Political Twelve Monkeys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

You know, I could get behind 85% of inheritance being taxed by the govt IF when a person of the govt (weither still or has stopped) dies, 85% if thier money, bonds, business, and items is given to the Citizens tax free. Like how the native Americans do it with the casinos.

Tic for tat

 

 

Getting a tattoo that's paid in Tic Tacs.seems to me like a risky proposition.

 

Wasn't the 85% number applicable only above 1 million bucks? What's wrong with that?

Milllionaires would end up homeless apparently.

[redneckdevil]

 

You know, I could get behind 85% of inheritance being taxed by the govt IF when a person of the govt (weither still or has stopped) dies, 85% if thier money, bonds, business, and items is given to the Citizens tax free. Like how the native Americans do it with the casinos.

Tic for tat

Getting a tattoo that's paid in Tic Tacs.seems to me like a risky proposition.

 

Wasn't the 85% number applicable only above 1 million bucks? What's wrong with that?

Lmao

 

I'm down with over 1 million IF like I said any person who has at any time been a govt representative (mayor/governor/president/IRS/etc) has 85% of anything they own of value goes over 1 million go to the people straight down middle without going to ANY charity OR organization tax free.

Basically every 3 months, American citizens get a check in the mail of any govt officials who have died.

Edited November 20, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Gfted1]

When people die all thier assets are belong to me. What? Its no more stupid than re-taxing assets for 2,3,4 generations.

[redneckdevil]

 

 

You know, I could get behind 85% of inheritance being taxed by the govt IF when a person of the govt (weither still or has stopped) dies, 85% if thier money, bonds, business, and items is given to the Citizens tax free. Like how the native Americans do it with the casinos.

Tic for tat

 

Getting a tattoo that's paid in Tic Tacs.seems to me like a risky proposition.

 

Wasn't the 85% number applicable only above 1 million bucks? What's wrong with that?

Milllionaires would end up homeless apparently.

For some reason I do have a problem with any person who became a millionaire BECAUSE of working in the govt.

 

I mean what's the point of socialism if your against capitalism but okay with the govt stepping and taking it's place and becoming a business themselves without the CHOICE that businesses offer you....

Edited November 20, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Pidesco]

 

 

You know, I could get behind 85% of inheritance being taxed by the govt IF when a person of the govt (weither still or has stopped) dies, 85% if thier money, bonds, business, and items is given to the Citizens tax free. Like how the native Americans do it with the casinos.

Tic for tat

Getting a tattoo that's paid in Tic Tacs.seems to me like a risky proposition.

 

Wasn't the 85% number applicable only above 1 million bucks? What's wrong with that?

Lmao

 

I'm down with over 1 million IF like I said any person who has at any time been a govt representative (mayor/governor/president/IRS/etc) has 85% of anything they own of value goes to the people straight down middle without going to ANY charity OR organization tax free.

Basically every 3 months, American citizens get a check in the mail of any govt officials who have died.

 

 

So your problem is that government officials use the money from the inheritance tax to refurbish their private homes?

 

And what about people that became millionaires by lobbying the hell out of the government, or from gigantic tax handouts?

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

You know, I could get behind 85% of inheritance being taxed by the govt IF when a person of the govt (weither still or has stopped) dies, 85% if thier money, bonds, business, and items is given to the Citizens tax free. Like how the native Americans do it with the casinos.

Tic for tat

Getting a tattoo that's paid in Tic Tacs.seems to me like a risky proposition.

 

Wasn't the 85% number applicable only above 1 million bucks? What's wrong with that?

Lmao

 

I'm down with over 1 million IF like I said any person who has at any time been a govt representative (mayor/governor/president/IRS/etc) has 85% of anything they own of value goes to the people straight down middle without going to ANY charity OR organization tax free.

Basically every 3 months, American citizens get a check in the mail of any govt officials who have died.

So your problem is that government officials use the money from the inheritance tax to refurbish their private homes?

 

And what about people that became millionaires by lobbying the hell out of the government, or from gigantic tax handouts?

That's why I have a problem with them becoming millionaire working with the govt because either they getting that lobbying money OR wtf are they being paid those big bucks in the govt?

[Pidesco]

So how about restricting government position's wages, and cracking down on lobbying instead of getting rid of a progressive tax?

