lets say youve just passed away, to qualify for the "death tax" your estate would have to be worth 3.5 million if you have only one child who did not marry, and 7 million if married. if you had two married children your estate would have to be worth $14 million to apply, but lets face it, you were bright to begin with and as most do who are of these means, found a loophole.i find it interesting that right off the bat they tell you 45% of your estate is going away, which, in no way is misleading
wow this is sooo perverted & disgusting. It violates every sense of personal property & thus life liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Stealing from those who are dead. Just how perverted can you be?
What conservatives don't realize is that you're not taxing Conrad Hilton who build the Hilton Empire, you're taxing Paris Hilton who did absolutely nothing to deserve it.
You used to be taxed for it at the same rate as gambling or lottery winnings.
And no, it doesn't kill small businesses, because if your business has more than $3.5 million in assets, and you haven't incorporated yet, you're running a scam, or aren't smart enough with taxes or business to be complaining. Incorporate.
"What conservatives don't realize is that you're not taxing Conrad Hilton who build the Hilton Empire, you're taxing Paris Hilton who did absolutely nothing to deserve it."
- so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?
because that's what your claim entails. try not to be so stupid k.
"Thanks for changing the goalposts." - i didnt change the goalpost at all, i simply pointed out a logical necessity of your statement.
ie. using the fact Paris Hilton has done nothing to deserve her wealth as part of your argument you are BY NECESSITY condemning the act of saving inorder to better future generations.
"You're also forgetting the better lives that everyone gets as part of those taxes." - incorrect., i've already covered it. it's necessary but unfair.
"- i didnt change the goalpost at all, i simply pointed out a logical necessity of your statement."
No, you made an accusation of my statement and extrapolated an opinion based on your own prejudices. I never said it was a bad thing to save for future generations, and my statement does not necessarily condemn it by any logical necessity. You're trying to create a false dichotomy . I don't have to hate saving for the future to support the estate tax.
":incorrect., i've already covered it. it's necessary but unfair."
No you haven't. You're acting like the money garnered from the estate tax just disappears. You haven't covered at all how taxes benefit a society, you just bitched about a lack of logical basis when I've demonstrated several.
"Try not to assume that just because someone has a different opinion than you, they must be stupid, ok?"
- i didnt say you were stupid because you had a differing viewpoint. i said you were stupid because i demonstrated your arguments to be stupid and pointedout how you had no logical basis for the bulk of what you said.
"- oh yes, it's all magical conspiracy that only you know about. Got any other delusions you'd like to share?"
Its not a delusion or a conspiracy. You hadn't said more than 18 words to me before you say "Try not to be stupid". You hadn't even provided a refutation except in the form of a question that completely straw manned my position.
Should I point out one of the dozens of times you've declared something to be ilogicaly, flatly, and without any backup of that assertion?
"YOU have made assertions, im simply asking you to substanciate them and pointing out your irrationality as you attempt to"
The only question you've asked me is "Why should the rich be taxed more?" and "do you want to discourage saving for future generations?" Neither of which address my points.
ok, everyone, think of it, how many people in the US themselves own more then 3.499999 million in assets? really, I can't see how fair it is, but really, how many does this tax effect?
if you do, rant at me if you want, I doubt I'll have any legit replies.
everybody is always hating on rich family cause they got bricks ( piles of money stacked up ). i no there r alot of corrupt rich family out there but yo if a honest man/woman studies, works hard & build a business from scrap, what in the hell gives the government the right 2 take 45% of that person wealth away, where in the constitution does it state that. american now in days r too flucking lazy & scared 2 protest, the FEDz got ya nigga's whipped. ya r shadows of your former self.
the fact of the matter is that taxing the rich more is keeping the economy viable, at the expense of what is rite; there is no logical basis for charging a person more simply because they earn more.
whether they've obtained their position through hardwork or dumb-luck DOESNT ENTER INTO IT.
flattax (fixed percentage) is a fairer system
and head-tax (fixed fee) is about as fair as the system could get
"the fact of the matter is that taxing the rich more is keeping the economy viable, at the expense of what is rite"
It depends on which perspective you're looking at. That money helping maintain infrastructure is, in my opinion more right than keeping it stagnate and isolated from the economy in a swiss bank account to cater to someone's personal greed.
"It depends on which perspective you're looking at" - incorrect, it's impartial of position; you have no logical basis for taxing the rich more for accumulating more wealth.
the only justification you've provided is that it's necessary to keep the economy going which completely impartial to what is fair.
"the only justification you've provided is that it's necessary to keep the economy going which completely impartial to what is fair."
As if asking them to pay their share to keep the economy going when they can clearly afford it is unfair? Also, if thats the only thing you gleaned from my posts, you can't have read very much.
"Actually there is. They can afford it, and it helps everyone else in society out."
- charging someone more simply because they can afford it isnt logical:
capitalism and the acquirement of wealth is the very basis of our society yet your advocating a system that actively works against it by penalizing people for what they earn
"charging someone more simply because they can afford it isnt logical:"
I like how you toss "simply" in there to try to mitigate my position, and then ignore the point anyway. No, its the fact that EVERYONE needs it and they can afford it. Also the fact that we're talking about the estate tax, and they're getting taxed just as they would with lottery or gambling winnings.
"capitalism and the acquirement of wealth is the very basis of our society yet your advocating a system that actively works against it by penalizing people for what they earn"
No, the constitution is the basis of our society, and it doesn't declare what economic system we're supposed to have. What we are, and always have been is a mixed market economy, with the government dominating some sectors (Commonly called Socialism). (cont)
"so now your disputing that we live in a capitalist society are you?"
Yes, I dispute that we live in a purely capitalist society. If we did, than our army would be mercenaries, our police private security, our highways would all be tolls, our public utilities would all be private, and UPS would carry every letter.
"do you think the British have a constitution? because that's from where America as you know it arose."
"Yes, I dispute that we live in a purely capitalist society. If we did, than our army would be mercenaries, our police private security, our highways would all be tolls, our public"
- then you would also dispute that we live in a purely democratic society by the same token.
if you do then you've rendered your argument completely moot by making it impossible for it to be purely anything
if you dont then we've found yet another logical contradiction in your worldview
"- then you would also dispute that we live in a purely democratic society by the same token."
We don't actually, we live in a representational democracy by definition because we elect leaders to make decisions for us. There's no way to live in a pure democracy because we can't vote on every single issue, nor can we make every single person of equal governmental power. It just doesn't work with the human condition. I'm sorry if you can't handle these complex definitions.
"if you do then you've rendered your argument completely moot by making it impossible for it to be purely anything"
Actually it doesn't. You don't know what the word "Niche" means, do you? You're arguing that because I'm specifically defining my terms, I'm somehow declaring something can't be purely anything.
Get it right pal. I'm correcting your generalization, not obliterating a definition. Just because we're not purely one thing doesn't mean we cant be purely something else.
"Actually it doesn't. You don't know what the word Niche means, do you?" - actually i do but it's not helping you. you've watered the definitions down to the point your incapable of saying that we live in a democratic society.
" actually i do but it's not helping you. you've watered the definitions down to the point your incapable of saying that we live in a democratic society."
No, what I'm doing is using specific and correct definitions designed to describe in detail our system. You're using a blanket statement in an attempt to make an argument. I didn't say we don't live in a democratic society, I said we live in a representational democracy as opposed to a pure democracy. Same with capitalism.
"you continue to argue semantics instead of providing an actual argument."
I'm ending this right now because my inbox is getting clogged and you're making the same damn fallacies over and over again. I'm sick of repeating myself, and I'm sick of your strawmen. I've blown almost 2 hours trying to lead you by the hand and spoon feed you point by point, and you're still just ignoring points and attempting to justify it.
"I'm ending this right now because my inbox is getting clogged and you're making the same damn fallacies over and over again"
- im asking for evidence of your claim and your failing to provide it and trying to take the conversation off on a tangent.
you claim there are points i havnt addressed but fail to provide them. i ask again. what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
"i ask again. what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?"
Again you move the goalposts because originally you made the point that all of my points boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it, and NOW you're taking every other point I've made and dropping it into the bin of "viability" and saying "you can't use that either". You don't see the inconsistency?
"Again you move the goalposts because originally you made the point that all of my points boil down to the..."
- i have moved no goalpost; i said from my very first comment that the systems i advocate (whilst being fairer) are not viable, this makes all of your arguments regarding viability completely moot.
which is why im asking what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
" have moved no goalpost; i said from my very first comment that the systems i advocate (whilst being fairer) are not viable, this makes all of your arguments regarding viability completely moot."
So you're playing devil's advocate?
No, it doesn't make my arguments about viability being moot. If you admit that your system crashes and burns, that actually bolsters my side of the argument because a viable system is inherently more fair than a burning one.
"which is why im asking what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?"
No, NOW you're asking why it isn't about viability because I answered your challenge. The problem is that you're taking every single other point I've made, and could be made and lumping it in as "viability", then leaving absolutely nothing in between. As I said before, its a false dichotomy.
"No, NOW you're asking why it isn't about viability because I answered your challenge"
- incorrect, i made very clear from the start that this conversation was NOT about viability (i did this by pointing out that systems i proposed were NOT viable)
- my point was that existing system is unfair and that systems mentioned were MORE FAIR.
the reference to viability only exists because of your continued attempts to take the conversation on tangent regarding viability.
- i addressed every claim you made regarding the fairness of the progressive tax system
- having failed at that you attempted to push the conversation towards viability (a subject i didnt contest from the start)
- you then tried to claim that because i had not addressed your points regarding viability (which are not infact points against my position at all) that i had not addressed everything,
"i ask again. what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?"
