The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[huskeR32]

AOC is the Democrat’s Trump.

An utterly absurd comparison. You may disagree with AOC's ideas, but that doesn't make them lies. Trump lies - intentionally, consistently, and maliciously. At worst, AOC is a little overeager and quick to promote ideas that she hasn't fully formed yet (which, really, I'm sure is true of a lot of new members of congress), and at best she's practicing a new kind of representation where she's transparent with her thinking at every step of policy development, to get as much feedback from her constituents as she can.

I'm not sure why this has so many people fired up (but I have some suspicions).

You sit and grill Trump at every turn for his silly tweets, yet AOC has "energy & enthusiasm" despite being the same passive-aggressive kind of person with her own Twitter.

As far as I've seen, any "passive-aggressive" behavior from her has been in response to someone else pretty significantly misrepresenting her words first. I personally don't expect her to just keep her mouth shut while people wage a full-scale effort to discredit her. Why do you?

As far as the morally correct versus factually correct thing goes, it was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that her point was that a lot of criticism of her so far has been over insignificant semantics, made by people too lazy to debate the primary substance of her ideas. They want the easy way out - nitpick one part, let Fox and the like call her an idiot a few times so that's it's gospel truth among their brainless listeners, and then continue with their status quo.

“Hey I made $40 million and my company is still growing. Better shut it down before the govt. feels entitled to 70% of the extra $30 million I made.” That’s $21 million out of the extra $30 million taxed; that’s fair to cut half my money I made as a business owner at that point? What’s my incentive to keep running and not shut it down?

That would be business income, not personal income, and therefore not subject to the 70%. Which would, ironically, encourage business owners to do exactly what you seem to advocate for - grow their business and create jobs - rather than pull the money out and personally enrich themselves.

If I was going to criticize AOC for not fact-checking, I'd make sure that I checked mine first.

--

Charity still does a better job of helping those in need than the government.

I strongly disagree with this. Over a third of charitable donations in this country go to religious organizations. Much of the money donated to religious organizations goes into evangelical efforts, or overseas missionary work. While some money does end up being used to try and help those in need here, you have to factor in that many communities, especially areas without large populations of whatever flavor a given religion is, will not have the same access to those resources as communities where that religion predominates.

Private charity tends to help only those whom the wealthy deem worthy of helping. The government can help ensure equal access to resources to all people in need. I know which I prefer.

 

[Joey D]

At worst, AOC is a little overeager and quick to promote ideas that she hasn't fully formed yet (which, really, I'm sure is true of a lot of new members of congress), and at best she's practicing a new kind of representation where she's transparent with her thinking at every step of policy development, to get as much feedback from her constituents as she can.

Isn't that exactly what Trump does? Spout ideas that he hasn't fully formed yet and is fairly transparent with what he's doing (even if that means putting national security in jeopardy, ruining foreign relations, and altogether showing how stupid he is?).

I strongly disagree with this. Over a third of charitable donations in this country go to religious organizations. Much of the money donated to religious organizations goes into evangelical efforts, or overseas missionary work. While some money does end up being used to try and help those in need here, you have to factor in that many communities, especially areas without large populations of whatever flavor a given religion is, will not have the same access to those resources as communities where that religion predominates.

Private charity tends to help only those whom the wealthy deem worthy of helping. The government can help ensure equal access to resources to all people in need. I know which I prefer.

I'm not really sure you can classify religion a charity. It's a business that sells morals, redemption, and faith in exchange for a weekly "gift" of upwards of 10% of your income. Sure, its classified as a charity, but that's another issue altogether. No religion should be classified as a charity, nor should the be tax-exempt. They should be treated as a business because they are. (This is probably a discussion for elsewhere though)

Still, about two-thirds of charitable contributions don't go to religion. That's a sizeable piece of the pie that can help people.

As with the wealthy deeming who they deem worthy of help, I mean can you blame them? If you're freely giving your money away, then you should decide where it goes. I donate money every year to causes I believe in and would hate to be told who I had to help (and I'm not even wealthy).

Also, I'm not convinced resources need to be equal. I mean does the person who goes homeless due to gambling debts deserve the same help as the mother and her two kids that were kicked out on the streets due to an abusive partner? Probably not.

 

[Novalee]

It is clear AOC scares the neocons and the establishment dems . And that is a good thing for americans struggling to make a life .this next election in 2020 will be about 3 things as i see it.


First it will be about healthcare and how you get a majority of americans on a plan of they deserve.

Second i see it about the climate and how it affects america and the world in geo political terms.

Third i see it about does america want four more years with pinochio or someone else .


I will also predict that in the future aoc will be president .

