|
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. |
United States43728 Posts
On April 02 2016 06:27 Falling wrote:
I think when the issues of inheritance tax came up a page ago, it kind of sounded like absolutely everything should be rolled up and sent off to the government. Based on that, I can see a lot of push back. I think, however, the general consensus is not that all the money goes to the government, but that it goes back up to pre-Bush?
What is it now? 45% on estates over 2,000,000? But before it was 55%? I dunno, it seems high, but I don't what is comparable as we don't really have 1:1 inheritance tax. If it goes to the surviving spouse or common law partner, there is no tax, but otherwise it is considered as though all capital property was sold at fair market value and the capital gains are taxed, but I don't know the rates.
At least, I certainly hope no one is arguing that the state takes absolutely all the inheritance. I would be firmly against that.
40% on 5.45m instead of 55% on 0.65m.
|
On April 02 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:
The experience is understandable because there are a few small countries on this planet that have lived under shitty conditions and then they get good governance open up to the international markets and for a certain time everything's working out and of course you have the whole historical anti-communist thing going on but at some point the hangover is going to arrive for sure. Parts of Eastern Europe that have not immediately entered another era of corruption or civil war are basically experiencing the golden age that Western Europe experienced in the post-war years, just supercharged
Right, they will eventually face a wave of socialism because when countries get rich under capitalism some get richer faster.
Which is in no way a rebuttal of the Estonian system, its an indictment of voters.
|
New York state has announced plans for the most far-reaching paid family leave law in America, as well as promising to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
The state will mandate the right to 12 weeks of paid leave for both private sector workers asking for time off to care for a new baby and workers who need to look after a sick child or partner, a dying parent or other such family emergency.
The system is designed to be paid for with insurance-style funds made up of fees deducted from pay packets, rather than costing companies directly.
After long and largely unsuccessful battles to improve notoriously stingy maternity leave rights across the country, the New York law will introduce an extensive and egalitarian model which advocates hope will now influence other states and federal lawmakers.
Employees’ rights advocates are calling the wage boost a “revolution in the workplace”.
“I believe this is the best plan the state has produced in decades,” Cuomo said after long hours of negotiations in Albany brought agreement on the next annual budget, which includes the new measures.
The right to three months of paid family leave a year will be offered to mothers and fathers adopting or fostering as well as having their own biological children. It will be mandated for men and women needing to nurse a sick partner, spouse, parent or other family member.
Source
|
On April 02 2016 06:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:
The experience is understandable because there are a few small countries on this planet that have lived under shitty conditions and then they get good governance open up to the international markets and for a certain time everything's working out and of course you have the whole historical anti-communist thing going on but at some point the hangover is going to arrive for sure. Parts of Eastern Europe that have not immediately entered another era of corruption or civil war are basically experiencing the golden age that Western Europe experienced in the post-war years, just supercharged Right, they will eventually face a wave of socialism because when countries get rich under capitalism some get richer faster. Which is in no way a rebuttal of the Estonian system, its an indictment of voters.
There's already evidence of this shift in voter behavior but with right wing populism clouding the picture on Europe, I don't think it's worth spelling out the details on this thread. PM for an overview if interested.
|
On that new york plan; it just never made sense to me why it has to be the company that has to keep paying for an employee who isn't working. If it's a social good to have family leave, why not have society (government) pay for it? The only mandate needed on employers imho is that it be allowed, and you can go back to your job.
|
On April 02 2016 06:59 zlefin wrote:
On that new york plan; it just never made sense to me why it has to be the company that has to keep paying for an employee who isn't working. If it's a social good to have family leave, why not have society (government) pay for it? The only mandate needed on employers imho is that it be allowed, and you can go back to your job.