Simply by asking this question, you acknowledge that arguments about viability don't boil down to "They can afford it" because you have to make the differentiation! How do you not see this? You're a walking logical fallacy!
"Simply by asking this question, you acknowledge that arguments about viability don't boil down to They can afford it"
- incorrect, im actually pointing out that arguments regarding viability have no place in the discussion (as i said from the start that the systems i advocate are not viable)
you claimed there were points i hadnt addressed, in reality however i addressed everypoint that was relevant (i didnt address points regarding viability because they werent)
"im asking for evidence of your claim and your failing to provide it and trying to take the conversation off on a tangent."
AGAIN, for the 5th time I'm providing you with evidence, you're just ignoring it, or trying to conflate arguments of the fairness of keeping the system viable with "The rich can afford it so they should pay".
I'm not surprised, but I'm also no longer amused by it. Enjoy your day.
"and you reply with nothing, just the claim that you've already made it. well if that's the case where is it?"
What I'm claiming is that you're changing the goalposts and asking the wrong question. What you're doing is the same as asking me "What color is the sky that isn't blue, or any other color?" As I said before, its a false dichotomy. You FIRST asked what is an argument that doesn't boil down to "the can afford", and when I provide it, you wall them off and move the goalposts.
"What I'm claiming is that you're changing the goalposts and asking the wrong question"
- no, im highlighting the fact that every claim you've made regarding viability is a red herring. your attempting to mask your inability to argue that the progressive tax system is fair.
" no, im highlighting the fact that every claim you've made regarding viability is a red herring. your attempting to mask your inability to argue that the progressive tax system is fair."
No, the viability of the economy is not a red herring, as my argument is that the tax system is fair because it keeps the economy viable and without a viable economy their wealth becomes meaningless. A burning house where only the strong survives is not more fair than helping everyone out alive.
"No, the viability of the economy is not a red herring"
- the entire conversation is about 'fairness' so yes, every single claim you made regarding viability is a red herring.
"as my argument is that the tax system is fair because it keeps the economy viable" - economic viability is a completely separate subject; you can have a fair system that isnt viable or a system that is viable and unfair,
your attempts to conflate them have once again failed.
"economic viability is a completely separate subject; you can have a fair system that isnt viable or a system that is viable and unfair
your attempts to conflate them have once again failed."
No, my attempts to try to reason with you the concept that if your system is not viable then there's no opportunity for fairness or unfairness have failed. You keep declaring that I'm conflating the two, when you're failing to provide any justification that keeping the system viable isn't also Fair.
"No, my attempts to try to reason with you the concept that if your system is not viable then there's no opportunity for fairness"
- the discussion is about fairness, unless every viable economic system is by necessity a fair system then bringing up viability is completely meaningless.
and you dont have to look to far back in history to realize this isnt the case; viability does not necessitate faireness.
"I'm seriously done repeating myself" - then i suggest you actually say something relevant, instead of continuously spouting logical fallacies and attempting to project your failure onto others.
"You think you've addressed everything iv'e said" - if there's something i havnt addressed then name it, because as i've pointed out all your claims regarding viability are completely irrelevant.
"- if there's something i havnt addressed then name it, because as i've pointed out all your claims regarding viability are completely irrelevant."
Thats what I keep trying to tell you. Any argument I've made you can make the false dichotomy of declaring them to be about keeping the system viable and declaring that because you advocate a burning house, that somehow it can't be considered fair. The points you refuse to address are the ones you hold ad bay with a dichotomy fallacy.
"Thats what I keep trying to tell you. Any argument I've made you can make the false dichotomy of declaring them to be about keeping the system viable"
- incorrect, every comment you've made that doesnt boil down to the 'rich should pay more because they can afford it' has been to do with viability.
if you dispute this then kindly show how your claim is to do with fairness.
also a false dichotomy isnt an issue as the ONLY thing that matters is faireness
"then i suggest you actually say something relevant, instead of continuously spouting logical fallacies and attempting to project your failure onto others."
I'd point out thy hypocrisy of this, but I don't think you're capable of understanding it.
your claiming logical fallacies have been made when you obviously dont know what they are.
you've claimed i've created a false dichotomy between economic viability and fairness.
not only is this incorrect, but it's also non-conducive to the conversation; all that matters is that you can show a given claim IS to do with fairness; you have as of yet been unable to do this.
"if you dont then we've found yet another logical contradiction in your worldview"
Actually again, what you've done is attempted another false dichotomy by declaring that if I don't think we're purely democratic or purely capitalistic than I somehow think we're not purely anything. We're purely a representational democratically run republic, but we're also a mixed market economy. You're just getting loopy now.
"Actually again, what you've done is attempted another false dichotomy by declaring that if I don't think we're purely democratic or purely capitalistic than I somehow think we're not purely anything"
- incorrect, i've simply made an observation ie. your incapable of saying we live in a democratic society.
you are arguing semantics because your incapable of providing sound arguments.
"ncorrect, i've simply made an observation ie. your incapable of saying we live in a democratic society."
My god, you really don't understand the difference between being specific and making a general statement? You don't seem to realize the democratic statement was a rebuttal to your assertion that capitalism is the basis of our society, when it's in fact the constitution.
"capitalism and the acquirement of wealth is the very basis of our society yet your advocating a system that actively works against it by penalizing people for what they earn"
What I advocate is a system that works for the middle class, and if that means taxing the richest brackets by 91% as we did in the 50s and 60s, then so be it. That was the golden age of American history, with the most prosperity in generations, and godammit if that isn't a logical reason to tax the rich more.
"It does actually." - you've just claimed that the manner in which someone obtains wealth should have a bearing on how much they are charged but provide no arguments for your position and nothing to refute my arguments against it.
"No it isn't, especially to the lower income brackets" - you provide no logical basis for this claim either and are likely confusing fairness economic viability
"claimed that the manner in which someone obtains wealth should have a bearing on how much they are charged but provide no arguments for your position and nothing to refute my arguments against it."
No, you're just ignoring them, and yes, I do claim that the way in which something is earned should be taxed differently because different sectors of the economy affect more than one sector, which is the reason capital gains tax is lower than income tax, for example.. It encourages investment.
"No, you're just ignoring them" - i've provided point-by-point refutations to virtually every comment you've made, please advise where i have missed them.
" i've provided point-by-point refutations to virtually every comment you've made, please advise where i have missed them."
No you haven't, and you even acknowledge that when you say "virtually". You've ignored the point about the tax rate in the 50s and 60s, you've ignored the points about an expansive middle class, you've ignored the point about different taxes for different methods of income. The rest you've just flatly declared to be illogical, full stop.
"No you haven't, and you even acknowledge that when you say virtually." - incorrect, i only say virtually because i only address what is relevant.
"You've ignored the point about the tax rate in the 50s and 60s" - this was irrelevant you conflated fairness with viability and as your comment targeted at viability i had no reason to address it.
"- incorrect, i only say virtually because i only address what is relevant."
Its funny how you declare something irrelevant and refuse to address it then somehow rationalize that you've refuted everything I've said point by point, while also declaring that I've made only baseless assertions.
You realize that by ignoring half of the conversation, you don't automatically resolve the points, right?
"i pointed what was irrelevant and explained why it was irrelevant"
No, agian, you didn't. You just kept making the flat declaration that I was being illogical and asking strawman questions.
"you attempted to find something i hadnt addressed that was relevant and failed."
Is that what you call it when someone brings up a point to the conversation that you never thought of before? Thats some crazy sociopathic logic you're working with there, pal.
"No, agian, you didn't. You just kept making the flat declaration that I was being illogical and asking strawman questions."
- as i've already pointed out the burden of proof is on you to show how your claim is logical; i can show you how it is irrational if you would like, but it doesnt change this fact
"you've ignored the points about an expansive middle class, you've ignored the point about different taxes for different methods of income"
- incorrect, i've addressed all of these; they inevitably boil down to the same thing ie. you think it's ok to tax someone more because they have more
"The rest you've just flatly declared to be illogical, full stop." - the irrationality of the statement is clear as day, but the burden of proof is on you to show it IS logical.
"incorrect, i've addressed all of these; they inevitably boil down to the same thing ie. you think it's ok to tax someone more because they have more"
No, they don't, I already told you about this. If you're going to make the declaration of what they boil down to, then draw the logical train of thought from "It influences different sectors of the economy and promotes a middle class which raises the standard of living" to "Its illogical."
"what they boil down to, then draw the logical train of thought from It influences different sectors of the economy and promotes a middle class which raises the standard of living" to "Its illogical."
- once again, your conflating viability with fairness because you know perfectly well that what your proposing isnt fair.
- what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
"once again, your conflating viability with fairness because you know perfectly well that what your proposing isnt fair."
No I'm not. Living in a stable society in exchange for taxes is perfectly fair, and paying the proportionate amount of money for your space of society to keep the system functioning is perfectly fair. But what you're trying to do is make the assertion that this is the equivalent argument to "They should because they can afford it". Its "They should because its necessary."
- if that is the case then you will be able to provide an argument you have made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it
"Living in a stable society in exchange for taxes is perfectly fair" - paying more than another individual for illogical arbitrary reasons is NOT FAIR.
"the irrationality of the statement is clear as day, but the burden of proof is on you to show it IS logical."
Oh my god. You seriously just declared that you've refuted me point by point and when I catch you on you flat declarations of illogicality, you immediately afterward say that their illogicality is clear as day. Which is it? did you demonstrate, or should I just accept your personal opinion of what is clearly illogical.
BTW, I HAVE shown it logical, but you just keep asserting its not.
