Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
For Bezos it may be doable, but for private businesses, that may not be the case. We already have wealth redistribution. It’s why I linked that WSJ article earlier. What’s the correct amount of redistribution in your opinion then? How much wealth should billionaires be required to forfeit when it was gained via consensual transactions?

It’s as consensual as the the poor schlubs who go to work for AMCs for 250k because they have no other options. Amazon, cox communications, AT&T, Verizon et al wiped their competition out of business so they could redistribute wealth to themselves and the federal government allowed this to happen. So did Mednax, USAP, Envision in certain areas. So did Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Univ of Pittsburgh. I hate AT&T and I think they rip me off. Still I use them because I have no better option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing to see here folks, just your everyday pedestrian musings on racism from the senior crap weasel in the White House....





The SPLC is as far from unbiased as one can be, and they label practically everything from the right as racist and “hate.” They’re a joke.

Everything you need to know from your articles can be summed up by the poll on the newsweek page.

Adjustments.jpg


So do you think Trump is racist, or does he just hate other races?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What about the part where Stephen Miller promotes Infowars, you know the ones who claim Sandy Hook is a hoax?

Oh, I forgot about that.

I guess he did link a story from a website to some one at one point in time, and so he's obviously responsible for all the rantings of the crazy conspiracy dude that is associated with that website. FIRE HIM!!! RACIST!!!!



Gimme a break.
 
Wage growth is currently at 4% and climbing. It’s been going up ever sense roughly Q1 2018. Inflation has been holding steady at 1.7%.

Trump fans keep moving the goalposts. First he promised 4%, not it is not even half of that, and now anemic wage growth is the goal, despite income and wealth inequality increasing under Trump, while deficits explode (despite the gop promise that tax cuts would pay for themselves).
 
Make America Hate Again


Hate crime murders in the U.S. reached a 27-year high in 2018, according to data released Tuesday by the FBI. Hate crime murders totaled 24, which includes the 11 worshipers slain last year at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, the deadliest anti-Semitic crime in U.S. history.
 
Oh, I forgot about that.

I guess he did link a story from a website to some one at one point in time, and so he's obviously responsible for all the rantings of the crazy conspiracy dude that is associated with that website. FIRE HIM!!! RACIST!!!!



Gimme a break.
Yeah, all of these outlets are fraudulent and advancing made-up stories.









 
Yeah, all of these outlets are fraudulent and advancing made-up stories.










You can post the same story a hundred times if you want, it’s still the same weak story. So lemme ask you, what’s the worst, most racist, white nationalistic thing he’s accused of?

Linking an article from a website? Telling someone about a fictional book that some people consider racist? Tell me, what in your mind is the worst thing amongst all the accusations in those articles?

I’m no Steven miler fan, don’t know much about him honestly. But I know a hit piece when I see it. Seems like a smear job...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We literally have case studies throughout Europe showing this to have happened. There are sources above already posted, Yang talks about it routinely during his VAT speeches. You think foreign countries wouldn’t gladly accept a few dozen expat billionaires? There are several that would probably do it for nothing, just to have somebody like Bill Gates/Microsoft.

Those countries didn’t have the most important economic market in the world defended by the most powerful military in the history of human existence. They’re not going anywhere. They’ll still be billionaires, they’ll just have to chip in a little more for that military that allowed them to become billionaires in the first place.
 
Those countries didn’t have the most important economic market in the world defended by the most powerful military in the history of human existence. They’re not going anywhere. They’ll still be billionaires, they’ll just have to chip in a little more for that military that allowed them to become billionaires in the first place.

A wealth tax is not only unconstitutional and immoral frankly, but it would be ridiculously hard to evaluate and enforce. Are you literally gonna appraise everyone’s wealth every year? Think about that. Every property, every stock, every piece of artwork. How much has your fancy car depreciated? What about that $500k of furniture you got in your mansion, what’s that worth this year? Next year?