Its called hiding taxes. The same theory holds with the individual mandate/PPACA or Cap and Trade. You get to implement your policy ideals, while the blame for any negative consequences falls on third parties.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
inheritance tax is almost always a passive legal structure with limits to coverage so active managed estates would escape.
this inequality issue is at least twofold. one is ownership concentration, the other is rentier-fication of economy, productive value going to the wrong people.
there is a lot of 1 causing 2 but 2 is really easier to defeat than 1. the best correction of 1 is a cultural sort of shift against family/clan based morality and towards a more general concern about social and human welfare. this leads to better behavior by dynasties and prevent the active construction of dynastic fortunes.
as long as you can tax the ownership without touching the underlying company or organization it should be good to cull the big dynastic blobs, but this seems to require a very strong govt agency that inevitably casts its own shadow.
|
Republican operative Karl Rove said Thursday that based on the GOP’s current crop of candidates, the party might be better off picking a “fresh face” for the best chance of winning the White House.
“Donald Trump excites a lot of enthusiasm,” Rove said about the Republican frontrunner. “But he also excites a lot of anger within the Republican Party and outside of the Republican Party. And a fresh face might be the thing that could give us a chance to turn this election and win in November against Hillary.”
The remarks on conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt’s radio show further fueled speculation that the party establishment could try to force a brokered summer convention to block Trump from securing the nomination.
While Rove conceded Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is “more electable” than frontrunner Donald Trump because he “lacks the misogynist comments and the four bankruptcies,” he didn’t offer names of any possible Republican alternatives that could match Hillary Clinton in a general election.
Source
|
y'all better get ready for a Paul Ryan nomination 
|
On April 02 2016 07:12 farvacola wrote:y'all better get ready for a Paul Ryan nomination
hes not going to ruin his career by being the convention pick against the majority.
|
United States43728 Posts
Running as the Republican candidate this year is probably political suicide. The politicians dodged a bullet. Whoever fails would be blamed for 8 years of Hillary.
|
On April 02 2016 05:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 05:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:
So apparently TL is okay with government taking money from its people so long as its demographics that TL dislikes. You've not heard of taxation? Basically although nobody likes to pay for things some things need paying for. There are many ways this money can be raised, some are better than others. For example a poll tax takes the same amount from people regardless of means. I would argue that taxing unearned gifts that people do not depend upon to live is a far better way to fund public services than taxing earned income.
I have heard of taxation. Usually taxation comes from either your income, your property, or your purchase of goods.
Parents giving their kids money seems to only be taxed if its done by a disliked social group who are in the minority.
I just find it funny and philosophically dishonest when its not your money being taxed twice and only because its not you're demographic being disliked.
|
United States43728 Posts
On April 02 2016 07:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 05:07 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2016 05:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:
So apparently TL is okay with government taking money from its people so long as its demographics that TL dislikes. You've not heard of taxation? Basically although nobody likes to pay for things some things need paying for. There are many ways this money can be raised, some are better than others. For example a poll tax takes the same amount from people regardless of means. I would argue that taxing unearned gifts that people do not depend upon to live is a far better way to fund public services than taxing earned income. I have heard of taxation. Usually taxation comes from either your income, your property, or your purchase of goods. Parents giving their kids money seems to only be taxed if its done by a disliked social group who are in the minority. I just find it funny and philosophically dishonest when its not your money being taxed twice and only because its not you're demographic being disliked.
Er, the money isn't taxed twice under the same owner which I assume is what you're implying because if you keep counting while it changes hands then all money is taxed billions of times because it's moving around in a fluid system.
The guy who earns the money is taxed when he earns it. Then that guy dies.
The guy who inherits the money is taxed when he inherits it.
You could call that double taxation, even though two different individuals are being taxed on two different transactions, but you'd be wrong. If you call that double taxation then I'd hate to know what you call it when I give my post tax salary to someone in exchange for goods and services and that becomes their revenue.
