Aaaaaaaaaaaaannddd there goes Hillarys chances

If you don't want to pay all those taxes go to zimbabwe

I'm sure you do make that much, and aren't totally lying.

Explain your logical jump there, please.

>schools
>roads

More like politicians and unions.

Even adjusting for inflation, the cost of schooling per student has risen 400% in the past 40 years. Why?

>teachers unions

Have test scores gone up or down, user?

Do you even own land? Are you from a family of renters?

Big lens was 15K.

Photography isn't even my job, just one of my hobbies.

crooked Hilary is brain damaged so she lost the battle before it even started
we all know who is going to win in November

>Except people that rich hire tax lawyers to avoid exactly this kind of retardation.

Exactly. The people who are going to fucked by this the most is family business owners. Father dies, leaves the business to his son. The son now has to pay a huge tax bill based on the value of the business, but doesn't have the liquid assets to do it, so he is forced to sell the business. It's fucking disgusting.

Rich people have all their assets in trusts, overseas accounts, tax-exempt funds, etc...I am a law student and took an entire course called "Trusts and Estates," so I'm well-versed in this topic.

No shit. I'm a landowner and the estate tax is fucking robbery. When you die, you are taxed for the right to convey wealth and property that has literally been taxed the entire time that you've accumulated it. Estate taxes are confiscation so that the government can give more money to fucking welfare mother so theys can gets they nails done.

ITT: Adults with money, and children who don't want to take responsibility.

No, cuck. Labor is a contractural relationship. Taxation is extortion. There is no agreement. The government takes your money and fines you or imprisons you if you refuse.

>the top 0.5% will fucking leave Us as soon as this shit starts
what 'shit' ? yeah, hillary sucks but her getting elected wont cause any major changes anywhere.

And I bet trumpfags will still continue to say that she's bought by the rich elites, the only group who would give a shit about this.

>too stupid to realize his employers are rich

The rich elites have all their money protected in various ways. Didn't you learn anything from The Panama Papers scandal?

Do you honestly think Hillary and Bill Clinton don't have their assets protected? That Chelsea is going to have to pay a huge tax when Hillary strokes out and Bill dies of AIDS?

Hillary also said she is going to raise middle class taxes

Yea her donor list proves exactly that

65%...
...which would affect only those with assets exceeding $500 million for a single person and $1 billion for married couples.

Small detail...

because if you want to protect your capital, make sure to run off to russia, they have a history of being very supportive of capitalism and the wealthy. No, never had any issues with that in the past there....

SO
FUCKING
JELLY

>That Chelsea is going to have to pay a huge tax when Hillary strokes out and Bill dies of AIDS?

Wouldn't that be fucking beautiful though?

Does it hurt being that retarded?

>assets protected
This is exactly why this new tax will do absolutely nothing. Rich fucks won't give a shit because they tend to either go full on philanthropist in old age, or they hide their shit overseas. Anyone who isn't a rich fuck won't be affected by this at all.

This is exactly why most people believe Clinton will be another 4 years of pretty much nothing.

They can pull the same trick the Kennedys did when Jackie kicked the bucket. Have an estimator come in and lowball all the stuff, pay taxes on that amount, then continue to sell it for vastly more than the esitmator said it was worth.

This is the most inaccurate thing I've ever read on Cred Forums

lol I hadn't heard about this before. that's a pretty slick trick. fucking Kennedys, man. I'm so glad so many of them died in unpleasant ways - two assassinations, private plane crash, skiing accident...

>hurr rich employers are gonna leave and take er jerbs
Anyone who feels that they deserve over a billion dollars in their personal accounts simply because they're at the top of the management chain of some company and not pay an estate tax can feel free to GTFO. There are plenty of capable business owners, who aren't nearly as greedy, who can take their place.

Have the subjects in school gotten easier or harder?

Hint, they didn't teach 90% of the science they teach today. And we are even further out of the old grammatical English that they teach.

not true. to be in the to .5% you only need a net worth of ~12 million. that's not enough to hide overseas, its not even enough to not work and live rich.

So you actually think that she's just giving all of her donors the finger with this?
Ok m80.

>Jelly of success and dissatisfied with the economic structure of the free world

>player owned

Russia has more millionaires and billionaires per capita than any other nation on the planet though. Except maybe some shitty 3rd world country where the inflation rate is out of control.

Ever heard of the lobbies?

Yes it was

>its not even enough to not work and live rich.
It is if you live middle class. Hell, you could get away with living upper middle with that much.

>12 million isn't enough to retire
Nigger you could stick that in an index fund and earn 1.2 million annually. If you can't make that work, that's fucking pathetic.

I honestly thought I was on Reddit for a second.

This is extremely accurate.

That's true. For us citizens its extremely hard to go offshore without giving up their citizenship

Sure, kid.

>implying schools aren't profit driven

So you actually think that some faggot should get to never work a day in his life because his great-grandparents hoarded billions of dollars?

Russia is a shitty third world country. That has a history of arresting rich people to take their money. And had that whole 'communism' thing running for quite a while there.

Why not? Why does he deserve the money less than the fucking government?

Here a friendly tip: The government should not be your friend, your benefactor, your family, or your God.

This guy is fucking right.

Absolutely. Stay mad, poor fag.

INFLATION

Are you fucking stupid? Yes they did. Science programs in most places were BETTER back then. In the last 40 years there's only been a couple chapters to each section added. You learn the basics in school which was discovered long ago.

Spotted all the people who work full time.

To all the faggots supporting her tax... Why is it ever ok for the government to take 2/3 of someone's money, in any situation? That's just fucked up on a basic level.

Yes. If youwork hard and save money your entire life, you should be able to hand that down to your children without the government coming in and taking it from you because that money is already been taxed

You there bro?

Are there truly tax-exempt funds? Do you have an example?

>mfw thinks that much has changed in 40 years

Heh, lemme ask you a question. Since History has changed in the last 40 years. How do they teach all that extra history in the same class periods? Class hasn't expanded.