 

[Keef]

You've got 3 women running for President on AOC's party and none of them resort to false, off-the-cuff statements like she does to gain attention.

True, and they've all been there much longer. That said, they're also establishment politicians who aren't exciting to younger generations - anybody under 40 these days has a much different outlook on the world than people over it.

Elizabeth Warren has in fact resorted to ridiculous claims to gather support. Hell, she's already proposed a fully unconstitutional fine for accumulated wealth. Gillibrand has co-opted the Me Too thing to gain attention, for better or worse. The most reasonable of the bunch is Harris who, as a former prosecutor, understands law. That's a pretty important value in a President.

I think we need to look at funding going to people who no longer contribute to society. For example, Boomers who have built million-dollar nest eggs and are still raking in Social Security money and have Medicare and stuff. Excuse me? You're washed up and I'm funding your bigass house with perimeter lights on 24/7? Get the hell outta here. You're not disabled, you just don't feel like contributing to society anymore. Meanwhile, you're voting for people like Trump to avoid having to pay taxes on the goodies that your children and their children will never be able to afford.

 

[huskeR32]

I'm not really sure you can classify religion a charity.

It's classified as a charity by our tax code, regardless of whether or not you or I think it should be. (I don't.)

It's a business that sells morals, redemption, and faith in exchange for a weekly "gift" of upwards of 10% of your income. Sure, its classified as a charity, but that's another issue altogether. No religion should be classified as a charity, nor should the be tax-exempt. They should be treated as a business because they are. (This is probably a discussion for elsewhere though)

I completely agree with you. Churches shouldn't have charity status, and they shouldn't be tax-exempt. But they do and they are, and that undoubtedly encourages people to donate to them (charity is motivated at least as much by the tax write-off benefits as it is by altruism), which means it has to be part of the discussion.

Still, about two-thirds of charitable contributions don't go to religion. That's a sizable piece of the pie that can help people.

Sure. I didn't say that private charitable donations don't do any good at all. I was arguing your claim that charity is a better way to help the needy than the government is.

As with the wealthy deeming who they deem worthy of help, I mean can you blame them? If you're freely giving your money away, then you should decide where it goes. I donate money every year to causes I believe in and would hate to be told who I had to help (and I'm not even wealthy).

No, I don't blame them at all. But I think as a society we have a responsibility to help all people, not just people who believe in the same god as us. And the only way to ensure that is through government policy.

Also, I'm not convinced resources need to be equal. I mean does the person who goes homeless due to gambling debts deserve the same help as the mother and her two kids that were kicked out on the streets due to an abusive partner? Probably not.

Equal in what sense? Distributed equally? Well, I didn't say they should be. I said there should be equal access to them; in other words, it should be equally easy for all people in need to apply for help. But if the largest, by far, recipient (and therefore distributor) of charity is churches, and if some of those churches decline to provide resources in, say, predominantly Muslim neighborhoods, that's a problem. We don't even get to the point where it matters if you're a degenerate gambler or not - some people are being denied an equal chance at being helped simply because they don't worship the right god.

Once you have equal access for all people in need, then you can put restrictions on who can apply or how they can use the assistance, etc. As long as those decisions are being made by elected representatives rather than arbiters of religious worthiness, that's fine with me.

Then, when I disagree that we should turn people away for how they got poor (we all make mistakes), I can vote for people who will craft policy accordingly.

--

EDIT:

Gillibrand has co-opted the Me Too thing to gain attention

The only thing I can think of that this could possibly be in reference to is her being one of the most vocal in calling for Al Franken to resign. It's a bit cynical to reduce that to attention seeking, isn't it?

 

[Joey D]

No, I don't blame them at all. But I think as a society we have a responsibility to help all people, not just people who believe in the same god as us. And the only way to ensure that is through government policy.

Fair enough to your other points about religion, however here is where I start to disagree. I don't think society has a responsibility to help anyone. Does it feel compelled to help? Sure, but I don't think you're responsible for anyone but yourself and your family.

This will sound cold no matter how I say it, so I'll just say it. I don't want to help others I have no connection to. I will do almost anything to help family, friends, and to some degree people, I just know like co-workers. Past that I'm not keen on helping anyone else.

Also, I don't think the only way to accomplish this is through government policy. That is unless you count removing the charitable tag on religion. Remove that and people will donate elsewhere. Anything else I can think of with government policy regarding helping others comes out to either be flat out theft or Communism. I don't want the government dictating who I should help, nor do I want it to take money from me to give to those it deems needs help. I want to freely give to those I my own moral compass says is worthy of my help.

