Biden's taxes on unrealized gains

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I gave no appearance of what you said.  That is an idea made up whole cloth from your head, and you had no reason to jump to that conclusion.

AS for the rest, I have explained it twice, now, in my two proceeding posts.

And what I took away from that is that you value "society" more highly than your own family and friends.

In fairness there is a straight line connecting the two.

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Roads ARE your family’s well being. So is healthcare, so is education. Taxes are how those things get paid for.

But again, fine, being a part of society isn’t for you. Alas, it’s not really optional

All of those are lovely things, but I think I'll let me decedents decide for themselves what's in their well being.

Again, not really optional so lol okay sure

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I gave no appearance of what you said.  That is an idea made up whole cloth from your head, and you had no reason to jump to that conclusion.

AS for the rest, I have explained it twice, now, in my two proceeding posts.

And what I took away from that is that you value "society" more highly than your own family and friends.

No.  That comes not from what I have said, but from what you seem to believe.

Society, which I use because the other words do not encompass the totality of our living reality, which of course includes everything, everywhere, all the time, including what the government we have chosen, and all the social norms it allows, has a higher value in the lives of all of our children that any wealth most of us might leave to those children.  

The exceptions are the children of the few very wealthy people whose wealth is changing our society from one based on the rights for every person into one where the Lords with the money decide what you are allowed to do, which in every case where is has been tried has required a counter revolution to bring the rights back to the people as a whole.

edit - I believe there is a significant number of deluded people of less wealth than the lucky few who have somehow been taught to believe that possessions are more valuable than being able to live in a society in which people have as much freedom as possible, which btw is less than they imagine, or that, at least, they totally do not understand the rational outcomes of their beliefs will have on their children when the few very wealthy people passing their wealth on to their children. We are already far down that path with certain family fortunes in this country and we need to turn around, (or just swear allegiance to our new Lords, which many of us do when we accept employment in those Loads' businesses via employment contracts and NDA's /s).

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

You are correct.  There are a ton of ways to reduce the government take.  I'm being told by many on this board that they won't use them, or it's wrong to use them.  I'm gonna use every single one of them and then some.

As for my money, I've never claimed to be rich.  I'm just an average happy guy.  I'd fight to leave my kids $0.25 or $25M.  Amount doesn't matter.

This is why you are such a pill to deal with, you keep going beyond what people are saying on this board and assigning points of view that you want to argue against which they have not said to others.

Allowing the few lucky very wealthy people to pass on a majority of their hundreds of billions of dollars is creating a set of Lords who own and run the country.

A set of Lords who own and run the country is about as far from the goals of the founding generations as one can be.  It is an evil to be avoided.

Very high inheritance taxes on these very wealthy Lords is the solution.  Or we can continue down the path to a King, Loads & surfs.

Well I admit I get frustrated because everyone on this board prefers to attack me as opposed to be honest and answer my questions in a straight forward manner. Instead I get "You aren't rich, derp" and "We need roads!"

So you will or will not leave an inheritance for your heirs (assuming you are financially capable of doing so)?

You only want inheritance taxes on the very wealthy?  Define "very wealthy" please.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

This is why you are such a pill to deal with, you keep going beyond what people are saying on this board and assigning points of view that you want to argue against which they have not said to others.

Allowing the few lucky very wealthy people to pass on a majority of their hundreds of billions of dollars is creating a set of Lords who own and run the country.

A set of Lords who own and run the country is about as far from the goals of the founding generations as one can be.  It is an evil to be avoided.

Very high inheritance taxes on these very wealthy Lords is the solution.  Or we can continue down the path to a King, Loads & surfs.

Well I admit I get frustrated because everyone on this board prefers to attack me as opposed to be honest and answer my questions in a straight forward manner.  Instead I get "You aren't rich, derp" and "We need roads!"

So you will or will not leave an inheritance for your heirs (assuming you are financially capable of doing so)?

You only want inheritance taxes on the very wealthy?  Define "very wealthy" please.

My heirs will receive what society deems proper.  While it is of minor importance to me, I will do what I can to maximize it, which withing the rules of our society is all anyone can do.