It’s not really feasible, not to mention. You’re RE-taxing money that’s already been earned. It’s not right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A wealth tax is not only unconstitutional and immoral frankly, but it would be ridiculously hard to evaluate and enforce. Are you literally gonna appraise everyone’s wealth every year? Think about that. Every property, every stock, every piece of artwork. How much has your fancy car depreciated? What about that $500k of furniture you got in your mansion, what’s that worth this year? Next year?

It’s not really feasible, not to mention. You’re RE-taxing money that’s already been earned. It’s not right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Immoral? According to who?

My house value gets assessed every so often and I pay a property tax based on that value assessment. I don’t even own the house right now and I still pay taxes on it.
 
For Bezos it may be doable, but for private businesses, that may not be the case. We already have wealth redistribution. It’s why I linked that WSJ article earlier. What’s the correct amount of redistribution in your opinion then? How much wealth should billionaires be required to forfeit when it was gained via consensual transactions?

how about taxes that take into account earnings not just from w2. im fine with billionaires existing, but it makes no sense to me that they pay tax in the 20s% while we pay 40s
 
Immoral? According to who?

My house value gets assessed every so often and I pay a property tax based on that value assessment. I don’t even own the house right now and I still pay taxes on it.

I see it as immoral, like stealing, cause you've already paid your "fair share" the first go around when you were taxed on job earnings or investments or whatever. To have to government come back and double dip and say "Hey, I know we already took our share, but now we want to tax you again" is wrong. Not to mention the fact that it punishes those who saved and were wise with their money. The more you save for the future, the more wealth tax you would pay, as opposed to someone who just blew through their money. Its clearly in a different category than any other kind of taxation. Also, your property taxes are deductible, you should know that.

Not to mention the fact that when you experience other taxes, like income tax, sales, tax, etc, the money is there. The govt is taking a portion of what is coming in to your pocket. A wealth tax, might leave someone with an obligation to sell off their wealth in order to come up with funds to pay the tax. What if you inherited a $50 million mansion and that's really all you had aside from a few hundred grand in an IRA. Now you owe 2% wealth tax. Where are you getting 1 million dollars to pay up? Gotta sell the house. That's not right. And yeah yeah, poor guy in my hypothetical who inherited a $50 million dollar mansion, but the point still stands.

Its easy to have different standards when you are talking about people who are loaded, and a lot of times its unintentional. But what if you switched your perspective and start assessing whether we should go after the "wealth" of someone making $50k a year, who has saved for 20 years and has a small nest egg tucked away. Would it be right/moral to tax his wealth???

Just cause you add a few zeros to someones wealth, it doesn't change the principles.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I see them as immoral, like stealing, cause you've already paid your "fair share" the first go around when you were taxed on job earnings or investments or whatever. To have to government come back and double dip and say "Hey, I know we already took our share, but now we want to tax you again" is wrong. Not to mention the fact that it punishes those who saved and were wise with their money. The more you save for the future, the more wealth tax you would pay, as opposed to someone who just blew through their money. Its clearly in a different category than any other kind of taxation. Also, your property taxes are deductible, you should know that.

Not to mention the fact that when you experience other taxes, like income tax, sales, tax, etc, the money is there. The govt is taking a portion of what is coming in to your pocket. A wealth tax, might leave someone with an obligation to sell off their wealth in order to come up with funds to pay the tax. What if you inherited a $50 million mansion and that's really all you had aside from a few hundred grand in an IRA. Now you owe 2% wealth tax. Where are you getting 1 million dollars to pay up? Gotta sell the house. That's not right. And yeah yeah, poor guy in my hypothetical who inherited a $50 million dollar mansion, but the point still stands.

Its easy to have different standards when you are talking about people who are loaded, and a lot of times its unintentional. But what if you switched your perspective and start assessing whether we should go after the "wealth" of someone making $50k a year, who has saved for 20 years and has a small nest egg tucked away. Would it be right/moral to tax his wealth???

Just cause you add a few zeros to someones wealth, it doesn't change the principles.

