Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Paul Ryan: Repealing The Estate Tax Is About 'Fairness'" video.

Mal c.H, I watched the video. I saw Kyle go on an appeal to emotion rant that sums up to "rich people have money and we should take it when they die". He talked about rich kids and berated them with no evidence. He ranted about giving the rich money when no one is supporting that, it is about letting them keep what they earned. He also claimed that the tax cuts led to the recession when it was multiple factors. I can go point by point on what Kyle said in his incoherent rant and show how he is wrong, but what I wrote should be enough. The point is that I am asking your. "Notable economists have explained it countless times." Who? Milton Friedman? Thomas Sowell? "The information is literally right here and also a quick Google search away. Or grab an economics book from your bookshelf." Google? Cenk, is that you? Anyway, what should I Google? What book should I read? Communist Manifesto? The Bible? Should I Google Fox News?
3
What is the point of the estate tax if you are so intelligent when it comes to taxes?
2
Koala, I am defending it on this 1. It is taxing money and property that is already taxed 2. They earned that money so they should be allowed to pass it on even at that I do see the arguments for the estate tax to which I support the federal repeal of it on the basis of 1. We need a simplified tax code where I support either a tax on the states like we used to have, or a flat income tax along with a consumption tax. That is why I support the repeal. Even at that the estate tax is a drop in the bucket compared to our overall tax revenue.
2
"Much of the assets of those estates have never actually been taxed, capital gains for instance. That income is the one that would be taxed under this. " It is taxed. "And they “earned it”? So it’s perfectly okay then for them to leave a million dollars for their do nothing kid then, right?" What makes you think they did nothing? "Oh cool a flat tax and a consumption tax. How high do you want that consumption tax to be? Why do you want to lower the buying power of ordinary Americans which would lower gdp and job growth?" Economics seems like a complicated subject to you.
2
Brett PGH, good point. This is in line with my earlier comment in how people in the US are well off. People who are middle class and even lower class in the US are well off.
2
"And the fact that most of that 99% are working three minimum wage jobs?" Only 5% of the country works multiple jobs.
2
In short all Kyle is saying "I hate rich people so much that I want to piss on their graves".
2
That is it, create more government oversight and bureaucracy. Plus, that is easily avoidable. Just hire one person at a high wage where that person is a friend or spouse.
1
Budred123, how do you close that loophole? You are now lowering wages for certain workers.
1
robin jacobsson, that is how you were raised in Sweden. In the US our mentality is different. We support helping others and do so at the local level. I am active in my community. However, we like to have control of our finances. Even at that the estate tax is a drop in the bucket compared to our overall revenue. The other problem of the estate tax is that people like for their company to be ran by people they trust, in this case their kids. But taxing it again means they have to cut back meaning less jobs.
1
"The money has to come from somewhere, do you suggest that we take it from the middle class and the poor? The other option is to not have a goverment at all and live in a ancharchy, so basically no school, no science, no structure at all. " So it is either one extreme or the other?
1
There is nothing about the estate tax in the Constitution. The federal government only taxed imports, exports and the states.
1
Another counter argument against the estate tax is that when someone dies they want their company to be ran by someone they trust. In many cases that is their kids. When you tax that inheritance the company they get has to cut somewhere meaning less jobs. If you developed a company don't you want it to be ran by someone you trust after you are gone? And if that happens to be your kids why should they be taxed more?
