Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[RandomGuy]

That should have an impact of about .005%.

gini coefficient, what?

[vy65]

Estate taxes, that force rich kids to actually fend for themselves, and keep us from having a permanent aristocracy.

Paris Hilton is what I think of when people say "sense of entitlement"

If Hotel Tycoon has a son, chooses him to run the hotels once he dies, grooms him to run the family business, and leaves him 100% of all stock in all hotels, you would want the state to confiscate those shares to prevent a permanent aristocracy?

[Wild Cobra]

He has also said:

Is that a problem?

[TeyshaBlue]

gini coefficient, what?

Wild ass guess as to the impact to tax income. I may have been generous.

[Wild Cobra]

How do you know most people who are in poverty are there because of their own actions?

I've seen the numbers in the past linked with causes.


Define "most".
Define "poverty".
Most is over 50%.

Poverty? that does deserve better defining. If I recall, the governmental distinction for poverty is something like 30% of the medium income. However, that doesn't mean a person is impoverished.

I only used "poverty" in post 732 because that was the wording used.

For the purpose of this thread, I was thinking of in terms of having a life where one cannot support their needs with their own financial resources. Someone who requires subsidies.

I personally don't like the word "poverty." it is ambiguous, and subjective.

[Spurminator]

Is that a problem?

Is saying it a problem? No.

In action, if instituted by the government, would it be a problem? Absolutely. Should anyone who enforced such a policy be tried for crimes against humanity? You betcha.

[Wild Cobra]

Is saying it a problem? No.

In action, if instituted by the government, would it be a problem? Absolutely. Should anyone who enforced such a policy be tried for crimes against humanity? You betcha.

It is a voluntary exchange.

The snipping for the subsidies.

No snip, no subsidies.

Just that simple.

[Spurminator]

It is a voluntary exchange.

The snipping for the subsidies.

No snip, no subsidies.

Just that simple.

No snip, no subsidies = babies born into a family not receiving subsidies = Government beating down the door to take the babies?

Such a small government libertarian, you are.

[Spurminator]

Let's not also forget that, regardless of how involved you think they should be, government policies have a huge impact on the economic environment that results in people needing those subsidies. So in your fascist hellscape, you have government policy not only impacting jobs and income for the poor, but also their right to reproduce.

[CosmicCowboy]

It is a voluntary exchange.

The snipping for the subsidies.

No snip, no subsidies.

Just that simple.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you at one point say your parents were on government assistance? You are advocating that they should have been snipped prior to spawning you?

[Wild Cobra]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you at one point say your parents were on government assistance? You are advocating that they should have been snipped prior to spawning you?

I have never advocated that. I only advocate this for those who at the time of conception, were in no financial position to have children. My mother took food stamps for a short few weeks when my parents divorces, before she found employment. I was 12 at the time. It was the first and only time we were subsidized, and it was never a lifestyle for us like it is for so many.

[clambake]

wut?

[TeyshaBlue]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you at one point say your parents were on government assistance? You are advocating that they should have been snipped prior to spawning you?

In.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is a voluntary exchange.

The snipping for the subsidies.

No snip, no subsidies.

Just that simple.

economic eugenics by the dumbest person on this board. have to love this place.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have never advocated that. I only advocate this for those who at the time of conception, were in no financial position to have children. My mother took food stamps for a short few weeks when my parents divorces, before she found employment. I was 12 at the time. It was the first and only time we were subsidized, and it was never a lifestyle for us like it is for so many.

So she should have been neutered then.

[RandomGuy]

most people in poverty are their by their own actions.

Link?

How do you know this?


Are you blind?

How many people have children before they can afford to have them?


Again, not really an answer.

I asked "how" do you know this.

Are you unaware of what caused you to believe this is true?


I've seen the numbers in the past linked with causes.


Bullshit then.

No evidence means we can dismiss your claim, out of hand. It is the only reasonable thing to do.

Thanks for clearing that up. Either you are lying about having seen the evidence, or you think you remember something that didn't actually happen.

Very human, but since there is no evidence, that makes consideration of any policy based on your truthiness easy.

[RandomGuy]

most people in poverty are their by their own actions.
[RG-please define "most" and "poverty"



Most is over 50%.

Poverty? that does deserve better defining. If I recall, the governmental distinction for poverty is something like 30% of the medium income. However, that doesn't mean a person is impoverished.

I only used "poverty" in post 732 because that was the wording used.

For the purpose of this thread, I was thinking of in terms of having a life where one cannot support their needs with their own financial resources. Someone who requires subsidies.

I personally don't like the word "poverty." it is ambiguous, and subjective.

"poverty" has a very specific meaning when it comes to many federal programs. It has to, in order to consider policies to alleviate it.

Your definition "one cannot support their needs with their own financial resources" is very close to what the government uses in economic measurements.

It is hard to have any meaningful discussions about poverty, if the people involved have never given any thought to what is being discussed.


The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted for family size, composition, and age of householder.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/upshot/growing-up-in-a-bad-neighborhood-does-more-harm-than-we-thought.html?smid=tw-upshotnyt&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Growing Up in a Bad Neighborhood Does More Harm Than We Thought

The neighborhood in which you grow up is a major determinant of your economic success as an adult. That’s been known for a while, but new research suggests that the effects may be much larger than social scientists previously understood.

These findings could fundamentally reshape national housing policy.

The new insight is that much of our best evidence about the effects of growing up in a bad neighborhood comes from examining children whose parents work particularly hard to protect them from the dangers around them. The negative effects of a bad neighborhood may be much larger for low-income families with less motivated parents.

A recent research paper by Eric Chyn, an economist completing his dissertation at the University of Michigan, explores this idea. Mr. Chyn’s findings have received close attention from economists around the country.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ericchyn/Chyn_Moved_to_Opportunity.pdf
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/mto_paper.pdf

I will be happy to agree that personal decisions affect outcomes for anybody.

The problem with that statement is that it oversimplifies the very complex process of decision making.

Emtionally stunted fucktwits like to use this as an excuse to make themselves feel superior to others, by insisting that all bad decisions are some moral fault. This is stupid, and it leads to bad policies that throw away human potential, and actively harm the economy.

Good decisions are the result of a skill, and good information.

There has been a lot of research showing our brains are wired in many cases to come to irrational, poor decisions. I can post tons of studies on this subject. Behavioral economics is something of a new hybrid field that has sprung up around this tendency.