"Oh my god. You seriously just declared that you've refuted me point by point and when I catch you on you flat declarations of illogicality, you immediately afterward say that their illogicality is clear as day. Which is it? did you demonst"
- incorrect again, as in pointed out THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to show they were logical you failed to do that; but if you would like me to i can explain to you why it's illogical; it just seemed painfully obvious
"Thats the problem, I've provided you with proof " - incorrect, proof isnt subjective and i've addressed every single one of your claims that was relevant to the subject (not about viability)
"I would appreciate it if you finally would. You've declared that you have now several times, but its good to see that you're admitting you havent." - incorrect, i never said i had, i simply said i addressed it (which i did by pointing out that the burden of proof was on you)
" but the burden of proof is on you to show it IS logical."
I have provided proof but you've ignored it and declared it flatly illogical without so much as a consideration or analysis. Its YOUR turn to show how it's illogical.
"I have provided proof but you've ignored it " - incorrect, you asserted that it was logical to charge the rich more because they can afford it, you then went on to conflate fairness with economic viability.
you are yet to provide any basis for your assertion.
"ou asserted that it was logical to charge the rich more because they can afford it, you then went on to conflate fairness with economic viability."
OH MY GOD. 1) I never declared that its logical to charge the rich simply because they can afford it. Again, I've made several points that you've ignored. 2) By declaring that I'm conflating economic viability with fairness, you're making assertions of whats fair without any logical necessity of your own. I say it is fair, you say its not.
"1) I never declared that its logical to charge the rich simply because they can afford it."
in response to my statement "there is no logical basis for charging a person more simply because they earn more." you wrote "Actually there is. They can afford it, and it helps everyone else in society out."
"Again, I've made several points that you've ignored" - incorect, the only points havnt addressed have been about viability which is irrelevant to fairness
"you're making assertions of whats fair without any logical necessity of your own. I say it is fair, you say its not."
- incorrect, i made no assertions, i explained from the very start why flattax .etc would be ,more fair; the illogical nature of charging a person more simply because they have more.
"I say it is fair, you say its not." - i have a logical basis for my claim, you dont.
"and head-tax (fixed fee) is about as fair as the system could get"
Actually it isn't for the same reasons as a flat tax doesn't work. These either screw the lower classes or inflate the higher classes to an even greater extent, which is another logical basis for taxing the rich more. Every single country with a shitty standard of living has a massive income disparity between the poor and the rich. High taxes on top earners is what guards against aristocracy.
"Actually it isn't for the same reasons as a flat tax doesn't work"
-incorrect, whilst a flat-tax ISNT VIABLE it is however more fair than the progressive tax because charging the rich simply because they have more isnt logical.
ref.
- so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?
"-incorrect, whilst a flat-tax ISNT VIABLE it is however more fair than the progressive tax because charging the rich simply because they have more isnt logical."
You keep saying that, but I'm not sure you actually understand what that means. As I already said, I've provided several reasons, and you're attempting to declare them as illogical for no other reason than your own disagreement. Its funny that every refutation you provide is something you later admit is not viable.
"You keep saying that, but I'm not sure you actually understand what that means. As I already said, I've provided several reasons"
- every reason you've attempted to provide has been as baseless as your initial claim, which is why i found them easy to debunk.
the question was 'why should the rich be taxed more?' your response (all your responses infact) boil down to 'because they can afford it' that is not a logical reason.
"- every reason you've attempted to provide has been as baseless as your initial claim, which is why i found them easy to debunk."
You havent even touched them.
"the question was 'why should the rich be taxed more?' your response (all your responses infact) boil down to 'because they can afford it' that is not a logical reason."
No they don't. Again, capital gains tax, the 50s and 60s 91% income tax, economic stagnation, etc. None of those have to do with them affording it.
"You havent even touched them." - the comments beg to differ.
"No they don't. Again, capital gains tax, the 50s and 60s 91% income tax, economic stagnation, etc. None of those have to do with them affording it" - but all of them have to do with viability which is irrelevant as we are discussing FAIRNESS.
Bullshit. around and around we go, you've already admitted that you haven't addressed what I've said because it's "Clearly illogical" and declared all of my points to be equivalent of other points, without demonstrating how they are the same. You're making fallacies of equivocation left and right.
"Bullshit. around and around we go, you've already admitted that you haven't addressed what I've said because it's Clearly illogical and declared all of my points"
- as i've pointed out several times now, i can explain to you why your claim is illogical if you wish, however YOU made the claim and the burden of proof is ON YOU to show it is logical.
you need to gt your head checked because no equivocation fallacies have been made.
"ve pointed out several times now, i can explain to you why your claim is illogical if you wish, however YOU made the claim and the burden of proof is ON YOU to show it is logical."
And I've explained several times now that you have just made flat claims of illogicality, then made the declaration that you've explained it, but are now saying that you'll grace me with an explanation.
How you're justifying this in your head is beyond me.
"And I've explained several times now that you have just made flat claims of illogicality"
- incorrect, i have pointed out that the burden of proof is on you to show that your claim IS logical, i have also offered to demonstrate to you why it is ILLOGICAL.
"you need to gt your head checked because no equivocation fallacies have been made."
Yes you have. You've made the fallacy of equivocation that manipulation of the economy through different tax systems "boils down to" taxing the rich because they can afford it. These aren't the same, and you're trying to equate two different points.
"Yes you have. You've made the fallacy of equivocation that manipulation of the economy through different tax systems boils down to taxing the rich because they can afford it"
- incorrect, you are yet to present one claim that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it.
" but all of them have to do with viability which is irrelevant as we are discussing FAIRNESS."
No, YOU are trying to declare what YOU think is fair, and declaring all other positions to be illogical. What -I- Was discussing before you came on here was the strawman assertion that you're taxing someone twice when they die. You chose to move the goalposts to the assertion that I want to discourage saving for future generations.
"No, YOU are trying to declare what YOU think is fair, and declaring all other positions"
- incorrect, i've explained why my position is fair and pointed out why the current system is unfair, i have also debunked your attempts to justify the current system; namely your attempts to conflate fairness with economic viability.
- what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
" so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?"
Will you quit attempting to pigeon hole my dialog into something you can strawman and manipulate? I have nothing against saving and working to help future generations. You and I obviously disagree on how that happens.
" so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?"
Will you quit attempting to pigeon hole my dialog into something you can strawman and manipulate? I have nothing against saving and working to help future generations. You and I obviously disagree on how that happens.
"Will you quit attempting to pigeon hole my dialog into something you can strawman and manipulate?"
- im not doing any of those things your condemnation of providing for future generations is a logical necessity of your statement; the fact you were stupid enough to make such a statement in the first place is your own problem.
"- im not doing any of those things your condemnation of providing for future generations is a logical necessity of your statement;"
No its not, I already addressed that. You've made a false dichotomy.
"the fact you were stupid enough to make such a statement in the first place is your own problem."
Oh really? Show me exactly where I said we as a society, or even I as a person should and do condone the active discouragement of working/saving for future generations?
"No its not, I already addressed that. You've made a false dichotomy."
- incorrect, YOU made the claim that Paris Hilton was not entitled to her wealth because she didnt earn it, this BY LOGICAL NECESSITY advocates a position where you condemn acquiring wealth in an attempt to better the lives of future generations.
"YOU made the claim that Paris Hilton was not entitled to her wealth because she didnt earn it, this BY LOGICAL NECESSITY advocates a position where you condemn acquiring wealth in an attempt to better the lives of future generations."
No, I didn't because I never made the declaration that the entirety of her inheritance should be taxed, and I equivocated it to the earnings one gets from the lottery or gambling. This in no way is by logical necessity Anti-saving.
"No, I didn't because I never made the declaration that the entirety of her inheritance should be taxed" - by advocating ANY of her inheritance be taxed you are condemning providing for future generations.
the fact you havnt stated to what point you advocate the death tax only hides HOW MUCH you condemn it.
"Oh really? Show me exactly where I said we as a society, or even I as a person should and do condone the active discouragement of working/saving for future generations"
here you go:
"What conservatives don't realize is that you're not taxing Conrad Hilton who build the Hilton Empire, you're taxing Paris Hilton who did absolutely nothing to deserve it."
And once again, you fail. Read very carefully all of the big words in both posts. At no point do I make the declaration that you're trying to shove in my mouth. I make the completely valid assertion that she did nothing to earn the money, and am showing by contrast that you're not taxing the DEAD Conrad a second time you're taxing the LIVING Paris a FIRST.
"there is no logical basis for charging a person more simply because they earn more."
There's also historical basis. For instance, the greatest time in American history, the 50s and 60s, showed a top tax rate of over 90%, and a gigantic middle class. Higher taxes coupled with increased business loopholes has the effect of the richest people reinvesting money in their own companies in an effort to "keep" as much as possible. Trickledown economics is a myth.
There is no such thing as a "death tax". That's the spin that the "no spin network" is putting on the issue. It's called the Inheritance Tax. Faux News strikes again.
@blazecal no your wrong it's also known as an 'estate tax' and they are often used interchangably. Both you could use and neither one is wrong or faux as you say.
That "certain size" fox news just so happens to omit is >3.5 million. This is a tax meant to get some money back from LARGE Businesses. The richest in the country. The fact that over 50% of the nations wealth is concentrated in the top 5% is DIRECTLY due to this. Im sorry but if a multi million dollar inheritance is "too harsh on you" you can go suck d*k and die. Having the wealth concentrated in a tiny portion of the population is DISASTEROUS to a countries economy
Although i think fox news are lying sons of bitches in most cases and if i where american id be democrat i find inheritence and gift taxes absolutly repulsive.
