POLITICAL THREAD

[Bill Cosby]

Really hoping that Socialism definition shit from earlier and the claims that large companies can be as bad as tyrannical governments don't get forgotten in Fuzz's evening stupidity.

Really has been a classic day in the Political thread.

 

[warrior-cat]

I agree with Argubs. That is one of the craziest pitches that I have ever heard.

You should have to give up your own money to a goddamn charity cause. A charity where the money goes straight to the upper management.

Here's $5 million from the Argubs estate.

Absolute horse shit.

He's a communist/socialist collaborator. For him and many on the left it should now go to them and their government.

Oh and by the way, it is people like FUZZ and these others who think the government should control our money and lives who are screwing up our youth today. These kids think this is the way it should be and it will make every thing alright.

 

[Willy4UK]

Fuzz clearly knows what is best for everyone in the country and how much money they should have.

He shall determine who works for a living and who doesn't. Society is just a giant puzzle and we need a genius like fuzz to put it together and everything will work perfectly*



*unless you want to live in a society where sub-literate know it alls like fuzz don't get to tell you how to spend your money. If that's what you want, you're effed

It sounds like total dictatorship of communism. Very Putin-esque

 

[Willy4UK]

He's a communist/socialist collaborator. For him and many on the left it should now go to them and their government.

Yep. Everything Fuzz has mentioned goes 100% against the theory of the "American Dream".

 

[qwesley]

Really hoping that Socialism definition shit from earlier and the claims that large companies can be as bad as tyrannical governments don't get forgotten in Fuzz's evening stupidity.

Really has been a classic day in the Political thread.

Don't leave out immigration today being the same as immigration 100+ years ago. Earlier today but feels like forever ago.

 

[warrior-cat]

Kumbaya free money, Kumbaya. Kumbaya free college Kumbaya.

 

[Willy4UK]

If I had enough money that the gov't was gonna take. I would slowly take out every cent out and burn it before I gave one effing penny to any gov't branch.

 

[TransyCat09]

Fuzz's system would encourage 3 things:

1) High living/frivolous spending: he seems to be under the mistaken belief that simply spending money helps the economy. Doesn't matter what you buy, as long as you are buying. This is, of course, utterly ridiculous, but it also does direct harm. Investing money and providing capital for business will always be superior to "stimulus."

2) Donating to charity: this is certainly a noble deed, but at what point do charities reach a critical mass of cash, and what affect what this inheritance tax really have? Americans donated roughly $350 billion to charity in 2014. That would approximately what would be donated if every one of the top 10 richest Americans died in one year and all of their wealth went to charity. Think about how insignificant that really is in the grand scheme of things. This also has the same problem as #1, wherein that $350 billion could do a lot more good being spent on real commerce and investment

3) Fraud: O, you want my money? Sorry it's all gone and, entirely coincidentally, my whole family lives in Fiji now with Swiss bank accounts

In summary, fuzz's idea is not new and has been refuted by serious economists time and again and is stupid. Thanks

 

[warrior-cat]

The sad part in all of this is that there are more people in this country who think this way and a lot more who are coming around to it. Maybe not on his scale but, they are getting there.

 

[Willy4UK]

The sad part in all of this is that there are more people in this country who think this way and a lot more who are coming around to it. Maybe not on his scale but, there getting there.

Sadly. I think where we are going to place where the concept of "work" will erode away. Automation is on our door steps and at some point there will be only a few jobs that aren't done by AI/Robots.

Not sure what's going to happen if gov't policies heavily influenced by the democrat party keep increasing the wealth gaps (reached a new wealth gap record under Obama) before full automation is set in place. Scares me to think of how universal basic income may be the way people get paid.

 

[Bill Cosby]

The Bill Cosby "$50,000 cash payments to get yourself sterilized" policy needs to be implemented sooner rather than later.

To many stupid people having to many stupid kids to sustain.

 

[warrior-cat]

Sadly. I think where we are going to place where the concept of "work" will erode away. Automation is on our door steps and at some point there will be only a few jobs that aren't done by AI/Robots.

