Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib recently had dinner with a Palestinian activist who called Samir Kuntar — a terrorist who smashed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl after murdering her father — a "legendary Hezbollah martyr."
dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:29 pm
Seen on twitter:
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib recently had dinner with a Palestinian activist who called Samir Kuntar — a terrorist who smashed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl after murdering her father — a "legendary Hezbollah martyr."
Regarding the story that began as “MAGA students harass Native American man” and has turned into something else in light of new videos and information:
I have run into those Black Hebrew Israelites on several occasions. They are out there. One year, the mall where they were spewing their hatred hired a dj to drown them out, since they had a permit to shout (outside) and could not be evicted.
dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:47 am
Regarding the story that began as “MAGA students harass Native American man” and has turned into something else in light of new videos and information:
I have run into those Black Hebrew Israelites on several occasions. They are out there. One year, the mall where they were spewing their hatred hired a dj to drown them out, since they had a permit to shout (outside) and could not be evicted.
dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:47 am
Regarding the story that began as “MAGA students harass Native American man” and has turned into something else in light of new videos and information:
I have run into those Black Hebrew Israelites on several occasions. They are out there. One year, the mall where they were spewing their hatred hired a dj to drown them out, since they had a permit to shout (outside) and could not be evicted.
It must be nice to live in a world that does not recognize sin, or not know that sinners sin because they are sinners .... or not know we are all sinners .... to the core.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re. the Matt Walsh post: Language has consequences, even among the hypocrites.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Simonjester wrote:
the maga hat kid has committed a face crime...
Orwell in 1984:
It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (incredulity when a victory was announced, for instance) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
At this point I can only hope the left eats itself because I have a hard time imagining that this story is going to end well if it keeps playing out the way it is. I grew up in the 60's and I've personally experienced violence in the streets both here and abroad but I've never seen the temperature in politics get this high before. The difference between this time and that is that you didn't have the MSM and social media working nonstop to fan the flames.
Simonjester wrote:
the maga hat kid has committed a face crime...
Orwell in 1984:
It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (incredulity when a victory was announced, for instance) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is proposing an annual wealth tax, attempting to combat inequality and raise trillions of dollars with a significant new levy on the very richest Americans.
Ms. Warren’s proposal would impose a 2% annual tax on household wealth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on wealth above $1 billion.
Won't it be fun when the IRS auditor has to pay a house call and figure out if that painting is really an original Picasso or just a copy, and how much to value a box of Cuban cigars, an antique car, handknit sweaters, and your wine collection. As in...I don't know what Elizabeth Warren is taking but I want some. Maybe it's those CBD candies in the grocery checkout line.
Unlikely, I guess? The article mentions Obama-era proposals that didn’t make it, and these go beyond those suggestions.
But, anything can happen. And of course, those with $50 million are nothing to cry over. It would set a dangerous precedent, though, and perhaps that would be enough to get some citizens thinking about exit plans. Oof, wait, we have an exit tax.
dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:32 pm
Unlikely, I guess? The article mentions Obama-era proposals that didn’t make it, and these go beyond those suggestions.
But, anything can happen. And of course, those with $50 million are nothing to cry over. It would set a dangerous precedent, though, and perhaps that would be enough to get some citizens thinking about exit plans. Oof, wait, we have an exit tax.
I was thinking more like, there are about 86,000 Americans with a net worth over 50 million. That's what the internet told me. I would be surprised if none of them were big political donors, on BOTH sides, and they're not super pumped about their taxes skyrocketing. I can't see people that rich, at that level, rolling over and taking it like a bitch.
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:51 pm
I was thinking more like, there are about 86,000 Americans with a net worth over 50 million. That's what the internet told me. I would be surprised if none of them were big political donors, on BOTH sides, and they're not super pumped about their taxes skyrocketing. I can't see people that rich, at that level, rolling over and taking it like a bitch.
Swamp-power, baby!
Right, that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. (I’m only being half-facetious). Lawyers dominate how much control..lawyers have, and the rich control taxes.
I benefit from the fact that dividends are taxed more favorably than sweat, but I’ll be the first to say it’s messed up.
sophie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:13 pm
Well, at long last it's happened:
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is proposing an annual wealth tax, attempting to combat inequality and raise trillions of dollars with a significant new levy on the very richest Americans.
