Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 16:24:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
skyth wrote: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...
Ah I appologize then, I misread
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 16:25:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote: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!
Everyone who earns income pays income tax, everyone who owns property pays property tax, everyone who buys stuff pays sales tax, but only a tiny percentage of people who get an inheritance pay the estate tax. If the government can't convince people on its merits that it's a tax that should apply to everyone then it's not a tax that should be levied. Everyone who lives in a society benefits from that society and owes a contribution to that society to keep it functioning.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 16:31:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
But not everyone can afford to help. Plus inheritance is something that is completely unearned and should be treated differently.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus your examples are not correct. Not all income pays income tax not all property pays property tax and not all purchases pay sales tax...And with good reason.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/17 16:32:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 16:50:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
::cough, cough:: churches ::cough cough:: preachers
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 16:50:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
skyth wrote:But not everyone can afford to help. Plus inheritance is something that is completely unearned and should be treated differently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus your examples are not correct. Not all income pays income tax not all property pays property tax and not all purchases pay sales tax...And with good reason.
Property that is subject to tax is taxes regardless of who owns it, items that require sales tax are taxes regardless of who buys them and paychecks are going to have withholdings even if you qualify to get it all back.
Again, you're not addressing the argument: If we should tax inheritance because it's unearned income why don't we tax all inheritances since they're all equally unearned? If the primary reason to tax an inheritance is the simple fact that it's an inheritance then all inheritances are equally deserving of being taxed.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 16:51:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Prestor Jon wrote:
Everyone who earns income pays income tax, everyone who owns property pays property tax, everyone who buys stuff pays sales tax, but only a tiny percentage of people who get an inheritance pay the estate tax.
The government probably operates at a loss processing many income and property taxes, because it just gives huge sums of money back to the taxed because t hey don't have any money. The government would save money not taxing large numbers of the populace, because processing documents for money you're just going to give back is the definition of waste. The reality though is that we aren't structured in a way that allows the government to know how much money its keeping and giving back till taxes are filled and processed (I don't know that a system can exist to correct that innate problem), so that loss is just part of year to year operation of the system.
Inheritance is completely different. Because of all those other taxes that have been filed (income, property, capital gains etc etc) the government actually knows to a degree what your estate is worth, and can actually choose not to tax estates that aren't worth it. Why the hell would we waste money processing a tax on a $200 inheritance? The processing alone must cost the government vastly more than $200, let alone whatever % of that 200 its supposedly keeping. You're literally arguing for government waste.
We could probably lower the current threshold for inheritance tax by a lot, and I have no real issue with that, but then again the whole reason inheritance tax is the way it is right now is because the rich constantly complain about it, and unable to get rid of it they've just used lobbying and campaign finance to ensure the system is filled with holes that allow them to escape paying, assuming they would presumably pay anything anyway because we've set the threshold so high.
Everyone who lives in a society benefits from that society and owes a contribution to that society to keep it functioning.
And people who not only benefit more, but can afford to pay more, should. Vast wealth is of greater utility in an ordered society. This is where that "you didn't build that" speech people are always making fun of comes in, which is where I quip that people making fun of "you didn't build that" are saying far more about themselves than they ever will about who uttered the words to begin with.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/17 16:52:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 16:57:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Prestor Jon wrote: skyth wrote:But not everyone can afford to help. Plus inheritance is something that is completely unearned and should be treated differently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus your examples are not correct. Not all income pays income tax not all property pays property tax and not all purchases pay sales tax...And with good reason.
Property that is subject to tax is taxes regardless of who owns it
False. Plus not all property is taxed.
, items that require sales tax are taxes regardless of who buys them
False
and paychecks are going to have withholdings even if you qualify to get it all back.
False.
Again, you're not addressing the argument: If we should tax inheritance because it's unearned income why don't we tax all inheritances since they're all equally unearned? If the primary reason to tax an inheritance is the simple fact that it's an inheritance then all inheritances are equally deserving of being taxed.
If you paid attention, you would have noticed I addressed that with my first sentence.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:23:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
skyth wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: skyth wrote:But not everyone can afford to help. Plus inheritance is something that is completely unearned and should be treated differently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus your examples are not correct. Not all income pays income tax not all property pays property tax and not all purchases pay sales tax...And with good reason.
Property that is subject to tax is taxes regardless of who owns it
False. Plus not all property is taxed.
, items that require sales tax are taxes regardless of who buys them
False
and paychecks are going to have withholdings even if you qualify to get it all back.
False.
