American Government Thread 2: No Doo Doo Holes Allowed

PerthoPertho Capt of Team #HellspawnJoined: Posts: 22,831 mod
edited January 13 in General Discussion
Alright gents, will copy/paste the rules for the other one soon. Lounge needs a restart every so often so figure 666 is the best number to end this thread on.

Hail Disney!
Because somebody suggested it. Argue respectful and please source as much as possible.

This thread is to discuss the current American Government. From the primaries on 2015 through the election, the country has lost its damn mind and people in it too. With the election of Trump, things have gotten even more interesting. This place is to discuss things. This place is going to have civil discussion. If you're posting in this thread, take some time to read the rules. Following there will be a set of rules unique to this thread:

1) Source your claims as much as possible. There's a lot of information being spread around and quoted second to third hand. If you're able to get the article containing the information you speak of, please post it so everybody can be on the same page.

2) Attack the information on the article not the source. As of right now there are various arguments on which are valid sources. Because nobody could come up with a good list of worthwhile sources, quote things and post them so that #1 can happen. Attacking the source gets you jailed for free, getting caught doing it multiple times, or refusing to read something because of where it came from gets you clapped too. Don't go ridiculous quoting Stormfront or any obviously dumb site. But there is a lot of citizen journalism going on and if they offer something worthwhile, it should be examined and critiqued fairly.

4) Keep things as civil as possible. Excessive flaming is going to get addressed. What's excessive? Whatever based on the situation. I let a lot of random for fun trolling because the situation is currently nonsense. Don't tip things into abusive.

3) I'm going to label all posts that involve me modding the thread with "This is a Mod Post". Any post having that header is not up for discussion. If it means move along or cease a behavior, it needs to happen ASAP. This type of threads weren't allowed in GD for a reason. Right now it exists solely at my discretion and only because of my kindness. If I need things to change when I come in, it just happens. Nothing following the words "This is a Mod Post" is up for discussion. It it really bothers you, PM your concerns.

List of sources people have agreed on:

Yeah, there's none yet.


Amended rules:


1) signaling wiz for any reason permanently closes this thread and makes all political talk in any GD thread is instant jail time. I will seek and destroy any mention of anything remotely political whether it be here, lounge, transformers thread etc. This topic either exists in GD in this thread or it doesnt at all. That includes the current state of the world thread.

2) any mentiom of the phrase fake news, alternative facts or any other some such is a 3 day ban. Dont write it, dont quote an image that has those words in it, it better not be in the url of an article you cite. You posted a video from youtube that has either of those phrases, you're eating a dick too. Not in amy serious way, not as a joke.

3) you have an issue with something then PM me. You wanna make it public on your own then dont complain about how things shake out. But if somebody is annoying you, there is a handy dandy ignore function. Trying to force my hand is not gonna help you with shit.

If you dont like these terms then dont post in the thread. You feel this is a threat to your freedom of speech then kindly remember that the 1st amendment doesnt apply to private organizations, and if you find this unfair then feel free to let Eldergod know how much of a dumbfuck he is for antagonizing the only mod GD has ever had willing to let you guys have this shit show in the first place.
Post edited by Pertho on
Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

"Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
jimmy1200 wrote: »
pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
«1345678

Comments

  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,548
    Estate taxes are silly. We abolished ours in the 70s and just have higher income/goods taxes instead.

    Tax people while they're living, not when they're dead.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • Optimus124Optimus124 Joined: Posts: 3,961
    and what period of time would that have been?
    PSN, NNID and CFN ID: OPTIMUS124
    SF V - Dictator (that's all that interests me at the moment)
    SSB4 - Roy, Ike, and Shulk
    QFT: There's a thin line between being busy and bull$hittin
  • AzureAzure Inciteful. Joined: Posts: 10,200 ✭✭✭ Former OG
    Optimus124 wrote: »
    and what period of time would that have been?