Honest question,

If you put the larger lens into the camera and don't hold it with your hand, does it break away from the camera?

Hillary is a whore for these big businesses. Those businesses you claim will leave, are the ones funding her campaign and her SuperPACs. Ask Walmart.

Go look at the history behind the estate tax... there IS a reason it was established

But without government who will steal money and give it to niggers/israel?

Why?

There isn't a single billionaire out there who came by that money legitimately. They all have a past of shady and/or outright illegal business deals. They don't deserve that money at all. Unfortunately, their shady past usually doesn't come to light until long after people stop caring.

Also, when they hoard their wealth, it doesn't contribute to the economy at all. There is always a finite pool of wealth. With trillions of dollars locked up among the personal accounts of a few families, that leaves a much smaller pool of wealth for everyone else to fight over.

I hope they do, then economy slows. I got so much in $NUGT right now, if dollar drops and gold skyrockets Ima be ripe with riches.

Those that make over 5 million individually, and couples that combined make $10 million will be the only ones that will pay for the tax. However, this is implying anyone that is that rich does not hide their money in the Cayman Islands by now.

No, he's full of shit. There are ways to hide money overseas, but it's expensive (you know, kind of like taxes are). People that would ahve to pay super-high taxes do use these means to evade taxes because the expenses in doing so are cheaper than the taxes. But it's not cheap.

Trusts & funds can reduce your taxes but not remove them. Source: I use both to manage my family's resources and someone, somewhere along the line, always pays taxes in some way on large amounts of money. Yes, there are ways to pass off some money tax-free, but not with millions of dollars.

You do understand the concept behind a billionaire, right? They don't have $1B federal reserve notes hidden under their masters that they're refusing to spend. In fact their liquid assets are far far below their net worth.

Billionaires worth is comprised mainly of real estate, stock holdings, and business ownership worth. I mean, seriously, how can you accuse some one who runs a goddam company out not contributing to the economy? That's just an asinine assertion.

...

Yeah I figured, I've been reading a lot about that and I think the only way to truly become tax-exempt is pretty much through corruption. But you have to have A LOOOOOT of money to play that game.

Reason for monopoly laws were company towns
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

>Cayman Islands
That shit is expensive. Seriously. Not like a 65% tax, but still prohibitive for most people.

That's what is so stupid about this: Hillary will only reduce income from estate taxes by driving people away. She'd make more money on a 10-15% capped tax.

Foreigner here.

America is a retarded shitshow, no matter who is charge.

If the government is just going to take everything then there's no incentive. If I can't save up extra money to pay for my kids' college in case I die before they get there - because the government will steal 70% of it - then fuck it, I won't save any and the government wont be able to take any. Sounds like a great economic plan for the nation doesn't it?

Add a certain percentage rate of taxation, it doesn't make sense to work anymore. It de-incentivizes entrepreneurship and risk taking, which are the exact fucking things that have made this country great in the past.

Teach us
Or at least provide some good links

As an american I agree.

what the fuck is the point. are you taking pictures of neutrons?

You can seriously reduce taxes by giving up your US citizenship. That's what a lot of really wealthy people do toward the end. Past that, suck it up, and vote against people like Hillary.

In saying that you need to cut out the cancer.

The rich and greedy are driving your country into the toilet.

In saying that I want to see Trump win.

I like watching Dumpster fires.

>Its meant to keep spoiled trust fund cunts from inheriting empires they didn't work for

Trump, in other words.

...

>Billionaires worth is comprised mainly of real estate, stock holdings, and business ownership worth.
No, it isn't. This is true for most multi-millionaires, but when you start getting into the billionaire level, the majority of that wealth is stashed in various tax havens where it just sits doing nothing.

>running companies contributes to the economy
It does, but, again, no one deserves billions of dollars in personal assets simply for being at the top of the management chain. And their kids likely did nothing to contribute to that company, therefore those kids deserve none of its profits.

youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0

Anyone else not big on this new font?

Ok... but what does this have to do with the estate tax?

>It does, but, again, no one deserves billions of dollars in personal assets simply for being at the top of the management chain. And their kids likely did nothing to contribute to that company, therefore those kids deserve none of its profits

This is entirely subjective, and is not basis for any legislation whatsoever.

Kek. Max salary for a master's in ed. in my state is $67k. I made that my 3rd year out of school cucking for Pfizer.

Without teachers unions they would make next to nothing. Without eduation I wouldn't have made it to Pfizer.

Private schools? Like ITT and U of Pheonix. Yeah. Top notch shit there.

Or maybe parochial high schools at $20k a year. Totally feasible for the masses.

>spoiled trust fund cunts
They inherit those empires, and blow all the money. Then their kids are only moderately wealthy. Then their kids are back to the middle class.

90% of families worth over $3 million lose that wealth after the 3rd generation. So the problem of trust fund kids maintaining wealth? It's not a fucking problem. All that money goes back to the economy, rather than to bolster politicians.

Excellent use of resources. You must be a govt employee.

All law is subjective. Pick any law in existence and I guarantee that at least one person disagrees with it. What matters in our representative democracy is the majority opinion.

Eat shit and die of cancer you communist faggot. We won't put up with this shit for long.

I think Obama has been a damn good president overall, but one of the stupidest things ever said was: "if you have a business, you didn't build that"
The Republican think like this too. They think we need them and not the other way around, so they feel entitled to just take what we, in the private industry, build, create, and earn. With no regard to the risk that we take when we create a business. It's a huge risk guys

Exactly... great reference

The government has no business determining who deserves what, and neither do you.

oh boohoo, my parents were poor and didn't leave me anything so no one deserves to inherit their families wealth. God why are people such petty crybabies? Why do you all want the government to force you into poverty? If you want money go and work for it. Then maybe you might be able to leave your kids something. Unless you would rather give your life's work to the government.

