Trump's Republican primary campaign

[Debaser]

I don’t want to go ten pages against ten opponents on the topic of the death tax that’s in a thread about Trump.

I’ve made my position clear. Rather than try to respond to the many posts to me, I’ll just try and hit some of the themes and a few items that just aren’t correct.

@BobLibDem

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.

Sure. I’ll agree that the tax, as it stands today isn’t forcing people to start at the bottom. But I wasn’t talking about that. I was more responding to the theme that many people bring up when discussing this tax about “fairness”.

Looks what’s been posted in this thread so far:

@BobLibDem

Person B inherits $1 million which of course he did no work for whatsoever. Why does it make sense for person B to get a tax-free windfall for contributing nothing to the economy while person A pays tax on the same amount of money?

@YogSosoth

The reason we have the estate tax is that you don’t do anything for it, you didn’t earn it, you never worked for it, and its just a luxury on top of what you could already do.

@RTFirefly

Absolutely! They clearly need some ‘tough love,’ as the conservatives call it.

@iiandyiiii

If anything should be taxable, it’s the unearned dynastic transfer of wealth.

@satoridt

No to mention all the benefits inherent in growing up wealthy. You still get to keep your exceptional education and exclusive connections.

Note that no one seems to be talking about raising revenue for the government to function, which is supposed to be the point of taxes. Clearly, this isn’t about revenue at all. People like this tax because it punishes the rich and makes things more “fair”. I’m not sure exactly what numbers of allowed amounts would be proposed by all these posters. But it certainly seems clear that many of you wish for everyone to “start at the bottom” and seek the death tax to get that. So I stick by my original statement.

This one is just silly:

@satoridt

No to mention all the benefits inherent in growing up wealthy. You still get to keep your exceptional education and exclusive connections.

So, what’s the solution? Everyone can’t go to Harvard so we should burn it to the ground so things are fair? There’s nothing wrong with having a society that has wealthy people who want to get good educations for their kids. That’s a GOOD thing, not a bad one. You spit it out like it’s some sort of crisis.

On to some more:

@BobLibDem

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?

Who’s suggested that the rich not be taxed at all? Do you have an example of rich people wanting not to pay taxes? I certainly didn’t say this, so I think it’s just a straw man.

@BobLibDem

And your party can’t find those cuts that would balance the budget, can they?

Who’s “my party”? I’m an independent. I voted Republican last presidential election, but voted Libertarian in the previous one.

@RTFirefly

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?

Sure. Basically every other tax. Income tax. Sales tax. Property tax. These are all much more fair, by any measure. You can avoid sales taxes by not buying so much stuff. You can avoid some income taxes by living in a state without them. But everyone dies.

The reason most other taxes are more fair is that they are designed to raise revenue for the government. The estate tax is not. It’s designed to punish rich people. Thus, of course it’s much more unfair.

That was easy. Did you expect it to be hard?

@RTFirefly

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.

I already addressed the part about “starting at the bottom” more being a response to people’s attitudes here than the actual tax. But your number there isn’t correct for all people. If you live in MA the tax starts at two million at the state level.

Also, you think that two million dollars is enough money that you wouldn’t have to work if you didn’t want to? Really?

[GIGObuster]

@Debaser

Also, you think that two million dollars is enough money that you wouldn’t have to work if you didn’t want to? Really?

Really.

http://www.interest.com/retirement-planning/news/how-to-save-1-million-for-retirement/

It won’t enable a lavish lifestyle of mansions and airplanes, but it should keep you comfortable in your golden years, especially when supplemented with Social Security benefits.

If you follow the 4% rule, you would be able to withdraw at least $40,000 a year during retirement and have your nest egg last for 30 years.

It takes discipline and planning, but banking seven figures by the time you’re a senior citizen is far from impossible, even on a middle-class income.

So. Even better with 2 millions. The point many make on those retire late or early with one million dollars articles I saw is that it is you who are in control of what you spend.

Only if you are not then there is no amount of money that is enough to retire on. Also, if one does retire early in the USA then it is less likely to work, one should consider retiring back to the old country, like I think I will do some day.

[Debaser]

Try again. The post I was responding to was talking about “kids”. You’re talking about people getting social security. Way to move the goalposts.

[GIGObuster]

@Debaser

Try again. The post I was responding to was talking about “kids”. You’re talking about people getting social security. Way to move the goalposts.

Nope, you try again, you are the one that is in reality moving them out of the stadium; unless we live in an alternate universe very rich people have better heath care and do live long, by the time this “death tax” come along the “kids” (and really, we are not talking about little ones here) are almost at retirement age themselves.

