US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7407
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. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States23266 Posts
On April 27 2017 03:02 zlefin wrote: trump proposing a trump friendly tax plan, no surprise there. trump likes his inherited wealth too. Bit surprising it was so blatant, but that's his MO too. Sounds like they are wrapping up the repatriation into it as well. Since that's something Democrats planned on doing as well this could get passed if Republicans just give Democrats a little bit. It will be a disastrous tax plan, but that won't matter. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On April 27 2017 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote: Repealing the death tax is just point blank saying generational wealth > hard work. Yeah, its awful. Its inheritance for fucks sake. You did nothing. | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 27 2017 03:28 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah, its awful. Its inheritance for fucks sake. You did nothing. This is probably a good tie to ask: why are people so in love with taxing inheritance? I understand the attraction of taxing "having accumulated a lot of wealth", but why is it so clear that this should be done at the point of someone dying? At the end what it makes is that the family has some wealth and you take a piece every time someone who holds a significant part of the wealth to his name dies. If they manage to hold the wealth with one person for a long time, you take less, if they place their survival bets incorrectly, and the wealth needs to change hands often, you take more ... is that really so sensible? I see what inheritance tax is trying to achieve, but I am not sure if a small flat yearly rate on wealth (accumulating on average the same part as the inheritence tax does) wouldn't be more fair. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23266 Posts
On April 27 2017 03:28 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah, its awful. Its inheritance for fucks sake. You did nothing. It's remarkably stupid. It inevitably ends up concentrating even more wealth at a top even more devoid of merit. Who better to herald in such a change than the golden man-child himself. On April 27 2017 03:37 opisska wrote: This is probably a good tie to ask: why are people so in love with taxing inheritance? I understand the attraction of taxing "having accumulated a lot of wealth", but why is it so clear that this should be done at the point of someone dying? At the end what it makes is that the family has some wealth and you take a piece every time someone who holds a significant part of the wealth to his name dies. If they manage to hold the wealth with one person for a long time, you take less, if they place their survival bets incorrectly, and the wealth needs to change hands often, you take more ... is that really so sensible? I see what inheritance tax is trying to achieve, but I am not sure if a small flat yearly rate on wealth (accumulating on average the same part as the inheritence tax does) wouldn't be more fair. Yes that makes sense. But they are having a problem with someone being gifted billions of dollars paying even 1 penny of taxes on money they literally didn't earn. We are pretty far from a wealth tax. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42864 Posts
On April 27 2017 03:37 opisska wrote: This is probably a good tie to ask: why are people so in love with taxing inheritance? I understand the attraction of taxing "having accumulated a lot of wealth", but why is it so clear that this should be done at the point of someone dying? At the end what it makes is that the family has some wealth and you take a piece every time someone who holds a significant part of the wealth to his name dies. If they manage to hold the wealth with one person for a long time, you take less, if they place their survival bets incorrectly, and the wealth needs to change hands often, you take more ... is that really so sensible? I see what inheritance tax is trying to achieve, but I am not sure if a small flat yearly rate on wealth (accumulating on average the same part as the inheritence tax does) wouldn't be more fair. There is this idea that the same person shouldn't be taxed on the same money twice. It's a little silly because they are taxed on it multiple times all the time, but people don't seem to like the idea. So the principle is that when you get the money you pay the government their share and then the rest of the money is yours forever. If you use the money to make more money then you're only taxed on the new money you get back, not the old money that had already been taxed when you got it the first time etc... Sales tax somewhat fucks with that idea because when you turn your money into a possession of equal value then you're taxed again but conservatives fucking love sales taxes (because they're regressive). In a rational system the basis of the object you bought with your post-tax money would be the purchase price and taxes would only be levied if you recognized a capital gain on the sale of that object but the system is built on hypocrisy. Ultimately the left want the estate tax because it's a tax on unearned wealth among the very rich, thus allowing them to lower taxes on the working population and hate sales taxes because they consume a far higher proportion of the disposable income for the poor than they do for the rich. Meanwhile the right love sales taxes and hate estate taxes for the exact same reasons. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42864 Posts
