Wtf i'm voting trump now?

>tfw the gubment takes tax from my mansion to feed the poor/lazy millenial librul homosexual Europeans
>tfw can't afford that third yacht because B. Hussein Obama is literally wasting it on poor people (the military budget? who cares lol)

God, I feel so bad for these people ;(

If you work for a mid sized company that's owned by someone who dies, it gets passed down to someone. But if that someone doesn't have enough money to pay the estate tax, they have to sell some or all the business. If you're an employee of that business, that should worry you. New ownership can be quite stressful, especially if they decide to bring in some new H1B curryniggers for you to train. If the new owner is the son/daughter, it's far more likely that things will remain stable.

>It's okay for the government to take a massive shit on some people as long as those people aren't you?
well it's ok for the government to arbitrarily pay millions to some people and those people aren't you.

so you do the math.

1000 white people paying taxes - 1000 niggers on welfare = 100,000 niggers and 0 whites.

ah, you're a small thinker.

I was talking about government contracts where a single individual can easily make millions.

they overwhelmingly go to rich white males.

so the gov taking a shit on rich white males is just as fair as them giving them money to shit on in the first place.

keep thinking small though, silly little racist.

sure those niggers are keeping you down.

God damn you are fucking retarded, and you are more racist than anybody else here. Is every white male a rich person? Besides, aren't jews, indians and asians proportionally more wealthy than white people? Whites are not even the wealthiest racial/ethnical group, there are millions of white guys working shit jobs and living in caravans. You black activists are fucking blind by your hate and inferiority complex.

>mid sized company

Keyword there. Most large companies are broken up among the children and grandchildren of its founders plus the public and are already held in sizeable trusts. If your company owner is smart then they have already rolled a lot of stock into trusts, if not then sure thing people can get screwed if the company is bought up by others.

>If the new owner is the son/daughter

In my experience these are the people who fuck up the company in the name of the bottom line as often as anyone else.

Nice

>It's okay for the government to take a massive shit on some people as long as those people aren't you?
That's what they believe alright.
Of course, they'd fight shit like this if they ever became rich, but that's because they don't believe this constitutes hypocrisy.

>Is every white male a rich person
nope, but the government isn't shitting on every white person with estate taxes, are they?

>aren't jews, indians and asians proportionally more wealthy than white people?
I don't know but it's irrelevant to the fact that there's less of them so the government gives fewer contracts to them and charges them estate taxes less often.

>You black activists
you're a moron.

all I said is the government gives more money to certain people so it's just as fair that they take more from those same people. The fact that those people are white men doesn't change the fairness or unfairness of the thing. It could be Amazonian women for all I care, I'm just saying if it's unfair to shit on one group more than others you should also be bitching about one group benefiting more than others.

>they'd fight shit like this if they ever became rich
not necessarily.

there's a lot of rich socialist-leaning people just because of the cognitive dissonance that hypocrisy creates. But then voting against your own interests creates its own dissonance as well. So you see these socially conscious corporations popping up that try to ease their conscience for all their success by 'helping' the environment and 'giving' to poor people.

as if they can give more than they take. The best they can be is a vehicle for giving other people's money.

>ives more money to certain people so it's just as fair that they take more from those same people
Your argument fails, because they're not the same people.
Contracts aren't awarded to every person exposed to the estate tax.
All you're doing is claiming it's ok to fuck some rich people, simply because there's some overlap with the rich people awarded said contracts.

>All you're doing is claiming it's ok to fuck some rich people, simply because there's some overlap with the rich people awarded said contracts.
no, the overlap is irrelevant to my argument.

is it ok for the government to arbitrarily take a dump on some people and not others?

if you say no then you'd need to also complain about them arbitrarily enriching some people and not others.

the fact that they're mostly the same people is irrelevant to the argument, though not coincidental.

>you'd need to also complain about them arbitrarily enriching some people and not others
Yes, that's just as wrong.
Which in no way invalidates my point, or makes your argument valid.

>that's just wrong
perhaps.

care to explain why you think it's ok for the government to give rich people millions in business but somehow wrong of them to charge rich people millions in taxes?

because between you and me I'd love to hear a good argument on why I should be allowed to make millions selling to the government and not have to pay taxes on it.

that would be awesome.

>why you think it's ok for the government to give rich people millions in business
Holy shit, can you not read?
I just said that's just as wrong as appropriating money via the estate tax.