For example Richard Howard “Rick” Hilton is 60 and likely to reach 90, if he dies around that time then Paris Hilton will be 64.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Superb article by John B. Judis on Trump’s core base of supporters: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/74221/return-middle-american-radical?ref=facebook.com&mref=trumpradical1

While conducting extensive surveys of white voters in 1971 and again in 1975, Warren identified a group who defied the usual partisan and ideological divisions. These voters were not college educated; their income fell somewhere in the middle or lower-middle range; and they primarily held skilled and semi-skilled blue-collar jobs or sales and clerical white-collar jobs. At the time, they made up about a quarter of the electorate. What distinguished them was their ideology: It was neither conventionally liberal nor conventionally conservative, but instead revolved around an intense conviction that the middle class was under siege from above and below.

Warren called these voters Middle American Radicals, or MARS. “MARS are distinct in the depth of their feeling that the middle class has been seriously neglected,” Warren wrote. They saw “government as favoring both the rich and the poor simultaneously.” Like many on the left, MARS were deeply suspicious of big business: Compared with the other groups he surveyed—lower-income whites, middle-income whites who went to college, and what Warren called “affluents”—MARS were the most likely to believe that corporations had “too much power,” “don’t pay attention,” and were “too big.” MARS also backed many liberal programs: By a large percentage, they favored government guaranteeing jobs to everyone; and they supported price controls, Medicare, some kind of national health insurance, federal aid to education, and Social Security.

[RTFirefly]

I think I’ll start by pointing out the disingenuousness of this:

@Debaser

You can avoid some income taxes by living in a state without them.

<snip>

But your number there isn’t correct for all people. If you live in MA the tax starts at two million at the state level.

You’re regarding state taxes as more avoidable for poor people than rich people. Anyone who’s experienced different levels of the income and wealth spectrum knows it’s quite the opposite: rich people are citizens of the world, but poor people are very much tied to their location.

If you don’t have much to begin with, moving to some place where you don’t have a support network of friends and family, don’t have a mental map of where the affordable places are to rent, where you can buy a cheap but semi-dependable car, where to generally get stuff on the cheap, and don’t have anybody to tell you about a job that might work for you after you’ve been laid off from the one you moved there for, being in a new place means you’re always one misstep away from living on the street.

But getting back to the main theme:

@Debaser

People accumulating wealth is something you want to actively encourage. We should want every family in this country to get rich.

OK, here was where you started, and I actually agree with this, to the extent that it’s possible.

At any rate, working from that starting point, I said:

@RTFirefly

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?

(Bolding added just now.)

And you replied:

@Debaser

Sure. Basically every other tax. Income tax. Sales tax. Property tax. These are all much more fair, by any measure. You can avoid sales taxes by not buying so much stuff. You can avoid some income taxes by living in a state without them. But everyone dies.

The reason most other taxes are more fair is that they are designed to raise revenue for the government. The estate tax is not. It’s designed to punish rich people. Thus, of course it’s much more unfair.

That was easy. Did you expect it to be hard?

If you’d actually answered my question, instead of coming up with nonsense. Coming up with nonsense is always easy.

All of the taxes you mention are more punitive than the estate tax to someone trying to get rich, because they consistently deprive you of wealth while you’re trying to get from poor to rich, thereby making it harder to get rich in the first place.

And for dessert:

Also, you think that two million dollars is enough money that you wouldn’t have to work if you didn’t want to? Really?

Sure. Even in the difficult times of the past few years, an index fund would have done a good bit better than 3% a year, and 3% of $2M is more than the family income of most Americans.

[Debaser]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]

All of the taxes you mention are more punitive than the estate tax to someone trying to get rich, because they consistently deprive you of wealth while you’re trying to get from poor to rich, thereby making it harder to get rich in the first place.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with your point that rich people are more mobile than poor people. This is another good reason not to have death taxes. It encourages rich people to leave the country.

But as to your point quoted above, I couldn’t disagree more. Taxes on income or real estate or spending aren’t nearly as punitive to getting rich that estate taxes are. If we both agree that the goal is to have more rich people, then making everyone start at the bottom is a bad thing. It works against that goal in a much more profound way than regular taxes.

[iiandyiiii]

@Debaser

I agree with your point that rich people are more mobile than poor people. This is another good reason not to have death taxes. It encourages rich people to leave the country.

But as to your point quoted above, I couldn’t disagree more. Taxes on income or real estate or spending aren’t nearly as punitive to getting rich that estate taxes are. If we both agree that the goal is to have more rich people, then making everyone start at the bottom is a bad thing. It works against that goal in a much more profound way than regular taxes.