Yeah. Why not? Fairness? Life ain't fair faggot. Never was, never will be.

Found the Ron Paul supporter. So you think we should just get rid of all government then? What is the point of government if not to determine who deserves what?

>but when you start getting into the billionaire level, the majority of that wealth is stashed in various tax havens where it just sits doing nothing
>mfw billionaires are actually fucking dragons
Bullshit. They buy companies, they invest widely, and they donate to philanthropic organizations to reduce taxes. Very little of it is liquid. Since you made the claim that billionaire simply hoard cash, prove it.

>no one deserves billions of dollars
No one deserves anything by default. They fucking worked for it. Or sometimes inherited it (and will likely lose it within a generation or two). I don't give a fuck who you think about people deserving things; when it comes down to it, the government doesn't deserve to take it from them by force, does it?

>life ain't fair
>let's sit back and do absolutely nothing about that

So what do you actually think the government will take the money and distribute back to people like you? They will line their own pockets, all the while laughing their asses off at the useful idiots like you.

>So you think we should just get rid of all government then?

Don't recall saying this, and upon re reading everything, I realized that's because I never did say this.

>What is the point of government if not to determine who deserves what?

This is literally 6th grade tier drivel. Stop being so obtuse. The

Right. It's not up to the government to decide who "deserves" the money that you worked for. Kind of the whole idea of capitalism. If I worked my whole life and took risks and created a business, and saved up money, and took risks and invested that money, because I want to hand it to my kids, then I deserve to be able to do that.

>representative democracy
>majority opinion
Yeah, fuck the constitution! Rule of the mob! LET'S START LOOTING!

Nicely put.

Gary Johnson: "A vote for me shows the two party system that you aren't falling for their crap anymore. I want to keep the government out if you wallet and out of your bedroom. Personal freedom and personal responsibility. Live free."
Me: This guy makes sense and he's more sane and stable than Clinton or Trump...
Gary Johnson: What is a leppo?
Me: Still better than Clinton or Trump!
Gary Johnson: I'm just glad no one was injured.
Me: Still better than Trump or Clinton.
Gary Johnson: Bleh blah blah Bleh Bleh blah Bleh.
Me: STILL MORE QUALIFIED, REASONABLE, AND STABLE THAN CLINTON OR TRUMP.

Personally, I don't give a shit what the government does with it. At least they're doing SOMETHING with it. That's far better for the economy than all of that wealth sitting in some tax haven.

I'm 100%anti Hillary, but you can't trust national inquirer for anything. They're complete bull shit. Same with globe.

>representative democracy, majority opinion
>constitution
>thinking that these are mutually exclusive

You are the bane of this country's stability and economic structure.

>has no argument
>resorts to ad hominems

>implying that you weren't just claiming that majority opinions should overrule individual rights

that's for BILLIONAIRES. If you're not in the top 1% then it doesn't affect you.

The only word that comes to mind when I read that post, even though I'm going to sound like an SJW, is "problematic."

Stating that your argument is logically on par with that of a middle schooler isn't a character attack. It's an honest opinion.

why not just buy like the number 1 highest quality camera instead of a bunch of good (but not god tier) models?

>I don't give a fuck who you think about people deserving things
And I don't give a fuck that you think that some assholes should be allowed to spend their lives scamming people out of billions, stashing it in tax havens, and passing it on to future generations. Neither of our opinions holds any more weight than the other. Funny how democracy works, isn't it?

You stupid fuck, i talking bout 2-3 mili in year, fucking big ones go in the 0.00001%

excellent, she's got my vote

>That has a history
Yeah a history now you don't know how that russian pussy tastes like

>individual rights
What inherent individual rights do you think are being ignored here? Hell, what makes you think inherent individual rights even exist?

The 1% includes a lot more than just billionaires.

I'm not him, but I was just thinking how awesome this thread is because it's a good lively discussion and everybody's being pretty respectful and It hasn't devolved into a shit-slinging contest like 99.9% of Cred Forums

you live in a large house with five roommates
one is the only one with his name on the lease
one day you decide to make bread, you buy your own ingredients, clean up after yourself and even throw a dolalr into the bill basket to cover the miniscule gas you used to cook it
suddenly timmy comes over after you have cooked it and let it cool and grabs 3 of the five loafs of bread.
>sorry user but i think the others are going to want some bread too.
> but its mine, ill probably wind up sharing it anyway but you cant just take it
> to damn bad,
he walks away with your food. next thing you know hes eaten most of it and handed half a slice each to your other roommates

theres an easy analogy for you to understand

>It's an honest opinion.
From a Cred Forumstard who hasn't a single clue about how the economy works. Duly noted.

You're also a Cred Forumstard. And you're incorrect about my economic knowledge. And the government has got exactly no business determining who deserves what.

>scamming people out of billions
Let's see, top ways that people made their billions:
>1. Technology (~25% of billionaires)
>2. Real estate (~10% of billionaires)
>3. Fashion/retail (~10% of billionaires)
>4. Healthcare (~5% of billionaires)
>5. Sports (~5% of billionaires)

How is this scamming people? You really are a bitter cunt, aren't you?

>liberals will defend this.

how the fuck did hillary think this was a good idea
she had the republican party split and she pulls the one move guaranteed to push them all back behind trump

>aaaaaaaaaaaaannddd there goes Hillarys chances
This "here's this ONE thing that will destroy clinton's campaign" thing is getting on my nerves. I don't care who wins; we're fucked either way, but you're retarded if you think something like this, or any of the other 100 "things that will ruin hillary" will change anything.

Whether the system is rigged or not is only a matter of degree. It's unlikely there is a single entity pulling the strings, but society has inertia. It keeps going the direction it's headed until something comes along and moves it. With the size of the population as large as it is, the inertia is huge; and with the amount of distracting bullshit for the average person to consume, few people act to change it, and those that do push on it from all directions, producing a net zero change.