Equal in what sense? Distributed equally? Well, I didn't say they should be. I said there should be equal access to them; in other words, it should be equally easy for all people in need to apply for help. But if the largest, by far, recipient (and therefore distributor) of charity is churches, and if some of those churches decline to provide resources in, say, predominantly Muslim neighborhoods, that's a problem. We don't even get to the point where it matters if you're a degenerate gambler or not - some people are being an equal chance at being helped simply because they don't worship the right god.

Once you have equal access for all people in need, then you can put restrictions on who can apply or how they can use the assistance, etc. As long as those decisions are being made by elected representatives rather than arbiters of religious worthiness, that's fine with me.

Then, when I disagree that we should turn people away for how they got poor (we all make mistakes), I can vote for people who will craft policy accordingly.

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Even if a religious institution had a foothold in a given neighborhood, it doesn't mean they're going to help those who do even follow them. I live in Utah, the entire state is run by Mormons and there's an LDS church in every single neighborhood (and sometimes more than one). The state is also approximately 85% Mormon too. However, the church does an awful job at helping people even here in Salt Lake City just a few blocks from the world headquarters for the LDS church. The amount of homeless people roaming the streets here is higher than it was in Detroit and Detroit is, as Trump would call it, a :censored:hole.

At the end of the day, the LDS church only helps those members of it that they think can eventually start giving the money back to them. If they don't think there will be a return on their investment, they're just going to write you off even if you believe in whatever they believe in (not limited to multiple wives, green Jell-O, plastic surgery, and Israelites coming to America and settling in Utah).

As I said, all the government needs to do is step it and remove the tax-exempt status from all religions. That would ultimately solve the issue, at least how I understand it, that you have with those organizations.

As far as access goes, some areas simply aren't going to have access. Going back to Utah, a vast majority of the state is a desolate wasteland with small towns. Those small towns will probably never have access because there simply isn't enough resources to provide for them. Really only areas with a large population will ever have resources, no matter what the government or anyone else for that matter wants for them.

 

[huskeR32]

Fair enough to your other points about religion, however here is where I start to disagree. I don't think society has a responsibility to help anyone. Does it feel compelled to help? Sure, but I don't think you're responsible for anyone but yourself and your family.

This will sound cold no matter how I say it, so I'll just say it. I don't want to help others I have no connection to. I will do almost anything to help family, friends, and to some degree people, I just know like co-workers. Past that I'm not keen on helping anyone else.

Hey man, fair enough, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to feel the same way I do as far as the societal benefits of helping everyone.

Charity might do a better job of what your now-stated goal is - helping those who you deem worthy of it - but it doesn't do a better job of the goal you originally stated:

Charity still does a better job of helping those in need than the government.

There are many reasons that charity fails at this goal, mostly due to the biases inherent in both the charitable organizations and the people who donate to them.

Also, I don't think the only way to accomplish this is through government policy. That is unless you count removing the charitable tag on religion. Remove that and people will donate elsewhere. Anything else I can think of with government policy regarding helping others comes out to either be flat out theft or Communism. I don't want the government dictating who I should help, nor do I want it to take money from me to give to those it deems needs help. I want to freely give to those I my own moral compass says is worthy of my help.

You're not wrong with that bit in bold, but would that necessarily be any better?

Right now, with churches being classified as tax-exempt charities, it's comfortably the largest recipient of charitable donations. What does that tell you? That most people want the same thing you just said you want - to give their money only to causes they personally agree with, and only to people they deem worthy of their help.

If you revoke tax-exempt charity status from churches, do you think people will suddenly just start giving to organizations that don't share their beliefs? No, of course not.

They'll either stop donating, or I suspect they'll start donating more to what is currently the fourth-largest recipient on that list: foundations. Gates Foundation, Trump Foundation, Clinton Foundation, etc. - whichever one makes them feel their money is going primarily to people like them or towards causes they agree with.

Which means that, no, removing tax-exempt status from churches wouldn't ultimately solve the issue that I have with preferring charitable organizations over government assistance programs.

As far as access goes, some areas simply aren't going to have access. Going back to Utah, a vast majority of the state is a desolate wasteland with small towns. Those small towns will probably never have access because there simply isn't enough resources to provide for them. Really only areas with a large population will ever have resources, no matter what the government or anyone else for that matter wants for them.

That's not an unsolvable problem. It's just probably not going to be solved by relying on churches (or any other charities) to suddenly decide to set up shop in areas that aren't advantageous for their particular aims or missions.

 

[Keef]

I just don't see any other outcome then whar you describe. Isn't it your goal to control the market to a lecel the consumzr has no say no more? I see that as the end goal of a corporation.

