Barrack Jimma Carter Obama

[Cancel7]

See this is why it doesn’t pay to talk to republicans. They’re stupid, tunnel-visioned, and only read what they want you to have said.

Early on I posted their real profits, not Chap’s made up BS “average” ones, and said that there was obviously some price-gouging going on and that the threat of a windfall tax might make a nice bargaining chip. What happened? The robots kept posting the same thing they posted in their first posts.

Same thing happening on the estate thread;

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes that is why the minimum amount of the estate was going to be raised. Democrats wanted to raise it. Republicans took that off the table.

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes, I know that, but the founders wanted to avoid an obligarchy and that is the intent of the estate tax and that is why Democrats were going to raise the minimum.

Robot: But if affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: You know what? That’s a good point.

 

[cawacko]

See this is why it doesn’t pay to talk to republicans. They’re stupid, tunnel-visioned, and only read what they want you to have said.

Early on I posted their real profits, not Chap’s made up BS “average” ones, and said that there was obviously some price-gouging going on and that the threat of a windfall tax might make a nice bargaining chip. What happened? The robots kept posting the same thing they posted in their first posts.

Same thing happening on the estate thread;

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes that is why the minimum amount of the estate was going to be raised. Democrats wanted to raise it. Republicans took that off the table.

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes, I know that, but the founders wanted to avoid an obligarchy and that is the intent of the estate tax and that is why Democrats were going to raise the minimum.

Robot: But if affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: You know what? That’s a good point.

If there is gouging why doesn't Congress or the DOJ charge them with something? It's the same dog and pony show over and over.

Ok so Democrats wanted to raise the amount of the inheritance tax and Republicans wanted to eliminate it. Ok.

Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's - we have a nice little oligarchy already

 

[Annie]

Two threads on this now? Ok, a bit of history on estate tax in US:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm

 

[Damocles]

See this is why it doesn’t pay to talk to republicans. They’re stupid, tunnel-visioned, and only read what they want you to have said.

Early on I posted their real profits, not Chap’s made up BS “average” ones, and said that there was obviously some price-gouging going on and that the threat of a windfall tax might make a nice bargaining chip. What happened? The robots kept posting the same thing they posted in their first posts.

Same thing happening on the estate thread;

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes that is why the minimum amount of the estate was going to be raised. Democrats wanted to raise it. Republicans took that off the table.

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes, I know that, but the founders wanted to avoid an obligarchy and that is the intent of the estate tax and that is why Democrats were going to raise the minimum.

Robot: But if affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: You know what? That’s a good point.

Them: Well, we can fix that.

You: I know that there are more effected than just the Waltons and Hiltons, but the founders wanted to avoid Oligarchy...

 

[Bonestorm]

Them: Well, we can fix that.

You: I know that there are more effected than just the Waltons and Hiltons, but the founders wanted to avoid Oligarchy...

Actually, we'd need to get at least 60 senators and a Democratic president to change that since the Republicans won't discuss fixing it. It's all or nothing.

Either you play the game their way or they'll take their ball and go home.

 

[Damocles]

Actually, we'd need to get at least 60 senators and a Democratic president to change that since the Republicans won't discuss fixing it. It's all or nothing.

Either you play the game their way or they'll take their ball and go home.

Again, one of the main reasons I hate partisan politics. It tends to make all this posturing important. They need that "base" and "all or nothing" seems to be the only way to go about it, either side. I haven't heard any lefties talking about fixing that problem, it seems to be an all or nothing for them too.

 

[Annie]

Again, one of the main reasons I hate partisan politics. It tends to make all this posturing important. They need that "base" and "all or nothing" seems to be the only way to go about it, either side. I haven't heard any lefties talking about fixing that problem, it seems to be an all or nothing for them too.

Exactly. I think what the Republicans did from 2001-2006 was wrong. Now it's all about blocking. But we have the 'revenge to come' which so many have clamored for. It's the 'people' that get hurt. Like it took too many on the right time to get it, so it will be on the left. Then we'll start over again.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, one of the main reasons I hate partisan politics. It tends to make all this posturing important. They need that "base" and "all or nothing" seems to be the only way to go about it, either side. I haven't heard any lefties talking about fixing that problem, it seems to be an all or nothing for them too.

Yeah, I haven't heard anyone talking about it either except for the Democrats in Congress.

The estate tax issue is totally bunk. At current levels roughly one half one one percent of estates actually have any tax liability. Why so many people without a vested interest in the matter carry water for the richest of the rich is beyond me.

 

[Cancel7]

Again, one of the main reasons I hate partisan politics. It tends to make all this posturing important. They need that "base" and "all or nothing" seems to be the only way to go about it, either side. I haven't heard any lefties talking about fixing that problem, it seems to be an all or nothing for them too.

What the fuck you are you talking about? Onceler and I were talking about it a lot right on this thread. Democrats in Congress talked about it a lot until the republicans said, shut up this is how it’s going to be, it’s eliminated. Your desperation to trick people with your faux equivalence “THEY DO IT TOO” when it’s not even true, makes you look like a real hack.

 

[Damocles]

Exactly. I think what the Republicans did from 2001-2006 was wrong. Now it's all about blocking. But we have the 'revenge to come' which so many have clamored for. It's the 'people' that get hurt. Like it took too many on the right time to get it, so it will be on the left. Then we'll start over again.

FTW.