Additionally, an inheritance is somehow not counted as income in your world? I mean it's money that is incoming, money that you previously didn't have that now you do have. Sure, it's not earned income, it's unearned, but is that where you draw the line? It's only fine to take money from people's hard earned paychecks, if they didn't sweat for it then they get to keep all of it? Increase taxes on people who work for a living to offset tax cuts for people who inherit money?
|
On April 02 2016 07:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 05:07 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2016 05:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:
So apparently TL is okay with government taking money from its people so long as its demographics that TL dislikes. You've not heard of taxation? Basically although nobody likes to pay for things some things need paying for. There are many ways this money can be raised, some are better than others. For example a poll tax takes the same amount from people regardless of means. I would argue that taxing unearned gifts that people do not depend upon to live is a far better way to fund public services than taxing earned income. I have heard of taxation. Usually taxation comes from either your income, your property, or your purchase of goods. Parents giving their kids money seems to only be taxed if its done by a disliked social group who are in the minority. I just find it funny and philosophically dishonest when its not your money being taxed twice and only because its not you're demographic being disliked.
What is particularly funny and philosophically dishonest is that KwarK repeatedly brags about paying no taxes. Makes many of his recent comments quite ironic.
On topic though while I think the philosophy and rhetoric behind those arguing for them is pretty ridiculous I think estate taxes are a lesser evil. It is funny though that people give examples of net worths like bill gates and then act like 5.5mil tax free is relevant at all. The rate matters a lot more than the cap for the ultra rich.
|
United States43728 Posts
On April 02 2016 07:52 Atreides wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 07:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 02 2016 05:07 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2016 05:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:
So apparently TL is okay with government taking money from its people so long as its demographics that TL dislikes. You've not heard of taxation? Basically although nobody likes to pay for things some things need paying for. There are many ways this money can be raised, some are better than others. For example a poll tax takes the same amount from people regardless of means. I would argue that taxing unearned gifts that people do not depend upon to live is a far better way to fund public services than taxing earned income. I have heard of taxation. Usually taxation comes from either your income, your property, or your purchase of goods. Parents giving their kids money seems to only be taxed if its done by a disliked social group who are in the minority. I just find it funny and philosophically dishonest when its not your money being taxed twice and only because its not you're demographic being disliked. What is particularly funny and philosophically dishonest is that KwarK repeatedly brags about paying no taxes. Makes many of his recent comments quite ironic. On topic though while I think the philosophy and rhetoric behind those arguing for them is pretty ridiculous I think estate taxes are a lesser evil. It is funny though that people give examples of net worths like bill gates and then act like 5.5mil tax free is relevant at all. The rate matters a lot more than the cap for the ultra rich.
When I say taxes should be raised that includes raised on people like me. The fact that I don't pay taxes is a testament to the problems in the system. But I need not justify myself to a social parasite like you.
|
On April 02 2016 07:52 Atreides wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 07:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 02 2016 05:07 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2016 05:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:
So apparently TL is okay with government taking money from its people so long as its demographics that TL dislikes. You've not heard of taxation? Basically although nobody likes to pay for things some things need paying for. There are many ways this money can be raised, some are better than others. For example a poll tax takes the same amount from people regardless of means. I would argue that taxing unearned gifts that people do not depend upon to live is a far better way to fund public services than taxing earned income. I have heard of taxation. Usually taxation comes from either your income, your property, or your purchase of goods. Parents giving their kids money seems to only be taxed if its done by a disliked social group who are in the minority. I just find it funny and philosophically dishonest when its not your money being taxed twice and only because its not you're demographic being disliked. What is particularly funny and philosophically dishonest is that KwarK repeatedly brags about paying no taxes. Makes many of his recent comments quite ironic. On topic though while I think the philosophy and rhetoric behind those arguing for them is pretty ridiculous I think estate taxes are a lesser evil. It is funny though that people give examples of net worths like bill gates and then act like 5.5mil tax free is relevant at all. The rate matters a lot more than the cap for the ultra rich.
Last I checked Kwark was not racking in the millions either. This entire inheritance discussion is about large sums of money. The kind that sets you up for life, not the 'pittance' the average person gets.
As for double taxing.
