Hillary won more votes for President

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Godfather. said:

sooooo if you work real hard and create a land empire(paying taxes along the way) and it moves from generation to generation(taxes being paid along the way) then generation X decides to sell for $500+ million and the government gets 65%......our government needs to be reclaimed by the people in a big way don't ya think ?

Godfather.

Yeah, I would say that's equally fucked up. 65% estate tax would destroy the operations of an estate worth $500 mil. and would potentially put a lot of people tied to it out of business.

But that's a corporation, not a family farm. I guarantee anything with employees and worth over a half million is going to be incorporated. And that means shares, even if private, which would not be subject to this tax. As I pointed out, the Brookings Institute (this is a centrist think tank) could not find one farm that would qualify for the tax.

Then why is it even being proposed if there would be no one effected? Smoke and mirrors for her constituents? Why direct it specifically at farms, why not hold all other corporations/estates, including hers and all the celebrities that make that in 2 months, to the same standard?

It is not a tax plan aimed at farms. It's a tax plan for the super wealthy. Trump took a tax plan and applied to farms because he was in Iowa or wherever he was. It's a tax plan aimed at the super wealthy. And again, your friend completely misinterpreted it at even another level. The 65% tax rate applies to the portion that EXCEEDS $1 billion, not the entire amount. Anything under a billion is taxed at the existing rate. It's just like any other marginal rate. Here's a summary from US News which is not exactly liberal.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-28/hillary-clintons-estate-tax-proposal-is-entirely-reasonable

No offense directed at PJPower here...

Doesn't it get old explaining to people (libertarians particularly) how marginal tax rates work? Man, I get tired of it for sure.
Libertarians tend to think of themselves as more informed than anyone else, and the only people who understand economics, and then they come at you raving about "why should I own a business at all if Bernie is going to take 90% of what I make, no business can survive that!!" and I have to patiently explain how taxes work lol
It's frustrating.

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Godfather. said:

sooooo if you work real hard and create a land empire(paying taxes along the way) and it moves from generation to generation(taxes being paid along the way) then generation X decides to sell for $500+ million and the government gets 65%......our government needs to be reclaimed by the people in a big way don't ya think ?

Godfather.

Yeah, I would say that's equally fucked up. 65% estate tax would destroy the operations of an estate worth $500 mil. and would potentially put a lot of people tied to it out of business.

But that's a corporation, not a family farm. I guarantee anything with employees and worth over a half million is going to be incorporated. And that means shares, even if private, which would not be subject to this tax. As I pointed out, the Brookings Institute (this is a centrist think tank) could not find one farm that would qualify for the tax.

Then why is it even being proposed if there would be no one effected? Smoke and mirrors for her constituents? Why direct it specifically at farms, why not hold all other corporations/estates, including hers and all the celebrities that make that in 2 months, to the same standard?

It is not a tax plan aimed at farms. It's a tax plan for the super wealthy. Trump took a tax plan and applied to farms because he was in Iowa or wherever he was. It's a tax plan aimed at the super wealthy. And again, your friend completely misinterpreted it at even another level. The 65% tax rate applies to the portion that EXCEEDS $1 billion, not the entire amount. Anything under a billion is taxed at the existing rate. It's just like any other marginal rate. Here's a summary from US News which is not exactly liberal.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-28/hillary-clintons-estate-tax-proposal-is-entirely-reasonable

No offense directed at PJPower here...

Doesn't it get old explaining to people (libertarians particularly) how marginal tax rates work? Man, I get tired of it for sure.
Libertarians tend to think of themselves as more informed than anyone else, and the only people who understand economics, and then they come at you raving about "why should I own a business at all if Bernie is going to take 90% of what I make, no business can survive that!!" and I have to patiently explain how taxes work lol
It's frustrating.

No offense taken, there's a reason I am not an accountant and I will be the first to admit it, lol. I rely on my accountant to decipher tax code. I just brought it up so I would personally gain a better understanding of what is/is not trying to be passed, as any voter should.

Then it's a useful question and I'm glad you asked it. If this was a reason for you to vote for Trump, then I hope you can reconsider.

Trump is so full of horseshit. God.