Wealth is often earned but just as often it is unearned multigenerational wealth. My sister never had a steady job in her adult life and her husband “retired” from his DOJ prosecutor job in his early 50’s because....trust fund. They have always had a very high standard of living, much higher than mine...lots of charity balls in Washington, New York, and Venice, private clubs, Hampton's, etc. If we are taxing income of working people, I don’t think consider it unethical to tax inherited wealth which we hardly do.
 
Wealth is often earned but just as often it is unearned multigenerational wealth. My sister never had a steady job in her adult life and her husband stopped working his DOJ prosecutor job in his early 50’s because....trust fund. They have always had a very high standard of living, much higher than mine...lots of charity balls in Washington, New York, and Venice, private clubs, Hampton's, etc. If we are taxing income of working people, I don’t think consider it unethical to tax inherited wealth which we hardly do.


Based on what exactly? Just cause it was a gift from their parents? Again, lets say its a lower middle income family who inherited a small amount of cash from a grandparent who passed. You gonna tax it then just cause its unearned? Of course not. You gotta have principles, and you can't change those principles just cause your talking about someone better off than you, or you're jealous, or you think billionaires are inherently evil, or whatever. If it was taxed, the government doesn't have any more claim to it. Period.

Wealth is wealth, its not new income. What right does anyone have to it other than person it belongs to? Doesn't matter how many charity balls they go to...
 
Based on what exactly? Just cause it was a gift from their parents? Again, lets say its a lower middle income family who inherited a small amount of cash from a grandparent who passed. You gonna tax it then just cause its unearned? Of course not. You gotta have principles, and you can't change those principles just cause your talking about someone better off than you, or you're jealous, or you think billionaires are inherently evil, or whatever. If it was taxed, the government doesn't have any more claim to it. Period.

Wealth is wealth, its not new income. What right does anyone have to it other than person it belongs to? Doesn't matter how many charity balls they go to...

Based on the fact that wealth inequality is a detriment to our society. History has shown it will lead to crisis and social disruption. We can address it in an orderly way, or not. As a matter of fact we already have estate taxes. There’s an entire industry devoted to avoiding them. As always the rich game the system in ways that working schleps can’t.
 
Those countries didn’t have the most important economic market in the world defended by the most powerful military in the history of human existence. They’re not going anywhere. They’ll still be billionaires, they’ll just have to chip in a little more for that military that allowed them to become billionaires in the first place.

Businesses and people go away all the time. Why do you think America’s manufacturing base evaporated over the past 40 years? You’re wearing a turtleneck made in China because it’s cheaper for it to be made in China. 50 years ago it would have likely been made in VA or NC.
 
Based on the fact that wealth inequality is a detriment to our society. History has shown it will lead to crisis and social disruption. We can address it in an orderly way, or not.

BS. Utter BS. Sorry. Wealth inequality is not a problem. Constantly demonizing the rich and making them the target for the angst and hatred of the lower class people is a problem. Constantly lying to poor people and making them think that they are poor cause other people are wealthy is a problem. Please explain to me how Bill Gates' existence is a problem? Is he rich cause he took wealth from others? Did he commit some crime to get his wealth? Or is it because in a free society he earned his massive fortune from countless mutually beneficial voluntary transactions with the population. I'm so tired of this nonsense...

What exactly needs to be "addressed"? Success? Can't have that? And to what level does it need to be addressed? How much money is OK to earn? $10 million? $50 million? Exactly what dollar threshold does one need to cross to become a problem that needs to be addressed?

I'm sorry, I get fired up over this cause its utter nonsense. Its semi-akin to the race problem, where the biggest issues these days is the fact that the media and social justice warriors won't shut the F up about it, continually stoking anger and hatred against a people that has done nothing to deserve it.

PLEASE, explain to me how some dude making 10000 x more than the average person hurts anyone. I'll wait....

And yeah, everyone should pay their fair share and we should close corporate loop holes yada yada yada. I'm all for that. But there is no inherent reason why having certain people be ultra successful, providing goods to our society that everyone wants, and creating countless jobs is a problem.

