EPThttp://www.cbc.ca/player/play/656174147697
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3520
| 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. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/656174147697 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
| ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On April 02 2016 09:36 Atreides wrote: As said previously I sort of agree with the overall premise here. But this sort of analogy just demonstrates how insane some people are. TIMMY IS PROBABLY A TRUMP SUPPORTER. And it's not "just" because he is stupid and uneducated. It's because he goes to work every day he can, works hard (you get the feeling pretty few people in this forum have done much physical labor) and PAYS TAXES. So he resents people who do not work hard, pay no taxes, and reap greater social benefits then him from those tax dollars, despite his life being so "hard". Even more incredible to many people in this thread there is a decent chance he CHOSE this life more or less. Its a bit more nuanced then "they're racist" although that sort of bigotry is often a symptom of this kind of socio-economic feelings unfortunately. Obviously it's a bit ironic that some rich, fairly liberal historically, dude like trump managed to appeal to them so much but he played it pretty well and said some of the right things. Trump sticks it to the libs and really pees on political correctness (so he says, in reality he backtracks more than any other politician ever). Trump also presents himself as a strong man, who will take the grievances of his followers and really dump on those other guys who have been taking advantage of them. Trump's appeal is more in dominance and grievance than in the finer points of tax policy. Trump's stated tax plan is a gargantuan giveaway to the rich and highly educated, but be damned if his supporters ever mention that. They mention how Trump is going to stick it to the liberals, the muslims, the blacks, the mexicans, and make American like how it used to be when being white really meant something. | ||
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On April 02 2016 09:36 Atreides wrote: As said previously I sort of agree with the overall premise here. But this sort of analogy just demonstrates how insane some people are. TIMMY IS PROBABLY A TRUMP SUPPORTER. And it's not "just" because he is stupid and uneducated. It's because he goes to work every day he can, works hard (you get the feeling pretty few people in this forum have done much physical labor) and PAYS TAXES. So he resents people who do not work hard, pay no taxes, and reap greater social benefits then him from those tax dollars, despite his life being so "hard". Even more incredible to many people in this thread there is a decent chance he CHOSE this life more or less. Its a bit more nuanced then "they're racist" although that sort of bigotry is often a symptom of this kind of socio-economic feelings unfortunately. Obviously it's a bit ironic that some rich, fairly liberal historically, dude like trump managed to appeal to them so much but he played it pretty well and said some of the right things. I've worked with my hands, worked minimum wage and had nothing to eat until I got paid. The reason I pay no Federal taxes isn't because I'm a welfare queen, it's because I read the tax code and made my tax liability zero. Incidentally it's exactly what Trump tries to do too. This idea that people on the left don't understand the meaning of a day's hard work is absurd. It's because I understand it that I oppose people like Trump trying to create a permanent aristocracy by exploiting the prejudice of the working classes. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 02 2016 11:29 oneofthem wrote: he has some strategic biases what biases? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
Something that helps people understand that America does not spend more on foreign aid than veterans or that while they may have paid taxes, firstly they got all of those back and secondly their optional usage form indicates they took advantage of subsidized childcare so they actually came out significantly ahead. Transparency is good and it might help people understand the degree to which government spending doesn't match their personal priorities. When the dollars just disappear into the ether it's viewed as an absolute loss but with feedback about what was bought with the tax dollars people can form a political response to that. While we're at it there should also be a social security sheet, the same one each year, explaining that it is currently fully funded and is not a ponzi scheme and that just because social security owned US treasury bonds, rather than keeping all the money under a giant mattress, does not mean the government has robbed social security. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 02 2016 12:32 KwarK wrote: Actually what would be really nice is if there was an additional page on tax returns about public service usage that was optional (although looking sufficiently good that people still filled it out, it just doesn't impact the return at all) and gave people a statement at the end of the tax season about where their taxes went. Pie charts, cost breakdowns and so forth including their total social liability or gain. Something that helps people understand that America does not spend more on foreign aid than veterans or that while they may have paid taxes, firstly they got all of those back and secondly their optional usage form indicates they took advantage of subsidized childcare so they actually came out significantly ahead. Transparency is good and it might help people understand the degree to which government spending doesn't match their personal priorities. When the dollars just disappear into the ether it's viewed as an absolute loss but with feedback about what was bought with the tax dollars people can form a political response to that. While we're at it there should also be a social security sheet, the same one each year, explaining that it is currently fully funded and is not a ponzi scheme and that just because social security owned US treasury bonds, rather than keeping all the money under a giant mattress, does not mean the government has robbed social security. I've definitely seen something like that... was it the Uk that had them? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