Let's tweak that analogy a bit to make it at least somewhat fit this discussion. Let's say that I made a thousand loaves of bread. I could only ever hope to eat one of them myself before they go stale. Timmy could take 65% of those stale loaves after I die and I'd still have more than I know what to do with. I could take all of those loaves and open a bakery, actually contributing to the economy. Or I could try to freeze them for decades and hand them down to my kids. Obviously the majority of people would prefer the former.

A lot of people, through no fault of their own really, are not going to be able to stand understand this. because they haven't busted their asses working for a lot of years and built something of their own. When I was younger, I was guilty of feeling entitled. Sometimes this kind of understanding can only come with time. I'm not bashing anyone; I'm not bashing younger people. Sometimes, you just have to live it. You have to walk in those shoes.

>And the government has got exactly no business determining who deserves what.

I will not vote for a candidate that doesn't think I deserve all my basic freedoms, like freedom of speech.

Look at the top billionaires in tech. Gates, Jobs... both stole many of their ideas from Xerox and got away with it. Real estate? Trump has a long history of hiring subcontractors with no intention of ever paying them. Look at the other industries and you'll see more of the same.

Mfw this thread

theverge.com/2016/9/23/13025422/palmer-luckey-oculus-founder-funding-donald-trump-trolls

your pretending all billionaires sit on their money
if that was remotely true we wouldnt have an economy

and timmy isnt sharing 99 percent of those loafs, those loaves are going into timmy and his friends freezer

the problem with your analogy is of its scale. To make the analogy correct, you'd need to have made 5,000,000 loaves of bread, and then timmy takes 3,000,000 after you died, and shared it with a million people, and your kids get 2,000,000 loaves for themselves.

is this the reason younger people tend to vote democrat and older republican? i wonder

I like this. 65% is too high, I wouldn't go above 40. But whatever, I like that Hillary is actually doing some liberal shit for once

>What inherent individual rights do you think are being ignored here?
Jesus, any time you allow the mob to rule (i.e., majority vote takes all) you end up overturning individual rights. If you set up a system that allows voters to tax any minority group at any rate they choose, you fuck those minority groups. If we allow this type of voting to rule us, we can simply vote to repeal free speech for any "x' we want. Or repeal the 13th Amendment. Whatever we want. This is why the SCOTUS can overturn laws-- our constitution has the final fucking say in every case. So, no, a law passed by a representative legislature is not necessarily legal if it violates the constitution.

>Hell, what makes you think inherent individual rights even exist?
I read the constitution, in grade school, and many times since. If you're trying to be philosophical about it... stop, you're a faggot for even trying. This thread is not about philosophy. Legally speaking, the constitution guarantees individual rights, and if you don't buy into that, go be a faggot in some country that doesn't guarantee any rights.

Loafs
You almost sounded like an economist but you had to blow it and make your opinion irrelevant.
Loaves idiot. Maybe there's a reason you ain't a Juan placenta

...

Fine, be a jaded fucktard. Xerox patented shit that has no reason to be patented. Same with every other tech company. Patent law is a big business, and that's the one to be jaded about... even the courts are getting sick of it. If Trump screwed people over, they can sue him... some have, and won. Some were full of shit and lost.

You just like to cry about everything. According to you, every industry is crooked, every business is corrupt. Well, go live in fucking Africa then. There's basically no business, no industry, and no law there. Go there and get raped by some bigass militant niggers. Or live in the comfort and stability that capitalism has created. You have a fucking choice.

I laughed at this. She's fucking over Chelsea when her & Billy kick the bucket. Since the corrupt Clinton Foundation will be willed to her.

i literally said said loaves two words after
its a typo so maybe calm down

what is everyone in this thread?
hell, what is everyone on Cred Forums

Not that other guy but the problem is the most the money is circulating between the billionaires and maybe trickles down to the millionaires but most of it never reaches below the rich.

>itt people that don't understand the estate tax

I don't know the exact figures but the estate tax has always capped out incredibly high. It's why people do estate planning.

I When I was taking tax accounting in school it would increase yearly and then reset to 0 for a year and start over. I imagine it still does the same thing. This was less than a decade ago that I studied it.

...

>for estates valued at over 50 million, you pay 55%
>only pay 65% tax rate on every dollar inherited over 500 million dollars
wow she's taking money out of our pockets, wew lad

...what? That's absurd. You have no idea how money moves. Rich people don't sit on their money becausr it's destroyed by inflation. 2% a year of $100 million is a fuckton of losses.

what a clever observation :^)

...

They invest it and they always get more back. Then the middle class is left with less and less money

kek

/thread

Hate to break your perspective but the top .5% are not actually that wealthy. I'm a relatively small time property developer and I'm pretty much in that bracket. There's no way I can afford to just "leave" the country or "hide my money" overseas. It's all tied up in property that, surprisingly enough, is quite hard to hide overseas.

The top 1% aren't that well off. The top 0.001% are though, and they don't give two shits about the law.

Fucking kek

rekt

You clearly don't understand how money works.

> massive spend of photography equipment
> wow, nice
> ... Nikon
kek

You clearly don't, I just stated facts. The middle class is getting smaller, that is a fact, and to deny it only shows that you don't know how money works

You can buy a car for that user, multiple cars. Why did you buy something that does one thing and nothing else?

lol... this isn't about the middle class, dumbfuck.

This. What the fuck. You can probably zoom into skin pores and make them look like Stargate.

Actually that's not how that works. Estate taxes apply to personally owned assets and liquidity. So if this hypothetical "business" was never incorporated as an LLC or corporation, and the materials were owned personally, then yes, this would be taxable.

But for instance, take your average small size family farm. There are no examples in my county, and few in the state, of successful unincorporated (ie not legally a business) farms. None. The business, when the primary owner dies, is transferred according to the will and is not subject to estate tax. An unincorporated farm is the situation you're describing, which as I've already covered basically doesn't exist.