Why are you engaging with that person? Stop dealing with stupid. He isn't going to get it no matter what because he's either trolling or is one of those temporarily embarrassed millionaires who wants to make his gross his net.

>I just said that's just as wrong as appropriating money via the estate tax
but then you declared my argument invalid despite that being the entirety of my argument.

I didn't even say it's wrong.

all I said is if you think one is wrong you should think the other is too. It appears you agree with me on that and we're done here.

Personally I don't think either one is wrong, but then I'm a wealthy white male that made a portion of his money selling to the government and I don't really care what they take in taxes because I can and will make more.

>There are people on this board that actually believe in double taxing earned income for no reason other than muh feelings

>we're done here.
That's a relief.

it's really just a game being played between the IRS and a bunch of very creative accountants.

If you die with a ton of money still in your name you lost the game is all. Rich people avoid taxes like cats avoid water.

>Wah wah, I can only give three motherfucking million dollars to my shitty, entitled next of kin, ignoring the slew of tax loopholes I can abuse

Cry me a river, you ivory-tower fucks. Once you get up above a million, you're just running up the score, to the detriment of those around you.

>to the detriment of those around you.
money illusion.

in reality profit for one doesn't necessarily require loss from another. Because money isn't real and the government prints more of it every day.

Lots of wealthy people in 1st world countries, but even our poor are wealthy compared to those of other places. Because the rich getting richer does actually help the poor.

don't tell the liberals. They won't like it if you defend the whipping boy.

if your legacy is only monetary then you're the cuck

>the rich getting richer does actually help the poor.

Y'know what'd help the poor even more than that? Making the poor richer. That's what's so great about this type of legislation; you find some sum of money that most citizens will never see, then tax the shit out of anything above it, and give it to the poor people. That way, you still have the same number of rich people (they're just less rich), and fewer poor people.

C'mon, Bernie.
Your Presidential bid failed, and your ambitions are shit.
Shut the fuck up and go back to Vermont already.

still money illusion

if I hand a million dollars out to everyone they don't get richer. The money just loses value.

the value of the money only exists because of the difference between rich and poor.

>666

Fuck off Satan.

>The value of the money only exists because of the difference between rich and poor

Except that's completely inaccurate. Inequality doesn't determine value; scarcity does. Get back to me after you've taken your high school econ class, bud.

>implying this is bad
wow you drumpf fags really are bad

666Christ/CapitalismKiller666

>Inequality doesn't determine value; scarcity does.
they're the same thing.

but let's pretend for a moment you're right.
How does handing out money (making it less scarce) not reduce its value?

Why the fuck would it? You never supported your claim that equalizing wealth distribution would deflate a currency's value, and now you're telling me to prove your unverified claim wrong?

I'm not asking you to prove anything.

I'm asking you to explain- based on our agreement that scarcity determines value- how making something less scarce doesn't decrease its value.

>it's 1933
>country in the shitter thanks to a market without regulation
>FDR, a liberal, comes along and enacts a large number of social programs to ease the plight of the working man
>programs including unemployment, social security, and welfare
>80 years later the greatest and most powerful nation the world has ever known, with a massive economy outstripping nearly all others on the planet and with the best standard of living anywhere
>tards still argue against the benefits of uplifting the poor
>b-but muh actor!
I hate some of you.

I'm not arguing against uplifting the poor.

I'm arguing that not everyone can be rich. Or if they can, they already are.

and I'm pretty sure it was actually WWII that got US rich.

I don't advocate for decreasing the money supply. My desire is to liquidate the savings and investments of the ultra-wealthy and reallocate them to the productive poor.

Both you idiots should actually start reading each other's posts.

>liquidate
Yes, you're taking huge amounts of cash that is currently locked up in investments and placing it in circulation.

the predictable effect is going to be massive inflation, not poor people actually getting more goods or services.

and to keep right on badgering you, how long do you think that money will stay in poor people's pockets anyways? Capitalism favors those that understand it, the rich will just get rich again. The poor will go right back to being poor.

Yeah, the mechanics of wrestling money from the rich and giving it to the poor without destroying the market or letting them all OD on crack is some rough shit. We could spitball policy proposals on this, but the quick/easy/vague answer is an aggressively progressive tax system (to keep money from flowing up again) and reallocating money via indirect stimulus and infrastructural investment (hopefully without a voracious bureaucracy and a glut of useless ditch-diggers).