Explain it.

Unequal results in society are not a problem. They aren't. Unequal opportunity is. Unfair treatment is. Unequal outcomes are not. There are people that keep complaining that there are problems with society and things that need to be 'addressed' and they won't shut up until everyone makes the same amount of money, until every company is 50/50 men and women with total diversity, until boys and girls are the same, until no one is sad because they haven't been as successful as other people. Its complete garbage thinking in the name of equity and its largely becoming the downfall of public thought and discourse.
 
Last edited:
Based on the fact that wealth inequality is a detriment to our society. History has shown it will lead to crisis and social disruption. We can address it in an orderly way, or not. As a matter of fact we already have estate taxes. There’s an entire industry devoted to avoiding them. As always the rich game the system in ways that working schleps can’t.

I’d argue that wealth homogeneity is a much bigger threat in that it stifles the desire to improve and innovate. The willingness to take great risks is often driven by the potential for great reward.
 
PLEASE, explain to me how some dude making 10000 x more than the average person hurts anyone.

Because nobody actually has 10000x the productivity of another person. If someone is making 10000x more than average, they are reaping the rewards of somebody else’s labor. It’s no different than some AMC big whig paying a new grad 1/3 of the money he actually earns and keeping the rest for himself. In my opinion that is theft. Even my wealthy brother in law says that instead of giving away hundreds of millions after her death, Joan Kroc should have been paying a decent wage to her McDonald’s employees over the years. They did the hard work. They deserve a fair share of the profits. Most wealthy people found a way to profit from somebody else’s labor. It’s not humanly possible to amass vast wealth by yourself.
 
I’d argue that wealth homogeneity is a much bigger threat in that it stifles the desire to improve and innovate. The willingness to take great risks is often driven by the potential for great reward.

The actual innovators often get screwed by the capitalists. I’ve seen it first hand. I used to work with the guy who founded Nuvasive. He is unsurprisingly not rich.
 
Because nobody actually has 10000x the productivity of another person. If someone is making 10000x more than average, they are reaping the rewards of somebody else’s labor. It’s no different than some AMC big whig paying a new grad 1/3 of the money he actually earns and keeping the rest for himself. In my opinion that is theft. Even my wealthy brother in law says that instead of giving away hundreds of millions after her death, Joan Kroc should have been paying a decent wage to her McDonald’s employees over the years. They did the hard work. They deserve a fair share of the profits. Most wealthy people found a way to profit from somebody else’s labor. It’s not humanly possible to amass vast wealth by yourself.

I beg to disagree. I haven't "produced" any where near the amount of public goods in my life as Bill gates has. His company has given birth the countless products, innovations, and ways of bettering society that absolutely dwarf my contribution to society. And he should be compensated as such. No one is forcing anyone to work for McDonalds. Its a free society. Every business owner tries to limit cost and maximize profits. If they aren't offering competitive wages, no one will work for them. And of course a business owner "reaps the reward of someone else's labor." They are called employees. Doesn't mean its wrong. You create a product. You form a company. You hire workers at a mutually agreed upon wage. You profit as much as you are able. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I'm sorry, you haven't given one shred of compelling evidence for why its wrong for someone to be extremely wealthy.
 
I beg to disagree. I haven't "produced" any where near the amount of public goods in my life as Bill gates has. His company has given birth the countless products, innovations, and ways of bettering society that absolutely dwarf my contribution to society. And he should be compensated as such. No one is forcing anyone to work for McDonalds. Its a free society. Every business owner tries to limit cost and maximize profits. If they aren't offering competitive wages, no one will work for them. And of course a business owner "reaps the reward of someone else's labor." They are called employees. Doesn't mean its wrong. You create a product. You form a company. You hire workers at a mutually agreed upon wage. You profit as much as you are able. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I'm sorry, you haven't given one shred of compelling evidence that its wrong for someone to be extremely wealthy.

