GOP finally fighting for those who need help the most.

[shira]

Puh-leeze. The estate tax exemption for 2015 is $5.43M, actually higher for "family farms", aka agribusiness. It affects 0.12% of estates, none of them middle class in the slightest.

A variety of coping mechanisms are available to those who can afford lawyers to put it together, including Mitt's multimillion dollar IRA for his wife, trusts, gifts & so forth.

http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/10/30/estate-tax-exemption-for-2015-announced-by-irs/

The whole argument puts the lie to Righties' mock piety for hard work & exceptionalism, not to mention their ravings about free shit for anybody not their economic equal or superior.

If inheritance isn't free shit, what is?

And everybody DOES know, don't they, that for married couples the exemption is effectively double the oft-cited figure of $5.43 million? So we're talking estates in excess of $10.9 million..

 

[Blackjack200]

Ahh yes the other side of the aristocracy in this election. And I was waiting for somebody to bring up the lesser of two evils argument. As if that absolves us from voting in the same shitty people. A country of 330 million people will have a choice between two political families.

Anyways I am side tracking this circle jerk of a thread. But I had to point out senseamps faux concern about the aristocracy in this country.

Probably nothing did more to cement the two party system than SCOTUS with their Citizens United decision.

All of us pulling the D lever are just livimg in the world they created for us.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Puh-leeze. The estate tax exemption for 2015 is $5.43M, actually higher for "family farms", aka agribusiness. It affects 0.12% of estates, none of them middle class in the slightest.

A variety of coping mechanisms are available to those who can afford lawyers to put it together, including Mitt's multimillion dollar IRA for his wife, trusts, gifts & so forth.

http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/10/30/estate-tax-exemption-for-2015-announced-by-irs/

The whole argument puts the lie to Righties' mock piety for hard work & exceptionalism, not to mention their ravings about free shit for anybody not their economic equal or superior.

If inheritance isn't free shit, what is?

I sense a bit of sarcasm in his post with the "almost taxed once before". Maybe it's just me.

 

[Genx87]

You don't really think that's a result of their policies though, do you? You might be able to argue for financial deregulation as enabling much larger inequality, but other than that it's tough.

This is the fundamental problem going into the 2016 election and why if I were to vote why I couldn't possibly see voting for any Republican. No matter who you elect, no matter how reasonable they sound, their primary policy goal will almost certainly be to enact huge tax cuts for the rich.

There's not a single Republican candidate that isn't promising this. That's a nonstarter.

I'd say their policies have to had affected some of that. Would you not? Or are you going to claim Bush's policies didn't help lead to the implosion in 08? Cant have it both ways.

For the record not arguing against what Clinton did in the 1990s. If Bill would run in 2016, he would have my vote. So I'd be part of the problem haha. But to complain about wealth inequity and the aristocracy and then turn around and vote for somebody who has been part of two admins that have this kind of inequity and part of a political family is rather silly imo.

 

[dank69]

I'd say their policies have to had affected some of that. Would you not? Or are you going to claim Bush's policies didn't help lead to the implosion in 08? Cant have it both ways.

For the record not arguing against what Clinton did in the 1990s. If Bill would run in 2016, he would have my vote. So I'd be part of the problem haha. But to complain about wealth inequity and the aristocracy and then turn around and vote for somebody who has been part of two admins that have this kind of inequity and part of a political family is rather silly imo.

It seems like you are saying that you can't look at how individual policies affect the economy. That can't be what you are actually saying, right? Why would you say you can't have it both ways? Wealth inequality under Obama continues to skyrocket as well. Do you think it is because of policies he has enacted or maybe because attempts to reverse policies have been blocked?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I wonder how many Constitutionalist Tea Party guys are going along with this? The founding Fathers were against the idea of wealth transfer like Monarchy's had.

Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

 

[fskimospy]

I'd say their policies have to had affected some of that. Would you not? Or are you going to claim Bush's policies didn't help lead to the implosion in 08? Cant have it both ways.

I do think they affected it. In Obama's case it's likely that he made it better than it would be otherwise. Taxes on the very rich are up substantially, and we've made rather large wealth transfers to the lowest incomes through the ACA, etc.

For the record not arguing against what Clinton did in the 1990s. If Bill would run in 2016, he would have my vote. So I'd be part of the problem haha. But to complain about wealth inequity and the aristocracy and then turn around and vote for somebody who has been part of two admins that have this kind of inequity and part of a political family is rather silly imo.