Not sure what's going to happen if gov't policies heavily influenced by the democrat party keep increasing the wealth gaps (reached a new wealth gap record under Obama) before full automation is set in place. Scares me to think of how universal basic income may be the way people get paid.

Just enough to survive while those in power bathe in riches. Government by the people (those who are duped) for the government.

 

[ram1955]

No, I'd give it to family.

Reasonably intelligent people, generally those who don't want to give $ to the government, will find ways to give their money to whomever they want. I'd probably unload my millions on my kids before I die, so the gubment would pay for my nursing home bills or go out and buy land and deed it to my kids.
I don't have much but washington ain't getting any of it if I can help it.

 

[Willy4UK]

Just enough to survive while those in power bathe in riches. Government by the people (those who are duped) for the government.

At that point, we won't be voting any more. It won't be our choice.

And Bill's sterilization program will be running full steam but no money will be given and there will be an application process to have a baby.

I see where this is heading, and for folk like you and I, the future doesn't look rosy.

 

[Phil_The_Music]

Would you prefer to be buried with it? I suppose that would be acceptable as well. Would you like it burned upon your death? Hopefully if you're smart enough to have acquired an estate of sufficient size then you've done some estate planning. If you've got no where else you'd rather see it go then sure, I'm sure the govt will be happy to cash the check.

My family, friends, maybe even a church that I thought would do good things with it. The fact that you even mention me burying it or burning it shows your lack of logic on the issue. People who have lots of money don't bury it in Mason jars or stash it in the mattress. They invest it so that it can grow, which in turn helps the economy. But the point of that matter is simple. What one earns should be theirs to do with as they see fit. Whether someone is rich or poor is about perspective. I don't like the government having the power to do whatever with my money based on its perspective. Yes your plan may only effect the top 2% percent. But those who stand by idly while wrong doing has its reign and do nothing, are just as guilty as those who do the deed.

 

[fuzz77]

One more chance fuzz.........walk it back or dig in?

To reiterate - If an individual dies with $20 million in a bank account, fuzz thinks the federal government should take $15 million of that money and leave the family with $5 mil. This is what fuzz proposed.

Yes or No.

Did you have a will? Did you list any beneficiaries on your bank account?
If you were stupid enough to not do any estate planning then yeah, guess Uncle Sam gets paid. That was your choice because you chose not to have a plan. What percentage of people with $20 mill in the bank fail to make those provisions?

 

[ram1955]

My family, friends, maybe even a church that I thought would do good things with it. The fact that you even mention me burying it or burning it shows your lack of logic on the issue. People who have lots of money don't bury it in Mason jars or stash it in the mattress. They invest it so that it can grow, which in turn helps the economy. But the point of that matter is simple. What one earns should be theirs to do with as they see fit. Whether someone is rich or poor is about perspective. I don't like the government having the power to do whatever with my money based on its perspective. Yes your plan may only effect the top 2% percent. But those who stand by idly while wrong doing has its reign and do nothing, are just as guilty as those who do the deed.

If I have $10M, that's an opportunity for those in the 98% to invent something, come up with a service, build a business, etc...that would cause me to want to share some of my $ with them. Simple as that.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

The sad part in all of this is that there are more people in this country who think this way and a lot more who are coming around to it. Maybe not on his scale but, there getting there.

Yep. Its why we're doomed.

Did you have a will? Did you list any beneficiaries on your bank account?
If you were stupid enough to not do any estate planning then yeah, guess Uncle Sam gets paid. That was your choice because you chose not to have a plan. What percentage of people with $20 mill in the bank fail to make those provisions?

Thats not at all how it works. Escheat is the FINAL option when no other heirs at all can be located. Then, it goes to the state; not the federal government.

 

[fuzz77]

Reasonably intelligent people, generally those who don't want to give $ to the government, will find ways to give their money to whomever they want. I'd probably unload my millions on my kids before I die, so the gubment would pay for my nursing home bills or go out and buy land and deed it to my kids.
I don't have much but washington ain't getting any of it if I can help it.

