CptJake wrote:

You missed the word don't between we and create.

 Easy E wrote:
Well, this thread was fun while it lasted.

Does anyone know what the betting money is saying about the chance of a Brokered Convention for the R's? That seems to be the Establishments only hope at the moment.

Second, who would have thought Kasich would outlast soooo many others?

 whembly wrote:

The demand has to be there bro...

 whembly wrote:

And the business need to weigh in whether or not the estimated increase in revenue is worth the extra labor cost.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, this thread was fun while it lasted.

Does anyone know what the betting money is saying about the chance of a Brokered Convention for the R's? That seems to be the Establishments only hope at the moment.

It depends on the #NeverTrump staying disciplined in voting Not Trump.

It's very dubious that Cruz can get to 1237 before Trump, but he may be able to prevent ANYONE from getting to 1237.

Then, it's a free-for-all.

Second, who would have thought Kasich would outlast soooo many others?

He wants to be a kingmaker.

 jasper76 wrote:
Both Cruz and Trump have been going gaga over Jeff Sessions in the debates....is he on the VP radar?

 Ahtman wrote:
Add "Something something Baby Jesus" and I think you got it. To many want to legislate religion on that side at the moment.

 CptJake wrote:
'We' don't create jobs. 'We' create demand. Someone has to pony up the capital to start a business to generate product/services to meet the demand. That business provides/creates the jobs. Yes, if demand dries up, the business and the jobs go away. But there is plenty of demand NOT creating jobs, because the demand can't be met while generating enough profit for it to be worth someone dumping in capital and starting the business needed (and providing the jobs) to meet the demand. Inner city 'food deserts' are a good example. There is demand not being met, regardless of the available consumers, and jobs that don't exist to meet that demand regardless of the available consumers. Why? Because for a variety of reasons the profit motive is not great enough for someone to invest in business (which provide jobs...) which leaves the demand unmet.

 Ouze wrote:
Pretty old for a pick - sacrificial lamb probably.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd suggest that the idea that Trump has limited support could be on the verge of wishful thinking. If news outlets are to be believed, he is drawing from Republicans, Democrats, and brand new voters.

 jasper76 wrote:
You don't [I]have[I] to vote (we're not Australians, after all)

 whembly wrote:
He wants to be a kingmaker.

 jasper76 wrote:
Both Cruz and Trump have been going gaga over Jeff Sessions in the debates....is he on the VP radar?

Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.
The research firm warns he could disrupt the global economy and heighten political and security risks in the US.
However, it does not expect Mr Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton who it sees as "his most likely Democratic contender".
He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea.
China encountering a "hard landing" or sharp economic slowdown and Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new "cold war" are among the events seen as more dangerous.
"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.
The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".



"He has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably Nafta, and has repeatedly labelled China as a 'currency manipulator'," the EIU said.
It warned his strong language directed towards Mexico and China in particular "could escalate rapidly into a trade war".
Mr Trump has called for a "big big wall" to be built on the US-Mexican border, paid for by Mexico, to keep its illegal immigrants and drug dealers out of the United States.
'Innate hostility'
On the campaign trail, Mr Trump has advocated killing the families of terrorists and invading Syria to eradicate the so-called Islamic State group and appropriate its oil.
"His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East and ban on all Muslim travel to the US would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond," the EIU added.

Critics of Mr Trump have raised similar concerns.
However, the businessman is moving closer to clinching the Republican presidential nominee ticket after winning most of the popular vote.
Mr Trump, who has no prior political experience, has said his supporters would "riot" if he was denied the nomination.
In the event he does win the nomination and presidency, the EIU forecasts that domestic and foreign policymaking will be undermined.
"Innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress," it said.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

You missed the word don't between we and create.

Are business owners not a part of "we"?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've looked at Trump's policies. Some of them sound reasonable, but you don't have to read too far before you start to see inconsistencies

For example, on Tax Policy:

He wants to simplify the tax code. This is a good idea. The UK needs the same thing.
He wants to eliminate inheritance tax because "you've earned that money and paid tax on it when you earned it." Except of course if like him you inherited it.
He wants a zero income tax rate for people earning under $25,000. This is a good idea. He will pay for it by closing tax loopholes for the very rich. That souinds fair. How does eliminating inheritance tax help with that? Only very rich people pay it.

 skyth wrote:
As someone who will likely get hit by inheritance tax...I don't have a problem with it. It only affects multi-million dollar estates and, quite frankly, the recipient did nothing to earn the money.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As someone who will likely get hit by inheritance tax...I don't have a problem with it. It only affects multi-million dollar estates and, quite frankly, the recipient did nothing to earn the money.