No. My goal would be to eliminate cronyism. To do that, we both have to ban conglomerate political donations, relegating the act of campaign donations to individual people alone, and also somehow getting people to support ethical candidates which are few and far between. Arguably, we're at the point where we also need to eliminate lobbying. Ideally, lobbying is a way to project constituent opinions onto politicians via large groups such as corporate investors. "What's good for the corporation is good for everybody". Unfortunately, these days the majority investors in virtually every corporation are a small number of hyper-wealthy people as opposed to a large amount of small investors like employees. Majority votes win, and when the majority is a small number of hyper-wealthy people it means they're the winners, and they're the ones in control of lobbying, and they're seeking to benefit themselves in doing so.

As long as politicians can be influenced by corporate money, that corporate money will remain concentrated in the hands of a few very powerful people with not much to lose and a lot to gain. That's what happens when market regulations are geared toward the success of "the 1%". Literally the only thing libertarians have to stand on their unregulated capitalism is that people are inherently moral and that's simply not the case. Humanity is ass, my dude. America has moved way past "the right amount of government" to "definitely the wrong amount of government", but to fix that we can't simply reel back the amount of government, we also have to reel back the amount of influence certain people have over the government.

The most reasonable of the bunch is Harris who, as a former prosecutor, understands law. That's a pretty important value in a President.

Speaking of ethics, apparently I was misguided in this opinion. Kamala is a hack, one of those cops who focus on convictions rather than justice.

The only thing I can think of that this could possibly be in reference to is here being one of the most vocal in calling for Al Franken to resign. It's a bit cynical to reduce that to attention seeking, isn't it?

I think my point is that they're all doing it to some degree. The career politicians have no excuse - at least AOC is a young and passionate person and is understandably yelling at the establishment.

I'm in favor of high-end tax brackets and estate taxes. The Founding Fathers, the whole classically liberal lot of them, were also in favor of hefty estate taxes.

 

[Exorcet]

Hey man, fair enough, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to feel the same way I do as far as the societal benefits of helping everyone.

Charity might do a better job of what your now-stated goal is - helping those who you deem worthy of it

What makes the government inherently better? Some, currently, might be doing alright, but even western governments have been guilty of bias or outright discrimination in relatively modern times. The government doesn't make peoples' biases go away.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm in favor of high-end tax brackets and estate taxes. The Founding Fathers, the whole classically liberal lot of them, were also in favor of hefty estate taxes.

Source Required. While I do believe that the Founders are Classically Liberal, I don’t believe that they are for high-end tax brackets since the income tax is an invention of Karl Marx. I’ll source later.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don’t believe that they are for high-end tax brackets since the income tax is an invention of Karl Marx. I’ll source later.

You'll have to source a lot earlier... the Egyptians had income taxes 2,000 years ago, and they likely existed long before that.

Here are some Marx quotes on taxation, the idea that he was in largely in favour of it is utterly erroneous.

 

[McLaren]

True, and they've all been there much longer. That said, they're also establishment politicians who aren't exciting to younger generations - anybody under 40 these days has a much different outlook on the world than people over it.

Tulsi Gabbard is 37....

Elizabeth Warren has in fact resorted to ridiculous claims to gather support. Hell, she's already proposed a fully unconstitutional fine for accumulated wealth. Gillibrand has co-opted the Me Too thing to gain attention, for better or worse. The most reasonable of the bunch is Harris who, as a former prosecutor, understands law. That's a pretty important value in a President.

Gabbard became known for being a Bernie supporter. I think that's who you were supporting at one point....

None of these things are unfounded movements, however. Each woman, whether you agree with them or not, put more work into their ideas than just spouting them and doing the work later.

I think we need to look at funding going to people who no longer contribute to society. For example, Boomers who have built million-dollar nest eggs and are still raking in Social Security money and have Medicare and stuff. Excuse me? You're washed up and I'm funding your bigass house with perimeter lights on 24/7? Get the hell outta here. You're not disabled, you just don't feel like contributing to society anymore. Meanwhile, you're voting for people like Trump to avoid having to pay taxes on the goodies that your children and their children will never be able to afford.

The reason AOC speaks to people like you is b/c you hear a bunch of free stuff, at the expense of the rich.

You're not disabled, you just don't feel like contributing to your goals. It's hilarious to think AOC will be President with that kind of tax plan. The rich will just up and leave, taking their businesses overseas. Nice, nobody to fund free-for-all provisions, and nobody to work for.

 

[Keef]

Source Required. While I do believe that the Founders are Classically Liberal, I don’t believe that they are for high-end tax brackets since the income tax is an invention of Karl Marx. I’ll source later.

