Jesus would have been a liberal. Do you really think Jesus would have had a "War on Drugs" (Locking innocent men for harming no one) , a Capitalist State, or even a War in Iraq?
The God of the bible might have done this shit but Jesus was more of a laid back son LOL.
The Bible doesn't just say pay your taxes ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - Matt 22:21 / Mark 12:17 / Luke 20:25) but also "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor" (Mark 10:21) and share all your property with others: "All the believers lived together and had everything in common." (Acts 2:44). Does Rep Louie Gohmert plan to do that?
want to get rid of bible thumper republicans tell them that the bible says they have to get rid of all they own to follow jesus and also give them a quote that says it is easier for a camel through a needls eye then to give up thier wealth to follow Jesus,bet they all become atheist LOL
Estate taxes are another way to take away private land ownership. I see it all over Texas where family farms and ranches get split up and sold because they can't afford to pay the estate taxes. And these aren't the evil super rich the communists, I mean Democrats, hate so very much. These are honest hard working American's who have had tracts of land stretching back to pre-civil war times. It is a crying shame. If you want a good taxation solution, go to fairtax.org for enlightenment.
I am not sure why Cenk is lying about the 7 million thing. google "estate tax in usa" and read the wikipedia page. Even if you inherit 10,000 dollars, you should pay 18% ($1,800) in estate tax, and the percnentage keeps going up till 55% for 3 million. The percentage for 100k is 30%. Percentage for 1 million dollars is 41%. Why is Cenk lying? It's in wikipedia, just read it!! I'm personally shocked that Cenk would make up shit like this.
@Slayerfan84 that was the garb back then and it was not a dress it was a robe, and Jesus was not a hippie he would actually be very against socialism too based on his teachings. You should be a good little liberal and bring you`r pedophile (false) prophet into example to relate with you`r goals and belief`s instead of Jesus who all of you hate so much out of nowhere.
@keybladeblastcalibur Number 1 you idiot, I don't believe in these fictional characters/ mythical creatures. Religion was created as a propaganda tactic to control the people! Hey Politicians use anything they can you idiot, they use children, families, sure as hell they are going to use Religion, its also a Propaganda Tactic!!
@keybladeblastcalibur i didnt read slayers comment but are you reffering to Mohammad as the pedophile? i also heard stories of him having a 9 yr old bride, my god wat a sick bastard
@keybladeblastcalibur funny 'cause the general definition of liberal is caring and compassionate of others. Sounds like Jesus would have been a liberal...
@desager1 Liberal, yeah. Jew, 100% confirmed. He was a radical since he was clearly not with the conservative ideas of the world at the time.. Communist, to some point no since he did believe and preach religion. And Arabian, half since his dad was a roman soldier. Yup all the republicans would hate him, just like how they would hate the founding fathers of America since they were deist and thought religions brought the down the human intelligence and believed in a non-bible god.
The true purpose of republicanism is not "fiscal conservativeness". No, it is nothing more than ensuring that the rich get richer and that the social hierarchy is maintained.
All you moderate republicans who want financial responsibility need to realize this.
Who is looking to cash in is the government and every other person who has their hand out waiting while not earning their keep. So the host's arguement is that only certain people can leave an inheritance for their family. And if a person thinks they should receive money that is willed to them they are greedy and looking to "cash in". Unbelievable.
@banonKING exactly....what kind of quote is that anyway...? I don't think Jesus said that, but he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" Matthew 22:21 (KJV).
@xnarutofanx13 I think this Louie feller is terribly versed in scripture.He just likes to pretend he is to save face and to give his "arguments" credibility.
Warren Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
How many millions was this land worth? At least 7 million? I'll give his aunt some credit at least she earned her money herself. Her family did nothing except happen to be born to a rich family. Fucking Royalist Republicunt. Soak the rich and soak their spoiled relatives too.
Im not sure how much you can say that Insurance companies, credit card companies or bankers actually "produce".
To say that the insurance company "produces" wealth is an iffy proposition. All manner of people are making colossal money when its not clear how much they are actually producing that is of any real value in our society.
Lets not even get into the enourmous inefficiencies, envirionmental damage, and reckless incompetent management in the private sector.
Well first, you can get it by inheriting it. Thats a new separate individual who is now rich, and they didnt have to produce anything at all. Thats not merit, thats affirmative action from dad.
The CEO doesnt typically "produce" much of anything. The actual workers are doing the actual production. Hired engineers do the designing and truckers, train operators and pilots move the product and the raw materials that made it .
No the rich dont just "make" wealth with a magic wand.
Human creative effort is what produces new products and you dont need the rich to do that. And without manufacturing workers to make them and transoprt workers to ship them, there arent going to be any products going anywhere.
Im all for the creative people getting the rewards for their labors but far, far too many of the rich are not in that group.
The real actually existing rich love getting public money. They may not like paying taxes but they sure love taking other peoples.
They want to be specially protected from risk. They want to be rescued from their own reckless and incompetent management. They want exemptions from anti-trust or get subsidies or government contracts with no bids.
Well to say we have higher wages and shorter work hours because of the rich is an outrageous lie.
Decades of hard bitter struggle by workers led to better pay and shorter hours. This was in the teeth of ferocious opposition by the rich. They didnt want to pay higher wages or get fewer hours out of workers.
To credit the rich with this is an unbelievable distortion of history.
It means that while the wealthy do engage ina lot of consumer spending, you have to look at what they spend it on.
In practice they will not buy "half" of available items. Often they (stupidly) spend enormous sums on single items. $2,000 for a single pair of shoes. $90,000 for a single watch. Or $20,000 for a single dress.
Yes, they could buy 10,000 cell phones for themselves. But they dont. They wont buy 11,000 apples a week even though they could.
There are many times when a 1,000 "thousandaires" hugely out spend a single millionaire. It depends on the product or service.
The 1000 thousandaires will buy 1000 cell phones, most individual millionaires will not buy 1,000 cell phones.
And while a millionaire could afford 12,000 eggs per week, thats vstly beyond their consumptive power. But 1000 thousandaires do it collectively very easily.
Often its something like 90,000 for a single watch, not $90,000 for 900 $100 watches.
Meanwhile, even if you could argue that the parents or ancestors of the born rich did really contribute something, and were not just crooked robber barons and polluters that exploited people, their heirs have to pay up.
Enormous quantities of free money just for being born ought to be taxed. They can still be rich, but this is income for the recipient and they ought to pay on it.
Well its right to say its all interconnected. Its not a matter of the rich simply "creating" it.
Humans create the things that go around, and without manufacturing workers and truck drivers and other transport workers, there wont be many things made and they wont be "going" anywhere.
Its not clear that the CEOs are inventing cures that "go around" or write or direct the films that "go around" or design many of the products that "go around".
To just say the rich are rich because of the wealth they created, as if they waved a wand and it appeared from the thin air is nonsense.
The legacy rich inherited wealth.
And without the actual screenwriters, actors and directors how much wealth could TV and movie moguls "create"? The largely middle class audience is how they get ad revenue, and its the creative people who do the real work.
So why is the "mogul" so damn rich? Most couldnt write, act or direct to save their lives.
Merit is real, but connections, pay-offs, exploitation and corruption count for alot. Race and gender count as well.
But unions worked by connections too, so its not just a class issue. Thats a human issue. As many as 85% of jobs are never even advertised. They come open and are filled without a single help Wanted ad appearing anywhere.
The network filled it. Friend of a friend. Your uncle made a phone call, etc.
Well you cant just make the manipulation of the political process through wealth illegal. The whole idea of this money is to make sure that such laws are weak, nonexistant or unenforced.
Integenerational wealth transfer, which is enormous, is not about merit. We are talking about people who only had to be born to be millionaires.
Thats not even close to Olympic races. Thats being born on the Gold Medal stand and thinking you just won a race.
You people who think it's just fine and dandy for the government to take half of a persons earnings while they're living, then steal half of what they were able to accumulate after they die, are reprehensible motherfucking evil scum. It doesn't matter one iota who, or how many people this theft affects, or how "rich" that person may have been. All in all, it's still the theft of damn near 3/4 of the accumulated resources they spent their life obtaining. It's the purest form of evil known to man.
I disagree with him too. He doesn't seem to know the difference between land rich and cash rich, a house doesn't count as cash...
Trouble is that under your proposal people would just invest everything in property to avoid the tax - the other side is that people are then forced to sell that property regardless of the market at the time in order to pay half to the government. I understand it's at a high level but what happens to a family owned company? Can the IRS force you to sell that too?
I think one of the goals of the tax is to get money recirculated instead of just sitting in a bank account for the rest of eternity. So even if they did use most of their money buying property before they die, at least the money has been circulated. You also have to hold on to property for awhile because you'll get a fine tax for selling it too soon after you buy it.
