Trump delivers State of The Union address (2/5)

Dec 6, 2008
6,599
309
815
TX
Being double taxed ain't right. You get taxed on the assets while you're living and you get taxed on them again when you die. How is that right? Imagine your car being taxed again on your death that your family has to pay in order for them to keep your car. Makes no sense.
You're dead, you aren't being taxed anything. You're basically paying your family an income when you die, why shouldn't they be taxed?
 
Mar 30, 2011
1,170
175
490
Southern California
You're dead, you aren't being taxed anything. You're basically paying your family an income when you die, why shouldn't they be taxed?
The money has already been taxed once. For many of these small and medium sized family owned ranches and farms, it means they can keep them going.
 
Dec 6, 2008
6,599
309
815
TX

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
He’s holding back Marry Jane for the 2020 campaign me thinks. And he can’t call for healthcare reform until he gets some sort of push from Dems or he’d be letting the wolves run of the coop.

I think he set up the road to incremental reform by his transparency talk. He was absolutely right about meds too. You can get migraine pills that cost 50 bucks a pill (5-9 after insurance) in Mexico for 1-3 dollars a pill. And you can do so on an American script.

And you can get like 3 months supply across the border at a time if the doctor scripts it that way. Same pill. Same brand. All made in mexico at the same plant. It is criminal how much big pharma rakes our insurance carriers.

We have a lot to do before Universal healthcare is a thing.
That is true. He isn’t as ballsy as Roosevelt, or maybe the modern political climate doesn’t allow for such radical words.
 
Feb 25, 2017
281
269
210
I think that for some pushing this, the idea of assets != income will never become a meaningful reality and that is why it is so hard to bring understanding.
Something that is purely abstract is much harder to reason about than the price of milk at Coles.
Abstract thinking is one of several markers that separates man from animal. It's what allows most people to look into the night sky and imagine planets, stars, solar systems while animals only see white dots in the sky. I think you may be onto something, the radical left are too emotionally driven which may indicate underdevelopment of the frontal lobes, thereby limiting their critical thinking and impulse control. Could explain why some of the contrarians constantly hark back to the talking points of "racist/sexist/immoral".
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,371
739
385
As someone who has seriously disliked Trump for 20 years or so [him vs hrc was literally nightmare fuel for me].... he finally and officially won me over tonight. I was teetering after Syria, but this sealed it.The wins [NAFTA and other agreements, Syria, prison reform, government transparency, etc] have simply piled up too high to deny for me. He clearly has America's best interests at heart, and he's even helped sway me on the wall. Not to mention, the fact that the mainstream media corporations clearly despise him wins bonus points, since he was never supposed to win the primary let alone the presidency. Add in the fact that I think the left has completely jumped the shark, and yeah. I never, ever thought I'd even come close to supporting a Republican president, but then again, I grew up when they were the crazy authoritarians. Strange times.

And if you leave less than 11 million, it won't be taxed again.

Small and medium seem like they fall in the less than 11 million bracket and won't have any worries.

Sucks to be them, huh?
A small to medium sized farm ranch can easily be worth 11 million in land, equipment, livestock, excetera. That same Farm can be running on fumes. In fact, farms and ranches are typically very cash poor. the death tax can [and does] destroy a family farm very easily. Suddenly owing a couple million dollars can put a company under.

Gonna look up some exact numbers: The effective tax rate is around 1/6. That means a ranch worth 12 million would owe 2 million. A ranch would be lucky to have 10% of their value in accessible cash, which is 1.2 million. So not only does it completely wipe out their cash Reserves, but they need to come up with another $800,000. [Ranch cash reserves based on us dept if agriculture stats, 1/6 based on tax policy center and other sources]. That is literally killing a ranch. The numbers wiggle a little bit depending on whether the site is Pro or anti death tax, but they don't wiggle enough to negate my point.

This is true of any small business really. We have different words for assets, revenue, and profit for a reason. The death tax is completely immoral in my humble opinion. There's no reason the government should get another cut just because the primary estate holder passed away. This directly affects small and medium-sized family-owned companies in a way that does not hurt corporations. In fact, it has a history of financially forcing family-owned businesses to sell to large corporate entities. We need to support small and medium sized companies in every way possible, not hit them while they're down.
 
