Sen. Bernie Sanders introduces Estate Tax bill, commentary

[Craig234]

If it was truly an attempt to 'fix' the problem of a ruling class developing, they wouldn't be doing it by messing with a 30 billion tax that is irrelevant in the grand scheme. This is about whipping up the "tax the rich!" sentiment and getting the people used to the class warfare mentality.

Maybe if they were, the estate tax would be part of a package that included a higher top tax bracket too, like 90% (FDR) or 75% (JFK), before Republicans slashed that to under 40% (Reagan) or even lower (Bush), while Republicans continued to try to eliminate the Estate Tax ALSO as part of their agenda for the rich. Oh, wait, that's just what's happened.

Your other claims are baseless and ideological. We already have the rich 'whipped up' to the 'class warfare mentality' that they've been winning since Reagan.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not one righty has put up an answer to the questionI asked more than once:

Name who you want to tax instead for the same money the estate tax would take, who is more 'deserving' to be 'punished' and pay the tax.

That question has been answered many many times. Very simple: spend less. <gasp>.

 

[Craig234]

That question has been answered many many times. Very simple: spend less. <gasp>.

That's not an answer. You haven't achieved lesser spending, so you don't get a magic dust that makes it 'free money', you have to allocate the taxes to someone. To whom?

 

[daishi5]

Name who you want to tax instead for the same money the estate tax would take, who is more 'deserving' to be 'punished' and pay the tax.

I would like a simple progressive income tax, with no exceptions beyond a welfare floor. Basically just a flat tax, only not a flat rate. I would prefer a flat tax on luxuries, with no tax on necessities. But, I recognize that would be hard to implement, and would look like a simple progressive tax rate.

What I don't like is when the government is rigging all of its rules to single people out, I want fair treatment for all the people.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's a real opportunity for the reasons I said, lowering other people's taxes, and replacing dynasty with meritocracy and more opportunity for others.

Tell me, in a Latin American country where a small number of families own 95% of the land and the businesses, how much opportunity is there for others? An estate tax can help.

You still haven't answered my question, name the people in the US who you think should have their taxes raised as more deserving for 'punishment' to replace the estate tax.

It's not an either/or proposition: the estate tax could simply be eliminated along with a corresponding amount of government spending. I know, I know: blasphemy! But it's only blasphemous because you're not yet in touch with the reality of your method. On the one hand, you claim to want a meritocracy. On the other hand, you take away property earned by merit to give to those who have not earned it. This is a contradiction. You don't realize that the reason South America has ended up that way is because of government intervention in every facet of life. You don't see that government cannot create opportunities, only limit them. For every $10 that the government "redistributes" to the poor, a private charity could have given $15. For every government "fix," a group of new problems inevitably arises, which brings me to my next point:

Hardly - you sound more like a hypocrite, and if you are taken at face value rather than with 'irony', government waste that we liberals like to cut.

Again, you wanted big government to solve all of the world's problems. I didn't. You got your way. I am simply living in the system you created. I am the reality of your utopia. You are an idealist who cannot accept that governments are intrinsically wasteful and corrupt, despite history's constant reminder that this is true under any system of government. You cannot accept that I can draw six figures from my couch under your ideal system of government. It's absolutely heretical to even suggest it, I'm sure, but that's the reality of the system that you have campaigned for all these years. You can't have government without waste, so saying that big-government liberals like to cut waste is simply another contradiction because growing the government necessarily grows waste.

 

[CycloWizard]

If it was actually taking away their rewards, or more to the point, the rewards of their heirs who are being rewarded for their parents productivity and death. The thing is they are still being greatly rewarded.

It's either my property or it's not. If it's not, then we have nothing to discuss because I own nothing and everything I earn will belong to the state. If it is, then it's mine to do with what I will. It's not up to you to step in later and say that, since my property is greater than x, only 45% of it is my property after I die while the majority belongs to the government. If the government can take most of my property away when I die, then it was never really mine, was it? The government already took its cut when I earned it the first time around, implicitly stating that what's left is my property. Then, the right to this property is circumvented when I try to transfer it to my heirs. In any case, it doesn't make much difference because the people who stand to lose the most are also rich enough to pay a lawyer to devise a scheme by which the estate tax can be circumvented.