If they were so land rich and money poor why didn't they sell the land and invest in something else? This is proof how stupid the hillbilly Jesus freaks from Texas are!!
I dont think children should pay a "death tax" to inherent stuff from there parents.
Its not like regular income tax, or other tax forms you pay each year. Its not comparable to other tax forms.
Basically it means that if your father was rich and your not. You will in effect destroy the built up fortune ( eg big farm land ) because you cant afford the tax and that is highway robbery in my eyes.
I think people are going to just bury their parents in the backyard when they die and if the government comes snooping around they will just tell the government their folks have gone on a long holiday and they don't know when they will return.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thanks cenk for the insight...(and the accent). i for one will have to respectfully disagree with you tonight...i dont believe you should be taxed when you die...fair or no...its just not right...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I can't believe how conceited and hypocritical Cenk can be. Why are you mocking his accent? You as an immigrant must have suffered from prejudices as well, so you of all people should know better. The reference to Jesus is ridiculous, but he does have a point (although not expressed very eloquently). Why should families who have built up a fortune to pass on to their children be plundered with more taxes after having paid heavy taxes all their lives? Its quite simply tyranny of the majority.
The Jesus quote was completely ridiculous, but this is a perfect example of certain taxes being completely unfair. I have no problem with an estate tax...but tax everyone and make it a much smaller percentage. Regardless of who earned what, the money was earned and taxed, then the person wants to pass it to their decendants. I know if for whatever reason someone decided to leave me $5 Million, andI had to give 2.5 million of it to the US government, I'd be *pissed*.
Cenk,,,,, estate tax is totally wrong... you spend your life working hard making money and paying taxes on that earned income and with that tax deducted money you buy land do stuff and then @ the end when you want to pass that stuff to your kids .. government take a huge chunk of it !! thats is wrong the taxes have already been paid! ...... its just common sense man just common sense
True, but the percentage affected is extremely small and it only targets the wealthiest in america. If your life's work doesn't involve founding a media empire or owning a bank, it's safe to say you won't be affected.
Regular mom-and-pop stores and businesses won't be touched.
Erdles - Have you ever considered that if you went to a famine stricken part of Africa many people there could regard YOU as an somewhat of an aristocrat and also draw the conclusion that wealth was stagnating in your hands?
You mentioned the concept and principle of a 45% Estate Tax 'makes sense' so does that mean you would be agreeable to the concept, in principle, to allow Africans to Tax half of the fruits of your life's labor?
Those living in impoverished parts of Africa would be perfectly right to perceive us Westeners as 'aristocrats'. We hoarde wealth by subsidising our farmers, imposing tariffs on their goods & undermining their economy by manipulating their leaders.
I am thoroughly opposed to these protectionist, corporatist practices; they're underhand and insidious. I protest against them, write to my representative about them, vote against them.
As for whether I would vote for half my estate being given to impoverished Africans, I would say yes on the condition that their economies were integrated wholly with my country's.
Otherwise it would be something of a black hole of wealth.
I think those are noble places to want your money to go. However, what would happen if you found out that instead of the Government giving your money to starving Africans as you had hoped for, they instead used it to pay massive bonuses to their rich banker friends?
The Republicans are such Hypocrites why don't they bring Jesus into the health care debate like they want to bring it in the tax debate, because they know in reality that Jesus would want free health care for every one
Jesus would probably think people should give all their money away. He also wouldn't care about the government, 'give to ceasar what is ceasar's'. In other words, tax as much as you want.
If you are really religious you would give up your estate of your own volition to good causes - something like helping your fellow man with healthcare perhaps?
Yes I do realize that, and the government would tax that revenue stream because it is generating income that supports someone and creates economic activity, something you want to encourage in society. They would also be paying property taxes. Forcing someone to either sell, take out a loan, or pay out of pocket to simply receive a gift from someone is theft in my opinion and double taxation.
We pay taxes because we benefit from the society those taxes help create.
I'm happy to pay my taxes because it means that I get policing, I get a fire service, I get a justice system, I get an environment conducive to personal enrichment... if there are people getting healthcare for free because of my taxes, I'm happy that I could help someone - in the same way Jesus was happy to heal the blind, the lepers, the sick.
Taxes aren't theft. They're contributions to a society everyone benefits from
Sure just donate great solution. We should donate to the police, fire, roads, military, etc.
The era you wax poetic on can not exist anywhere anymore let alone in a country as complex and large as ours. You are pining for a time that has not existed in at least 40 years and did not do a good of a job when it was in place.
Taxes are not evil, they should be the cost to live in the best country in the world. If you want no taxes go live in some banana republic and wave their flag citizen.
If you suggest that taxes be 'voluntary' and that public services be left to charity, you're being thoroughly unrealistic about what can work in any modern country, let alone one as vast and populous as America.
If you think about it, I'm sure you'll realise it too.
I didn't suggest that taxes be 'voluntary', (a tax, which is simply a nice way of saying theft, is an involuntary payment by its very definition)
Im suggesting that humans are quite capable of dealing with each other and coordinating society without resorting to coercive force, theft, and threats of violence. (unless you are acting in self defence or retrieving stolen property)
I don't think that concept is unrealistic at all and we would all be better for it.
You don't procure wealth out of thin air. You prosper from the society that taxes have created and help maintain, and by giving back a share of your earnings you ensure that this society continues to exist.
If you collect apples from someone's orchard, and they then ask you to share those apples, it isn't theft, is it?
You lose taxes and you lose everything above rudimentary government - you lose that and economic development goes back to the middle ages.
You make your wealth on the back of this society and its "theft". You rely on it's extensive infrastructure, its trade contacts, its labor rules, it's consumer protections, its legal system, social services network, etc, etc, etc ..
Because all of these things are in place it sets up your opportunity to be as successful as you are.
There is not one single successful country in the world you can point to that uses of ever has used your bizarre model.
i dont quite remember, but i do think there was a story about jesus letting a tax collector stay at his house. Well, if he hated taxes so much, why would he not send the tax collector away?
I'm confused as to what the auction is...was the first 7 million dollars in the will allocated, and then the rest had 55% (or 45%, was it?) taxed in the form of an auction?...
Republican politicians can "oppose" taxes all day long, but in the end, its those same taxes they are trying to always trying to lower pay their wages! And when theres less money for everything else, the last thing they will cut is their own pay and benefits.
ha wtf he's sayn it should be ok if they tax your parents or gparents estate when they die omg thats so stupid how rude,my gdad paid tax his whole life and even when he die's they guna get a lump sum from him wtf ??
and its not about me getn money its about the goverment ripping every1 off cause one day ill die too and fuk the goverment
Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years approach when you will say, I find no pleasure in them— before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars grow dark, and the clouds return after the rain; when the keepers of the house tremble, and the strong men stoop, when the grinders cease because they are few, and those looking through the windows grow dim; when the doors to the street are closed and the sound of grinding fades;
Why doesn't the right call out anti American acts like closing a plant in the U.S. and moving it to China for cheap labor?Seems like the right thinks only thing that's unamerican is trying to keep poor people from dying of high blood pressure.
Because japan still makes things. They don't wait until there big enough to move manufacturing overseas and cash in on cheap labor.Japanese business men are loyal to japan,cant say the same about American company's.
George Bush was President for 8 years, congress was under Republican control for most of the last years of Bill Clintons presidency, in all that time no one could fix Gomerts estate tax issues?
That's a bold statement about a man who has been in office for 10 months.I was a grownup when Bush became president and most people gave him more than a year before they started crying like a fat baby no one wants carry.
Hey, and with the Republicans making sure that the Kennedy's never have to address their tax issues, everyone wins, right? Its not like one party tries to address those issues for everyone, including Dems, is it?
I propose we start a charity to help people who inherit more than $7 million and have to suffer that Stalinist estate tax. People please show some compassion!
All taxes would be lower if we didn't have to fight 2 wars, pay for emergency health care and a bank bailout.All of this happened on President Bush's watch. Not all of this is his fault just like cleaning the mess up is not all on the President.But a trillion dollars has been spent on the war against terror on president Bush's watch and no one is asking any of you to go to Afghanistan and fight.Just be a good citizen and pay your taxes like you did when Bush was president.
"Hang on....but thats exactly the system we have now!! And it doesn't seem to be working out as you ay have predicted. Obama is handing your money to rich Bankers".
That's correct. And it's because we live in a corporate plutocracy, not a democracy. Plutocracy is the ultimate destination for "free" market capitalist systems. And this is because capitalism creates CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER. This is why we need regulations and taxes, to ensure that these concentrations don't grow too large.
