It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:54 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 951 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 32  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Ok, does anyone really believe that this plan fundamentally improve the fortunes of anyone other than the ultra wealthy?

We know that Trump is lying when he says it won't benefit him. The only year of his return made public had him paying 31 million in AMT, which he wants to eliminate and whatever trickery he wants to do with pass throughs which benefits him by 8 figures.

Frankly I don't want to hear anything else from his Goldman Sachs financial people either, they're dirtiying up "The swamp" on a daily basis

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
Regular Reader wrote:
Ok, does anyone really believe that this plan fundamentally improve the fortunes of anyone other than the ultra wealthy?

We know that Trump is lying when he says it won't benefit him. The only year of his return made public had him paying 31 million in AMT, which he wants to eliminate and whatever trickery he wants to do with pass throughs which benefits him by 8 figures.

Frankly I don't want to hear anything else from his Goldman Sachs financial people either, they're dirtiying up "The swamp" on a daily basis

well I can say this plan gives me thousands extra per year via the doubled standard deduction and the increased child tax credit. That's money I can throw right into equity on my home to pay off my mortgage early.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:06 pm 
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
So wait the debt doesn't matter now?


Hell yes it matters. We should require balanced budgets which forces both sides to prioritize. It's just a slush fund of spending and tax cuts right now.

I agree. I'm just shocked after hearing forever that we need to reduce the debt and even shit like disaster relief needs "offsets" that so many of our board brethren are seemingly ok with adding to it now.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:30 am
Posts: 1497
pizza_Place: Bianchis
Regular Reader wrote:
Ok, does anyone really believe that this plan fundamentally improve the fortunes of anyone other than the ultra wealthy?

We know that Trump is lying when he says it won't benefit him. The only year of his return made public had him paying 31 million in AMT, which he wants to eliminate and whatever trickery he wants to do with pass throughs which benefits him by 8 figures.

Frankly I don't want to hear anything else from his Goldman Sachs financial people either, they're dirtiying up "The swamp" on a daily basis


Improving fortunes sounds too dramatic. It's not intended to do that. If I make $50K a year, I'm not expecting to become a millionaire because of the tax cut. But like Ogie said, having an extra thousand or more to throw at a mortgage or whatever will significantly increase my life.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
Ah, Lemonparty, the 8th sacrament.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ok, does anyone really believe that this plan fundamentally improve the fortunes of anyone other than the ultra wealthy?

We know that Trump is lying when he says it won't benefit him. The only year of his return made public had him paying 31 million in AMT, which he wants to eliminate and whatever trickery he wants to do with pass throughs which benefits him by 8 figures.

Frankly I don't want to hear anything else from his Goldman Sachs financial people either, they're dirtiying up "The swamp" on a daily basis

well I can say this plan gives me thousands extra per year via the doubled standard deduction and the increased child tax credit. That's money I can throw right into equity on my home to pay off my mortgage early.


If that were fundamentally the point of the changes, I wouldn't object. It's been well established that lower and middle income earners will spend a much higher percentage of any cut and directly stimulate the economy. But the main thrust reverts to a plank of the voodoo economics that has largely gotten us into the financial mess we're in.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 16901
pizza_Place: Pequods
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ok, does anyone really believe that this plan fundamentally improve the fortunes of anyone other than the ultra wealthy?

We know that Trump is lying when he says it won't benefit him. The only year of his return made public had him paying 31 million in AMT, which he wants to eliminate and whatever trickery he wants to do with pass throughs which benefits him by 8 figures.

Frankly I don't want to hear anything else from his Goldman Sachs financial people either, they're dirtiying up "The swamp" on a daily basis

well I can say this plan gives me thousands extra per year via the doubled standard deduction and the increased child tax credit. That's money I can throw right into equity on my home to pay off my mortgage early.