Last edited:
Nov 5, 2013
444
83
320
It does make sense, when you die you don’t get taxed again. The person receiving it gets it taxed as income. (More or less) and helps prevent a superclass from developing,
Yeah. Screw those families and their “family businesses” or savings that they try and leave to their children when they die. Can’t allow that to happen. Need to tax it again to prevent those sustained middle class families from developing.
 
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Being double taxed ain't right. You get taxed on the assets while you're living and you get taxed on them again when you die. How is that right? Imagine your car being taxed again on your death that your family has to pay in order for them to keep your car. Makes no sense.
Tax on inheritance makes a lot of sense, because it is property you recieve by acquintance instead of your own work. Inheritance is therefore a mechanism to reinforce class-membership over generations and lowers class-mobility, which by the way is essential to the American Dream. Also note that it is not correct that the same person is taxed twice. The original owner is taxed on buying, the new owner is taxed on inheriting.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Guiberu
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Tax on inheritance makes a lot of sense, because it is property you recieve by acquintance instead of your own work. Inheritance is therefore a mechanism to reinforce class-membership over generations and lowers class-mobility, which by the way is essential to the American Dream. Also note that it is not correct that the same person is taxed twice. The original owner is taxed on buying, the new owner is taxed on inheriting.
Great. Let's raise class mobility by moving some folks down. Your American Dream will be achieved when your neighbor gives money to the government after their parents die. Hand it over, people!

Say it with me: The pie is not finite.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Say it with me: The pie is not finite.
Why would I repeat such nonsense? Resources are limited.If everyone in the US had 11 million dollars (or more), the worth of 11 million dollars would be reduced enormously.
Great. Let's raise class mobility by moving some folks down. Your American Dream will be achieved when your neighbor gives money to the government after their parents die. Hand it over, people!
Well, high class mobility also means to lower the impact of inheritance. If there is a drastic gulf between the inherited wealth of two people, their success at the same level of performance will drastically differ. Everyone would like to give their children a headstart, and if you are wealthy, then certainly, a solid financial headstart is one way of doing so, but inheritance tax is the one tax that does not at all discourage performance and can in no way hamper class mobility. but increases it, even.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,052
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
And if you leave less than 11 million, it won't be taxed again.

Small and medium seem like they fall in the less than 11 million bracket and won't have any worries.

Sucks to be them, huh?
For someone who normally stands up for the legacy and culture of family lines and of communities, it seems strange that you would be in favor of a death tax, of all things.

A plot of land is often worth more than 11M and may be the family's most valuable possession. You say 11M like that's a lot of money. If it was a wad of cash, you're right, most individuals won't be passing that on as an inheritance. But there are plenty of small businesses that are "only" 11M in valuation.

You believe that the "rich keep getting richer", right? Well, their ability to hand down wealth to their children and grandchildren is a part of that. You don't want small businesses to be able to do that? You don't want entrepreneurs to be able to start something and then pass it to their kids (and then their grandkids)?
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Why would I repeat such nonsense? Resources are limited.If everyone in the US had 11 million dollars (or more), the worth of 11 million dollars would be reduced enormously.
Wow. Economies don't grow, eh? We can't all become more prosperous? The only way for someone to earn more is to take from someone else? Please explain how the pie IS finite.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
in favor of a death tax
It is not a death tax. The person who experiences death, does not need to pay the tax and what is taxed is not the death itself. What is taxed is the inheritance and the person(s) who is/are taxed is/are the inheritors, so the people who just received a significant (considering the discussed worth: enormous) amount of wealth - without any achievement on their own, even. And this new wealth they have accumulated is being taxed, and for the first time in their possession.
Wow. Economies don't grow, eh? We can't all become more prosperous? The only way for someone to earn more is to take from someone else? Please explain how the pie IS finite.
They do, but at any given time there is a limit. There is a reason that poverty is being defined relatively.
 
Jan 26, 2018
853
862
200
Tax on inheritance makes a lot of sense, because it is property you recieve by acquintance instead of your own work. Inheritance is therefore a mechanism to reinforce class-membership over generations and lowers class-mobility, which by the way is essential to the American Dream. Also note that it is not correct that the same person is taxed twice. The original owner is taxed on buying, the new owner is taxed on inheriting.
If you think it makes sense then let's have a 0$ floor. I inherit my dads car I pay taxes on it. Sounds fair?
 
