-
Posts
20804 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by bad_teammate
-
-
ORC:
I see no reason to treat life insurance payouts any differently than inheritance in terms of caps.Hate:
Whether or not you could avoid a tax is irrelevant. An inheritance tax is not a tax you pay; it's a tax paid by an estate. You're dead. You aren't doing anything.Do you know what "Communism" is? Do you understand how silly it is to call what I'm advocating here "Communism"?
deadshank:
You use the word "confiscate" to refer to taxation in order to creat emotional melodrama. It's like someone calling taxation "theft". Use ideas instead of lame rhetorical tricks.Rex:
Who would be stopping billionaires from giving millions or billions to churches and schools? What the hell are you talking about?Do you not realize that "an entire industry ... trying to exploit loopholes" already exists? Do you understand anything about... anything?
ChickenSandwich:
The same thing that happens now.Aphelion:
Do you think there is an actual disconnect between the power of the Top 1% and the power of the government? Do you not see how increasingly stratified extreme wealth concentrates government power in those hands?You and I disagree on percentages, not the actual existence of inheritance taxes and progressive income taxes, right? You're going all "MARXIST!" because we disagree on percentages?
RandomIdiot:
Why are you talking about what YOU would do? We're talking about billionaires and what they do, not guys on this forum who will barely leave their kids six figures in cash.I don't care what would make the billionaires happy. I don't even know why you would ask me that.
Yes, massive inheritances (in the tens of millions+) are extremely bad, yes.
-
2 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:
Who really knows? Who said it had to be their sole purpose? They could just like being filthy rich.
It has to be their sole purpose if the institution of a high inheritance tax would literally stop them from continuing to pursue wealth.
QuoteAgain, who knows? But I'm sure once they had a family and children, the thought of passing on their wealth to their children after they were gone is a huge reason they keep making money. They don't just sit on a beach because there currently is not a cap on how much money they can leave to their inheritors.
It's interesting to watch you dodge questions with "who knows?" and then, as soon as it suits you, express absolute certainty about their motivations.
What makes you so sure? Is it your observation of billionaires? Can you provide any examples at all?
I can very likely provide more examples of billionaires who are against large inheritances than you can provide examples of billionaires arguing that securing billions in inheritance is their motivation to continue pursuing wealth.
QuoteNo, it would not be a bad thing. But punishing them because they made ridiculous amounts of money is not a good thing to them. To you and I, $5 million is more than enough to live a life on. But just because I didn't inherit that much money, doesn't mean no one else should.
Taxation is not punishment. That is yet another example of emotionalist language (like "confiscation") intended to provide cover for the lack of a point.
Beyond that, how the hell do you even punish a dead person? If Jeff Bezos dies and an inheritance tax takes $99.98B and leaves Jeff Bezos Jrs. with $5M each, who exactly is being punished? A dead guy? Kids who didn't earn anything?
-
16 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:
What is the incentive for adding another billion if you already have a billion with your restrictions? You could say their pride or ambition but I think they would just be sitting on the beach earning 20%.
The incentives would be exactly the same as they are now.
I'll ask you what I asked Rex:
What actually-self-made billionaire pursued extreme wealth with the sole purpose of leaving all of those billions behind?Look down the list of billionaires in this world. Who among them undertook their pursuit in order to ensure that their children inherited billions? If they were people who wanted to sit on the beach and earn 20%, why aren't they already doing that?
Beyond that, would it be a bad thing if billionaires decided to stop pursuing more billions and just lived a life of luxury until they died and then left their children with millions and millions of unearned dollars?
-
Just now, RandomIdoit said:
Not everyone is going to be a Zuckerberg and leave most of their money to charity when they die. I'm not super wealthy bit if I was, I would want to build generational wealth.
Yes, many billionaires want to establish grand lines of perpetual nobility. No one of sound mind thinks that's actually good.
Also, $5M per kid clearly qualifies as "generational wealth".
But you're not answering the question:
Do you truly and honestly believe that someone who pursued extreme wealth would stop pursuing it simply because there is a cap on how much he can give his kids?The answer is obvious: No.
A dramatically increased inheritance tax would not stop people from pursuing wealth.
-
1 minute ago, RandomIdoit said:
If they can find a way to shelter their money, they would not have a reason to stop making money.
Do you truly and honestly believe that someone who pursued extreme wealth would stop pursuing it simply because there is a cap on how much he can give his kids?
