Do you support repealing the estate tax?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes (D)

Seriously?  Give me 5 positions I have that make me a Republican.

[Keystone Phil]

So now we have to force people to "do something for society"

...I believe that that's the argument that you people used over welfare reform...

When they're getting something from the government, yes, they ought to.

You mean that having the right to give your children an extremely privileged existence isn't "getting something from the government"?

Certainly a novel argument.

Privileged existence is thanks to the government? Ha, ok...

Privileged existence would not be possible without government. So, yes...

I'm sure the wealthy would be doing just fine without it. That being said, even if the wealthy are getting something back from the government, they're giving them back plenty. I don't think they are required to pay an additional tax because of something that was earned over time and want it passed on.

[jokerman]

So now we have to force people to "do something for society"

...I believe that that's the argument that you people used over welfare reform...

When they're getting something from the government, yes, they ought to.

You mean that having the right to give your children an extremely privileged existence isn't "getting something from the government"?

Certainly a novel argument.

Privileged existence is thanks to the government? Ha, ok...

Privileged existence would not be possible without government. So, yes...

I'm sure the wealthy would be doing just fine without it.

What do you know about capitalism, sir?

[Keystone Phil]

So now we have to force people to "do something for society"

...I believe that that's the argument that you people used over welfare reform...

When they're getting something from the government, yes, they ought to.

You mean that having the right to give your children an extremely privileged existence isn't "getting something from the government"?

Certainly a novel argument.

Privileged existence is thanks to the government? Ha, ok...

Privileged existence would not be possible without government. So, yes...

I'm sure the wealthy would be doing just fine without it.

What do you know about capitalism, sir?

I don't know much about capitalism because I think that the lack of most government intervention wouldn't be a problem to the wealthy...?

[Ebowed]

No, of course not.  The estate tax should be increased, not abolished.

[Ban my account ffs!]

So now we have to force people to "do something for society"

...I believe that that's the argument that you people used over welfare reform...

When they're getting something from the government, yes, they ought to.

You mean that having the right to give your children an extremely privileged existence isn't "getting something from the government"?

Certainly a novel argument.

Privileged existence is thanks to the government? Ha, ok...

Privileged existence would not be possible without government. So, yes...

I'm sure the wealthy would be doing just fine without it.

What do you know about capitalism, sir?

I don't know much about capitalism because I think that the lack of most government intervention wouldn't be a problem to the wealthy...?

If it weren't for the government.. it would simply be a different set of people that were wealthy.. because in this day and age, without government, people would just murder the rich and take their stuff.

So, in a way, the government is responsible for their wealth by protecting them and their assets from being ransacked by angry commoners.

[Keystone Phil]

So, in a way, the government is responsible for their wealth by protecting them and their assets from being ransacked by angry commoners.

[TeePee4Prez]

No, of course not.  The estate tax should be increased, not abolished.

I don't support this.  If anything I'd raise the exemption or make the rates more progressive.  A $1,000,000 estate really isn't much.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Absolutely, we need to repeal that tax. It's a horrible thing and the government has no reason to take from a family just because someone died.

[Ronnie]

Absolutely yes (R)

[memphis]

Not just no. Hell no! It needs to be significantly increased. Large inheritances are a major obstacle to the competitiveness of the American economy. If we are going to compete with foreign nations, we must make our system as meritocratic as possible. An entrenched aristocracy is not only a moral outrage but a huge impediment to America's future.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes (D)

Seriously?  Give me 5 positions I have that make me a Republican.

1-Repeal estate tax.
2-Love of warmongering.
3-Support far right Supreme Court justices.
4-Support military-industrial complex.
5-Agree with Mexican-hating xenophobes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yes (D)

Seriously?  Give me 5 positions I have that make me a Republican.

1-Repeal estate tax.
2-Love of warmongering.
3-Support far right Supreme Court justices.
4-Support military-industrial complex.
5-Agree with Mexican-hating xenophobes.

     2 & 4 are pretty similar. Not the same, but similar.

[opebo]

So, in a way, the government is responsible for their wealth by protecting them and their assets from being ransacked by angry commoners.

Not only that, but it imposes the conditions which force the commoners to toil for the owners, and is thus responsible for the owners privilege, position, power, and wealth.

Of course I support an inheritance tax, though if one believes the capitalist system is overall the most workable or prosperity inducing (with appropriate Keynesian redistributionist modifications of course), I think one does have to be moderate in ones approach to taxing inheritance.  A tax that hits the very wealthy fairly hard is ok, as the idea is to reduce their utter dominance of society and discourage the permanent aristocracy of wealth, but one which taxes people who die with just a few million dollars very heavily might have some costs in terms of altering their activities through 'disincentive', as well as being somewhat less politically saleable.