Likes: autoduelist

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
For someone who normally stands up for the legacy and culture of family lines and of communities, it seems strange that you would be in favor of a death tax, of all things.

A plot of land is often worth more than 11M and may be the family's most valuable possession. You say 11M like that's a lot of money. If it was a wad of cash, you're right, most individuals won't be passing that on as an inheritance. But there are plenty of small businesses that are "only" 11M in valuation.

You believe that the "rich keep getting richer", right? Well, their ability to hand down wealth to their children and grandchildren is a part of that. You don't want small businesses to be able to do that? You don't want entrepreneurs to be able to start something and then pass it to their kids (and then their grandkids)?
Why should my (non-existent) kids and grandkids have to pay taxes while they're busy building up their equity, savings, etc., but Ivanka's fucking kid can grab a hunk of an 100 million dollar estate tax-free? The kid will still have a big hunk of money, real estate, whatever, but he's gotta pay his share to the Man. I don't care how many people cry me a river about how unfair it is. You're receiving a taxable asset. Pay your fucking tax and shut up.
 

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
If you think it makes sense then let's have a 0$ floor. I inherit my dads car I pay taxes on it. Sounds fair?
I don't have a problem with that.

It's like when you win a car on The Price Is Right, the dude always says over the end credits, "Taxes & Title Not Included."
 
Last edited:
Jan 26, 2018
853
862
200
Why should my (non-existent) kids and grandkids have to pay taxes while they're busy building up their equity, savings, etc., but Ivanka's fucking kid can grab a hunk of an 100 million dollar estate tax-free? The kid will still have a big hunk of money, real estate, whatever, but he's gotta pay his share to the Man. I don't care how many people cry me a river about how unfair it is. You're receiving a taxable asset. Pay your fucking tax and shut up.
Then let's have a 0$ floor. Everyone has to pay tax on everything that gets inherited
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,052
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
It is not a death tax. The person who experiences death, does not need to pay the tax and what is taxed is not the death itself. What is taxed is the inheritance and the person(s) who is/are taxed is/are the inheritors, so the people who just received a significant (considering the discussed worth: enormous) amount of wealth - without any achievement on their own, even. And this new wealth they have accumulated is being taxed, and for the first time in their possession.

They do, but at any given time there is a limit. There is a reason that poverty is being defined relatively.
So it's a double-tax on the same goods. And it hinders entrepeneurs and family businesses.

You seem rather hung up on the "without any achievement on their own" while advocating for widespread social welfare and public assistance. :pie_thinking:
 

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
Then let's have a 0$ floor. Everyone has to pay tax on everything that gets inherited
I will admit that in the case of the usual Joe Schmo, I don't know how an estate's worth is calculated, or if it even is, so I don't know how exactly that would work. But I do think that if you're inheriting something of value (over a certain amount, a zero dollar floor probably wouldn't work), or just a big hunk o' money, then yes, you should pay a tax on it.
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,436
946
230
So it's a double-tax on the same goods. And it hinders entrepeneurs and family businesses.

You seem rather hung up on the "without any achievement on their own" while advocating for widespread social welfare and public assistance. :pie_thinking:
Trump got rid of it. They must oppose it. It's also most likely hitting white families harder so why would they care?
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
I will admit that in the case of the usual Joe Schmo, I don't know how an estate's worth is calculated, or if it even is, so I don't know how exactly that would work. But I do think that if you're inheriting something of value (over a certain amount, a zero dollar floor probably wouldn't work), or just a big hunk o' money, then yes, you should pay a tax on it.
While I believe there should be a wealth tax on high wealth individuals, and I support higher taxes on the wealthy, I have a hard time justifying an inheritance tax IF the assets are not being sold.

If the children sell the ranch, hit em with taxes. If they want to keep the ranch, or business or other form of physical property; I don't see a reason to tax them on it. Mind you this shouldn't apply to financial instruments being passed along such as stock ownership or cash. Those should be taxed.

My reasoning is this - if you tax the passing on of physical property, such as a privately owned business like a ranch, then you are risking the loss of the business and potential income taxes it can generate in the future.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
7,052
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Mind you this shouldn't apply to financial instruments being passed along such as stock ownership or cash. Those should be taxed.
Normally I would object to this, but it does make sense.