The govt might end up paying for your nursing home care but you'll probably not like the nursing homes who will accept you based upon medicare alone.
Don't worry. If you don't have $5+ million you're not subject to inheritance taxes.

 

[jockstrap_mcgee]

"Somebody likes trump takes office and with all his anti Muslim rhetoric, it makes it much easier for Isis to radicalize Muslims in the region."

This point show how ignorant some people are to what is happening in the world. History has shown us that these people have been fighting for thousands of years and no matter what you do they will continue to fight.

Yes, there has been lots of violence in this part of the world. Hence my point. Do we really want to go after the Islamic world in such a way that a much bigger portion of them turn the violence towards us?

And do we really want to unilaterally go in again, take out another terrorist organization, and leave another power vacuum for the next fanatic to fill?

I say no.

All those oil baron sheiks building ski resorts in the desert should do their part to stabilize the region, but they won't.

 

[Mojocat]

Strange bedfellows. (Relatedly, has there been a snottier candidate than Jon Huntsman?)

Jon Huntsman: I could get behind Donald Trump

 

[Big_Blue79]

Wow, what happened in here today? I subscribe to the idea that real wealth is accumulated by making your capital work, thus slightly undermining the value of work than perhaps is ideal for a perfect society, as a topic that friends might discuss at the end of a bottle of bourbon. But wow is a 100% inheritance tax at any threshold a bad idea.

 

[P19978]

May I recommend a great cause:

 

[krazykats]

Yea today started off good and somehow in a political thread we care about what happens to your wealth when you die without a trust or will?

I thought we hated the rich here, no?

 

[KopiKat]

But wow is a 100% inheritance tax at any threshold a bad idea.

It is in every conceivable way criminal, immoral, and downright evil. It is a taxing concept that says no man has the right to provide value to his children in passing. It is a taxing concept that says to men who refuse to raise their children that they are equal to men who have worked tirelessly to raise theirs. It is a taxing concept that says to children that the efforts of your parents have been wrought with greed, and that the fruits of their labors belongs to the filth of angry refugees just as much as it belongs to you. It is a taxing concept that says to the family try as you may to provide on your own a virtuous, earned multi-generation stability, the government and hordes of wanting, lazy, dependent-motivated voter population stands united to harvest from you all that is rightfully yours. It is a taxing concept that says to the population be motivated to produce no more than you need for your minimal existence over the course of a single lifetime.

 

[-LEK-]

Yea, you know it's bad when ram is taking swings.

 

[KopiKat]

In summary, fuzz's idea is not new and has been refuted by serious economists time and again and is stupid. Thanks

His idea is based on the immoral concept that taking money from the rich IS moral.

He supports the process of requiring the "use" of money in order to avoid it being taken. He can offer no logical or ethical argument to support this process because there is none. He can only say this is what you can do, if you don't do it, that's your fault. That is what Fuzz says. Not sure why anybody is wasting time discussing the matter with him any further. That is his position.

Hate the man who says to you bullshit like "if you don't have 5 million dollars you don't have to worry about it." Who is to say you will not have 5 million dollars, or more? What right does Fuzz have to talk to you with an assumption that you are not able to produce for yourself exceptionally? What right does any man have to interfere with the imagination of your remaining years, your talents, your desires, your pending achievements? This is the most evil form of "holding back" there is.

You listen to this propaganda, you read it on your message boards, and your minds are poisoned with the belief that you need from others . . . how much? At what rate? (will the cut-off remain 5 million?) And when that's not enough, what next? And has any generation of dependency been less dependent than any dependent generation before? No. Never. The well always runs dry. Men who achieve power by making promises to the poor NEVER produce less poor, as it is the poor that keep them in power.

 

[krazykats]

Who gives a shit, if you got enough to worry about you didn't spend enough while you were here. F you!

CNN doing everything to bury trump. Not happening idiots! Throw it out the that people are pissed they bought into Trump Hollywood and trump didn't develop it. No one cares that Trump was smart enough to somehow protect himself and you Mr millionaire lost 300K down payment on a 2million condo you thought trump developed.

