So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

And IM being the baby?

 

And IM being the baby?

 

 

If we give you a cookie will you stop crying, or is this tantrum just for the attention? Maybe some of the dads can weight in here, I don't have a lot of experience with the psyche of a 2yr old.

Jesus someone got up on the wrong side of the bed.

 

The budgets a fuckin joke. Its a non-starter. Feel free to remain butthurt.

 

 

"We assume a 3% rate of growth going forward"

 

 

Sure you do.

Jesus someone got up on the wrong side of the bed.

 

The budgets a fuckin joke. Its a non-starter. Feel free to remain butthurt.

 

 

"We assume a 3% rate of growth going forward"

 

 

Sure you do.

 

As opposed to Obama's assumed 4.5%. . .

 

If it's a non starter, why this response:

Red states gonna be madder than fcuk. This is pure comedy. I cant wait for the unhinged masses who voted this nut into office to realize he just cut them off at the knees.

 

So what is it, dead in the water, or will the entire country revolt from all their lost entitlements?

 

If you're finished throwing cheerios, the adults are trying to have a conversation here.

 

Im not sure how youre deriving a tantrum from my statements. Its.....odd.

 

Re; Obama numbers...............bullshit.

 

Despite attaining average real GDP growth of only 2.1 percent over the course of the current recovery, President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget still assumes a relatively optimistic 2.4 percent average GDP growth over the next five years, ticking down to 2.3 percent average growth from 2022 through 2026.

 

Its dead in the water because congress is going to take one look at it and say thanks but no thanks. Not trying to fcuk over as many people as possible.

 

Oh, wait, they already did.

 

Lets move along now.

Lets move along now.

 

 

Agent O hires an attorney to defend himself in the Russia probe...

Trump likely knows this budget isn't going to get through Congress. It is probably a budget version of that negotiating procedure where you always ask for more than you know you'll get so that it gets negotiated down to what you really think you can get; you never ask for what you think you can get from the start, or else your opponents will force you to negotiate down further.

 

The downside however is that this gives more ammo to Democrats to hit the GOP over the head with in the coming 2018 elections.

 

How's that Seth Rich dnc murder story doing?

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/fox-...eth-rich-story/

Hannity still going hard in the paint

 

That guy is an absolute, unrepentant, inexcusable shitbag.

You don't say?

https://mobile.twitter.com/foxandfriends/st...326580153921536

How exactly did he cut them off at the knees? I see him cutting spending in government handouts that are already abused. I did read an article on CNN about it (always gotta see the other perspective), and they mirror your sentiments, but the very points they make show just how fcuking delusional they are over there.

 

Like this little gem

"Arguably the biggest gift to the rich is eliminating the estate tax. Right now, it only applies to estates worth over $5.5 million, but Trump wants to get rid of it entirely.

The estate tax is assessed when someone passes away and her heirs get the property. Passing on wealth from one generation to the next is one of the main drivers of inequality in America."

 

Which he should, good riddance.

 

Passing the wealth you amassed to your children is somehow wrong in their eyes? It DRIVES INEQUALITY?!? Give me a fcuking break. That money was already taxed through a lifetime and to pretend it needs to be taxed again is so fcuking asinine I cant comprehend it.

 

This idea, that they promote, that anyone who has wealth is evil and needs to have it taken, is so wrong. And sadly, the left just eat that shit up.

 

AMEN!

 

Two buzz words from the libtards that really annoy the fuck out of me are

 

1. fair share

2. Tax cuts on the rich

 

Where is over 50% of someone's income a 'fair share?' What's a tax cut on the rich who are the people who pay the majority of the taxes.

 

Two buzz words from the libtards that really annoy the fuck out of me are

 

1. fair share

2. Tax cuts on the rich

 

Where is over 50% of someone's income a 'fair share?' What's a tax cut on the rich who are the people who pay the majority of the taxes.

 

No shit. What incentive is there to ever work harder and earn more when the more you earn, the greater the tax? A 15% tax for ALL is the way to fix this.

How exactly did he cut them off at the knees? I see him cutting spending in government handouts that are already abused. I did read an article on CNN about it (always gotta see the other perspective), and they mirror your sentiments, but the very points they make show just how fcuking delusional they are over there.