Again, you're not addressing the argument: If we should tax inheritance because it's unearned income why don't we tax all inheritances since they're all equally unearned? If the primary reason to tax an inheritance is the simple fact that it's an inheritance then all inheritances are equally deserving of being taxed.
If you paid attention, you would have noticed I addressed that with my first sentence.
So your position is that its ok for the government to not tax unearned inheritances as long as the amount being inherited is less than whatever amount you think is excessive wealth? So in your view the government should not tax all inheritances because it's unearned income but that the government should instead determine which people deserve untaxed inheritances and which don't?
Also, every paycheck and W-2 I ever got while working jobs that paid minimum wage or less had withholdings withheld even though I got most of it back in my refund.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:24:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Your argument for equality still wouldn't make treatment equal.
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 0031/03/17 17:24:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
Everyone who earns income pays income tax, everyone who owns property pays property tax, everyone who buys stuff pays sales tax, but only a tiny percentage of people who get an inheritance pay the estate tax.
The government probably operates at a loss processing many income and property taxes, because it just gives huge sums of money back to the taxed because t hey don't have any money. The government would save money not taxing large numbers of the populace, because processing documents for money you're just going to give back is the definition of waste. The reality though is that we aren't structured in a way that allows the government to know how much money its keeping and giving back till taxes are filled and processed (I don't know that a system can exist to correct that innate problem), so that loss is just part of year to year operation of the system.
Inheritance is completely different. Because of all those other taxes that have been filed (income, property, capital gains etc etc) the government actually knows to a degree what your estate is worth, and can actually choose not to tax estates that aren't worth it. Why the hell would we waste money processing a tax on a $200 inheritance? The processing alone must cost the government vastly more than $200, let alone whatever % of that 200 its supposedly keeping. You're literally arguing for government waste.
We could probably lower the current threshold for inheritance tax by a lot, and I have no real issue with that, but then again the whole reason inheritance tax is the way it is right now is because the rich constantly complain about it, and unable to get rid of it they've just used lobbying and campaign finance to ensure the system is filled with holes that allow them to escape paying, assuming they would presumably pay anything anyway because we've set the threshold so high.
Everyone who lives in a society benefits from that society and owes a contribution to that society to keep it functioning.
And people who not only benefit more, but can afford to pay more, should. Vast wealth is of greater utility in an ordered society. This is where that "you didn't build that" speech people are always making fun of comes in, which is where I quip that people making fun of "you didn't build that" are saying far more about themselves than they ever will about who uttered the words to begin with.
The federal government has been operating at a loss for decades because the majority of the money it spends is borrowed and taxes are just used to pay the debt service.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:28:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Prestor Jon wrote:
The federal government has been operating at a loss for decades because the majority of the money it spends is borrowed and taxes are just used to pay the debt service.
You're entire response to Skyth was answered by my post, which you apparently didn't bother to actually read.
This is why I mostly fall back on snarky pop culture references. At least those are fun.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:31:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'm not arguing for equality I'm arguing for consistency. Either inheritances should be taxed or they shouldn't. The government should be targeting a specific minority of people and forcing them to pay a punitive tax that nobody else has to pay on a transaction that is undertaken by a large segment of the populace.
If you want a progressive estate tax that affects everyone I could understand that but I don't see the benefit in having the government telling people that inheritances aren't taxable for most people but are punitively taxed for a select minority. The government shouldn't play favorites or engage in convoluted social engineering schemes.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:32:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Prestor Jon wrote: skyth wrote:Prestor Jon wrote: skyth wrote:But not everyone can afford to help. Plus inheritance is something that is completely unearned and should be treated differently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus your examples are not correct. Not all income pays income tax not all property pays property tax and not all purchases pay sales tax...And with good reason.
Property that is subject to tax is taxes regardless of who owns it
False. Plus not all property is taxed.
, items that require sales tax are taxes regardless of who buys them
False
and paychecks are going to have withholdings even if you qualify to get it all back.
False.
Again, you're not addressing the argument: If we should tax inheritance because it's unearned income why don't we tax all inheritances since they're all equally unearned? If the primary reason to tax an inheritance is the simple fact that it's an inheritance then all inheritances are equally deserving of being taxed.
If you paid attention, you would have noticed I addressed that with my first sentence.
So your position is that its ok for the government to not tax unearned inheritances as long as the amount being inherited is less than whatever amount you think is excessive wealth?
