cover the remaining 20% of tax burden? Just how big a burden should the rich have to cover? 90%? 95%? All of it!?

Just enough that they don't have worry about passing such large amounts money down to their heirs that they need to abolish the inheritance taxes.

Can you please clarify that a little? it's a rough sentence...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

So your solution would be to hate the poor instead? Tax money has to come from somewhere, and if we're banned from taking it from the rich lest we be accused of "hating" them, then the only alternative is to take the tax money from the non-rich. The implication being that's OK, that we can tax the NON-rich without hating them, right?

Your position is silly, you assume that any concept of tax must be determined by like or dislike of the group being taxed. Nevermind that taxes aren't treated as an end by very many people I can think of.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is all just hatred of the rich. Some person worked all their life for their family and then they just want to pass on their funds to their surviving family members. Because you dont like their success you want to take their property.

Who worked for it again? Right. So tax the unearned income that has fallen upon the heirs through no effort of their own. To do less would be robbing those who do work for a living and would have to pay higher taxes to cover the taxes not being paid by the heirs.

*cough* "the rich" already cover roughly 80% of the total tax burden in America *cough*

When do their contributions become "enough"?

Why do the rich pay this much in taxes? Could it be because they have 80% of the money (rhetorical only, they have more)? Hence the clear need for the estate tax.

I'm not quite sure how your first point proved a "clear need" for anything...??

Why is it too much to ask that the remaining 80% of the population cover the remaining 20% of tax burden? Just how big a burden should the rich have to cover? 90%? 95%? All of it!?

Well obviously you have some magic formula for figuring out who should pay taxes, care to share?

The fact is that looking at percentages is silly, because it ignores the fact that concentration of wealth means putting 80% of the tax burden on the top 20% of the population (if that is indeed how taxes break down) is hardly unfair. In fact, I think a good system might be a flat tax rate that is applied to ALL income equally. No loopholes for investments or tax writeoffs or anything. That would be the very definition of fair...but I imagine "the rich" like our current system just fine.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I want 100%. Been saying this for years. The ideal system of taxation is 0 taxes while alive and 100% back when you're dead. I sincerely doubt, however, that Warren is going to be willing to go that far (or at least not in public). Nor can I assume that a hack like the OP is going to accept the reasonable of the 0% while alive if it's 100% at death.

LOL... can you imagine how many rich people will be off'd by the poor?

:laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, it's not, you brainwashed righty. It's a love of the human race.

You're FOS... you've already admitted your real motivation and intent... please see below:

Originally posted by: Craig234
You clearly lack any concept of the idea of dynasties and the threat they can pose to democracy and economic well-being for most Americans and to productivity.

So you object to the reigning in of the dynasties...

It has nothing to do with love, and everything to do with hate, jealousy, and bitter revenge.

Funny, the founding of our nation was to help the people by ending the reign of the monarchy/elited of Britain - an act out of love for the people of the US, one could say.

And yet you can't see that limiting dynasties, which increases wealth and opportunity among the rest of the people, is the same thing today?

You take the position that the most wealthy should be able to have plenty of wealth and opportunity, just not to the point of extremes bad for society, and you misrepresent that position as 'hate' of them, a lie, that it's jealousy, a lie, and that it's "revenge" for something only you can say, another lie.

You just don't get it, so you keep repeating the lies you have adopted.

I don't know how to help you - would an analogy help? If someone I really liked were president, I would still want to limit their power as the constitution does.

According to your logic, my reason would be 'hate' of them, 'jealousy' of them, and wanting 'revenge' on them.

And yet you can see that's clearly not the case - we can hopefully find common ground on the constitutional idea of the presidency? Does an analogy like that help you get the clue?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: techs
Buffett said that in the last 20 years, tax laws have allowed the ``super-rich'' to get richer.

``Tax-law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way,'' he said. ``During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: He's been on a treadmill while the super rich have been on a spaceship.''

It's not merely the tax laws, but also the effect of global labor arbitrage. By allowing a dramatic increase the supply of labor, the owners of capital can keep a larger share of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production. Thus, our nation's policies of mass immigration, foreign work visas (H-1B, L-1), unrestricted international trade, and the running of a massive trade deficit have also helped. Basically, these economic policies act as a huge subsidy to the wealthy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: techs
Buffett said that in the last 20 years, tax laws have allowed the ``super-rich'' to get richer.

``Tax-law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way,'' he said. ``During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: He's been on a treadmill while the super rich have been on a spaceship.''

It's not merely the tax laws, but also the effect of global labor arbitrage. By allowing a dramatic increase the supply of labor, the owners of capital can keep a larger share of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production. Thus, our nation's policies of mass immigration, foreign work visas (H-1B, L-1), unrestricted international trade, and the running of a massive trade deficit have also helped. Basically, these economic policies act as a huge subsidy to the wealthy.