You see the whole myth of "estate tax is bad" is perpetuated by wealthy families and their trust fund babies. The real economic crime is that an ungodly amount of money is tied up this way and isn't being used to the benefit of the economy. If that money were severely taxed, this monetary drain can be plugged and the money can be put to work again.

That filename though

They invest their money and turn it into more money. That's a fact.

The middle class is getting smaller. That's a fact.

Stop talking.

Actually, I need to disagree with you.

Strictly speaking, the rich investing a lot of money is good. If they simply make all the money they think they need and set it in a vault somewhere where it isn't invested it takes money out of the market (which is bad)

Really, the issue is that they are allowed to make absolutely retarded investments made to earn a shitload of money in really unstable ways and then are bailed out when they fail (see: subprime housing loans and the market crash). This negates the good that investment does by fundamentally breaking down one of the only things that makes capitalism work, e.i. that we allow people to fail. The theory of capitalism suggests that by not bailing the rich idiots out that money should either:
A. Make smart people who actually understand the market rich
B. Make the smart people who are already rich even richer.
Both of these outcomes are better.

Next up: Why we should tax the rich.

Death tax is taxing money that has already been taxed. There is no service being exchanged only money, money that the family can the go spend on luxuries which will inject money into the economy... Instead the libtards would rather take the money away from people that are going to help the economy and give it to niggers that are going to take pictures with it and blow it on drugs.
You know what the Boston tea party was for? a 3% tax only on TEA!!! Now the government is trying to take away 60,70,even 80% of your income because it's you "Fair share". Oh i have an idea, lets punish the people that are helping the countries economy and give their money to the niggers... which as stated before will spend it on drugs and not pay any taxes on it.

...

ISIS grew to prominence in recent years. Fact.
Pogs have not come back into style. Fact.
(in case you hadn't figured out, this does not make an argument (correlation does not imply causation)

There are actually problems with how this country handles investment and what's going on with the middle class.

Investment is not directly killing the middle class.

I say again: Investment is not directly killing the middle class and only an idiot would think that it was

it was something only the really wealthy needed to concern themselves over but she wants to make it effect all just like inheritance
you can leave cumulatively something like 3 million over your family history in money assets(so if you left 100k to kid then he leaves 500k to his kids and so on) before being taxed which most dont get affected but now she and others want them to be affected yet people dont realize it and blindly support her

POGS!? DUDE I LOVE THOSE

So is sales tax if you think about it. I have to pay money I've already been taxed on for the right to spend my money.

State and federal taxes also hit the same income twice.

Every dollar you will ever own or spend will be taxed several times in different ways. Get over it.

>Instead the libtards would rather take the money away from people that are going to help the economy and give it to niggers that are going to take pictures with it and blow it on drugs.
If you give money a rich person, he puts into his bank account or an investment. Despite what free markets dummies will tell you, he most likely won't start a new business or create jobs. He will invest it in something safe, or put it in the bank, and sit on it. This doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it.

Now lets consider what happens if you give money to a nigger. They spend that money on food, housing, drugs, and it gets circulated into the economy. It gets spent on products.

The nigger is what creates job. Not the businessman. This trickle down economic theory is garbage and I'm tired of hearing people still try to argue it. HISTORY HAS PROVED YOU GUYS WRONG, STOP SAYING THE SAME SHIT

Get collecting then. By the logic of some people in this thread I just proved that your pog collection helps to prevent terrorist attacks.

For further news, Lisa Simpson:

youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU

das my nigga

This guy gets it

>Investment is not directly killing the middle class and only an idiot would think that it was
I agree completely, why are you arguing from the perspective that I would disagree with that

You are retarded.
Rich guy puts money in bank
bank has more money to lend
bank reduces rates because they have more money to lend and get more people to borrow

if a rich guy invest in stock
money gets put into a company
company has more money to grow making more job opportunity

Why do you care so much what a rich person does with his money and why do you think that you should be able to tell him what to do with it?

>Its meant to keep spoiled trust fund cunts from inheriting empires they didn't work for
why is this a thing?
half of the meaning of life is building wealth and connections that can be passed onto your progeny

Because the rich man has rigged the economy by buying politicians. He broke the fair playing field, and has strayed from Capitalism into the world of Crony Capitalism. That is why we need to fix the rules, because they broke them. Yes, we have the right to change those rules. Yes, I think it is moral to raise taxes on people earning millions a year

go take a nigger cock in the ass you nigger loving communist.

Um I don't shit money thank you, and I'm only hiding 1.72b over sees pfft

If he did something illegal, then he should be prosecuted. But to argue that you have some moral claim to his money - particularly if he broke no law - is completely un-American.

>If you give money a rich person, he puts into his bank account or an investment.
That's fine. Banks invest money. So all the money is invested in the end. Investments are primarily based on stock shares in a company, which ultimately is supporting businesses, which grows the economy. That guy that has loads of money is basically responsible for the growth we see.

>He will invest it in something safe, or put it in the bank, and sit on it.
Invest it in diverse areas, which is inherently safe, or the bank will do the same. But no one sits on money, except a complete retard.

>This doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it.
>investment hurts the economy
>mfw
Found the guy that doesn't understand basic economics!

>Now lets consider what happens if you give money to a nigger.
>spends it on drugs
>illegal drugs grow our economy?
>The nigger is what creates job. Not the businessman.
Retard. Besides all that, they spend money primarily on products made elsewhere. Niggers do not help out economy, overall. They hurt it.

> trickle down economic theory is garbage
It is. But that doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't work, you giant cuntwaffle. That was one subset of capitalism... the system which has been more successful at raising the standard of living more than any other economic system, ever. If you don't like it, comrade, there are places for you to go.

...

Sources, cite them.