[ShadySands]

I'm still not sure why people are arguing 85% after the first million. The real numbers are nowhere near that

[redneckdevil]

So how about restricting government position's wages, and cracking down on lobbying instead of getting rid of a progressive tax?

Usually people die when they seriously try don't they?

That was given for Ben's example and I said how I would be okay with that.

I'm totally for restricting people pay and capping it, we don't need people who sole job is to continue being with the govt besides judges. Senators and whatnot I believe should be on the same restriction like presidents in only serving so many terms then cut off and can't. I mean this is people who make their money taking everyone's money, at least with businesses u get something back.

[Gfted1]

Wat?

 

Politicians "make their money" by publically serving their constituents. You may not like the results, but thats immaterial.

[Pidesco]

 

So how about restricting government position's wages, and cracking down on lobbying instead of getting rid of a progressive tax?

Usually people die when they seriously try don't they?

That was given for Ben's example and I said how I would be okay with that.

I'm totally for restricting people pay and capping it, we don't need people who sole job is to continue being with the govt besides judges. Senators and whatnot I believe should be on the same restriction like presidents in only serving so many terms then cut off and can't. I mean this is people who make their money taking everyone's money, at least with businesses u get something back.

 

 

That bolded bit is a nice joke.

 

I often feel government bashing Americans should read up on their own country's history. Or perhaps recent news. American corporations have always been the main actor when screwing over the American population, even if often the tool of that exploitation was the government itself. Once upon a time, one of those corporate guys was even elected president. Big success. Huge.

[injurai]

Does crony-capitalism steal labor?

[redneckdevil]

 

 

So how about restricting government position's wages, and cracking down on lobbying instead of getting rid of a progressive tax?

Usually people die when they seriously try don't they?

That was given for Ben's example and I said how I would be okay with that.

I'm totally for restricting people pay and capping it, we don't need people who sole job is to continue being with the govt besides judges. Senators and whatnot I believe should be on the same restriction like presidents in only serving so many terms then cut off and can't. I mean this is people who make their money taking everyone's money, at least with businesses u get something back.

That bolded bit is a nice joke.

 

I often feel government bashing Americans should read up on their own country's history. Or perhaps recent news. American corporations have always been the main actor when screwing over the American population, even if often the tool of that exploitation was the government itself. Once upon of time, one of those corporate guys was even elected president. Big success. Huge.

It's like Unions, when u need them they are Great!....but when u don't need them and/or the reason for them is fixed or solved, they still there and now are part of the problem and not the solution. Same thing.

[Pidesco]

The problem that Unions help with is always there and is never solved. Unions are a pain because it's easy to use them to exacerbate the problems they were created to solve. Same with governments, I guess.

 

Also, there are masses and masses of problems and issues that you need a government to manage, and they are not going away in any time frame.

[redneckdevil]

Agreed, but I also think a good chunk of our masses and masses of problems is because of the govt in the first place simply because alot of people with law degrees are passing laws and practices and regulations on things they know nothing about. Like our health care insurance mandate, Did anyone who started it or worked on it have any idea about economics or even health care in general? Alas that's another rant all together.

[redneckdevil]

Wat?

 

Politicians "make their money" by publically serving their constituents. You may not like the results, but thats immaterial.

I have no problem and DO believe they should get paid of course. How MUCH and WHERE (my paycheck, buying anything, and owning house/vehicle/business) they get thier money is what I have a problem with.

Tbh I rather someone look at a career in the govt as a way to make a change instead of it being a very profitable career. What would happen if most spots (besides military) be very limited in how long and often same person could fill it? Ex. Senator could only be one for 4 years then have to step down and do something else?

Granted that could have been doable I'd say 10 years ago, now it doesn't seem to be more likely with how entrenched the govt is in everything.

Until our house of cards collapse under it's own weight and/or hear the Chinese bill collector knocking on the door rdy for us to pay up.....

