General / National Strike?

[F250 28,766]

56 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not sure this is correct. Most poor people in this country have jobs. Unemployment is at historic lows and wealth inequality is getting worse.

Yeah, that sentence is a little awkward.  I didn't mean to imply it was the only cause but that it is a causation.

[RDCanecutter 26,401]

1. It is easy to live like a Spaniard or a Frenchman in the US. A. Get parents to move to someplace with OK public transportation (anywhere from Northern Virginia to Connecticut should do.) B. Live with parents. C. You don't need C. A & B pretty much cover it.

2. There will be no General Strike. There will be FB memes and some FB leftists will be angry at other FB leftists over who likes which memes.

3. Dear me, could we please take this thread back to chicken? I kinda like Pollo Lucas on Lorna Road in Hoover AL. Farthest northeast suburb of Monterrey. I submit to you all, a great Mexican chicken place must have

A. bars on the windows

B. trucks outside with ladders and toolboxes

C. waitresses who hide in the back when they think they may have to take your order in English

D. menu options written on fluorescent poster board

E. shrine behind the cash register.

[F250 28,766]

5 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

1. It is easy to live like a Spaniard or a Frenchman in the US. A. Get parents to move to someplace with OK public transportation (anywhere from Northern Virginia to Connecticut should do.) B. Live with parents. C. You don't need C. A & B pretty much cover it.

You nailed this one.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Rex Kramer: "I would love to witness a conversation between you and Trevor Rees-Jones and have you tell him the immense wealth he created would not have been possible without the state. "

Also Rex Kramer: "Sure. (Capitalist enterprise is impossible without a state.)"

Self-contradiction and screaming emotionalism. #sad

Trevor Rees-Jones absolutely would not be a billionaire today without various state agencies ensuring his rights and protecting his holdings. That is an uncontroversial statement and any emotional freak-out based on it is a result of your own instability and lack of coherent worldview.

The enemy of the middle class is not the lower classes.

You are wrong, of course.

Well, I was responding to this carefully worded post from your sock before "you" jumped in:

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The state already redistributes wealth. Mostly upward to the ruling class like the billionaires you mention. They don't get to be billionaires without the state.

It suggests the state is responsible for his brains, guts, sweat & capital, and does not present the situation as it stood when he made his wealth: the framework of our state allowed him to do what he did.  The way it is phrased suggests that the state is responsible for his wealth, and it's not.  So, you say: "Trevor Rees-Jones absolutely would not be a billionaire today without various state agencies ensuring his rights and protecting his holdings. That is an uncontroversial statement and any emotional freak-out based on it is a result of your own instability and lack of coherent worldview."

That's not controversial, and I agree.  

And on classes, there is no warfare.  There is no enemy of the middle class that conspires against it.  Demonizing the wealthy and those with high paying jobs as the source of your angst for why the middle class has shrunk is misguided.  It is what it is.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Well, I was responding to this carefully worded post from your sock before "you" jumped in:

It suggests the state is responsible for his brains, guts, sweat & capital, and does not present the situation as it stood when he made his wealth: the framework of our state allowed him to do what he did.  The way it is phrased suggests that the state is responsible for his wealth, and it's not.  So, you say: "Trevor Rees-Jones absolutely would not be a billionaire today without various state agencies ensuring his rights and protecting his holdings. That is an uncontroversial statement and any emotional freak-out based on it is a result of your own instability and lack of coherent worldview."

That's not controversial, and I agree.  

And on classes, there is no warfare.  There is no enemy of the middle class that conspires against it.  Demonizing the wealthy and those with high paying jobs as the source of your angst for why the middle class has shrunk is misguided.  It is what it is.  

Rex, I don’t have a personal bitch against you.  Did your family migrate here?  Did they take advantage of our state and government to the best of their ability?  Of course they fucking did.  Yet you want to inhibit others from doing the same?  If not feel free to set me straight. It’s what it looks like to me though and it’s ugly.  I got mine fuck you.  

[Guest]

Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Rex, I don’t have a personal bitch against you.  Did your family migrate here?  Did they take advantage of our state and government to the best of their ability?  Of course they fucking did.  Yet you want to inhibit others from doing the same?  If not feel free to set me straight. It’s what it looks like to me though and it’s ugly.  I got mine fuck you.  

I’m questioning my own judgement for responding to this, but you’re going to have to expound. If this is about my class warfare comment, I haven’t commented on the middle class. Only that the rich are not their enemy. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Agree.  I was only pointing out our families were all immigrants and we all took advantage of what we could.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Anyway going back to researching toilet flapper valves and trying to find one that doesn’t leak constantly.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Agree.  I was only pointing out our families were all immigrants and we all took advantage of what we could.  