I agree on all points.

though at the moment about half of Americans pay 0 income taxes and a significant majority of those actually get money back they didn't pay in.

essentially being paid just to exist.

I don't really mind raising taxes on the wealthy, personally I think the disparity is too big and could use adjusting. I just suspect poor people might do better if we gave them goods and services rather than cash. I don't know how to fix the problems that made them poor in the first place. Better education maybe.

how could you possibly hate someone that died to let you inherit a house and 2tonnnes of gold

american companies find loopholes to dodge proper taxation for example keeping money made in the us on islands in different countries for storage

Which is why most tax increases just end up sticking it to the middle class.

They have money but little idea how to tax dodge or move assets internationally unlike their richer compatriots.

wait now ? go fucking die.

You're an idiot.

That's the most reductive argument I've ever seen. Can't stand you libtards.

>WW2 happens
>America doesn't have it's country utterly destroyed like the rest of the developed nations did
>Becomes the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth
Fixed it for you, bud

Quit using words you can't comprehend, you memester.

Britain wasn't destroyed, thanks to good old Uncle Sam. And FDR.

I called your argument simplistic, you moron. And it is.

You did. You still used the wrong word. Jesus, this is really why Veeky Forums needs to rethink their whole "college is a scam" standpoint.
My argument is simple, it's true.
Mostly it's that way because it doesn't need to be complex. You'd understand that if you had an iota of education.

Nobody cares about shitty rich people except their kids in their will who are waiting for them to die. A real legacy is left through great works and ideas. Who has a better legacy, Mozart or some shitty Vienna baron?

>Britain wasn't destroyed, thanks to good old Uncle Sam. And FDR.
>Britain wasn't destroyed
>30k bombs dropped on London alone
>450k dead (50k civilians, 400k soldiers)
Yes, Britain wasn't totally annihilated like Germany was but the war was devastating to them. To describe the country as "in ruins" would be entirely accurate. America's dominance of the world from 1945 well into the 80s was simply because there was nothing else built up enough to challenge it. The USSR was never actually a super power economically. It was a nuclear threat and a big economic fish in a the small economic pond of eastern Europe and Asia.

You're a fucking retard. The words don't mean simple, they means overly simple. There's a world of difference there. Get you feeble mind out off you ass. And no, you fucking moron, America isn't wealthy now single-handily because off the stupid policies off FDR. Fucking idiot.

Damn typos, *mean; *of; *of.

Bullshit, that's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You do realize that Britain at the time held the largest empire in the history of mankind, right?
Centers of power were everywhere, a few, and I do mean a few, the figures of casualties and the cost of rebuilding for other countries was much, much larger, bombs thrown at London did nothing to break the power of the British. To assume that is assnine and makes me assume that basic history is way over your head. Now ask yourself the actual reason why the US surpassed Britain as the world power. It's because FDR told Britain that in order to get American help, it would have to release its colonies, thereby cutting British power, and making the loss that much more devastating.

Passing on an entire company is tough to do but the solution is incorporating early and selling off enough stock so that your ownership can be a moderate size.

You can give 14k a year away once a year to any amount of people tax free with that new cash from the stock sale.

And if thats not enough money for your kids then fuck em.

Im a CPA and I have no sympathy for the kids of my clients. You can afford them huge opputunities while youre alive with your cash. If they cant survive off the 5 mil and other tax estate planning strategies, then you as a parent fucked up raising them.

If it was up to me. I would raise the estate tax to 99%. Taxing the absurdly rich dead is the easiest solution to finding tax money.

Nobody is saying that. But deciding to tax a dead absurdly rich man for who is only passing on 5 mil to his kids can help the poor by covering the taxes they would have had to pay up to 50k lets say.

Nobody can deny the wealth is becoming too concentrated in certain generational families.

You can give your kids the best schooling, buy them jobs while youre alive.

It should be 99% estate tax after the limit and we can nip this oligarchy in the butt now.

I don't think the elites are going to be happy with her after this.

one of the greatest incentives for investment into your later years is passing on a legacy to your children to make them better off than you were

the really rich are going to put their dosh in a corporation and give that to their kids and have their money protected from democrat hands

this is only going to hurt the middle class and create a larger barrier to entry for them to obtain incentive to invest

they wont give a fuck

their money is safely incorporated

>their money is safely incorporated
>equity isn't subject to estate taxes

Back to leftypol.

If the damage wasn't that great why would they give up their colonies then?