We can go back and forth all night. Think we’ll leave it as a disagreement.
 
Businesses and people go away all the time. Why do you think America’s manufacturing base evaporated over the past 40 years? You’re wearing a turtleneck made in China because it’s cheaper for it to be made in China. 50 years ago it would have likely been made in VA or NC.

Please tell that to Trump.
 
For Bezos it may be doable, but for private businesses, that may not be the case. We already have wealth redistribution. It’s why I linked that WSJ article earlier. What’s the correct amount of redistribution in your opinion then? How much wealth should billionaires be required to forfeit when it was gained via consensual transactions?
First of all, you and I may disagree about billionaires, as in I truly believe that a billionaire level class (and even much less than that) is a true danger for democracy. I think human wealth should be capped, somewhat in the tradition of the Scandinavian countries.

The easiest way to do this is a huge (and I mean huge) estate tax. The fact that we don't have it, despite the billionaire class being less than 1% of our society, speaks volumes about how strong their influence is, how much "money talks" in the world of politics.

I hate the concept of wealth redistribution, but I cannot disagree with leftists in finding the amounts some people accumulate downright disgusting, while other less lucky (yes, luck is a huge factor) human beings barely survive. As we look back in history, we can see that the most developed societies learn, in time, to support all of their members at a certain level, and to decrease the differences between the richest and the poorest. Usually the increase in the latter tends to be associated with a degradation/lack of democracy, and increase in social tensions.

If a certain degree of wealth redistribution does not occur in a society, sooner or later it degrades into an authoritarian one, either capitalist or socialist, but definitely not a democracy. It is the price for stability, and a prosperous nation (vs prosperous few). Most of our taxes are wealth redistribution already. The question is how far to go with them. I personally would rather be 20% poorer in a capitalist society than 90% in a quasi-socialist one (after the estupidos revolt).

P.S. When I say "billionaire class" I actually mean multimultimillionaires. As in the line should be drawn much lower than $1B, somewhere around $100-200M. Above that, we should have like a 90% estate tax.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I beg to disagree. I haven't "produced" any where near the amount of public goods in my life as Bill gates has. His company has given birth the countless products, innovations, and ways of bettering society that absolutely dwarf my contribution to society. And he should be compensated as such. No one is forcing anyone to work for McDonalds. Its a free society. Every business owner tries to limit cost and maximize profits. If they aren't offering competitive wages, no one will work for them. And of course a business owner "reaps the reward of someone else's labor." They are called employees. Doesn't mean its wrong. You create a product. You form a company. You hire workers at a mutually agreed upon wage. You profit as much as you are able. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I'm sorry, you haven't given one shred of compelling evidence for why its wrong for someone to be extremely wealthy.
Please read "Fooled By Randomness". A lot of the things ascribed to genius are a succession of lucky breaks, as in being at the right place at the right time.

For Microsoft, for example, it started with getting the contract to write DOS for IBM. For Apple, it was Steve Jobs getting fed up with college and sitting in on calligraphy lectures. Edison seems to have been a ruthless lowlife of human being; Larry Ellison is not described much differently. Even Buffett made his money by buying monopolies, and trying to make them into bigger ones. I tend to invest in his businesses, but avoid being a customer of them as much as I can.

But, beyond this, see my previous post. Having extremely wealthy and extremely poor individuals is bad for any society. It gives too much power at one end, and creates too much tension at the other. How do you think the bolshevik revolution (and many others) happened? And why do you think some countries have never had to deal with that level of red plague?

The engine of human society is NOT love. It's all the negative stuff: hate, envy, greed. The way to create stable societies is to decrease polarity, hence minimize those negative feelings. A lot of what we are doing in the US, both on the right and on the left, tends to increase those negative feelings, hence the polarization of our society, WHICH MAY NOT END WELL. When you'll be forced to give up 90% of your wealth you'll regret not having agreed to giving up just 20%. The mob is a very dangerous animal, and, right now, it's slipping out of control.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please read "Fooled By Randomness". A lot of the things ascribed to genius are a succession of lucky breaks, as in being at the right place at the right time.

