The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

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

No, what galls most people (who are galled) is that a lie has been built up to invest them in protecting the wealth of others with laws that don't benefit them because "wealth makers make jobs," ignoring that the people inheriting wealth didn't make a damn thing, let alone any lofty platitudes about jobs.

Our inheritance tax could probably be lower, but w/e, any level we set it at is going to be arbitrary. All tax levels are functionally arbitrary. I mean, why am I paying 15% on my household at $50,200, but 25% on the $1 I made at $50,201? It's all kind of arbitrary. Welcome to taxes, or anything having to do with laws really. Something being arbitrary is meaningless. It doesn't exist to be non-arbitrary, and probably can't exist without some arbitrariness.

So give a reason why your inheritance should be taxed.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

So give a reason why your inheritance should be taxed.

Why should anything be taxed?

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

So give a reason why your inheritance should be taxed.

Why should anything be taxed?

It's the fact that, *we* make conscious decisions to work towards providing for our children and *we* shouldn't have to accept that the government has a right to redistribute the our wealth upon our death, at some arbitrary number because enough people thinks "you've made enough".

Isn't it *my* property and wealth to dispose of as I see fit while I am alive?

**Kilkrazy**

Inheritance tax happens after you are dead.

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

So give a reason why your inheritance should be taxed.

Why should anything be taxed?

It's the fact that, *we* make conscious decisions to work towards providing for our children and *we* shouldn't have to accept that the government has a right to redistribute the our wealth upon our death, at some arbitrary number because enough people thinks "you've made enough".

Isn't it *my* property and wealth to dispose of as I see fit while I am alive?

Technically, you can't even give your adult child anymore than 10,000 a year or so without it being taxed, so no, you can't dispose of wealth while your alive in any way you want without it being taxed after a certain point.

**Prestor Jon**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

So give a reason why your inheritance should be taxed.

Why should anything be taxed?

Why should we be governed by anyone other than ourselves?

**jasper76**

Prestor Jon wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

So give a reason why your inheritance should be taxed.

Why should anything be taxed?

Why should we be governed by anyone other than ourselves?

We're the ones who legitimize the inheritance tax. You may not agree with it in principal, but it will take legislation to do away with it.

**Kilkrazy**

Prestor Jon wrote:

...

I doubt Trump has filed his own taxes in decades and isn't even aware of all the inconsistencies and loopholes. Eliminating deductions for higher tax brackets and simply collecting a set percentage of their net earnings would be better than the current system. Doing it for all tax brackets would be ideal.

Trump hasn't been consistent in any of his policies or campaign rhetoric. He's a fast talking narcissistic salesman who doesn't care about being consistent, right or truthful.
...

This is the explanation, and it is not an excuse for Trump. He's trying to be a candidiate for president. He should be able to put together a coherent policy if he plans to introduce it in his campaign.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Inheritance tax happens after you are dead.

Right... it's galling that upon my death, the Taxman swoops in to take his cut.

I’ve paid the tax on this money when I earned it, on the interest this money has accrued whilst in the bank, paid the tax on my assets such as my home, car and so on. These taxes are paid while I'm alive and actively contributing to society.

But, for the taxman to come after my death... just because I died, just feels wrong and smacks of wealth envy/greed.

Probably a better mechanism is to reclassify inheritances as simply "income", which will still take a large bite into that wealth...

**Prestor Jon**

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.

When the government squanders billions of dollars they call it "stimulus" and claim that it benefits the economy. When people squander a millions of dollars of inheritance or lotto winning then that too should stimulate the economy for our benefit. If it's beneficial why should the government stop it?

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

It's the fact that, *we* make conscious decisions to work towards providing for our children and *we* shouldn't have to accept that the government has a right to redistribute the our wealth upon our death, at some arbitrary number because enough people thinks "you've made enough".

By that logic, the government shouldn't tax anything because you worked hard for it and how dare they say you have to pay them so they can provide the essential services and securities that maintain an ordered society in which you could have made all that money.

The "*we*" bit reeks a bit of pretentiousness by the way. What? You think no one but millionaires who can afford to leave vast wealth to their children work to provide for their children? Guess all those poor peasants just shouldn't have any money until they've magically elevated themselves into the upper class by their boot straps.

Isn't it *my* property and wealth to dispose of as I see fit while I am alive?

Until you're dead. Then the inheritors have to pay a tax on it

**jasper76**

(Never mind, I might be wrong)

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Inheritance tax happens after you are dead.

Right... it's galling that upon my death, the Taxman swoops in to take his cut.