Personally I think it is better to treat people as if they can make good decisions, and help them do so, rather than punishing them for being human, and making mistakes that any one of us could.

[RandomGuy]

If Hotel Tycoon has a son, chooses him to run the hotels once he dies, grooms him to run the family business, and leaves him 100% of all stock in all hotels, you would want the state to confiscate those shares to prevent a permanent aristocracy?

Confiscate all the shares? No. Tax them heavily, sure.

In this case, the son has, in effect, won the lottery. Why should it be treated differently?

Rich people have too much wealth in the US, and it is beginning to drag the economy.

[RandomGuy]

I have never advocated that. I only advocate this for those who at the time of conception, were in no financial position to have children. My mother took food stamps for a short few weeks when my parents divorces, before she found employment. I was 12 at the time. It was the first and only time we were subsidized, and it was never a lifestyle for us like it is for so many.

So, you would permanently alter someone with a surgical procedure someone who was temporarily unable to financially provide for a child?

Fucking stupid.

It is fucking stupid because it is entirely possible, even with the best birth control, to get pregnant.

Will you provide free contraception to help prevent this?

Flesh it out. Let's see how far down the rabbit hole we can go.

[RandomGuy]

That should have an impact of about .005%.

More than half of the wealth in the US is held by fewer than 400 families.

You might want to re-think that %.

QPKKQnijnsM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america

[rmt]

Confiscate all the shares? No. Tax them heavily, sure.

In this case, the son has, in effect, won the lottery. Why should it be treated differently?

Rich people have too much wealth in the US, and it is beginning to drag the economy.

Why shouldn't I get to pass on what I've earned to my children without being taxed heavily? Because you don't think that that's fair? Didn't my husband and I work hard and smart to earn that money? Same principle should apply no matter what the amount.

[RandomGuy]

Wild ass guess as to the impact to tax income. I may have been generous.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

That wealth has become increasingly concentrated, even though high-income americans pay the most in taxes, means that their income growth has far exceeded the tax rates.

Most of the real economic growth in the last 20 years have gone to the high-income earners.

And it is only getting worse.

[RandomGuy]

Why shouldn't I get to pass on what I've earned to my children without being taxed heavily? Because you don't think that that's fair? Didn't my husband and I work hard and smart to earn that money? Same principle should apply no matter what the amount.

Ah, there is the issue.

Define "fair".

The estate tax exempts millions of dollars before anything is really taxed.

How much is "fair" to give to someone whose only qualification is that they were lucky in the parent lottery?

What tax system would you want, if you had to think of one, without knowing where and to whom you would be born to?

[TeyshaBlue]

More than half of the wealth in the US is held by fewer than 400 families.

You might want to re-think that %.

QPKKQnijnsM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america

Yes, but you're looking at specific cases of estates, not every wealthy family. Until you can quantify your case, my wild ass guess is essentially equal to yours.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ah, there is the issue.

Define "fair".

The estate tax exempts millions of dollars before anything is really taxed.

How much is "fair" to give to someone whose only qualification is that they were lucky in the parent lottery?

What tax system would you want, if you had to think of one, without knowing where and to whom you would be born to?

It only exempts 5 million

That's not that much.

You sure as shit aren't going to fix the worlds problems by confiscating what little savings people can accumulate AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID THEIR TAXES ON IT.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ah, there is the issue.

Define "fair".

The estate tax exempts millions of dollars before anything is really taxed.

How much is "fair" to give to someone whose only qualification is that they were lucky in the parent lottery?

What tax system would you want, if you had to think of one, without knowing where and to whom you would be born to?

Youre the arbiter of qualifications now? Many multigenerartional businesses ride upon the accomoplishments of successors. What is your metric of parental lottery children?

[rmt]

Ah, there is the issue.

Define "fair".

The estate tax exempts millions of dollars before anything is really taxed.

How much is "fair" to give to someone whose only qualification is that they were lucky in the parent lottery?

What tax system would you want, if you had to think of one, without knowing where and to whom you would be born to?

Even if the parents won that money in a lottery, tax has ALREADY BEEN PAID on that money. I don't think money passed on should be taxed - it's been earned and taxed ALREADY. The only resort is to slowly give $14000 to each child per year. Unfortunately, many businesses, farms, etc. can't be divvied up like that.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't really have a problem as classifying it as capital gains, which it sorta is, and tax it accordingly.

[Spurminator]

^ Same.

[rmt]

I don't really have a problem as classifying it as capital gains, which it sorta is, and tax it accordingly.

Assets are stepped up and (depreciation also) generally not taxed when passed on. For example, a rental house which has been depreciated is not taxed on the depreciation or any capital gains when passed on. The heir's tax basis becomes the current value of house.

[vy65]

Confiscate all the shares? No. Tax them heavily, sure.

What does that mean? What percentage? How does taxing them heavily stop the "permanent aristocracy" you're so concerned about


In this case, the son has, in effect, won the lottery. Why should it be treated differently?

Rich people have too much wealth in the US, and it is beginning to drag the economy.

Does a parent have a right to provide for his/her children after death?

Does a business owner have a right to provide for how he'd like to handle the succession of leadership in his business?

Do your answers change based on the value of the estate and/or business?

And if so, do you think that due process rights should be disparately applied to different groups of people based on ad hoc and arbitrary classifications?

[vy65]

Confiscate all the shares? No. Tax them heavily, sure.

In this case, the son has, in effect, won the lottery. Why should it be treated differently?

Rich people have too much wealth in the US, and it is beginning to drag the economy.

I have a billion dollar estate. I decide to leave it all to the SPLC, Planned Parenthood, and NOW. Should those organizations be, to use your words, taxed heavily on what I leave them?

[vy65]

Confiscate all the shares? No. Tax them heavily, sure.

In this case, the son has, in effect, won the lottery. Why should it be treated differently?

Rich people have too much wealth in the US, and it is beginning to drag the economy.

More to the point, what are the limits on what I can do with my money in the way I see fit without running the risk of your heavy taxation?

[vy65]

Shit, I mean, why stop at the estate tax? You could heavily tax the rich on what they buy their kids while they're still alive, or on other things like private school tuition, college, any loans made to start a business, etc... Why stop at death to tax the lotto, right?

[vy65]

Youre the arbiter of qualifications now? Many multigenerartional businesses ride upon the accomoplishments of successors. What is your metric of parental lottery children?