 

Like this little gem

"Arguably the biggest gift to the rich is eliminating the estate tax. Right now, it only applies to estates worth over $5.5 million, but Trump wants to get rid of it entirely.

The estate tax is assessed when someone passes away and her heirs get the property. Passing on wealth from one generation to the next is one of the main drivers of inequality in America."

 

Which he should, good riddance.

 

Passing the wealth you amassed to your children is somehow wrong in their eyes? It DRIVES INEQUALITY?!? Give me a fcuking break. That money was already taxed through a lifetime and to pretend it needs to be taxed again is so fcuking asinine I cant comprehend it.

 

This idea, that they promote, that anyone who has wealth is evil and needs to have it taken, is so wrong. And sadly, the left just eat that shit up.

 

I don't post much at all, but I do like to impart some knowledge on some topics that I believe is overlooked.

 

Inheritance of large sums of money does drive inequality. It's maybe not apparent in the present, but is very apparent over time. This is illustrated by looking at long-term gains and appreciation of assets vs inflation, as well as the types of assets owned by the rich. Needless to say, most investments should and will beat inflation in the long-term. Human life really isn't that long, but family trees do tend to last a very long time. Most families create their initial wealth at some point from their employment or business, and they or may not see large gains from investments by the time they die due to how long it took to create in the first place. However, as Einstein said (or possibly never said), the most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest. The middle class or lower will not have a significant amount of assets upon death. They don't really have the money, income, or risk appetite for many investments aside from real estate and their 401K (assuming they having some sort of matching and company contribution), which will probably be eaten up in retirement.

 

When you pass down significant amounts of wealth over and over, that delta between the appreciation of the assets owned by the rich and the appreciation of assets owned by the middle-class leads the enormous gaps. So long as heirs don't get irresponsible, die without heirs of their own, or donate it, the wealth will compound to extremely high levels within a few generations, get split up among futures heirs, then compound again, then split, then... you get the point. That of course even ignores the fact that sometimes the first generation created so much wealth that it doesn't even need much time, if any, to happen. This doesn't concern most people because, well, most humans don't live long enough to care about the distant future. A lot of people today can't even be bothered about what the world will be like for their grand children, let alone great great great grand children, or someone else's great great great grand childen. All life on Earth will die eventually, but how far into the future people are willing to care is another story.

 

To sum it up, the rich can live well within their means while still taking on risk that the middle-class can't. This just ends up leading to an accumulation of wealth and it just repeats forever until someone does something to stop it, like dying without heirs or siblings, squanders it, donates it, etc.

 

There is no denying that large inheritance drives inequality. It almost certainly does from a mathematical standpoint and a reasonable assumption of human behavior. That said, I think you can make an argument that an inheritance tax may merely slow down inequality rather than stop it entirely. The effectiveness is based upon the spending habits and income of the children, as well as how long they live. If they live another 25 years after their parent's death, they could possibly have earned it all right back in appreciation anyway. Most heirs will not have that same wealth generating ability as their parents and they will eat into gains much more than their parents, but if the starting principal is far beyond what they spend, it doesn't matter and the gap will grow regardless.

 

I have no opinion on the inheritance tax as far as whether it's good or not. It really doesn't effect many people. The people who feel the sting most would probably be the $10-20M people, but even they can make appropriate plans to lessen the impact. Worst case you just have you family give up citizenship and go live somewhere else in the world if it's that big of a deal. I personally believe that it would be wise to create an invest-it-or-tax-it policy for the uber wealthy. That way it creates economic growth while possibly being a good investment as well. I have the same opinion on offshore holdings. Bring back as much as you want tax free so long as you invest it in new businesses and assets. That way the rich stay rich while improving the life of the everyone else.

 

Perhaps I will have an heir of my own to pass down wealth to by the time of my next post.

 

As far as politics in general in this thread, Trump seems like a moron, but my only real beef with him is his insane views regarding science and the environment. Science and the environment are the most important things to humanity IMO. Good luck to everyone and their favorite political party and feelings. Hopefully people on both sides realize that the cruel laws that govern the Universe don't care what side of the political divide you're on. The Earth did just fine without humans and will do just fine for the next 500 million years whether humans inhabit it or not

Solid post. I wonder how much that holds up compared to dilution by progeny.