The impact would be that instead of hanging on to cash, people would hang on to assets (or would purchase assets as an inheritance). This has all kinds of implications for society (in a good way):

- a return to the mindset of saving to buy "quality" items that can be passed down as heirlooms, instead of our current "everything is disposable" consumerist lifestyle, in large part facilitated by all the cheap crap we import from other countries. Similar to the cheap tenements in Upton Sinclair's meat-packing town, a lot of the crap we're importing from other countries is faux-wealth garbage.

- injection of money into the economy, as people would be incentivized to pass along stuff instead of cash

- a market-driven impetus to improve the quality of our home-produced goods, since the swelling economy (we would hope) and sensible inheritance laws would encourage people to invest in local, high-quality items for inheritances.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
Normally I would object to this, but it does make sense.

The impact would be that instead of hanging on to cash, people would hang on to assets (or would purchase assets as an inheritance). This has all kinds of implications for society (in a good way):

- a return to the mindset of saving to buy "quality" items that can be passed down as heirlooms, instead of our current "everything is disposable" consumerist lifestyle, in large part facilitated by all the cheap crap we import from other countries. Similar to the cheap tenements in Upton Sinclair's meat-packing town, a lot of the crap we're importing from other countries is faux-wealth garbage.

- injection of money into the economy, as people would be incentivized to pass along stuff instead of cash

- a market-driven impetus to improve the quality of our home-produced goods, since the swelling economy (we would hope) and sensible inheritance laws would encourage people to invest in local, high-quality items for inheritances.
If you are receiving physical property you aren't getting income. It is just passing along of a thing that only has value if and when it is being sold. I mean, the value of a thing is only what someone will pay for it, not some sort of assessed value.

I also am not a fan of property taxes.

Financial instruments on the other hand have a defined value. This includes stock ownership. Publicly traded companies need to benefit the public because they gain certain "rights" over that of a privately owned business. Once a business becomes publicly traded it is no longer private property that can be passed along.
 

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,379
353
800
steamcommunity.com
While I believe there should be a wealth tax on high wealth individuals, and I support higher taxes on the wealthy, I have a hard time justifying an inheritance tax IF the assets are not being sold.

If the children sell the ranch, hit em with taxes. If they want to keep the ranch, or business or other form of physical property; I don't see a reason to tax them on it. Mind you this shouldn't apply to financial instruments being passed along such as stock ownership or cash. Those should be taxed.

My reasoning is this - if you tax the passing on of physical property, such as a privately owned business like a ranch, then you are risking the loss of the business and potential income taxes it can generate in the future.
In cases like these, they either establish an FLP and a annualized transfer that is under the gift tax limit. If somehow there is still an amount that falls under an estate tax, this scenario has a 14 year payback period (think it is 15 if it is a farm) and can be paid from operating revenue.

My personal take, is government is already to large. I am not a big fan of them seizing property outside of some sort of illegal activity. None of this money is going to go to what everyone is thinking it will go. Also, look at why the wealth tax was abolished in India for a good reason why wealth tax simply doesn't work.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
In cases like these, they either establish an FLP and a annualized transfer that is under the gift tax limit. If somehow there is still an amount that falls under an estate tax, this scenario has a 14 year payback period (think it is 15 if it is a farm) and can be paid from operating revenue.

My personal take, is government is already to large. I am not a big fan of them seizing property outside of some sort of illegal activity. None of this money is going to go to what everyone is thinking it will go. Also, look at why the wealth tax was abolished in India for a good reason why wealth tax simply doesn't work.

Well how much is a ranch worth if it isn't being sold? I know that sounds like a tree falling in a forest kind of thing, but if the kids aren't selling it they aren't getting any income from the sale, so it shouldn't be taxed at all. The second they sell it though, hit em with a capital gains or income tax.
 
Last edited:

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
Normally I would object to this, but it does make sense.

The impact would be that instead of hanging on to cash, people would hang on to assets (or would purchase assets as an inheritance). This has all kinds of implications for society (in a good way):

- a return to the mindset of saving to buy "quality" items that can be passed down as heirlooms, instead of our current "everything is disposable" consumerist lifestyle, in large part facilitated by all the cheap crap we import from other countries. Similar to the cheap tenements in Upton Sinclair's meat-packing town, a lot of the crap we're importing from other countries is faux-wealth garbage.