Sorry dipshit, should have saved your money so the political thread argument of where it went when you die mattered. But you didn't, instead you pissed it away. Jerk

 

[warrior-cat]

My family, friends, maybe even a church that I thought would do good things with it. The fact that you even mention me burying it or burning it shows your lack of logic on the issue. People who have lots of money don't bury it in Mason jars or stash it in the mattress. They invest it so that it can grow, which in turn helps the economy. But the point of that matter is simple. What one earns should be theirs to do with as they see fit. Whether someone is rich or poor is about perspective. I don't like the government having the power to do whatever with my money based on its perspective. Yes your plan may only effect the top 2% percent. But those who stand by idly while wrong doing has its reign and do nothing, are just as guilty as those who do the deed.

Unfortunately, it would trickle down to the middle class because the more the government takes the more they want. We would then ourselves become a third world country with the 1percenters now being the government leaders. They can not make it on their own merits. That is why they are in government, they know they can use power to take it from others.

 

[warrior-cat]

[QUOTEis "jockstrap_mcgee, post: 3874900, member: 8152"]Yes, there has been lots of violence in this part of the world. Hence my point. Do we really want to go after the Islamic world in such a way that a much bigger portion of them turn the violence towards us?

And do we really want to unilaterally go in again, take out another terrorist organization, and leave another power vacuum for the next fanatic to fill?

I say no.

All those oil baron sheiks building ski resorts in the desert should do their part to stabilize the region, but they won't.[/QUOTE]


Which is why I say they need to foot the bill or at least pay half if they want our help. However, when push comes to shove, I agree, let them just fight it out amongst themselves and winner take all.

 

[fuzz77]

Thats not at all how it works. Escheat is the FINAL option when no other heirs at all can be located. Then, it goes to the state; not the federal government.

We are discussing something that doesn't currently exist so the rules would all be rewritten. Got it Hoss?

 

[warrior-cat]

Written by whom?

 

[qwesley]

Like message board wagers! Rewrite those rascals.

 

[fuzz77]

Wow, what happened in here today? I subscribe to the idea that real wealth is accumulated by making your capital work, thus slightly undermining the value of work than perhaps is ideal for a perfect society, as a topic that friends might discuss at the end of a bottle of bourbon. But wow is a 100% inheritance tax at any threshold a bad idea.

First, this was suggested and discussed a week or two ago but some things never die.
The idea was about getting rid of perpetual family privilege and the continued accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. The model is what Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and many super-rich already follow. As Buffett famously put it, the perfect amount to leave children is “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.” In Gates case that is $10 million. Wealth is power and because you may have been successful and become powerful I don't believe that means that all of your heirs for the foreseeable generations should also hold that power. I think Buffett's quote above is perfect.

Lastly, it (the idea) isn't a tax, just a limit as to what you could leave your children. The rest would go to the charity of your choice, your church or hell...if you wished, a payment on the national debt.

 

[Willy4UK]

First, this was suggested and discussed a week or two ago but some things never die.
The idea was about getting rid of perpetual family privilege and the continued accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. The model is what Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and many super-rich already follow. As Buffett famously put it, the perfect amount to leave children is “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.” In Gates case that is $10 million. Wealth is power and because you may have been successful and become powerful I don't believe that means that all of your heirs for the foreseeable generations should also hold that power. I think Buffett's quote above is perfect.

I have a huge problem with that quote.

 

[fuzz77]

I have a huge problem with that quote.

Then take it up with Warren Buffett.

 

[fuzz77]

Written by whom?

We're going to let you write it WC. You'll be given the outline and then you get to write the specifics that meet the objective.

 

[Willy4UK]

Then take it up with Warren Buffett.

Yeah, I'll do that.

Good thing laws aren't based on Warren Buffet's beliefs.

 

[qwesley]

I am 100% sure WB would not advocate a federal tax law to that affect.

 

[Willy4UK]

"Fuzz, sir. You are out of your f***** mind" ~ Warren Buffet