1722
1723

You need to spit in the face of people who try and pretend like Trump was talking about socialism.

That’s just the new spin. It’s an attempt to gaslight the country.

1724

What sounds more like socialism?

An America where all Americans have access to quality affordable healthcare, quality affordable education and quality affordable housing so that they can pursue the American dream of success and grow the middle class while all but eliminating poverty, thereby improving the economy and the quality of life for everyone in America.

OR

An America where 99% of the population lives in the same corporate owned block housing and works 6 days per week to be able to afford to pay said corporations for their standardized low quality housing, food, healthcare, transportation and job training for their children so they too can “succeed” while 1% of the population owns everything and reaps all the profits from the work of the others.

Republicans are trying to sell you on the idea that the first vision is a Socialist pipe dream that will destroy the country while behind the scenes they inch America ever closer to the second vision.

1725

There are a fair amount of people out there that believe they will be rich one day, or believe they should’ve been rich if only some outsider didn’t take it from them, so they line up behind the ultra rich to help them protect theirs. This happens everyone time we talk about inheritance tax. People who will never see a million dollars their entire life suddenly worried about taxes for people with say over 10 million inheritance.

It’s almost like they’re telling people the Democrats are taxing dreams, and what can be worse than someone taxing your dream before you’ve had a chance to achieve it?

1726

Have you actually talked to fiscal conservatives, or is this just what you imagine they believe? Because I’m a fiscal conservative, and I don’t know anyone who believes in lowering taxes on group X because they think they’ll be in group X someday.

I will never be black, but I support black people’s right to vote. I will never be a woman, but I support women’s right to vote. And I will never have a $10 million inheritance, but that doesn’t mean I believe in raising taxes on people inheriting over 10 million dollars.

1727

I didn’t mention fiscal conservatives because i am not talking about them, not precisely. This is largely a group of poor individuals, which doesn’t preclude someone from being a fiscal conservative, but it doesn’t mean they are one either.

There is no comparison to someone’s money and the sex at birth to the money they do or do not have. One is actually what you are… the other are things, assets. Talking about the inheritance tax does not make someone or not make someone a fiscal conservative either. That’s an overarching stance and inheritance is a very specific thing.

In 2017, for instance, a HuffPost/YouGov poll asked whether the estate tax should be abolished. Half of the respondents were additionally told that the tax affects only estates worth more than $5 million. Among that group, support for keeping the tax (46 percent) was nearly 20 percentage points higher than it was among the group not receiving factual information (27 percent).

1728

Your assumption is that poor people would only worry about taxes on high income brackets because they believe they will be in those brackets someday. I’m pointing out that there are perfectly valid reasons to oppose those taxes, even without that belief.

I’m making an analogy, so of course the two groups are not exactly the same. I thought the point of the analogy was clear though.

You’re the one who brought up the inheritance tax as a specific example. The same principles should apply to “people are opposed to higher taxes on people making $X million”.

1729

That’s not what I said… at all.

Absolutely not. It’s a horrific comparison and does not work at all. You’re trying to take something someone has and equate to something they are. It doesn’t work on any meaningful level.

If you look at the post I am replying too, it’s a reference to the 1% and the misinformation about socialism. It’s not a reference to fiscal conservationism at all but it is tied to this:

Ownership.

This group also tends to have inheritance and a strong interest in it.

I don’t know why you’re trying to twist what I am saying, but if the 1% “owns everything” inheritance tends to come up due to ownership.

I made no statement about fiscal conservatism nor did I claim those are the people I am talking about or hear from.

1730

She actually said “fair amount of people”, not everyone in that group, as your use of “only” would imply.

That’s a matter of opinion. There are reasons, yes. Are those valid? Questionable. Anyone inheriting estates in the millions aren’t going to be significantly hurt by some pretty hefty taxes, and that money could do some real good for lower-income folks.

1731

Inheritance is 100% unearned income, and is as anti capitalist as you can get. If capitalism wants to truly mean that those that work hard can profit the most, then a 100% inheritance tax is the only correct solution.

1732

Then I’m sorry I misinterpreted your statement. I was simply pointing out that there are other reasons for “largely poor individuals” to oppose inheritance taxes other than “they believe they will be rich one day.”

It absolutely does work, but I’m not sure how to explain it any more clearly.

1733

I never said this was the one and only reason.

It doesn’t work, and I don’t how to make that any more clear either.

1734

That assumes that “It won’t hurt someone too much” is a valid justification for increasing taxes, but that’s where we get into the liberal/conservative split about taxation. Personally, I believe that tax rates should be set based on promoting economic growth and maximizing revenue, not making arbitrary distinctions about who won’t be “significantly hurt” if they just had a little less money.

1735

That’s not at all the definition of capitalism, but I’m sure you already know that.

And a 100% inheritance tax would basically result in $0 of revenue, per Laffer. Do you really think that such a tax would be the correct solution by any definition?

1736

Oh, I can’t take you seriously. Laffer? Lol.

1737

Then you should be in favor of it, because rich people hording money doesn’t do shit for the economy.

You want money in the hands of people that will spend it. Giving a guy with $5 million an extra million will do nothing. Giving $1 million to 10 thousand people below the poverty line will put basically all of it back into the economy.

1738

Please, explain what I did wrong.

1739

This is dumb. If Bezos alone died tomorrow with 100% inheritance tax it would generate $164 BILLION.
That’s one fucking guy.

Edit: Laffer’s ideas took us from a nation that had almost no debt to one that has more debt than any nation ever and we’ll never pay it back ever. So… yeah. No. We tried his way and tripled the debt in short order. He was Trump’s economic advisor decades later and now we have a deficit of over a trillion dollars a year. If you care about fiscal responsibility you should burn that dude in effigy not cite his failed ideas as a solution.

1740

Have you tried your hand at “You are Jeff Bezos”

1741

Rich people do not “hoard money”, like Scrooge McDuck swimming around in a pile of gold coins. They invest it in the stock market, providing capital for companies to expand and build more facilities, paying construction workers and engineers and plumbers and electricians and salespeople and managers and developers and programmers, creating jobs and making life better for society in general. “Rich people” are the ones who invest in startups like Apple or Microsoft or Google.

Giving $1 million to 10,000 people will temporarily increase sales at McDonald’s or 7-11 or Wal-Mart or any number of other retails stores. So if you specifically want to boost the retail or food-service economy, that’s the way to do it.