1
" With regard to the "taxed twice" argument, how about you consider it as a tax on the inheritors, rather than the deceased?" In which I agree. I did say that I see the other side's argument in this. But with that why not call it income and tax it as income? " Capitalism works because people are paid to be useful. Inheritance does not follow this rule, " It does as many do give their inheritance to people and kids they like and, for the most part, feel are useful. Being "useful" is subjective in many ways. If I have a business and I feel my kid can run it well that is "useful" to me which is why I will give it to them. "(Anyway, wouldn't it be taxing twice to tax both income and consumption, as you advocate?)" No, as consumption is choice. You don't have to spend your money. Now that is not practical, but again, you don't have to. "When you tax a company's inheritance, you do not have to cut back on the company: you can either get a loan (which should be easy if the company's already established and profitable) or sell shares." Most companies don't have shares, and those shares if they do have them would be valued less due to the money they have to pay. Also, pulling out a loan is not always ideal. Companies work on thin profit margins to begin with. Asking them to pull out a loan can bankrupt them. "After all, the demand and supply which the company deals with has not changed, so it's not like the company's going to lose revenue." You added another expense, they will lose revenue. "On top of that, if your kids would be that much better at running the company (the only reason to "trust" them with it) than other shareholders," Again, not every company runs on shares. You are acting like Bernie Sanders and Kyle as if this only influences the mega rich and billionaires and corporations.
1
TheLokiToki, two things. 1. Wealth inequality is not bad. In reality that shows the strength of a country. We have massive wealth inequality because we have many people, like myself, who are in debt looking to build. People go in debt due to home loans and college loans. Is that bad? They are in a position where they can take steps back before going forward. In the US a man with no debt and only $10 in their name has more wealth than 25% of the nation. That is because of loans. 2. It is jealousy the way the left thinks. Ignore the rich and think about how your life is. Are you well off or not? The fact is that it is easy to be well off in the US and if you are poor it is because of your own doing. You may find a few examples of that not being the case, but as a whole the fact is people are poor because of their own doing, not because others are rich. The fact that Bill Gates has a lot of money does not make you or others poor.
1
supersean3, that "half of Americans making 30K or less" is deceptive. How many of them are teens working a part time job while living with parents? How many of them have spouses who earn more? How many are college students who are close to graduating and earning more? What is the cost of living where they live? I earn $23,000 a year an I am fine. I have my own place, my own car, and I am a couple years away from getting my doctorate. You can't just throw numbers out there, you have to put them in perspective.
1
TheLokiToki, 1. Money does not equal wealth. That is something you need to understand before you can discuss economics. I laid out why we have wealth inequality, when someone like me has college loan but still earns enough to live that means I have negative wealth. That adds to the wealth inequality. People have loans but that is not bad. It shows that us as a nation can allow people to regress to succeed. We can allow people to get into debt and still become successful. If you can't get a job after getting a degree that is your fault for pursuing a degree that is valued low. But again, understand that there is a difference between income and wealth. To give another example, you can put me in the 1% in wealth by simply giving me the Hope Diamond, now does that make me better off income wise? No. 2. I wrote a comment to supersean3 on that number. You have to put numbers in proper perspective. The high school kid that took my order at Wendys earns that little, are doing poorly? Doubt it as they most likely have parents they live with. To add, this point about tax evasion is not capitalism. You need to understand what capitalism is. This is the result of socialism as people with money will just move if you tax them in an unfair way.
1
TheLokiToki, 1. Wealth is assets and income, not just income. As I said, I can be in the 1% in wealth if you simply give my the Hope Diamond. But my income will still be very low. There are people with a lot of wealth because they own a lot of businesses that are valued very high. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. And as I said before many have negative wealth due to loans. " i'm not interested in the semantics of this conversation." This is crucial though. "Do you really think that people taking out loans is the major reason we have wealth inequality?" It is a major part of it. I have negative wealth. The Walton Family owns half of Walmart, that is massive wealth inequality. However, if you were to take a Walmart, as in one store and give it to some random person than that building and land will lose value as chances are high that person cannot maintain the store's value due to lack of business skills. That also contributes to wealth inequality. Another example is that if you were to give a home to two people where both homes are valued the same within a short amount of time both homes will be valued less. One person may take care of the home, invest in it, etc. The other might now allowing it to be worn. That also creates wealth inequality. Some people just don't know how to develop wealth. "though even factoring in the average students loans after college, which is like $38,000 " What is the overall student loan debt? " Redistribution is key there, you should understand it before you discuss economics." Says the guy that doesn't understand what wealth is. 2. I do see adults working at Wendy's. What is your point? They are alive. "Also as a fun fact the average age of a fast food worker is something like 29 or 30. " What is the average of these three numbers? 16, 21, 58. There are many old people who retire and decide to work fast food. That skews the average. But anyway, the fact they can work there and still live shows the success of this country. Go there and also look at how over weight some of them are. 3. While we are capitalist we still have many government regulations a the federal level creating problems. And they are growing. After WWII federal government spending was 14% of GDP, now it is 20%. Defense spending was 10% of GDP in 1960, now it is 3%. The government of cutting defense spending and increasing overall spending that left wants is happening. Programs that the federal government is highly involved in, housing (the FHA), college (student loans), and healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, payroll tax and around $1 trillion spent) have been increasing in price by a lot. As for avoiding taxes, there are deductions you can use. I use them all the time as I know tax laws. It just doesn't favor the rich. Also, the top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of federal income taxes. They pay more than you I promise you.