Ron Paul didn't win the election, so it is mere SPECULATION that he could have toppled the corruption in the gov't etc etc. Furthermore, how could President Ron have operated without the use of rules and regulations?
A democratic gov't is NOT a concentration of power, in fact it is the opposite; it is a representation of the common will - E Pluribus Unum. Look it up.
Capitalism is by it's nature opposed to democracy, as it's motto would be something like "exploit the many, empower the few".
"Such troubles were supposed to have been prevented, or at least mitigated, by regulatory systems that the nation began to put in place after the banking system collapsed at the start of the Great Depression...
Well remember what jesus said in the bible ...it is easer for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of god,, if Jesus was a rich man he would of shared everything to the less fortunate people , but if you leave that up to the rich people they will give nothing...rich people are greedy people they always want more that is why jesus never supported them ...READ YOUR BIBLE
jesus wouldn't approve if money was taken by point of a gun (the IRS) - jesus encouraged people to give THEIR OWN MONEY - forced "virtue" is no virtue at all. Y'all are so generous - with other peeps money.
the govt shouldn't be in the charity bizz - there shouldn't be a welfare state. a small federal govt that defends our borders, doesn't police the world, and doesn't create a permanent underclass. jesus would approve
The business would not be owned by the government. I was comparing inherited wealth. The government can tax the money the person saved up from the business as their own money, but the business itself is simply passed over.
ram8704: The U.S. Government will assess the value of the business and tax it at 45%. If the deceased one didn't leave behind sufficient money, then the business will be auctioned off in order for the government to get its 45% cut.
His great Aunt should have had a good attorney set everything up in a trust or tax shelter before she died. How the fuck does he quote what Jesus would do. I think Jesus would have said "Auntie when you die you should give all of your money to the poor starving children" especially since all of your family is doing fine on their own. You'll get a great reward in Heaven.
I'm not saying we don't pay taxes. But, 30% of the country doesn't pay taxes. The top 1% already is tasked w/ paying some 40% of taxes and I don't care if they're rich and it's not fair, I'll get a violin for you. Lets setup a tax that EVERYONE has to pay equally and allows for people to do what they want with THEIR damn money!
The 30% of the country that you refer to DO pay taxes. Most taxes are NOT income taxes they are payroll taxes that the wealthy do not pay. If you sit on your ass and collect dividends, interest and or purely financial paper wealth you are taxed at the maximum of 15%. If you collect a regular paycheck you are taxed in excess of 35%. Additionally because of tax havens and accounting tricks the wealthy rarely even pay the stated rate and regularly are able to defer the tax to a later date
So since the wealthiest in this country own disproportionally most of its assets and wealth, and receive most of its income, it is not surprising that they pay most of the income tax, and that is only fair; but still they are not paying most of the tax revenue, and their burden is less than that put upon the working class. When all payroll and other regressive taxes such as are included it is the lower and middle class, practically the middle, that bears most of the burden and subsidize the rich
That money doesn't belong to the government. It's pretty simple actually. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a socialist, don't try to sugarcoat it w/ anything else. Spreading wealth around is nothing else. It's not our money Zander73.
You ARE telling the "sugarcoated" version of the tax story.
The real operation at play here is the systematic levelling of the personal resources of the individual,so that he has less chance of rising to the top,with the rest of the herd,to challenge the States "authority",or simply be in a good enough position to realise they don't need the master anymore.
It's herd management.
Taxes are as much about State-supremacy as anything else.
Hello ChainedInFilth I am aware that my statement is and idealistic version of the tax system. Governments as in any system of involving people is flawed and open to corruption. But taxation and organized government is the only way to maintain large stable societies.
Collectives and dispersed power are effective in small groups but the nature of the beast does not allow for a lack of structure.
(Continued) I think I may agree with you on the term "herd management" In your opinion what is the appropriate system, if any? I am actually not trying to be combative but to understand your perspective.
I'm not neccesarily up for all-out anarchy(though I suspect there has been some misrepresentation where "anarchy" is concerned;"people would just go crazy,chaos,etc.")
Those who speak against tearing down the beurocratic nonsense which veils the State deceit,always say;"but then the man with the biggest gun will take control,there would be lawlessness,and great suffering."
I agree corruption is the major problem in all societies (look at any developing nation or how flawed the US Congress is). From a realist perspective I would say that it will probably always be that way; but hopefully, optimistically if you can somehow bring transparency things can change.
There will always be limits simply because we are limited.
Yours is a good idea,and I think you may have found "the answer" which I couldn't see for my perrenial frustration with the men in the ivory tower.
Transparency.
No buerocratic specialties,and arcane political-bullshit-talk,just....acountability,and an honest communique with the people they are meant to represent.
Maybe then we could all have a say,like we are told we are so able to do.
I could tolerate a very small Government refrained to protecting property rights and a law enforcement/ judicial system.....but nothing more
A small Government and free market would be far less capable of inflicting the economic crisis that Bush/Obama and their Wall Street masters have unleased.
No you mean, there is a need to restrain capitalism. The excesses are those of capitalism perverting government, the will of the people is expressed through government, weakening government only takes power away from the people and unleashes the corporations.
Hitler was never elected to office he was appointed by Hindenburg in a deal to placate the capitalists and large landowners who feared the socialist and communists on the left. He was losing support when he was given office. It is because of democracy that peoples right are given and enforced. All rights are group rights, the rights you decide you have on your own are meaningless. Anyway you are misusing the term democracy. What you mean is Ochlocracy
If I don't like what a Company is selling I won't buy it
If I don't like what the Government is selling they rob me and throw it in my face anyway
The Government scores higher on the Tyrant Meter
I completely oppose corporations that use Government force to gain market share (Thats why I oppose Big Governments)
But a corporation that gains market share simply because they are able to provide a good or service in a superior fashion to their competitors should be congratulated, not demonized
Corporations can and will if given the chance destroy your free market. They can and do band together to stifle competition and drive up prices artificially inflating them. (see Diamond, Gas) Have laws passed that ensure you have buy thier products. With out enforced rules they will run us over.
The corporate desire is never to serve you, it is to make money. We need someone who is looking out for us that is not 100% profit driven and that should be the roll of our elected government.
[OCHLOCRACY. A government where the authority is in the hands of the multitude; the abuse of a democracy.
As a term in civics it implies that there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly-accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force − might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision.
It is often associated with demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason. The threat of mob rule (not unlike the term tyranny of the majority) is often invoked -often rhetorically- against a democracy by those who oppose its majoritary decisions, sometimes fearing oppression of the needs or freedoms of minorities if democratic government is not efficiently restrained by protections given to individuals under the rule of law
sometimes concerned that demagogery may manipulate the mob and force popular currents of thought onto minority groups without respect for their or the individual's rights. There are also some who wish to see more power assigned to a certain ruling minority.]
That all actually sounds like Friedman, and Libertarians in general, with the elitist "free-market" ideas where an eviscerated gov't is subservient to the large moneyed interests that sway populations with propaganda & advertising
I agree, the big money interests put forward the Government they want the people to vote for but this is occurring on an even grander scale in Obamas MASSIVE Government.
Remember, "propaganda and advertising" made poor people fall in love with Obama
And then he gave a big fat cheque to all his friends on Wall Street!
Its naive to think that a big strong Government is somehow less corruptible than a small one.
All markets are created and will seek out regulation. A black market starts as a "free-market" but it is quickly taken over by the underworld and therefore regulated, or it is legitimized and regulated by the government. So it is not a case of IF the market is regulated, but by and for whom. Deregulation actually just pushes the regulation of the market onto the largest, most powerful of the producers (the corporations) by default.
So it is because of the very same 'free-market' principles that have been pushed on us that it becomes a 'corporate' "Big Spending, Big Taxing, Big Bailouts, world." A 'free-market' will naturally become a 'corporate market'. Monopolies are fostered during periods of deregulation, the record of history bears this out. It was during the Gilded Age, a historically recognized period of laissez faire gov't that fostered some of the greatest monopolies until the present wave of deregulation
Obviously the regulations that were opposed to corporations, trade and finance have been removed and weakened, this is common knowledge, to deny it is to deny reality.
"But perhaps Greenspan's most important contribution has been as the policymaker who, through the power of his office, the force of his intellect and the cunning of his behind-the-scenes maneuvering, engineered the wholesale deregulation of the U.S. banking and financial system." - Washington Post
David killed Goliath because he knew where and how to strike
Yes, Alan Greenspan removed some Bank regulations But the Fed Govt added many regulations to the countless already in existence, Patriot Act, for example debunking the myth there were free markets)
Greenspan also artificially lowered the interest rate causing a speculative boom in housing (which then busted)
Once installed at the Fed, Greenspan immediately began pushing Congress to repeal the Depression-era law that prevented banks from competing with investment banks in underwriting stocks and bonds. When Congress dallied, he used the Fed's supervisory authority to allow banks to circumvent the law and usher in the era of the megabank."