You highlighted estate taxes my point about estate taxes but then commented about income taxes.

I said the Founders were in support of estate taxes. Most of them did believe income taxes were wrong, which is why they didn't include that tool in the constitution, but many of them wrote about why the concept of inheritance is dangerous. They wrote about "entail" and "primogeniture" which at the time were legal precedents for passing down land and wealth through family generations. They specifically banned the concept of titles of nobility in the constitution, and had laws banning those two inheritance practices. That, combined with other writings, makes a strong case for their distaste for noble dynasties, their beliefs that "the earth belongs to the living" and therefore dead people should have no control over it through their estates, etc. It all amounts to limiting estates to prevent royal-like generational power and influence. If any tax is not wrong, it's an estate tax which prevents dead people from dictating the future.

https://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-4.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/resistance-estate-tax/470403/

It's difficult to find sources that aren't wrapped up in politically-charged articles or inaccessible databases.

You're not disabled, you just don't feel like contributing to your goals. It's hilarious to think AOC will be President with that kind of tax plan. The rich will just up and leave, taking their businesses overseas. Nice, nobody to fund free-for-all provisions, and nobody to work for.

I don't know if you remember me being the GTP Beacon of Morality and Libertarianism back when I was more active, but I guess this is an opportunity to reform my image. @Danoff @Omnis @Famine let's get this show on the road, I'm a commie now!

Anyway, it's arguable that high-end tax brackets are somewhat in line with the foundationally American concept of estate limitations, in a roundabout way. Is direct taxation wrong? Yes. Is dead people dictating the future through the massive wealth of their estates wrong? Also yes. Therefore, is direct taxation with the goal of preventing dead people from dictating the future through the massive wealth of their estates wrong? Arguable. And we already know it works because it existed for at least three decades after WW2 which also happen to be the most prosperous decades in American history. You know, the ones where the middle class Baby Boomed and experienced great wage growth and high rates of home ownership, etc. Both of my parents grew up during that time - my dad owned a house in his early 20s and leased a new car every two years because his manufacturing job paid more than he could spend. It was very common in the Midwest back then but non-existent now, and the symptom is that the middle class has not gotten wealthier since then, while their employers have multiplied their wealth several times, likely due to the appallingly massive tax breaks on the wealthy beginning in the 80s, as that chart I linked you shows.

 

[mustafur]

Just going by Donors to Current, Kirsten Gillibrand has red flags all over her.

I mean what will be important will be what it looks like at the end of the year when donor money will be flowing in when the primary's start but it isn't promising.

 

[huskeR32]

Just going by Donors to Current, Kirsten Gillibrand has red flags all over her.
View attachment 798050
I mean what will be important will be what it looks like at the end of the year when donor money will be flowing in when the primary's start but it isn't promising.

Your link isn't working for me.

 

[mustafur]

Your link isn't working for me.

Fixed.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You'll have to source a lot earlier... the Egyptians had income taxes 2,000 years ago, and they likely existed long before that.

Here are some Marx quotes on taxation, the idea that he was in largely in favour of it is utterly erroneous.

They, in the link, have omitted the Communist Manifesto itself, which is what I was going to quote. Please read pages 39-40. In the United States, the power of the unions didn’t give rise until the Progressive Movement in the early 20th century. So, yes, the modern income tax did have its roots in communism.

To explain it better, the current power in a perfect communist country, the power rests with the state who is comprised of Proletariats. Proletariat, in Marxist theory, is average workers who have risen to power in government. Proletariats, not wanting to give up the power, will pass laws that protect that class and ultimately abolish the conditions that develop that class. So, in perfect communism, the income tax is something that taxes money based on income. The more money that you have, the more that you are taxed. This achieves the first tenet of communism, the abolishment of private property. If private property is abolished, then families will be next, and the rest of the tenets will follow.

 

[Liquid]

Income tax was not "invented by Karl Marx". Even as an exaggeration that's quite ridiculous. It's a form of taxation that goes back a long way in ancient and classical civilisation. And if that's not quite the same, Great Britain was levying a modern form of income tax 20 years before Marx was even born.

 

[Mr Tree]

What's the problem? It's theft, plain and simple. If you earn the money, then it should be your money, not the governments.

Yes, taxes are an unfortunate evil, but taxing someone at an obscene rate is ridiculous. People should pay their fair share in taxes, but at the same time, they shouldn't have to pay more than that. @Danoff explained it here perfectly.

If you guys consider taxes theft surely you must be able to understand that in the current system of wage slaves I see that money we tax as unfair gained money. I find that the whealty few steal from us, and the government should be allowed to take th back.

