General / National Strike?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

20 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Apparently the word confiscation is an emotional word for you as shown by your reaction to it.  Does it excite you?  

Depends on where they’re gonna confiscate it from.  I could live with it if it were lap-level.  Otherwise not so much. 

 

I dont give a flying fuck.  Can’t take it with you.   My kids are well provided for although I think they don’t appreciate the power of fishing. 

[Guest]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

"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.

Totally missed per child.  My apologies.  First, what do you propose under $500K?  

[Incredulity 11,675]

You wanna know how I know BT works for the county?

[bad_teammate 13,196]

23 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

First, what do you propose under $500K?  

Let's call it 0%, what do you say?

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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?

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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?

People would stop creating wealth. 

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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 think they’d work hard enough to sustain their lifestyle and maintain that level for their kids. Your plan would be a total deterrent. 

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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.

[RandomIdoit 655]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"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.

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

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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%.

[RandomIdoit 655]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

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%.

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

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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.

[RandomIdoit 655]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

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. 

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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.

[RandomIdoit 655]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

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%.

[formermav43 4,606]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

You need to stop speaking in such dramatic and ridiculous terms. It does you no favors and it does nothing for the conversation.

That’s hilarious.

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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?

[RandomIdoit 655]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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?

Who really knows? Who said it had to be their sole purpose? They could just like being filthy rich.

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?

Again, 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.

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?

No, 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. 

 

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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.

Quote

Again, 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.

Quote

No, 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?

[Hate 20,108]

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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?

 

I could avoid paying a consumption tax.  

[deadshank 24,653]

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

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?

Not an argument. Emotionalist language.

Again, there is no emotion attached to the word “confiscation” and I did not admit to anything of the sort. I will never be a billionaire nor will I inherit anything from a billionaire.   Because I see things differently than you do and you don’t like my opinion you draw attention to yourself and attempt bolster your argument with a phrase that is designed to make yourself seem superior.  The only thing it does is prove you to be the condescending person you accuse others (Rex) to be.

We simply disagree.  If you can’t handle someone disagreeing with you and you then resort to your usual grandstanding tactics as shown on this thread then it is you making the emotional argument. 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by deadshank

[Guest]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

"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.

None. But I guarantee you they want control of those funds, through family offices and foundations. They want the discretion to give $100MM to a school or church or both. They don’t want your dumbass controlling it, or other bureaucrats like you.

By and large, rich people do not put money to work to merely sustain a lifestyle. Rather, they want to build upon what they have. With your plan, that would cease, or you’d have an entire industry prop up trying to exploit loopholes, or investment would go outside the US. None of these is good for the country. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Before we start talking about solutions, we should probably come to an agreement on the problems.

Problems I see:

1. Absurd and rising wealth inequality 

2. Wage stagnation combined with the rising costs of living

3. Worsening access to quality and affordable education 

4. Absurd healthcare costs

5. Corporate consolidation resulting in too many businesses that have monopolized certain sectors.

[ChickenSandwich 9,836]

What happens to this communist Utopia when foreign countries offer citizenship to American millionaires and offer them tax protection?  

We see the same thing with corporations. They will simply take their money elsewhere. 

Doubling the lowest economic class’ population and creating slaves to handouts is suicide. 

Great to watch bad teammate jump between his other socks Hugo and DD to reinforce his communist agenda. 

Every one sentence post form DD is “you go girl”

commie-nazis

Edited June 25, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[Guest]

13 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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%.

I would not support either of these ideas for the following reason:

At this point under our current system, I am more concerned about an excessively powerful state than I am of the power of wealthy private citizens.  More money to the state means a more powerful state.  It's true that more money in the hands of the top 1% means a more powerful 1%, but I consider this the lesser of two evils.  There is always going to be wealth and power inequality; I think socialists are often under the delusion that as long as we remove the wealth from the top percentage of private citizens, then we've reduced power inequality.  But all that does is move power to the much more intrusive form of an unchecked ever-expanding authoritative state which over time can become an asphyxiate to economic growth of a nation (and potentially can become something much worse).    

 

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Before we start talking about solutions, we should probably come to an agreement on the problems.

Problems I see:

1. Absurd and rising wealth inequality 

2. Wage stagnation combined with the rising costs of living

3. Worsening access to quality and affordable education 

4. Absurd healthcare costs

5. Corporate consolidation resulting in too many businesses that have monopolized certain sectors.

I don't think wealth inequality is necessarily a problem.  Wealth is not a fixed property that must be conserved.  We can create more if it.  Suppose there was a plan in which both the poor and the rich acquire more wealth; even if the top income brackets increase their wealth by a larger percent compared to the lower income brackets, I would still support the plan as it is a net positive for the poor.  People often fixate on wealth inequality (and not per capita wealth of lower percent income brackets) because it resonates with people due to envy and the entrenched false belief that wealth is a fixed property that must be conserved (i.e. the more someone else has the less I have).  

I do agree that points 2-4 would be necessarily problematic.  

Edited June 25, 2018 by Guest

[RandomIdoit 655]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It has to be their sole purpose if the institution of a high inheritance tax would literally stop them from continuing to pursue wealth.

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.

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

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.

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? 

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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?

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?  

[seven 1,367]

12 hours 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?

Statements like this just show your fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work. 

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 hour ago, Hate said:

I could avoid paying a consumption tax.  

You could avoid paying a consumption tax on certain goods and services, but in no way could you live in the United States and avoid paying a consumption tax.

[Incredulity 11,675]

23 minutes ago, seven said:

Statements like this just show your fundamental misunderstanding of how taxes work. 

Actually quite the opposite.

There is no free lunch in wealth creation.  It has all been taxed when earned.