The Laissez-Fairest of Them All, by Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post
Patriot act does not affect or is concerned with the economy. Interest rates are low because that is where the 'fee-market' bankers wanted them to push loans. And you can not name any substantial regulations. You are done, you're just pulling shit out of thin air and making stuff up and declaring it 'truth'
........expands the Secretary of the Treasurys authority to regulate financial transactions........ Source: Wikipedia
So Patriot Act is not concerned with the economy???...Patriot Act is all about deregulation????
If you think the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Reserve Act or Legal Tender Laws are not 'substantial regulations' than you either don't know what they are or you are just clueless.
Maybe Its YOU that should stop pulling shit out of thin air
Claiming the Patriot Act regulates the banks is just ridicules. Yea, Al-Qaida is at fault huh? keep it up we're all having a good laugh, and you are showing your desperation and you side total dishonesty and lack of anything approaching intellectual integrity. You make our case for us.
I didn't claim the patriot act regulated banks in and of itself, I said that it added more regulations to banks, which it does.
anyway, The decrease in any kind of substance in your arguements and increase in personal insults and misrepresentations of my statements tells me that there is nothing more to be gained from debating you. Thanks for the chat, it was entertaining.
Ron Paul is a proponent of free-market capitalism, with an extremely limited federal gov't. For example he naively believes that the healthcare industry, if left to it's own devices, would become more affordable according to the laws of free-market capitalism. This is demonstrably false, and such delusions literally kill people every day in our country.
He also opposes Roe vs Wade, which is an inexcusably ignorant, uneducated and unrealistic position.
They covet fields and then seize them, And houses, and take them away. They rob a man and his house, A man and his inheritance. ` Micah 2:2
dawnthi 2 months ago
Jesus would have been a liberal. Do you really think Jesus would have had a "War on Drugs" (Locking innocent men for harming no one) , a Capitalist State, or even a War in Iraq?
The God of the bible might have done this shit but Jesus was more of a laid back son LOL.
batistaker123 5 months ago 2
Does he realize that Jesus was a Commie?
The Bible doesn't just say pay your taxes ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - Matt 22:21 / Mark 12:17 / Luke 20:25) but also "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor" (Mark 10:21) and share all your property with others: "All the believers lived together and had everything in common." (Acts 2:44). Does Rep Louie Gohmert plan to do that?
EqualAndFree 6 months ago 2
The Republican party is a disgrace to America. What happened to separation of church and state?!
SuperBeautifulNoise 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fund raising on construction of church. Number wmz Z218679873024 in system webmoney. Yes Jesus will bless you
MsAser1000 8 months ago
If you are have smart lawyers, there are thousands of ways to set up your will to avoid taxation, so I kind of agree with the reps on this one.
AngeCord 10 months ago
This Southern, redneck, greedy, Bible thumping son of a bitch knows NOTHING about Jesus.
BattleProf53 10 months ago 9
want to get rid of bible thumper republicans tell them that the bible says they have to get rid of all they own to follow jesus and also give them a quote that says it is easier for a camel through a needls eye then to give up thier wealth to follow Jesus,bet they all become atheist LOL
johndebbra 11 months ago 6
@MMaeidlilniAW you do realize there is no proof of the roman soldier father thing at all
TMNTPIZZA 11 months ago
Estate taxes are another way to take away private land ownership. I see it all over Texas where family farms and ranches get split up and sold because they can't afford to pay the estate taxes. And these aren't the evil super rich the communists, I mean Democrats, hate so very much. These are honest hard working American's who have had tracts of land stretching back to pre-civil war times. It is a crying shame. If you want a good taxation solution, go to fairtax.org for enlightenment.
cskimber1911 1 year ago
the g.o.p. serve ceasar.not god.
TheDeadhead76 1 year ago 6
this man has serious problems.
TheJuvens 1 year ago
It is even farther removed- it was that lazy ass' Great Aunt
mjosa1 1 year ago
99.8% of us have less than $7,000,000.00
00.2% are complete assholes like the Rice Family my asshole realtives from Palm Harbor FL!!!!
1290001 1 year ago
@1290001
I am not sure why Cenk is lying about the 7 million thing. google "estate tax in usa" and read the wikipedia page. Even if you inherit 10,000 dollars, you should pay 18% ($1,800) in estate tax, and the percnentage keeps going up till 55% for 3 million. The percentage for 100k is 30%. Percentage for 1 million dollars is 41%. Why is Cenk lying? It's in wikipedia, just read it!! I'm personally shocked that Cenk would make up shit like this.
livingeasi 1 year ago
@livingeasi uhm, do I got the be the first to tell you that wikipedia isn't 100% reliable... or are you just trolling?
MMaeidlilniAW 1 year ago
Republicans would have NEVER voted for a long haired sandal and dress wearing, hippie socialist who wanted to help everyone.
Slayerfan84 1 year ago
@Slayerfan84 that was the garb back then and it was not a dress it was a robe, and Jesus was not a hippie he would actually be very against socialism too based on his teachings. You should be a good little liberal and bring you`r pedophile (false) prophet into example to relate with you`r goals and belief`s instead of Jesus who all of you hate so much out of nowhere.
keybladeblastcalibur 1 year ago
@keybladeblastcalibur Number 1 you idiot, I don't believe in these fictional characters/ mythical creatures. Religion was created as a propaganda tactic to control the people! Hey Politicians use anything they can you idiot, they use children, families, sure as hell they are going to use Religion, its also a Propaganda Tactic!!
Slayerfan84 1 year ago
@keybladeblastcalibur i didnt read slayers comment but are you reffering to Mohammad as the pedophile? i also heard stories of him having a 9 yr old bride, my god wat a sick bastard
anonymousQ45 1 year ago
@keybladeblastcalibur funny 'cause the general definition of liberal is caring and compassionate of others. Sounds like Jesus would have been a liberal...
MMaeidlilniAW 1 year ago
@MMaeidlilniAW Jesus would be a liberal communist arabic jew, sounds like Glenn Beck would really hate him.
desager1 1 year ago 3
@desager1 Liberal, yeah. Jew, 100% confirmed. He was a radical since he was clearly not with the conservative ideas of the world at the time.. Communist, to some point no since he did believe and preach religion. And Arabian, half since his dad was a roman soldier. Yup all the republicans would hate him, just like how they would hate the founding fathers of America since they were deist and thought religions brought the down the human intelligence and believed in a non-bible god.
MMaeidlilniAW 1 year ago
hahaha, that man was the wacky 4ss who mentioned the "Terror babies"
hedleypanama 1 year ago
Jesus was definately not a conservative
spinnersmetal 1 year ago 28
@spinnersmetal
Of course he wasnt. In fact he was anarchist, communist (in literal sense) and liberal ( in a literal sense).
VannevarBush 1 year ago
this guy has no idea what he is talking about. communist.
centerdfender 1 year ago
The true purpose of republicanism is not "fiscal conservativeness". No, it is nothing more than ensuring that the rich get richer and that the social hierarchy is maintained.
All you moderate republicans who want financial responsibility need to realize this.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
Who is looking to cash in is the government and every other person who has their hand out waiting while not earning their keep. So the host's arguement is that only certain people can leave an inheritance for their family. And if a person thinks they should receive money that is willed to them they are greedy and looking to "cash in". Unbelievable.
briansmith4077 1 year ago
das vid is gut, und die tips von Stefan auf FrauenMeister . com ebenso
kerpekenomas 2 years ago
Fucking wealthy Conservatives use the bible to manipulate and confuse the issue to their less educated followers.
banonKING 2 years ago 28
@banonKING exactly....what kind of quote is that anyway...? I don't think Jesus said that, but he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" Matthew 22:21 (KJV).
xnarutofanx13 1 year ago
@xnarutofanx13 I think this Louie feller is terribly versed in scripture.He just likes to pretend he is to save face and to give his "arguments" credibility.
Nice name by the way NarutoFan.
banonKING 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Warren Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
vechorik 5 months ago
How many millions was this land worth? At least 7 million? I'll give his aunt some credit at least she earned her money herself. Her family did nothing except happen to be born to a rich family. Fucking Royalist Republicunt. Soak the rich and soak their spoiled relatives too.
bigfilmhat 2 years ago
Most garbagement I have seen though dont get a check from a rich guy, but from the tax payers. And how did this rich guy get all that money anyhow?
In any case Sanitation and Fire departments can be very efficient with no "rich guy" running it as a private company. We dont need the rich CEO.