Even here in sweden where we have the highest taxes in the world next to denmark we have gotten rid of this disgusting tax a couple of years ago, i truly wish you USamericans best of luck in getting rid of this communist tax so that your family or friends can get what you found is rightfully theirs when death comes knocking on the door.
Although i think fox news are lying sons of bitches in most cases and if i where american id be democrat i find inheritence and gift taxes absolutly repulsive.
Even here in sweden where we have the highest taxes in the world next to denmark we have gotten rid of this disgusting tax a couple of years ago, i truly wish you USamericans best of luck in getting rid of this communist tax so that your family or friends can get what you found is rightfully theirs when death comes knocking on the door.
I am somewhat liberal. I don't agree with this tax at all. Call me crazy but why should I pay taxes on money and property that was already taxed? But don't hate on Obama people. Its not like he invented the tax; all previous presidents, except bush, were also allowing this tax to happen. If there is any message that should be learned here it is that FOX news is the biggest joke in television. I might as well be getting my news from Entertainment Tonight.
Yes and even FEWER people will be leaving all their money to their children /relatives because of this kind of law. Its the whole principle that is wrong--Liberals are "WRONG-Minded"
and Blind to the fact that this Govt action hurts Every American , not just the well-off. Why ????Why is because the well-off people in America OWN Small businesses and midsized businesses and even Large businesses. Also results in fewer taxes-and lowers America's Security as it costs money to DEFEND a NATION!!!
It costs more than money to defend this nation, asshole. Typical Repube, assigning money a higher value than the lives it costs to defend us. How many DOLLARS have died in battle, dipshit?
According to you, the rich shouldn't have to fight OR pay higher taxes. WTF SHOULD they do? The poor are the ones dying in battle, NOT the rich.
its a bullshit tax no matter who tries to pass it..... you work all your life to make money, and then your heirs lose it? bullshit, total bullshit....just another way of fucking people who manage to make it to benefit those who didnt..
@Gogargoat so you think its ok, for YOU to benefit from someone elses hard work and their IMMEDIATE family members shouldnt??? spoken like a true communist.. the tax hits small businesses the WORST, so what ends up happening is the government controls even more stuff, which is what the unholy trio of obama /pelosi/and reid seem to want in place..
@Gogargoat since the tax affects family businesses the most( and im talking about family run restaurants and stuff like that, not just the waltons) i think its t total bullshit tax...and i dont see the justice in taking the money someone who worked to provide for his family's future, just to benefit those who didnt bother to do so....and you know very well that almost HALF the people in the USA pay NO taxes after all the subsidies and tax breaks they get...so this is a total bullhsit tax
"since the tax affects family businesses the most"
What family business that isn't a Corporation or an LLC do you know of that has more than $3.5 million in assets? Seriously? Who is dumb enough in this day and age to accumulate a multi-million dollar business, yet keep it run as a sole proprietorship?
No, this is a scam by the super rich for the super rich. This is all forgetting the fact that it's for every dollar OVER the set amount. If you have $3,500,100, you pay $45.
uh huh .... you have Sarah Palin, a poorly educated pentecostal christian from a state that spends half the year in darkness plastered all over your channel ......... from where I'm standing, your the idiot fella. get an education
Just because you like giving all of your money away to Obama doesn't mean we all do. He's taxing and spending us into oblivion. I've had enough. Wake the fuck up.
" because you like giving all of your money away to Obama doesn't mean we all do. He's taxing and spending us into oblivion."
You know he gave 95% of Americans tax breaks, right? And half of all of the "Spending" that gets attributed to him was done by Bush (TARP anyone?) who didn't create a single net job in his entire 8 years. He's also taken several measures to reduce the deficit, something Bush NEVER did. I'm not happy with Obama, but at least berate him for the right things.
Clean your guns and count your ammo, the revolution is on the horizon, I can hear the voice's of We the people are getting ready. DC, you better watch out, the people are mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore.
@fjerins I hate to disappoint you, but you'll be dead before you get to DC. SWAT the Navy, the Marines, the Police, the FBI, the CIA, the NAtion Guard and the army in general seems to be on the side of the government, not radical fear-mongers hungry for war.
"Clean your guns and count your ammo, the revolution is on the horizon, I can hear the voice's of We the people are getting ready. DC, you better watch out, the people are mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore"
im probaly the most non biased kid in the USA says to these assholes:" WHAT THE FUCK!!!???, DO YOU JUST WANT THE US FAIL BECAUSE YOU JUST DONT LIKE WHAT COLOR HIS PARTY WAS!!????". that is all and have a nice day assholes.
btc8128 you wont have to worry about paying an estate tax cause your broke, not my fault. Your argument is counterintuitive from the start. If Im paying the death tax its cause I've earned significantly more money than you, hard to be a deadbeat by having a gross net worth of more than 1,500,000 dollars. Educate yourself before you speak in public forums, you sound like a donkey!!!
its disingenouse to call this a death tax. It is an estate tax that very few people will ever be burdened with. Saying rich kids should get all there money tax free is hardly the same as saving family farms.
If you want to get rid of the estate tax do so. All I am saying is don't be disingenuous in trying to get rid of it. It is not a death tax and it is not about saving family farms be honest is my point I don't envy the rich
The Death Tax proves that even though the Democrats got their cut when the wealth was earned, they still believe the property of the individual is theirs to dispose of. Of course most of them have the money to set up the trusts to avoid this tax. Their progressively punitive tax system along with the loopholes they have provided for themselves are designed to ensure that no commoner (W-2 wage earner) will ever have enough disposable income in order to move up into the aristocracy.
lets say youve just passed away, to qualify for the "death tax" your estate would have to be worth 3.5 million if you have only one child who did not marry, and 7 million if married. if you had two married children your estate would have to be worth $14 million to apply, but lets face it, you were bright to begin with and as most do who are of these means, found a loophole.i find it interesting that right off the bat they tell you 45% of your estate is going away, which, in no way is misleading
7221991 1 year ago
Corporatism 4 evah!!!!!
nzau2010 1 year ago
wow this is sooo perverted & disgusting. It violates every sense of personal property & thus life liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Stealing from those who are dead. Just how perverted can you be?
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
What conservatives don't realize is that you're not taxing Conrad Hilton who build the Hilton Empire, you're taxing Paris Hilton who did absolutely nothing to deserve it.
You used to be taxed for it at the same rate as gambling or lottery winnings.
And no, it doesn't kill small businesses, because if your business has more than $3.5 million in assets, and you haven't incorporated yet, you're running a scam, or aren't smart enough with taxes or business to be complaining. Incorporate.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"What conservatives don't realize is that you're not taxing Conrad Hilton who build the Hilton Empire, you're taxing Paris Hilton who did absolutely nothing to deserve it."
- so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?
because that's what your claim entails. try not to be so stupid k.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?"
Thanks for changing the goalposts. I was just pointing out that you're not getting taxed for dying.
"because that's what your claim entails. try not to be so stupid k"
Not necessarily, as one still gets 3.5 million tax free. You're also forgetting the better lives that everyone gets as part of those taxes.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Thanks for changing the goalposts." - i didnt change the goalpost at all, i simply pointed out a logical necessity of your statement.
ie. using the fact Paris Hilton has done nothing to deserve her wealth as part of your argument you are BY NECESSITY condemning the act of saving inorder to better future generations.
"You're also forgetting the better lives that everyone gets as part of those taxes." - incorrect., i've already covered it. it's necessary but unfair.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- i didnt change the goalpost at all, i simply pointed out a logical necessity of your statement."
No, you made an accusation of my statement and extrapolated an opinion based on your own prejudices. I never said it was a bad thing to save for future generations, and my statement does not necessarily condemn it by any logical necessity. You're trying to create a false dichotomy . I don't have to hate saving for the future to support the estate tax.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
":incorrect., i've already covered it. it's necessary but unfair."
No you haven't. You're acting like the money garnered from the estate tax just disappears. You haven't covered at all how taxes benefit a society, you just bitched about a lack of logical basis when I've demonstrated several.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
"try not to be so stupid k."
Try not to assume that just because someone has a different opinion than you, they must be stupid, ok? Take an economics class.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Try not to assume that just because someone has a different opinion than you, they must be stupid, ok?"
- i didnt say you were stupid because you had a differing viewpoint. i said you were stupid because i demonstrated your arguments to be stupid and pointedout how you had no logical basis for the bulk of what you said.
thanks for playing :)
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- i didnt say you were stupid because you had a differing viewpoint."
No, you didn't say that specifically, but we both know that you suspect anyone of a differing viewpoint to be stupid.
"i said you were stupid because i demonstrated your arguments to be stupid and pointedout how you had no logical basis for the bulk of what you said."
No, you've just made these assertions and tried to declare that I'm against saving and working for future generations. You know, the usual.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, you didn't say that specifically, but we both know that you suspect anyone of a differing viewpoint to be stupid."
- oh yes, it's all magical conspiracy that only you know about. Got any other delusions you'd like to share?
"No, you've just made these assertions and tried to declare that I'm against saving and"
- i have made no assertions, YOU have made assertions, im simply asking you to substanciate them and pointing out your irrationality as you attempt to
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- oh yes, it's all magical conspiracy that only you know about. Got any other delusions you'd like to share?"
Its not a delusion or a conspiracy. You hadn't said more than 18 words to me before you say "Try not to be stupid". You hadn't even provided a refutation except in the form of a question that completely straw manned my position.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
"i have made no assertions,"
Should I point out one of the dozens of times you've declared something to be ilogicaly, flatly, and without any backup of that assertion?