I’ve paid the tax on this money when I earned it, on the interest this money has accrued whilst in the bank, paid the tax on my assets such as my home, car and so on. These taxes are paid while I'm alive and actively contributing to society.

But, for the taxman to come after my death... just because I died, just feels wrong and smacks of wealth envy/greed.

Probably a better mechanism is to reclassify inheritances as simply "income", which will still take a large bite into that wealth...

Except, the taxman isn't swooping in on YOUR money/property... he/she is swooping in on you kids' new money/property

Quite a difference.

**d-usa**

You can't hire your kids without having to pay tax on the money you give them. You can't give your kids more than a small present without having to pay tax on the money you give them. You can't bequest your kids more then 5 million dollars without having to pay tax on the money you give them.

When someone gains wealth, it is taxes. Always had been, always will be. The "it's already been taxed" argument is nonsensical since all money is taxed at every stage.

**LordofHats**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Why should we be governed by anyone other than ourselves?

Because Ann Rand's vision of society is scary as feth.

whembly wrote:I’ve paid the tax on this money when I earned it,

Why should you're children be an exception?

**skyth**

And sorry, but the biggest determinating factor in being wealthy is not hard work. Hard work is found in all levels of wealth, though it tends to decline as your wealth increases. Hard work only has a hygeine effect on wealth as it is harder to build wealth without it, but it doesn't actively contribute to it.

The primary determination of wealth is luck...either through genetics, upbringing, where you were born, other people taking or not taking actions, etc.

The wealthy shouldn't get preferential tax treatment.

**Prestor Jon**

skyth wrote:
And sorry, but the biggest determinating factor in being wealthy is not hard work. Hard work is found in all levels of wealth, though it tends to decline as your wealth increases. Hard work only has a hygeine effect on wealth as it is harder to build wealth without it, but it doesn't actively contribute to it.

The primary determination of wealth is luck...either through genetics, upbringing, where you were born, other people taking or not taking actions, etc.

The wealthy shouldn't get preferential tax treatment.

So it's ok for 99% percent of the people who die and bequeath wealth to their descendents to not have that inheritance pay the estate tax but it's ok for the top 1% to have to pay it even though most just hire accountants and lawyers to work around it anyway? It's the exact same principle the only thing changing is the amount and the number of people it affects is tiny so why be punitive towards those people just because?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Why should we be governed by anyone other than ourselves?

Because Ann Rand's vision of society is scary as feth.

That's an interesting binary choice to default to.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

It's the fact that, *we* make conscious decisions to work towards providing for our children and *we* shouldn't have to accept that the government has a right to redistribute the our wealth upon our death, at some arbitrary number because enough people thinks "you've made enough".

By that logic, the government shouldn't tax anything because you worked hard for it and how dare they say you have to pay them so they can provide the essential services and securities that maintain an ordered society in which you could have made all that money.

No... that isn't the logic.

The "*we*" bit reeks a bit of pretentiousness by the way. What? You think no one but millionaires who can afford to leave vast wealth to their children work to provide for their children? Guess all those poor peasants just shouldn't have any money until they've magically elevated themselves into the upper class by their boot straps.

No where in my written sentence stated nor implied that poor people shouldn't have money. You are tugging that goalpost pretty hard...

Isn't it *my* property and wealth to dispose of as I see fit while I am alive?

Until you're dead. Then the inheritors have to pay a tax on it

Yup... that's them rulez.

**LordofHats**

Eh, it's at best a fairly low brow pop culture reference that I fully expected would fly over some heads

It's the exact same principle the only thing changing is the amount and the number of people it affects is tiny so why be punitive towards those people just because?

At every point that money is taxed, having more is taxed more because duh, a millionaire can afford to give more to society that the local burger flipper at Wendy's and most people aren't going to shed a tear that a millionaire had to pay more than the burger flipper because they're a millionaire and complaining about paying more just reeks of greed and envy.

There's obviously only one choice. The oppressed must rise up and overthrow the corrupt government that treats their vast stores of money differently from everyone else's measily piggy banks! How dare the huddled masses tell the mighty they shouldn't be free to do as they please! Shame on them!

**CptJake**

sebster wrote:

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.

You guys are actually arguing chicken and the egg here. "The chicken creates the egg." "No, actually the egg creates the chicken."

Demand creates supply, supply creates demand. Econ 101 people.

Your Eco 101 was different. I could start up a factory and generate 10s of thousands of horse buggies or millions of vacuum tube radios, creating a massive supply of them. That supply would not create a demand for those items.