100% estate tax is precisely confiscatory.

[ScottishHorn 172]

17 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Bingo.  I left home with less than $100 in my pants and my bank account. I made at least two million past that.  No safety net.  Why on earth would anyone deprive the ability of someone else to do the same?  

Communists are going to communist

[David Dennison 18,860]

21 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

Communists are going to communist

Sleep tight.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

It’s remarkable how the right wingers have been so well conditioned to quickly tag anyone with opposing ideas as communists.

It’s also sad and pathetic.

[Incredulity 11,675]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s remarkable how the right wingers have been so well conditioned to quickly tag anyone with opposing ideas as communists.

It’s also sad and pathetic.

L    O   Fucking   L

 

[deadshank 24,653]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Actually quite the opposite.

There is no free lunch in wealth creation.  It has all been taxed when earned.

100% estate tax is precisely confiscatory.

<bad> Emotional response <teammate>

[deadshank 24,653]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s remarkable how the right wingers have been so well conditioned to quickly tag anyone with opposing ideas as communists.

It’s also sad and pathetic.

Do you live in a house with no mirrors?

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s remarkable how the right wingers have been so well conditioned to quickly tag anyone with opposing ideas as communists.

It’s also sad and pathetic.

The ideas that bad teammate is advocating for are ideas that are given in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels.  From the 10 points given in section II:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html

To be fair, he is not advocating for the complete abolition of inheritance.  But he is in favor of a tax which in effect has a significant impact on the right of inheritance for the wealthy (which was always the intention).  This was one of the original communist ideas.  

[Chrispy 132]

32 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Do you live in a house with no mirrors?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s remarkable how the right wingers have been so well conditioned to quickly tag anyone with opposing ideas as communists.

It’s also sad and pathetic.

I think BT actually saying “I’m communist” has a bit to do with that. 

[ScottishHorn 172]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s remarkable how the right wingers have been so well conditioned to quickly tag anyone with opposing ideas as communists.

It’s also sad and pathetic.

Not opposing ideas.  Just ideas promoted by communists

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

41 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The ideas that bad teammate is advocating for are ideas that are given in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels.  From the 10 points given in section II:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html

To be fair, he is not advocating for the complete abolition of inheritance.  But he is in favor of a tax which in effect has a significant impact on the right of inheritance for the wealthy (which was always the intention).  This was one of the original communist ideas.  

Why not drop the labels/silly rhetoric and focus on the ideas?  

Instead of saying, “that idea is rooted in Marxist philosophy” or some other bullshit, flesh out the suggestions in our current economic situation and determine the good and bad consequences of each?

It’s time to rethink the economy for best interests of future generations IMO because what we have now is nothing like the opportunity the baby boomers were given in their generation.

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[ScottishHorn 172]

5 hours ago, Hate said:

I could avoid paying a consumption tax.  

Not really.  It works quite well in Europe.  

[ndawg 1,242]

46 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The ideas that bad teammate is advocating for are ideas that are given in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels.  From the 10 points given in section II:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html

To be fair, he is not advocating for the complete abolition of inheritance.  But he is in favor of a tax which in effect has a significant impact on the right of inheritance for the wealthy (which was always the intention).  This was one of the original communist ideas.  

I'm cool with preserving inheritance if we also agree to hold those born into wealth culpable for the actions of their ancestors. Fair is fair, right?

[ScottishHorn 172]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why not drop the labels/silly rhetoric and focus on the ideas?  

Instead of saying, “that idea is rooted in Marxist philosophy” or some other bullshit, flesh out the suggestions in our current economic situation and determine the good and bad consequences of each?

It’s time to rethink our whole economy for best interests of future generations IMO because what we have now is nothing like the opportunity the baby boomers were given in their generation.

 

You realize that the government could tax everyone 100% and still need more correct?   Raising the tax on the rich is just a rallying cry for the left.  It has nothing to do with income inequality 

[ScottishHorn 172]

2 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm cool with preserving inheritance if we also agree to hold those born into wealth culpable for the actions of their ancestors. Fair is fair, right?

Thanks Che

[David Dennison 18,860]

13 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

Not opposing ideas.  Just ideas promoted by communists

Do you have a problem with ideas promoted by fascists?

Edited June 25, 2018 by David Dennison

[bad_teammate 13,196]

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.

[ndawg 1,242]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Do you have a problem with ideas promoted by fascits?

I, for one, enjoy watching people exercise whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to compare any ole idea here and communism. It's cute and mildly entertaining. It's part of the erosion of civil discourse that's ruining this country, but, hey, we're probably too far gone anyways.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why not drop the labels/silly rhetoric and focus on the ideas?  

Instead of saying, “that idea is rooted in Marxist philosophy” or some other bullshit, flesh out the suggestions in our current economic situation and determine the good and bad consequences of each?

It’s time to rethink the economy for best interests of future generations IMO because what we have now is nothing like the opportunity the baby boomers were given in their generation.

 

It's not silly rhetoric; it's simply a matter of definitions.  Regardless, I do not care about the use of the term; I was not the one who mentioned communism; I was merely pointing out that the term was not misapplied.  

I did give my general objections to the points of BT.   

9 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm cool with preserving inheritance if we also agree to hold those born into wealth culpable for the actions of their ancestors. Fair is fair, right?

If wealth was taken by illegal means, then I agree that it should be confiscated.  

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, ndawg said:

I, for one, enjoy watching people exercise whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to compare any ole idea here and communism. It's cute and mildly entertaining. It's part of the erosion of civil discourse that's ruining this country, but, hey, we're probably too far gone anyways.

Most of them don't realize "commie" doesn't really have any bite anymore. It's cute.