    1491
    "Orgasm is a simile for the emotional epiphany a woman has when the shame of penetration is eclipsed by the inherent virtue of servicing a man." ~ Kromo.

    eSports is fucking retarded.
  • dab00gdab00g Joined: Posts: 21,489
    Trump signed that tax reform bill, the gop no longer needs him

    He already accomplished what bannon wanted in the tax reform

    So now everybody is coming for his old fat ass.

    Trump going to be in jail. This shit is getting horrendously bad.
  • locoghoullocoghoul Fuck Chun Joined: Posts: 4,249 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    po pimpus wrote: »
    Infernoman wrote: »
    Optimus124 wrote: »
    and what period of time would that have been?

    It was never great.

    America. World's Okayest Country.

    More like America: Everyone Else Is So Terrible, We're Great By Default.

    More like America: you fellas bombed each other to oblivion, this country looks nicer without debris and POWs
    You want to enjoy your shit game? Go ahead. Just know that I will ALWAYS be here - po pimpus 2006-2017 RIP
  • Jion_WansuJion_Wansu Joined: Posts: 6,391
    edited January 4
    Pertho wrote: »
    Alright gents, will copy/paste the rules for the other one soon. Lounge needs a restart every so often so figure 666 is the best number to end this thread on.

    Hail Disney!
    Amended rules:


    1) signaling wiz for any reason permanently closes this thread and makes all political talk in any GD thread is instant jail time...

    @Mr. Warzard check out this thread...
  • DarksakulDarksakul I find your lack of Faith Disturbing. Joined: Posts: 24,745
    edited January 4
    po pimpus wrote: »
    Infernoman wrote: »
    Optimus124 wrote: »
    and what period of time would that have been?

    It was never great.

    America. World's Okayest Country.

    More like America: Everyone Else Is So Terrible, We're Great By Default.

    Actually from traveling the rest of the world, this is more true than anyone wants to admit.
    People don't realize much of European cities outside the usual tourist trappings and city centers look alot like Detroit, the bad side of Detroit.
    Rural areas can get as backwards as you can get. Some Villages only got electricity and plumbing in the 21st century.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • ReticentlyReticently Joined: Posts: 4,290
    Wasted wrote: »
    Estate taxes are silly. We abolished ours in the 70s and just have higher income/goods taxes instead.

    Tax people while they're living, not when they're dead.

    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.
  • odinodin holy bybel Joined: Posts: 16,011 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited January 4
    America: Season 2 is really kicking off with a bang! Trump the snowflake suing Bannon hahaha Shiettt. So good.

    Also since A Shit Pie wants to take your internet and Opossum Sessions wants to take your weed, when are you guys gonna revolt against old white republicans?
    Post edited by odin on
  • PreppyPreppy act like you're used to it Joined: Posts: 14,463 admin
    edited January 4
    This is a surprisingly great article:

    Making China Great Again

    Kinda long, but if you care about international trade or really the international role of America, I'd suggest it's required reading. It jibes strongly with what I've heard from people involved in international trade.

    The bit about TPP was also interesting.

    Thanks for being here. Thanks for being part of this.

    Support ForumTraffic: help keep SRK alive and make money at the same time!

  • AzureAzure Inciteful. Joined: Posts: 10,200 ✭✭✭ Former OG
    locoghoul wrote: »
    po pimpus wrote: »
    Infernoman wrote: »
    Optimus124 wrote: »
    and what period of time would that have been?

    It was never great.

    America. World's Okayest Country.

    More like America: Everyone Else Is So Terrible, We're Great By Default.

    More like America: you fellas bombed each other to oblivion, this country looks nicer without debris and POWs

    More like America:

    We bombed your countries into the bedrock, razed your economies via our corrupt banking systems (and our bombs), and stone-cold murdered each and every one of your leaders who might have even hinted at effecting change for the better within your nations' sovereign borders.

    Might as well come work for us, now.