Wealth equates to power.  One of the mistakes people make regarding markets in their beliefs in said markets is not understanding that the wealthy have the power to define the price, simply by having the power of the wealth.  People see wealth as only the value of the money, but it is much more than that in an unequal transaction.  It's funny in a way because those same people will say "the golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules", so wealth, in my definition is the power to "make the rules" in market transactions.

I have tried to explain the larger society issue with allowing great wealth to be passed on to family members.  

The optimum solution is to not allow great wealth to be held by individuals ever, which would mean extremely high taxes in order to control this evil, however, a solution which appears to be more palatable to some, is to tax at 100% the estates of the few highly wealthy people.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Well I admit I get frustrated because everyone on this board prefers to attack me as opposed to be honest and answer my questions in a straight forward manner.  Instead I get "You aren't rich, derp" and "We need roads!"

So you will or will not leave an inheritance for your heirs (assuming you are financially capable of doing so)?

You only want inheritance taxes on the very wealthy?  Define "very wealthy" please.

My heirs will receive what society deems proper.  While it is of minor importance to me, I will do what I can to maximize it, which withing the rules of our society is all anyone can do.

Wealth equates to power.  One of the mistakes people make regarding markets in their beliefs in said markets is not understanding that the wealthy have the power to define the price, simply by having the power of the wealth.  People see wealth as only the value of the money, but it is much more than that in an unequal transaction.  It's funny in a way because those same people will say "the golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules", so wealth, in my definition is the power to "make the rules" in market transactions.

I have tried to explain the larger society issue with allowing great wealth to be passed on to family members.  

The optimum solution is to not allow great wealth to be held by individuals ever, which would mean extremely high taxes in order to control this evil, however, a solution which appears to be more palatable to some, is to tax at 100% the estates of the few highly wealthy people.

So your heirs get taxed at 40% but the wealthy get taxed at 100%? That's pretty fucked even by your socialist standards.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Well I admit I get frustrated because everyone on this board prefers to attack me as opposed to be honest and answer my questions in a straight forward manner.  Instead I get "You aren't rich, derp" and "We need roads!"

So you will or will not leave an inheritance for your heirs (assuming you are financially capable of doing so)?

You only want inheritance taxes on the very wealthy?  Define "very wealthy" please.

My heirs will receive what society deems proper.  While it is of minor importance to me, I will do what I can to maximize it, which withing the rules of our society is all anyone can do.

Wealth equates to power.  One of the mistakes people make regarding markets in their beliefs in said markets is not understanding that the wealthy have the power to define the price, simply by having the power of the wealth.  People see wealth as only the value of the money, but it is much more than that in an unequal transaction.  It's funny in a way because those same people will say "the golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules", so wealth, in my definition is the power to "make the rules" in market transactions.

I have tried to explain the larger society issue with allowing great wealth to be passed on to family members.  

The optimum solution is to not allow great wealth to be held by individuals ever, which would mean extremely high taxes in order to control this evil, however, a solution which appears to be more palatable to some, is to tax at 100% the estates of the few highly wealthy people.

Also, thank you for admitting that you'll leave your heirs as much money as you can under law. That's basically my position, as well. So for all your high and mighty "greater good for society" talk, we are the same.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

My heirs will receive what society deems proper.  While it is of minor importance to me, I will do what I can to maximize it, which withing the rules of our society is all anyone can do.

Wealth equates to power.  One of the mistakes people make regarding markets in their beliefs in said markets is not understanding that the wealthy have the power to define the price, simply by having the power of the wealth.  People see wealth as only the value of the money, but it is much more than that in an unequal transaction.  It's funny in a way because those same people will say "the golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rules", so wealth, in my definition is the power to "make the rules" in market transactions.

I have tried to explain the larger society issue with allowing great wealth to be passed on to family members.  

The optimum solution is to not allow great wealth to be held by individuals ever, which would mean extremely high taxes in order to control this evil, however, a solution which appears to be more palatable to some, is to tax at 100% the estates of the few highly wealthy people.

Also, thank you for admitting that you'll leave your heirs as much money as you can under law. That's basically my position, as well. So for all your high and mighty "greater good for society" talk, we are the same.

Fair enough, either we have different values or we express them differently.

Why is it TravelinMan thinks its okay to toss insults leading with his chin then whines about getting verbally punched back.

Must be a "conservative" defense response.