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Godfather. said:

sooooo if you work real hard and create a land empire(paying taxes along the way) and it moves from generation to generation(taxes being paid along the way) then generation X decides to sell for $500+ million and the government gets 65%......our government needs to be reclaimed by the people in a big way don't ya think ?

Godfather.

Yeah, I would say that's equally fucked up. 65% estate tax would destroy the operations of an estate worth $500 mil. and would potentially put a lot of people tied to it out of business.

But that's a corporation, not a family farm. I guarantee anything with employees and worth over a half million is going to be incorporated. And that means shares, even if private, which would not be subject to this tax. As I pointed out, the Brookings Institute (this is a centrist think tank) could not find one farm that would qualify for the tax.

Then why is it even being proposed if there would be no one effected? Smoke and mirrors for her constituents? Why direct it specifically at farms, why not hold all other corporations/estates, including hers and all the celebrities that make that in 2 months, to the same standard?

It is not a tax plan aimed at farms. It's a tax plan for the super wealthy. Trump took a tax plan and applied to farms because he was in Iowa or wherever he was. It's a tax plan aimed at the super wealthy. And again, your friend completely misinterpreted it at even another level. The 65% tax rate applies to the portion that EXCEEDS $1 billion, not the entire amount. Anything under a billion is taxed at the existing rate. It's just like any other marginal rate. Here's a summary from US News which is not exactly liberal.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-28/hillary-clintons-estate-tax-proposal-is-entirely-reasonable

No offense directed at PJPower here...

Doesn't it get old explaining to people (libertarians particularly) how marginal tax rates work? Man, I get tired of it for sure.
Libertarians tend to think of themselves as more informed than anyone else, and the only people who understand economics, and then they come at you raving about "why should I own a business at all if Bernie is going to take 90% of what I make, no business can survive that!!" and I have to patiently explain how taxes work lol
It's frustrating.

No offense taken, there's a reason I am not an accountant and I will be the first to admit it, lol. I rely on my accountant to decipher tax code. I just brought it up so I would personally gain a better understanding of what is/is not trying to be passed, as any voter should.

Then it's a useful question and I'm glad you asked it. If this was a reason for you to vote for Trump, then I hope you can reconsider.

I still do not like either candidate, I think they both have shitty foreign policy/relationships and are both poor representations to a nation with a great pool of really intelligent people. The whole process has turned into a sporting event. Some of the issues that directly effect me would be gun control, abortion, insurance, social issues (I am a sociologist), and safety for my family. If someone asked me if I trusted putting my life in the hands of either candidate...I would shrill. That being said, I have a lot of military and police family/friends that I am truly frightened for in that their lives are pretty much in the hands of politicians that seem to lack any moral standards when it comes to the lives of every day American citizens or people if the world in general.
I like to keep my voting choices somewhat ambiguous as many people from both sides tend to draw major assumptions and conclusions about people based on that (as can be seen time after time on AMT) and I am sure I have been guilty several times as well...
I have a hard time, though, with anyone that says either of these candidates will be a good leader compared to some of the great leaders that I know personally and those that sit on the sidelines. Personally, I am libertarian-minded in that I put way more faith in my neighbors and people in general than I do in these faux "leaders". Anyone that knows me knows that I am a survivalist, debt free, and cautious with my trust...I think that often highly contributes to who I vote for in the grand scheme of things. Just like how someone that has never left the confided of a city has certain perceptions that guide how they vote. This tax issue specifically sounds like more of the same smoke and mirrors and probably won't make any difference in who I vote for, I just wanted a better grasp of what was going on.

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The misinformation caused by social media is fucking dangerous as hell.

Yeah it is, and when you reacted strongly to the initial post from PJ POWER, I immediately assumed that frustration or anger was about that. These kinds of lies are constantly being disseminated on social media, and MILLIONS of people gobble it up as fact, and start disseminating the false information as fact themselves. It's like wild fire. In front of their children, no less, who then start building their own world views on half-truths and complete bullshit. It is SCARY, and I think one of the bigger threats to society today, TBH.

I fully agree, but would like to also point out that this trend is not specific to one political party. The memes going back and forth is what drives my crazy these days and is a sure way to get unfollowed if not unfriended on social media.