Your already taxed repeatedly for the same money anyway. Your taxed when you earn it (income tax), your taxed while you hold it (capital tax) and your taxed when you spend it (VAT)
|
See this is the disconnect In our society.
I pay a ~20% tax rate. You pay a negative one. We both think the other is a social parasite. Great stuff.
650k cap before estate being taxed is fine though. We have a common ground!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i didnt really say this but there are natural reasons for rising inequality stemming from efficiency of larger global systems
|
On April 02 2016 07:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 07:52 Atreides wrote:On April 02 2016 07:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 02 2016 05:07 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2016 05:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:
So apparently TL is okay with government taking money from its people so long as its demographics that TL dislikes. You've not heard of taxation? Basically although nobody likes to pay for things some things need paying for. There are many ways this money can be raised, some are better than others. For example a poll tax takes the same amount from people regardless of means. I would argue that taxing unearned gifts that people do not depend upon to live is a far better way to fund public services than taxing earned income. I have heard of taxation. Usually taxation comes from either your income, your property, or your purchase of goods. Parents giving their kids money seems to only be taxed if its done by a disliked social group who are in the minority. I just find it funny and philosophically dishonest when its not your money being taxed twice and only because its not you're demographic being disliked. What is particularly funny and philosophically dishonest is that KwarK repeatedly brags about paying no taxes. Makes many of his recent comments quite ironic. On topic though while I think the philosophy and rhetoric behind those arguing for them is pretty ridiculous I think estate taxes are a lesser evil. It is funny though that people give examples of net worths like bill gates and then act like 5.5mil tax free is relevant at all. The rate matters a lot more than the cap for the ultra rich. When I say taxes should be raised that includes raised on people like me. The fact that I don't pay taxes is a testament to the problems in the system. But I need not justify myself to a social parasite like you.
Insofar as the guy has divulged any details on this forum, I don't really see why Atreides is a social parasite. He seems to be self-sufficient and a valuable member of his community. He just disagrees with you (and me) on politics.
|
On April 02 2016 08:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 07:54 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2016 07:52 Atreides wrote:On April 02 2016 07:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 02 2016 05:07 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2016 05:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:
So apparently TL is okay with government taking money from its people so long as its demographics that TL dislikes. You've not heard of taxation? Basically although nobody likes to pay for things some things need paying for. There are many ways this money can be raised, some are better than others. For example a poll tax takes the same amount from people regardless of means. I would argue that taxing unearned gifts that people do not depend upon to live is a far better way to fund public services than taxing earned income. I have heard of taxation. Usually taxation comes from either your income, your property, or your purchase of goods. Parents giving their kids money seems to only be taxed if its done by a disliked social group who are in the minority. I just find it funny and philosophically dishonest when its not your money being taxed twice and only because its not you're demographic being disliked. What is particularly funny and philosophically dishonest is that KwarK repeatedly brags about paying no taxes. Makes many of his recent comments quite ironic. On topic though while I think the philosophy and rhetoric behind those arguing for them is pretty ridiculous I think estate taxes are a lesser evil. It is funny though that people give examples of net worths like bill gates and then act like 5.5mil tax free is relevant at all. The rate matters a lot more than the cap for the ultra rich. When I say taxes should be raised that includes raised on people like me. The fact that I don't pay taxes is a testament to the problems in the system. But I need not justify myself to a social parasite like you. Insofar as the guy has divulged any details on this forum, I don't really see why Atreides is a social parasite. He seems to be self-sufficient and a valuable member of his community. He just disagrees with you (and me) on politics.
KwarK is referencing Atreides having previously eaten the fine for not obtaining healthcare instead of obtaining healthcare and then having used said fine payment as a means of critiquing Obamacare.
On April 02 2016 08:11 oneofthem wrote:
i didnt really say this but there are natural reasons for rising inequality stemming from efficiency of larger global systems
If anything, this justifies a more radical shift in policy to account for an otherwise self-sustaining rise in inequality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
