Interesting, because USA Today’s “Power Rankings” for GOP candidates puts Trump in third, behind Carly and the Rube. Damn liberal media!
Maybe they do it for the reason that I do – voting and talking about voting might motivate others to vote, possibly boosting my candidate’s chances, and I’m a terrible liar so I have to actually do it to get the benefit from it.
Yeah, I vote, and I tell everyone else to go vote, too, because I just love spreading the fun and joy of voting.
I fully encourage Terr to go vote for somebody fun. Maybe that Putin guy he’s always talking about. Putin’s a fun guy, I’ll bet. Active, too, for his age. He’s got that sex beer barrel abs thing going for him. All the kids love that, right? I bet he’s fun on the dance floor. Putin, I mean, not Terr. I mean, I don’t know, right, it’s just a vibe I get. He’s got a fun vibe. I bet voting for Putin would be a lot of fun, Terr. You should try it. Let us know how it goes. I bet Putin shows you a real fun time.
Like Charlie Sheen “winning” because the cocaine hasn’t killed him yet there’s a lot of losing in that poll even though he still leads by about the same margin as at his peak. Let’s look at some of the other info in that poll (direct link to the pdf)
- He’s at 23%. That’s right about his September average by the RCP major polls and still down from his peak of around 30%. The poll reinforces the image of a stagnation if not decline in his support.
- As a second choice he’s down to 5.84%. As a first or second choice he’s only doing about the total of what used to be his first choice numbers. As a first or second choice he ties Fiorina and is behind Carson. That’s not good news if he expects to grow his support as candidates drop.
- His net favorability is down, - 34%. 61% of Americans view him unfavorably while only 34% view hi favorably. Only 12% are unsure (the lowest unsure number of any of the candidates asked about) so it’s not simply a matter of winning over the undecided. He needs to actively change minds.
- When asked to use one word to describe him the polled individuals were petty brutal. Take a look at the top 5 n your link or the entire list in the full poll report. That’s not broken down by party but certainly speaks to having a bad reputation among the electorate as a whole if he get the nomination.
It’s still better to be first than last. This poll adds more to the idea that the summer where he could just about eat a baby on camera and see his numbers go up is coming to an end. He might be in for a long slog between now and Feb.
People accumulating wealth is something you want to actively encourage. We should want every family in this country to get rich. We shouldn’t punish it and kick the legs out from people just so that everyone starts at the bottom.
Plus, there’s the fact that it’s just so unfair. You work hard your whole life just for the government to come along and take it away before your kids can inherit it. I drive to work every morning on a highway that was built before I was born. We don’t insist that the highway be razed so that my generation doesn’t get a free pass, right? That’s the whole point of being alive for many people: To work hard to provide a better life for their kids.
On top of all that there’s practical reasons why it’s a dumb idea. You can easily avoid death taxes with trusts. So it’s not a tax on rich corpses, so much as a tax on elderly people who don’t estate plan very well. Rich people will always find a way around a tax like this, including just leaving the country which obviously isn’t a good thing.
Finally, I trust rich people with their estates a lot more than the government. If BIll Gates died tomorrow who will do more good with his billions, his estate or the government if they took it? The answer is obvious. For every rich trust fund baby who installs a stripper pole on daddy’s yacht, there are a dozen charities that benefit from the estates of the wealthy.
The only two reasons I can think of in favor of a tax like this are both weak:
-
Making it “fair”, which is not only impossible, but isn’t a good idea if it means hurting families in the name of fairness.
-
Raising revenue for the government, which is pointless since our out of control spending is our problem, not revenue. Plus the money raised by death taxes is small potatoes since it’s so easy to avoid anyway.
Oh, and DinoR, thanks for sharing those numbers. That’s reassuring. There might be hope for the country.
The best option at this point would be for Trump to be out of the race this winter and a serious candidate who has a chance at winning to steal his policy proposals and run with them. Ideally, Mitt. Probably Jeb.
Once they’re dead, they’re beyond encouraging.
So the kids can be lazy, entitled, unproductive shits? What happened to giving them an incentive to work hard themselves? Is that only for poor people?
Nope. You can’t tax dead people. The estate tax is a tax on estates. It’s taken on piles of money before anyone gets an unearned windfall from an inheritance.
Probably, but is that a reason not to try?
Bill Gates has transferred most of his wealth to a charitable organization which is actually helping other people. Are you claiming he’s typical of the rich?
Reducing unearned gains is not “hurting” families.
A statement of ideology, not fact.
Then we need to strengthen it, don’t we?
I was under the impression that the free market already did that.
Only the largest estates are taxed, and a very generous portion is exempt from taxation so the notion that the heirs would “start at the bottom” is nonsense.
And the reason your kids deserve a tax-free windfall is what, exactly?
Nobody is suggesting that your generation gets a free pass, it has to maintain all those highways as well as build new ones that might be needed.
Then why tax rich people at all? Should we give in to their demand that they not be taxed at all, lest they leave the country with their money?
And the portion of the estate going to charity would be exempt from tax.