    If you have actual skills, we might even keep you around, as Corporate House Slaves.
    "Orgasm is a simile for the emotional epiphany a woman has when the shame of penetration is eclipsed by the inherent virtue of servicing a man." ~ Kromo.

    eSports is fucking retarded.
  • odinodin holy bybel Joined: Posts: 16,011 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Awwwwwwwwwwwwww shit. The cease and desist made him release it early.

    WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE

  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,548
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Estate taxes are silly. We abolished ours in the 70s and just have higher income/goods taxes instead.

    Tax people while they're living, not when they're dead.

    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Most of our taxation is on income, yes.

    Unjust in what way? Similar to the US, the rich here pay the most tax both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of income.
    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.

    We have exactly zero wealth taxes, estate or gift taxes, etc. We're definitely not alone either.

    The UK doesn't have wealth tax, but the far-left is pushing for it.

    Germany considers wealth taxes unconstitutional as they would be too large for people to handle.

    Even India recently scrapped wealth tax.

    The problem with a wealth tax is that much of the worth of the super rich isn't in liquid assets. That means they never really have an accurate idea of their net worth. It could mean the difference of thousands or millions of dollars in any given year.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • CDB2CDB2 Joined: Posts: 3,387
    edited January 4
    Hecatom wrote: »
    The only thing i am hoping is that if there is a nuke war, it happens after DBFZ and UNIEL[St] are out.

    F' THAT, I want to see T'Challa's solo movie on the big screen before we all get nuked!!!

    Tekken 7: Kazyua, Dragnov
    Injustice: Black Adam, Starfire, Batman, Sub-Zero
    SFV: Laura, Akuma
  • IdunoIduno ...what to put here Joined: Posts: 5,553
    Wasted wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Estate taxes are silly. We abolished ours in the 70s and just have higher income/goods taxes instead.

    Tax people while they're living, not when they're dead.

    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Most of our taxation is on income, yes.

    Unjust in what way? Similar to the US, the rich here pay the most tax both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of income.
    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.

    We have exactly zero wealth taxes, estate or gift taxes, etc. We're definitely not alone either.

    The UK doesn't have wealth tax, but the far-left is pushing for it.

    Germany considers wealth taxes unconstitutional as they would be too large for people to handle.

    Even India recently scrapped wealth tax.

    The problem with a wealth tax is that much of the worth of the super rich isn't in liquid assets. That means they never really have an accurate idea of their net worth. It could mean the difference of thousands or millions of dollars in any given year.

    UK has inheritance tax though which feels like a kind of wealth tax.
    “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what."
    -Stephen Fry

    "I know crackheads that could sneak into a house better than an 8th century shinobi."
    -Jimmy1200
  • InfernomanInfernoman Bro as Hell Joined: Posts: 9,778 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Fast Food Wars let's go!
    Who else in a movie wrestled an evil lesbian and by forcefully kissing her, turned her not only heterosexual but good as well? Exactly. That, my friend, is the power of Sean motherfucking Connery - Valaris
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,548
    Iduno wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Estate taxes are silly. We abolished ours in the 70s and just have higher income/goods taxes instead.

    Tax people while they're living, not when they're dead.

    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Most of our taxation is on income, yes.

    Unjust in what way? Similar to the US, the rich here pay the most tax both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of income.
    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.

    We have exactly zero wealth taxes, estate or gift taxes, etc. We're definitely not alone either.

    The UK doesn't have wealth tax, but the far-left is pushing for it.

    Germany considers wealth taxes unconstitutional as they would be too large for people to handle.

    Even India recently scrapped wealth tax.

    The problem with a wealth tax is that much of the worth of the super rich isn't in liquid assets. That means they never really have an accurate idea of their net worth. It could mean the difference of thousands or millions of dollars in any given year.

    UK has inheritance tax though which feels like a kind of wealth tax.

    It is, but I was more referring to actual wealth taxes that are paid while you're living (which are just referred to as "wealth tax").
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • ElectroManiacElectroManiac Joined: Posts: 487
    Steam: Electro
    Tekken 7 Mains: Dragunov and Devil Jim Second: Josie
  • ReticentlyReticently Joined: Posts: 4,290
    Wasted wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Estate taxes are silly. We abolished ours in the 70s and just have higher income/goods taxes instead.

