Should be PWIs tagline, lol…
5 Likes
Kinda where I’m at. It’s super hard to reconcile with liking any tax break when the necessary spending cut to compensate is essentially dead in the water.
Well it’s fiat currency, it’s more of an idea than a true medium of exchange. We can always print more, What could possibly go wrong?
5 Likes
Legit Lol’ed.
They have our soul who have our bonds.
lol you took a lot of liberty with that joke didn’t you? Not sure how you got anything you posted about from me throwing a joke out in response to no one but rock on
Deficit spending only matters to Republicans when they are out of office. Always has and always will. Hell Trump basically ran on more spending fewer taxes and if things go bad we just won’t pay our debt.
Respectfully, that’s patently wrong. Republicans have been great at fiscal conservatism since before I was born. At a state/local level, i’m finding that some amount of fiscal responsibility still exists. Unfortunately at the national level it’s been replaced with political pandering and no amount of state/local will ever scratch the surface of irresponsible federal spending.
Imo, Republicans retardhate of Obama sent them into a downward spiral that they probably won’t recover from.
1 Like
I was speaking at the national level. Republicans there simply pay lip service to it and only when out of power. by no means will they even entertain the idea of significant spending cuts to offset tax cuts. They will probably cut taxes and then talk about how much more we need to spend on defense
Great week for Trump… More Russia stuff…complete caos in Puerto Rico… Another cabinet dude bites the dust… And a loosing battle with NFL…wow what a well oiled machine… Lets just see the pee tape and show mr pence his office this is exhausting
2 Likes
Not to count that he attacked a mayor from Puerto Rico who was begging for help for her citizens.
4 Likes
Not to me. Double taxation is either wrong at all levels for individuals, or it is not. I don’t see this as a “well, it only affect a small portion of really rich people that I don’t even like, so it’s ok” thing.
I do agree that of all the pressing needs we have this is not something on the critical list in terms of “policy triage”. However, if it’s wrong to doubly tax it shouldn’t matter that the people being doubly taxed are rich and able to “handle” it. It’s wrong, period.
1 Like
…and then went golfing.
5 Likes
And people who support one of the original reasons for such a tax - to prevent an aristocracy from forming in the US through inherited wealth.
1 Like
I generally agree, but without knowing your age, that was a long time ago. The GOP as fiscally conservative party really died with Reagan in 1980 and the corpse was dug up, re-animated with voodoo, and killed again during GWB’s tenure (Medicare Part D was the nadir of that). IMO, the current GOP isn’t even a step-child of Goldwater’s GOP, forget direct relative.
3 Likes
Reagan ran huge deficits. Clinton was the last president to have a balanced budget and actuall shrink the deficit.
1 Like
As already stated, they lose 90% by the third generation. So you’re preventing a problem that doesn’t exist.
Landed Gentry can’t exist without serfs and restrictions on who can own land. Not a problem after capitalism.
1 Like
Still:
And that’s all that matters.
I’m not sure how it happens fully, but even though the original line of descendants goes bust, a craftier person grabs a huge accumulation through wiles rather than pluck. In very few generations, there are only a very limited number of entities that own everything, control any competition, and manipulate the political process in order to perpetuate their power.
Examples? Businesses like steel, autos, energy; High Finance like Central Banks, Federal Reserve, Dictatatorships such as North Korea or absolute monarchies.
Unfortunately, greed and winner take all attitude seems relatively congenital to our species.
I’ll keep it for the remaining 10%. Aristocracies are built on less.
Example? I wouldn’t hire Trump, Jr. to assistant manage a local Steak N’ Shake - yet there he is, draped in power and privilege, because of inherited wealth. I see no reason to grease the skids for people like him.
They can still control (or dominate) markets. The movement from land (a finite resource) to other forms of wealth didn’t reduce the opportunity for monopolism as much as the neofeudlaists contend.
1 Like
So you’re saying I can’t share in the returns and ownership of the 500 richest businesses in the world? Because I can, in a no-load mutual fund with a few clicks of a mouse. I inherited nothing. This is the best time for class mobility (both up and down) in world history.
This argument is kind of weird since Trump Senior is still alive. Thus the 40% tax hasn’t hit yet. But you’ve highlighted another really fatal flaw with estate tax. If I make my children the co-owners of all my corporations before I die (the right way)… then boom! No estate tax.
If you want to “sock it to the rich” there are other ways.
1 Like