Organizations do not inherently require that those on the upper tier of the "suits" make so much more than the people doing the actual work.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
Im not sure how much you can say that Insurance companies, credit card companies or bankers actually "produce".
To say that the insurance company "produces" wealth is an iffy proposition. All manner of people are making colossal money when its not clear how much they are actually producing that is of any real value in our society.
Lets not even get into the enourmous inefficiencies, envirionmental damage, and reckless incompetent management in the private sector.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
Well first, you can get it by inheriting it. Thats a new separate individual who is now rich, and they didnt have to produce anything at all. Thats not merit, thats affirmative action from dad.
The CEO doesnt typically "produce" much of anything. The actual workers are doing the actual production. Hired engineers do the designing and truckers, train operators and pilots move the product and the raw materials that made it .
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
No the rich dont just "make" wealth with a magic wand.
Human creative effort is what produces new products and you dont need the rich to do that. And without manufacturing workers to make them and transoprt workers to ship them, there arent going to be any products going anywhere.
Im all for the creative people getting the rewards for their labors but far, far too many of the rich are not in that group.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
The real actually existing rich love getting public money. They may not like paying taxes but they sure love taking other peoples.
They want to be specially protected from risk. They want to be rescued from their own reckless and incompetent management. They want exemptions from anti-trust or get subsidies or government contracts with no bids.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
Well to say we have higher wages and shorter work hours because of the rich is an outrageous lie.
Decades of hard bitter struggle by workers led to better pay and shorter hours. This was in the teeth of ferocious opposition by the rich. They didnt want to pay higher wages or get fewer hours out of workers.
To credit the rich with this is an unbelievable distortion of history.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
It means that while the wealthy do engage ina lot of consumer spending, you have to look at what they spend it on.
In practice they will not buy "half" of available items. Often they (stupidly) spend enormous sums on single items. $2,000 for a single pair of shoes. $90,000 for a single watch. Or $20,000 for a single dress.
Yes, they could buy 10,000 cell phones for themselves. But they dont. They wont buy 11,000 apples a week even though they could.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
There are many times when a 1,000 "thousandaires" hugely out spend a single millionaire. It depends on the product or service.
The 1000 thousandaires will buy 1000 cell phones, most individual millionaires will not buy 1,000 cell phones.
And while a millionaire could afford 12,000 eggs per week, thats vstly beyond their consumptive power. But 1000 thousandaires do it collectively very easily.
Often its something like 90,000 for a single watch, not $90,000 for 900 $100 watches.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
Meanwhile, even if you could argue that the parents or ancestors of the born rich did really contribute something, and were not just crooked robber barons and polluters that exploited people, their heirs have to pay up.
Enormous quantities of free money just for being born ought to be taxed. They can still be rich, but this is income for the recipient and they ought to pay on it.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
Well its right to say its all interconnected. Its not a matter of the rich simply "creating" it.
Humans create the things that go around, and without manufacturing workers and truck drivers and other transport workers, there wont be many things made and they wont be "going" anywhere.
Its not clear that the CEOs are inventing cures that "go around" or write or direct the films that "go around" or design many of the products that "go around".
Some are and some are not.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
To just say the rich are rich because of the wealth they created, as if they waved a wand and it appeared from the thin air is nonsense.
The legacy rich inherited wealth.
And without the actual screenwriters, actors and directors how much wealth could TV and movie moguls "create"? The largely middle class audience is how they get ad revenue, and its the creative people who do the real work.
So why is the "mogul" so damn rich? Most couldnt write, act or direct to save their lives.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
Merit is real, but connections, pay-offs, exploitation and corruption count for alot. Race and gender count as well.
But unions worked by connections too, so its not just a class issue. Thats a human issue. As many as 85% of jobs are never even advertised. They come open and are filled without a single help Wanted ad appearing anywhere.
The network filled it. Friend of a friend. Your uncle made a phone call, etc.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
Well you cant just make the manipulation of the political process through wealth illegal. The whole idea of this money is to make sure that such laws are weak, nonexistant or unenforced.
Integenerational wealth transfer, which is enormous, is not about merit. We are talking about people who only had to be born to be millionaires.
Thats not even close to Olympic races. Thats being born on the Gold Medal stand and thinking you just won a race.
SocialDemocrats 2 years ago
You people who think it's just fine and dandy for the government to take half of a persons earnings while they're living, then steal half of what they were able to accumulate after they die, are reprehensible motherfucking evil scum. It doesn't matter one iota who, or how many people this theft affects, or how "rich" that person may have been. All in all, it's still the theft of damn near 3/4 of the accumulated resources they spent their life obtaining. It's the purest form of evil known to man.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
Render unto Cæsar.
ChameleonDave 2 years ago
Something not commonly known by modern-day people who tout themselves as "free marketers": Adam Smith himself favored high estate taxes:
archive (dot) salon (dot) com / politics / feature / 2001 / 02 / 15 / estate _ tax / index (dot) html ? sid = 1012060
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine - all in favor of the estate tax.
Right-wingers who try to squirrel this issue as "socialist" don't know shit about capitalism. Wealth should be earned through contribution. Not birth.
A86 2 years ago 4
Republican Jesus says:
"Healing people without making a profit is socialism."
"You shall not bear false witness. Unless you're trying to start a war."
"You have the poor always among you. It keeps labor costs down."
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago 5
I actually disagree with Cenk on this one. I think they should only take taxes based on the money in the bank, not the property.
MLadyAzzera 2 years ago
I disagree with him too. He doesn't seem to know the difference between land rich and cash rich, a house doesn't count as cash...
Trouble is that under your proposal people would just invest everything in property to avoid the tax - the other side is that people are then forced to sell that property regardless of the market at the time in order to pay half to the government. I understand it's at a high level but what happens to a family owned company? Can the IRS force you to sell that too?
Saddamuel 2 years ago
I think one of the goals of the tax is to get money recirculated instead of just sitting in a bank account for the rest of eternity. So even if they did use most of their money buying property before they die, at least the money has been circulated. You also have to hold on to property for awhile because you'll get a fine tax for selling it too soon after you buy it.
MLadyAzzera 2 years ago
If they were so land rich and money poor why didn't they sell the land and invest in something else? This is proof how stupid the hillbilly Jesus freaks from Texas are!!
MeteGuebo 2 years ago
I dont think children should pay a "death tax" to inherent stuff from there parents.
Its not like regular income tax, or other tax forms you pay each year. Its not comparable to other tax forms.
Basically it means that if your father was rich and your not. You will in effect destroy the built up fortune ( eg big farm land ) because you cant afford the tax and that is highway robbery in my eyes.
Lobos222 2 years ago
I think people are going to just bury their parents in the backyard when they die and if the government comes snooping around they will just tell the government their folks have gone on a long holiday and they don't know when they will return.
elfornse 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thanks cenk for the insight...(and the accent). i for one will have to respectfully disagree with you tonight...i dont believe you should be taxed when you die...fair or no...its just not right...
MississippiBlueDog 2 years ago
If his aunt left the property to him, then it should be his..... It shouldn't be an issue of whether he earned it or not.
1Vella 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can't believe how conceited and hypocritical Cenk can be. Why are you mocking his accent? You as an immigrant must have suffered from prejudices as well, so you of all people should know better. The reference to Jesus is ridiculous, but he does have a point (although not expressed very eloquently). Why should families who have built up a fortune to pass on to their children be plundered with more taxes after having paid heavy taxes all their lives? Its quite simply tyranny of the majority.
Krifko 2 years ago
I thought it was fascist care?
You guys really need to decide what side of the spectrum we're on....
Zander73 2 years ago 2
Property is theft. Abolish private property.
Revolutionarythought 2 years ago
"percentage effected" doesn't really matters those people have already paid higher taxes !
varunsharma1982 2 years ago
And so I go slightly closer to thinking the party actually hates america as opposed to just not caring about it at all.
GarethandSarah 2 years ago
The Jesus quote was completely ridiculous, but this is a perfect example of certain taxes being completely unfair. I have no problem with an estate tax...but tax everyone and make it a much smaller percentage. Regardless of who earned what, the money was earned and taxed, then the person wants to pass it to their decendants. I know if for whatever reason someone decided to leave me $5 Million, andI had to give 2.5 million of it to the US government, I'd be *pissed*.
DashCat9 2 years ago
Cenk,,,,, estate tax is totally wrong... you spend your life working hard making money and paying taxes on that earned income and with that tax deducted money you buy land do stuff and then @ the end when you want to pass that stuff to your kids .. government take a huge chunk of it !! thats is wrong the taxes have already been paid! ...... its just common sense man just common sense
varunsharma1982 2 years ago
True, but the percentage affected is extremely small and it only targets the wealthiest in america. If your life's work doesn't involve founding a media empire or owning a bank, it's safe to say you won't be affected.