    Tax people while they're living, not when they're dead.

    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Most of our taxation is on income, yes.

    Unjust in what way? Similar to the US, the rich here pay the most tax both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of income.

    Unjust in the sense that a person who earns a lifetime's worth of money will pay for government in the form of taxes, whereas someone who is given a lifetime's worth of money will pay (almost) nothing in taxes but still benefits from the same government.
    Wasted wrote: »
    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.

    We have exactly zero wealth taxes, estate or gift taxes, etc. We're definitely not alone either.

    The UK doesn't have wealth tax, but the far-left is pushing for it.

    Germany considers wealth taxes unconstitutional as they would be too large for people to handle.

    Even India recently scrapped wealth tax.

    The problem with a wealth tax is that much of the worth of the super rich isn't in liquid assets. That means they never really have an accurate idea of their net worth. It could mean the difference of thousands or millions of dollars in any given year.

    There are a few different kinds of wealth tax, some of which certainly are more problematic than others. Inheritance tax is one of the more straight forward and uncomplicated versions. Similarly, most US states and localities levy annual real estate taxes, which is a tax on a specific subset of wealth. I suspect at least some of the places you listed do as well.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,548
    edited January 5
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Estate taxes are silly. We abolished ours in the 70s and just have higher income/goods taxes instead.

    Tax people while they're living, not when they're dead.

    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Most of our taxation is on income, yes.

    Unjust in what way? Similar to the US, the rich here pay the most tax both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of income.

    Unjust in the sense that a person who earns a lifetime's worth of money will pay for government in the form of taxes, whereas someone who is given a lifetime's worth of money will pay (almost) nothing in taxes but still benefits from the same government.

    But that lifetime's worth of money was taxed the first time, when its original earner received it as income. The Government already received its due share, and now it just wants a second serving of the same money.

    Unless a person's sole income is their inheritance, they're going to be subject to taxes elsewhere.
    Wasted wrote: »
    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.

    We have exactly zero wealth taxes, estate or gift taxes, etc. We're definitely not alone either.

    The UK doesn't have wealth tax, but the far-left is pushing for it.

    Germany considers wealth taxes unconstitutional as they would be too large for people to handle.

    Even India recently scrapped wealth tax.

    The problem with a wealth tax is that much of the worth of the super rich isn't in liquid assets. That means they never really have an accurate idea of their net worth. It could mean the difference of thousands or millions of dollars in any given year.

    There are a few different kinds of wealth tax, some of which certainly are more problematic than others. Inheritance tax is one of the more straight forward and uncomplicated versions. Similarly, most US states and localities levy annual real estate taxes, which is a tax on a specific subset of wealth. I suspect at least some of the places you listed do as well.

    Some very well may. We impose taxes on the sale and purchase of property, though, and localities have their individual rates and levies so revenue is raised at a local level.

    There are some potential taxes involved with capital gains if someone dies (say, if their shares or investments are liquidated), but we don't have straight up inheritance taxes.

    There's just no "your net worth is X, so we'll take Y" here.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • ReticentlyReticently Joined: Posts: 4,290
    Wasted wrote: »
    But that lifetime's worth of money was taxed the first time, when its original earner received it as income. The Government already received its due share, and now it just wants a second serving of the same money.

    Similarly though, the money the income earner gets taxed on has already been taxed a first time when their employer earned it as income. So prior taxation can't be sufficient justification to indemnify funds from future taxes, or else essentially no one could be taxed.