For Microsoft, for example, it started with getting the contract to write DOS for IBM. For Apple, it was Steve Jobs getting fed up with college and sitting in on calligraphy lectures. Edison was a ruthless lowlife of human being; Larry Ellison is not described much differently. Even Buffett made his money by buying monopolies, and trying to make them into bigger ones. I tend to invest in his businesses, but avoid being a customer of them as much as I can.

But, beyond this, see my previous post. Having extremely wealthy and extremely poor individuals is bad for any society. It gives too much power at one end, and creates too much tension at the other. How do you think the bolshevik revolution (and many others) happened? And why do you think some countries have never had to deal with that level of red plague?

To your first points......so? If luck is involved in success then......so what? What does that matter? You had some luck to get to the top, so therefore we can tax you however and whenever you want, even if we've already taxed those dollars, lets do it again cause you had some lucky breaks in the past? Not seeing your point here.

And is that your view of America, that we have extreme wealth and extreme poverty? Even poor Americans are doing pretty well on a global perspective. Bolshevik Russia? Hardly.

The only tension being created is by the media and politicians who constantly vilify the rich. If America just didn't know that the top 1% was so wealthy, we'd all be better off. But instead, we are constantly reminded just how rich the top 1% is and how evil they are to have had so much financial success.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
To your first points......so? If luck is involved in success then......so what? What does that matter? You had some luck to get to the top, so therefore we can tax you however and whenever you want, even if we've already taxed those dollars, lets do it again cause you had some lucky breaks in the past? Not seeing your point here.

And is that your view of America, that we have extreme wealth and extreme poverty? Even poor Americans are doing pretty well on a global perspective. Bolshevik Russia? Hardly.
Poor people don't care about the "global perspective". What they care about is all those rich people they see and hear on TV (or in real life). That's why smart rich people don't flaunt their wealth. People are disgusting animals deep inside, especially when desperate (just read about the Stanford prison experiment, or concentration camps), and all the religion and other forms of brainwash in the world cannot fix that.
 
Poor people don't care about the "global perspective". What they care about is all those rich people they see and hear on TV (or in real life). That's why smart rich people don't flaunt their wealth. People are disgusting animals deep inside (just read about the Stanford prison experiment), and all the religion and other forms of brainwash in the world cannot fix that.

Exactly. The problem doesn't lie with the existence of super wealthy people. The problem lies in the perception we've created of them. One of jealousy and bitterness that is HUGELY amplified by nonstop vilification by politicians (mainly) and the media too, that leads to the false narrative that they are some how bad because there's no way they could've earned their money in a legitimate fashion, and they're only rich somehow because I'm poor. Therefore, raise taxes on them, its the only 'right and fair' thing to do.
 
Exactly. The problem doesn't lie with the existence of super wealthy people. The problem lies in the perception we've created of them. One of jealousy and bitterness that is HUGELY amplified by nonstop vilification by politicians (mainly) and the media too, that leads to the false narrative that they are some how bad because there's no way they could've earned their money in a legitimate fashion, and they're only rich somehow because I'm poor. Therefore, raise taxes on them, its the only 'right and fair' thing to do.
Average Joe with an IQ of 100 is not only dumb, he's so dumb he doesn't know he's dumb, hence he won't appreciate Bill Gates's genius. All he will understand is that Bill Gates has while he hasn't.
 
Average Joe with an IQ of 100 is not only dumb, he's so dumb he doesn't know he's dumb, hence he won't appreciate Bill Gates's genius. All he will understand is that Bill Gates has while he hasn't.

He might understand something different if Warren and Sanders would just shut up for a minute or two.
 
He might understand something different if Warren and Sanders would just shut up for a minute or two.
If he also has problems at home, because he's poor, it will be very hard to understand and tolerate the people who seem infinitely richer than him. The way to make him listen is to eliminate most of his basic problems first. I.e. give him more money.
 