1
demonicwican666, I copied and pasted your comment. You did edit it.
1
They don't inherit $5 million in cash. They are given assets worth that much.
1
dalec305, it is a big difference. You are take revenue from establish businesses that produce wealth and jobs. If you were just taking straight money than fine, but you are going after property that is as valuable as it is as it produces wealth and jobs.
1
It is just pure jealousy by the left. That money was already taxed. To me it is a deep hatred for the rich that is so extreme that they are basically pissing on their graves after they die.
1
Mal, if you are so smart than how about you tell us how he is wrong.
1
If you are talking about wealth inequality that is not necessarily bad. A person with no debt and only $10 in their name has more wealth than 25% of the nation. That is because there are many people with negative wealth such as home loans and college loans. They are able to take a few steps back before going forward in life which is good. But that creates our wealth inequality. Also, something is only valuable if they develop it. If you are any other average person were given a business it will fail and become worthless. The building and land will be the same, it just won't be producing anything.
1
Anonymous Person, I did not say that person was not poor. My point is that wealth inequality is a bad approach to take. I have negative wealth but I have my own place and car. I am fine. That person with only $10 and no debt has more wealth than me and is worse off.
1
The point of the $10 was to show why we have wealth inequality. We have people who are well off who are in debt and have negative wealth. It is a good portion of the country as in 25% of them. When you have 1/4 of the country in that position and the Walton Family owns half of Walmart that is why we have massive wealth inequality. But again, that is not necessarily bad. I am calm, I just felt the need to explain myself more.
1
Accelerationist, what was wrong with what I said? I am pointing out where the wealth inequality comes from. If you are scared of certain facts and logic than you are going to have a hard time making it in life.
1
Kyle struggles with facts.
1
Jack Ban, what makes you think they did not earn the money? Even if they didn't they still have to invest it.
1
Dan, money that is saved by the "rich" are in banks or stocks which are used to invest and grow. Stocks are invested into the company and banks loan out money to people to buy homes and start businesses. It just doesn't sit there. Also, the circulation of money is not the main goal, production is. How do you increase production by just taxing and spending? You don't.
1
Dan, CEOs are not pocketing the money. And jobs were going to be lost overseas anyway. Learn a skill and get a better job.
1
It isn't money, it is businesses.
1
ScoopMeisterGeneral, a country argument is that they are passing on their business to their kids who know how to run it. It is with people they trust. This is where the whole "jobs creation" argument comes from. You tax that inheritance than that company needs to cut back somewhere. If you develop a company that is worth a lot do you not want someone you trust running it in the future? And if that person happens to be your kid than why should it be taxed?
1
It is, it is a tax on value that is already taxed.
1
"Also, the fact that money is taxed multiple times is not a reason to be against a tax." Yes it is as a complex tax code is the problem. That is why many people support a flat income tax and that's it.
1
Antonio Brown is around my age and was born with genetics that made him faster, stronger and a better athlete than me. That isn't fair as I had dreams of playing in the NFL as a kid. The government should force him to not be so athletic. Or maybe I should just understand that life isn't fair and I work with what I got.
1