 

[Craig234]

It's either my property or it's not. If it's not, then we have nothing to discuss because I own nothing and everything I earn will belong to the state. If it is, then it's mine to do with what I will. It's not up to you to step in later and say that, since my property is greater than x, only 45% of it is my property after I die while the majority belongs to the government. If the government can take most of my property away when I die, then it was never really mine, was it? The government already took its cut when I earned it the first time around, implicitly stating that what's left is my property. Then, the right to this property is circumvented when I try to transfer it to my heirs. In any case, it doesn't make much difference because the people who stand to lose the most are also rich enough to pay a lawyer to devise a scheme by which the estate tax can be circumvented.

Your childish argument could be applied to any taxes whatsoever. If you ever have to pay a dollar for tax, then all your money belongs to the government, not you. It's idiocy.

And you add to that childish argument with another, the 'why bother having the tax since it can be completely avoided with lawyers'.

Well, for one, write the tax well enough to that's not how it works, and second, funny, for the many decades the tax has been in place, that's not what's happened.

 

[CycloWizard]

Your childish argument could be applied to any taxes whatsoever. If you ever have to pay a dollar for tax, then all your money belongs to the government, not you. It's idiocy.

And you add to that childish argument with another, the 'why bother having the tax since it can be completely avoided with lawyers'.

Well, for one, write the tax well enough to that's not how it works, and second, funny, for the many decades the tax has been in place, that's not what's happened.

I see you neglected all of the points I made and simply resorted to calling me childish. How... clever. You still can't see government for what it is. You can't see that writing more laws creates more loopholes. You can't see that your heroes are corrupt trash who have no motivation to do what you think is right. Even if I agreed with you that government could solve all of the world's problems in principle (which it probably could, in principle), that's simply not reality. You can call me childish until you're blue in the face, but I'm not the one living in a fantasy world. My posting this while making six figures from our government is all the proof a rational person would need.

edit: But since it's obviously not enough evidence for you, why don't you take a guess at why the states with the largest governments are also facing the biggest budget shortfalls? California, New York, and Illinois are leading the way in both of these categories.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry to be harsh, but your comments are simplistic nonsense, ideology, etc.

It's not an either/or proposition: the estate tax could simply be eliminated along with a corresponding amount of government spending. I know, I know: blasphemy!

First, you're not answering the question, you're just shifting things around - IF spending was cut a trillion dollars, you face the same question - who is more 'deserving' of the tax relief for that million dollars (assuming you don't apply it for deficit reduction and cut taxes) - the working people, or do you put the trillion dollars of taxes on them and cut the ultra rich's taxes by the trillion dollars? It changes nothing in the question, so it's not worth discussing, and you haven't cut spending.

So as I said, the question remains, name who you tax more to cut the estate tax.

BTW, I'm for a lot of spending cuts. You don't agree with them presumably. We disagree on short term stimulus, though I'm opposed to 'too big to fail' being allowed.

But it's only blasphemous because you're not yet in touch with the reality of your method. On the one hand, you claim to want a meritocracy. On the other hand, you take away property earned by merit to give to those who have not earned it. This is a contradiction. You don't realize that the reason South America has ended up that way is because of government intervention in every facet of life. You don't see that government cannot create opportunities, only limit them. For every $10 that the government "redistributes" to the poor, a private charity could have given $15. For every government "fix," a group of new problems inevitably arises, which brings me to my next point:

This is an example of where you are simplistic. Let's hit on a number of your points.

'Meritocracy' comes in degrees. There's too much and too little, there are different issues.

If we're talking about allowing merit to determine who rises to greater power in a corporation and ownership of wealth to use for the economy, versus having a strictly hereditary approach where the powerful family always owns it all and gets almost all the profits from doing so, that's one issue. If we're having government require businesses to spend to accommodate the handicapped versus 'meritocracy', that's another issue.