I'll drink to this post.

http://www.cocktail-db.com/stat/img/1280/Appletini.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't understand the haters that advocate the death tax. You work hard, play by the rules and pay all your taxes. You know you need savings for retirement. How much? Who knows? We never know how long we will live. Personally my goal is to go into retirement with at least 3 million liquid but still worry that that might not be enough. The flip side is that I could be an unlucky SOB and the wife and I die early before we spend all the money...what fucking right does the government have to confiscate the money I worked so hard to save and accumulate? Why shouldn't I be able to leave it to my kids and grand kids?

[Th'Pusher]

I don't understand the haters that advocate the death tax. You work hard, play by the rules and pay all your taxes. You know you need savings for retirement. How much? Who knows? We never know how long we will live. Personally my goal is to go into retirement with at least 3 million liquid but still worry that that might not be enough. The flip side is that I could be an unlucky SOB and the wife and I die early before we spend all the money...what fucking right does the government have to confiscate the money I worked so hard to save and accumulate? Why shouldn't I be able to leave it to my kids and grand kids?

You can. It'll be less than $5M. Stop bitching. Estate Tax doesn't apply to you.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can. It'll be less than $5M. Stop bitching. Estate Tax doesn't apply to you.

You obviously haven't been following this thread. There are advocates for taxing it all.

[rmt]

I don't understand the haters that advocate the death tax. You work hard, play by the rules and pay all your taxes. You know you need savings for retirement. How much? Who knows? We never know how long we will live. Personally my goal is to go into retirement with at least 3 million liquid but still worry that that might not be enough. The flip side is that I could be an unlucky SOB and the wife and I die early before we spend all the money...what fucking right does the government have to confiscate the money I worked so hard to save and accumulate? Why shouldn't I be able to leave it to my kids and grand kids?

Even 3 million at 4% ($120,000) won't cover nursing home expenses for you and your wife. And with life expectancy increasing, who knows how long we'll live.

[clambake]

Even 3 million at 4% ($120,000) won't cover nursing home expenses for you and your wife. And with life expectancy increasing, who knows how long we'll live.

what?

[clambake]

seriously, is that a question to cc?

are you talking about others and comparing them to cc?

[CosmicCowboy]

what?

pretty simple math. She is preserving principal.

[clambake]

you know, that 3 million is liquid, right?

thats not all the assets he'll have.

[clambake]

pretty simple math. She is preserving principal.

of course.

[rmt]

what?

Annual nursing home cost: $91250 per person (private), $80300 per person (semi-private).

https://www.genworth.com/corporate/about-genworth/industry-expertise/cost-of-care.html

[Th'Pusher]

Annual nursing home cost: $91250 per person (private), $80300 per person (semi-private).

https://www.genworth.com/corporate/about-genworth/industry-expertise/cost-of-care.html

:lol That's like 16 years in the nursing home without earning a penny of interest on the $3M. How long do you think people live in a nursing home?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol That's like 16 years in the nursing home without earning a penny of interest on the $3M. How long do you think people live in a nursing home?

I realize that as a loser living with your parents you don't really grasp how much money is required to continue a nice lifestyle like rmt and I are accustomed to in retirement. Obviously our goal is not to sit around in a nursing home.

[Th'Pusher]

I realize that as a loser living with your parents you don't really grasp how much money is required to continue a nice lifestyle like rmt and I are accustomed to in retirement. Obviously our goal is not to sit around in a nursing home.

Her statement was ridiculous. Stop tryng to make internet allies.

[rmt]

The $120,000 is 4% interest/dividends on the $3 million. You do realize that taxes have to be paid too. I'd want to travel and do lots of things before winding down in my old age. Dh's grandmother lived until she was 103, his mom is 87 and still active. And if you have something like Alzheimer's (a mental, not physical problem) - that could be a long time in a facility.

[Wild Cobra]

More than half of the wealth in the US is held by fewer than 400 families.

You might want to re-think that %.

QPKKQnijnsM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america

Envy is unhealthy. Is that the root of your problems?

[Wild Cobra]

You can. It'll be less than $5M. Stop bitching. Estate Tax doesn't apply to you.

But people like Random want to change that.

[TeyshaBlue]

Youre the arbiter of qualifications now? Many multigenerartional businesses ride upon the accomoplishments of successors. What is your metric of parental lottery children?

*Random Crickets*

[Th'Pusher]

But people like Random want to change that. in what post did RG recommend decreasing the exemption for estate taxes?

[Pelicans78]

The $120,000 is 4% interest/dividends on the $3 million. You do realize that taxes have to be paid too. I'd want to travel and do lots of things before winding down in my old age. Dh's grandmother lived until she was 103, his mom is 87 and still active. And if you have something like Alzheimer's (a mental, not physical problem) - that could be a long time in a facility.

Alzheimer's becomes a physical problem over time due to less activity, less eating, and more prone to infections.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Obviously the reasonable solution is forced sterilization.

Haha, just kidding, only a sociopathic nutcase would think that was a justifiable idea.
Putting a halt to an entire generation of welfare queens is more justifiable than punishing those who actually contribute to society. "Forced sterilization" is a little extreme for 2016, but irradiated government cheese would be an interesting experiment

[vy65]

in what post did RG recommend decreasing the exemption for estate taxes?

#730

[rmt]

Alzheimer's becomes a physical problem over time due to less activity, less eating, and more prone to infections.

Yes, eventually. My aunt has Alzheimer's but is physically healthy. My uncle's mind is great, but his body is failing. Didn't Reagan have Alzheimer's for 10 years? I'm bracing myself for my parents' and mother-in-law's decline. I'm already driving them to doctor appointments.

[Th'Pusher]

#730
He is referring to income taxes, not the estate tax in that post.

[Pelicans78]

Yes, eventually. My aunt has Alzheimer's but is physically healthy. My uncle's mind is great, but his body is failing. Didn't Reagan have Alzheimer's for 10 years? I'm bracing myself for my parents' and mother-in-law's decline. I'm already driving them to doctor appointments.

It progresses over time depending the severity of it, but they all end up laying in a bed for 24 hours not being able to feed themselves, control their bowels, etc. Eventually it's a chronic illness that is mild at first like heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, etc.

[vy65]

RG was referring to income taxes when he answered the question of what to tax 100% with "estate taxes?"

[Th'Pusher]

RG was referring to income taxes when he answered the question of what to tax 100% with "estate taxes?"