>bank reduces rates because they have more money to lend
hahahahahhaahahahhahahahaah good jokes friend
>company has more money to grow making more job opportunity
Making risky investments in new companies is good, I'm not saying anything bad about that. I'm speaking more on investments in established corporations, and illegal schemes that result in the taxpayer bailing them out when they fail

The thing is, it's completely legal to donate to a politician, and have them change the laws in your favor. This country is fucked up in that way

Harrison Bergeron, read it until you get why you're retarded.

Thank you, I was starting to feel like I was the only one that isn't a nigger cock loving communist.

I never said capitalism doesn't work, you giant cuntwaffle. You have mastered the straw man

Alright, here we go on why money should ideally be redistributed to the middle class:

Let's assume there are three classes: poor, middle, and rich. Here's what happens with their money:

>Poor
Don't have enough money to afford luxuries.
May or may not be employed in a productive way
Extract money from the government to support themselves

It should be fairly obvious that having poor people is bad. I don't want to suggest cutting off welfare or anything because that gives you desperate people without much to lose, this is something you really don't want.

>Rich
Can afford expensive luxuries
Don't require government support and may skip out on government programs such as public schools
Have access to two forms of investment not normally available to the middle class

Ignore the luxuries for a second. Expensive luxuries don't necessarily employ more people or include more actual value-added than cheaper luxuries, meaning that they don't necessarily help any more people than those cheap luxuries. Rich people might easily argue that since they don't need government programs they shouldn't pay for them, neglecting the fact that those programs do two important things:
1. Keep the poor from rioting
2. Give the middle class a boost that can help them become well educated employees.
Now, a word on investment: The rich can afford to do two things other investors cannot:
1. Tie up huge amounts of money in very slow growing funds (this isn't necessarily bad but it doesn't help anyone)
2. Investing in very risky markets (because they can afford to lose the money). This is actually fine (as I've mentioned before) unless someone comes up with the HORRIBLE idea of bailing these people out. Idiots losing money is part of how capitalism works and redistributing it back to idiots isn't a good idea since there is nothing the rich do that the middle class working in concert (multiple investors making smart investments) can't do.

Grofulon Durkerox, read it until you understand why that comment was retarded

>own family farm
>farm land technically worth millions on paper
>farm brings in modest income as a farm
>parents die
>65% estate tax
>farm has to be sold to pay the tax bill
>farm bought by big corporation or turned into a new series of townhomes, gas stations and chain restaurants
>thanks Hillary

I didn't say investment hurts the economy, I said that the way that the .01% invests(and the laws surrounding investment) hurts the economy

That's what I get for expecting intelligence on be. Just pissing in the wind, which is made of piss.

>didn't form llc or any form of legal entity to protect farm
dumb niggers deserved it

>reaganomics
it doesn't trickle down.
also that isn't how stock works. that rich guy is buying stock from another rich guy, not putting it into the company. If companies could just keep issuing stocks then the ones they already sold would drop in value each time they issued new stocks. A stock is a percentage share of ownership of the company and entitles you to a like percentage of the profits the company earns. If the company does well, then the dividend (your percent of the profit) goes up and a share of that stock is then worth more because it will bring a higher dividend.

Ok, then you don't really understand the basic differences between trickle down BS and the rest of capitalism. Because you're equating what said with trickle down economics. When it's just basic capitalism.

And you keep advocating for forced reallocation of wealth, which is a pretty communist ideal. Taxing the rich, just for having money, and giving it to a bunch of niggers is pretty goddamn anti-capitalist.

...

>Or they don't, because they don't have to and they are a profit based venture
The better move for the bank is to keep the rates up and give riskier loans in the hope that they can still get their money back and maybe a good bit more if they can keep people on the hook for a while

Credit unions, made to serve their members, are the ones who might actually have a reason to lower their rates

>Or they could use the money to move abroad and shut down all jobs in this country.
I'm not saying they WILL, I'm just saying that investing is not an inherently good thing and anyone who tells you that it is is a moron.

Seriously, trickle down economics don't work and more money is not necessarily good money (in fact, without regulation, it's almost always the opposite)

For more on this, google "robber barons"

You think what you said was smarter than what I did, pathetic

If that's true, then how is giving the very same corrupt government more money and more power the answer? Entrusting the government to fix the problems created by the government is like a crazy man trying to think himself sane.

Nope, I just think you're an idiot. I never said anything about me.

>Its meant to keep spoiled trust fund cunts from inheriting empires they didn't work for

So if you work your whole life building something, you shouldn't be able to give it to your children. Government should poach it until there's little left? How about fuck you faggot?

Jesus, who ever was in charge of this needs to be fired.

So you don't want any innovation then? We should just all keep good ideas to ourselves eh?

>expecting intelligence on be
it's pronounced "Cred Forums" not be

Stealing 65% of your property is unacceptable, whether it's someone in poverty or someone not.

Autocorekt.

I disagree. And the general state of the economy, most of the time, supports me. Not you. Look at economic growth under our current system over the last hundred years.

I'm not saying there isn't completely broken sectors of the investment economy; there are. And they should be heavily regulated to prevent people from fucking the world for a few more percent a year. But saying that the majority of the 0.01% are doing this is absurd and unfounded. Most people want stability and steady growth. Most of the wealthy make more money overall under these conditions, because they own businesses that benefit from stability. Just because a few fucktards ruin it for everyone else does not mean that the wealthy are generally evil. It means we should be more inclined to imprison those fucktards.

>Instead the libtards would rather take the money away from people that are going to help the economy and give it to niggers that are going to take pictures with it and blow it on drugs
And I never said that we should tax the rich and give money to niggers. You really are the master of the strawman. I simply said that it's better for the economy to give money to nigger than a rich man, a statement I stand by. Are you going to dispute that?

Fucking owned

Why is she looking up? Does she thing she's in a stadium? What is wrong with her brain?

So you think we are both idiots. You just called yourself an idiot. strange.

...

Well we have to trust the government at some point. I'm not saying we give them more power, I'm saying we give them less power by taking money out of politics. Ban political donations and fund elections publically

I don'tthink that's true, please cite your sources. Is English your second language?