I disagree with your earlier point that estate taxes are designed to punish rich people – they are designed to raise revenue in a way that does the least harm. I think this way is less harmful than income, sales, etc., taxes for reasons elucidated by RTFirefly.

Further, this doesn’t cause everyone (or anyone) to start “at the bottom” – rich kids will still start out rich. 50% of > $5 million is still “rich”. I wouldn’t advocate for an estate tax rate higher than 50% or so.

[Lobohan]

I’d personally require an estate tax to be counted as normal income for the inheritor. I’d allow a cutout for one home and one business.

If I pay you a million dollars, the govt. takes x amount from it. I think they should take the same amount if I give it to you.

The RW view is that the money is “taxed twice”. No shit. I pay you for a widget, with after tax money. The payment is taxed on your end. You pay for a foot massage with after tax money from the widget sale. The masseuse is taxed on that money. The masseuse pays for a Whopper with the after tax money from the massage. The BK owner is taxed on that money… and so on.

If I give you the money, it should be taxed when you get it. Complaining about being taxed twice seems to be nothing but a bumpersticker talking point.

[RTFirefly]

@Debaser

I agree with your point that rich people are more mobile than poor people. This is another good reason not to have death taxes. It encourages rich people to leave the country.

OK, so you agree that the state-level estrate taxes aren’t worth paying attention to?

Also, I just want to make the point that, contrary to your recurring claim, it’s not a ‘death tax.’ ‘Death’ isn’t being taxed. Sizable estates of people who’ve died are being taxed. Everybody dies, but only the 0.1% get taxed.

But as to your point quoted above, I couldn’t disagree more. Taxes on income or real estate or spending aren’t nearly as punitive to getting rich that estate taxes are.

Argument by assertion.

If we both agree that the goal is to have more rich people, then making everyone start at the bottom is a bad thing. It works against that goal in a much more profound way than regular taxes.

I agree with this too! But, um, this has fuck-all to do with the Federal estate tax.

[RTFirefly]

Also, Debaser, your argument that it’s not done to have a tax whose purpose isn’t primarily to raise revenue is false. Cigarette taxes are partly about the revenue, but mostly they’re about discouraging smoking. And if we had a carbon tax, same deal: the revenue would be nice, but the main object would be to keep global warming from happening.

So if the revenue raised from an estate tax is secondary to a primary purpose of keeping our politics from being dominated by second- and third-generation multimillionaires who have no idea what it’s like to have to work for a living, then that’s really not particularly objectionable, unless of course you feel that our politics really should be dominated by second- and third-generation multimillionaires who have no idea what it’s like to have to work for a living.

[BigT]

Just want to say, I never would have thought something as interesting as arguments about estate taxes would come out in a thread about Trump.

Me? I have no clue. My basic premise is that we take money from the rich because, dollar for dollar, the money inherently has less value to them, so we’re causing the least hurt for the maximum gain. I don’t really give a crap how this is accomplished.

I only see a global agreement making this work, however. Because of course the greedy will go to where they get more money, even though the money has much less value to them. The greedy get their value out of how much they own. And all people who become rich are inherently greedy. You don’t get a lot of money unless you make acquiring money your primary goal.

We just need a system where that goal is channeled into making the world a better place. We need a way to give these people the satisfaction without it harming the people with less money.

How estate taxes fit into this, I have no idea. If getting rid of them but getting the money in other ways will make them happier, I’m all for it. The main thing, though, is getting the money to fix the problems. Because nearly all the problems in society are money based, whether people want to admit it or not. It’s either poor people committing crimes or people doing bad things to make more money.

Hell, why do you think immigrants come here? They want a better life, which means they need more money.

[BigT]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Superb article by John B. Judis on Trump’s core base of supporters: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/74221/return-middle-american-radical?ref=facebook.com&mref=trumpradical1

Yip. I’ve noticed this more and more. He’s courting the liberal end of the Republican party. I had previously thought they were ignoring his liberal stuff because of how he made them feel, but it seems more and more like they don’t have a problem with his positions. If anything, they’ve been ignoring stuff in voting Republican.

They aren’t “not looking after their own self-interest” as liberals tend to assume. They just believe that helping the poor will inherently hurt them. If we could convince them otherwise, we might have a shot.

I never thought I’d actually say this, but maybe it would have been better if Trump had come in as a Democrat. Not because I think he’d win or be a good president, but because he maybe could have opened these people up to the idea of voting Democrat. Once over the hump, I think they might realize that the Democrats give them more of what they want than the Republicans currently do.