I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I have to wonder just how much we would actually gain by doing this. What are we going to do tax at 100%? Because if we did that, I'm still unsure that it would actually solve our problem.


No one is saying that would be necessary or even desirable.

I personally would oppose such a thing as being really dumb policy.

Thing is though, the people benefitting the most from the economy, are the wealthiest who have seen their incomes rise over the last 20 years, yet their tax burden has actually fallen as a percentage of their income.

They have the most capacity to bear the costs of what is benefitting them.

A modest tax increase to make needed investments is what is called for, IMO.

I don't think you're following the conversation tbh. WC said that RG was advocating lowering the $5M Estate Tax exemption. Neither of you have been able to point to a post where he said this. Feel free to do so at any time.

[vy65]

Sure, #730. The post you didn't copy/paste above. Please tell us what RG's first two words are in it.

[Th'Pusher]

Sure, #730. The post you didn't copy/paste above. Please tell us what RG's first two words are in it.


Estate taxes, that force rich kids to actually fend for themselves, and keep us from having a permanent aristocracy.

Paris Hilton is what I think of when people say "sense of entitlement"

Ok. Show me where in this statement he advocated reducing the $5M Estate tax exemption?

[vy65]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I have to wonder just how much we would actually gain by doing this. What are we going to do tax at 100%? Because if we did that, I'm still unsure that it would actually solve our problem.


Estate taxes, that force rich kids to actually fend for themselves, and keep us from having a permanent aristocracy.

Paris Hilton is what I think of when people say "sense of entitlement"

[vy65]

Is taxing estates 100% consistent or inconsistent with reducing the 5MM cut off?

[Th'Pusher]

Is taxing estates 100% consistent or inconsistent with reducing the 5MM cut off?

I've already shown he was not advocating taxing at 100%. TB threw that figure out there and as I quoted earlier, RG rejected that as "really dumb policy". Instead he suggests a "modest tax increase", which is totally consistent with NOT reducing the $5M exemption.

[boutons_deux]

$14K/year is the IRS limit for cash gifts. the "gift" of estate transfer should be the same.

[spurraider21]

:lol that's ridiculous

[Will Hunting]

The $5MM exemption isn't the problem at all, it's the crazy amount of loopholes that exist with the estate tax. Any estate lawyer worth half his shit would be able to squeeze a $100MM estate into the $5MM exemption with ease.

[boutons_deux]

:lol that's ridiculous

unearned income is unearned income, should be fully taxable. Why are children "ENTITLED" to $Ms of untaxed income?

[TeyshaBlue]

Because each dollar has already been taxed as income. Classify it as capital gains then tax it.

[Will Hunting]

I don't get the "Because it's already been taxed!" argument. Is there some rule of nature that you can't tax the same thing twice? If so, then the same argument would apply to the sales tax yet conservatives love the sales tax.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that income produced by labor goes down every year while income produced by capital goes up, yet income produced by capital is taxed at its lowest rate since the great depression. If you're looking for a way to raise taxes, increasing taxes on capital produced income is the obvious move.

[TeyshaBlue]

Its been taxed as income. You dont double tax income. Tax it as something else. Jeebus.

[Will Hunting]

You dont double tax income.

Why not? Does the universe explode if you tax something twice?

[TeyshaBlue]

Does the universe explode if you classify it as capital gains?

[TeyshaBlue]

Accuracy might be a gain here.

[Will Hunting]

Does the universe explode if you classify it as capital gains?

Capital gains is a form of income tax so I really don't understand what your argument is. Why does it matter what you call it?

[Will Hunting]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States


In the United States of America, individuals and corporations pay U.S. federal income tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) on the net total of all their capital gains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gain).

[TeyshaBlue]

Its money that is not received as a product of labor. Indeed, a good piece of it is interest born by money taxed as income already.

[CosmicCowboy]

$14K/year is the IRS limit for cash gifts. the "gift" of estate transfer should be the same.

Boo is the ultimate loser/hater of achievement.

Sucks to be Boo.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't get the "Because it's already been taxed!" argument. Is there some rule of nature that you can't tax the same thing twice? If so, then the same argument would apply to the sales tax yet conservatives love the sales tax.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that income produced by labor goes down every year while income produced by capital goes up, yet income produced by capital is taxed at its lowest rate since the great depression. If you're looking for a way to raise taxes, increasing taxes on capital produced income is the obvious move.

I don't understand your argument here. Sales tax is a one time tax. Everything in the supply chain is subject to the resale exemption and the tax is just paid once by the end user.

[spurraider21]

I don't understand your argument here. Sales tax is a one time tax. Everything in the supply chain is subject to the resale exemption and the tax is just paid once by the end user.
Sales tax is sort of like a double tax. You are taxed when you earn money then have that money taxed again when you spend it.

[Will Hunting]

I don't understand your argument here. Sales tax is a one time tax. Everything in the supply chain is subject to the resale exemption and the tax is just paid once by the end user.

Spurraider said it for me. If we're worried about double taxes then the sales tax is part of it, it's taxing money that was already taxed when I earned it.

Not to mention that the sales tax is a regressive tax that primarily targets the middle class and discourages spending.

[spurraider21]

Not to mention that the sales tax is a regressive tax that primarily targets the middle class and discourages spending.
yeah this is why the consumption tax as opposed to income tax wouldn't work in the long run

[CosmicCowboy]

Spurraider said it for me. If we're worried about double taxes then the sales tax is part of it, it's taxing money that was already taxed when I earned it.

Not to mention that the sales tax is a regressive tax that primarily targets the middle class and discourages spending.

Sales tax is an alternative to a state income tax.

in other words taxing your income twice.

using your argument a death tax would be taxing your money three times.

[baseline bum]

yeah this is why the consumption tax as opposed to income tax wouldn't work in the long run

LOL FairTax

[Will Hunting]

yeah this is why the consumption tax as opposed to income tax wouldn't work in the long run

:lol yeah a consumption tax is one of the most retarded ideas out there when it comes to taxation.

It might not be until decades from now, but eventually people are going to realize that heavily taxing income earned from capital is the only sustainable way a 21st century economy will work in the long run.

[Will Hunting]

Sales tax is an alternative to a state income tax.

in other words taxing your income twice.

using your argument a death tax would be taxing your money three times.

My argument is that the "double taxation!" argument applies all over the place and is something people bring up when it works for them/ignore when it doesn't.