Regular mom-and-pop stores and businesses won't be touched.
MrGrandshot 2 years ago
Estate Tax is necessary to stop wealth remaining stagnant in the hands of a select few families.
In the absence of Estate Tax, an aristocratic class develops that has done nothing themselves to earn their wealth.
I consider 45% to be somewhat on the high side; but the concept, in principle, makes sense.
Erdles 2 years ago
Erdles - Have you ever considered that if you went to a famine stricken part of Africa many people there could regard YOU as an somewhat of an aristocrat and also draw the conclusion that wealth was stagnating in your hands?
You mentioned the concept and principle of a 45% Estate Tax 'makes sense' so does that mean you would be agreeable to the concept, in principle, to allow Africans to Tax half of the fruits of your life's labor?
elfornse 2 years ago
Those living in impoverished parts of Africa would be perfectly right to perceive us Westeners as 'aristocrats'. We hoarde wealth by subsidising our farmers, imposing tariffs on their goods & undermining their economy by manipulating their leaders.
I am thoroughly opposed to these protectionist, corporatist practices; they're underhand and insidious. I protest against them, write to my representative about them, vote against them.
Erdles 2 years ago
I too object to these practises as they are anti capitalistic and anti free market.
elfornse 2 years ago
As for whether I would vote for half my estate being given to impoverished Africans, I would say yes on the condition that their economies were integrated wholly with my country's.
Otherwise it would be something of a black hole of wealth.
Erdles 2 years ago
When I say 'given to impoverished Africans' I mean money going towards employment, education, infrastructure, public services.
Erdles 2 years ago
I think those are noble places to want your money to go. However, what would happen if you found out that instead of the Government giving your money to starving Africans as you had hoped for, they instead used it to pay massive bonuses to their rich banker friends?
Would you still be happy to hand over 45%?
elfornse 2 years ago
The Republicans are such Hypocrites why don't they bring Jesus into the health care debate like they want to bring it in the tax debate, because they know in reality that Jesus would want free health care for every one
Darrinh1965 2 years ago 3
I doubt whether Jesus would steal someone elses money and try to Justify it
I can't see Jesus saying, "Pontius Pillate, Can you please raise taxes on the rich people so I can get free health stuff"
Jesus would be disgusted in you
elfornse 2 years ago
Jesus would probably think people should give all their money away. He also wouldn't care about the government, 'give to ceasar what is ceasar's'. In other words, tax as much as you want.
If you are really religious you would give up your estate of your own volition to good causes - something like helping your fellow man with healthcare perhaps?
Saddamuel 2 years ago 2
Jesus was a hippie, why do the Repulicans agree with him?
twins1729 2 years ago 3
Yes I do realize that, and the government would tax that revenue stream because it is generating income that supports someone and creates economic activity, something you want to encourage in society. They would also be paying property taxes. Forcing someone to either sell, take out a loan, or pay out of pocket to simply receive a gift from someone is theft in my opinion and double taxation.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
If taxes are legalized theft, then let's get rid of all of them. Completely.
The neanderthals didn't have taxes. It was a golden age of man, right? ;D
aaronsande 2 years ago
Why do you think that a civil society depends on the ability to loot your neighbour?
Can't we all just leave each other alone instead of behaving like parasites
elfornse 2 years ago
@elfornse Hmm, hard to say. Kill the hyperbole and get a realistic world view, and then we can talk.
aaronsande 2 years ago
We pay taxes because we benefit from the society those taxes help create.
I'm happy to pay my taxes because it means that I get policing, I get a fire service, I get a justice system, I get an environment conducive to personal enrichment... if there are people getting healthcare for free because of my taxes, I'm happy that I could help someone - in the same way Jesus was happy to heal the blind, the lepers, the sick.
Taxes aren't theft. They're contributions to a society everyone benefits from
Erdles 2 years ago 4
Yes but why can't we go back to giving voluntarily?
People used to donate a lot more to charities and hospitals were run by churches.
Now, the attitude is 'quick, suck as much blood out of the host as you can before another parasite sucks it out'
Its like one big gang rape
I find it this attitude quite unsettling actually
elfornse 2 years ago
Sure just donate great solution. We should donate to the police, fire, roads, military, etc.
The era you wax poetic on can not exist anywhere anymore let alone in a country as complex and large as ours. You are pining for a time that has not existed in at least 40 years and did not do a good of a job when it was in place.
Taxes are not evil, they should be the cost to live in the best country in the world. If you want no taxes go live in some banana republic and wave their flag citizen.
csharp44 2 years ago
Of course those things can be provided for by volunteers and also entrepreneurs.
It does sadden me to watch people trying to justify their immoral behaviours and beliefs.
But I do understand, many people feel a deep sense of inadequacy and this is how it manifests.
I pray the good Lord helps you realise that you are not in fact weak, but actually quite strong!
elfornse 2 years ago
@elfornse
If you suggest that taxes be 'voluntary' and that public services be left to charity, you're being thoroughly unrealistic about what can work in any modern country, let alone one as vast and populous as America.
If you think about it, I'm sure you'll realise it too.
Erdles 2 years ago 6
I didn't suggest that taxes be 'voluntary', (a tax, which is simply a nice way of saying theft, is an involuntary payment by its very definition)
Im suggesting that humans are quite capable of dealing with each other and coordinating society without resorting to coercive force, theft, and threats of violence. (unless you are acting in self defence or retrieving stolen property)
I don't think that concept is unrealistic at all and we would all be better for it.
elfornse 2 years ago
Taxation isn't theft.
You don't procure wealth out of thin air. You prosper from the society that taxes have created and help maintain, and by giving back a share of your earnings you ensure that this society continues to exist.
If you collect apples from someone's orchard, and they then ask you to share those apples, it isn't theft, is it?
You lose taxes and you lose everything above rudimentary government - you lose that and economic development goes back to the middle ages.
Erdles 2 years ago
You make your wealth on the back of this society and its "theft". You rely on it's extensive infrastructure, its trade contacts, its labor rules, it's consumer protections, its legal system, social services network, etc, etc, etc ..
Because all of these things are in place it sets up your opportunity to be as successful as you are.
There is not one single successful country in the world you can point to that uses of ever has used your bizarre model.
So yes it is unrealistic, just so you know
csharp44 2 years ago
i dont quite remember, but i do think there was a story about jesus letting a tax collector stay at his house. Well, if he hated taxes so much, why would he not send the tax collector away?
junkyardmonkie 2 years ago
through generations of....wait what was that again...oh yea...."farming"
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
and then all the poor little chilluns was sad because they had to jet set in DC 9s instead of DC 10s
boo hoo, yaawl.
christopherspb 2 years ago
Could someone explain this to me?
I'm confused as to what the auction is...was the first 7 million dollars in the will allocated, and then the rest had 55% (or 45%, was it?) taxed in the form of an auction?...
oaktea 2 years ago
If all humans are God's children, wouldn't that mean that in Mary's case, God molested his own daughter?
;)
SinnFein4ever 2 years ago 2
Yay! Let's get rid of the Estate Tax and bring back the landed gentry and the Gilded Age. Way to move forward - by regressing back.
vcdaniels 2 years ago
Republican politicians can "oppose" taxes all day long, but in the end, its those same taxes they are trying to always trying to lower pay their wages! And when theres less money for everything else, the last thing they will cut is their own pay and benefits.
alaynak123 2 years ago
ha wtf he's sayn it should be ok if they tax your parents or gparents estate when they die omg thats so stupid how rude,my gdad paid tax his whole life and even when he die's they guna get a lump sum from him wtf ??
and its not about me getn money its about the goverment ripping every1 off cause one day ill die too and fuk the goverment
nataslider 2 years ago
Light is sweet,
and it pleases the eyes to see the sun.
However many years a man may live,
let him enjoy them all.
But let him remember the days of darkness,
for they will be many.
Everything to come is meaningless.
Be happy, young man, while you are young,
and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth.
juliaheartz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Follow the ways of your heart
and whatever your eyes see,
but know that for all these things
God will bring you to judgment.
So then, banish anxiety from your heart
and cast off the troubles of your body,
for youth and vigor are meaningless.
juliaheartz 2 years ago
Comment removed
juliaheartz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
juliaheartz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when men rise up at the sound of birds,
but all their songs grow faint;
when men are afraid of heights
and of dangers in the streets;
when the almond tree blossoms
and the grasshopper drags himself along
and desire no longer is stirred.
Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets.
juliaheartz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the wheel broken at the well,
nd the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
juliaheartz 2 years ago
Uh...Jesus never said that.