Edited November 20, 2017 by redneckdevil

[majestic]

Taxation of any kind is theft. Legalized, maybe even necessary but still theft. You are taking away money from the people who earned it for the greater benefit of people who didn't. If we can't get around it as a method of funding the government there are surely things we can do to make it more fair. If I left my children a multi-million dollar estate that I worked my whole life to build, earned the money that built it, paid taxes on the income and on the real assets all along the way what standing does anyone have to come in and say it's not all mine to dispose as I please? This notion I'm hearing "you don't need that much money", who are you to say that? You don't know them. Its a notion rooted in the same base emotion that drives the appeal of collectivists economics: envy. Tom has something that **** and Harry don't and it's.... not.... FAIR! So **** & Harry elect a government that will take away what Tom has.

 

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned  and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

 

Heh. You know, you're essentially using the same strawman argument (why tax something that's already been taxed) as everyone else, but in your case I at least can respect that - because you honestly believe, misguided as I think it is, but that is a matter for another debate, that there wold be better ways than taxation and receiving what the government offers in return (I mean I get it, you'd rather pay corporate price gougers than the inefficient government *polemic* *wink*).

[HoonDing]

i propose 4/10 of the harvest (and your firstborn daughter) to the baron

[ShadySands]

I propose reducing fractions

[majestic]

 

Not that I would agree with a 85% tax rate. Inheritance should be treated like any other income and taxed accordingly. Because that's what it is. Income.

That "income" has already been taxed on the original earner. Now it should be taxed again because it was given to another? If I spot you a $20 for lunch, should you be taxed on it? Its "income" after all.

 

Figured the other strawman when arguing against inheritance tax would eventually come up. That's a circular argument. Yes, poor grandpa was already taxed, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a sizeable chunk of income for you. When you get a corporate revenue bonus you need to pay taxes as well. But why? Corporations were taxed for their profits before.

 

Might as as well argue against any form of VAT. I mean my income was already taxed, why am I paying taxes again?

 

One can spin the wheel both ways and go down to silly arugments like the 20$ for a pizza for lunch (although the tax is of course there - for the one selling the food). I'm pretty sure most nations have some sort of tax for gifts above a certain volume. I know we do. *shrug*

Edited November 20, 2017 by majestic

[213374U]

I'm totally for restricting people pay and capping it, we don't need people who sole job is to continue being with the govt besides judges. Senators and whatnot I believe should be on the same restriction like presidents in only serving so many terms then cut off and can't. I mean this is people who make their money taking everyone's money, at least with businesses u get something back.

Bureaucrats and assorted public servants make up the lion's share of government* personnel, and that's a good thing if we're going to have a government at all. Much like judges, you really don't want n00b clerks handling your tax filings, for instance. Highly professionalized, well-paid public servants actually reduce government mismanagement and corruption.

 

The problem with capping the pay of political appointees is that that's going to make problems such as influence peddling, client politics, revolving doors and other not-so-subtle forms of corruption like outright embezzlement even worse.

 

Hopefully Stephen Hawking is right and AI will be taking over soon, completely fixing the social contract.

 

*state, really

[Maedhros]

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned  and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

You're talking about a bad government though. I think most people here agree on the part about sending children to fight in ridiculous wars.

 

I like my government. Of course the Norwegian perspective is very different to the American, but I believe the idea that everyone pays money to support each other, and that people who earn more pays more is perfectly logical.

 

I love living in a society where rich and poor pretty much have all the same possibilities, everyone can realistically get a higher education, having a major injury or healthcare problem won't ruin you financially, it's a system where everyone guarantees safety and security for everyone - and therefore you get a truer form of the American dream. Everyone truly has a chance to be what they want, and along the way you realize you're in it together - which creates a better society than one where everyone is in it for himself (or only his close family).

[Malcador]

Well looks like Mugabe might be done without ending up like Ceausescu, so that's something good. Not sure the new boss there will be any better, well maybe for China.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Malcador

[majestic]

Well looks like Mugabe might be done without ending up like Ceausescu, so that's something good. Not sure the new boss there will be any better, well maybe for China.

 

And German coalition talks failed. How... expected. Heh.

[majestic]

 

Might as as well argue against any form of VAT. I mean my income was already taxed, why am I paying taxes again?

 

Like USA where such thing doesn't exist?

 

You're right, it's not a VAT, they call it "sales tax" and leave it to their individual states to determine which goods and services are taxable and which aren't. Shockingly, most states do have a wide assortment of taxes that we generally subsume under VAT in Europe.

 

But sure, whatever. Let's keep splitting hairs.