If that were fundamentally the point of the changes, I wouldn't object. It's been well established that lower and middle income earners will spend a much higher percentage of any cut and directly stimulate the economy. But the main thrust reverts to a plank of the voodoo economics that has largely gotten us into the financial mess we're in.
That's their own personal financial decision. I'm decidedly middle class, but I have enough financial literacy to know where my tax refund should go. Last year's tax refund finished my wife's student loan.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Baby McNown wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
So wait the debt doesn't matter now?


Hell yes it matters. We should require balanced budgets which forces both sides to prioritize. It's just a slush fund of spending and tax cuts right now.

I agree. I'm just shocked after hearing forever that we need to reduce the debt and even shit like disaster relief needs "offsets" that so many of our board brethren are seemingly ok with adding to it now.


I've said many time that Republicans have lost their lust for fiscal discipline. It's hard to believe that we just missed getting a balanced budget amendment approved by one vote during the Clinton years. Now neither side is really for fiscal discipline, and they bad mouthed the sequester before the ink even dried because it was going to starve the military and social programs of funding.

Well, we're on a runaway train to fiscal ruin. Automatic spending, entitlements and interest, will continue to consume ever larger portions of tax revenues. Discretionary spending will continue to dwindle, and that is all that Congress controls. I believe Kasich and possibly Christie were the only ones willing to talk about entitlement reform.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ok, does anyone really believe that this plan fundamentally improve the fortunes of anyone other than the ultra wealthy?

We know that Trump is lying when he says it won't benefit him. The only year of his return made public had him paying 31 million in AMT, which he wants to eliminate and whatever trickery he wants to do with pass throughs which benefits him by 8 figures.

Frankly I don't want to hear anything else from his Goldman Sachs financial people either, they're dirtiying up "The swamp" on a daily basis

well I can say this plan gives me thousands extra per year via the doubled standard deduction and the increased child tax credit. That's money I can throw right into equity on my home to pay off my mortgage early.


If that were fundamentally the point of the changes, I wouldn't object. It's been well established that lower and middle income earners will spend a much higher percentage of any cut and directly stimulate the economy. But the main thrust reverts to a plank of the voodoo economics that has largely gotten us into the financial mess we're in.

your question was whether it fundamentally improves the fortunes of anyone other than the ultra wealthy. My answer is yes, as I read it.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
denisdman wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
denisdman wrote:
The current income tax heavy scheme is just ripe with giveaways and expense in complying. And with a 40% Federal Rate, the rich are still getting richer and richer....

Until actual details emerge of the specific deductions being eliminated then this proposal is simply an enormous unpaid for tax cut.

If there's one thing we know of Congress the past few years is they have the spine to make touch decisions. Yup yup yup


Agreed. They should just dump all deductions. The higher standard deduction will reduce the value of the HO deduction anyway. Very few people are going to pay that much in interest expense and local taxes to itemize anyway. Plus the value of itemized deductions is marginal, meaning only the amount over the standard deduction is used. It took me years to explain that concept to my mother who insisted on keeping her mortgage for the "needed" interest deduction. You are paying a dollar in interest to save a few cents on income taxes....

When I read the 9 page framework I'm going to very curious how Congress could simply afford tax cuts for business. Not only is the tax corporate rate being sliced to 20% but there will be an "at least" 5-year period of full expensing of depreciable assets! On top of the rate cut!

Woo boy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
So wait the debt doesn't matter now?


Hell yes it matters. We should require balanced budgets which forces both sides to prioritize. It's just a slush fund of spending and tax cuts right now.

I agree. I'm just shocked after hearing forever that we need to reduce the debt and even shit like disaster relief needs "offsets" that so many of our board brethren are seemingly ok with adding to it now.


I've said many time that Republicans have lost their lust for fiscal discipline. It's hard to believe that we just missed getting a balanced budget amendment approved by one vote during the Clinton years. Now neither side is really for fiscal discipline, and they bad mouthed the sequester before the ink even dried because it was going to starve the military and social programs of funding.

Well, we're on a runaway train to fiscal ruin. Automatic spending, entitlements and interest, will continue to consume ever larger portions of tax revenues. Discretionary spending will continue to dwindle, and that is all that Congress controls. I believe Kasich and possibly Christie were the only ones willing to talk about entitlement reform.