Yep. I'm very fine with a progressive tax structure. It also comes down to family homes and heirlooms...Stuff that is not easy to liquidate to pay the taxes. The limit is partially an allowance for that. Higher wealth means that there is more liquidity and less 'heirloom' type things proportionately. Could the limit be lower? Sure.
I mean, we have the standard deduction and exemptions for a good and similar reason.
Also, every paycheck and W-2 I ever got while working jobs that paid minimum wage or less had withholdings withheld even though I got most of it back in my refund.
Then you had your withholdings set up wrong unless you wanted to get a refund at the end of the year. Regardless, you didn't pay any actual income tax.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/17 17:33:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:34:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
I was unaware that most people had $5,000,000 in their bank accounts.
Wow. That whole "wealth inequality" thing is a real myth ain't it?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:39:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
The federal government has been operating at a loss for decades because the majority of the money it spends is borrowed and taxes are just used to pay the debt service.
You're entire response to Skyth was answered by my post, which you apparently didn't bother to actually read.
This is why I mostly fall back on snarky pop culture references. At least those are fun.
You're two different people, why would I attribute your responses to somebody else?
It would be easier for the federal government to evaluate how much money they are keeping or refunding people if everyone filed taxes quarterly like self employed people instead of annually. It would also be easier if the IRS just sent people invoices instead of taking all the money upfront and then figuring out how much to give back. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:
I was unaware that most people had $5,000,000 in their bank accounts.
Wow. That whole "wealth inequality" thing is a real myth ain't it?
You really didn't understand that I was saying that a large segment of the population receives some form of inheritance when a parent or family member dies but the government only wants to tax a very specific subset of that group? Really?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/17 17:41:52
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:45:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
An ex-General turned commentator's perspective on the rise of Trump:
Hegel, Sartre, Trump
If you want to understand the angry support for Donald Trump, seek out your local German Idealist philosopher. And to help you face your own responsibility, contact your friendly neighborhood Existentialist. Leaving aside G. W. F. Hegel’s concept of thesis provoking antithesis and leading to synthesis, which may apply ferociously this election year, Hegel offered one of our most valuable insights into the individual and his relationship to society: the concept of Anerkennung, or “recognition.”
Simply put, Hegel proposed that all humans crave recognition from other humans. He didn’t mean they expected adulation, but only that the individual requires the validation he receives when other men acknowledge his shared humanity (however humble his station). The janitor would like you to say, “Good morning!” as you rush past. Donald Trump possessed the genius to grasp the craving for recognition in a huge swathe of the electorate ignored or actively insulted by the (previously) reigning political parties.
Dismissed by the custodians of wealth; badgered by the politically correct; and taken for granted by those who make our laws; forgotten millions were ripe for Trump’s message — which reduces neatly to “You matter!” Those of us who value developed ideas miss Trump’s essence. His stage persona embodies the anger of those who feel left behind, who feel threatened, who feel cheated, and who feel the basic human need to blame somebody else, whether a horned devil or a government, for their disappointments.
The unnerving dynamism of a Trump-for-president rally comes from the symbiosis between the would-be candidate’s narcissism (the need for recognition run amok), fed enthusiastically by the crowd, and his willingness to absolve the crowd’s members of social or personal guilt (Trump’s cadenced repetitions are those of a skillful preacher). Whereas other candidates, of either party, ask us to blame ourselves or take responsibility, Trump tells his followers “Nothing’s your fault. It’s them, it’s them, it’s them.”
Trump gives his supporters recognition by the private plane-load. In turn, his enchanted acolytes have no ears for his contradictions, hypocrisy, and vacuity. Nothing matters except the cult-like faith of those who believe that, at last, a candidate speaks on their behalf — and offers them that lip-smacking dish, revenge.
The greatest mistake political commentators have made in regard to Trump has been to believe that logic and substance must triumph. Populist movements are never about the rational side of existence. They’re about the inchoate revolt of the unrecognized. The great mass movements of the 20th century had varying degrees of ideological coherence, but all appealed viscerally to the “forgotten man.” We, the fortunate, created Trump when we failed to shake the hand of the repairman. RELATED: Trumpism: ‘It’s the Culture, Stupid’
To collectivize and simplify a message of Existentialist philosophy, our humanity lies in our freedom to choose. Attacked by a furious dog, we still have the choice of fighting back, attempting to placate the beast, or running away. Our choices when assailed by life’s dilemmas validate our worth as human beings. But the odious Sartre and admirable Camus also recognized that the reality of our lives, from laws to family ties, constrains our choices — we do not exist in isolation. But when the constraints become intolerable — when the walls close in — the individual of character rebels, despite the consequences.