Still, anything that promotes an understanding of what the government is doing in the minds of the electorate is a good thing. But some kind of mail merge that said "$451 of your taxes went to Medicare, this is what Medicare does" and so forth would be pretty neat. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
I second this question. | ||
|
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? Before I answer this I'm going to ask, what is the goal of the estate tax in your opinion? Simply finding more money for the government? Because the people already have very little faith in the government and distrust and dislike it very much. Is it about fairness? Is it about fighting a new aristocracy? Is it about everyone putting in their fair share? Is it about poor X has to work and pay taxes on 20k a year while rich Y was just born and is instantly a billionaire? I'm not being a cunt in asking these questions, I see you're trying to lead me to what you see as a better point of reason so I'm asking what the goal of it is. Because that money earned has already been taxed, whether it's billions or thousands. And I see family as an extension of yourself almost. Especially your children. If I have 200,000 left in savings when I die, does the government automatically get 65% of that under Bernie? As unsound a decision this may be, theoretically what if as a billionaire I were to simply buy up all the businesses I could before I died, attempting to just have pure assets or land and I only have 5 million in cash afterwards. The vast majority of my wealth is now assets and private property. What does the government do then? This inheritor now has billions worth of assets. However before I died as a billionaire, I technically put all that money back into the economy thus it was taxed yet again. So what does the government do then? Seize my private assets and private property? The money I've earned and spent in my lifetime was already taxed. Does it require a new tax because my sons & daughters inherited it? | ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
On April 02 2016 08:41 Naracs_Duc wrote: Yeah, someone getting taxed because of another person's decisions sounds totally normal. Heck, parents giving their children money somehow is punishable act now. But so long as its the demographics you dislike its okay. I need to stop browsing this thread, is it possible to get banned from one thread? You're not getting punished at all. Say you inherit 1m dollars and the government takes away 500k. You are now 500k richer. You went from 0 to 500k. In what world is earning money a punishment? | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On April 02 2016 14:35 Thaniri wrote: I need to stop browsing this thread, is it possible to get banned from one thread? You're not getting punished at all. Say you inherit 1m dollars and the government takes away 500k. You are now 500k richer. You went from 0 to 500k. In what world is earning money a punishment? That's private money that was already earned and already taxed. Why is it taxed yet again? | ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
In any case is there a law preventing people from simply giving that 1m dollars to a friend as a gift? If that were true no-one would have to worry about inheritance. edit: And we can get philosophical about it. Not like the parent is going to come back and complain about it. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Why does the government which put forth 0 effort toward that money get that money? It has already been taxed. Thus, simply by existing and fulfilling all of the above quotas, you have already contributed a great deal to society. | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
| ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
I don't know nearly enough about tax laws to argue myself out of this one. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
On April 02 2016 14:12 SK.Testie wrote: Because that money earned has already been taxed, whether it's billions or thousands. And I see family as an extension of yourself almost. Especially your children. If I have 200,000 left in savings when I die, does the government automatically get 65% of that under Bernie? I'll leave the long responses to others, but to address this question specifically, no. The estate tax is paired with an exemption on the first X dollars of the estate. I believe it's currently around 10,000,000 as a couple. Bernie's plan calls for the tax to begin at 45% after a 7,000,000 exemption. You can inherit or bestow multiple times what the average worker earns in a lifetime without dealing with the estate tax, and that's not counting various tricks to shield your assets. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On April 02 2016 14:58 SK.Testie wrote: Plenty of parents complaining about it now while they're alive. Just because they can't doesn't make it right. They created and earned that money. If they've been a law abiding citizen paying taxes all their life, they should most definitely get to say where their lifelong efforts go to. Why does the government which put forth 0 effort toward that money get that money? It has already been taxed. All money has been taxed millions of times under different owners in different transactions. If I take my post tax income and exchange it for goods and services then the money becomes someone else's pretax revenue. So if you're trying to argue that money is normally only taxed once, well, it's not. If you're trying to argue that they're different people with different transactions, well, the father earning the money is a different person and transaction to the son inheriting the money unearned. Why should it not be treated as income? This idea that double taxation is fundamentally criminal is something repeated by people who seem to repeat it as a mantra without understanding that it's a meaningless concept that certainly isn't enshrined anywhere in the tax code. Hell, take consumption taxes like VAT (sales tax in the US). You're taxed once when you earn it and once more when you spend it. Double taxation is a normal, routine and utterly unremarkable thing. So even if we accept that an estate tax is double taxation, despite the difference in circumstances and the fact that the guy who was originally taxed is dead and not paying any taxes to anyone anymore, who cares? It's a tax and I'd far rather the dead were taxed than the living. Those on the right should be all for it, it's literally "they can take their taxes from my cold dead body". Hell, I wish I could defer more obligations to my corpse. | ||
| ||