In these days of thin margins of elections no one is willing to be the politician to take the bullet of ending or cutting things that should be ended or cut.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:39 pm 
pittmike wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
So wait the debt doesn't matter now?


Hell yes it matters. We should require balanced budgets which forces both sides to prioritize. It's just a slush fund of spending and tax cuts right now.

I agree. I'm just shocked after hearing forever that we need to reduce the debt and even shit like disaster relief needs "offsets" that so many of our board brethren are seemingly ok with adding to it now.


I've said many time that Republicans have lost their lust for fiscal discipline. It's hard to believe that we just missed getting a balanced budget amendment approved by one vote during the Clinton years. Now neither side is really for fiscal discipline, and they bad mouthed the sequester before the ink even dried because it was going to starve the military and social programs of funding.

Well, we're on a runaway train to fiscal ruin. Automatic spending, entitlements and interest, will continue to consume ever larger portions of tax revenues. Discretionary spending will continue to dwindle, and that is all that Congress controls. I believe Kasich and possibly Christie were the only ones willing to talk about entitlement reform.


In these days of thin margins of elections no one is willing to be the politician to take the bullet of ending or cutting things that should be ended or cut.

Or to be the one to say "no. We need to pay back the money we took from SS and remove the cap on what it's taken from".


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
You following me?

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Baby McNown wrote:
Or to be the one to say "no. We need to pay back the money we took from SS and remove the cap on what it's taken from".


Do you mean the income cap on the payroll tax? Benefits are linked to what is paid in, so uncapping that would only increase benefits to those paying in. I am not sure a further 12%+ income tax on high wage earners and their employers is the way to go to make SS solvent in the long run. But yeah I expect to see that in some form in our lifetime.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
Good to see Baby McCown is now a fiscal conservative.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Good to see Baby McCown is now a fiscal conservative.


That kind of happens when the other side is proposing something. If the Dems were increasing spending, the Republican fiscal hawks would be out in full force. I wonder how he'll feel when we propose Medicare for all?

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Bmac stands for nothing other than annoyance.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Baby McNown wrote:
pittmike wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
So wait the debt doesn't matter now?


Hell yes it matters. We should require balanced budgets which forces both sides to prioritize. It's just a slush fund of spending and tax cuts right now.

I agree. I'm just shocked after hearing forever that we need to reduce the debt and even shit like disaster relief needs "offsets" that so many of our board brethren are seemingly ok with adding to it now.


I've said many time that Republicans have lost their lust for fiscal discipline. It's hard to believe that we just missed getting a balanced budget amendment approved by one vote during the Clinton years. Now neither side is really for fiscal discipline, and they bad mouthed the sequester before the ink even dried because it was going to starve the military and social programs of funding.

Well, we're on a runaway train to fiscal ruin. Automatic spending, entitlements and interest, will continue to consume ever larger portions of tax revenues. Discretionary spending will continue to dwindle, and that is all that Congress controls. I believe Kasich and possibly Christie were the only ones willing to talk about entitlement reform.


In these days of thin margins of elections no one is willing to be the politician to take the bullet of ending or cutting things that should be ended or cut.

Or to be the one to say "no. We need to pay back the money we took from SS and remove the cap on what it's taken from".

sure, that's true. But there's a better chance of telling China we won't pay them back and come and get us than either party getting that done.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3798
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
I'm with Denis on most of this, but we differ on the estate tax. I think it's the biggest driver of inequality. I'm all for exempting a fair amount (currently $5 mil) but passing tens or hundreds of millions down to your kids who haven't earned it is just morally wrong in my opinion. The problem I do have with it though, is big: I think it would create a perverted incentive to kill people to get to their assets.