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

No... that isn't the logic.

Neither is arguing that inherited wealth should suddenly be given some special reprieve because it is inherited, especially since none of the platitudes usually thrown around to protect vast sums of wealth from those mean IRS paper pushers like "hard work" don't even apply to inherited wealth, which the inheritors didn't work for

No where in my written sentence stated nor implied that poor people shouldn't have money.

I apparently made a typo

replace money with children

**skyth**

Prestor Jon wrote:
skyth wrote:
And sorry, but the biggest determinating factor in being wealthy is not hard work. Hard work is found in all levels of wealth, though it tends to decline as your wealth increases. Hard work only has a hygeine effect on wealth as it is harder to build wealth without it, but it doesn't actively contribute to it.

The primary determination of wealth is luck...either through genetics, upbringing, where you were born, other people taking or not taking actions, etc.

The wealthy shouldn't get preferential tax treatment.

So it's ok for 99% percent of the people who die and bequeath wealth to their descendents to not have that inheritance pay the estate tax but it's ok for the top 1% to have to pay it even though most just hire accountants and lawyers to work around it anyway? It's the exact same principle the only thing changing is the amount and the number of people it affects is tiny so why be punitive towards those people just because?

That's an interesting binary choice there...

It could be improved by getting rid of the trust, etc options and lowering the ceiling a bit. But the decendants did nothing to earn the money so it should be taxed. Plus at that level, the majority was likely not earned through hard work and thus likely taxed at a lower level than money earned through actual hard work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Why should we be governed by anyone other than ourselves?

Because Ann Rand's vision of society is scary as feth.

That's an interesting binary choice to default to.

**LordofHats**

skyth wrote:

Not governed by anyone other than ourselves and Ann Rand's vision of society are synonyms...

Someone got it!

**WrentheFaceless**

Not sure how inheritance tax is any different than being taxed on lottery winnings. Being born lucky is basically winning the lottery and they tax the hell out of lottery winnings.

**skyth**

Lottery winnings are taxed at a higher rate than inheritance.

**Prestor Jon**

skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
skyth wrote:
And sorry, but the biggest determinating factor in being wealthy is not hard work. Hard work is found in all levels of wealth, though it tends to decline as your wealth increases. Hard work only has a hygeine effect on wealth as it is harder to build wealth without it, but it doesn't actively contribute to it.

The primary determination of wealth is luck...either through genetics, upbringing, where you were born, other people taking or not taking actions, etc.

The wealthy shouldn't get preferential tax treatment.

So it's ok for 99% percent of the people who die and bequeath wealth to their descendents to not have that inheritance pay the estate tax but it's ok for the top 1% to have to pay it even though most just hire accountants and lawyers to work around it anyway? It's the exact same principle the only thing changing is the amount and the number of people it affects is tiny so why be punitive towards those people just because?

That's an interesting binary choice there...

It could be improved by getting rid of the trust, etc options and lowering the ceiling a bit. But the decendants did nothing to earn the money so it should be taxed. Plus at that level, the majority was likely not earned through hard work and thus likely taxed at a lower level than money earned through actual hard work.

Basing the reason for taxing estates based solely on the amount of money involved is flawed. Either estates should be taxed or they shouldn;t. The government is fine with not levying the estate tax against the vast majority of inheritances so why are all the reasons that apply to supporting that decision suddenly no longer applicable just because an estate is worth more? If it's ok to tax an inheritance simply because the people inheriting it didn't earn it then why don't we tax every inheritance whether it's $200 or $200,000,000? The descendents didn't earn the $200 either so why shouldn't the government get some of it?

**NinthMusketeer**

To quote a certain dakkite's signature:

"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly, the rich have always objected to being governed at all."

**LordofHats**

Prestor Jon wrote:
don't we tax every inheritance whether it's $200 or $200,000,000?

It's amazing the things that get said in this thread that seem to have people's unabashed faith.

I mean seriously.

How the hell do you need someone to give you an argument on why these two sums of money are treated differently?

**WrentheFaceless**

skyth wrote:
Lottery winnings are taxed at a higher rate than inheritance.

Not the point i was trying to make

Both are parties receiving large sums of money due to basically luck, but one deserves to be taxed and one doesnt? Not sure I see why inheritance shouldnt be taxed if its the equivalent of winning the life lottery.

**skyth**

I was supporting your point...As you are taxed less for inheriting money as opposed to winning it yourself. They should be equivalently taxed really...but inheritance gets the better deal and still people complain about it...