I really do not think you guys believe what you argue. Or think about what you argue, maybe.
-
Just now, RandomIdoit said:
What they would actually do is find a loophole like they do now and store the excess of the $5 million somewhere else.
Sure, but that's not really the issue when discussing theoretical issues of policy. People who want to cheat systems will do so if they can, whether the tax rate is 75% or 10%.
-
52 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
Shamed in a disruptive nerd way. Awesome.
My decorum!!!
-
32 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
I think they’d work hard enough to sustain their lifestyle and maintain that level for their kids. Your plan would be a total deterrent.
"sustain their lifestyle and maintain that level for their kids"... that is extremely vague and it sounds fine and exactly what people already do.
Can you get any more specific about what you think would happen? A theoretical example?
What actually-self-made billionaire pursued extreme wealth with the sole purpose of leaving all of those billions behind? I'll wait.
-
2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
People would stop creating wealth.
That makes no sense at all. It's an extremely silly statement on its face. Your argument is that if someone could only leave $5M to each of their children that they would completely exit all economic pursuits.
You need to stop speaking in such dramatic and ridiculous terms. It does you no favors and it does nothing for the conversation.
-
I am not sure what is meant by the "inheritance taxes reduce work ethic" thing. How would that play out in a way that is harmful to our society/economy?
-
23 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
First, what do you propose under $500K?
Let's call it 0%, what do you say?
-
6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by the progression of inheritance tax to 100% at or above $5MM, but it appears any estate inheritance would be limited to $1.25MM.
"I would like a 75% inheritance tax on all estates worth more than $500k/child. After $5M/child, 100%."
This isn't hard if you have the vaguest understanding of how taxes work. There's no shame in not understanding how taxes work, but when you're so bad at this you should be less of a condescending asshole making jokes about Commies.
QuoteIt's not about the beneficiaries. It's about the person at the center of the estate. We have never lived in a culture where either we expect or want to allow 75%-100% of our holdings to go to the state after our death. It's totally preposterous.
It'd deter work ethic for sure.
"It's me, the guy who doesn't want even more money for myself right now because, after I'm dead, my kids will only be very rich instead of insanely rich!"
-
9 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
Say you're a billionaire, with an estate of $10B determined 90 days after your death, and your wife has (luckily) preceded you in death. You have 5 kids. Just prior to your death, B.T. Lenin leads a revolution and becomes leader of this country, and D.D. and Hugo form his troika. Their politburo enacts this exact inheritance tax policy with an immediate effective date. Well, your kids are the grateful beneficiaries of $250,000 apiece. 'Merica.
Math is very hard.
It's always fucking hilarious to watch "ECONOMICS 101 YOU STUPID COMMIE!" guys not understand how taxes work.
-
10 minutes ago, deadshank said:
Taking 100% with no compensation is, in fact, confiscation. I know the initial $5 million limit per your position is generously taxed at a mere 75% and any heir should be pleased with that.
I have no problem paying taxes and do not consider taxes to be confiscation.
So are you admitting that you use "confiscation" as an emotional term whose use is triggered when you feel the numbers are too high?
Why would "compensation" be a consideration in the case of an inheritance tax? The people receiving the inheritance earned none of it and nothing is being taken from them. They are simply being given less of a giant gift.
12 minutes ago, Hate said:So, didn’t these people who’ve made a lot of money pay taxes on it when they earned it? Why should they have to pay taxes on he same money twice?
We pay taxes on the same dollar twice all the time. You earn money, it is taxed, then when you go to spend it you pay another tax. Do you not already know that?
11 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:I don't know how anyone would view taking every dollar over $5MM. It's confiscation.
Not an argument. Emotionalist language.
-
Just now, deadshank said:
What emotional language? You stated what you advocated. I disagreed. You get sanctimonious and flummoxed that someone does not share your worldview and throw out a snarky serving of your own brand of word salad .
Rinse. Repeat. BT being BT.
"confiscation"
Is that a term you apply to all taxation? Do you consider all taxation worthy of the term "confiscation"?
-
1 minute ago, deadshank said:
100% after $5 million? Govermnent confiscation, huh? Our government, headed by the very boobs we all hold in contempt, be it from the right or the left, will handle estates better than the heirs?
What could possibly go wrong?