- injection of money into the economy, as people would be incentivized to pass along stuff instead of cash

- a market-driven impetus to improve the quality of our home-produced goods, since the swelling economy (we would hope) and sensible inheritance laws would encourage people to invest in local, high-quality items for inheritances.
I really don't understand this line of thinking, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole or anything. It just sounds like you're advocating for the purchasing of goods with the express intent of passing them along to heirs. If that's the case, can you explain to me why that's a good thing? My brain just doesn't function in this way. I don't see the purchase of anything as an investment to be handed off down the line. I guess that means I'm not a forward thinker, and that might become a problem as I get up there in age, now that I think about it....
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
I really don't understand this line of thinking, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole or anything. It just sounds like you're advocating for the purchasing of goods with the express intent of passing them along to heirs. If that's the case, can you explain to me why that's a good thing? My brain just doesn't function in this way. I don't see the purchase of anything as an investment to be handed off down the line. I guess that means I'm not a forward thinker, and that might become a problem as I get up there in age, now that I think about it....
Sounds like you have a problem seeing the forest for the trees. And that you are good little consumer of disposable products with no intrinsic value.

What do you think drives the economy? Supply or Demand?
 
Last edited:

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,379
353
800
steamcommunity.com
Well how much is a ranch worth if it isn't being sold? I know that sounds like a tree falling in a forest kind of thing, but if the kids aren't selling it they aren't getting any income from the sale, so it shouldn't be taxed at all. The second they sell it though, hit em with a capital gains or income tax.
I am OK with that, but as it is right now, if the parents die with no estate planning at all and there is little in the way of liquid assets, you have to sell off acreage to cover anything that comes due. Luckily the values in these scenarios are usually below that limit. It does kind of put an artificial limit on how large a family farm can get, as a side effect.

I really don't understand this line of thinking, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole or anything. It just sounds like you're advocating for the purchasing of goods with the express intent of passing them along to heirs. If that's the case, can you explain to me why that's a good thing? My brain just doesn't function in this way. I don't see the purchase of anything as an investment to be handed off down the line. I guess that means I'm not a forward thinker, and that might become a problem as I get up there in age, now that I think about it....
This is exactly what is happens. Usually 'art' which not only can be handed down, but can be 'lended' to a museum as a tax deduction.... the real kicker is the value is based on an appraiser that the owner hires.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
This is exactly what is happens. Usually 'art' which not only can be handed down, but can be 'lended' to a museum as a tax deduction.... the real kicker is the value is based on an appraiser that the owner hires.
And that is bullshit. The art has no value unless it is being sold.
 

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
Sounds like you have a problem seeing the forest for the trees. And that you are good little consumer of disposable products with no intrinsic value.

What do you think drives the economy? Supply or Demand?
Come on, man. I was asking a genuine question here. No need to be an ass.

My wife and I own a house because we need shelter and it's a better use our money vs. renting. We didn't purchase the house as something to be passed down to an heir.

We own cars to get us from place to place, and the biggest factor in our purchase wasn't resale value, like I know it is with some people, but what's best for us getting around in the shitty winters here.

We invest in retirement accounts to provide for us after we're done working for The Man.

We're not collectors of any sort. No baseball cards, stamps, etc.

We live simply, I guess. So the idea of purchasing "things" to just have and then pass down doesn't make any sense to me.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
No need to be an ass.
I'm not trying to be an ass. I am just pointing out a fact. It isn't an insult, it is just a sign of the times.

We have been conditioned to think new is quality therefore better. It causes us to not demand quality products, and instead cheap products that can be disposed of so that new things can be purchased.
 
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
So it's a double-tax on the same goods. And it hinders entrepeneurs and family businesses.
If I buy a house and sell it ten years later, I am sure there will be no taxes on this? There are many instances where the same object is taxed twice; it can happen if it changes ownership. E.g. in the case of inheritance.
You seem rather hung up on the "without any achievement on their own" while advocating for widespread social welfare and public assistance. :pie_thinking:
Social security systems serve the purpose of allowing everyone a reasonably good life without fearing that an unfortunate event out of their control ruins their life (if it can be avoided by social security systems that is, of course uncurable diseases can still happen). Inheritance is not a matter of basic humanity, especially if we are talking excessive ones such as ones worth 11 million.
While I believe there should be a wealth tax on high wealth individuals, and I support higher taxes on the wealthy, I have a hard time justifying an inheritance tax IF the assets are not being sold.