Ms. Warren’s proposal would impose a 2% annual tax on household wealth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on wealth above $1 billion.
Won't it be fun when the IRS auditor has to pay a house call and figure out if that painting is really an original Picasso or just a copy, and how much to value a box of Cuban cigars, an antique car, handknit sweaters, and your wine collection. As in...I don't know what Elizabeth Warren is taking but I want some. Maybe it's those CBD candies in the grocery checkout line.
Of course, they say $50M now, but how long before it's $1M? I mean, if you're an underemployed, entitled socialist it's still unfair that someone has more than they do.
Exactly. Isn't this how the AMT started? Especially since I suspect the way this would evolve is that people will quickly realize that taxing net worth annually is a practical impossibility, and they'll limit it to financial accounts. Since that would reduce the amount exposed to the tax, they'll lower the threshold. This would be easy to do at any time, plus would happen automatically over the years due to inflation.
Likely there would end up being some discussion of how much money people need for retirement. It seems kind of specious to mandate that we fund our own retirements, then institute a tax on that pot of savings. I wonder how annuities and pensions would be treated under a wealth tax law? Seems an easy way to dodge the tax if they're not included. So is physical gold held privately BTW.
Won't it be fun when the IRS auditor has to pay a house call and figure out if that painting is really an original Picasso or just a copy, and how much to value a box of Cuban cigars, an antique car, handknit sweaters, and your wine collection. As in...I don't know what Elizabeth Warren is taking but I want some. Maybe it's those CBD candies in the grocery checkout line.
Of course, they say $50M now, but how long before it's $1M? I mean, if you're an underemployed, entitled socialist it's still unfair that someone has more than they do.
Exactly. Isn't this how the AMT started? Especially since I suspect the way this would evolve is that people will quickly realize that taxing net worth annually is a practical impossibility, and they'll limit it to financial accounts. Since that would reduce the amount exposed to the tax, they'll lower the threshold. This would be easy to do at any time, plus would happen automatically over the years due to inflation.
Likely there would end up being some discussion of how much money people need for retirement. It seems kind of specious to mandate that we fund our own retirements, then institute a tax on that pot of savings. I wonder how annuities and pensions would be treated under a wealth tax law? Seems an easy way to dodge the tax if they're not included. So is physical gold held privately BTW.
Same thing with the taxing of SS benefits. By not indexing these things to inflation it's obviously going to effect more and more people over time and I have to believe they weren't so stupid as to not know this when the law was passed. In other words it was an intended consequence. I'll be starting both SS and taking my first RMD this year and I've figured that the RMD will be just about enough to pay the tax on the SS. So you really have to hand it to the crooks in Washington.
Is all this talk of wealth taxes and other socialist ideas what's driving up the price of gold? If so, I guess we could call it a "gold lining".
To me, the idea of imports... or income... or "sales"... or wealth... being the "right" tax base is an interesting debate, and obviously class does become part of the calculation, but if the government is going to collect $XXX Billion on an annual basis, either way that's dollars out of SOMEONE's pockets. I don't find a tax on wealth as inherently more "socialist" than a tax on consumption sales.
And considering how heavily the FICA/Medicare taxes respectively handle our two big federal "welfarish" expenditures (and how regressive these taxes tend to be compared to the federal income tax), that leaves a TON of what's left over as military expenditures, which (IMO) are essentially a protector of foreign trade and the most direct benefit to the owners of global corporate capital. To me, the best way to pay for the military would be a wealth tax. Let's be honest... the military ain't protecting the lives and liberties of ordinary Americans. They're protecting the investment right and profits of global corporations.
And none of that is to mention that sweat income is taxes far-more oppressively than capital income. When I see my doctor acquaintances with $250k of student loan debt being taxed at ordinary tax rates plus fica/medicare vs what someone with a portfolio of dividend, business income, muni interest, cap gains, etc. would pay (being able to deduct their basis in their investments, unlike the tuition of the doctor), I see capital getting a huge pass while simultaneously receiving the lions share of the "benefit" of our massive military spending...
moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:45 am
Is a "wealth tax" inherently socialist?
It is a redistribution of wealth and is socialist by definition, yes.
I do agree with your third paragraph. As someone who gets by partially on dividends, I think it is insane that they is taxed more favorably than sweat equity. It is simply unfair, and I could never be convinced otherwise.