I don't think so at all. That would be true if you thought inequality would have been less extreme if we had elected their opponent (or hell, even some replacement level president, sabermetrics style). I don't think that would be the case.

 

[Jhhnn]

And everybody DOES know, don't they, that for married couples the exemption is effectively double the oft-cited figure of $5.43 million? So we're talking estates in excess of $10.9 million..

And that's really only for wealthy people who don't engage in estate planning. Like this-

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/y...ing/the-ins-and-outs-of-perpetual-trusts.html

 

[Brian Stirling]

Calling out the republicans for favoring the rich and ignoring that the dems, no matter what they SAY to there flock, are also working at the service of the rich. It is ignorance to think the elected dems are there to help the middle class. They may wish to do more for the middle class but they need to get elected and to do that they need money from the rich -- and the rich have there prerequisites.


Brian

 

[MongGrel]

That's an old-timey apple corer/slicer.

Wearing red ribbons around your neck while at parties will become a fad again

 

[JSt0rm]

Calling out the republicans for favoring the rich and ignoring that the dems, no matter what they SAY to there flock, are also working at the service of the rich. It is ignorance to think the elected dems are there to help the middle class. They may wish to do more for the middle class but they need to get elected and to do that they need money from the rich -- and the rich have there prerequisites.


Brian

But of the 2 parties we have 1 with a portion of the party that does in fact fight for the middle class. You cant ignore that.

 

[MongGrel]

I'd say their policies have to had affected some of that. Would you not? Or are you going to claim Bush's policies didn't help lead to the implosion in 08? Cant have it both ways.

For the record not arguing against what Clinton did in the 1990s. If Bill would run in 2016, he would have my vote. So I'd be part of the problem haha. But to complain about wealth inequity and the aristocracy and then turn around and vote for somebody who has been part of two admins that have this kind of inequity and part of a political family is rather silly imo.

Bill would be First Dude.

 

[JSt0rm]

Bill would be First Dude.

What would we call that? First Man? :wub:

 

[JSt0rm]

on further reflection he should be called "the first lady-boy"

 

[zephyrprime]

Death tax should be 100%. The dead should have no property rights. It would do a lot to actually level the playing field of opportunity. It would also help prevent the wealth destruction that occurs when business fall into the hands of incompetent heirs.

 

[shira]

Calling out the republicans for favoring the rich and ignoring that the dems, no matter what they SAY to there flock, are also working at the service of the rich. It is ignorance to think the elected dems are there to help the middle class. They may wish to do more for the middle class but they need to get elected and to do that they need money from the rich -- and the rich have there prerequisites.

Brian

Sadly, many who vote Republican think the right has their interests in mind. They think that "limited government" means more money left over for them (from lower taxes). What they don't seem to understand is that Republican policies are highly regressive, and that anything that middle- and lower-middle-class taxpayers get back in the form of lower taxes will end up falling far short of what these same taxpayers lose in the form of cutbacks in social programs.

For example, there's a big move by Republicans to pass a balanced budget Constitutional amendment. What the Republican rank and file don't appear to understand is that if in fact a balanced budget amendment were passed, then when the inevitable yearly budget deficit came calling Congress would just shrug their shoulders and cut Social Security and Medicare with impunity, under the pretext of "We have no choice - it's the law." Without a balanced budget Amendment, Congress doesn't have cover to cut those social programs.

 

[Brian Stirling]

But of the 2 parties we have 1 with a portion of the party that does in fact fight for the middle class. You cant ignore that.

Yes, there are some dems, and a few repubs that actually do work for the rest of us but there numbers don't count. On the issues that matter to the wealthy nearly 100% or repubs and enough dems vote for them and they get what they want.

Want to go to war in Iraq? You get 100% of republicans and enough democrats and you get the war you've always wanted.

Want to make the wealthy wealthier and weaken the middle class? Nearly 100% of repubs and enough dems will support trade polices that increase the abandonment of American manufacturing and ship jobs to China/Mexico.

Hillary is NOT one of us, she is playing us like a Three Card Monte dealer. It was her husband that signed into law GATT, MATFA and the WTO as well as dozens of other free trade deals that accelerated the evisceration of American manufacturing. Hillary, getting money from the same sources, will be no better and maybe worse.