If the children sell the ranch, hit em with taxes. If they want to keep the ranch, or business or other form of physical property; I don't see a reason to tax them on it.
There are models such as if you inherit a company or similar and continue to preserve the jobs within the company for a good amount of time after, then (a percentage of) inheritance tax may be waived. I can agree with such measures for fully-owned companies (so in particular, no if it is a stock traded company)
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,052
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
If I buy a house and sell it ten years later, I am sure there will be no taxes on this? There are many instances where the same object is taxed twice; it can happen if it changes ownership. E.g. in the case of inheritance.

Social security systems serve the purpose of allowing everyone a reasonably good life without fearing that an unfortunate event out of their control ruins their life (if it can be avoided by social security systems that is, of course uncurable diseases can still happen). Inheritance is not a matter of basic humanity, especially if we are talking excessive ones such as ones worth 11 million.
You can't complain about income equality and then petition for things that help maintain the gap of income equality between the poor and rich. Social security systems are more than "basic humanity". If you think 11M is excessive when it comes to a small business (let's say, 10 employees), you are simply mistaken.

Do you have any personal experience with business, any acumen, any notion as to the expenses involved in running even a small-sized business? 11M in assets is nothing more than a small warehouse, some trucks, and the parts/tools for a handful of plumbers to use (for instance). This sized business would probably be able to service a population of a few ten-thousand, maybe 100,000. Calling this "excessive" is out of touch with reality.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
Do you have any personal experience with business, any acumen, any notion as to the expenses involved in running even a small-sized business? 11M in assets is nothing more than a small warehouse, some trucks, and the parts/tools for a handful of plumbers to use (for instance). This sized business would probably be able to service a population of a few ten-thousand, maybe 100,000. Calling this "excessive" is out of touch with reality
And for a private farm that is a couple hundred acres of land, a tractor and other related equipment. 11 million dollars is pocket change.

Wages have been depressed for too long while inflation has been driving the cost of all things up that aren't disposable.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2015
1,282
1,301
300
Austin, TX
I really liked what @Cybrwzrd suggested about only taxing on inherited assets that are liquidated by the inheritor. It makes the most sense and doesn't penalize people that try to keep small to medium sized businesses running. Plus, any capital sold is taxed on the profit anyways, so it would already line up with the way we treat these things when someone doesn't die.
 
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
You can't complain about income equality and then petition for things that help maintain the gap of income equality between the poor and rich.
Where do I do the latter?
Social security systems are more than "basic humanity".
Ensuring that everyone in the country can afford suitable health care when needed, can reach any level of education (given sufficient talent) and can live a reasonably good life even if unemployment or other hard to control circumstances hit (meaning, not having to fear housing, food and a certain amount of participation in society) is a combination of basic humanity and ensuring fair chances for everyone from my point of view.
If you think 11M is excessive when it comes to a small business (let's say, 10 employees), you are simply mistaken.
Excessive when it comes to inheritance, not when it comes to businesses. If the assets are worth 11 million, then it should be possible, in most cases, to liquidate enough of the assets (e.g. parts of your acre) to pay for the taxes without tanking the whole business.


I did advocate for special treatment if the associated jobs are guaranteed for a reasonably long time frame, though.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,052
10,843
545
USA
dunpachi.com
Where do I do the latter?

Ensuring that everyone in the country can afford suitable health care when needed, can reach any level of education (given sufficient talent) and can live a reasonably good life even if unemployment or other hard to control circumstances hit (meaning, not having to fear housing, food and a certain amount of participation in society) is a combination of basic humanity and ensuring fair chances for everyone from my point of view.

Excessive when it comes to inheritance, not when it comes to businesses. If the assets are worth 11 million, then it should be possible, in most cases, to liquidate enough of the assets (e.g. parts of your acre) to pay for the taxes without tanking the whole business.


I did advocate for special treatment if the associated jobs are guaranteed for a reasonably long time frame, though.
You are operating on "shoulds" and "what ifs", when in the real world liquidating assets to pay for taxes is hugely anti-competitive and destructive to a business.

