Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by giusti825, Mar 11, 2018.
Or poor whites who don't own slaves fighting and dying for the rich planters in the civil war.
Oh jeez, i'd laugh my fucking ass off if this were the replacement. Cut out deferred losses too? We'd have a debt surplus in like a year.
I remember you mentioning you were reading a book on the US education system. What was the name of it?
If they can afford luxury items, then they could afford to pay for their own food instead of buying those luxuries.
I believe it is important for people to feed themselves. It is shameful to make others pay for your food when you could make different choices and buy your own.
Exploring the myths and realities of today's schools. Richard McAdams
I've also been reading various papers on private schools - particularly the very exclusive, highly funded type. The role they play in the post-collegiate world of class and power are possibly even greater than that of elite college institutions. And that role is much more opaque by general standards of discussion.
This is worth reading: https://shamuskhan.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/gettingin.pdf
Also the section on how these schools work with colleges to place students is fascinating.
I'm okay with raising the threshold if the tax is increased. So instead of $11 million for a couples' estate as the threshold increase it to $25 million but jack the rate up significantly, from ~35% to over 70%.
Right, or do it in tiers that get progressively higher with the size of the estate.
Add bobgeese and we are probably closer to 200 billion.
What about rising higher tax brackets on income ?
Personally, I think we should lower the threshold considerably and raise the rate. Not sure what good it serves society to turn over eight figures to people unearned and untaxed.
Oh I agree with that as well, I'm just saying that if I were in a position to be negotiating changes to the tax code raising the threshold would be a concession I'd consider in part so that the farcical argument in favor of "family farms" being broken up would be rendered even more flimsy and also in exchange for increasing the rate. To be fair though I pulled that out of my ass, whether or not it'd be a good idea would depend on the numbers like the change to tax revenue and whatnot.
Ideally I'd lower the threshold and raise the rate. Or maybe lower the threshold and the rate but then add a new bracket with a higher threshold and a higher tax to target mega-estates more directly. Kind of spit-balling here, you'd know the ins and outs of tax policy better than I.
I've love to see a politician with the stones to just say, "fuck farmers." Tax policy shouldn't be designed to benefit multimillionaire farmers at the expense of everyone else. I mean, let's be honest: the "won't someone pleeease think of the farmers" argument is disingenuous anyway, and if a better estate-tax policy were designed to avoid any possible whining along those lines, opponents of it would just find some other bullshit argument to make.
Farmers were no doubt strategically selected for the bullshit campaign. Protecting the heirs to hedge fund managers isn't as powerful as protecting businesses who supply food! Rubes will automatically defend farms for that reason.
How can they do that if all the land is privately owned(so they cant hunt or farm on it) and there arent enough jerbs to go around?
I guess youd be cool with them breaking into your house and skull-fvking you to death then eating all your food?
Its easy to come up with simple-minded slogans much harder to implement real solutions in reality.
zero problem w/ this
A) money is already earned/taxed
B) there is no legit reason to enact such a tax.....
You act like buying food is some enormous task. Food is cheap and plentiful. 10 pounds of potatoes is like $1.50. Bulk rice and beans are so cheap its insane. Frozen veggies, oatmeal and a thousand other things are cheap and can be purchased with a minimum wage job. lmao.