South America did not have those problems because of the government. They had those problems because the few families had enough power to control the government, and prevent the people from controlling the government and addressing those issues. 'The Government' is not inherently much of anything, it depends who controls its agenda, such as the aristocracy or the general public. When in the hands of the aristocracy, it can be a horrifying instrument of tyranny; and in the hands of the public it can prevent that tyranny.

The government merely reflects who has the power. If the aristocracy controls it, get rid of the government and they just resort to 'private armies and forces' they control to repress. This is exactly why our founding fathers (and England's liberalization away from pure monarchy before that) moved more and more towards the citizens each having a vote and say apart from their other 'power' as serfs - and why the aristocracy has wanted to undermine that democracy.

It doesn't matter, it doesn't do the people any good to revert to that form of 'government-free private' tyranny.

You spout blind ideology about the government 'waste' and how private charity can do better. For a small situation, sometimes it can. Overall, it cannot.

The bottom line is that a society and its government voting in big programs that everyone chips in for can get far, far more done than any feasible private charities.

You don't get that.

The gap is lessened with the occasional exception like Bill Gates, but as I think even he agrees, you cannot address issues with philanthropy versus government programs.

Both have a place.

Again, you wanted big government to solve all of the world's problems.

Wrong. That's a straw man. But I want it to do some things, and that seems to be more than you.

I didn't. You got your way.

No, we live in a right-wing society with some modest liberalization - and a lot of corruption and waste you try to say is 'liberal', but is not.

Things are a lot more 'your way'.

I am simply living in the system you created. I am the reality of your utopia. You are an idealist who cannot accept that governments are intrinsically wasteful and corrupt, despite history's constant reminder that this is true under any system of government. You cannot accept that I can draw six figures from my couch under your ideal system of government. It's absolutely heretical to even suggest it, I'm sure, but that's the reality of the system that you have campaigned for all these years. You can't have government without waste, so saying that big-government liberals like to cut waste is simply another contradiction because growing the government necessarily grows waste.

I can't begin to discuss the anecdote of you without info. I don't know how much you make, what you do, and you can't generalize to 'government' from the anecdote anyway.

You can't have anything without waste. One of your problems is that you fixate on a tiny issue of one type of waste because of your ideology, but have no concern over a thousand times larger waste - even systemic waste - if your ideology apologizes for it. You'll be more concerned about one billion dollars you think it inefficient from the government, while trillions in redistribution to the top you are blind to.

 

[PokerGuy]

Craig once again redefines "fail".

 

[CycloWizard]

Sorry to be harsh, but your comments are simplistic nonsense, ideology, etc.

What is my ideology, exactly? Do you even know? You already bit on the strawman bait, but apparently you didn't learn your lesson. You think you have it all figured out, that if you were in charge, everything would be fixed. In fact, I think you would be just like Obama is now: he thought he could change things and really make things better (if I really believe that he felt that way), but then reality would hit you like a ton of bricks, you would get bogged down in all of the crap that is government, and you would end up killing yourself because you would realize that you have been living in a dream world your entire life. I really believe that you want what's best for the people in this country. I also believe that you really think our government can give it to them if they handle things just right. I wish that you were right, as does probably every other member of this forum (with some obvious exceptions ). Unfortunately, as history reminds us, this is simply not reality. No government on earth has been able to achieve what you want to achieve. The current mess in ours should be proof that ours can't either. The more you try, the worse things will get. This is my official prophecy from me to you. I don't hate you or your ideology (indeed, I think they are laudable in that they are truly selfless, if hopelessly naive) - I'm only trying to show you that your solution to society's problems simply don't work. They've been tried before a hundred times in a hundred different countries.

As for my ideology, you have no idea what it is or if I even have one. I am often the devil's advocate arguing in opposition to my true viewpoint in an effort to see where I might be going astray. I stir the pot by championing views that no one else here will espouse simply to bring out additional ideas in the conversation. My true ideology is only this: the more ideas and information we are exposed to, the more of a chance we have of arriving at the best course of action. This is why I butt heads with you so much, because you've actually thought some of these things out quite well and thought of things I never had (e.g. reasons in support of an estate tax). My arguments against were flimsy, but they served the purpose of eliciting your ideas in support of it (along with a few other choice words) very well. When it's all said and done, you still won't know whether I supported an estate tax the whole time or not, nor whether you changed my mind on the matter. Does that matter at all?