[Blake]

Because each dollar has already been taxed as income. Classify it as capital gains then tax it.


I concur. Estate taxes blow.

[rmt]

Because each dollar has already been taxed as income. Classify it as capital gains then tax it.

Why do you say capital gains? It could be cash that's being passed or do you mean classify what's being passed as capital gains?

[boutons_deux]

Its been taxed as income. You dont double tax income. Tax it as something else. Jeebus.

bullshit. the unearned income to the inheritors is taxable, always. $5M tax free isn't enough? :lol

If I give my kids 5M before I die, it gets taxed 39%, but if after I die, it's tax free?

this estate tax bullshit is nothing but the wealthy hiring the Repug whores to game the tax system even more.

[RandomGuy]

RG was referring to income taxes when he answered the question of what to tax 100% with "estate taxes?"

No I was not. My response was regarding estate taxes.


No one is saying that would be necessary or even desirable.

I personally would oppose such a thing as being really dumb policy.

Thing is though, the people benefitting the most from the economy, are the wealthiest who have seen their incomes rise over the last 20 years, yet their tax burden has actually fallen as a percentage of their income.

They have the most capacity to bear the costs of what is benefitting them.

A modest tax increase to make needed investments is what is called for, IMO.

Estate taxes should be, after a certain point, pretty steeply progressive, but 100% is stupid, generally because it creates massive incentives to cheat.

[RandomGuy]

It is a voluntary exchange.

The snipping for the subsidies.

No snip, no subsidies.

Just that simple.


Zyola Mix has overcome many difficulties in her personal life, as well as cultural obstacles, to pursue her dream of working in the space industry. Her road to becoming a Mechanical Designer at SEAKR Engineering began during her childhood in Hawai`i. At age five, a visit with her great uncle and cousins to Diamond Head provided a view of the stars so inspiring—“the ocean was glassy and black, perfectly reflecting the stars above,”—that Zyola decided to pursue a career in the space industry.

Her home life was difficult and, at times, abusive, which meant that Zyola was not always confident in her own abilities. Furthermore, she says, “there were many cultural, racial and gender biases to fight through.” Like other women and minorities, the prospect of trying to fit into an overwhelmingly and persistently white and male workplace was somewhat daunting. “The adults in my life either actively discouraged me,” she says, “or didn’t know enough about the STEM world to encourage me.” Still, she was able to “find refuge in books and in the story of Dr. Mae Jemison,” the first female African-American astronaut.

After deciding to move across the country to escape an abusive marriage, Zyola reconnected with her goal of doing work related to the stars—largely because she wanted to provide a stable home for her daughter and demonstrate that “any challenge can be overcome.” She “started over without a penny and suffered the stigma of trying to live on public assistance; on top of that, [she] was going to school full time, working, and raising a child alone without support.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-j-carter/overcoming-racial-gender_b_9556478.html?

Sterilzing people like Zyola is a fucktarded policy, and you are fucktarded for thinking it is even worth joking about. If you think it is a serious policy solution, well, that puts you in a whole other class of moron.

If that is the kind of stupidity you like to stake your intellectual capital on, it makes it so much easier to dismiss your other opinions. Congrats.

[RandomGuy]

bullshit. the unearned income to the inheritors is taxable, always. $5M tax free isn't enough? :lol

If I give my kids 5M before I die, it gets taxed 39%, but if after I die, it's tax free?

this estate tax bullshit is nothing but the wealthy hiring the Repug whores to game the tax system even more.

Pretty much. It is income to the kids, in an economic sense.

Income they didn't really earn.

I know injecting actual economics in this discussion is silly, but hey, I'll stick it out there.

[RandomGuy]

most people in poverty are their by their own actions. Some just have bad luck. I refuse to have assholes like you make me feel guilty. I make nowhere near CC, but I feel my $20+k annual is more than my fair share.

I refuse to assign any credibility to statistics about ill-defined terms that you pull out your ass.

Bullshit was called long ago. Haven't seen you try to man up something dimly credible yet, you old crank.

[RandomGuy]

Why shouldn't I get to pass on what I've earned to my children without being taxed heavily? Because you don't think that that's fair? Didn't my husband and I work hard and smart to earn that money? Same principle should apply no matter what the amount.

Because it is income to your children. If they want to work for their own money that is fine, but passing on wealth tax free has some unforeseen consequences I don't think you are considering, respectfully.

[RandomGuy]

What does that mean? What percentage? How does taxing them heavily stop the "permanent aristocracy" you're so concerned about



Does a parent have a right to provide for his/her children after death?

Does a business owner have a right to provide for how he'd like to handle the succession of leadership in his business?

Do your answers change based on the value of the estate and/or business?

And if so, do you think that due process rights should be disparately applied to different groups of people based on ad hoc and arbitrary classifications?

Crap... lunch is over, just saw this. I will get back to this at some point.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-j-carter/overcoming-racial-gender_b_9556478.html?

Sterilzing people like Zyola is a fucktarded policy, and you are fucktarded for thinking it is even worth joking about. If you think it is a serious policy solution, well, that puts you in a whole other class of moron.

If that is the kind of stupidity you like to stake your intellectual capital on, it makes it so much easier to dismiss your other opinions. Congrats.

Did her and her ex not have money to have a child when they did?

It says she started over. That doesn't meet my criteria of conceiving a child when not able to afford to have a child.

Are you incapable of understanding simple nuances?

[rmt]

Because it is income to your children. If they want to work for their own money that is fine, but passing on wealth tax free has some unforeseen consequences I don't think you are considering, respectfully.

Please share the unforeseen consequences with us.

[RandomGuy]

Did her and her ex not have money to have a child when they did?

It says she started over. That doesn't meet my criteria of conceiving a child when not able to afford to have a child.

Are you incapable of understanding simple nuances?

Traslation:
"tappity tappity tappity"

Keep dancin'. :elephant :monkey

[RandomGuy]

Please share the unforeseen consequences with us.

Wealth concentration.

Generally regarded as an economic drag, and dangerous to a functioning country.

Mental exercise
Why would you think that I say such a thing would be undesirable from a societal standpoint? (can you guess my reasons)

[RandomGuy]

Because each dollar has already been taxed as income. Classify it as capital gains then tax it.

Company A takes profit in 2015 that it earned from selling its services, and buys a shiny new machine. The money it paid to the maker of the machine then becomes revenue, and part of THAT money is then profit/income to the maker of the machine.

