Ending the estate tax: Walton's - $54 Billion / Koch Bros. - $38 Billion

Motherfucking French peasants arguing for Marie Antoinette's children to get more wealth or else it would be unfair.
Or poor whites who don't own slaves fighting and dying for the rich planters in the civil war.
 
So for those against estate tax are you in favor of paying taxes on unrealized gains yearly? Have to pay taxes on appreciated property somehow.
Oh jeez, i'd laugh my fucking ass off if this were the replacement. Cut out deferred losses too? We'd have a debt surplus in like a year.
 
It boils to down to where you stand on the idea of actual economic competition. I suspect most of the people who have an issue with the existence of an estate tax on this forum are also the same people who insist that poor people are poor because of bad decision making or some other type of external factor.

It's actually fascinating that people will argue that the system is meritocratic and you get what you deserve and then in the same breath argue that allowing people to enter the same system with an unearned advantage is equally meritocratic.

I don't necessarily have an issue with the estate tax, I would prefer that it doesn't exist, but I also freely accept that it undermines a meritocratic, capitalist society. Essentially ensuring that certain people will always wield an unearned amount of power over society, shaping it to their advantage, while everyone else pretends that they've got an equal chance at competing.

Random aside: I was reading about the difference between "working class schools" and "elite college preparatory schools" and they made this exact point. The WCS's convince people that there is an economic/power meritocracy in place, while ECPS's specifically teach their charges that there isn't and that you need to understand how to manipulate the system to your benefit. Paraphrased of course.
I remember you mentioning you were reading a book on the US education system. What was the name of it?
 
Wanting to control what other people do with the little they have is usually a projection of a feeling of lack of control over one's own life.

Why does seeing poor people with something nice bother you so much?

You do know that EBT cant be used to buy iphones or pay phone bills, right?


If they can afford luxury items, then they could afford to pay for their own food instead of buying those luxuries.

I believe it is important for people to feed themselves. It is shameful to make others pay for your food when you could make different choices and buy your own.
 
I remember you mentioning you were reading a book on the US education system. What was the name of it?

Exploring the myths and realities of today's schools. Richard McAdams

I've also been reading various papers on private schools - particularly the very exclusive, highly funded type. The role they play in the post-collegiate world of class and power are possibly even greater than that of elite college institutions. And that role is much more opaque by general standards of discussion.

This is worth reading: https://shamuskhan.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/gettingin.pdf

There is considerable evidence that elite high schools do something for their students – something even greater than what elite colleges do. The evidence here is surprising. Otherwise equivalent students from top boarding schools are more likely than non-boarding school students to get into elite colleges, but once there, they do less well in college than their non-boarding school peers (Lewis & Warner, 1979). After college they have no greater educational or occupational attainment, but have greater earnings and a higher likelihood of holding positions of power (Harris, 1940; McArthur, 1954,1960; Seltzer, 1948; Zweigenhaft, 1993; Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 1991). The results are robust even when we control for students’ background (Lewis & Warner, 1979).

In short, these schools are managing to get less qualified students into college, and even though these students are out-performed academically in college, they still manage to out-earn their college peers (within their respective professions).

Also the section on how these schools work with colleges to place students is fascinating.
 
What is shocking is you'll see regular folks arguing to either raise the threshold or eliminate it all together. There's a lot of confusion about this issue.
I'm okay with raising the threshold if the tax is increased. So instead of $11 million for a couples' estate as the threshold increase it to $25 million but jack the rate up significantly, from ~35% to over 70%.
 
I'm okay with raising the threshold if the tax is increased. So instead of $11 million for a couples' estate as the threshold increase it to $25 million but jack the rate up significantly, from ~35% to over 70%.
Right, or do it in tiers that get progressively higher with the size of the estate.
 
Add bobgeese and we are probably closer to 200 billion.
 
I'm okay with raising the threshold if the tax is increased. So instead of $11 million for a couples' estate as the threshold increase it to $25 million but jack the rate up significantly, from ~35% to over 70%.

Personally, I think we should lower the threshold considerably and raise the rate. Not sure what good it serves society to turn over eight figures to people unearned and untaxed.
 
Personally, I think we should lower the threshold considerably and raise the rate. Not sure what good it serves society to turn over eight figures to people unearned and untaxed.
Oh I agree with that as well, I'm just saying that if I were in a position to be negotiating changes to the tax code raising the threshold would be a concession I'd consider in part so that the farcical argument in favor of "family farms" being broken up would be rendered even more flimsy and also in exchange for increasing the rate. To be fair though I pulled that out of my ass, whether or not it'd be a good idea would depend on the numbers like the change to tax revenue and whatnot.

Ideally I'd lower the threshold and raise the rate. Or maybe lower the threshold and the rate but then add a new bracket with a higher threshold and a higher tax to target mega-estates more directly. Kind of spit-balling here, you'd know the ins and outs of tax policy better than I.
 
Oh I agree with that as well, I'm just saying that if I were in a position to be negotiating changes to the tax code raising the threshold would be a concession I'd consider in part so that the farcical argument in favor of "family farms" being broken up would be rendered even more flimsy and also in exchange for increasing the rate. To be fair though I pulled that out of my ass, whether or not it'd be a good idea would depend on the numbers like the change to tax revenue and whatnot.

Ideally I'd lower the threshold and raise the rate. Or maybe lower the threshold and the rate but then add a new bracket with a higher threshold and a higher tax to target mega-estates more directly. Kind of spit-balling here, you'd know the ins and outs of tax policy better than I.

I've love to see a politician with the stones to just say, "fuck farmers." Tax policy shouldn't be designed to benefit multimillionaire farmers at the expense of everyone else. I mean, let's be honest: the "won't someone pleeease think of the farmers" argument is disingenuous anyway, and if a better estate-tax policy were designed to avoid any possible whining along those lines, opponents of it would just find some other bullshit argument to make.
 
I've love to see a politician with the stones to just say, "fuck farmers." Tax policy shouldn't be designed to benefit multimillionaire farmers at the expense of everyone else. I mean, let's be honest: the "won't someone pleeease think of the farmers" argument is disingenuous anyway, and if a better estate-tax policy were designed to avoid any possible whining along those lines, opponents of it would just find some other bullshit argument to make.
Farmers were no doubt strategically selected for the bullshit campaign. Protecting the heirs to hedge fund managers isn't as powerful as protecting businesses who supply food! Rubes will automatically defend farms for that reason.
 
I believe it is important for people to feed themselves.

How can they do that if all the land is privately owned(so they cant hunt or farm on it) and there arent enough jerbs to go around?

I guess youd be cool with them breaking into your house and skull-fvking you to death then eating all your food?

Its easy to come up with simple-minded slogans much harder to implement real solutions in reality.
 
zero problem w/ this
A) money is already earned/taxed
B) there is no legit reason to enact such a tax.....
 
How can they do that if all the land is privately owned(so they cant hunt or farm on it) and there arent enough jerbs to go around?

I guess youd be cool with them breaking into your house and skull-fvking you to death then eating all your food?

Its easy to come up with simple-minded slogans much harder to implement real solutions in reality.


You act like buying food is some enormous task. Food is cheap and plentiful. 10 pounds of potatoes is like $1.50. Bulk rice and beans are so cheap its insane. Frozen veggies, oatmeal and a thousand other things are cheap and can be purchased with a minimum wage job. lmao.
 
Back
Top