So in other words you’re shouting at clouds again, got it. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Sure.  Anytime. 

[XYZ 2,154]

55 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

could we please take this thread back to chicken?

 Could you start a thread about chicken in the food forum?

[RDCanecutter 26,401]

1 minute ago, XYZ said:

 Could you start a thread about chicken in the food forum?

I never go to the food forum. Not enough good chicken info.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Pollo Regio.   All you need to know.  

[Hate 20,107]

Rex, I don’t have a personal bitch against you.  Did your family migrate here?  Did they take advantage of our state and government to the best of their ability?  Of course they fucking did.  Yet you want to inhibit others from doing the same?  If not feel free to set me straight. It’s what it looks like to me though and it’s ugly.  I got mine fuck you.  

Nobody here is arguing there should be no immigration. That’s a stupid and lazy argument. Some posters here are saying it should be done legally and judiciously. It’s ridiculous, frankly, that anyone could argue otherwise.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Just now, Hate said:

 

Nobody here is arguing there should be no immigration. That’s a stupid and lazy argument. Some posters here are saying it should be done legally and judiciously. It’s ridiculous, frankly, that anyone could argue otherwise.

 

Legally and judiciously according to whom?   Drumpf?  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

The fucker whose grandpa came here to avoid the draft, and then did the same himself?  

[Poolflood 845]

5 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Legally and judiciously according to whom?   Drumpf?  

Edited June 24, 2018 by Poolflood
Fuck it. Staying out of it

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Might as well stay out of it the pool is contaminated. 

[ScottishHorn 172]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I really like the whatachicken sandwich

[XYZ 2,154]

America is comfortably numb.

[bad_teammate 13,192]

3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

It suggests the state is responsible for his brains, guts, sweat & capital, and does not present the situation as it stood when he made his wealth: the framework of our state allowed him to do what he did. The way it is phrased suggests that the state is responsible for his wealth, and it's not.

No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. As I said presciently, your position is one of gut feelings and emotion and is based on what you imagine others think instead of what others actually think. I suspect it is because you don't actually have any idea what leftist economic politics are aside from some dumb cartoon right-wingers draw for each other over and over again.

I am an advocate for leftist economic policy, ask me anything.

Quote

And on classes, there is no warfare.  There is no enemy of the middle class that conspires against it.  Demonizing the wealthy and those with high paying jobs as the source of your angst for why the middle class has shrunk is misguided.  It is what it is.  

It's statistics and looking at where the money has gone/is going. Wealth, universally, works to protect and enlarge itself.

There is no organized "let's kill the middle class" conspiracy, but there is a concerted effort on the part of the extreme wealth class to protect/enlarge itself and the policies they advocate are killing the middle class. It's how capitalism aligns people against each other, even if unintentional.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

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?  

[InkaUtexas 25,875]

9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If they were well regulated they wouldn’t be too big to fail and therefore wouldn’t require government bailouts.  

So which do you prefer, a capitalist system with solid guardrails OR too-big-to-fail socialism with corporate welfare bailouts?

Bullshit, people fuck up Hugo. Man, what is your agenda other than being angry? Do you have any solutions? Did you march against the Fortune 500 taking over UT for a conference? Or were you kicking somewhere else? Shit man, what have you done? 

Want a general strike? fine. I have no problem with this and if you can give me some REAL reasons I may or may not march. You do understand where this will end? 

[bad_teammate 13,192]

Quote

So which do you prefer, a capitalist system with solid guardrails OR too-big-to-fail socialism with corporate welfare bailouts?

What the hell is this word salad?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

What the hell is this word salad?

I was throwing out unnecessary buzzwords and being redundant.

apologies. 

[Sgt Hulk 13,713]

i cant figure out which thread to post my outrage in.  SO many threads full of rage, hate and anger.  Do I post in all 3 or just pick one.  Where do I insult my fellow man and rage about stuff i wont do anything about?

[F250 28,766]

1 minute ago, Sgt Hulk said:

i cant figure out which thread to post my outrage in.  SO many threads full of rage, hate and anger.  Do I post in all 3 or just pick one.  Where do I insult my fellow man and rage about stuff i wont do anything about?

It seems like you just did.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. As I said presciently, your position is one of gut feelings and emotion and is based on what you imagine others think instead of what others actually think. I suspect it is because you don't actually have any idea what leftist economic politics are aside from some dumb cartoon right-wingers draw for each other over and over again.