The old inheritance tax with something like a 2-3 million dollar exemption and maybe 50% above that is the best compromise between both sides and among all goals, in my opinion.

[muon2]

Some years ago I watched the unpleasant sight of a elderly couple's farm sold off when they died. They did mot have much in the way of liquid assets, but their farm land had become quite valuable due to the development happening around it. Some of their children wanted to continue the farm, but the estate tax forced them to sell to developers to raise the money to pay. In the end the family came away with little money and much less land, though they did save the modest farm house and adjacent barns.

I don't see how this tax served its intended purpose. The effect was to transfer wealth from one farm family to private developers with the government taking a piece of the action. If the tax policy were rational, any tax on the land and buildings would have been deferred. After the sale the income should then be treated as capital gains. This would fairly assess the tax without unduly punishing the family of the deceased.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm sure the wealthy would be doing just fine without it.

Nonsense. Government brings stability and security; without stability and without security, the wealthy would not be wealthy (or would not be wealthy for very long). Without government the wealthy could, of course, pay for their own security... but security without stability isn't really security at all. It's just a breathing space, before the inevitable successful raid.

And this is without even touching on the role of Government in the development, expansion and protection of capitalism, without which most of the modern rich would, obviously, not be rich (though it's not as though Government didn't do well out of capitalism either).

Frankly, the wealthy get far more of out of Government than the poor do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only in absolute terms, relatively speaking they certainly aren't. Most of the time they are, hah, making a profit, and a large one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Key word here is earned; a great deal of money that goes into inheritances was never actually earned in the first place (as we're talking about the inheritances of the rich, it largely comes from property, other investments and so on... much of which actually came from earlier inheritances... generally speaking we aren't talking peoples wages here or anything). What it really is, is a hoard.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes (D)

Seriously?  Give me 5 positions I have that make me a Republican.

5-Agree with Mexican-hating xenophobes.

I don't get that one.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sure the wealthy would be doing just fine without it.

Nonsense. Government brings stability and security; without stability and without security, the wealthy would not be wealthy (or would not be wealthy for very long). Without government the wealthy could, of course, pay for their own security... but security without stability isn't really security at all. It's just a breathing space, before the inevitable successful raid.

Ok and that serves everyone and that's why everyone pays taxes. I don't believe in an addition tax because of their wealth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they pay more taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was earned at some point and your position basically boils down to jealousy and hatred for the rich. At some point, we'll just start telling the wealthy to stop being wealthy. People are always going to hoard, tax or no tax, so let's just start imposing restrictions on how much they can earn, possess, etc.

[Franzl]

     No (R). (D) I don't get why I should care about letting multi-billionaires pass on a few million more to their children.

[Franzl]

Yes (D)

I have a hard time believing Ben actually supports this...or opposes the bailout.

Does anybody think he just repeats conservative viewpoints on some issues without understanding them to make himself appear artificially conservative?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ok and that serves everyone and that's why everyone pays taxes.

It quite obviously serves the rich more than anyone else because they have the most to lose. Historically speaking, I don't think that government stability (or the lack of it) affected ordinary people much; obviously that's different (very different!) in industrial and societies (especially as society grows ever more consumerist), but it's worth bearing in mind anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in relative terms they don't. And, of course, some very rich people are hardly taxed at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Generally speaking that's only the case if you have a very warped definition of earned (in the case of property the correct word is often "theft", especially when we're talking about old money).

In any case, money begets money. And that's how most of the money in rich estates gets produced. Money produced as a result of having lots of money is obviously not earned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, tut, tut, tut. There's no need for that, me duck.

In any case, I resent the "jealousy" charge (I don't actually hate the rich either, though I do tend to be disgusted by wealth... or rather, by ostentatious displays of it).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not the worst idea I've read today, but I think that you'll find it to be very difficult to enforce.

[Keystone Phil]

Generally speaking that's only the case if you have a very warped definition of earned (in the case of property the correct word is often "theft", especially when we're talking about old money).

Al, we don't need to submit to your definition of whether they truly earned the money or not. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, that's life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We know, we know. Everybody in the coal mines...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You guys always find a way. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes (D)

I have a hard time believing Ben actually supports this...or opposes the bailout.

Does anybody think he just repeats conservative viewpoints on some issues without understanding them to make himself appear artificially conservative?

Some people have raised that point, but it's not true.

[nclib]

No (D).

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes (D)

I have a hard time believing Ben actually supports this...or opposes the bailout.

Does anybody think he just repeats conservative viewpoints on some issues without understanding them to make himself appear artificially conservative?

Nah. These are just knee-jerk reactions he has to make him feel more conservative.