Its stated that 70% of wealthy families lose their fortunes by second generation. So take heed to your own comment about the cruel laws of the universe, the government should have absolutely no part in dividing up a family fortune because of "how unfair it is to those without a fortune." The universe will find its own way to do such a thing!

http://www.investors.com/politics/commenta...s-15-year-high/

Families making the most they have in 15 years

Trump effect

"By comparison, this index was also lower when Obama left office than when he came in — it stood at 99.2 in January 2009, and was 98.9 in January 2017. It was just 1.7% higher than when the recession ended in June 2009. Last year, incomes barely budged, Sentier data show.

 

Another way to look at it: median income has climbed faster in President Trump's first three months in office than it did during 7-1/2 years of Obama's economic "recovery."

Inheritance of large sums of money does drive inequality.

 

Yeah... and? The world will never be equal. Somebody will always be born taller, better looking, a bigger dick, or any of a thousand other natural abilities, many of which can be overcome with hard work and determination. IMO the world would be far better off if we put more effort into trying to motivate the 'normal' folks than make them feel like victims of the system, and beat down those who are successful. 99.999% of the time people are victims of nothing but their own life choices, for better or worse, myself included.

 

Looking around this place at the people who are really well off, I can only think of 2 who were born into significant wealth. The rest of them came from little, to virtually nothing and built what they have. And you think because they achieved something, were gang raped with taxes over their lifetime, they should have their estate pillaged?

 

What if that tax affects a business, they can't afford the cash outlay, and ultimately it forces the closing of the business and layoff of many workers?

 

What a person does with their $$$ when they die is up to them, and the gov't needs to keep their hands off of it. If they want to leave it to their children to build or squander, it's their choice.

 

fwiw, I recall reading that it's the 3rd generation that really pisses away the fortune. 2nd likely saw their parents build it and were ingrained with a residual work ethic that is easily lost.

 

I've had an ass full of the entire inequality and victim mentality, it's the plague that will be the undoing of this country. If you want something then go fcuking get it, if you're too scared, lazy, or w/e, then come to terms with it and accept the life you choose.

Yeah... and? The world will never be equal. Somebody will always be born taller, better looking, a bigger dick, or any of a thousand other natural abilities, many of which can be overcome with hard work and determination. IMO the world would be far better off if we put more effort into trying to motivate the 'normal' folks than make them feel like victims of the system, and beat down those who are successful. 99.999% of the time people are victims of nothing but their own life choices, for better or worse, myself included.

 

Looking around this place at the people who are really well off, I can only think of 2 who were born into significant wealth. The rest of them came from little, to virtually nothing and built what they have. And you think because they achieved something, were gang raped with taxes over their lifetime, they should have their estate pillaged?

 

What if that tax affects a business, they can't afford the cash outlay, and ultimately it forces the closing of the business and layoff of many workers?

 

What a person does with their $$$ when they die is up to them, and the gov't needs to keep their hands off of it. If they want to leave it to their children to build or squander, it's their choice.

 

fwiw, I recall reading that it's the 3rd generation that really pisses away the fortune. 2nd likely saw their parents build it and were ingrained with a residual work ethic that is easily lost.

 

I've had an ass full of the entire inequality and victim mentality, it's the plague that will be the undoing of this country. If you want something then go fcuking get it, if you're too scared, lazy, or w/e, then come to terms with it and accept the life you choose.

I've had an ass full of the entire inequality and victim mentality

 

😳

Agent O hires an attorney to defend himself in the Russia probe...

 

 

God damn this gets sleazier and sleazier every day. I didn't fully understand the Lieberman pick for the FBI, now it makes sense...

 

 

Because Joe Lieberman is senior counsel at Kasowitz’s firm...

 

Kasowitz of course being Trump's long time attorney...

Yeah... and? The world will never be equal. Somebody will always be born taller, better looking, a bigger dick, or any of a thousand other natural abilities, many of which can be overcome with hard work and determination. IMO the world would be far better off if we put more effort into trying to motivate the 'normal' folks than make them feel like victims of the system, and beat down those who are successful. 99.999% of the time people are victims of nothing but their own life choices, for better or worse, myself included.