Gtfo Cred Forums

I fucking hate her so much

I repeated what you said. You called me an idiot for what I said

Please tell me how Richard Branson illegally became a billionaire

>1%
>a lot

No you didn't retard. Google Harrison Begeron you uncultured swine. Do kids read anymore?

By selling people virgin rides
Sometimes hundreds of people at once

Sounds like you are jelly of their superior ability to navigate the business and financial system of the world. Maybe you should bitch less and get less bad.

...

Citation needed.

>the salty tears of peasants who failed at life.

>hasn't read Grofulon Durkerox
>calls others uncultured swince

Do you like irresponsibly driving your porsche on paved roads? Or would you prefer a beaten path through the forest

Wouldn't it be better to minimize government, thereby separating them from our businesses, our affairs, and our lives to the greatest extent possible?

maybe so later they can photoshop her into a different area and make it looks like she was in a stadium full of people

honest answer i have no fucking clue, is it possible that auditorium had a second level mezzanine or something?

First, you're using greentext that is a quote from someone else.

Second,
>And I never said that we should tax the rich and give money to niggers.
"Now lets consider what happens if you give money to a nigger. They spend that money on food, housing, drugs, and it gets circulated into the economy. It gets spent on products."

Sure sounds like you're advocating exactly that. It's not a strawman if you make an argument for something, but hur dur didn't really mean it. It's you being retarded and arguing a point you don't agree with. You said, in essence, that it's better to take money from a rich businessman and give it to niggers. It's hard to fucking misunderstand that.

>I simply said that it's better for the economy to give money to nigger than a rich man, a statement I stand by. Are you going to dispute that?

So it's better to do a thing, but you don't advocate doing that thing. Got it. You're retarded. And you don't understand the basics of the situation you're talking about, let alone subtleties of economics. It is in no way better, economically, to tax the rich and hand out those taxes to niggers. The net result will always be negative on the economy. Every time.

No, because the world is not perfect. Even in a libertarian paradise, we need protection, we need regulation of business, and we need taxation to fund the first two

Cite it then. Google says it doesn't exist. My suggested reading exists, and was absolutely relevant. Can you say the same?

>It's not a strawman if you make an argument for something, but hur dur didn't really mean it
I said if your going to give money to someone, you are better off giving it to a nigger. That's what I said, and it's what I argued, because I also phrased it as "if you give money to a rich person".

Once again, a totally inaccurate strawman.

>So it's better to do a thing, but you don't advocate doing that thing. Got it. You're retarded

You're entire premise is a straw man, and your argument falls apart without a base to stand on

Only estates that are worth over 5.45 million are taxed. The tax is only on what is above that threshold so most people won't need to worry about it.

>W E W L A D S
>E
>W
>
>L
>A
>D
>S

The estate tax is the reason people dont inherit their families land.
The estate tax is the reason eminent domain isnt used that much.

it's a pointless position anyway. anyone with the money to qualify for the top marginal rate can easily avoid this tax with a decent accountant.

I love this shit and it doesn't go far enough. 100% estate tax. Make every entitled little shit start out from zero. Everything you own you earn. Pure meritocracy.

Let me guess.

Breitbart.com?

Sounds like a conservative paradise
>bootstraps

If the government has control of all of the money then how is it actually a meritocracy? Explain your logic.

Yeah those poor poor billionaires.

Won't someone think of them?

Won't someone carry water for them like you're doing?

By 'mean things,' you really mean bamboozled people out of money consistently and refused to rent property to people who weren't white?

>if you give money to a rich person
No one "gives" money to a rich man. This entire thread is about either taking money from a rich man, or letting him keep the money he has. So your premise is complete shit to begin with. The only way it fit into this thread is if we equate "giving money to a rich person" with "letting him keep his money." So people gave you the benefit of the doubt there, and assumed you were using a "businessman with x dollars vs a nigger with x dollars" situation.

If you're really just bringing up BS hypothetical situations, like actually giving money to a rich person, we can all just disregard your original premise as bullshit from the start. Not to mention the fact that any investor with x amount of dollars will always grow the economy by more than a nigger with x amount of dollars. Every fucking time. So even the distinction between your bs hypothetical and what it was assumed you meant is meaningless... it doesn't change the resulting argument and result at all.

You earn money in your lifetime, and how much you have directly reflects how much you earned. You're children start with nothing because they haven't earned anything, but if they have merit they will earn it

>still shitposting this Cred Forums meme

k

YOU SHUT UP FAGGOT

So then I assume you are in support of doing away with all welfare programs, then? Or will the government decide whose "merit" needs subsidizing?

Are you alive and not a skeleton?

Yeah! Fuck passing on a business to a completely capable family member! Even if that family member grew that business from 3 people in a garage to 150 people in three locations. Give it to the government instead, they'll run it better and it will be more fair!

user subscribes to the Mein Kampf School of Economics.

Faggot are you really that holed up in your mom's basement that you don't realize that this proposal is for BILLION DOLLAR ESTATES?

You're seriously this outraged?
kek

But if the government takes everything how are people earning what they're actually worth? They're earning what the government says they're worth because your system necessarily requires government owned production in all fields.

Here's the post in question, capitalized for emphasis:

IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A RICH PERSON, he puts into his bank account or an investment. Despite what free markets dummies will tell you, he most likely won't start a new business or create jobs. He will invest it in something safe, or put it in the bank, and sit on it. This doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it.

Now lets consider what happens IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A NIGGER. They spend that money on food, housing, drugs, and it gets circulated into the economy. It gets spent on products.

The nigger is what creates job. Not the businessman. This trickle down economic theory is garbage and I'm tired of hearing people still try to argue it. HISTORY HAS PROVED YOU GUYS WRONG, STOP SAYING THE SAME SHIT

It's been a hypothetical situation from the start you dummy, that's why I keep saying you are strawmanning the shit out of me

Seems like that "perfectly capable family member" would be able to compete with internal and outside candidates for the job then, yes?