In fact, he urged us to serve the poor.
gulfmonsoon 2 years ago
George Bush gave up the big check don't lie.
bigcomcast 2 years ago
So I guess you can watch NBC now?
bigcomcast 2 years ago
Though shall not steal, Estate tax is stealing. Even God's tiding is only 10%.
Scumlung 2 years ago
Why doesn't the right call out anti American acts like closing a plant in the U.S. and moving it to China for cheap labor?Seems like the right thinks only thing that's unamerican is trying to keep poor people from dying of high blood pressure.
bigcomcast 2 years ago
Because japan still makes things. They don't wait until there big enough to move manufacturing overseas and cash in on cheap labor.Japanese business men are loyal to japan,cant say the same about American company's.
bigcomcast 2 years ago
George Bush was President for 8 years, congress was under Republican control for most of the last years of Bill Clintons presidency, in all that time no one could fix Gomerts estate tax issues?
bigcomcast 2 years ago
That's a bold statement about a man who has been in office for 10 months.I was a grownup when Bush became president and most people gave him more than a year before they started crying like a fat baby no one wants carry.
bigcomcast 2 years ago
maybe the libs should consult with the kennedys - they set up an offshore trust, so they don't worry about estate taxes at all.
megagagnon1 2 years ago
Hey, and with the Republicans making sure that the Kennedy's never have to address their tax issues, everyone wins, right? Its not like one party tries to address those issues for everyone, including Dems, is it?
eirefrance 2 years ago
I propose we start a charity to help people who inherit more than $7 million and have to suffer that Stalinist estate tax. People please show some compassion!
Franco187 2 years ago 4
All taxes would be lower if we didn't have to fight 2 wars, pay for emergency health care and a bank bailout.All of this happened on President Bush's watch. Not all of this is his fault just like cleaning the mess up is not all on the President.But a trillion dollars has been spent on the war against terror on president Bush's watch and no one is asking any of you to go to Afghanistan and fight.Just be a good citizen and pay your taxes like you did when Bush was president.
bigcomcast 2 years ago
Its such a pity that Obama took all the failed policies of George Bush and reemployed them on a much larger scale.
The only 'change' Obama has made is the magnitude of Government Errors
elfornse 2 years ago 3
"Hang on....but thats exactly the system we have now!! And it doesn't seem to be working out as you ay have predicted. Obama is handing your money to rich Bankers".
That's correct. And it's because we live in a corporate plutocracy, not a democracy. Plutocracy is the ultimate destination for "free" market capitalist systems. And this is because capitalism creates CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER. This is why we need regulations and taxes, to ensure that these concentrations don't grow too large.
wtfdoihavetodohere 2 years ago 2
"And it's because we live in a corporate plutocracy, not a democracy"
But everyone had a chance to vote
They could have voted for Ron Paul if they wanted to and that would have smashed the Plutocracy
The power was there if people were willing to seize it, and they didn't need regulations or taxes to do it.
Also, I can't understand how you oppose Concentrations of Power yet advocate a Strong Government.
As far as I can see, they are one and the same.
elfornse 2 years ago
Ron Paul didn't win the election, so it is mere SPECULATION that he could have toppled the corruption in the gov't etc etc. Furthermore, how could President Ron have operated without the use of rules and regulations?
A democratic gov't is NOT a concentration of power, in fact it is the opposite; it is a representation of the common will - E Pluribus Unum. Look it up.
Capitalism is by it's nature opposed to democracy, as it's motto would be something like "exploit the many, empower the few".
wtfdoihavetodohere 2 years ago 2
I didn't say there would be no rules or regulations under Ron Paul.
Your saying that we need rules or regulations to prevent plutocracy.
Im saying that we could have smashed plutocracy without any rules or taxes, we could have just voted for it!
Sure its speculation, but at least there was SOME Hope.
If someone voted for Obama or any the others, then there was No Hope
elfornse 2 years ago
(2/3)
"Such troubles were supposed to have been prevented, or at least mitigated, by regulatory systems that the nation began to put in place after the banking system collapsed at the start of the Great Depression...
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
Well remember what jesus said in the bible ...it is easer for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of god,, if Jesus was a rich man he would of shared everything to the less fortunate people , but if you leave that up to the rich people they will give nothing...rich people are greedy people they always want more that is why jesus never supported them ...READ YOUR BIBLE
Darrinh1965 2 years ago 2
jesus wouldn't approve if money was taken by point of a gun (the IRS) - jesus encouraged people to give THEIR OWN MONEY - forced "virtue" is no virtue at all. Y'all are so generous - with other peeps money.
megagagnon1 2 years ago
You're so right! The government should fund itself only with voluntary donations. What could possibly go wrong?
Franco187 2 years ago
the govt shouldn't be in the charity bizz - there shouldn't be a welfare state. a small federal govt that defends our borders, doesn't police the world, and doesn't create a permanent underclass. jesus would approve
megagagnon1 2 years ago
Except rich, greedy fucks like the Gohmers want to keep all of THEIR MONEY and not contribute to the general welfare.
Oh, and before you ask, I pay over 20% in income tax.
MarquisdeBarrabas 2 years ago
'Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'
norehct 2 years ago
The business would not be owned by the government. I was comparing inherited wealth. The government can tax the money the person saved up from the business as their own money, but the business itself is simply passed over.
ram8704 2 years ago
ram8704: The U.S. Government will assess the value of the business and tax it at 45%. If the deceased one didn't leave behind sufficient money, then the business will be auctioned off in order for the government to get its 45% cut.
TranCendenZ 2 years ago
His great Aunt should have had a good attorney set everything up in a trust or tax shelter before she died. How the fuck does he quote what Jesus would do. I think Jesus would have said "Auntie when you die you should give all of your money to the poor starving children" especially since all of your family is doing fine on their own. You'll get a great reward in Heaven.
baxtar1963 2 years ago
I'm not saying we don't pay taxes. But, 30% of the country doesn't pay taxes. The top 1% already is tasked w/ paying some 40% of taxes and I don't care if they're rich and it's not fair, I'll get a violin for you. Lets setup a tax that EVERYONE has to pay equally and allows for people to do what they want with THEIR damn money!
DeltaFlyer07 2 years ago
The 30% of the country that you refer to DO pay taxes. Most taxes are NOT income taxes they are payroll taxes that the wealthy do not pay. If you sit on your ass and collect dividends, interest and or purely financial paper wealth you are taxed at the maximum of 15%. If you collect a regular paycheck you are taxed in excess of 35%. Additionally because of tax havens and accounting tricks the wealthy rarely even pay the stated rate and regularly are able to defer the tax to a later date
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
So since the wealthiest in this country own disproportionally most of its assets and wealth, and receive most of its income, it is not surprising that they pay most of the income tax, and that is only fair; but still they are not paying most of the tax revenue, and their burden is less than that put upon the working class. When all payroll and other regressive taxes such as are included it is the lower and middle class, practically the middle, that bears most of the burden and subsidize the rich
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
All modern nations have an estate tax. That's why the Beatles wrote The Taxman.
bigcomcast 2 years ago
@Zander73.
That money doesn't belong to the government. It's pretty simple actually. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a socialist, don't try to sugarcoat it w/ anything else. Spreading wealth around is nothing else. It's not our money Zander73.
DeltaFlyer07 2 years ago
If you would like to live in anarchy than by all means go. To fund a state you require funds by way of taxes there is no other way to "sugarcoat" it.
QuasistellarQuark 2 years ago 4
Thats bullshit.
You have it the wrong way around.
You ARE telling the "sugarcoated" version of the tax story.
The real operation at play here is the systematic levelling of the personal resources of the individual,so that he has less chance of rising to the top,with the rest of the herd,to challenge the States "authority",or simply be in a good enough position to realise they don't need the master anymore.
It's herd management.
Taxes are as much about State-supremacy as anything else.
ChainedInFilth 2 years ago
Hello ChainedInFilth I am aware that my statement is and idealistic version of the tax system. Governments as in any system of involving people is flawed and open to corruption. But taxation and organized government is the only way to maintain large stable societies.
Collectives and dispersed power are effective in small groups but the nature of the beast does not allow for a lack of structure.
QuasistellarQuark 2 years ago
(Continued) I think I may agree with you on the term "herd management" In your opinion what is the appropriate system, if any? I am actually not trying to be combative but to understand your perspective.
QuasistellarQuark 2 years ago
I'm not neccesarily up for all-out anarchy(though I suspect there has been some misrepresentation where "anarchy" is concerned;"people would just go crazy,chaos,etc.")
Those who speak against tearing down the beurocratic nonsense which veils the State deceit,always say;"but then the man with the biggest gun will take control,there would be lawlessness,and great suffering."