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The misinformation caused by social media is fucking dangerous as hell.

Yeah it is, and when you reacted strongly to the initial post from PJ POWER, I immediately assumed that frustration or anger was about that. These kinds of lies are constantly being disseminated on social media, and MILLIONS of people gobble it up as fact, and start disseminating the false information as fact themselves. It's like wild fire. In front of their children, no less, who then start building their own world views on half-truths and complete bullshit. It is SCARY, and I think one of the bigger threats to society today, TBH.

I fully agree, but would like to also point out that this trend is not specific to one political party. The memes going back and forth is what drives my crazy these days and is a sure way to get unfollowed if not unfriended on social media.

No it's not, but one party is definitely a LOT guiltier than the other, and I'm sure you can guess which one I mean, lol. But I'm not really talking parties only. Just fucking trolls on the Internet with an agenda are the worst perpetrators. People are largely allowing massive delusional losers who think they're clever make up their facts for them. And, of course, there is the media... and yeah, it is largely the right wing wacko branch of the media pulling this shit. Like those online polls about Trump winning the debate for instance, and then right wing media very loudly making it seem like they mean something other than how fucking screwed up and manipulative the campaign and online polls are. That was a culmination of the Trump campaign, idiotic Trump supporters, and mainstream right wing media.

Gern Blansten said:

I saw a post by a right wing "friend" of mine on facebook yesterday where he was complaining about how lopsided the debate questions were against Trump.

Most replies agreed but one guy said something like "He cooked his own goose...he just can't control himself from saying stupid things" and that led to a tirade from someone else about Benghazi, i.e. why wasn't Benghazi brought up...Hillary should have to answer for that, etc.

Hasn't she answered for that already? People are so ignorant I just can't take it.

Yeah, it's maddening. Like head-exploding levels of frustration.

It's pretty telling when people are drilling holes in their new iPhones for headphone jacks based on a video they saw on social media, lol

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

It's pretty telling when people are drilling holes in their new iPhones for headphone jacks based on a video they saw on social media, lol

Oh man, lol. When I saw that story I actually looked it up on Snopes to see if it was true that people were really falling for it. I thought maybe the claim that anyone was actually doing it was fake ..... and found that Snopes only bothered to confirm that getting a headphone jack by drilling a hole in your iPhone was false. SMH.
(Stupidest thing Apple ever did btw)

Apple has done very few smart things since Jobs died.

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The misinformation caused by social media is fucking dangerous as hell.

Yeah it is, and when you reacted strongly to the initial post from PJ POWER, I immediately assumed that frustration or anger was about that. These kinds of lies are constantly being disseminated on social media, and MILLIONS of people gobble it up as fact, and start disseminating the false information as fact themselves. It's like wild fire. In front of their children, no less, who then start building their own world views on half-truths and complete bullshit. It is SCARY, and I think one of the bigger threats to society today, TBH.

I fully agree, but would like to also point out that this trend is not specific to one political party. The memes going back and forth is what drives my crazy these days and is a sure way to get unfollowed if not unfriended on social media.

No it's not, but one party is definitely a LOT guiltier than the other, and I'm sure you can guess which one I mean, lol. But I'm not really talking parties only. Just fucking trolls on the Internet with an agenda are the worst perpetrators. People are largely allowing massive delusional losers who think they're clever make up their facts for them. And, of course, there is the media... and yeah, it is largely the right wing wacko branch of the media pulling this shit. Like those online polls about Trump winning the debate for instance, and then right wing media very loudly making it seem like they mean something other than how fucking screwed up and manipulative the campaign and online polls are. That was a culmination of the Trump campaign, idiotic Trump supporters, and mainstream right wing media.

Yeah, I'm not sure it is so one sided. I've seen some pretty jacked up shit coming from both. It probably depends on one's own political leaning as to how innocent one or the other side acts on social media. Look at the primary Bernie vs Hillary timeframe for PLENTY examples. I witness plenty of nazi fearmonging from the Hillary supported media towards Bernie and still see Bernie media supporters using the same talking points and memes as Trump supporters...whether they are accurate or not. Too large of a social media platform for shit not to be flung from all directions...
On a side note, Yay for freedom of speech!!!