And it's not only the size of the labor pool, it's undoing the empowerment of US labor over the last century by increasingly having them compete without protection against foreigners.

It's an end-run around the US laws. They can't beat the US political system's protecting of US workers, but they can fool people into so-called 'free trade agreements'.

While they can't get the progress for workers repealed directly, they can get the same effective result by saying 'if you don't accept the worse terms, Mexican/Chinese/etc. will'.

The American worker is left being pulled down to the least-common denominator of the global economy, while the wealthy pocket the difference in the saced 'labor costs'.

The predictable result has been a shift of power and wealth from US workers to the owner class.

It's why the top 5% have gone from owning 50% of all wealth in America when Reagan took office to owning over 75% today, a radical 'class warfare' redistribution of wealth.

But you won't hear the resident partisan righties say that, acknowledge that, answer that; they're too busy repeating the simple apologist talking points handed to them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I want 100%. Been saying this for years. The ideal system of taxation is 0 taxes while alive and 100% back when you're dead. I sincerely doubt, however, that Warren is going to be willing to go that far (or at least not in public). Nor can I assume that a hack like the OP is going to accept the reasonable of the 0% while alive if it's 100% at death.

LOL... can you imagine how many rich people will be off'd by the poor?

:laugh:

That's silly. They wouldn't do so because the tax funds would be no more likely to end up in the hands of the poor than they do now. The idea of government as wealth redistributor is a myth for those who have been brainwashed by the powerful. The myth of the all-benevolent government is kind of like the new enslaving religion of our age. Government is the collective entity of authority that controls and operates the military, the police, and the prisons.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, it's not, you brainwashed righty. It's a love of the human race.

You're FOS... you've already admitted your real motivation and intent... please see below:

Originally posted by: Craig234
You clearly lack any concept of the idea of dynasties and the threat they can pose to democracy and economic well-being for most Americans and to productivity.

So you object to the reigning in of the dynasties...

It has nothing to do with love, and everything to do with hate, jealousy, and bitter revenge.

Funny, the founding of our nation was to help the people by ending the reign of the monarchy/elited of Britain - an act out of love for the people of the US, one could say.

And yet you can't see that limiting dynasties, which increases wealth and opportunity among the rest of the people, is the same thing today?

You take the position that the most wealthy should be able to have plenty of wealth and opportunity, just not to the point of extremes bad for society, and you misrepresent that position as 'hate' of them, a lie, that it's jealousy, a lie, and that it's "revenge" for something only you can say, another lie.

You just don't get it, so you keep repeating the lies you have adopted.

I don't know how to help you - would an analogy help? If someone I really liked were president, I would still want to limit their power as the constitution does.

According to your logic, my reason would be 'hate' of them, 'jealousy' of them, and wanting 'revenge' on them.

And yet you can see that's clearly not the case - we can hopefully find common ground on the constitutional idea of the presidency? Does an analogy like that help you get the clue?

Except your analogy doesn't work because most of the founding fathers either inherited (i.e. Jefferson) or married into (i.e. Washington) their wealth. Only a few (i.e. Franklin) were self-made (and none of them were poor men).
Nor were they interested in "limiting dynasties" but in freeing themselves and their countrymen from the notion that anyone has the "divine right" to rule over them, regardless of how benevolent that ruler might exercise that "right." You're hardly a proponent of that particular fight, you just think that the people have that "divine right" instead of a single king, and are unable to comprehend how that's just as bad.
But don't worry, I don't think you're jealous of the rich or whatever.

 

[zinfamous]

yeah taxes suck....

perhaps we should stop paving roads, providing education, etc...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
yeah taxes suck....

perhaps we should stop paving roads, providing education, etc...

Yeah youre right. If we get rid of that 1.5% that inheritance taxes provide our roads would crumble...our schools would shut down...the damn sky would fall! We would be back to the 1800's!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: zinfamous
yeah taxes suck....

perhaps we should stop paving roads, providing education, etc...

Yeah youre right. If we get rid of that 1.5% that inheritance taxes provide our roads would crumble...our schools would shut down...the damn sky would fall! We would be back to the 1800's!

THINK OF THE RICH PEOPLE'S CHILDREN, PEOPLE!

Fixed.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
yeah taxes suck....

perhaps we should stop paving roads, providing education, etc...

You forgot illegal wars. That would solve this whole issue but I doubt that those against the tax in here would be in favor of stopping the war.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: zinfamous
yeah taxes suck....

perhaps we should stop paving roads, providing education, etc...

Yeah youre right. If we get rid of that 1.5% that inheritance taxes provide our roads would crumble...our schools would shut down...the damn sky would fall! We would be back to the 1800's!

THINK OF THE RICH PEOPLE'S CHILDREN, PEOPLE!

Fixed.

Wait. How would rich kids benefit from higher taxes collected for social programs?