It really isn't as cut and dry as you paint it to be. You're sneaking in the premis that money someone posseses is earned in a fair way. I disagree with that premis as I don't believe there is a free choice to work or not to work and I also don't believe an individual has the power to renegotiate on an indivodual basis to earn more for a certain job as 'the market' (read: the whealty few) dictates that.

“Hey I made $40 million and my company is still growing. Better shut it down before the govt. feels entitled to 70% of the extra $30 million I made.” That’s $21 million out of the extra $30 million taxed; that’s fair to cut half my money I made as a business owner at that point? What’s my incentive to keep running and not shut it down?

Doesn’t matter if you think $3 million is enough or not. People buy and sell items these days worth that and way, way, way more.

The great thing is you don’t get to dictate what counts as something earned. Since Jeff Bezos’ name has been thrown around, he started Amazon in 1994 and didn’t become a millionaire until around 5 years later. That’s not earned? How about the fact you seem to think someone like him should be taxed 70% for all his money over the $10m threshold & for what? To benefit the less fortunate, even though he willingly donated $97.5 million 3-4 months ago to 24 nonprofit charities that help homeless people?

Read the above thay money is stolen from the working class people, those people who actually produce stuff, who actually make the things that keep the economy running.
Also if people don't rise above a certain point it opens up the market for more players and more competition.

Anything else I can think of with government policy regarding helping others comes out to either be flat out theft or Communism. I don't want the government dictating who I should help, nor do I want it to take money from me to give to those it deems needs help. I want to freely give to those I my own moral compass says is worthy of my help.

If you believe is individual freedom income redistribution is a good thing up to a certain point. It makes sure every individual has the same oppertunities and it will increase the individual liberty of most people as they are freeer to move on the economic ladder.

You can simplify all you want but the world is a complicated place.

 

[McLaren]

I don't know if you remember me being the GTP Beacon of Morality and Libertarianism back when I was more active, but I guess this is an opportunity to reform my image. @Danoff @Omnis @Famine let's get this show on the road, I'm a commie now!

One would hope. You've commented that you're going to be a pilot right?

We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 yearsbecause we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.

Wait, surely that's just tongue-in-cheek.

Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, createaffordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle

Oh, nevermind. Well, at least you've got 10 years to enjoy that profession.

Anyway, it's arguable that high-end tax brackets are somewhat in line with the foundationally American concept of estate limitations, in a roundabout way. Is direct taxation wrong? Yes. Is dead people dictating the future through the massive wealth of their estates wrong? Also yes. Therefore, is direct taxation with the goal of preventing dead people from dictating the future through the massive wealth of their estates wrong? Arguable.

Explain this a bit more. You want to control how the wealthy passes down their wealth to their heirs after they die?

And we already know it works because it existed for at least three decades after WW2 which also happen to be the most prosperous decades in American history. You know, the ones where the middle class Baby Boomed and experienced great wage growth and high rates of home ownership, etc. Both of my parents grew up during that time - my dad owned a house in his early 20s and leased a new car every two years because his manufacturing job paid more than he could spend. It was very common in the Midwest back then but non-existent now, and the symptom is that the middle class has not gotten wealthier since then, while their employers have multiplied their wealth several times, likely due to the appallingly massive tax breaks on the wealthy beginning in the 80s, as that chart I linked you shows.

You know, I see this talked about a lot & worded as if it couldn't be done today. Yet, three of the mid-20 year olds I work with have had their own homes built in the last 3 years. 2 of them sell cars. Another I know is planning on her first home as she slows down from her job traveling, selling software to hotels. Another 2 girls spend a third of the year traveling either the world or every EDC festival imaginable. Maybe I'm lucky to be in a booming section of the country, but I see more than my fair share of young people spending money I read online that they don't have. They're traveling, buying homes or nice apartments, nice cars. And yeah, I see guys who are just making ends meet. But, they're working towards better things, just like the 3 people I mentioned buying homes; 2 of them were valets, 1 washed cars before transitioning. Yeah, everything has become grossly more expensive, but I don't see how the economy ever plans to return to most homes being under $100,000 or the nice, new cars under $20,000.

I'm not against finding ways to boost everyone's wages to close the gap and make buying things easier. But, not at a 70% marginal tax rate against the wealthy or kicking up $15 minimum wages for the poor to afford housing. The wealthy just find ways to pass those hits against them onto the rest of the population.

Read the above thay money is stolen from the working class people, those people who actually produce stuff, who actually make the things that keep the economy running.

"The guys on the factory floor are the ones who should be making the money! The owner doesn't do anything."

