RandomIdoit

Those are the exceptions. Also, if the mother's health is at risk. If you cannot afford $20 for Plan B, then you cannot afford children and probably shouldn't have them. If you choose to anyway, that is a poor decision.

Use contraceptives. Plan B if an accident happens. I know hard core people are against this, but for most people it is perfectly fine.

We will go to a popular vote, but IDs are required for voting, deal?

Yes by number of recipients.

twss

Wouldn't Bernie have to run as an Independent because the Democrats said that he has to declare himself part of the Democratic party? https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-adopts-new-restrictions-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html So if he doesn't want to declare himself as a Democrat and runs as an Independent, he is just going to split non-Republican votes.

They don't. They already pulled a 180 on their "We welcome everyone" policy. Now they want asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first country they crossed into. They have had 26,000 people enter illegally over a 15 month period and they are wanting to change their policy. The US Border Patrol arrested over 40,000 people crossing illegally in the month of May. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-immigration-border/canadas-trudeau-grilled-on-efforts-to-turn-back-asylum-seekers-idUSKBN1I24L8

Crazy Karen couldn't stand for another female to get Jimbo's attention.

Maybe you should read what you wrote. This is absurd and not how humans work. It's not how billionaires work.

My argument is that there was no law that said they would lose all of their money over $5 million per inheritor, but imposing such a law would become important to them and change the way they "work".

Can you find where I said it was their motivation for them to start? If I said that, I was wrong. I said that I think that they would have no motivation to continue making more billions if it was all going to be taxed away. And no I did not look at the studies. Was taking all of their wealth over $5 million per inheritor a parameter in this study? If not, then I do not see it as relevant to how they would react if such a law was passed.

Once again, you are not taking into consideration the taxes that YOU suggested. That changes the whole landscape. Right now, it's not important to them (as you say). However, if you impose these taxes on some of the money they earned at a rate of 100%, how can you assume they still act the same?

I have already said that it is speculation. Just like you are speculating. Do YOU know what they would do? Of course not. But that doesn't stop you from thinking you know what they would do and what their motivations are.

I already answered that but you chose to focus on the reason why I think that. You or I do not know how they would react. Maybe if you were in their shoes, you would keep making billions of dollars more knowing it was going to be taken away after you were gone, but that doesn't mean they would. Because you are under the assumption that they would just continue doing what they have been doing. This is bad logic. No one is asking you to care, just take that into consideration when you speculate on what they would do. Garnishing someone's money because it's "too much" is extremely bad, yes.

Can someone tell me why this failed? https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/011018-Securing-Americas-Future-Act-Final.pdf Was it only because DACA recipients were not automatically given citizenship? Are there parts of this proposal that were left out of this pdf? If so, what was left out?

False. You can be motivated by things and then change your mind if the circumstances change. If they passed a law that said anything in excess of what I made now would be taxed at 100%, I would not have any interest in going above and beyond for a raise or promotion. I would not go back to school to get a graduate degree. I would just do my job satisfactorily. Again, I don't claim to know what they would do. But I can speculate just like you can. There currently is no law that puts people in this position. You are basing what you think they would do off of what they do now. When you take choices away from people, you are bound to get push back. Do you honestly think that the majority of wealthy people would be happy with this law if it were to be enacted? When you tax someone 100% of all money over a certain amount, it is punishment. It's punishing the inheritors because their family made too much money. Who cares if the kids earned it or not? I don't. If the family created some new engine or invented the transistor, why would it be a bad thing for them to pass all of that money on to their children and grandchildren?

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%.

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.

If they can find a way to shelter their money, they would not have a reason to stop making money.

What they would actually do is find a loophole like they do now and store the excess of the $5 million somewhere else.

Ok, we can do that.....but they have to be above the poverty level. K?

This has to be fake.