 

[hal2kilo]

Sanders is the man. This is a pretty good article by him in way we are going over at nation. Basically misery and destitution next to fabulous wealth with protectors (police state & congress) who shut up opposition. Anyway Craig people don't understand or care is my view - hating a black women is much more important.

This/

 

[werepossum]

Such as?

The Department of Defense budget.

It always amazes me that people feel entitled to the wealth of the rich whilst denying that the children of the rich are entitled to it, the justification usually being that the children "did nothing to earn that money." What the hell have I done to be entitled to Bill Gates' stash? Anything I've added to his pile I've done so willingly and happily.

 

[woolfe9999]

What is my ideology, exactly? Do you even know? You already bit on the strawman bait, but apparently you didn't learn your lesson. You think you have it all figured out, that if you were in charge, everything would be fixed. In fact, I think you would be just like Obama is now: he thought he could change things and really make things better (if I really believe that he felt that way), but then reality would hit you like a ton of bricks, you would get bogged down in all of the crap that is government, and you would end up killing yourself because you would realize that you have been living in a dream world your entire life. I really believe that you want what's best for the people in this country. I also believe that you really think our government can give it to them if they handle things just right. I wish that you were right, as does probably every other member of this forum (with some obvious exceptions ). Unfortunately, as history reminds us, this is simply not reality. No government on earth has been able to achieve what you want to achieve. The current mess in ours should be proof that ours can't either. The more you try, the worse things will get. This is my official prophecy from me to you. I don't hate you or your ideology (indeed, I think they are laudable in that they are truly selfless, if hopelessly naive) - I'm only trying to show you that your solution to society's problems simply don't work. They've been tried before a hundred times in a hundred different countries.

As for my ideology, you have no idea what it is or if I even have one. I am often the devil's advocate arguing in opposition to my true viewpoint in an effort to see where I might be going astray. I stir the pot by championing views that no one else here will espouse simply to bring out additional ideas in the conversation. My true ideology is only this: the more ideas and information we are exposed to, the more of a chance we have of arriving at the best course of action. This is why I butt heads with you so much, because you've actually thought some of these things out quite well and thought of things I never had (e.g. reasons in support of an estate tax). My arguments against were flimsy, but they served the purpose of eliciting your ideas in support of it (along with a few other choice words) very well. When it's all said and done, you still won't know whether I supported an estate tax the whole time or not, nor whether you changed my mind on the matter. Does that matter at all?

You more or less consistently come across as some sort of anti-government libertarian. If you were just playing devil's advocate, you'd argue the big government side of the equation at times, but IIRC you never have.

Then again, if it's all a big act, as you claim it is - that you're often arguing against your true viewpoint - then you are nothing more than a self-described attention seeking troll. So there you have it - your ideology is either quite transparent in spite of your claim to opaqueness, or else you're a troll.

Incidentally, you weaseled out of responding to Craig's points by in essence disowning whatever you previously said. Biased as Craig may be, he seems to put a fair amount of time into his posts, and you shouldn't be wasting his time, or anyone else's, by proferring faux viewpoints just to observe people's reactions. Your faux viewpoints are of no more value than anyone's real viewpoints, except that they are offerred in bad faith. Get over yourself.

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

If we had laws that favored the rich there would be more rich people in the USA. While the Left says that we must overtax the rich, I think they are just stupid. If we lower taxes on the rich and make an environment that is wealthy friendly, then that will attract more wealthy people to move to the USA. Actually they would move here and spend more money here.

 

[Craig234]

If we had laws that favored the rich there would be more rich people in the USA.

That's classic. So in the Latin American country with '14 families' who own everything and control the government to the laws 'favor the rich', they have a TON of rich people.

 

[FuzzyBee]

No, it's not. That's ignorance.

Let's talk about the Kennedys, not that an anedotal example of one family proves what hundreds of millions of people are like, as your wrong logic suggests.