Both companies pay income tax on the funds/profits, and arguably the money was the same.

"double taxation" only really works as an argument if the entity paying the tax is the same.

parents and children are separate individuals, with separate economic incomes.

[RandomGuy]

A. What does that mean? What percentage? How does taxing them heavily stop the "permanent aristocracy" you're so concerned about



B. Does a parent have a right to provide for his/her children after death?

C. Does a business owner have a right to provide for how he'd like to handle the succession of leadership in his business?

D. Do your answers change based on the value of the estate and/or business?

E. And if so, do you think that due process rights should be disparately applied to different groups of people based on ad hoc and arbitrary classifications?

A. I would top off estate taxes at whatever level would seem prudent to prevent large scale hereditary wealth monopolies. More than we tax now, and less than 100%

B. Yes. Estate taxes with fairly high estate exceptions fully allow that for the vast majority of people.

C. Yes.

D. Possibly. Generally larger companies tend not to have familial successions.

E. Generally no. Estate taxes do not disparately deny people "due process" by just about any use of the word of which that I am aware, councilor.

You sure do bury a lot of given assumptions in your questions.

[CosmicCowboy]

Company A takes profit in 2015 that it earned from selling its services, and buys a shiny new machine. The money it paid to the maker of the machine then becomes revenue, and part of THAT money is then profit/income to the maker of the machine.

Both companies pay income tax on the funds/profits, and arguably the money was the same.

"double taxation" only really works as an argument if the entity paying the tax is the same.

parents and children are separate individuals, with separate economic incomes.

Wrong.

I spend 50K on a truck I write 50% off this year and 50% next year.

Any purchases under $3500 I write of 100% this year.

Limit this year is 500K

[RandomGuy]

The upper quintile of the wealthy control a vastly large proportion of overall wealth.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Figure5.png

If you don't think that is a problem, you disagree with the vast majority of people on both sides of the political isle that do.

The reality is so far from what we think it is, and vastly vastly far from what most think it should be, that I really have to wonder at people defending the status quo.

Do you not see a problem here?


Americans Want to Live in a Much More Equal Country (They Just Don't Realize It)

We asked thousands of people to describe their ideal distribution of wealth, from top to bottom. The vast majority -- rich, poor, GOP and Democrat -- imagined a far more equal nation. Here's why it matters.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/americans-want-to-live-in-a-much-more-equal-country-they-just-dont-realize-it/260639/

[RandomGuy]

Wrong.

I spend 50K on a truck I write 50% off this year and 50% next year.

Any purchases under $3500 I write of 100% this year.

Limit this year is 500K

Which I why I specified "used profits to buy".

We are probably talking a bit past each other here.

UGh. times up.

[CosmicCowboy]

Which I why I specified "used profits to buy".

We are probably talking a bit past each other here.

UGh. times up.

Well, I use profits to buy them and then deduct/depreciate them from income for tax purposes.

[RandomGuy]

A bit more on poverty and its effects.


Along with many other researchers, the Harvard Center on the Developing Child has started to connect the biological dots between traumatic experiences and negative health outcomes. We all experience stress, but our bodies react to it in different ways. A reductive explanation goes like this: The physiological response to stress essentially kicks the body into high speed, causing an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, as well as the production of certain hormones, such as cortisol. In small or discrete doses, this response is essential to life (it helps us get out of dangerous situations, for example). But if that stress goes unchecked, scientists believe our bodies can have a toxic response, creating wear and tear on the brain’s architecture, as well as other organs, through a prolonged or intense physical reaction to the stress.

Brain scans for children who have experienced a lot of trauma suggest that the neural connections in the parts of the brain responsible for reasoning and learning are weakened. That leads to problems with decision-making, impulse control and memory. Other physiological responses may lead to an increased risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.

It also appears that these early experiences could influence gene expression, nurture influencing nature to affect how a child copes with stress, though how that process might work is not well understood. As is the case with any new scientific understanding, there are still a lot of holes in what we know, but the body of work has become foundational in medicine. It changes how doctors approach things like asthma (there is some evidence that trauma can have a synergistic effect with air pollution to increase the incidence and severity of asthma). The American Academy of Pediatrics has said screening for ACEs should be part of routine practice for pediatricians.

The body of evidence on the connection has grown sufficiently that it’s challenging our understanding of not only health, but also sectors like education and criminal justice. A class-action lawsuit filed last year in Compton, California, argues that the negative impact of trauma is so well-known that schools must provide mental health counseling and other support to mitigate the effects, just as they do for other barriers to learning. The U.S. attorney general has said that ACEs are a crisis for not only public health, but also public safety and the criminal justice system.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/flint-has-a-chance-to-improve-more-than-its-water/

We can outline scientific evidence showing the effect of poverty, stress, and trauma on developing brains.

This is rather well established.

What I would like to know is, how can you justify fucktarded "let 'em starve" policies, when the very organ responsible for making the decisions you are condemning people for, is so markedly effected?

Do you ignore the evidence, and simply say "it is 100% an individuals fault?"

I can post a raft of studies on poverty and stress on developing brains, IQ and reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

I'm far more hesitant to throw away human beings who have made poor decisions. That is a waste of potential human capital, IMO.

They deserve help, and decent people generally would I agree I would think. There is a good case for this even to make a huge amount of economic sense. The only real debate we should be having is how best to help.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ah, there is the issue.

Define "fair".

The estate tax exempts millions of dollars before anything is really taxed.

How much is "fair" to give to someone whose only qualification is that they were lucky in the parent lottery?

What tax system would you want, if you had to think of one, without knowing where and to whom you would be born to?


Youre the arbiter of qualifications now? Many multigenerartional businesses ride upon the accomoplishments of successors. What is your metric of parental lottery children?

It's the dog whistle of the left that I find fault with which you seemed to inadvertantly illustrate. The evil rich and their do nothing kids.
Are there some? Of couse. The broad brush is lazy and tiresome.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's the dog whistle of the left that I find fault with which you seemed to inadvertantly illustrate. The evil rich and their do nothing kids.
Are there some? Of couse. The broad brush is lazy and tiresome.

Also the automatic assumption that confiscating from the wealthy is automatically going to somehow benefit the non-wealthy.

[vy65]

A. I would top off estate taxes at whatever level would seem prudent to prevent large scale hereditary wealth monopolies. More than we tax now, and less than 100%

There's a 60% swing from the max rate of 40% to 100% you reference. And "prudent" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. You need more specifics here.