Also if people don't rise above a certain point it opens up the market for more players and more competition.

Since 2016, the world has seen a new crop of 2.3 million people reach a net worth with six zeroes.

According to Credit Suisse's new Global Wealth Report 2017, there are now 36 million millionaires in the world -- a 170% jump in total numbers from the year 2000. Together, these millionaires hold as much wealth as 46% of the population.

According to Credit Suisse's past reports, becoming a millionaire might be more common over the coming decades.

In 2013, the bank published a report speculating that 20% of the world's population could be millionaires within two generations. In other words, sometime before 2073 (as of the report's writing) there could be a billion millionaires walking the Earth.

https://www.inc.com/business-inside...-credit-suisse-global-wealth-report-2017.html

The players & competition are coming from somewhere....

 

[Exorcet]

Is dead people dictating the future through the massive wealth of their estates wrong? Also yes.

Unless people are writing their wills after death, this isn't happening. The arrangement to transfer money is made while they are alive and seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If you guys consider taxes theft surely you must be able to understand that in the current system of wage slaves I see that money we tax as unfair gained money. I find that the whealty few steal from us, and the government should be allowed to take th back.

It really isn't as cut and dry as you paint it to be. You're sneaking in the premis that money someone posseses is earned in a fair way. I disagree with that premis as I don't believe there is a free choice to work or not to work and I also don't believe an individual has the power to renegotiate on an indivodual basis to earn more for a certain job as 'the market' (read: the whealty few) dictates that.

If you see things this way, it makes me think you have some arbitrary standard set for what people deserve. Where specifically is money being earned unfairly and what is it that makes the choice to work not a choice?

 

[huskeR32]

You know, I see this talked about a lot & worded as if it couldn't be done today. Yet, three of the mid-20 year olds I work with have had their own homes built in the last 3 years. 2 of them sell cars. Another I know is planning on her first home as she slows down from her job traveling, selling software to hotels. Another 2 girls spend a third of the year traveling either the world or every EDC festival imaginable.

You know better than to think anecdotes outweigh data gathered from millions of people, right?

eah, everything has become grossly more expensive, but I don't see how the economy ever plans to return to most homes being under $100,000 or the nice, new cars under $20,000.

I don't think anybody expects those prices to return. What they would like is for wages to keep up. A lot of people still make pretty much the same amount of money now as they did when those prices were normal. That's a problem.

 

[Keef]

You're not disabled, you just don't feel like contributing to your goals. It's hilarious to think AOC will be President with that kind of tax plan. The rich will just up and leave, taking their businesses overseas. Nice, nobody to fund free-for-all provisions, and nobody to work for.

One would hope. You've commented that you're going to be a pilot right?

Wait, surely that's just tongue-in-cheek.

Oh, nevermind. Well, at least you've got 10 years to enjoy that profession.

That's definitely an example of her having no idea how a particularly industry works. Then again, this recent government shutdown showed us that basically nobody outside of industry experts actually know how their industries work. Speaking of which, this "Green New Deal" she's talking about comes off the Green Party's website so I'm not really sure how it's managed to be associated with the Democratic party. I respect what she's doing in challenging the establishment and attempting to actually represent young people but I'm certainly not taking her words as gospel. One thing I do know is that Trump and many Republicans these days don't represent anybody other than the wealthiest Americans.

As an aside, you can put money on autonomous passenger-carrying aviation not happening within my lifetime, although hybrid or fully-electric passenger-carrying planes may be a possibility. In general it takes the FAA about ten years to certify to new airframe, most of which occurs after it's been designed to a testable state. Think of the FAA's certification program like the actual lifecycle of a pre-facelift car on the market, where all the problems are sorted out before they finally sell a decent version.

Explain this a bit more. You want to control how the wealthy passes down their wealth to their heirs after they die?


You know, I see this talked about a lot & worded as if it couldn't be done today. Yet, three of the mid-20 year olds I work with have had their own homes built in the last 3 years. 2 of them sell cars. Another I know is planning on her first home as she slows down from her job traveling, selling software to hotels. Another 2 girls spend a third of the year traveling either the world or every EDC festival imaginable. Maybe I'm lucky to be in a booming section of the country, but I see more than my fair share of young people spending money I read online that they don't have. They're traveling, buying homes or nice apartments, nice cars. And yeah, I see guys who are just making ends meet. But, they're working towards better things, just like the 3 people I mentioned buying homes; 2 of them were valets, 1 washed cars before transitioning. Yeah, everything has become grossly more expensive, but I don't see how the economy ever plans to return to most homes being under $100,000 or the nice, new cars under $20,000.