You don't even get, obviously, that simply being rich (or poor) does not make a person someone who is out to get all they can for their class - you have Warren Buffets and other rich people who advocate that policies are too good to their class, and you have poor people who fall for right-wing propaganda and advocate policies to let the rich have more of their money.

But on the Kennedys, they are mainly the story of one ambitious man, Joe Kennedy, who was quite talented in making money in a number of industries - from banking where he was the youngest bank president in the country at 25, to the stock market, to the movie industry, to real estate and more.

But what did he do with the wealth? He raised children and taught them the importance of public service, and gave us 3 of the greatest public servants while the fourth, Joe Kennedy Jr., was killed volunteering for dangerous duty after volunteering for three tours of duty as a bomber pilot that was also very dangerous in WWII.

His family did not continue to pursue wealth the way Joe had - the sons each put the money in the trusts appropriate for politicians, and earned a pittance to serve the nation in politics, not to enrich the family. They made real financial sacrifices to do so, just as a figure like Robert McNamara did, at the request of John Kennedy, only months after becoming the President of Ford card company, the first president of the company not named 'Ford'. He could have made a fortune staying in the private sector.

Even Joe Kennedy - after making a lot of money in the stock market under the rules allowed at the time - agreed to shut down the abuses he knew well, and became the nation's first SEC Commissioner and helped put a stop to many of the abuses he had profited from or seen, for the good of the country.

The Kennedys are a great example of the liberals - and Joe Kennedy was only in a very broad sense a liberal, he was really a conservative Democrat in many ways - not using the government to enrich their class the way Republicans use government for the benefit of the rich. A good counterexample is the Bush dynasty, read a book like the one by Kevin Phillips, Nixon's campaign strategist who left the Republican party over the Bushes coming to power as it became a party for the rich.

The Bushes are a much better example of 'crony capitalism', all the way with abusing the governmental power they had for everything from preventing the criminal prosecution of George for insider trading, to moving George to the head of the list for a safe spot in the Texas National Guard, to steering state money corruptly to the guy who got him that spot when he became governor, with the help of a woman (Harriet Miers) he rewarded with top government appointment (and appointment to the Supreme Court), and so on.

I've said many times the Democratic Party has a war between its corporatists and its progressives, so you can find times they do the wrong thing, but that's far from your claim.

The hatred is strong in this one.

If people don't want to read the wall of text, here are the Cliff's notes:
(1) Joe Kennedy didn't illegally bootleg liquor during the prohibition.
(2) Joe Kennedy ran schemes that are illegal now, but weren't then. This makes him a genius. Anybody that does that now is just a lying criminal
(3) The Kennedys never did anything immoral or corrupt, because they aren't Republicans.
(4) Everything in the world is he fault of those evil Republicans, especially the Bushs

 

[Craig234]

You're very lousy at Cliffs.

Besides missing pretty much everything in the post, let's look at what you made up:

The hatred is strong in this one.

If people don't want to read the wall of text, here are the Cliff's notes:
(1) Joe Kennedy didn't illegally bootleg liquor during the prohibition.

So, you're spouting this lie. Put up the proof for your claim - you don't have it. If you did have the facts, which you don't, you could say some enemies of his invented the lie.

But here you are not bothering to check the accuracy before you repeat lies.

If you were even better informed, you would know the only thing close to this was that as a small part of his many businesses, FDR granted him the exclusive rights to import certain liquors after prohibition was repealed. That's about the only time they profited a little from government.

(2) Joe Kennedy ran schemes that are illegal now, but weren't then. This makes him a genius. Anybody that does that now is just a lying criminal

Joe Kennedy made a lot of money in the stock market the ways it was commonly made at the time - and then he worked to shut down the practices.

(3) The Kennedys never did anything immoral or corrupt, because they aren't Republicans.

Straw man that's idiotic. Of course the Kennedys did wrong things; they also did far bigger good things benefitting the nation and the world.

You can't deal with the facts about Republicans, so you attack the idiotic straw man you make up.

(4) Everything in the world is he fault of those evil Republicans, especially the Bushs

See above. Nice fact-based rebuttal of the specific points about the Bushes.