If he also has problems at home, because he's poor, it will be very hard to understand and tolerate the man whose infinitely richer than him.

Well, that sucks for him, but his lack of understanding is not a sufficient basis for the confiscating wealth via a wealth tax.
 
I get the point you're trying to make. I just disagree with your premise that its somehow ok to steal wealth from people who have done nothing wrong in earning it, just because you fear an angry lower class.
 
Please explain to me how Bill Gates' existence is a problem? Is he rich cause he took wealth from others? Did he commit some crime to get his wealth?
Yes, yes he did.

Were you asleep through all the years those antitrust lawsuits went through the courts?


He's doing some amazingly generous and important philanthropic work these days, but 20 years ago he and his company were predatory lawbreakers that destroyed countless other small companies. Companies which, incidentally, were founded by people and run by employees whose livelihoods were compromised by the aforementioned crimes.
 
First of all, you and I may disagree about billionaires, as in I truly believe that a billionaire level class (and even much less than that) is a true danger for democracy. I think human wealth should be capped, somewhat in the tradition of the Scandinavian countries.

The easiest way to do this is a huge (and I mean huge) estate tax. The fact that we don't have it, despite the billionaire class being less than 1% of our society, speaks volumes about how strong their influence is, how much "money talks" in the world of politics.

I think what people who oppose estate taxes don't understand is that the modern equivalent of royalty is wealth. Money is power, and money in the $billions is power to nudge or even steer a nation's path. We abhor the idea of hereditary rulership, kings passing on sovereign power to firstborn sons.

Most of us who aren't tabloid addicts feel contempt for that sad little spectacle the British royal family is, and marveled at the Queen's role (however superficially ceremonial) in suspending parliament a few months ago.

But when billionaires leave $billions to their kids, it's not just a hardworking bootstrappy chum giving his beloved child a life free of hunger and worry. It's a king bequeathing national-stage-level power and influence to a prince.

Count me in on supporting confiscatory estate taxes on 8-figure inheritances. It's not about raising tax receipts, it's about not having a multigenerational aristocracy with massive political power.
 
I think what people who oppose estate taxes don't understand is that the modern equivalent of royalty is wealth. Money is power, and money in the $billions is power to nudge or even steer a nation's path. We abhor the idea of hereditary rulership, kings passing on sovereign power to firstborn sons.

Most of us who aren't tabloid addicts feel contempt for that sad little spectacle the British royal family is, and marveled at the Queen's role (however superficially ceremonial) in suspending parliament a few months ago.

But when billionaires leave $billions to their kids, it's not just a hardworking bootstrappy chum giving his beloved child a life free of hunger and worry. It's a king bequeathing national-stage-level power and influence to a prince.

Count me in on supporting confiscatory estate taxes on 8-figure inheritances. It's not about raising tax receipts, it's about not having a multigenerational aristocracy with massive political power.

Is this really happing? After reviewing the list of the world’s richest people, I see a bunch of first-generation entrepreneurs and business leaders instead of trust fund brats.

Moreover, this is not the only time in history where we have extreme wealth concentrated in a few hands. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Ford, and JP Morgan were all worth more than $200 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars (most closer to $500B). Are their decedents the robber barons of our era?

It seems like you are looking for a solution to a non-problem. Capitalism has a way redistributing the resource. Empowering the government’s better angles is a quick way to make sure that those resources are directed in the least efficient and productive means possible.
 
Is this really happing? After reviewing the list of the world’s richest people, I see a bunch of first-generation entrepreneurs and business leaders instead of trust fund brats.

Moreover, this is not the only time in history where we have extreme wealth concentrated in a few hands. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Ford, and JP Morgan were all worth more than $200 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars (most closer to $500B). Are their decedents the robber barons of our era?

