EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3515
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18875 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44439 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:29 SK.Testie wrote: And I genuinely wonder if any of you have supported another living being whom you love with your own money. These men who hold these fortunes could technically give their fortunes away before they die and redistribute them in ways they see fit instead of simply 'giving it to their kids'. Which would be fine. Okay, consider this. Is it better to pay taxes out of income you worked for or money inherited? If the government needed X dollars and could get it from either, is it better to take it from the people currently labouring? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:29 SK.Testie wrote: And I genuinely wonder if any of you have supported another living being whom you love with your own money. These men who hold these fortunes could technically give their fortunes away before they die and redistribute them in ways they see fit instead of simply 'giving it to their kids'. That money would be taxed, because when you give massive amounts of money to anyone, they have to declare it as income. Just like if I give a large amount of money to a friend just because I am a nice guy. That is the point that massive(like millions upon millions) being passed down across several generations isn’t really helpful and doesn’t reward hard work. We are not talking about someone giving their house to their kids or paying for college. We are talking about massive sums capable of supporting generations of families. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44439 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:35 Plansix wrote: That money would be taxed, because when you give massive amounts of money to anyone, they have to declare it as income. Just like if I give a large amount of money to a friend just because I am a nice guy. That is the point that massive(like millions upon millions) being passed down across several generations isn’t really helpful and doesn’t reward hard work. We are not talking about someone giving their house to their kids or paying for college. We are talking about massive sums capable of supporting generations of families. I dunno, Trump said that the right to not pay tax on estates over $5,000,000 is an essential part of the rags to riches bootstraps American dream. It is the right of all Americans to work hard, follow their dreams, write their own story and inherit unimaginable wealth. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:41 KwarK wrote: I dunno, Trump said that the right to not pay tax on estates over $5,000,000 is an essential part of the rags to riches bootstraps American dream. It is the right of all Americans to work hard, follow their dreams, write their own story and inherit unimaginable wealth. I want to protect the America Dream for all of you by making it so you don’t pay taxes on the millions you will earn. This isn’t about me and my millions, but the American Dream. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:18 KwarK wrote: Bill Gates gets the positive rep he does because he's spending his money on things that create lasting good for humanity, not himself. He's helping hundreds of millions of people. The problem with wealth inequality is that not all rich people do that. You might as well say "if you think humans are smarter than pigs how do you explain Testie?". Meh, the things he is doing are going to have less of a lasting positive impact on humanity than his company, Microsoft, will have had, and its not even close. Humanity would probably have been better off if he started new ventures with his billions instead of giving it away... On April 02 2016 04:20 Nyxisto wrote: because he has an infinite amount of money. I mean it's nice of him but he's not going to suffer for it. Also his philantrophy is decidedly paternalist, he's essentially taken over the role of a state. He's only willing to give it away as long as he (or by extension one of his institutions) is deciding what to do with it. Particularly in this way where he is often impeding locally grown solutions for problems in Africa and is fostering dependency in the 3rd world. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:33 KwarK wrote: Which would be fine. Okay, consider this. Is it better to pay taxes out of income you worked for or money inherited? If the government needed X dollars and could get it from either, is it better to take it from the people currently labouring? Considering how wasteful the government is, and how shitty a job they do of many projects I'd prefer the government to look for ways of cutting costs within itself first. Though city councils will always vote to give themselves a pay raise at any opportunity. A lot of people whom work in government could take paycuts considering how incompetent they are. See: Congress. This is a very good example of it. Why was Trump able to accomplish this project the city floundered on for a fraction of the cost? + Show Spoiler + http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2016/03/29/why-this-ice-skating-rink-is-key-to-donald-trumps-campaign.cnnmoney/ But that doesn't answer your question wholly. The proposed estate tax Bernie is proposing is robbery. I'm of the opinion that if Trump died tomorrow, his entire fortune should go to the people he sees fit. They're still people. They're still in your country / your economy. They can spend the money as they wish. If there is an estate tax, it should be a max 10%. Maybe 15%. This 65% bullshit Bernie is pulling is disgusting. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:47 cLutZ wrote: Particularly in this way where he is often impeding locally grown solutions for problems in Africa and is fostering dependency in the 3rd world. Yep Gates should try to build democratic institutions in the third world so that the people can create some form of social and bureaucratic structure, I don't like his "awesome technology and my money will solve all the problems" methodology at all | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2686 Posts