Idiot. You write another post that pathetic and dishonest, don't expect a response.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's not an answer. You haven't achieved lesser spending, so you don't get a magic dust that makes it 'free money', you have to allocate the taxes to someone. To whom?

Are you familiar with the concept of "budgeting"? You realize that it involves FUTURE spending and income, yes? That means you are forced to make cuts in spending to account for the small drop in revenue. Imagine that.

Libs like you just can't even fathom the idea of cutting government waste in any way, the idea is simply unacceptable. Income must always be increased to support wasteful spending, spending must never be cut.

 

[PokerGuy]

You're very lousy at Cliffs.

Nope, looks like he pretty much had it on the money.

FDR granted him the exclusive rights to import certain liquors after prohibition was repealed. That's about the only time they profited a little from government.

Exclusive, as in, nobody else got that. Sounds like typical government corruption to me. What a great man he was.

Joe Kennedy made a lot of money in the stock market the ways it was commonly made at the time - and then he worked to shut down the practices.

Joe: "I got mine, now I'm going to shut this down so nobody else can profit the way I have!". What a great man.

Of course the Kennedys did wrong things; they also did far bigger good things benefitting the nation and the world.

Yeah, how would this country ever have survived without the drunks, rapists, murderers, pedo's, druggies, crooks etc to come out of that family

 

[MotF Bane]

Craig, are you finished sucking the collective Kennedy dick?

So Joe Kennedy, by your own admission, enriches himself and his dynasty, and then shuts it down so nobody else can do the same. Yeah, that's real noble. And that's to say nothing of the behavior of the descendants of the family, who act as if they are above the law, and get away with it. Corruption? No, of course not - they're the fucking KENNEDYS!

 

[Craig234]

Nope, looks like he pretty much had it on the money.

You're like one stoner grading another stoner's paper - a contra-indicator. So your endorsement of his post adds to the evidence against it.

Exclusive, as in, nobody else got that. Sounds like typical government corruption to me. What a great man he was.

Duh, what you miss is how small an item it was in his businesses and what an exception.

Your post is like saying 'ya, Thomas Jefferson was a great man - he slept with a slave, some great man'.

Joe: "I got mine, now I'm going to shut this down so nobody else can profit the way I have!". What a great man.

No, you are ignorant and an idiot. It was 'the economy has crashed in part from the was things worked and now we realize the dangers, and the President has selected the man who he things has the best skills and public interest to fix the rules, and Kennedy serving the public interest to act as regulator'. You don't know a thing about his motives, but you do have a glee to lie and a lack of information, resulting in your crap attack post.

Yeah, how would this country ever have survived without the drunks, rapists, murderers, pedo's, druggies, crooks etc to come out of that family

Like I said, an idiot. If you can post this, you deserve no reply, back to your sandbox.

Obviously the family has a variety of people in it. So does yours, I hope, so not all are idiots like you.

 

[PeshakJang]

Summary for newcomers to the thread...


Craig: The rich have too much money!

Reality: So? They worked for it.

Craig: With their money, they control the government!

Reality: So what is your solution?

Craig: Take more money from them, and give it to the government!

Reality: The government that the rich people control?

Craig: Idiot.

Reality: What would this do?

Craig: Pay for government spending!

Reality: Why doesn't the government just spend less?

Craig: Idiot.

Reality: Why don't the children have a right to the money?

Craig: Because they didn't earn it. Except the Kennedy family, because once they made the money, he got into government and prevented other people from doing what he did.

Reality: Isn't that what you've been arguing against this entire thread?

Craig: Idiot.

Reality: What about all the waste in government?

Craig: IDIOT!!!

 

[Craig234]

Are you familiar with the concept of "budgeting"? You realize that it involves FUTURE spending and income, yes? That means you are forced to make cuts in spending to account for the small drop in revenue. Imagine that.

Libs like you just can't even fathom the idea of cutting government waste in any way, the idea is simply unacceptable. Income must always be increased to support wasteful spending, spending must never be cut.

No, you're just an idiot. Which party's president last balanced the budget again? How about the time before that?

 

[PeshakJang]

No, you're just an idiot.

LOL, you can't make this stuff up...