I certainly understand that opinion. The problem is all the misdirected economic activity (accountants and lawyers) through estate planning to minimize the tax. The money passed down has already been taxed. And in RR's example, the Bush kids are still going to be very rich, so it's not like it puts those families back to square one. It's just not an effective way to raise tax revenue. It's like this feel good tax that makes everyone think we are getting rid of generational wealth.
The estate tax is an interesting moral dilemma. Should the very act of dying remove your claim to the direction of the money you would have owned had you simply lived? Here is an example:
1) 30 year old has a child, and dies 6 months later.
2) 30 year old has a child, and dies 60 years later.

Why isn't the child in #1 not entitled to the 18 years of financial support that the child in #2 got simply because a parent died?


Child #1 won't be able to live those 18 years on 6 million bucks? That's 333k a year, or roughly 480,000 a year with a 30% tax rate if the parent was alive making money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Not fair, he can't respond. He used up his One Post.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3798
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Do you understand the difference, from a policy standpoint, between earned income and inherited income?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Do you understand the difference, from a policy standpoint, between earned income and inherited income?


Yes of course. I was getting at the fact that people happily will want to take rich people's money when they die if they do not know them. They are a faceless source. When they like them like rich athletes and celebrities they think differently.

As for my not making more than $6m comment that is simple. Why wait until people die to control wealth and have a source of funds. Why not just cap the living as they earn? We should not have royalty and inequality anyway.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Because we supposedly value hard work in America.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68609
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
leashyourkids wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Because we supposedly value hard work in America.

:lol:

Good one.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3798
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Do you understand the difference, from a policy standpoint, between earned income and inherited income?


Yes of course. I was getting at the fact that people happily will want to take rich people's money when they die if they do not know them. They are a faceless source. When they like them like rich athletes and celebrities they think differently.

As for my not making more than $6m comment that is simple. Why wait until people die to control wealth and have a source of funds. Why not just cap the living as they earn? We should not have royalty and inequality anyway.


So the answer is "no" you don't understand the difference between earned income and inherited income from a policy standpoint.

Earned income is generally associated with the creation of value. Services, capital investment, etc. Earned income for the most part in theory and in practice has generated the creation of value. The transfer of money in an inheritance situation creates no value, it simply transfers assets from one party to another. The economy is no better off because of the transfer.

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
leashyourkids wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Because we supposedly value hard work in America.


Or we value "you" working hard to build a fortune so your kids work less hard? Argue all you want I just have a fundamental opposition to taking people's stuff.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Do you understand the difference, from a policy standpoint, between earned income and inherited income?


Yes of course. I was getting at the fact that people happily will want to take rich people's money when they die if they do not know them. They are a faceless source. When they like them like rich athletes and celebrities they think differently.

As for my not making more than $6m comment that is simple. Why wait until people die to control wealth and have a source of funds. Why not just cap the living as they earn? We should not have royalty and inequality anyway.


So the answer is "no" you don't understand the difference between earned income and inherited income from a policy standpoint.

Earned income is generally associated with the creation of value. Services, capital investment, etc. Earned income for the most part in theory and in practice has generated the creation of value. The transfer of money in an inheritance situation creates no value, it simply transfers assets from one party to another. The economy is no better off because of the transfer.

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 3798
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.


How do you propose we fund our governments at the state local and federal level?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Ok One Post. Maybe let's just get it all out and going now. Why even allow anyone to even make more than 6 million bucks? Of course, if you hit the powerball spend it fast because your kids aren't getting it. And all those athletes and movie star kids better hope to do well in college.


Because we supposedly value hard work in America.


Or we value "you" working hard to build a fortune so your kids work less hard? Argue all you want I just have a fundamental opposition to taking people's stuff.


Hawg vibe.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39599
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
One Post wrote:
pittmike wrote:
One Post wrote:

So that's the difference. All taxes are punitive, but being punitive in an earned income situation hurts value creation, being punitive in an inheritance situation, for the most part, doesn't.


Yeah I get that and don't care. See below reply to Leash.


How do you propose we fund our governments at the state local and federal level?


Standard taxation. I am only opposed in this thread to estate taxation. If I had to agree to that at all it would not exceed the max tax rate the deceased ever paid.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 951 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 32  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group