The recipient is irrelevant to the fact that the estate was already taxed as it was created and will continue to be assessed the same annual taxes it already pays. It's double taxation.

 d-usa wrote:
I pay taxes on my income, but I work for the government so the money I am taxed on is taxes to begin with!

 Steve steveson wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As someone who will likely get hit by inheritance tax...I don't have a problem with it. It only affects multi-million dollar estates and, quite frankly, the recipient did nothing to earn the money.

The recipient is irrelevant to the fact that the estate was already taxed as it was created and will continue to be assessed the same annual taxes it already pays. It's double taxation.

You could say the same about many other taxes. Sales tax for a start, taxes spending of money you have already been taxed on, but the point of it is (at least in the UK) luxury taxing. You tax people who can afford luxuries. The point of inheritance tax is the reduction on the pooling of wealth. The fact that the money is being taxed twice is irrelevant.

 jmurph wrote:
The inheritance tax is a tax on a transfer of wealth and new income, just like most other income taxes. The fact taxes may have been paid on the prior acquisition is irrelevant. Saying that the money had already been taxed is nonsensical- all money (except brand new issue) has "been taxed" and the subsequent recipient is taxed for the income. As a practical matter, federal estate taxes affect only a fraction of a percent of adult deaths and the exclusion amount is over $5 million. Additionally, the top rate is at one of its historically lowest points. As a policy matter, inheritance is typically used to persevere large states in the hands of the very wealthy and is the exact opposite of a meritocracy and recalls into the old problems that feudal Europe had with the nobility.

People who argue against a "death tax" are, in reality, voicing concerns for the heirs of the very wealthy not getting enough. It's almost never a real issue as trusts are usually done to bypass the taxes entirely.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Can you really not see the difference between "earning" money by doing a job of work, getting paid for it, and being taxed on the income, and your parents giving a load of money when they die, and not being taxed on it?

Can you really not understand the difference between $25,000 and $5,500,000?

 jmurph wrote:
I would argue the law is practically unenforceable to protect the interests of the very wealthy. It is not punitive- the receivers are being taxed for income under an estate tax. And at a lesser rate than general income would be taxed with a greater exclusion. If anything, they are being rewarded. Doubly so when you consider that they can just bypass it most of the time anyway.

Why should our tax policy reward a tiny fraction of the population merely for having rich dead relatives? My argument would be to cut out the trusts and corporations in general and impose more general liabilities. The level of legal construction we do in this country is insane and serves only to serve the top echelons. Personal accountability and all that. Of course that will *never* happen and be argued as punishing the "wealth creators" etc. as if they are some benevolent class above the simple peasantry and ignoring the realities of true fee markets (where there is actual risk and competition).

It is immensely disappointing to see such blind admiration of plutocracy and abandonment of meritocracy.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
The inheritance tax is a tax on a transfer of wealth and new income, just like most other income taxes. The fact taxes may have been paid on the prior acquisition is irrelevant. Saying that the money had already been taxed is nonsensical- all money (except brand new issue) has "been taxed" and the subsequent recipient is taxed for the income. As a practical matter, federal estate taxes affect only a fraction of a percent of adult deaths and the exclusion amount is over $5 million. Additionally, the top rate is at one of its historically lowest points. As a policy matter, inheritance is typically used to persevere large states in the hands of the very wealthy and is the exact opposite of a meritocracy and recalls into the old problems that feudal Europe had with the nobility.

People who argue against a "death tax" are, in reality, voicing concerns for the heirs of the very wealthy not getting enough. It's almost never a real issue as trusts are usually done to bypass the taxes entirely.

It doesn't matter what the amount is or who it affects the principle remains the same. If the government wanted to tax more of that accumulated wealth they should raise the rates that were applicable while it was being amassed. If the government believes that wealth concentration is bad for the country then they should take legislative action to prevent it from happening instead of taking punitive action against a small fraction of super wealthy people. The fact that most people affected can manage to avoid paying it anyway is just another reason why we shouldn't have it in the first place. What do unenforceable laws accomplish?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Can you really not see the difference between "earning" money by doing a job of work, getting paid for it, and being taxed on the income, and your parents giving a load of money when they die, and not being taxed on it?