I am an advocate for leftist economic policy, ask me anything.

It's statistics and looking at where the money has gone/is going. Wealth, universally, works to protect and enlarge itself.

There is no organized "let's kill the middle class" conspiracy, but there is a concerted effort on the part of the extreme wealth class to protect/enlarge itself and the policies they advocate are killing the middle class. It's how capitalism aligns people against each other, even if unintentional.

Alright on the first point. I read too much into his comment. On the second, what do you advocate, in a few paragraphs?

[bad_teammate 13,192]

8 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

On the second, what do you advocate, in a few paragraphs?

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%.

[Sgt Hulk 13,713]

i actually agree with that^ 

[F250 28,766]

3 minutes 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%.

You might win more people over if you reference Thomas Jefferson's ideas regarding wealth inheritance. In theory, conservatives admire Jefferson.

 

[deadshank 24,652]

10 minutes 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.

 

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.

100% after $5 million?  Govermnent confiscation, huh?  Our government, headed by the very boobs we all hold  in contempt, be it from the right or the left, will handle estates better than the heirs?  

What could possibly go wrong?

[bad_teammate 13,192]

12 minutes ago, F250 said:

You might win more people over if you reference Thomas Jefferson's ideas regarding wealth inheritance. In theory, conservatives admire Jefferson.

Right, it's common sense (no Paine-pun intended).

“A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly  absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every  generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from  posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.” — Thomas Jefferson

“There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.” — Adam Smith

“The great object [of political parties] should be to combat [this] evil: . . . by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches . . .” — James Madison

[bad_teammate 13,192]

1 minute ago, deadshank said:

100% after $5 million?  Govermnent confiscation, huh?  Our government, headed by the very boobs we all hold  in contempt, be it from the right or the left, will handle estates better than the heirs?  

What could possibly go wrong?

The utilization of emotionalist language to cover up for the complete lack of a coherent argument. #sad

[deadshank 24,652]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The utilization of emotionalist language to cover up for the complete lack of a coherent argument. #sad

What emotional language?  You stated what you advocated.  I disagreed.  You get sanctimonious and flummoxed that someone does not share your worldview and throw out a snarky serving of your own brand of word salad . 

Rinse. Repeat.  BT being BT.  

[Guest]

22 minutes 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.  I DISAGREE WITH THIS PREMISE, LARGELY BECAUSE MANY COMPANIES THAT A FEW PEOPLE CONTROL THAT MAKE BILLIONS ARE SMALL COMPANIES.  THEY (OWNERS) ARE 75%+ OF THE REASON FOR THEIR SUCCESS, AND THOSE THAT HELPED MAKE A SALE POSSIBLE ARE GENERALLY HIGHLY COMPENSATED.  IT IS UTTERLY FAIR.  FOR LARGER COMPANIES/CORPORATIONS, MILLIONAIRES ARE MADE DAILY.  THIS IS AN IMPOSSIBLE DISCUSSION TO HAVE WITHOUT GETTING REALLY GRANULAR.  BUT THE PREMISE IS BULLSHIT.

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.  TOTALLY DISAGREE.

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%. TOTALLY DISAGREE.  THE INHERITANCE TAX IS WAY TOO STRINGENT AS IT IS.  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%.  THEY EARNED IT, AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WITH IT WHAT THEY PLEASE.  INHERITANCE TAXES SICKEN ME AND ARE A GOVERNMENT MONEY GRAB.  

 

[bad_teammate 13,192]

Just now, deadshank said:

What emotional language?  You stated what you advocated.  I disagreed.  You get sanctimonious and flummoxed that someone does not share your worldview and throw out a snarky serving of your own brand of word salad . 

Rinse. Repeat.  BT being BT.  

"confiscation"

Is that a term you apply to all taxation? Do you consider all taxation worthy of the term "confiscation"?

[Hate 20,107]

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?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"confiscation"

Is that a term you apply to all taxation? Do you consider all taxation worthy of the term "confiscation"?

I don't know how anyone would view taking every dollar over $5MM.  It's confiscation.  

[Guest]

1 minute 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?

Because their workers, and the state, made all their money for them.  

 

[deadshank 24,652]

Taking 100% with no compensation is, in fact, confiscation.  I know the initial $5 million limit per your position is generously taxed at a mere 75% and any heir should be pleased with that.  

I have no problem paying taxes and do not consider taxes to be confiscation. 