"YOU have made assertions, im simply asking you to substanciate them and pointing out your irrationality as you attempt to"
The only question you've asked me is "Why should the rich be taxed more?" and "do you want to discourage saving for future generations?" Neither of which address my points.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
ok, everyone, think of it, how many people in the US themselves own more then 3.499999 million in assets? really, I can't see how fair it is, but really, how many does this tax effect?
if you do, rant at me if you want, I doubt I'll have any legit replies.
flamedrag18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
one more stupid idea from the dumBocraps
pencon61 1 year ago
death tax is wicked wicked fucked up
scout6686 1 year ago
However, yes, this tax is bullshit.
ShowRStudios 1 year ago
everybody is always hating on rich family cause they got bricks ( piles of money stacked up ). i no there r alot of corrupt rich family out there but yo if a honest man/woman studies, works hard & build a business from scrap, what in the hell gives the government the right 2 take 45% of that person wealth away, where in the constitution does it state that. american now in days r too flucking lazy & scared 2 protest, the FEDz got ya nigga's whipped. ya r shadows of your former self.
TheSavageOne89 1 year ago
@TheSavageOne89
" what in the hell gives the government the right 2 take 45% of that person wealth away, where in the constitution does it state that. "
The 16th Amendment.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
the fact of the matter is that taxing the rich more is keeping the economy viable, at the expense of what is rite; there is no logical basis for charging a person more simply because they earn more.
whether they've obtained their position through hardwork or dumb-luck DOESNT ENTER INTO IT.
flattax (fixed percentage) is a fairer system
and head-tax (fixed fee) is about as fair as the system could get
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"the fact of the matter is that taxing the rich more is keeping the economy viable, at the expense of what is rite"
It depends on which perspective you're looking at. That money helping maintain infrastructure is, in my opinion more right than keeping it stagnate and isolated from the economy in a swiss bank account to cater to someone's personal greed.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"It depends on which perspective you're looking at" - incorrect, it's impartial of position; you have no logical basis for taxing the rich more for accumulating more wealth.
the only justification you've provided is that it's necessary to keep the economy going which completely impartial to what is fair.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- incorrect, it's impartial of position;"
No, its your personal opinion.
"the only justification you've provided is that it's necessary to keep the economy going which completely impartial to what is fair."
As if asking them to pay their share to keep the economy going when they can clearly afford it is unfair? Also, if thats the only thing you gleaned from my posts, you can't have read very much.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
""there is no logical basis for charging a person more simply because they earn more."
Actually there is. They can afford it, and it helps everyone else in society out.
"whether they've obtained their position through hardwork or dumb-luck DOESNT ENTER INTO IT."
It does actually.
"flattax (fixed percentage) is a fairer system"
No it isn't, especially to the lower income brackets. Factor 17% into 10k and 10 mil respectively and see who's better off.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Actually there is. They can afford it, and it helps everyone else in society out."
- charging someone more simply because they can afford it isnt logical:
capitalism and the acquirement of wealth is the very basis of our society yet your advocating a system that actively works against it by penalizing people for what they earn
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"charging someone more simply because they can afford it isnt logical:"
I like how you toss "simply" in there to try to mitigate my position, and then ignore the point anyway. No, its the fact that EVERYONE needs it and they can afford it. Also the fact that we're talking about the estate tax, and they're getting taxed just as they would with lottery or gambling winnings.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
"capitalism and the acquirement of wealth is the very basis of our society yet your advocating a system that actively works against it by penalizing people for what they earn"
No, the constitution is the basis of our society, and it doesn't declare what economic system we're supposed to have. What we are, and always have been is a mixed market economy, with the government dominating some sectors (Commonly called Socialism). (cont)
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, the constitution is the basis of our society, and it doesn't declare what economic system we're supposed to have"
so now your disputing that we live in a capitalist society are you?
do you think the British have a constitution? because that's from where America as you know it arose.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"so now your disputing that we live in a capitalist society are you?"
Yes, I dispute that we live in a purely capitalist society. If we did, than our army would be mercenaries, our police private security, our highways would all be tolls, our public utilities would all be private, and UPS would carry every letter.
"do you think the British have a constitution? because that's from where America as you know it arose."
Hey what do we call the British? Socialists.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Yes, I dispute that we live in a purely capitalist society. If we did, than our army would be mercenaries, our police private security, our highways would all be tolls, our public"
- then you would also dispute that we live in a purely democratic society by the same token.
if you do then you've rendered your argument completely moot by making it impossible for it to be purely anything
if you dont then we've found yet another logical contradiction in your worldview
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- then you would also dispute that we live in a purely democratic society by the same token."
We don't actually, we live in a representational democracy by definition because we elect leaders to make decisions for us. There's no way to live in a pure democracy because we can't vote on every single issue, nor can we make every single person of equal governmental power. It just doesn't work with the human condition. I'm sorry if you can't handle these complex definitions.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
"if you do then you've rendered your argument completely moot by making it impossible for it to be purely anything"
Actually it doesn't. You don't know what the word "Niche" means, do you? You're arguing that because I'm specifically defining my terms, I'm somehow declaring something can't be purely anything.
Get it right pal. I'm correcting your generalization, not obliterating a definition. Just because we're not purely one thing doesn't mean we cant be purely something else.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Actually it doesn't. You don't know what the word Niche means, do you?" - actually i do but it's not helping you. you've watered the definitions down to the point your incapable of saying that we live in a democratic society.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" actually i do but it's not helping you. you've watered the definitions down to the point your incapable of saying that we live in a democratic society."
No, what I'm doing is using specific and correct definitions designed to describe in detail our system. You're using a blanket statement in an attempt to make an argument. I didn't say we don't live in a democratic society, I said we live in a representational democracy as opposed to a pure democracy. Same with capitalism.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
you continue to argue semantics instead of providing an actual argument.
- what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
because we can end this right now.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"you continue to argue semantics instead of providing an actual argument."
I'm ending this right now because my inbox is getting clogged and you're making the same damn fallacies over and over again. I'm sick of repeating myself, and I'm sick of your strawmen. I've blown almost 2 hours trying to lead you by the hand and spoon feed you point by point, and you're still just ignoring points and attempting to justify it.
I'm done repeating myself.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"I'm ending this right now because my inbox is getting clogged and you're making the same damn fallacies over and over again"
- im asking for evidence of your claim and your failing to provide it and trying to take the conversation off on a tangent.
you claim there are points i havnt addressed but fail to provide them. i ask again. what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"i ask again. what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?"
Again you move the goalposts because originally you made the point that all of my points boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it, and NOW you're taking every other point I've made and dropping it into the bin of "viability" and saying "you can't use that either". You don't see the inconsistency?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Again you move the goalposts because originally you made the point that all of my points boil down to the..."
- i have moved no goalpost; i said from my very first comment that the systems i advocate (whilst being fairer) are not viable, this makes all of your arguments regarding viability completely moot.
which is why im asking what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" have moved no goalpost; i said from my very first comment that the systems i advocate (whilst being fairer) are not viable, this makes all of your arguments regarding viability completely moot."
So you're playing devil's advocate?
No, it doesn't make my arguments about viability being moot. If you admit that your system crashes and burns, that actually bolsters my side of the argument because a viable system is inherently more fair than a burning one.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"So you're playing devil's advocate?"
- no. my argument is about pointing out why the existing system is unfair, i did this by pointing to fairer systems.
the fact the systems arnt viable is completely moot; it's not what is being discussed (something i made very clear from my first posts)
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- no. my argument is about pointing out why the existing system is unfair, i did this by pointing to fairer systems."
No, you provided your idea of what a fairer system would be and asserted this as though it were fact.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, you provided your idea of what a fairer system would be and asserted this as though it were fact. "
- i provided a logical justification for why the systems i mentioned would be more fair.
- you had no response and instead pointed out that they werent viable (something i didnt contest from the start)
- you are yet to provide any logical basis for why the current progressive system is fair to the rich
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"which is why im asking what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?"
No, NOW you're asking why it isn't about viability because I answered your challenge. The problem is that you're taking every single other point I've made, and could be made and lumping it in as "viability", then leaving absolutely nothing in between. As I said before, its a false dichotomy.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, NOW you're asking why it isn't about viability because I answered your challenge"
- incorrect, i made very clear from the start that this conversation was NOT about viability (i did this by pointing out that systems i proposed were NOT viable)
- my point was that existing system is unfair and that systems mentioned were MORE FAIR.
the reference to viability only exists because of your continued attempts to take the conversation on tangent regarding viability.
types10000 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
- i addressed every claim you made regarding the fairness of the progressive tax system
- having failed at that you attempted to push the conversation towards viability (a subject i didnt contest from the start)
- you then tried to claim that because i had not addressed your points regarding viability (which are not infact points against my position at all) that i had not addressed everything,
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"i ask again. what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?"
Simply by asking this question, you acknowledge that arguments about viability don't boil down to "They can afford it" because you have to make the differentiation! How do you not see this? You're a walking logical fallacy!
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Simply by asking this question, you acknowledge that arguments about viability don't boil down to They can afford it"
- incorrect, im actually pointing out that arguments regarding viability have no place in the discussion (as i said from the start that the systems i advocate are not viable)
you claimed there were points i hadnt addressed, in reality however i addressed everypoint that was relevant (i didnt address points regarding viability because they werent)
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"im asking for evidence of your claim and your failing to provide it and trying to take the conversation off on a tangent."
AGAIN, for the 5th time I'm providing you with evidence, you're just ignoring it, or trying to conflate arguments of the fairness of keeping the system viable with "The rich can afford it so they should pay".