The political, intellectual, financial, and cultural elites of the United States of America intolerably constrained the choices available to tens of millions of citizens they disdained. The political parties gave only the illusion of choice. The intelligentsia mocked the white working man and the working woman without a college degree (feminists must be slender and articulate). Financial elites exploited and discarded the paycheck poor. And our cultural elites championed those who live on government hand-outs while stereotyping the working class and lower-middle class as boorish, benighted, and bigoted.
How can believing Christians support Trump, whose demonstrated values run counter to every teaching of the Sermon on the Mount? For those weary of unanswered prayers, he offers an electoral catharsis, an End of Days for unacceptable compromises in Congress. In all these cases, those in power mocked, badgered, and dismissed the many who now imagine a savior in Trump. We refused to recognize the validity of our fellow citizens who couldn’t afford a Tesla.
We did our best to deny our fellow Americans a public voice and reasonable choices. So we should not be surprised when they shout in support of an unreasonable choice. Now the rest of us, we who, with a muttered curse, race past the battered pick-up blocking traffic, may face a terrible choice of our own in November.
That dynamic could also be said a bit about Sanders' rise as well... no?
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 17:46:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Prestor Jon wrote:You're two different people, why would I attribute your responses to somebody else?
Because I explained in more words why the argument your throwing out is nonsense. Inheritance tax is not the same thing as income, property, capital gains, or <insert other basic level taxes as they apply>. The government has no choice but to do things like withhold earnings and process paperwork wastefully under the current tax system. That's the way it's structured. The government however can choose not to waste money processing pointlessly inheritances that are just going to result in a net loss, because previously processed taxes provide a framework that allows a distinction to be made.
And that's just the pragmatic reasons for why $200 is treated differently from $200,000,000. There's also the obvious difference that $200,000,000 is 1,000,000x as much money $200, and its bonkers to think those two sums would ever be handled in a "consistent" manner by any administrative body.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:You really didn't understand that I was saying that a large segment of the population receives some form of inheritance when a parent or family member dies but the government only wants to tax a very specific subset of that group? Really?
You're the one who asked why $200 is treated differently than $200,000,000.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, ask intelligent questions. It was probably a waste to try explaining it in the first place. No one should need the difference between 2 zeros and 8 zeros explained.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
That dynamic could also be said a bit about Sanders' rise as well... no?
That was probably one of the best candid articles I've seen written about Trump the entire primary season, and I think it does apply to Sanders as well.
I think the reason Sanders hasn't blown up in the same manner as Trump is probably two fold. The innate conflicts that give Trump so much popularity in the electorate, are also conflicts now innate to the Republican party itself. The party's structure is more sensitive to grass roots momentum, as we learned from the Tea Party. Those issues haven't crept as deeply in the Democratic Party due to it's structure (the much discussed super delegates for example).
Second, I think there's also the ideological issue. The Republicans have made personal responsibility a major calling card, which means that when the party fails to live up to that card, there's going to be much bigger backlash. A beast of their own making so to speak. The Democrats also espouse personal responsibility, but they espouse it different with a larger focus on systems and their platform comes packaged with support for welfare systems and the social safety net. That I think placates the people on that side of the line, whose counterparts on the other side are throwing their arms up in the air like they just don't care.
I think a big part of why Trump is such a sensation isn't just that he talks crazy stuff, but he has so many people listening to it. Sanders has lots of support (easily far more than I think anyone was expecting him to have), but it's just not as sensational. Plus, damning Wall Street is pretty hip for something politicians have been doing for decades. Trumps popularity could also have as much to do with internal part shock as anything. All the people rallying "we have to stop Trump" have probably made even more of a spectacle out of him. Comparatively, the Dems haven't been on a "we have to stop Bernie" binge, and Hillary has been fairly tame in her dealings with him.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/17 18:33:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:36:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Explain to me then, how is it that Walmart owns property in Oregon, yet hasn't paid property taxes since putting a building on it?
Also... without quoting the person, here's the best guess reason that I have why the 1% are supposed to pay inheritance tax, but us mere plebs do not:
The average funeral costs 7-10k (USD)... how many of us can legitimately pay that right out of pocket right now? The simple fact is, for most poorer people, paying for a funeral can break them for months or even years. Often times, people won't see a single dime of their parents' "inheritance" because after its been liquidated, it goes straight to the funeral costs. Despite what people say about Gov't and the tax collectors, they aren't completely heartless bastards  
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/17 18:36:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:42:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Explain to me then, how is it that Walmart owns property in Oregon, yet hasn't paid property taxes since putting a building on it?