Can you really not understand the difference between $25,000 and $5,500,000?

If somebody worked to build wealth and paid all of the required taxes alon the way then I have no problem accepting the fact that the wealth that was accumulated belongs to the person who worked to accumulate it and that person can spend it however he/she wants when h/she is alive and can bequeath it however he/she wants when he/she dies. The amount of the money involved doesn't suddenly make it ok for the government to take more of it. Working hard to put $25,000 aside to leave to my kids is the same principle of working hard to put $25,000,000 aside for my kids when I die.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
I would argue the law is practically unenforceable to protect the interests of the very wealthy. It is not punitive- the receivers are being taxed for income under an estate tax. And at a lesser rate than general income would be taxed with a greater exclusion. If anything, they are being rewarded. Doubly so when you consider that they can just bypass it most of the time anyway.

Why should our tax policy reward a tiny fraction of the population merely for having rich dead relatives? My argument would be to cut out the trusts and corporations in general and impose more general liabilities. The level of legal construction we do in this country is insane and serves only to serve the top echelons. Personal accountability and all that. Of course that will *never* happen and be argued as punishing the "wealth creators" etc. as if they are some benevolent class above the simple peasantry and ignoring the realities of true fee markets (where there is actual risk and competition).

It is immensely disappointing to see such blind admiration of plutocracy and abandonment of meritocracy.

Tell me about it. John Oliver had a wonderful little segment on Estate Tax (and by wonderful, I mostly mean absolutely hilarious). Look at Trump and all the reports that have come out saying he could have made more money just investing the money he inherited. The idea that being rich automatically = will make new jobs, is silly, especially when talking about inherited wealth which more often than not is squandered by the generations that inherit it at a surprising rate. I get that no one really likes being taxed, but almost any time money changes hands outside of me taking out my wallet and giving you a twenty, there's taxes associated with it. Sales tax. Lottery. Game shows. Investment. Business revenues. Property. I don't know why anyone expects inheritance to be some special exception to this.

 whembly wrote:

What galls most people is that the system sets an arbitrary line when the tax is kicked in... it smacks of envy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
The inheritance tax is a tax on a transfer of wealth and new income, just like most other income taxes. The fact taxes may have been paid on the prior acquisition is irrelevant. Saying that the money had already been taxed is nonsensical- all money (except brand new issue) has "been taxed" and the subsequent recipient is taxed for the income. As a practical matter, federal estate taxes affect only a fraction of a percent of adult deaths and the exclusion amount is over $5 million. Additionally, the top rate is at one of its historically lowest points. As a policy matter, inheritance is typically used to persevere large states in the hands of the very wealthy and is the exact opposite of a meritocracy and recalls into the old problems that feudal Europe had with the nobility.

People who argue against a "death tax" are, in reality, voicing concerns for the heirs of the very wealthy not getting enough. It's almost never a real issue as trusts are usually done to bypass the taxes entirely.

It doesn't matter what the amount is or who it affects the principle remains the same. If the government wanted to tax more of that accumulated wealth they should raise the rates that were applicable while it was being amassed. If the government believes that wealth concentration is bad for the country then they should take legislative action to prevent it from happening instead of taking punitive action against a small fraction of super wealthy people. The fact that most people affected can manage to avoid paying it anyway is just another reason why we shouldn't have it in the first place. What do unenforceable laws accomplish?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Can you really not see the difference between "earning" money by doing a job of work, getting paid for it, and being taxed on the income, and your parents giving a load of money when they die, and not being taxed on it?

Can you really not understand the difference between $25,000 and $5,500,000?

If somebody worked to build wealth and paid all of the required taxes alon the way then I have no problem accepting the fact that the wealth that was accumulated belongs to the person who worked to accumulate it and that person can spend it however he/she wants when h/she is alive and can bequeath it however he/she wants when he/she dies. The amount of the money involved doesn't suddenly make it ok for the government to take more of it. Working hard to put $25,000 aside to leave to my kids is the same principle of working hard to put $25,000,000 aside for my kids when I die.

The point I am trying to make is that Trump's policy is idiotic and hypocritical.

Inheritance tax starts at $5,500,00, so only the very rich are affected by it, who are the class benefited by tax loopholes that Trump says he wants to close in order to finance tax cuts for people earning under $25,000. So why does he want to get rid of inheritance tax entirely, and how does he think it's going to help close this tax gap?.