The only two reasons I can think of in favor of a tax like this are both weak:
Families aren’t being hurt. Recall after Hurricane Katrina, Republicans scoured the Gulf states looking for people who lost homes or businesses to the estate tax. They couldn’t find any.
And your party can’t find those cuts that would balance the budget, can they?
So, who does pay Estate Tax?Is Wikipedia wrong?
Alas, the tax won’t prevent any kids from this sort of family from wasting their lives. The trust funds & snooty education & other benefits have already put them on the road to perdition. Unless their parents have raised them right. (It does happen.)
It’s ridiculous that 99.8% of us should give a fuck about the tiny number of heirs who risk losing a small portion of their huge inheritances.
Exactly.
Like I said earlier, there’s no Gawddamn reason to get rid of the estate tax.
Hell, it wasn’t even controversial at all until Republican evil genius mastermind Frank Luntz renamed it the “death tax.” Oooohhh, scary. :eek:
Cut the crap.
[quote=“BobLibDem, post:369, topic:729828”]
Only the largest estates are taxed, and a very generous portion is exempt from taxation so the notion that the heirs would “start at the bottom” is nonsense.
And the reason your kids deserve a tax-free windfall is what, exactly?
No to mention all the benefits inherent in growing up wealthy. You still get to keep your exceptional education and exclusive connections.
Looks like others have already said much of what I would have, but I’ll add a few things:
First, if the estate tax is so punitive, please identify some of the taxes that are less punitive than the estate tax to someone trying to get rich. Shouldn’t be hard, right?
Second, most people want to get rich so they don’t have to work so hard, or so they don’t have to work at all, or so they can have nice houses and cars and clothes, provide for their kids they way they’d really like to, and make sure they go to good schools, and travel to cool places when they go on vacations. I’m sure there are a few people out there who aren’t already rich or close to it that aren’t motivated by these things, but there’s always someone who’s an exception.
Third, being able to pass $10,860,000 to your kids, tax-free, is hardly having them “start at the bottom.” Even divided up four or five ways, that’s enough of a stash that they’ll only have to work if they really want to.
Yeah, it’s rough that the heirs of people worth more than $11 million will only get to split that initial $11M, plus 60% of the excess over that amount. If your parents died with $20 million in assets, you and your siblings will only get $16,344,000 of it. If there’s three of you, that’s $5,448,000 apiece. How can you possibly get by?
Where did I leave the world’s smallest violin? It’s gotta be around here somewhere.
Well, I trust middle-class people with their income more than I trust rich people with their wealth. But we’re still taxing income.
Again, it’s easy to come up with reasons why a particular tax, considered by itself in the abstract, is a bad idea. But how does it compare with other taxes? Why should we take away the income of people who are trying to get rich, rather than take away most of the estates of already fabulously rich people, once the rich people themselves are six feet under? Or why do we tax those poor people trying to get rich when they buy food or clothing or toilet paper, making it harder for them to get out of poverty?
Awwwwww. So unfair, the estate tax is.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
And the reason your kids deserve a tax-free windfall is what, exactly?
[/quote]
Because they’re *his *kids. The poor ones need to learn to work hard instead of expecting the *Democrats *to “give them free stuff for doing nothing”, instead of their parents.
I don’t know if he gets out before votes start getting cast in earnest though. He’s got enough wealth and free media attention to keep getting his message out. That avoids the campaign death spiral where candidates that start dropping lose financial support and media attention to counter the downward momentum. His numbers on the way down might be stickier than most candidates whose surges end. He doesn’t just have true believers that he’s the best candidate. He has true believers in the idea that almost all of the other candidates are the personification of everything bad about a candidate. Combined I can easily see him slogging on through Feb doing okay and still looking like he might have a shot. Early March, with a much narrowed field, could be ugly.
Latest Pew poll: Trump 25% Carson 16% Rubio/Fiorina 8%.
Bush: 4%. Four. That’s one, two, three, four. His people keep saying that this early polls don’t matter - but it is four. per. cent. I think when Walker got out his numbers were better.
… and a Gravis poll:
Trump: 34.7
Carson: 17.2
Rubio: 10.8
Fiorina: 8.8
Cruz: 7.3
… couldn’t find any mention of how Bush did in this poll. Apparently below 7.3% tho.
Those are truly beautiful polls.
You simply don’t understand economics.
The economy is like an ecosystem, and just like all god’s creatures money likes to be around those of its own kind. When money is spread out it gets sad. Only when its concentrated all together can it be truly happy. This is why left to its own devices money will tend to go to those people who already have it.
The key to a thriving economy is happy money, after all without money what good is the economy. When the evil government breaks up a family of dollars with something like an estate tax all the little orphan dollars get lonely and depressed and so we find ourselves in a “depression”.
Basically the Federal government is like your dads secretary and the estate tax is like that cheap perfume she wore. If it wasn’t for the estate tax mommy and daddy would still be married and you could see him every day instead of just every other weekend.
Or at least so I’ve heard.
Hey, it makes as much sense as Trump’s plan.
Instant nominee for the SDMB Hall of Fame.