 

[Damocles]

What the fuck you are you talking about? Onceler and I were talking about it a lot right on this thread. Democrats in Congress talked about it a lot until the republicans said, shut up this is how it’s going to be, it’s eliminated. Your desperation to trick people with your faux equivalence “THEY DO IT TOO” when it’s not even true, makes you look like a real hack.

They do it too is a form of confession. And again, two of us did it in this thread didn't change what I said one iota. I haven't heard lefties talking about fixing that. The argument of the time was how "nobody lost a farm"...

We can remember, even if you don't want us to. The fix was never proposed because stories like this one:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E0D8103EF93BA35757C0A9679C8B63

Told us all how "unnecessary" it was.

 

[Cancel7]

It was proposed by Democrats in Congress, the Republicans shut them down. Were you in a coma at the time?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

See this is why it doesn’t pay to talk to republicans. They’re stupid, tunnel-visioned, and only read what they want you to have said.

Early on I posted their real profits, not Chap’s made up BS “average” ones, and said that there was obviously some price-gouging going on and that the threat of a windfall tax might make a nice bargaining chip. What happened? The robots kept posting the same thing they posted in their first posts.

Same thing happening on the estate thread;

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes that is why the minimum amount of the estate was going to be raised. Democrats wanted to raise it. Republicans took that off the table.

Robot: But it affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: Yes, I know that, but the founders wanted to avoid an obligarchy and that is the intent of the estate tax and that is why Democrats were going to raise the minimum.

Robot: But if affects more than just the Hiltons and the Waltons.

Me: You know what? That’s a good point.

LMAO... no, you posted their profits in terms of dollars. Chap and I posted their profit MARGINS. Profit margins allow you to compare companies of different sizes. If you have a 100 billion dollar company that make 9 billion in profits and a 100 million dollar company that makes 10 million in profits... which is the more profitable?

Hint: It it not the one that made 9 billion as they made you 9% on your money whereas the smaller company made you 10%.

 

[Bonestorm]

They do it too is a form of confession. And again, two of us did it in this thread didn't change what I said one iota. I haven't heard lefties talking about fixing that. The argument of the time was how "nobody lost a farm"...

We can remember, even if you don't want us to. The fix was never proposed because stories like this one:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E0D8103EF93BA35757C0A9679C8B63

Told us all how "unnecessary" it was.

Except that is a story from April of 2001. The estate tax law was amended in June of 2001 in the form of a compromise which increased the amount of estates subject to the estate tax up to $3.5 million next year from $695,000 in 2001.

 

[cawacko]

LMAO... no, you posted their profits in terms of dollars. Chap and I posted their profit MARGINS. Profit margins allow you to compare companies of different sizes. If you have a 100 billion dollar company that make 9 billion in profits and a 100 million dollar company that makes 10 million in profits... which is the more profitable?

Hint: It it not the one that made 9 billion as they made you 9% on your money whereas the smaller company made you 10%.

Go easy on our handicap friend SF.

 

[Chapdog]

if the death-tax defaults back its on the dems to blame completely.

 

[Damocles]

Except that is a story from April of 2001. The estate tax law was amended in June of 2001 in the form of a compromise which increased the amount of estates subject to the estate tax up to $3.5 million next year from $695,000 in 2001.

Again. I said "like" this. And that "compromise" is an expiration date which sets it right back to where it was and it is the proposed tax plan of the left to let those things expire and I've heard no argument for "fixing" that problem from them and they have used stories "like" the one that I posted to show how it is "unnecessary" regardless of the fact that anecdotal garbage of that story doesn't change that it does sometimes hurt people it shouldn't.

Your blinders keep you from noticing the "all or nothing" approach from your side. I'm glad I can admit when my side is being unreasonable.

 

[Bonestorm]

if the death-tax defaults back its on the dems to blame completely.

This is another of my favorite arguments: If the bill the Republicans passed and President Bush signed does what they designed it to do I'm blaming the Democrats!

Please. Piss off with this bullshit.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again. I said "like" this. And that "compromise" is an expiration date which sets it right back to where it was and it is the proposed tax plan of the left to let those things expire and I've heard no argument for "fixing" that problem from them and they have used stories "like" the one that I posted to show how it is "unnecessary" regardless of the fact that anecdotal garbage of that story doesn't change that it does sometimes hurt people it shouldn't.

Your blinders keep you from noticing the "all or nothing" approach from your side. I'm glad I can admit when my side is being unreasonable.

I suppose we're pretending that June of 2006 never happened?

"My side" was perfectly willing to keep the cap increases where as your side insisted on full repeal or, if not full repeal, a backdoor effective full repeal.

 

[Chapdog]

LMAO... no, you posted their profits in terms of dollars. Chap and I posted their profit MARGINS. Profit margins allow you to compare companies of different sizes. If you have a 100 billion dollar company that make 9 billion in profits and a 100 million dollar company that makes 10 million in profits... which is the more profitable?

Hint: It it not the one that made 9 billion as they made you 9% on your money whereas the smaller company made you 10%.

This is a typical problem some people have talking about taxes and profits. they mix up percent and dollars. like Suzie Q the secretary pays 20% taxes and Joe CEO only pays 15% taxes. They don't realize that Suzie is paying 7K a year and Joe is paying 150K a year in taxes.

As i tried to explain earlier from a profitability standpoint 10% is not all that impressive for a large company with a huge shareholder base. Yes the economies of scale are there to make it a enormous $$ amount but fact is the company in this free market has a responsibility to the shareholders and will not absorb a hit on profitability. Best case scenario they take some of the hit and then pass on to the rest. End result would be of little benefit and more likely very negative.