I'm not surprised, but I'm also no longer amused by it. Enjoy your day.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"AGAIN, for the 5th time I'm providing you with evidence, you're just ignoring it,"
- incorrect, i asked you for:
what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
and you reply with nothing, just the claim that you've already made it. well if that's the case where is it?
types10000 1 year ago
"and you reply with nothing, just the claim that you've already made it. well if that's the case where is it?"
What I'm claiming is that you're changing the goalposts and asking the wrong question. What you're doing is the same as asking me "What color is the sky that isn't blue, or any other color?" As I said before, its a false dichotomy. You FIRST asked what is an argument that doesn't boil down to "the can afford", and when I provide it, you wall them off and move the goalposts.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"What I'm claiming is that you're changing the goalposts and asking the wrong question"
- no, im highlighting the fact that every claim you've made regarding viability is a red herring. your attempting to mask your inability to argue that the progressive tax system is fair.
no statement i've made commits a false dichotomy
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" no, im highlighting the fact that every claim you've made regarding viability is a red herring. your attempting to mask your inability to argue that the progressive tax system is fair."
No, the viability of the economy is not a red herring, as my argument is that the tax system is fair because it keeps the economy viable and without a viable economy their wealth becomes meaningless. A burning house where only the strong survives is not more fair than helping everyone out alive.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, the viability of the economy is not a red herring"
- the entire conversation is about 'fairness' so yes, every single claim you made regarding viability is a red herring.
"as my argument is that the tax system is fair because it keeps the economy viable" - economic viability is a completely separate subject; you can have a fair system that isnt viable or a system that is viable and unfair,
your attempts to conflate them have once again failed.
types10000 1 year ago
"economic viability is a completely separate subject; you can have a fair system that isnt viable or a system that is viable and unfair
your attempts to conflate them have once again failed."
No, my attempts to try to reason with you the concept that if your system is not viable then there's no opportunity for fairness or unfairness have failed. You keep declaring that I'm conflating the two, when you're failing to provide any justification that keeping the system viable isn't also Fair.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, my attempts to try to reason with you the concept that if your system is not viable then there's no opportunity for fairness"
- the discussion is about fairness, unless every viable economic system is by necessity a fair system then bringing up viability is completely meaningless.
and you dont have to look to far back in history to realize this isnt the case; viability does not necessitate faireness.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
I'm seriously done repeating myself. I'm addressed every single thing you've said. You think you've addressed everything iv'e said. We're going in circles.
I'm done trying to explain this to you.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"I'm seriously done repeating myself" - then i suggest you actually say something relevant, instead of continuously spouting logical fallacies and attempting to project your failure onto others.
"You think you've addressed everything iv'e said" - if there's something i havnt addressed then name it, because as i've pointed out all your claims regarding viability are completely irrelevant.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- if there's something i havnt addressed then name it, because as i've pointed out all your claims regarding viability are completely irrelevant."
Thats what I keep trying to tell you. Any argument I've made you can make the false dichotomy of declaring them to be about keeping the system viable and declaring that because you advocate a burning house, that somehow it can't be considered fair. The points you refuse to address are the ones you hold ad bay with a dichotomy fallacy.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Thats what I keep trying to tell you. Any argument I've made you can make the false dichotomy of declaring them to be about keeping the system viable"
- incorrect, every comment you've made that doesnt boil down to the 'rich should pay more because they can afford it' has been to do with viability.
if you dispute this then kindly show how your claim is to do with fairness.
also a false dichotomy isnt an issue as the ONLY thing that matters is faireness
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"then i suggest you actually say something relevant, instead of continuously spouting logical fallacies and attempting to project your failure onto others."
I'd point out thy hypocrisy of this, but I don't think you're capable of understanding it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
your claiming logical fallacies have been made when you obviously dont know what they are.
you've claimed i've created a false dichotomy between economic viability and fairness.
not only is this incorrect, but it's also non-conducive to the conversation; all that matters is that you can show a given claim IS to do with fairness; you have as of yet been unable to do this.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"if you dont then we've found yet another logical contradiction in your worldview"
Actually again, what you've done is attempted another false dichotomy by declaring that if I don't think we're purely democratic or purely capitalistic than I somehow think we're not purely anything. We're purely a representational democratically run republic, but we're also a mixed market economy. You're just getting loopy now.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Actually again, what you've done is attempted another false dichotomy by declaring that if I don't think we're purely democratic or purely capitalistic than I somehow think we're not purely anything"
- incorrect, i've simply made an observation ie. your incapable of saying we live in a democratic society.
you are arguing semantics because your incapable of providing sound arguments.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"ncorrect, i've simply made an observation ie. your incapable of saying we live in a democratic society."
My god, you really don't understand the difference between being specific and making a general statement? You don't seem to realize the democratic statement was a rebuttal to your assertion that capitalism is the basis of our society, when it's in fact the constitution.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"You don't seem to realize the democratic statement was a rebuttal to your assertion that capitalism is the basis of our society"
- it failed at being a rebuttal and devolved into you arguing semantics instead of providing an actual argument.
you are incapable of thinking of society beyond your own country eg. the western world as a whole is a society too.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"you are arguing semantics because your incapable of providing sound argument"
No, you're going off on tangents, and I'm addressing all of your points. Keep up.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, you're going off on tangents"
your projecting:
- i pointed out that capitalism was the basis of society as we know it.
- you claimed our society wasn't wholly capitalistic (completely irrelevant)
types10000 1 year ago
"capitalism and the acquirement of wealth is the very basis of our society yet your advocating a system that actively works against it by penalizing people for what they earn"
What I advocate is a system that works for the middle class, and if that means taxing the richest brackets by 91% as we did in the 50s and 60s, then so be it. That was the golden age of American history, with the most prosperity in generations, and godammit if that isn't a logical reason to tax the rich more.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"What I advocate is a system that works for the middle class" - advocating a system that works, isnt the same as advocating a system that's fair.
types10000 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"It does actually." - you've just claimed that the manner in which someone obtains wealth should have a bearing on how much they are charged but provide no arguments for your position and nothing to refute my arguments against it.
"No it isn't, especially to the lower income brackets" - you provide no logical basis for this claim either and are likely confusing fairness economic viability
types10000 1 year ago
"claimed that the manner in which someone obtains wealth should have a bearing on how much they are charged but provide no arguments for your position and nothing to refute my arguments against it."
No, you're just ignoring them, and yes, I do claim that the way in which something is earned should be taxed differently because different sectors of the economy affect more than one sector, which is the reason capital gains tax is lower than income tax, for example.. It encourages investment.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, you're just ignoring them" - i've provided point-by-point refutations to virtually every comment you've made, please advise where i have missed them.
why should the rich be taxed more?
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" i've provided point-by-point refutations to virtually every comment you've made, please advise where i have missed them."
No you haven't, and you even acknowledge that when you say "virtually". You've ignored the point about the tax rate in the 50s and 60s, you've ignored the points about an expansive middle class, you've ignored the point about different taxes for different methods of income. The rest you've just flatly declared to be illogical, full stop.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No you haven't, and you even acknowledge that when you say virtually." - incorrect, i only say virtually because i only address what is relevant.
"You've ignored the point about the tax rate in the 50s and 60s" - this was irrelevant you conflated fairness with viability and as your comment targeted at viability i had no reason to address it.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- incorrect, i only say virtually because i only address what is relevant."
Its funny how you declare something irrelevant and refuse to address it then somehow rationalize that you've refuted everything I've said point by point, while also declaring that I've made only baseless assertions.
You realize that by ignoring half of the conversation, you don't automatically resolve the points, right?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Its funny how you declare something irrelevant and refuse to address it then somehow rationalize that you've refuted everything"
- i pointed what was irrelevant and explained why it was irrelevant, you attempted to find something i hadnt addressed that was relevant and failed.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"i pointed what was irrelevant and explained why it was irrelevant"
No, agian, you didn't. You just kept making the flat declaration that I was being illogical and asking strawman questions.
"you attempted to find something i hadnt addressed that was relevant and failed."
Is that what you call it when someone brings up a point to the conversation that you never thought of before? Thats some crazy sociopathic logic you're working with there, pal.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, agian, you didn't. You just kept making the flat declaration that I was being illogical and asking strawman questions."
- as i've already pointed out the burden of proof is on you to show how your claim is logical; i can show you how it is irrational if you would like, but it doesnt change this fact
- you are yet to provide evidence of any strawman
types10000 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Is that what you call it when someone brings up a point to the conversation that you never thought of before?"
no, that's what i say to someone who claims to have arguments i havnt addressed but is incapable of providing:
- an argument you have made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it
types10000 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"you've ignored the points about an expansive middle class, you've ignored the point about different taxes for different methods of income"
- incorrect, i've addressed all of these; they inevitably boil down to the same thing ie. you think it's ok to tax someone more because they have more
"The rest you've just flatly declared to be illogical, full stop." - the irrationality of the statement is clear as day, but the burden of proof is on you to show it IS logical.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"incorrect, i've addressed all of these; they inevitably boil down to the same thing ie. you think it's ok to tax someone more because they have more"
No, they don't, I already told you about this. If you're going to make the declaration of what they boil down to, then draw the logical train of thought from "It influences different sectors of the economy and promotes a middle class which raises the standard of living" to "Its illogical."
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"what they boil down to, then draw the logical train of thought from It influences different sectors of the economy and promotes a middle class which raises the standard of living" to "Its illogical."
- once again, your conflating viability with fairness because you know perfectly well that what your proposing isnt fair.
- what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
types10000 1 year ago
"once again, your conflating viability with fairness because you know perfectly well that what your proposing isnt fair."