On April 27 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote: It is also difficult to tax any assets that are just sitting there. We only really tax assets when they change hands(income). It's easy enough to tax them, the hard part is valuing them. A transaction gives you a declared value. | ||
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg2085.pdf | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 27 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote: It's easy enough to tax them, the hard part is valuing them. A transaction gives you a declared value. Study tax history and you quickly learn that tax law’s overarching focus is how to reliability collect in a predictable manner. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 27 2017 01:06 Danglars wrote: The comprehensive viewpoint is entirely necessary to a left-wing publication whose normal readers would immediately fault it if it focused narrowly. "But what about the Trump investigation treatment?" "But what about the Clinton campaign's statements to the contrary?" "But Comey was biased in this manner on that thing?" The NYT knows their audience, so anything that portrays the Obama DoJ in a less-than-flattering light must be chock full of the other stuff that's neutral or better. It's been the only exposé that brought in additional information. The letter and internal discussions as well as the content of meetings with Lynch is absolutely new. I don't see why you can't accept a fuller telling of Comey's behavior, internal conflict, and motivations that is replete with details. Complex man, complex issues, complex story. Yes, I think the article added a few nice tidbits. The Lynch participation in the Comey letter matter was the general story as I was aware but this article does go a little further in describing it. My concern is that by covering too many tangential points it starts to lose the plot. It becomes a convoluted critique of Comey and the FBI and everything they have ever been involved in rather than an article which effectively gets to the bottom of the letter, it just goes on a wild goose chase. And maybe some people want to do that but it's part of what's wrong with the current political climate. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 27 2017 01:48 hunts wrote: Let's hope they're just as adamant about investigating trump and his cronies for all of their possible illegal activities and impropriety and cooperation with foreign hackers, right? You're totally on board for the FBI to relentlessly investigate everything trump and those around him may have done wrong and inform the public of every little thing that comes up so that the public never forgets about all of it? Easy on the trolling, sir. Did you read any of it before typing "inform the public of every little thing that comes up." Like, I don't know, ethical concerns about reopening an investigation that you had told Congress was completed? I don't know if you posted before reading anything, so I'll reserve comment on this outburst. Afterwards, tell me why "so that the public never forgets about all of it" is your contention after five minutes reading a report that details the complete opposite motivation. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 27 2017 04:12 biology]major wrote: Lol I can't wait for this over valued market to come crumbling down soon when trump doesn't deliver. I too am excited for irrational financial exuberance to come crashing down and to be able to gloat about it. At this point I imagine Trump will probably be remembered not unlike Bush for his ultimate failure to be anything but an utter failure. | ||
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
The only question is do we watch the Republicans pass this and wait for it to inevitably fail and cause the suffering of millions or will the infighting cause another abortion mid legislative process. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23266 Posts
On April 27 2017 04:51 On_Slaught wrote: Yay! Trickle down poverty.. er economics, is back! All hail the incoming 5% jump in national economic growth (lol) and massive wealth increase! Well, unless you're poor, middle class, or upper middle class. The only question is do we watch the Republicans pass this and wait for it to inevitably fail and cause the suffering of millions or will the infighting cause another abortion mid legislative process. Problem is that a lot of people had a lot riding on getting this repatriation thing going, not sure that part can be stopped, unless Republicans overreach on what they can attach to it (which seems to be the route they are currently going). Like Republicans could get a 25% corporate tax (basically the effective rate now), a reduction of the estate tax, and cut the AMT significantly and Democrats would only argue over the rate on the repatriated money. The repatriation also helps make it look less expensive, by goosing the economy with a couple trillion dollars, but as we know from the last one it won't do basically any of the good things politicians suggest it will. | ||
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States23266 Posts
On April 27 2017 05:21 On_Slaught wrote: Repatriated money should go into infrastructure imo. At this rate, that's going straight into the deficit tho. If Trump actually wanted a win there would be a no brainer repatriation into infrastructure bill (which is what Democrats were planning if Hillary won). Just favored toward Republican states. Democrats couldn't vote against it, and Republicans could call it a win and take credit for every new piece of infrastructure whether it's actually related to the bill or not. Trump's sheer incompetence in political horse trading is the only thing standing in the way of him not moving a Republican agenda forward. | ||
| ||