Reply With Quote
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)
Traslation:
"tappity tappity tappity"
Keep dancin'.
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)
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 en y paying the tax is the same.
parents and children are separate individuals, with separate economic incomes.
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.
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
The upper quintile of the wealthy control a vastly large proportion of overall wealth.
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)
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ize-it/260639/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.
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.
A bit more on poverty and its effects.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...han-its-water/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.
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 ed "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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Good, we agree
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.
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.
Once we have enough dynasties in this country then we can just convert to an oligarchy, and BOOM, problem solved.
100% right wing bull 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
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
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.
The economic collapse also happened iirc... and Obama took office in 2009.
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.
i just like riling up booboo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
stupid