It has nothing to do with government owned production. You own your property when you are alive, but all property is given to government when you die

what percent of families own more than 5 million dollars in land?

AND you'd trust the US government officials, with no experience in the business, to make that call....why?

It doesn't matter who it's for. I can't help that you're a faggot who thinks laws are more or less just based on how much money a person has.

And when you say shit like, who cares, they are super rich! When there are no more super rich left in the US, who do you think will be paying next? it's like Bernie's economics... did he ever think he'd be able to charge anyone 80% taxes? No. So when he banks on it, and it falls through, he has to raise taxes on everyone else to cover the expenses he planned for.

That is exactly what will happen with Hillary's plan. She will bank on everyone with huge estates to pay the tax. They will find loopholes. Then everyone else is fucked.

lmao liberals really do believe that the government is God. i thought it was just a meme. instead of getting their direction and comfort from a spiritual connection with a higher power, they just put their faith in Uncle Sam. It's amazing.

is she actually retarded? or just intentionally trying to lose at this point

randomarchive.com/board/b/thread/679636434
randomarchive.com/data/b/image/1456/961/1456961923380.jpg

retarded trump supporters dont know how to image search.

>bernie
>80% taxes
He never, ever proposed income taxes higher than 52%, you ignorant fucking morons piss me off so much. WHY DO YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND

This isn't mainstream liberal opinion, just some random shitposter on Cred Forums

Are you stupid? You own a factory, then you die. Who gets it?

If we thought like conservitards and needed a god, you might have something to talk about,

Unable to see beyond your own limited personal experience. How surprising.

>a law that would only effect people who already hide their money

its just for show

>there are still triggered bernouts who haven't gone back to plebbit yet

kek

If rich people don't spend money, then why do they have so many nice things?
>They spend that money on food, housing, drugs, and it gets circulated into the economy.
40% of that is coming from other people's pockets, and drug money just goes to the black market.

I will always be triggered by people posting the 90% tax rate meme

Posting false things online like that is seriously fucked up. This is just my personal beliefs, but spreading misinformation to intenionally mislead people is very immoral

You plan on citing that 40% claim?

>Who gets it?
Of course! Sometimes his wife comes and gets it.

You're in Cred Forums.... You know that, right?

Contrary to what Bernie would have you believe. Most people make a decent living and can afford things for themselves. America isn't full of unemployed people trying to make a living wage. It's just that your generation just got out of school. And finding work is a task. It's not a hard task. Just not exactly easy. Please live a few years and work for something before you belittle others on an anonymous Mongolian basket weaving forum.

Obligatory faggot

You really think someone would do that?
Just go on the internet and tell lies?

>implying its not the same user

Let's take pants as analogy. I make decent money, so I own like 15-20 pairs of pants. A billionaire, who make 10,000x as much as I do, will only have 50 pants at most. He won't 10,000x as many pants as me, that would be ridiculous.

This is a silly analogy, but it's pretty accurate. It's better for the economy for the middle class to be large, rather than the upper class have more money. Because the upper class spends a smaller percentage of their income on consumer goods

>Nikon
>Confirmed poorfag

Bro, imagine if you are a business man. You have to rent property to clients and you want to sell and make profit. If the statistics say that giving houses to black people in a neighbourhood drops the selling of those properties significantly you wouldn't do it either. If you don't sell you go bankrupt, lose your job and probably serve time in jail. Now, is it worth being SJW about it?

>IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A RICH PERSON
No one does. Ever. So who the fuck cares? I'm disregarding this bullshit because it doesn't matter.

>IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A NIGGER
He will blow it on things that do not grow the economy. It does happen. We know it's a huge economic waste, in every goddamn way. Welfare fucks employment numbers, it fucks taxes (income, property, every kind), it props up shit-tier businesses that don't actually help the economy in the end, it fucks up healthcare.. on and on.

>This trickle down economic theory is garbage and I'm tired of hearing people still try to argue it. HISTORY HAS PROVED YOU GUYS WRONG
I clearly argued against it. You were arguing with some other user about that.

Your argument, hypothetical situation, whatever, would be essentially the same if you say "a businessman with $10k vs a nigger with $10k." It's not about where they get the money, then, it's about what they do with it. You say it's better to have a nigger with $10k, and all of economics disagrees with you. They will waste it, and it will be out of the country in the pockets of foreign manufacturers in a week, probably spent on stupid ass overpriced clothing items. A businessman would invest it, in his company or another's, ultimately.

Now, if you still say it's economically better to give a nigger the money, why are you not advocating that we do so? Seems hypocritical to me.

niggers receive 40% of welfare
>google.com

>IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A RICH PERSON
>No one does. Ever. So who the fuck cares?
i do, because it's an interesting though experiment that shows the problems with trickle down economic theory

Gross... if I work 30 years at a family business, 20 of that running the place, and grow the business multiple times over, you want to then let the government decide to open up my position to other people? Welcome to socialism! Go fuck yourself.

So in your hypothetical where the government inherits all property the wife gets the factory? Since when are individuals the government. And if you're mocking the current system, why shouldn't she? What makes our government a better choice?

bernies an irrelevant waste of human life

who cares if people lie about some pinko kike loser?

There is a huge difference between "proposes" and "enacts", OP.
This is nothing more than typical Hillary bullshit.

The structure implied you meant rich people....my mistake.

You know jack shit about taxation, dipshit. Stop being a faggot and let the fucking grown ups talk

>Now, if you still say it's economically better to give a nigger the money, why are you not advocating that we do so?
Because we don't have billions sitting around to give away. A good application of this argument is tax cuts. If the governments running a surplus, we can cut taxes for one group of people, and if you want to boost the economy, you would cut taxes for the poor

Another application is raising taxes. If we need to raise taxes to reduce the deficit, it makes more sense to raise it on the rich, because it will hurt the economy less