Things They Say
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
"It'll be gone in 6 months on crack cocaine"
City Coucilman Tom McBroom Sr on the settlement Philando Castille's girlfriend got for his murder.
City Coucilman Tom McBroom Sr on the settlement Philando Castille's girlfriend got for his murder.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
'“It’s death to Democrats,” said conservative economist Stephen Moore, who advised Trump’s campaign on tax policy.
“They go after state and local taxes, which weakens public employee unions. They go after university endowments, and universities have become play pens of the left. And getting rid of the mandate is to eventually dismantle Obamacare,” Moore said in an interview, arguing that it would accelerate “a death spiral” in the health-care law’s marketplaces.'
There is no more subtext.
“They go after state and local taxes, which weakens public employee unions. They go after university endowments, and universities have become play pens of the left. And getting rid of the mandate is to eventually dismantle Obamacare,” Moore said in an interview, arguing that it would accelerate “a death spiral” in the health-care law’s marketplaces.'
There is no more subtext.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Redistribution of wealth without directly penalizing the earner of said wealth. It's a clear win, and it only affects the super-rich anyways.
Is a $5.5 million threshold (including real estate, stock portfolio, and [small] businesses) truly at the "super-rich" level, though?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
It is from where most Americans sit.
But I'd be fine tweaking it to exclude [small] businesses and some real estate (the family home, the [small] farm, and such).
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Not really.
'Super rich' people are inherently bad?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
"Super rich" having negative connotations is very clearly not the same notion as "Super rich" people are inherently bad.
I don't know. "Super rich", to me, is somebody like Jeff Bezos, who makes $52 million per day.
A person with $5.5 million in total assets is ... well off.
But, yeah, small businesses should absolutely be excluded and I think there should be a cap (relative to any number of things, such as charitable giving or cumulative income taxes paid) on how much can be collected.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Their default activity does.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Most Americans don't have the sort of economic privilege to appreciate or care about that distinction. I contend that $5.5 million in total assets is substantially better than "well off".
As I said, I am absolutely for intelligent revision of the tax-code. The bill heading to reconciliation is very much not that.
The average American has a net worth of ~$200-300K (depending on what source you want to employ) between the ages of 55-75. Not inclusive of assets like a home, cars, inheritance, etc. Exclusive of combined income/same set of spousal assets (which are generally passed on to the surviving spouse after death). You add a small business to that and $5.5 million is a low bar. Maybe my quibble here is "most Americans" seems too broad. It's a lot of money to impoverished Americans and true middle class Americans, but it's not an unachievable sum of money to "most" Americans - or, at least, not enough to be categorically labeled apart of a "super rich" stratum, by comparison (especially when the individuals making exponentially more are the real reason the estate tax could be a beneficial thing).