I'm not against finding ways to boost everyone's wages to close the gap and make buying things easier. But, not at a 70% marginal tax rate against the wealthy or kicking up $15 minimum wages for the poor to afford housing. The wealthy just find ways to pass those hits against them onto the rest of the population.

Prices of goods aren't the problem, wage stagnation is. Wages of the lower classes are not growing proportionally to the higher classes or to inflation. You'd that that because of the natural phenomenon of inflation, wages would ratchet up proportionally, but that's not happening. What is happening is that the wealth of the individuals who control employers, like the largest investors in particular, and even their subordinates like CEOs, are ripping the inflation rate to shreds, multiplying much faster than what should be relative to inflation. This is a very clear indicator that the "trickle down" idea of actual capitalism is not happening, and instead wealth is being horded at the top end of the spectrum. Wealth is quickly being centralized in the hands of a few, and especially since the 80s seems to be being used to influence government officials in way that convinces the government to continue to allow the wealth to be concentrated into those hands.

That's called cronyism, not capitalism. We don't have capitalism in the US anymore. For several decades we've had a rapidly developing system of cronyism, where the wealthiest people and the most powerful political parties work together to maintain a beneficial system for the both of them.

This entire concept of cronyism terrified the Founding Fathers as I explained earlier. While they didn't have tools like income taxes at all, they did put certain provisions in the constitution and enact other laws in an effort to prevent the development of nobility-like family dynasties through the hording of wealth and property. But the system has run amok again and we need new ways to stop it. Most of the Founders were what we'd call libertarian or moderate compared to today's political spectrum, and they almost universally were against the development of cronyism, so honestly the idea of an estate tax is 100% foundationally American. Children don't earn inheritance because they didn't choose their parents and didn't work for it, while dead people can't own estates because they're not alive and have no rights. While my inheritance did help me finish college, it did not allow me to influence the economy or politics in any meaningful way. Some people are born with that influence, and that needs to be curtailed.

Unless people are writing their wills after death, this isn't happening. The arrangement to transfer money is made while they are alive and seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Arranging to transfer property is fine. Arranging to transfer influence is not fine. And dead people have no right to maintain societal influence via their ancestors.

 

[Exorcet]

Arranging to transfer property is fine. Arranging to transfer influence is not fine. And dead people have no right to maintain societal influence via their ancestors.

I agree that the dead should not have control, but it seems like a self righting problem to me. The dead aren't the ones making influences on the living. Their past actions have effects which may outlast them, which is true for everyone, but their descendants are responsible for their own actions. I don't see an inherit problem with having full control over how your wealth is inherited.

When it comes to determining what method of inheritance is most desirable, that's a different discussion. I'm with you in fighting cronyism, I just don't think inheritance is part of the issue. I would focus directly on wrongful influences on the government itself and limiting the government ability to favor some groups over others.

 

[Keef]

but their descendants are responsible for their own actions.

If the descendants are responsible for their own actions then why are they also responsible for their ancestors' wealth and its influence? Those descendants did not earn that wealth. What's the incentive to give it up or use it responsibly when the influence has already been bought and handed down? All the descendant has to do is maintain the status quo and they'll remain wealthy, remain influential, and the cycle continues to the next generation. This is precisely how noble dynasties operate.

So they can be responsible for their own actions all they want, but their actions of buying government influence are not illegal, so there is no responsibility to be taken. That, and the fact that regardless of law, humanity is not moral in any capacity. Adhering to some logical system of morality is not natural for us, therefore responsibility cannot be expected, and further it can be expected less when responsibility is not enforced.

Basically what I'm saying is people are assholes who can't be trusted to do the right thing, especially when the wrong thing isn't illegal, so your "responsibility" schtick is bollocks.

 

[mustafur]

Why does it matter?

Wealth isn't stagnant, it gets created every day.

 

[Keef]

Why does it matter?

Wealth isn't stagnant, it gets created every day.

I already explained why it matters. Money buys influence. The more concentrated the money, the more influence it buys. Concentrating money over generations is how you get nepotism and oligarchy, and how republics destroy themselves.

 

[mustafur]

I already explained why it matters. Money buys influence. The more concentrated the money, the more influence it buys. Concentrating money over generations is how you get nepotism and oligarchy, and how republics destroy themselves.

Do you have any statistics that show most of multi generation money concentration actually sustains the wealth.

As long as you keep the policy makers away from the private interest influencers, technoledgy with consumerism will correct the issue.

 

[Keef]

As long as you keep the policy makers away from the private interest influencers

 

[mustafur]

Well do want the system fixed or do you want a bandaid?