Its the false liberal ideology to think that 100% equality can exist. It breaks the law of human nature. If the government forcibly makes everyone economically the same, people will just find a new way to distinct themselves from the average person. Humans strive to distinguish themselves from others, it is how progress is made. There will always be someone with more advantages than you. Whether that be wealth, intelligence, athleticism, social status, whatever. What's wrong with accepting the fact that some people are luckier than others? I don't come from a wealthy family, and I totally accept that others are more economically privileged than me. Im kind of rambling and losing sight of what I'm saying. It's hard writing this much on a smart phone for me lol | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:49 SK.Testie wrote: Considering how wasteful the government is, and how shitty a job they do of many projects I'd prefer the government to look for ways of cutting costs within itself first. Though city councils will always vote to give themselves a pay raise at any opportunity. A lot of people whom work in government could take paycuts considering how incompetent they are. See: Congress. This is a very good example of it. Why was Trump able to accomplish this project the city floundered on for a fraction of the cost? + Show Spoiler + http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2016/03/29/why-this-ice-skating-rink-is-key-to-donald-trumps-campaign.cnnmoney/ But that doesn't answer your question wholly. The proposed estate tax Bernie is proposing is robbery. I'm of the opinion that if Trump died tomorrow, his entire fortune should go to the people he sees fit. They're still people. They're still in your country / your economy. They can spend the money as they wish. If there is an estate tax, it should be a max 10%. Maybe 15%. This 65% bullshit Bernie is pulling is disgusting. Yup. Look at me feel sorry that Ivanka Trump would only inherit 3.5billion instead of the full 10billion. A 65% tax is truly "disgusting". | ||
|
KwarK
United States44439 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:47 cLutZ wrote: Meh, the things he is doing are going to have less of a lasting positive impact on humanity than his company, Microsoft, will have had, and its not even close. Humanity would probably have been better off if he started new ventures with his billions instead of giving it away... Particularly in this way where he is often impeding locally grown solutions for problems in Africa and is fostering dependency in the 3rd world. You understand that a lot of what he is doing is investing in tech which doesn't attract venture capitalists but represents huge intrinsic value, such as small scale water purification, sewage processing and the like? Stuff that would be insanely profitable if the lives of African children weren't worth a big $0 on the traditional spreadsheet. It's not that the stuff he's making isn't useful or profitable, it's that it's not useful and profitable to rich white guys which historically has always been the qualifier. The tech he's investing in is incredibly important. Furthermore his approach is the absolute opposite of fostering dependency. You could argue that he doesn't achieve his goals but if you read his foundation's newsletters you'd see that rather than foster dependency he likes to invest in things which will trigger positive feedback loops such as education. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:53 Acrofales wrote: Yup. Look at me feel sorry that Ivanka Trump would only inherit 3.5billion instead of the full 10billion. A 65% tax is truly "disgusting". This is the magic that the super wealthy have worked on America. They have gotten people to advocate on their behalf to lower taxes for their estates. People that will NEVER inherit that amount of money and will NEVER seen the benefit those tax cuts. They trick people into pay the taxes for them or receiving lack luster social services so the rich stay rich. And lets be clear, my parents own a multi-million dollar business and I know how the inheritance works out. I am cool with the government taking a little more of that. Its fine. I’m fine. We are all fine. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Some fools think government is always wasteful and incompetent, as opposed to the truth: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't; likewise in the private sector. On average government doesn't do so bad; but it tends to have issues when stuff is around too long. Testie -> why did trump have numerous other failed projects? Trump may've had some projects go well; but he's hardly an exemplar of doing a great job at business. Lotsa people who've done far better than Trump at business. solar -> almost noone is pushing for 100% estate tax, so you're not arguing against the case that was actually presented. There is a real problem where wealth concentrates over time; and some mechanism to address that is important. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:53 Acrofales wrote: Yup. Look at me feel sorry that Ivanka Trump would only inherit 3.5billion instead of the full 10billion. A 65% tax is truly "disgusting". That is their money. That is their fathers wish. He's a part of your society, you know. He's trying really hard to be president right now with a self-funded campaign, and he's not taking the 1.6 million in presidential money if he wins 4 years. Trump also has more than one child, and more than one family. That wealth will be redistributed within their own family. And if they are less competent than he is and cannot run his many businesses. He has created at least 34,000 jobs. It's not a bad thing for them to have a buffer of wealth so that they can continue managing what he's created. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44439 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:49 SK.Testie wrote: Considering how wasteful the government is, and how shitty a job they do of many projects I'd prefer the government to look for ways of cutting costs within itself first. Though city councils will always vote to give themselves a pay raise at any opportunity. A lot of people whom work in government could take paycuts considering how incompetent they are. See: Congress. This is a very good example of it. Why was Trump able to accomplish this project the city floundered on for a fraction of the cost? + Show Spoiler + http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2016/03/29/why-this-ice-skating-rink-is-key-to-donald-trumps-campaign.cnnmoney/ But that doesn't answer your question wholly. The proposed estate tax Bernie is proposing is robbery. I'm of the opinion that if Trump died tomorrow, his entire fortune should go to the people he sees fit. They're still people. They're still in your country / your economy. They can spend the money as they wish. If there is an estate tax, it should be a max 10%. Maybe 15%. This 65% bullshit Bernie is pulling is disgusting. You didn't answer my question at all. Okay, you have two guys. Timmy and Tommy. Timmy works seasonal construction, his wife is pregnant and doesn't work, Timmy is doing his best to provide for his family but he pays a 20% tax on each dollar he earns. Tommy is retired with a $10,000,000 fortune. He wants to pass that on to his son (who incidentally already had the advantages of a top class education paid for by his father, networking, growing up in an affluent area and will never have to work construction). There is a proposal to slap a 10% tax on the inheritance Tommy's son will receive and to give Timmy a tax credit due to his pregnant wife. Your argument is that in order to better support people who work hard to take care of their families we should oppose this proposal because Tommy worked hard to provide his son the best inheritance possible? Money has to come from somewhere and you can't just go "Trump said that it doesn't so it's fine, cut everything". Even if you lower the budget by 90% you still need money. Is it better to tax the earned income of people working hard to support their families or their unearned windfalls? | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2686 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:54 zlefin wrote: 65% isn't unreasonable for massive amounts of money. It is a touch high; but it does address a real problem adequately. It's also not robbery. Not much higher than the current one anyways. Some fools think government is always wasteful and incompetent, as opposed to the truth: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't; likewise in the private sector. On average government doesn't do so bad; but it tends to have issues when stuff is around too long. Testie -> why did trump have numerous other failed projects? Trump may've had some projects go well; but he's hardly an exemplar of doing a great job at business. Lotsa people who've done far better than Trump at business. solar -> almost noone is pushing for 100% estate tax, so you're not arguing against the case that was actually presented. There is a real problem where wealth concentrates over time; and some mechanism to address that is important. Failure is the path to success. Trump has the boldness to persue multiple buisness endeavours. Some fail, some make him a fortune. Its the nature of buisness and to succeed in buisness is to take risks. If you look at any successful business they have a multitude of failures. However the worst failure a buisness can make is to not take any risks thus making them stagnet. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:57 SK.Testie wrote: That is their money. That is their fathers wish. He's a part of your society, you know. He's trying really hard to be president right now with a self-funded campaign, and he's not taking the 1.6 million in presidential money if he wins 4 years. Trump also has more than one child, and more than one family. That wealth will be redistributed within their own family. And if they are less competent than he is and cannot run his many businesses. He has created at least 34,000 jobs. It's not a bad thing for them to have a buffer of wealth so that they can continue managing what he's created. You do realize that I would be taxed at like 45% or so if Trump just gave that to me? Gifts of that size are taxed heavily for a reason. | ||
| ||