I ask you;is this not the way things are now?
The answer?
I do not know.
I only see the problem.
Know what I mean?
ChainedInFilth 2 years ago
I agree corruption is the major problem in all societies (look at any developing nation or how flawed the US Congress is). From a realist perspective I would say that it will probably always be that way; but hopefully, optimistically if you can somehow bring transparency things can change.
There will always be limits simply because we are limited.
QuasistellarQuark 2 years ago
Yours is a good idea,and I think you may have found "the answer" which I couldn't see for my perrenial frustration with the men in the ivory tower.
Transparency.
No buerocratic specialties,and arcane political-bullshit-talk,just....acountability,and an honest communique with the people they are meant to represent.
Maybe then we could all have a say,like we are told we are so able to do.
ChainedInFilth 2 years ago
Well thats the solution, Shrink the Government...
I could tolerate a very small Government refrained to protecting property rights and a law enforcement/ judicial system.....but nothing more
A small Government and free market would be far less capable of inflicting the economic crisis that Bush/Obama and their Wall Street masters have unleased.
elfornse 2 years ago
A free-market capitalism, small government, deregulated world, is a corporate run world.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 9
And a Big Government, Big Spending, Big Taxing, Big Bailouts, Currency Trashing world is the model of purity and innocence?
Capitalism benefits everyone ONLY if there is will of the people to restrain the Government!
elfornse 2 years ago
(1/3)
No you mean, there is a need to restrain capitalism. The excesses are those of capitalism perverting government, the will of the people is expressed through government, weakening government only takes power away from the people and unleashes the corporations.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
Government is just the Tyranny of the Majority.
If a gang of thugs surrounds you
They say "Give me your wallet'
You say 'No Way;
They say 'Ok lets hold an election'
They all vote to rob you, they beat you up, and take your wallet
Democracy in action! So pure and innocent yes?
Hitler came to power via a democratic process, and that didn't turn out to well did it?
Just because lots of people want to violate someone elses rights, doesn't justify using force against them
elfornse 2 years ago
Corporations are tyranny of the minority
Hitler was never elected to office he was appointed by Hindenburg in a deal to placate the capitalists and large landowners who feared the socialist and communists on the left. He was losing support when he was given office. It is because of democracy that peoples right are given and enforced. All rights are group rights, the rights you decide you have on your own are meaningless. Anyway you are misusing the term democracy. What you mean is Ochlocracy
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
If I don't like what a Company is selling I won't buy it
If I don't like what the Government is selling they rob me and throw it in my face anyway
The Government scores higher on the Tyrant Meter
I completely oppose corporations that use Government force to gain market share (Thats why I oppose Big Governments)
But a corporation that gains market share simply because they are able to provide a good or service in a superior fashion to their competitors should be congratulated, not demonized
elfornse 2 years ago
Corporations can and will if given the chance destroy your free market. They can and do band together to stifle competition and drive up prices artificially inflating them. (see Diamond, Gas) Have laws passed that ensure you have buy thier products. With out enforced rules they will run us over.
The corporate desire is never to serve you, it is to make money. We need someone who is looking out for us that is not 100% profit driven and that should be the roll of our elected government.
csharp44 2 years ago 3
(1/3)
[OCHLOCRACY. A government where the authority is in the hands of the multitude; the abuse of a democracy.
As a term in civics it implies that there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly-accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force − might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
(2/3)
It is often associated with demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason. The threat of mob rule (not unlike the term tyranny of the majority) is often invoked -often rhetorically- against a democracy by those who oppose its majoritary decisions, sometimes fearing oppression of the needs or freedoms of minorities if democratic government is not efficiently restrained by protections given to individuals under the rule of law
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
(3/3)
sometimes concerned that demagogery may manipulate the mob and force popular currents of thought onto minority groups without respect for their or the individual's rights. There are also some who wish to see more power assigned to a certain ruling minority.]
That all actually sounds like Friedman, and Libertarians in general, with the elitist "free-market" ideas where an eviscerated gov't is subservient to the large moneyed interests that sway populations with propaganda & advertising
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
"sway populations with propaganda & advertising"
I agree, the big money interests put forward the Government they want the people to vote for but this is occurring on an even grander scale in Obamas MASSIVE Government.
Remember, "propaganda and advertising" made poor people fall in love with Obama
And then he gave a big fat cheque to all his friends on Wall Street!
Its naive to think that a big strong Government is somehow less corruptible than a small one.
The less power, the better
elfornse 2 years ago
(2/3)
All markets are created and will seek out regulation. A black market starts as a "free-market" but it is quickly taken over by the underworld and therefore regulated, or it is legitimized and regulated by the government. So it is not a case of IF the market is regulated, but by and for whom. Deregulation actually just pushes the regulation of the market onto the largest, most powerful of the producers (the corporations) by default.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
(3/3)
So it is because of the very same 'free-market' principles that have been pushed on us that it becomes a 'corporate' "Big Spending, Big Taxing, Big Bailouts, world." A 'free-market' will naturally become a 'corporate market'. Monopolies are fostered during periods of deregulation, the record of history bears this out. It was during the Gilded Age, a historically recognized period of laissez faire gov't that fostered some of the greatest monopolies until the present wave of deregulation
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
"until the present wave of deregulation"
The NUMBER of regulations is totally irrelevant, its how POWERFUL and ONEROUS the regulations are in distorting the markets that is relevant
Fed Reserve, FDIC, Fannie Freddy, Community Reinvestment Act, Patriot Act etc etc
All of these Government monsters were steroided up and unleashed into the market and this created the distortions that led to the crash
The 'myth' that everything was deregulated and free is the exact opposite of reality
elfornse 2 years ago
Obviously the regulations that were opposed to corporations, trade and finance have been removed and weakened, this is common knowledge, to deny it is to deny reality.
"But perhaps Greenspan's most important contribution has been as the policymaker who, through the power of his office, the force of his intellect and the cunning of his behind-the-scenes maneuvering, engineered the wholesale deregulation of the U.S. banking and financial system." - Washington Post
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
Its the interplay of the regulations that matter
David killed Goliath because he knew where and how to strike
Yes, Alan Greenspan removed some Bank regulations But the Fed Govt added many regulations to the countless already in existence, Patriot Act, for example debunking the myth there were free markets)
Greenspan also artificially lowered the interest rate causing a speculative boom in housing (which then busted)
FED Low Interest Rate + Govt Regulations = Molotov Cocktail
elfornse 2 years ago
Once installed at the Fed, Greenspan immediately began pushing Congress to repeal the Depression-era law that prevented banks from competing with investment banks in underwriting stocks and bonds. When Congress dallied, he used the Fed's supervisory authority to allow banks to circumvent the law and usher in the era of the megabank."
The Laissez-Fairest of Them All, by Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
Patriot act does not affect or is concerned with the economy. Interest rates are low because that is where the 'fee-market' bankers wanted them to push loans. And you can not name any substantial regulations. You are done, you're just pulling shit out of thin air and making stuff up and declaring it 'truth'
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
Patriot Act:
........expands the Secretary of the Treasurys authority to regulate financial transactions........ Source: Wikipedia
So Patriot Act is not concerned with the economy???...Patriot Act is all about deregulation????
If you think the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Reserve Act or Legal Tender Laws are not 'substantial regulations' than you either don't know what they are or you are just clueless.
Maybe Its YOU that should stop pulling shit out of thin air
elfornse 2 years ago
It can only take actions against terrorists. Wow talk about clutching at straws. Haha
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 3
Yes it takes actions against terrorists....
And how do they find those terrorists??
By imposing MORE regulations on Banks!
So much for the all the banks were totally deregulated and the evil free market was everywhere myth.
elfornse 2 years ago
Claiming the Patriot Act regulates the banks is just ridicules. Yea, Al-Qaida is at fault huh? keep it up we're all having a good laugh, and you are showing your desperation and you side total dishonesty and lack of anything approaching intellectual integrity. You make our case for us.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
I didn't claim the patriot act regulated banks in and of itself, I said that it added more regulations to banks, which it does.
anyway, The decrease in any kind of substance in your arguements and increase in personal insults and misrepresentations of my statements tells me that there is nothing more to be gained from debating you. Thanks for the chat, it was entertaining.
elfornse 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a proponent of free-market capitalism, with an extremely limited federal gov't. For example he naively believes that the healthcare industry, if left to it's own devices, would become more affordable according to the laws of free-market capitalism. This is demonstrably false, and such delusions literally kill people every day in our country.
He also opposes Roe vs Wade, which is an inexcusably ignorant, uneducated and unrealistic position.
wtfdoihavetodohere 2 years ago