This isn't to say the republicans are better -- they are not!


Brian

 

[Jhhnn]

Sadly, many who vote Republican think the right has their interests in mind. They think that "limited government" means more money left over for them (from lower taxes). What they don't seem to understand is that Republican policies are highly regressive, and that anything that middle- and lower-middle-class taxpayers get back in the form of lower taxes will end up falling far short of what these same taxpayers lose in the form of cutbacks in social programs.

For example, there's a big move by Republicans to pass a balanced budget Constitutional amendment. What the Republican rank and file don't appear to understand is that if in fact a balanced budget amendment were passed, then when the inevitable yearly budget deficit came calling Congress would just shrug their shoulders and cut Social Security and Medicare with impunity, under the pretext of "We have no choice - it's the law." Without a balanced budget Amendment, Congress doesn't have cover to cut those social programs.

It's worse than that. When & if Repub free market deregulated finance crashes the economy again, necessitating bailout, it can't be done, so, welcome to 1930, all over again.

Politically, we'd be better off had they crashed the economy entirely because middle class Righties would have no room for denial. Despite leaving their delusions intact, I'm glad we haven't suffered that sort of needless misery.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's worse than that. When & if Repub free market deregulated finance crashes the economy again, necessitating bailout, it can't be done, so, welcome to 1930, all over again.

Politically, we'd be better off had they crashed the economy entirely because middle class Righties would have no room for denial. Despite leaving their delusions intact, I'm glad we haven't suffered that sort of needless misery.

Fuck that. Im not giving up my prime earning years so people can play ideology.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes, there are some dems, and a few repubs that actually do work for the rest of us but there numbers don't count. On the issues that matter to the wealthy nearly 100% or repubs and enough dems vote for them and they get what they want.

Want to go to war in Iraq? You get 100% of republicans and enough democrats and you get the war you've always wanted.

Want to make the wealthy wealthier and weaken the middle class? Nearly 100% of repubs and enough dems will support trade polices that increase the abandonment of American manufacturing and ship jobs to China/Mexico.

Hillary is NOT one of us, she is playing us like a Three Card Monte dealer. It was her husband that signed into law GATT, MATFA and the WTO as well as dozens of other free trade deals that accelerated the evisceration of American manufacturing. Hillary, getting money from the same sources, will be no better and maybe worse.

This isn't to say the republicans are better -- they are not!


Brian

But that's kind of my point. There are more dems who wont go to war or give tax cuts to people who dont need them to a detriment of the budget.

Every turn the republicans show thats they will break stuff.

 

[Brian Stirling]

But that's kind of my point. There are more dems who wont go to war or give tax cuts to people who dont need them to a detriment of the budget.

Every turn the republicans show thats they will break stuff.

Yeah, well, that's kind of like asking ... would you rather be shot in the stomach or the head -- not a desirable choice now is it...


Brian

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, well, that's kind of like asking ... would you rather be shot in the stomach or the head -- not a desirable choice now is it...


Brian

You really don't see the difference between the two? Then you aren't interested in changing anything.

 

[Brian Stirling]

You really don't see the difference between the two? Then you aren't interested in changing anything.

What fucking difference are you talking about? This is about money, pure and simple.

* The wealthy want all of it and pay Washington to give it to them!
* Both parties are in on the party!
* The middle class has no say!
* The election process has been rigged to favor the wealthy for a long time!
* Citizens United has all but eliminated any possibility for change! You are now not permitted to look behind the curtain!

Believing the dems are the solution just obscures the real problem -- both parties are in it for the money and the middle class aren't the ones providing it.


Brian

 

[JSt0rm]

If you have convinced yourself you arent voting against your own interest then fine just dont expect others to follow you in this exercise.

 

[dank69]

What fucking difference are you talking about? This is about money, pure and simple.

* The wealthy want all of it and pay Washington to give it to them!
* Both parties are in on the party!
* The middle class has no say!
* The election process has been rigged to favor the wealthy for a long time!
* Citizens United has all but eliminated any possibility for change! You are now not permitted to look behind the curtain!

Believing the dems are the solution just obscures the real problem -- both parties are in it for the money and the middle class aren't the ones providing it.


Brian

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
The Dems will push policies that benefit the poor and middle class unless they are paid not to do so while the GOP will push policies that buttfuck the poor and middle class whether they are paid to do so or not.