 

Looking around this place at the people who are really well off, I can only think of 2 who were born into significant wealth. The rest of them came from little, to virtually nothing and built what they have. And you think because they achieved something, were gang raped with taxes over their lifetime, they should have their estate pillaged?

 

What if that tax affects a business, they can't afford the cash outlay, and ultimately it forces the closing of the business and layoff of many workers?

 

What a person does with their $$$ when they die is up to them, and the gov't needs to keep their hands off of it. If they want to leave it to their children to build or squander, it's their choice.

 

fwiw, I recall reading that it's the 3rd generation that really pisses away the fortune. 2nd likely saw their parents build it and were ingrained with a residual work ethic that is easily lost.

 

I've had an ass full of the entire inequality and victim mentality, it's the plague that will be the undoing of this country. If you want something then go fcuking get it, if you're too scared, lazy, or w/e, then come to terms with it and accept the life you choose.

 

I'm not sure there is an "and." I think it's best to distance oneself from the personal feelings and rely mainly on evidence and as much of a scientific and logical approach as possible (which may include studying the psychology of the average US citizen and American society) to determine the merit of either stance.

 

Where the balance lies is anyone's guess, though I'm inclined to believe that equality is highly desirable. We exercise equality, in fact we demand it, in many aspects of life. I don't believe anyone thinks that every single person should have 1:1 purchasing power and income. I believe the discussion of equality comes down to a reasonable quality of life and the pursuit to make society on average healthier, safer, and all-around better. There will always be people in need though. That is a near absolute certainty. Never will everyone be able to be pulled up and educated out of welfare or distress. Some humans are helpless.

 

Tax is tax. It's just a man-made concept designed to approximately fit with how human society developed and mainly address the sheer logistical difficulty in running such a large civilization. It also happens to address human "flaws" in character. Humans can be and often are real selfish jerks who make bad decisions. If tax was only paid by people who wanted to pay it and only what they think is fair, nothing would get paid for because no one really understand all the services being provided and why they have to be or should be provided. I often see posts about single people wondering why they're paying school taxes even though they don't have kids.

 

At the end of the day, the estate tax really doesn't effect many people anyway and the rich can easily avoid it and minimize it. It also effects very, very few businesses. We're talking maybe a couple dozen and the liability isn't anywhere near 55% for those businesses. There are actually published statistics on it and it's worth noting that a huge amount of the estate tax is actually on unrealized capital gains that have never been taxed at all.

 

Just to illustrate an example of the rich minimizing taxes: Mark Zuckerberg will probably pay barely any tax at all on his entire fortune until his death, relative to the size of it (ignoring his intent to give it all away anyhow). So long as he never sells his shares, they will never be taxed. He also doesn't have to sell them to pay for living expenses. He can borrow against them at extremely attractive interest rates and then sell only enough shares to pay the interest. If he needs $1B, he doesn't have to sell $1B in stock and pay $200M in taxes. He will borrow $1B, sell $20M in stock each year to pay the interest only, and then pay $4M in taxes on the stock he sold. So long as his shares appreciate by more than 1-2% each year, he will access to $1B of his wealth, earned more than the interest expensive, and paid next to nothing (relatively speaking) in taxes.

 

I don't want to get into a debate on tax since it's ultimately a massive cultural a structural problem with society that may take hundreds of years to resolve, if ever, but I felt a response was appropriate.

God damn this gets sleazier and sleazier every day. I didn't fully understand the Lieberman pick for the FBI, now it makes sense...

 

 

 

 

Kasowitz of course being Trump's long time attorney...

 

 

Kasowitz is a litigator, isn't plugged in, in DC. Not a criminal defence attorney. I know he and Trump go way back, and I'm sure he is competent, wouldn't be my pick. Lieberman is out, as a consequence. Bridge too far even for Doctor Orange.

I don't post much at all, but I do like to impart some knowledge on some topics that I believe is overlooked.

 

Inheritance of large sums of money does drive inequality. It's maybe not apparent in the present, but is very apparent over time. This is illustrated by looking at long-term gains and appreciation of assets vs inflation, as well as the types of assets owned by the rich. Needless to say, most investments should and will beat inflation in the long-term. Human life really isn't that long, but family trees do tend to last a very long time. Most families create their initial wealth at some point from their employment or business, and they or may not see large gains from investments by the time they die due to how long it took to create in the first place. However, as Einstein said (or possibly never said), the most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest. The middle class or lower will not have a significant amount of assets upon death. They don't really have the money, income, or risk appetite for many investments aside from real estate and their 401K (assuming they having some sort of matching and company contribution), which will probably be eaten up in retirement.

