All good ideas. None exclusive of higher taxes for ultrarich, gun control, and fully paid Healthcare for all.

the money is already taxed. The person who earned it pays income taxes on it then there is an additional gift tax to give it to a family member. If you have a parent who has $0 in retirement savings and thus lives off of only social security then why shouldn't you be allowed to pay $50k of their expenses per year without incurring another layer of taxes?

All money is "already taxed" before it winds up wherever it winds up, that argument is a fallacy. Most every transaction is taxed. What you're asking for is that an exception be carved out for money that is not earned.

what was unfair about how Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg or Warren Buffett got their wealth? Did they get lucky? Sure. Did the accrue it unfairly? You'd have to make a pretty compelling case for me to shift my view on that.


To do that requires a reworking of the entire tax structure and not simply changing the applicable rates. I am all for a complete reworking of the tax structure where there are no loopholes or deductions.

Why can parents spend 100k/yr on a kid growing up but that kid cannot spend 100k/yr on their parents in retirement? Its a pretty stupid ****ing system. You should be allowed to take care of your family at whatever level you deem appropriate.

I've been reading everything I can get my hands on about Trump's brand of powertalk. There's some fascinating stuff in there but he's so good he even has me reconsidering my dismissal of the usefulness of neuro-linguistic programming some years ago. Sure, mastery of phrasing, frame, and confidence can make getting pussy a formality. (I regularly run a little dread on my girlfriend; in turn, our relationship is excellent and I plan to propose sometime this year.)

Meanwhile, this mother****er is dickswagging his way into the White House. I never thought much of the man but this is amazing.

And he hasn't even unleashed Melania yet.

I agree with this.

Clark,

What kind of odds would you give me on Bernie or Trump winning? You say they have 0% so I'm hoping we can work something out.

Not sure how old you are ,CDL, but the price jump in a decent school district and child care can be a second rent.

My AGM is married to a server in an upscale restaurant, they have a 4 year old and a 2 year old. Their rent in a mediocre good school district is $1600 and their childcare costs are about $400 a week, only needing 3 nights of 9 hours each. 9-5ers in the same income household need 40 or so hours of childcare which can easily be $600. I'd guess they pull around $100k/yr but these people shouldn't be paying a dime in income taxes because they can't afford to save on a down payment on a house from which they could be deducting interest when they're paying interest and property taxes through their rent.

Its just another regressive element of our tax system. Renters get hosed when landlords charge their tenants for interest they get to deduct. And their childcare deduction maxes out at $6k, I think, when the basic needs of anyone with kids under 5 require paying double or more than more than triple that, no matter what their income.

Gates and Zuckerberg had dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe even thousands of unfair advantages over random person in the poorest of class. You are drawing an arbitrary fairness line.

If higher taxes for them is something that is passed legally and with due process and representation in accordance with the laws of the nation they live in, then how is it unfair to them?

Fairness is not solely tied to how much you deserve something due to how hard you worked.

Basically "alls fair in everything"

dems/fda treat vapors like smokers and i'll be voting lolrepubicon for the first time.

yes, I am aware. I believe this is why we should find a way to provide this child care (at a high quality level) for all. this would allow parents to continue working as many of them cant justify it financially. This solution would require we rake in more tax income which, even if applied proportionally across income classes, would benefit the lower classes more because the benefit of the service they receive is a much larger percentage of their income.

My friends just had twins and they had every intention of both continuing to work yet the math didn't work out in a manner where that made sense and she ended up quitting her job and withdrawing from the labor force even though she would rather be working all because it would have cost more for schools than she would have brought home after taxes.


This is my whole argument re: taxes. If you tax all classes at the same rates, but provide a much much more robust set of public services then you are creating an effectively higher tax rate on the rich and lower tax rate on the poor because the use of these public services will be relatively stable across classes. Thus, the same monetary benefit is a much larger tax rebate to the lower class than it is to the upper class. I am all for increasing taxes and increasing social services, but think it should be done for all.

If every adult gets $10k in public service benefits and every kid gets $20k (pulled out of my ass) then then family of 4 making $50k in income and paying 40% (also pulled out of my ass) has $30k in take home pay and $60k in benefits for a real income of $90k post tax. Meanwhile the one making $100k has $60k in take home but the same $60k in benefits and thus is at $120k post tax. Thus, even though one family is "making" double and their tax rate is the same they are really only 1/3 better off and not twice as well off. The same family of 4 would have to earn $200k (or 4x as much) to be twice as well off as the family making $50k.

Tut, why are you in favor of taxing the rich more rather than providing a higher level of social services to all in order to close the gap? I think the latter would be much more fair and would have better long-term viability while also providing a better standard of living for the poor than simply making the rich pay more taxes and hoping the poor can claw their way up.

if you're gonan be a single issue voter i guess there are worse issues

Guess what would help pay the costs associated with doing so?

Mods pls wordfilter "vape" to "e-fedora" tia

this made me lol

Republican FDA prob more likely to go after vaping

I just outlined it above. If you raise taxes on all people to a higher level (but one that is equal across all income levels), but provide more social services then the poor get a larger benefit proportionally. You don't have to tax the rich at a higher rate in order to close the gap. The gap will close on its own as more services are provided to all. Its effectively a lower rate for the poor (and a negative tax rate on people below a certain threshold) without actually taking a higher cut of income from those who make more.

don't care. i've been a courteous smoker for many years. i've stood out in the rain so I didn't "endanger others". now i have an alternative that nobody has proven is second-hand any more harmful then walking down the street next to car exhaust...but they still want me in the box.

**** that.

I've never said that taxing the rich is the answer to all of our problems. It's a small part of the solution, but it's we can and should do in addition to all the other things we should be doing to.

Also, any wealth that gets redistributed to the poor doesn't just get lit of fire. They're much more likely to stimulate the middle and upper middle classes with it.

Thinman stop vaping too man.

why?

<crickets>

don't worry, I can't come up with any reasons why I should stop doing something that effects zero other peoples business either.