It seems like you are looking for a solution to a non-problem. Capitalism has a way redistributing the resource. Empowering the government’s better angles is a quick way to make sure that those resources are directed in the least efficient and productive means possible.
I get your point, but you know who's president of the United States right now, don't you? He hasn't earned a cent in his life. In fact, if he'd simply banked the money he inherited into simple conservative investments, he'd be richer today. His entire life is a case study of trading inherited wealth for power and privilege.
 
I get your point, but you know who's president of the United States right now, don't you? He hasn't earned a cent in his life. In fact, if he'd simply banked the money he inherited into simple conservative investments, he'd be richer today. His entire life is a case study of trading inherited wealth for power and privilege.

And so what, he needs to be punished or have his money confiscated? Are your kids not gonna benefit from your success? Cmon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yes, yes he did.

Were you asleep through all the years those antitrust lawsuits went through the courts?


He's doing some amazingly generous and important philanthropic work these days, but 20 years ago he and his company were predatory lawbreakers that destroyed countless other small companies. Companies which, incidentally, were founded by people and run by employees whose livelihoods were compromised by the aforementioned crimes.
Lol. Well I guess I was part of the heroic resistance when I used a pirated version of windows.....
 
I think what people who oppose estate taxes don't understand is that the modern equivalent of royalty is wealth. Money is power, and money in the $billions is power to nudge or even steer a nation's path. We abhor the idea of hereditary rulership, kings passing on sovereign power to firstborn sons.

Most of us who aren't tabloid addicts feel contempt for that sad little spectacle the British royal family is, and marveled at the Queen's role (however superficially ceremonial) in suspending parliament a few months ago.

But when billionaires leave $billions to their kids, it's not just a hardworking bootstrappy chum giving his beloved child a life free of hunger and worry. It's a king bequeathing national-stage-level power and influence to a prince.

Count me in on supporting confiscatory estate taxes on 8-figure inheritances. It's not about raising tax receipts, it's about not having a multigenerational aristocracy with massive political power.
So maybe instead of living responsibly in my later years I will work less, rack up credit card debt and die leaving someone else holding the bag. If I can’t leave it to my kids anyway. Do we really want to go down this road....
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So maybe instead of living responsibly in my later years I will work less, rack up credit card debt and die leaving someone else holding the bag. If I can’t leave it to my kids anyway. Do we really want to go down this road....
You do realize what an 8-figure estate means right? That only covers things over $10 million. If $9,999,999 isn't enough for your kids when you die, there's a bigger problem than the government taxing anything over that amount.
 
You do realize what an 8-figure estate means right? That only covers things over $10 million. If $9,999,999 isn't enough for your kids when you die, there's a bigger problem than the government taxing anything over that amount.
It won’t stop there. Same thing with Warren wanting to raise taxes on the super rich... it will eventually mean you and me.
 
theres no point in choosing a random billionaire and analyzing his success/failures (bill gates). you can as easily pick someone much worse (trump) and analyze his. one persons actions doesn't represent anything.

plus, warren and sanders arent just trying to to tax the ultra rich cause they have nothing else to do. they want to have more $$ to fund some of their programs. income inequality is growing fast, while nothing good is growing. infrastructure is failing. healthcare has major issues. homeless rampant, etc, they need to have money to be able to change that. the easiest way to get money is to tax the rich more. it makes no sense the billionaires pay less taxes percentage wise than doctors. they chose wealth tax to close off the many tax loop holes.

whatever changes you make, you'll piss off someone, in this case id rather hurt a few multimulti millionaires than the rest of the country. is it unfair for them? you can argue yes. but it wont help them either when the country goes to crap. look at what is happening in HK, one of the most developed cities in the world. its rioting over there. why? the major reason is b/c the young natives there are getting crushed by the rich, who drove up prices so much their life will 99% suck no matter how hard they work.
 
look at what is happening in HK, one of the most developed cities in the world. its rioting over there. why? the major reason is b/c the young natives there are getting crushed by the rich, who drove up prices so much their life will 99% suck no matter how hard they work.
Um, the unrest in Hong Kong isn't because the poor are getting crushed by the rich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.