    Mind you, I am not saying these things as an argument that the government should be taking more total money in taxes. I am suggesting that we could afford to have lower income taxes if our tax policies avoided promoting the hording of wealth as a tax shelter. And given that transfered wealth is at a functional level indistinguishable from income, it basically makes sense to tax it as income, even if you want to avoid the complications that come from other types of wealth taxation.
  • mr_punkmr_punk Joined: Posts: 733
    BR3N7 wrote: »
    tweet: bannon sets his political career on fire and trump displays his bytch made tendencies by calling his lawyers.
    did you see this excerpt? lol..apparently, trump doesn't even like to skim. anyway, this book doesn't seem particularly revelatory. at this point, who except trump stans doesn't know trump is turning out to be one of the most ignorant and incompetent presidents in US history and the WH is a complete shit show.

    case in point. trump irrationally blaming states like a petulant child because they wouldn't buy in to his false claims and tin-foiled idiocy.
    Preppy wrote: »
    This is a surprisingly great article:Making China Great Again Kinda long, but if you care about international trade or really the international role of America, I'd suggest it's required reading. It jibes strongly with what I've heard from people involved in international trade.The bit about TPP was also interesting.
    it was a good read and trump getting worked by the chinese is about what one would expect from a man who once said, "i consult myself on foreign policy issues. people tell me i have a pretty good brain.".
    Reticently wrote: »
    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.
    true, even policy makers knew this way back in 1916 when they created the federal income tax and the estate tax, but you know srk when it come focusing on policy rather than on their paranoia about government. they don't. anyway, an estate tax is just a tax on capital gains. for example, i buy a painting for $1000 back in 1940. i die and leave it in my will to a relative, but the painting is now worth a million dollars. if there was no estate tax. my relative would not have to pay any taxes on the increase in the value of the asset if they chose to sell it. which is why it's pretty amusing to see people shedding tears over a minor tax that only applies to small number of large, wealthy estates that can afford to pay the tax, but usually hire teams of tax attorneys and accountants (not to mention buying political access) to avoid the tax via loopholes.



  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,548
    edited January 5
    mr_punk wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    I don't know about Australia, but in the US the vast majority of taxation is on income rather than wealth. This causes those (both individuals and businesses) with income very significantly higher than their expenses to tend to hoard wealth. Apple, for example, is rather famously sitting on > $250 billion. Hoarding wealth drives currency deflation, which is bad. Not taxing wealth means the actual burden of taxation falls more heavily on those who have to rely on their income to live, which is unjust.

    Admittedly, businesses hoarding wealth is a whole other issue. But for private individuals at least, taxing wealth as income in the precise circumstance where it behaves like income (in the form of an inheritance), isn't necessarily a terrible idea. Not in systems where the accumulated wealth itself isn't already taxed much at all, anyway.
    true, even policy makers knew this way back in 1916 when they created the federal income tax and the estate tax, but you know srk when it come focusing on policy rather than on their paranoia about government. they don't. anyway, an estate tax is just a tax on capital gains. for example, i buy a painting for $1000 back in 1940. i die and leave it in my will to a relative, but the painting is now worth a million dollars. if there was no estate tax. my relative would not have to pay any taxes on the increase in the value of the asset if they chose to sell it.

    But an estate tax is not a capital gains tax. The estate tax would include the painting in the value of the estate, and then X amount would be taxed when the estate is transferred.

    If the painting is sold after the fact, then the capital gains tax would be paid separately.
    which is why it's pretty amusing to see people shedding tears over a minor tax that only applies to small number of large, wealthy estates that can afford to pay the tax, but usually hire teams of tax attorneys and accountants (not to mention buying political access) to avoid the tax via loopholes.