B. Yes. Estate taxes with fairly high estate exceptions fully allow that for the vast majority of people.

Since that's a right a parent enjoys, you'd agree me with that the amount left by said parent (whether it be $1.00 or $10,000,000.00) shouldn't make a difference then?


C. Yes.

Good, we agree


D. Possibly. Generally larger companies tend not to have familial successions.

E. Generally no. Estate taxes do not disparately deny people "due process" by just about any use of the word of which that I am aware, councilor.

You sure do bury a lot of given assumptions in your questions.

I never said that estate taxes deny people their due process rights. However, using said taxes to deprive people of property (which is what I understand you to mean when you talk about ending permanent aristocracies) does raise due process issues, namely, the right to dispose of your property in a way you see fit.

What I'm getting are the due process ramifications to your using the estate tax to divest people of their property -- which is a basic due process concept. I think you'd admit that you're ok with violating that right, along with the right of a rich parent to leave the family business (assuming its worth over $5 million) to their child. Depriving people (meaning the parent) from disposing of their property (leaving it to their children) is the general thrust of your argument, isn't it? I'd think that'd be an obvious enough due process violation that it wouldn't need explanation.

[Pelicans78]

A bit more on poverty and its effects.



http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/flint-has-a-chance-to-improve-more-than-its-water/

We can outline scientific evidence showing the effect of poverty, stress, and trauma on developing brains.

This is rather well established.

What I would like to know is, how can you justify fucktarded "let 'em starve" policies, when the very organ responsible for making the decisions you are condemning people for, is so markedly effected?

Do you ignore the evidence, and simply say "it is 100% an individuals fault?"

I can post a raft of studies on poverty and stress on developing brains, IQ and reasoning.

There's opportunity to get jobs in this country, save up, go to school, get a degree, earn money etc. Up to the person to have the will to succeed.

[DMX7]

Once we have enough dynasties in this country then we can just convert to an oligarchy, and BOOM, problem solved.

[boutons_deux]

There's opportunity to get jobs in this country, save up, go to school, get a degree, earn money etc. Up to the person to have the will to succeed.

100% right wing bullshit lie, totally free of evidence, and destroyed by actual evidence

[CosmicCowboy]

100% right wing bullshit lie, totally free of evidence, and destroyed by actual evidence

LMAO

WHAT evidence?

Opportunity to get a job. TRUE

Opportunity to go to school and get a degree TRUE

Opportunity to earn money TRUE

[boutons_deux]

LMAO

WHAT evidence?

Opportunity to get a job. TRUE

Opportunity to go to school and get a degree TRUE

Opportunity to earn money TRUE

the largest population decile is the bottom 10%, whose economic stress has gotten worse since 2008, while the top 1% grabs 95% of the increase in national income.

[spurraider21]

the largest population decile is the bottom 10%, whose economic stress has gotten worse since 2008, while the top 1% grabs 95% of the increase in national income.
presidency shifted in 2008, iirc

[Pelicans78]

100% right wing bullshit lie, totally free of evidence, and destroyed by actual evidence

It's actual evidence of it's been done. Just because you like to stay home on your computer while getting high doesn't mean there's not people out there working hard, paying for school, graduating and getting good jobs. It happens all the time.

[DMX7]

presidency shifted in 2008, iirc

The economic collapse also happened iirc... and Obama took office in 2009.

[Pelicans78]

the largest population decile is the bottom 10%, whose economic stress has gotten worse since 2008, while the top 1% grabs 95% of the increase in national income.

Thats because Barry created a welfare state supporting bums with no desire to be a productive member of society.

[DMX7]

Thats because Barry created a welfare state supporting bums with no desire to be a productive member of society.

Point to the legislation that did that.

[spurraider21]

The economic collapse also happened iirc... and Obama took office in 2009.
i just like riling up booboo

[boutons_deux]

presidency shifted in 2008, iirc

:lol stupid fuck

[boutons_deux]

Thats because Barry created a welfare state supporting bums with no desire to be a productive member of society.

:lol stupid fuck

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo is kind of cute. The forum loser railing against the machine and refusing to allow that personal responsibility might play a part in success.

Poor, poor, Bookaki.

[Wild Cobra]

Traslation:
"tappity tappity tappity"

Keep dancin'. :elephant :monkey

No, you asshole.

I set out specific criteria that you seem not to grasp.

You're showing yourself as an utter joke when you include situations that i don't count as meeting the criteria.

[boutons_deux]

Boo is kind of cute. The forum loser railing against the machine and refusing to allow that personal responsibility might play a part in success.

"personal responsibility" is how the Repugs/VRWC/CuntCowboy trash the poor for not becoming wealthy, ignoring that being born poor, born brown or blac, growing up poor, in a shitty neighborhood, with under-financed, shitty schools isn't the same as being born non-poor, or middle class, or wealthy with all the advantages that come with that birth status.

upward socio/economic mobility, The American Dream, is a fucking myth for the bottom of American society, and is has been, is now greater in western Europe than in USA.

"personal responsibility" failure is the bogus justification for the Repubs/VRWC/1% for cutting the safety net, to punish the seriously disadvantaged poor for being poor.

[CosmicCowboy]

"personal responsibility" is how the Repugs/VRWC/CuntCowboy trash the poor for not becoming wealthy, ignoring that being born poor, born brown or blac, growing up poor, in a shitty neighborhood, with under-financed, shitty schools isn't the same as being born non-poor, or middle class, or wealthy with all the advantages that come with that birth status.

upward socio/economic mobility, The American Dream, is a fucking myth for the bottom of American society, and is has been, is now greater in western Europe than in USA.

"personal responsibility" failure is the bogus justification for the Repubs/VRWC/1% for cutting the safety net, to punish the seriously disadvantaged poor for being poor.

In other words...Boo has every excuse in the book for sucking.

got it. You suck and it's every one else's fault.

[boutons_deux]

In other words...Boo has every excuse in the book for sucking.

got it. You suck and it's every one else's fault.

You Lie

I'm telling you the strategy of the wealthy class to fuck the the poor class, and esp KEEP THEM WETBACKS AND KNITTERS DOWN

[RandomGuy]

It's the dog whistle of the left that I find fault with which you seemed to inadvertantly illustrate. The evil rich and their do nothing kids.
Are there some? Of couse. The broad brush is lazy and tiresome.