 

When you pass down significant amounts of wealth over and over, that delta between the appreciation of the assets owned by the rich and the appreciation of assets owned by the middle-class leads the enormous gaps. So long as heirs don't get irresponsible, die without heirs of their own, or donate it, the wealth will compound to extremely high levels within a few generations, get split up among futures heirs, then compound again, then split, then... you get the point. That of course even ignores the fact that sometimes the first generation created so much wealth that it doesn't even need much time, if any, to happen. This doesn't concern most people because, well, most humans don't live long enough to care about the distant future. A lot of people today can't even be bothered about what the world will be like for their grand children, let alone great great great grand children, or someone else's great great great grand childen. All life on Earth will die eventually, but how far into the future people are willing to care is another story.

 

To sum it up, the rich can live well within their means while still taking on risk that the middle-class can't. This just ends up leading to an accumulation of wealth and it just repeats forever until someone does something to stop it, like dying without heirs or siblings, squanders it, donates it, etc.

 

There is no denying that large inheritance drives inequality. It almost certainly does from a mathematical standpoint and a reasonable assumption of human behavior. That said, I think you can make an argument that an inheritance tax may merely slow down inequality rather than stop it entirely. The effectiveness is based upon the spending habits and income of the children, as well as how long they live. If they live another 25 years after their parent's death, they could possibly have earned it all right back in appreciation anyway. Most heirs will not have that same wealth generating ability as their parents and they will eat into gains much more than their parents, but if the starting principal is far beyond what they spend, it doesn't matter and the gap will grow regardless.

 

I have no opinion on the inheritance tax as far as whether it's good or not. It really doesn't effect many people. The people who feel the sting most would probably be the $10-20M people, but even they can make appropriate plans to lessen the impact. Worst case you just have you family give up citizenship and go live somewhere else in the world if it's that big of a deal. I personally believe that it would be wise to create an invest-it-or-tax-it policy for the uber wealthy. That way it creates economic growth while possibly being a good investment as well. I have the same opinion on offshore holdings. Bring back as much as you want tax free so long as you invest it in new businesses and assets. That way the rich stay rich while improving the life of the everyone else.

 

Perhaps I will have an heir of my own to pass down wealth to by the time of my next post.

 

As far as politics in general in this thread, Trump seems like a moron, but my only real beef with him is his insane views regarding science and the environment. Science and the environment are the most important things to humanity IMO. Good luck to everyone and their favorite political party and feelings. Hopefully people on both sides realize that the cruel laws that govern the Universe don't care what side of the political divide you're on. The Earth did just fine without humans and will do just fine for the next 500 million years whether humans inhabit it or not

 

Financial equality LOL

 

It blows my mind how someone capable to access the internet and type does not have the mental capacity to figure out how ridiculous that sounds, not just ridiculous but also absolutely impossible, it will NEVER happen because it can not happen, you can legislate all you want, take all of the money from a wealthy entrepreneur and give it to a bum, the wealthy guy will be back on his/her feet before the bum had enough time to burn his/hers new found fortune, what will happen then? Take it again from the producer and feed the wasteful consumer? When is the vicious cycle going to stop? When will the producer say f*ck it and walk?

 

The communists tried that, tell me how did it work out for them.

 

There will always be inequality and rightly so, work harder and smarter if you want more, the opportunity is there, just because someone has more than you it doesn't mean they stole it from you, it also doesn't mean they owe you anything, it also doesn't necessarily mean that it's more difficult for you to advance financially, those who have don't build walls in front of those who don't, it's just an excuse, I'd starve before I'd raise my hand and ask for something I haven't earned myself, the embarrassment would be impossible for me to cope with.

 

 

"If a person who has virtually nothing is given a large sum of money, within a very short time that person will have nothing again. If we divided all the money in the world equally, in a short time the rich would be rich again, and the poor would be poor." - The people might change but the ratios would not.