Let's say you run a $20M business in a rural town, employing 25 locals. After expenses and other taxes, you managed to make a $5M profit. What a good year! Now you can afford to open a new center and employ 15 more people, setting your sights on doubling the company over the next decade. But then Dad dies.

Arbitrarily, as the business changes hands from Dad to you, the business needs to cough up 6 million bucks to pay those taxes. This is of course only the government's cut, as your business will likely see a loss of profit due to the loss of morale and leadership (although temporary). The windfall year that was supposed to catapult your company forward has been completely swallowed in taxes, and even that won't cover it; you need to sell more assets to cover the shortage.

And to continue the analogy further, what happens when you die a few decades later? Having to plan your family business around massive tax hits when family members die (as opposed to running the business and providing a service and employing your neighbors) is backwards.

But hey, some people on food stamps in a city 100 miles away needs that money more. Sorry your dad died.
 
Last edited:
Apr 9, 2009
27,182
1,611
815
" data-instgrm-

El Paso congresswoman Veronica Escobar's reaction to Trump using El Paso as justification to waste money on more barriers lmao. At least he is not using San Antonio this time, so he is geographically more correct.

Other than that, was a good speech. I'm overall happy with the state of our country right now and feel we are pretty strong. A new Rome.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,454
1,910
365
He did very well, good speech but too long. Maybe should have cut some due to all the clapping. Great stories great unifying speech.
I believe the length was strategic to reduce the number of people who would stick around for rebuttals, which would be a brilliant move (in hindsight) considering he eventually had the white coats standing and cheering like a bunch of kids at prom.

Overall, I thought the speech was fantastic. He honestly blew me out of the water with how effectively he conveyed his platform to be in everyone's interests. There were a couple moments when I worried he was getting too partisan for the overall unity theme, but he avoided going over the edge. I find it really hard to believe that any true moderates watched that speech and came away feeling he is a problem because of it. It's one thing to say unity, unity, unity - its a whole different ball game when you have people who despise you standing, celebrating, and chanting USA, USA, USA.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,371
739
385
Tax on inheritance makes a lot of sense, because it is property you recieve by acquintance instead of your own work. Inheritance is therefore a mechanism to reinforce class-membership over generations and lowers class-mobility, which by the way is essential to the American Dream. Also note that it is not correct that the same person is taxed twice. The original owner is taxed on buying, the new owner is taxed on inheriting.
Why is taking money from a successful family a moral good? Do you think the government is going to spend it better? On more bombs? On more bueracrasy? Even if that specific money went to causes you support, by the time it got to those needy hands it would be a tiny fraction of what was taken.

You are completely, utterly wrong about thinking inheritence 'reinforces' class membership and lowers class mobility. Quite the opposite, it allows families to rise. You dont want to destroy each generation and make each generation start from the bottom. That's how you destroy class mobility and the drive to succeed for the sake of your children. Inheritance literally helps drive class mobility, enabling entire families to reach the middle class. That generational mobility literally defines the history of this country, and has drastically helped arguably every American reading this.

Sure, there some percentage of trust fund kids who live off inheritance and do nothing, sure. You know what happens to those families? Their wealth only lasts a generation or two.. the rare billionaire family who can last a bit longer even with mismanagement has the money to avoid death taxes anyway.

Wealth is not finite. The 20 million dollars the Rock makes on a movie does not mean there is 20 million less for you and me. Instead, he creates prosperity in his wake, from his film crews, to on location spending, to movie ushers. Then you have his investments, the TV shows he can produce... even the money he puts in the bank is reinvested. People get paid. The same is true of any small to medium size business.

Your last sentence us just word play. You can't just rename the money to claim you arent taxing the same money.

You know who the large death tax helps out most? The large corporations who are happy to see their family owned competition crippled. And, of course, the government who us more than happy to take money any chance they get. Why are you on their side rather than the family who earned it? And more importantly, why do you think there is so much propaganda out there suggesting the death tax is good given that it directly benefits corporations and government?
 
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
I only caught pieces of it during Rush Hour commercial breaks but I liked that he recognized the people coming home from prison, the holocaust survivors, and the World War II veterans. We're losing sight of our national heritage and the concept of sacrifice is fading from our public consciousness.

I doubt it will move the needle on bipartisanship, but it's nice to have a brief reprieve where our government (almost) looks normal for an hour or so.