No I'm not. Living in a stable society in exchange for taxes is perfectly fair, and paying the proportionate amount of money for your space of society to keep the system functioning is perfectly fair. But what you're trying to do is make the assertion that this is the equivalent argument to "They should because they can afford it". Its "They should because its necessary."
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No I'm not."
- if that is the case then you will be able to provide an argument you have made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it
"Living in a stable society in exchange for taxes is perfectly fair" - paying more than another individual for illogical arbitrary reasons is NOT FAIR.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?"
CAPITAL GAINS TAX! THIS IS THE 4TH TIME YOU'vE IGNORED IT.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"CAPITAL GAINS TAX! THIS IS THE 4TH TIME YOU'vE IGNORED IT."
- incorrect again, i have no point ignored it, it boils down to viability NOT fairness.
types10000 1 year ago
"the irrationality of the statement is clear as day, but the burden of proof is on you to show it IS logical."
Oh my god. You seriously just declared that you've refuted me point by point and when I catch you on you flat declarations of illogicality, you immediately afterward say that their illogicality is clear as day. Which is it? did you demonstrate, or should I just accept your personal opinion of what is clearly illogical.
BTW, I HAVE shown it logical, but you just keep asserting its not.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Oh my god. You seriously just declared that you've refuted me point by point and when I catch you on you flat declarations of illogicality, you immediately afterward say that their illogicality is clear as day. Which is it? did you demonst"
- incorrect again, as in pointed out THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to show they were logical you failed to do that; but if you would like me to i can explain to you why it's illogical; it just seemed painfully obvious
types10000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
" incorrect again, as in pointed out THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to show they were logical you failed to do that; "
Thats the problem, I've provided you with proof but all you've done is made the declaration that I've failed, and haven't made the examination.
" but if you would like me to i can explain to you why it's illogical"
I would appreciate it if you finally would. You've declared that you have now several times, but its good to see that you're admitting you havent.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Thats the problem, I've provided you with proof " - incorrect, proof isnt subjective and i've addressed every single one of your claims that was relevant to the subject (not about viability)
"I would appreciate it if you finally would. You've declared that you have now several times, but its good to see that you're admitting you havent." - incorrect, i never said i had, i simply said i addressed it (which i did by pointing out that the burden of proof was on you)
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" but the burden of proof is on you to show it IS logical."
I have provided proof but you've ignored it and declared it flatly illogical without so much as a consideration or analysis. Its YOUR turn to show how it's illogical.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"I have provided proof but you've ignored it " - incorrect, you asserted that it was logical to charge the rich more because they can afford it, you then went on to conflate fairness with economic viability.
you are yet to provide any basis for your assertion.
types10000 1 year ago
"ou asserted that it was logical to charge the rich more because they can afford it, you then went on to conflate fairness with economic viability."
OH MY GOD. 1) I never declared that its logical to charge the rich simply because they can afford it. Again, I've made several points that you've ignored. 2) By declaring that I'm conflating economic viability with fairness, you're making assertions of whats fair without any logical necessity of your own. I say it is fair, you say its not.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"1) I never declared that its logical to charge the rich simply because they can afford it."
in response to my statement "there is no logical basis for charging a person more simply because they earn more." you wrote "Actually there is. They can afford it, and it helps everyone else in society out."
"Again, I've made several points that you've ignored" - incorect, the only points havnt addressed have been about viability which is irrelevant to fairness
types10000 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"you're making assertions of whats fair without any logical necessity of your own. I say it is fair, you say its not."
- incorrect, i made no assertions, i explained from the very start why flattax .etc would be ,more fair; the illogical nature of charging a person more simply because they have more.
"I say it is fair, you say its not." - i have a logical basis for my claim, you dont.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"and head-tax (fixed fee) is about as fair as the system could get"
Actually it isn't for the same reasons as a flat tax doesn't work. These either screw the lower classes or inflate the higher classes to an even greater extent, which is another logical basis for taxing the rich more. Every single country with a shitty standard of living has a massive income disparity between the poor and the rich. High taxes on top earners is what guards against aristocracy.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Actually it isn't for the same reasons as a flat tax doesn't work"
-incorrect, whilst a flat-tax ISNT VIABLE it is however more fair than the progressive tax because charging the rich simply because they have more isnt logical.
ref.
- so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"-incorrect, whilst a flat-tax ISNT VIABLE it is however more fair than the progressive tax because charging the rich simply because they have more isnt logical."
You keep saying that, but I'm not sure you actually understand what that means. As I already said, I've provided several reasons, and you're attempting to declare them as illogical for no other reason than your own disagreement. Its funny that every refutation you provide is something you later admit is not viable.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"You keep saying that, but I'm not sure you actually understand what that means. As I already said, I've provided several reasons"
- every reason you've attempted to provide has been as baseless as your initial claim, which is why i found them easy to debunk.
the question was 'why should the rich be taxed more?' your response (all your responses infact) boil down to 'because they can afford it' that is not a logical reason.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- every reason you've attempted to provide has been as baseless as your initial claim, which is why i found them easy to debunk."
You havent even touched them.
"the question was 'why should the rich be taxed more?' your response (all your responses infact) boil down to 'because they can afford it' that is not a logical reason."
No they don't. Again, capital gains tax, the 50s and 60s 91% income tax, economic stagnation, etc. None of those have to do with them affording it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"You havent even touched them." - the comments beg to differ.
"No they don't. Again, capital gains tax, the 50s and 60s 91% income tax, economic stagnation, etc. None of those have to do with them affording it" - but all of them have to do with viability which is irrelevant as we are discussing FAIRNESS.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- the comments beg to differ."'
Bullshit. around and around we go, you've already admitted that you haven't addressed what I've said because it's "Clearly illogical" and declared all of my points to be equivalent of other points, without demonstrating how they are the same. You're making fallacies of equivocation left and right.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Bullshit. around and around we go, you've already admitted that you haven't addressed what I've said because it's Clearly illogical and declared all of my points"
- as i've pointed out several times now, i can explain to you why your claim is illogical if you wish, however YOU made the claim and the burden of proof is ON YOU to show it is logical.
you need to gt your head checked because no equivocation fallacies have been made.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"ve pointed out several times now, i can explain to you why your claim is illogical if you wish, however YOU made the claim and the burden of proof is ON YOU to show it is logical."
And I've explained several times now that you have just made flat claims of illogicality, then made the declaration that you've explained it, but are now saying that you'll grace me with an explanation.
How you're justifying this in your head is beyond me.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"And I've explained several times now that you have just made flat claims of illogicality"
- incorrect, i have pointed out that the burden of proof is on you to show that your claim IS logical, i have also offered to demonstrate to you why it is ILLOGICAL.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"you need to gt your head checked because no equivocation fallacies have been made."
Yes you have. You've made the fallacy of equivocation that manipulation of the economy through different tax systems "boils down to" taxing the rich because they can afford it. These aren't the same, and you're trying to equate two different points.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Yes you have. You've made the fallacy of equivocation that manipulation of the economy through different tax systems boils down to taxing the rich because they can afford it"
- incorrect, you are yet to present one claim that ISNT about viability and doesnt boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it.
if you have one then lets here it.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" but all of them have to do with viability which is irrelevant as we are discussing FAIRNESS."
No, YOU are trying to declare what YOU think is fair, and declaring all other positions to be illogical. What -I- Was discussing before you came on here was the strawman assertion that you're taxing someone twice when they die. You chose to move the goalposts to the assertion that I want to discourage saving for future generations.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, YOU are trying to declare what YOU think is fair, and declaring all other positions"
- incorrect, i've explained why my position is fair and pointed out why the current system is unfair, i have also debunked your attempts to justify the current system; namely your attempts to conflate fairness with economic viability.
- what argument have you made that ISNT about viability and DOESNT boil down to the rich should pay more because they can afford it?
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
" so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?"
Will you quit attempting to pigeon hole my dialog into something you can strawman and manipulate? I have nothing against saving and working to help future generations. You and I obviously disagree on how that happens.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
" so according to you, working to give your future generations better lives is something that should be discouraged?"
Will you quit attempting to pigeon hole my dialog into something you can strawman and manipulate? I have nothing against saving and working to help future generations. You and I obviously disagree on how that happens.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Will you quit attempting to pigeon hole my dialog into something you can strawman and manipulate?"
- im not doing any of those things your condemnation of providing for future generations is a logical necessity of your statement; the fact you were stupid enough to make such a statement in the first place is your own problem.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"- im not doing any of those things your condemnation of providing for future generations is a logical necessity of your statement;"
No its not, I already addressed that. You've made a false dichotomy.
"the fact you were stupid enough to make such a statement in the first place is your own problem."
Oh really? Show me exactly where I said we as a society, or even I as a person should and do condone the active discouragement of working/saving for future generations?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No its not, I already addressed that. You've made a false dichotomy."
- incorrect, YOU made the claim that Paris Hilton was not entitled to her wealth because she didnt earn it, this BY LOGICAL NECESSITY advocates a position where you condemn acquiring wealth in an attempt to better the lives of future generations.
you failed again.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"YOU made the claim that Paris Hilton was not entitled to her wealth because she didnt earn it, this BY LOGICAL NECESSITY advocates a position where you condemn acquiring wealth in an attempt to better the lives of future generations."