Rich aren't evil.

Too much wealth concentration is a very suboptimal outcome.

(shrugs) Regarding multigenerational businesses... so what?

Some multigenerational businesses that "ride upon the accomplishments of successors" may exist. If they do, it would be incumbent on them, if they were large enough to be subject to a tax, to do some decent planning for turning over the business to keep it in the family, if they really wanted to.

Again, so what? Why is such a thing pertinent? Should we then permit the harm of unfettered wealth concentration, because the good of keeping a few hypothetical businesses together outweighs it?

Is that what you are getting at? Flesh it out a bit.

[RandomGuy]

Thats because Barry created a welfare state supporting bums with no desire to be a productive member of society.

That trend was happening long before "Berry" became president. You don't even know what "welfare" is, I would bet.

Define "welfare".

[RandomGuy]

No, you asshole.

I set out specific criteria that you seem not to grasp.

You're showing yourself as an utter joke when you include situations that i don't count as meeting the criteria.

I grasp your fucktardedly simple plan well enough. You have no idea if the woman had the "economic" means when the child was concieved either.

How would you treat women on birth control in such a situation? Would you allow for exceptions when birth control fails?

To tell.

[Wild Cobra]

I grasp your fucktardedly simple plan well enough. You have no idea if the woman had the "economic" means when the child was concieved either.

How would you treat women on birth control in such a situation? Would you allow for exceptions when birth control fails?

To tell.
It's pretty easy to know if the man and woman were working or not, and their income. Or of they had a trust fund or something. No more difficult to have to provide such information like you provide current information when asking for the subsidies.

Birth control fails. It is not 100%.

Birth control fails. It is not 100%.

Birth control fails. It is not 100%.

This is a known fact. Now maybe you are one that would like to play Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber revolver. Just spin that thing every day, and see how long it takes...

No exception for failing birth control. Besides, some people use it in correctly anyway. I think of a crybaby that wants his money back after losing it in video lottery when you say such asinine things.

I can't believe you claim to understand my point, but act as if the parents are victims, and need to be paid off.

[RandomGuy]

No exception for failing birth control.

Stupid, immoral, and no common sense.

Gotcha.

Your policy solutions suck ass.

[Wild Cobra]

Stupid, immoral, and no common sense.

Gotcha.

Your policy solutions suck ass.
You expect people to be reimbursed for their gambling.

You simply shouldn't have sex if you cannot afford the possibilities of having a child. It is absolutely irresponsible. Birth control only reduces the chance of a pregnancy. It isn't 100% effective.

People like you who coddle those who are irresponsible are the reasons why this nation is falling apart.

[Blake]

It's pretty easy to know if the man and woman were working or not, and their income. Or of they had a trust fund or something. No more difficult to have to provide such information like you provide current information when asking for the subsidies.

Birth control fails. It is not 100%.

Birth control fails. It is not 100%.

Birth control fails. It is not 100%.

This is a known fact. Now maybe you are one that would like to play Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber revolver. Just spin that thing every day, and see how long it takes...

No exception for failing birth control. Besides, some people use it in correctly anyway. I think of a crybaby that wants his money back after losing it in video lottery when you say such asinine things.

I can't believe you claim to understand my point, but act as if the parents are victims, and need to be paid off.

Yeah, it's 99.9% effective.

[TeyshaBlue]

Rich aren't evil.

Too much wealth concentration is a very suboptimal outcome.

(shrugs) Regarding multigenerational businesses... so what?

Some multigenerational businesses that "ride upon the accomplishments of successors" may exist. If they do, it would be incumbent on them, if they were large enough to be subject to a tax, to do some decent planning for turning over the business to keep it in the family, if they really wanted to.

Again, so what? Why is such a thing pertinent? Should we then permit the harm of unfettered wealth concentration, because the good of keeping a few hypothetical businesses together outweighs it?

Is that what you are getting at? Flesh it out a bit.
We are talking past each other, which is understandable when WC turns a thread into a clusterfuck.:lol
I've already stated at least three times: tax it. I prefer to classify it as a capital gains tax, but whatever. There is an elemental push back to having something taken from you rather than you being able to give away as you wish. That should at least be acknowledged. Coupled with lazy statements like "parent lottery" winners with out a scrap of data as to how many and how much, much less the actual impact of said tax, is nothing more than repeating the dog whistle.

[TeyshaBlue]

Btw, those hypothtical businesses are quite real. I grew up surrounded by them in the oil field.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, it's 99.9% effective.
Only when used properly and quality products are used.

[Th'Pusher]

Only when used properly and quality products are used.

Would you be in favor of a law that would require only anal sex for people living in poverty?

[Wild Cobra]

Would you be in favor of a law that would require only anal sex for people living in poverty?
What's wrong with you idots?

It's like drinking and driving. You either are or are not being responsible.

I do not coddle irresponsible pieces of shit!

[RandomGuy]

You're missing the point. Why are others entitled to a share of, for example, capital gains? You're right that some who invest properly can make out quite handsomely with appreciation, dividends, etc... But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a basic point you haven't supported: why are other's entitled to my money?



Who's morals? Those aren't my morals. Are they yours? How do you determine what is or is not



These are claims without warrants. What is "personal investment in society?" How is that decreased with wealth inequality? What quantifiable impact does wealth inequality have on the economy (vs. other facts)? What evidence do you have of this point? What is your solution?



Do you know what a sociopath is? Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money that they can use on their broods of failure or they drugs and alcohol?

By no means am I in the 1%. I do feel that I am disproportionately taxed - meaning that I overpay for the amount of services I receive from the contract as compared to others in my age group.

Because, my 10 year old can figure out why that is bullshit. He says "dad tell him that is bullshit".

My 10 year old is more moral than you are. That is how easy this is to figure out.

[RandomGuy]

"because she has friends and family that care for her and don't want her to die (because she can't afford money for machines to help her breathe"

Go ahead vy65, tell my 10 year old why your money is more important than the woman who will die without it.

[spurraider21]

did you... did you just respond to a post from 3 years ago?

how long was this bothering you while you were putting a response together tbh :lol

[vy65]

Wow

Crofl

[vy65]

Wait, are you showing your 10 year old child my posts and asking for his feedback?

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wait, are you showing your 10 year old child my posts and asking for his feedback?

:lmao

Likely to make a point about what type of people there are out there so he can be prepared for idiocy, Crayola.