Also... without quoting the person, here's the best guess reason that I have why the 1% are supposed to pay inheritance tax, but us mere plebs do not:
The average funeral costs 7-10k (USD)... how many of us can legitimately pay that right out of pocket right now? The simple fact is, for most poorer people, paying for a funeral can break them for months or even years. Often times, people won't see a single dime of their parents' "inheritance" because after its been liquidated, it goes straight to the funeral costs. Despite what people say about Gov't and the tax collectors, they aren't completely heartless bastards   
A quick Google search resulted in this article that says Walmart pays property taxes:
http://www.oregonlive.com/forest-grove/index.ssf/2013/07/cornelius_wal-mart_not_so_bad.html
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:43:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Asking why we do not do the same thing with $200 and $2 million is asking why we do not do the same thing with two different things.
How do you define a "large segment of the population"? According to a 2012 study, roughly half of Americans die with virtually no assets. That seems pretty large.
Even for those who do get something, the difference between the top fraction (1%) and the rest I pretty appalling. Those in the middling wealth ranges—$25k-$50k, $50k-$100k, and $100k-$250k—have received inheritances of $14.8k, $22.5k, and $51.4k respectively. The top 1% average $2.7 million in inheritance. Those with over $1 million in wealth received average inheritances over $3 million.
So you can definitely see the skew here- it's not even the top 1% (as that is an average) it's a fraction of that.
http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec110030.pdf
Just like our income tax, we use a system with some exclusion. Unlike or income tax you get a $5 mil freebie. Who does that necessarily benefit? And, again, that is before you get into trusts designed to circumvent even that. Or gifts, access to better schools, etc.
I say just treat it as straight up income. That's what it is, after all.
|
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:48:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Heh:
Senator @LindseyGrahamSC to fundraise for @tedcruz #FNPolitics
— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) March 17, 2016
A few weeks ago, Graham teasingly said this:
"If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you"
How quickly things can turn in just a few weeks... eh?
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:52:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
Because my kids should pull on their own bootstraps like I did?
Also, because there's a 99% chance that the government will do something better with the money than people like Paris Hilton.
|
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:53:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
d-usa wrote: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.
What this man said.
Inheritance is income. Simple-as.
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:54:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Hey... that's your choice.
I'd like to have a *choice* to leave my wealth to my spawns.
Also, because there's a 99% chance that the government will do something better with the money than people like Paris Hilton.
Beg to differ...
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 18:59:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Agree. If Paris Hilton wasn't rich, she'd just be what the locals call 'poor', and humiliating sex tapes about average every day poor people isn't anywhere near as entertaining as sex tapes about celebutantes
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/17 19:00:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 19:05:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Because my kids should pull on their own bootstraps like I did?
Also, because there's a 99% chance that the government will do something better with the money than people like Paris Hilton.
From that perspective, why not have the Gov't control all of everyone's money and property? Surely citizens can't be trusted to be responsible enough, and the gov't can easily find something 'better' to do with your country's wealth, right?
Anyway, here is Forbe's take on Paris Hilton: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dansimon/2014/06/04/paris-in-the-springtime-the-caricatured-ditzy-blonde-reinvents-herself-as-serious-entrepreneur-and-crushes-it/#13f6a6856bf8
|
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 19:12:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
At one location.... And from further looking up, that particular location is newer than the specific one I was referring to... So it would seem that the State of Oregon has gotten a bit wiser in dealing with the evil smiley-face, and gets them to pay for stuff up front.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-americas-tax-dead_b_68334.html
Probably not the best source here:
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/state_detail.html?state=OR
But shows a different story
And still further evidence of trying to get out of paying their due:
http://www.corp-research.org/e-letter/rolling-back-property-tax-payments
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/17 19:15:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 19:22:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
I think we can probably take it as a given that any business that can afford an army of lawyers will put at least some of them to work trying to find ways to help the business not pay the fees its supposed to. Not just Wal-Mart
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 19:23:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
@Ensis: I think you're talking about "increment financing" (TIF) for businesses.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/17 19:24:11
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/03/17 19:25:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
|
 |
Most Glorious Grey Seer
|
A Town Called Malus wrote:Also, because there's a 99% chance that the government will do something better with the money than people like Paris Hilton.
Do you understand you are embracing one of the fundamental tenets of Marxist Communism when you suggest the government should take and spend Paris Hilton's money because she wouldn't do it right?
|
|
|
 |
 |
|