The utilization of emotionalist language to cover up for the complete lack of a coherent argument. #sad
-
12 minutes ago, F250 said:
You might win more people over if you reference Thomas Jefferson's ideas regarding wealth inheritance. In theory, conservatives admire Jefferson.
Right, it's common sense (no Paine-pun intended).
“A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.” — Thomas Jefferson
“There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.” — Adam Smith
“The great object [of political parties] should be to combat [this] evil: . . . by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches . . .” — James Madison
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
On the second, what do you advocate, in a few paragraphs?
The overall ethic is this: The wealth of the nation is primarily a product of the mass of its workers, not simply those who control the capital behind the means of production. As such, the wealth of the nation should primarily be used to the benefit of the mass of workers.
1) Progressive income tax
There is a diminishing return on personal income in terms of how it improves quality of life. I would be cool with a 60% tax on all income over $2M/year as a start with an eye towards increasing that if necessary.
2) Inheritance tax
Right now fewer than 0.2% of American estates even fall under the radar. The exemption will near $12M soon, and that is an absurd amount to leave for a child much less be able to do so completely tax-free. If our national goal is self-starting hard-workers, then it makes no sense to hold inviolable the "right" to inherit billions. All the inheritance of billions accomplishes is the creation of dynastic power, which (ostensibly), Americans should be against.
I would like a 75% inheritance tax on all estates worth more than $500k/child. After $5M/child, 100%. The goal would be to discourage billionaire dynasties and lead to corporations aimed at profit/power-sharing with workers.
Would massive private corporations and massive real estate holdings have to be broken up after the death of the original builder of those empires? Yes. That's the point.
----
As you can see, even with my leftist economic idea, extreme wealth is still possible. You can make many millions per year and leave many millions for your progeny. There is simply no need for an absolute stranglehold on wealth and power by the <1%.
-
Quote
So which do you prefer, a capitalist system with solid guardrails OR too-big-to-fail socialism with corporate welfare bailouts?
What the hell is this word salad?
-
3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:
It suggests the state is responsible for his brains, guts, sweat & capital, and does not present the situation as it stood when he made his wealth: the framework of our state allowed him to do what he did. The way it is phrased suggests that the state is responsible for his wealth, and it's not.
No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. As I said presciently, your position is one of gut feelings and emotion and is based on what you imagine others think instead of what others actually think. I suspect it is because you don't actually have any idea what leftist economic politics are aside from some dumb cartoon right-wingers draw for each other over and over again.
I am an advocate for leftist economic policy, ask me anything.
QuoteAnd on classes, there is no warfare. There is no enemy of the middle class that conspires against it. Demonizing the wealthy and those with high paying jobs as the source of your angst for why the middle class has shrunk is misguided. It is what it is.
It's statistics and looking at where the money has gone/is going. Wealth, universally, works to protect and enlarge itself.
There is no organized "let's kill the middle class" conspiracy, but there is a concerted effort on the part of the extreme wealth class to protect/enlarge itself and the policies they advocate are killing the middle class. It's how capitalism aligns people against each other, even if unintentional.
-
11 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:
i remember in the 70s when i was kiddo that "cotton pickin hands/minds " was a common phrase by other kids.
Open racism used to be a lot more acceptable, yeah.
-
This scene, but with a grown immigrant child separated from his parent confronting former ICE agents.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
Jesus. See above.
Rex Kramer: "I would love to witness a conversation between you and Trevor Rees-Jones and have you tell him the immense wealth he created would not have been possible without the state. "
Also Rex Kramer: "Sure. (Capitalist enterprise is impossible without a state.)"
Self-contradiction and screaming emotionalism. #sad
Trevor Rees-Jones absolutely would not be a billionaire today without various state agencies ensuring his rights and protecting his holdings. That is an uncontroversial statement and any emotional freak-out based on it is a result of your own instability and lack of coherent worldview.
48 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:Funny you worry about the middle class yet advocate for open borders.
The enemy of the middle class is not the lower classes.
47 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:That curve is based almost completely on the expansion of global commerce, finance and technical developments. This doesn't have anything to do with the actual shrinking of the middle class. All this shows is wealth creation
You are wrong, of course.
-
You have nothing to lose but your chains, my man.
General / National Strike?
in Cloak Room
Posted · Edited by bad_teammate
It was. At no point did I advocate the abolition of private property or private ownership of the means of production, which are the central components of Communism. Words have meanings.
"Communism" doesn't mean "a version of capitalism I don't like".