 

[deadshank 24,652]

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

[Guest]

1 minute ago, deadshank said:

Taking 100% with no compensation is, in fact, confiscation.  I know the initial $5 million limit per your position is generously taxed at a mere 75% and any heir should be pleased with that.  

I have no problem paying taxes and do not consider taxes to be confiscation. 

 

Say you're a billionaire, with an estate of $10B determined 90 days after your death, and your wife has (luckily) preceded you in death.  You have 5 kids.  Just prior to your death, B.T. Lenin leads a revolution and becomes leader of this country, and D.D. and Hugo form his troika.  Their politburo enacts this exact inheritance tax policy with an immediate effective date.  Well, your kids are the grateful beneficiaries of $250,000 apiece.  'Merica.  

[deadshank 24,652]

Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Say you're a billionaire, with an estate of $10B determined 90 days after your death, and your wife has (luckily) preceded you in death.  You have 5 kids.  Just prior to your death, B.T. Lenin leads a revolution and becomes leader of this country, and D.D. and Hugo form his troika.  Their politburo enacts this exact inheritance tax policy with an immediate effective date.  Well, your kids are the grateful beneficiaries of $250,000 apiece.  'Merica.  

What a deal. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

On 6/22/2018 at 9:55 AM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Chick Fil A dominance cannot be denied.

Though here is a hot sports opinion that will call my whiteness and basicness into question: 

I do not enjoy Raising Cane's. I mean, I'll eat it if I must like if the family overrules me and I don't have the energy to fight it, but it's a boring offering and does nothing to excite. Even the sauce is meh.

This is as bad a take as Gil Bang’s. Cane’s is fucking delicious. The Box subbing out cole slaw for extra Texas toast and extra Cane’s sauce is the win on so many levels. As for this thread, what this country desperately needs is a Constitutional convention. If a general strike will get us to a convention then I’d support it and I’m saying this as a voter who supported traditional moderate Republicans who no longer exist. We have the trappings of democracy but we really don’t have representative government. If we had gleaming infrastructure and a well run economy like Singapore, that’d be one thing. We have a dysfunctional government beholden to special interests failing to do very basic things a government is supposed to do. Need a Constitutional convention to do the following: overturn Citizens United, term limits, increase the House of Representatives so that individual districts are no larger than 50,000 people. Have 1,000 seat HOR, strict term limits, hard cap on campaign contributions and then you’d start seeing some changes. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[bad_teammate 13,192]

10 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Taking 100% with no compensation is, in fact, confiscation.  I know the initial $5 million limit per your position is generously taxed at a mere 75% and any heir should be pleased with that.  

I have no problem paying taxes and do not consider taxes to be confiscation. 

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.

12 minutes 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?

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?

11 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don't know how anyone would view taking every dollar over $5MM.  It's confiscation.  

Not an argument. Emotionalist language.

[bad_teammate 13,192]

9 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Say you're a billionaire, with an estate of $10B determined 90 days after your death, and your wife has (luckily) preceded you in death.  You have 5 kids.  Just prior to your death, B.T. Lenin leads a revolution and becomes leader of this country, and D.D. and Hugo form his troika.  Their politburo enacts this exact inheritance tax policy with an immediate effective date.  Well, your kids are the grateful beneficiaries of $250,000 apiece.  'Merica.  

Math is very hard.

It's always fucking hilarious to watch "ECONOMICS 101 YOU STUPID COMMIE!" guys not understand how taxes work.

Edited June 25, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Math is very hard.

It's always fucking hilarious to watch "ECONOMICS 101 YOU STUPID COMMIE!" guys not understand how taxes work.

Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by the progression of inheritance tax to 100% at or above $5MM, but it appears any estate inheritance would be limited to $1.25MM.  

Edited June 25, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

5 minutes 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.

It's not about the beneficiaries.  It's about the person at the center of the estate.  We have never lived in a culture where either we expect or want to allow 75%-100% of our holdings to go to the state after our death.  It's totally preposterous.

It'd deter work ethic for sure.

[bad_teammate 13,192]

6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by the progression of inheritance tax to 100% at or above $5MM, but it appears any estate inheritance would be limited to $1.25MM.  

"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.

Quote

It's not about the beneficiaries.  It's about the person at the center of the estate.  We have never lived in a culture where either we expect or want to allow 75%-100% of our holdings to go to the state after our death.  It's totally preposterous.

It'd deter work ethic for sure.

"It's me, the guy who doesn't want even more money for myself right now because, after I'm dead, my kids will only be very rich instead of insanely rich!"

Edited June 25, 2018 by bad_teammate