[Toys]

The reason why Trump has done so well is because his rejection of unlimited immigration and illegal immigration. The very white and very Christian GOP base wants less immigrants and in particularly less non-white immigrants from third world countries. United States was funded by descendents of Christian Anglo-European settlers. They had a strong European (and in particular Anglo identity and saw them as a part of Western Civilization. They saw themselves as Europeans in the Diaspora. This was also the case for Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians and white South Africans. In some degree it was also true for the Uruguayans and the Argentines not to forget the very white elite in the rest of the Latin-America. Blood and soil politics was actually incorporated in United States long before most states.

After the Revolution the WASP elite later allowed immigration from the rest of Northern and Central Europe to settle in territories not yet incorporated in United States and to fill vacant positions in the newly industrialized country. In the 1880 United States saw increased immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. There was also an increasing immigration from Asia and Latin-America. In 1924 quotas was introduced to lower unemployment and to keep United States demographically as European and Christian country. United States was actually 90 percent white in 1970. The rest consisted mostly of African-Americans descendents from slaves. In 1965 the quotas and immigration encouraged leading to the multicultural and multiethnic United States.

What we currently see in United States is that Americans with European decent feel “uneasy”. They feel that United States is slowly turning into another Latin-American country. More and more whites are turning to the Republican Party while the Democratic Party slowly turns into the party for minorities. However, the Republican base have had enough with immigration and therefore they will rally around Donald Trump because Trump appeal to their sense of implicit European identity. The GOP establishment is very uneasy with this development because they see United States as a colorblind proposition nation and not as European nation.

Other factors which rally support to Trump is the high unemployment other social troubles which the current political elites have not solved. The conflict between “more government” or “less government” is of lesser importance in 2016 election. The elites of course think the opposite. They rather scrabble over their small differences on tax policy. Trump stand above such scrabble and therefore he is able to gain much support. Trump will of course not win the election or will he be the GOP nominee but he is really shaking things up for the neo-conservatives in Washington DC and New York.

[John_D_Adamo]

@BigT

Yip. I’ve noticed this more and more. He’s courting the liberal end of the Republican party. I had previously thought they were ignoring his liberal stuff because of how he made them feel, but it seems more and more like they don’t have a problem with his positions. If anything, they’ve been ignoring stuff in voting Republican.

They aren’t “not looking after their own self-interest” as liberals tend to assume. They just believe that helping the poor will inherently hurt them. If we could convince them otherwise, we might have a shot.

I never thought I’d actually say this, but maybe it would have been better if Trump had come in as a Democrat. Not because I think he’d win or be a good president, but because he maybe could have opened these people up to the idea of voting Democrat. Once over the hump, I think they might realize that the Democrats give them more of what they want than the Republicans currently do.

He’s courting the liberal end of the party plus the racists. Enough to win him the primary? Probably not, but potentially enough to win Iowa.

[BobLibDem]

@John_D_Adamo

He’s courting the liberal end of the party plus the racists. Enough to win him the primary? Probably not, but potentially enough to win Iowa.

There is no liberal end of the Republican Party. They come in these flavors: Right, Far Right, Really Far Right, Off the Scale Right, Racists, Islamophobes, Homophobes, Misogynists, and Gun Nuts. There isn’t a liberal faction out there.

[RTFirefly]

I wonder if the death of the last Rockefeller Republican made the news, whenever it happened.

[Fear_Itself]

Most of them changed parties. Lincoln Chafee comes to mine. Susan Collins is still alive.

[ElvisL1ves]

@RTFirefly

I wonder if the death of the last Rockefeller Republican made the news, whenever it happened.

According to Rocky himself, who died in 1979:

At a discouraging point in the 1964 California primary campaign against Barry Goldwater, political operative Stuart Spencer called on Rockefeller to “summon that fabled nexus of money, influence, and condescension known as the Eastern Establishment. ‘You are looking at it, buddy,’ Rockefeller told Spencer. ‘I am all that is left.’”.

[John_D_Adamo]

@BobLibDem

There is no liberal end of the Republican Party. They come in these flavors: Right, Far Right, Really Far Right, Off the Scale Right, Racists, Islamophobes, Homophobes, Misogynists, and Gun Nuts. There isn’t a liberal faction out there.

Collins, Mark Kirk, Lisa Murkowski (Senate)
Charlie Dent, Chris Smith (House)

[Quote=Fear Itself]
Most of them changed parties. Lincoln Chafee comes to mine. Susan Collins is still alive.
[/quote]

Chafee was but switched to Dems and is running for president as a Dem.