    If most people who the tax targets don't end up paying the tax anyway, then why bother having it around? Sounds like a general waste of everyone's time.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • mr_punkmr_punk Joined: Posts: 733
    edited January 5
    Wasted wrote: »
    But an estate tax is not a capital gains tax. The estate tax would include the painting in the value of the estate, and then X amount would be taxed when the estate is transferred.
    i mentioned it because unrealized capital gains account for a significant proportion of these large estates and income from capital gains is taxed less and notoriously subject to gaming by accountants and tax attorneys.
    Wasted wrote: »
    If most people who the tax targets don't end up paying the tax anyway, then why bother having it around? Sounds like a general waste of everyone's time.
    or you could improve it by getting rid of the loopholes and lowering the threshold, but that's a political issue. currently, there was only one party and one president interested in eliminating it for obviously, suspect reasons. it was falsely dressed up as a boon for ordinary americans when it's really for the benefit of a rather a small group of very wealthy people. again, it's funny to see people shedding tears over the poor "amish farmers, and truckers" being unfairly taxed by uncle sam.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-about-estate-tax-sm/
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,888
    I for one am looking forward to reading Bannon's book.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • crotchpunchacrotchpuncha Joined: Posts: 22,317
    Bannon looks surprisingly normal in that picture.
    It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
  • mr_punkmr_punk Joined: Posts: 733

    lol...what a delusional clown. excerpt from the article:
    Mr. McGahn was unsuccessful, and the president erupted in anger in front of numerous White House officials, saying he needed his attorney general to protect him. Mr. Trump said he had expected his top law enforcement official to safeguard him the way he believed Robert F. Kennedy, as attorney general, had done for his brother John F. Kennedy and Eric H. Holder Jr. had for Barack Obama.

    Mr. Trump then asked, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” He was referring to his former personal lawyer and fixer, who had been Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s top aide during the investigations into communist activity in the 1950s and died in 1986.
    Bannon looks surprisingly normal in that picture.
    it's too bad there's no picture taken at the moment he received the news he lost his alt-right, money bags. lol..trump stans getting finessed by trump and gop donor class. it's reminiscent of that fraudulent, tea party movement. i've always said the best ducks are the ducks that don't know they're a duck. interesting excerpt from the article:
    The key figure in the Bannon-Trump-Mercer White House success is Patrick Caddell, a former Democratic pollster. If the Mercers were the money, Bannon the strategist and Trump the candidate, Caddell was the player who first wrote the instruction manual. For years, the pollster conducted extensive public opinion research showing Americans were sick of the two-party system and “ripe for an outsider candidate to take the White House,” Mayer wrote in the New Yorker. The longtime political operative would eventually term this the Candidate Smith project, a reference to “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” a 1939 Jimmy Stewart film about an outsider political candidate.

    The data increasing showed “mounting anger toward wealthy elites, who many Americans believed had corrupted the government so that it served only their interests,” Mayer wrote. By 2012, Caddell was sharing the populist trend in the numbers with Bannon. The data began to shape Bannon, and Breitbart’s, worldview.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/05/rebekah-mercer-the-billionaire-backer-of-bannon-and-trump-chooses-sides/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_mix-rebekahmercer:homepage/story&utm_term=.29ca5a0e48b1

  • MCPMCP Joined: Posts: 2,244 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Preppy wrote: »
    This is a surprisingly great article:

    Making China Great Again

    Kinda long, but if you care about international trade or really the international role of America, I'd suggest it's required reading. It jibes strongly with what I've heard from people involved in international trade.

    The bit about TPP was also interesting.
    China’s approach is more ambitious. In recent years, it has taken steps to accrue national power on a scale that no country has attempted since the Cold War, by increasing its investments in the types of assets that established American authority in the previous century: foreign aid, overseas security, foreign influence, and the most advanced new technologies, such as artificial intelligence. It has become one of the leading contributors to the U.N.’s budget and to its peacekeeping force, and it has joined talks to address global problems such as terrorism, piracy, and nuclear proliferation.

    And China has embarked on history’s most expensive foreign infrastructure plan. Under the Belt and Road Initiative, it is building bridges, railways, and ports in Asia, Africa, and beyond. If the initiative’s cost reaches a trillion dollars, as predicted, it will be more than seven times that of the Marshall Plan, which the U.S. launched in 1947, spending a hundred and thirty billion, in today’s dollars, on rebuilding postwar Europe.
    Yea, they know it works, the U.S. did it. Why not repeat at bigger scale?

    Also, this got me hungry:
    Over a dinner of dumplings, tofu, and stir-fried pork
    So good.
«1345678

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file