No, I didn't because I never made the declaration that the entirety of her inheritance should be taxed, and I equivocated it to the earnings one gets from the lottery or gambling. This in no way is by logical necessity Anti-saving.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"No, I didn't because I never made the declaration that the entirety of her inheritance should be taxed" - by advocating ANY of her inheritance be taxed you are condemning providing for future generations.
the fact you havnt stated to what point you advocate the death tax only hides HOW MUCH you condemn it.
types10000 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
"Oh really? Show me exactly where I said we as a society, or even I as a person should and do condone the active discouragement of working/saving for future generations"
here you go:
"What conservatives don't realize is that you're not taxing Conrad Hilton who build the Hilton Empire, you're taxing Paris Hilton who did absolutely nothing to deserve it."
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"here you go:"
And once again, you fail. Read very carefully all of the big words in both posts. At no point do I make the declaration that you're trying to shove in my mouth. I make the completely valid assertion that she did nothing to earn the money, and am showing by contrast that you're not taxing the DEAD Conrad a second time you're taxing the LIVING Paris a FIRST.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@types10000
"there is no logical basis for charging a person more simply because they earn more."
There's also historical basis. For instance, the greatest time in American history, the 50s and 60s, showed a top tax rate of over 90%, and a gigantic middle class. Higher taxes coupled with increased business loopholes has the effect of the richest people reinvesting money in their own companies in an effort to "keep" as much as possible. Trickledown economics is a myth.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
There is no such thing as a "death tax". That's the spin that the "no spin network" is putting on the issue. It's called the Inheritance Tax. Faux News strikes again.
blazecal 1 year ago
@blazecal Either way it does the same thing. Obviously it only applies to larger estates, but Boehner makes a point in its affecting farms.
MrBlackers 1 year ago
@blazecal no your wrong it's also known as an 'estate tax' and they are often used interchangably. Both you could use and neither one is wrong or faux as you say.
scout6686 1 year ago
That "certain size" fox news just so happens to omit is >3.5 million. This is a tax meant to get some money back from LARGE Businesses. The richest in the country. The fact that over 50% of the nations wealth is concentrated in the top 5% is DIRECTLY due to this. Im sorry but if a multi million dollar inheritance is "too harsh on you" you can go suck d*k and die. Having the wealth concentrated in a tiny portion of the population is DISASTEROUS to a countries economy
boorens18 1 year ago
Although i think fox news are lying sons of bitches in most cases and if i where american id be democrat i find inheritence and gift taxes absolutly repulsive.
Even here in sweden where we have the highest taxes in the world next to denmark we have gotten rid of this disgusting tax a couple of years ago, i truly wish you USamericans best of luck in getting rid of this communist tax so that your family or friends can get what you found is rightfully theirs when death comes knocking on the door.
Alexowiwar 1 year ago
Although i think fox news are lying sons of bitches in most cases and if i where american id be democrat i find inheritence and gift taxes absolutly repulsive.
Even here in sweden where we have the highest taxes in the world next to denmark we have gotten rid of this disgusting tax a couple of years ago, i truly wish you USamericans best of luck in getting rid of this communist tax so that your family or friends can get what you found is rightfully theirs when death comes knocking on the door.
Alexowiwar 1 year ago
I am somewhat liberal. I don't agree with this tax at all. Call me crazy but why should I pay taxes on money and property that was already taxed? But don't hate on Obama people. Its not like he invented the tax; all previous presidents, except bush, were also allowing this tax to happen. If there is any message that should be learned here it is that FOX news is the biggest joke in television. I might as well be getting my news from Entertainment Tonight.
NoviceChild4 1 year ago
i'm a democrat and im totally against the death tax, and this coon president loves giving back to the illegals and welfare recipients
braposo23 2 years ago
fuck the united states government
sparky41684 2 years ago
Yes and even FEWER people will be leaving all their money to their children /relatives because of this kind of law. Its the whole principle that is wrong--Liberals are "WRONG-Minded"
and Blind to the fact that this Govt action hurts Every American , not just the well-off. Why ????Why is because the well-off people in America OWN Small businesses and midsized businesses and even Large businesses. Also results in fewer taxes-and lowers America's Security as it costs money to DEFEND a NATION!!!
seahorse1945 2 years ago
@seahorse1945
It costs more than money to defend this nation, asshole. Typical Repube, assigning money a higher value than the lives it costs to defend us. How many DOLLARS have died in battle, dipshit?
According to you, the rich shouldn't have to fight OR pay higher taxes. WTF SHOULD they do? The poor are the ones dying in battle, NOT the rich.
You gotta pay, one way or the other.
So stop whining like a bitch.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
its a bullshit tax no matter who tries to pass it..... you work all your life to make money, and then your heirs lose it? bullshit, total bullshit....just another way of fucking people who manage to make it to benefit those who didnt..
chrisrei10 2 years ago 2
@chrisrei10
And just how do you figure someone deserves to inherit millions of dollars without doing anything for it? How is that fair?
How about increasing the death tax and lower the income tax, that way everyone who works hard for their money gets more money.
Gogargoat 1 year ago
@Gogargoat so you think its ok, for YOU to benefit from someone elses hard work and their IMMEDIATE family members shouldnt??? spoken like a true communist.. the tax hits small businesses the WORST, so what ends up happening is the government controls even more stuff, which is what the unholy trio of obama /pelosi/and reid seem to want in place..
chrisrei10 1 year ago
@Gogargoat since the tax affects family businesses the most( and im talking about family run restaurants and stuff like that, not just the waltons) i think its t total bullshit tax...and i dont see the justice in taking the money someone who worked to provide for his family's future, just to benefit those who didnt bother to do so....and you know very well that almost HALF the people in the USA pay NO taxes after all the subsidies and tax breaks they get...so this is a total bullhsit tax
chrisrei10 1 year ago
@chrisrei10
"since the tax affects family businesses the most"
What family business that isn't a Corporation or an LLC do you know of that has more than $3.5 million in assets? Seriously? Who is dumb enough in this day and age to accumulate a multi-million dollar business, yet keep it run as a sole proprietorship?
No, this is a scam by the super rich for the super rich. This is all forgetting the fact that it's for every dollar OVER the set amount. If you have $3,500,100, you pay $45.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
more Fox misinformation and propaganda pulled from the asses of dumb GOP reactionaries
perfectbark 2 years ago
and you are a fucking idiot
palmtreedoc 2 years ago
uh huh .... you have Sarah Palin, a poorly educated pentecostal christian from a state that spends half the year in darkness plastered all over your channel ......... from where I'm standing, your the idiot fella. get an education
perfectbark 2 years ago
Just because you like giving all of your money away to Obama doesn't mean we all do. He's taxing and spending us into oblivion. I've had enough. Wake the fuck up.
palmtreedoc 2 years ago
Really? so you you are saying that you were better off with the Bush Doctrine of tax and invade? You wake up you dumb uneducated reactionary ......
perfectbark 2 years ago
@palmtreedoc
" because you like giving all of your money away to Obama doesn't mean we all do. He's taxing and spending us into oblivion."
You know he gave 95% of Americans tax breaks, right? And half of all of the "Spending" that gets attributed to him was done by Bush (TARP anyone?) who didn't create a single net job in his entire 8 years. He's also taken several measures to reduce the deficit, something Bush NEVER did. I'm not happy with Obama, but at least berate him for the right things.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
Clean your guns and count your ammo, the revolution is on the horizon, I can hear the voice's of We the people are getting ready. DC, you better watch out, the people are mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore.
fjerins 2 years ago 2
a few thousand teabaggers do not a revolution make.
perfectbark 2 years ago
Right on, brother. I'm with you. It's getting out of hand.
palmtreedoc 2 years ago
@fjerins I hate to disappoint you, but you'll be dead before you get to DC. SWAT the Navy, the Marines, the Police, the FBI, the CIA, the NAtion Guard and the army in general seems to be on the side of the government, not radical fear-mongers hungry for war.
ShowRStudios 1 year ago
@fjerins
"Clean your guns and count your ammo, the revolution is on the horizon, I can hear the voice's of We the people are getting ready. DC, you better watch out, the people are mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore"
I'm sure Jared Laughner agrees with you.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
The only difference between a taxman and a taxidermist, is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. -- Mark Twain
sixletter 2 years ago 2
im probaly the most non biased kid in the USA says to these assholes:" WHAT THE FUCK!!!???, DO YOU JUST WANT THE US FAIL BECAUSE YOU JUST DONT LIKE WHAT COLOR HIS PARTY WAS!!????". that is all and have a nice day assholes.
falarr2 2 years ago
btc8128 you wont have to worry about paying an estate tax cause your broke, not my fault. Your argument is counterintuitive from the start. If Im paying the death tax its cause I've earned significantly more money than you, hard to be a deadbeat by having a gross net worth of more than 1,500,000 dollars. Educate yourself before you speak in public forums, you sound like a donkey!!!
thegipper82 2 years ago
its disingenouse to call this a death tax. It is an estate tax that very few people will ever be burdened with. Saying rich kids should get all there money tax free is hardly the same as saving family farms.
toyt100ota 2 years ago
toyt100ota:
class-envy is very unbecoming
palmtreedoc 2 years ago
If you want to get rid of the estate tax do so. All I am saying is don't be disingenuous in trying to get rid of it. It is not a death tax and it is not about saving family farms be honest is my point I don't envy the rich
toyt100ota 2 years ago
The Death Tax proves that even though the Democrats got their cut when the wealth was earned, they still believe the property of the individual is theirs to dispose of. Of course most of them have the money to set up the trusts to avoid this tax. Their progressively punitive tax system along with the loopholes they have provided for themselves are designed to ensure that no commoner (W-2 wage earner) will ever have enough disposable income in order to move up into the aristocracy.
NiemandBinich 2 years ago
lol... pay your taxes, even death tax deadbeats. lol The U.S. Census says only .03% of households... lol
btc8128 2 years ago