Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
Dedfin
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The Narrator
Footballguy
This is, imo, a flaw in our system of government. But I can't think of any reasonable way to deal with it. If you give states and cities autonomy to negotiate then companies like Amazon can pick the location that is willing to give away the largest percentage of benefits they bring to a municipality.
Might be one of those flaws we just have to live with.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is a pretty wide spectrum. AOC and the Democratic socialists tend to want to regulate capitalism more than I do. Most conservatives tend to want to regulate capitalism less than I do. But almost all of us, save the pure libertarians, tend to want regulate capitalism at least some.
djmich
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I feel the same way. But I would also like to pass on a healthy, prosperous society to my children, along with a clean environment free of the threat of climate change.
Dickies
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
And you’re okay with your children succeeding solely because they received passed down wealth?
djmich
Footballguy
I'd rather my children succeed and the rest of the population and planet along with it just wither and die. Just trying to save you the trouble of defining my view.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don’t have children. That’s why I asked what my reward is for my merit based success.
djmich
Footballguy
Well no, I'd like my children to succeed by also being productive members of society.
Do you have children. Do you do everything in your power to help them. Do you hate yourself for allocating your assets to advantage your children when you could be contributing those to all of society?
Shula-holic
Footballguy
If I can make my daughters more successful as a result of what I can do for them, then I'm good with that. It doesn't mean I have to have wealth to be a good parent or for them to be successful or be good people. Starting them out with something doesn't guarantee their success. But even if it could, then I'm ok with that and would strive for that. My responsibility is to them first.
Dedfin
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
Well you get to define that. Spend it on hookers. Give it to your niece. Build a library. Donate it to the government. Is this a trick question.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I got married late, for a long time figured I'd not have kids. I'd say you have the most freedom of all. Live it up and enjoy.
Dedfin
Footballguy
Ok glad, we've scrubbed the idea of merit so quickly. I thought there was some opportunity to learn something here.
djmich
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Right, so my reward is more a thing that I get. Interesting. And then other people would have to get their own rewards for their own merit.
Dickies
Footballguy
I have kids. Of course I do what I can to help them. I work hard to provide them a quality lifestyle, and would like to pass down assets to them when I die.
You can want all of these things and want an estate tax.
Dickies
Footballguy
True, but starting them out with an amount above the current estate tax threshold all but guarantees success for generations.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Your primary interests may be to help your own kids. The government’s interest should be to help all kids.
djmich
Footballguy
Yes you can. In fact I never said I would not support an estate tax.
I simply said "My reward for succeeding based on merit is passing wealth to my children". I was then told that I should also want the environment to not be destroyed and for all people to be successful and that the whole line of thinking is just bull####. Whats funny is the immediate reaction from this board to that simple statement. I thought there was a dedicated echo chamber thread.
djmich
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
We already have an estate tax today. I'd guess most of us aren't going to be captured by it today if the exemption stays at $11.2 million, but we can dare to dream. I believe this is through 2025 and then in 2026 it drops back to around $5.5MM individually and $11.0MM for joint. If there is an argument for the expansion, it's going to come from lowering that exemption. I've not heard any politician recently discuss this or what they think it should be.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I would also like to say I don’t support the government taking the entirety of anyone’s estate in taxes.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yeah, I’m mostly concerned with the continual raising of the exempt level and lowering of the tax rate.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Primarily for moral reasons regarding determination of ownership of worldly possessions following death and social mobility. I think transfer taxes over a certain amount are perfectly reasonable but the ability to keep the poor poor is predicated on making sure they cannot amass generational possessions.
Dickies
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
I agree on the premise for why passing wealth should be allowed, although not sure "moral" is exactly the right description. So if it is moral to allow the right to determine ownership of worldly possessions following death, then any reduction via government intervention of what is passed is "less moral"?
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
No. Like most things there’s a balancing act involved. private property has moral bases, but that doesn’t make taxation by society less moral.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Last edited by a moderator:
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I believe both he and Elizabeth Warren would run into a constitutional issue with a wealth tax.
djmich
Footballguy
This is where maybe the word "moral" doesn't fit, as I said earlier.
It sounds like you agree one should have a right to keep and pass to future generation(s) what they earned. Assume you would basically agree that they should have a right to keep what they earn for themselves today too.
I would say that any restriction on that is sub-optimal, or sub-moral. To your point, we have to have sub-optimal to fund government, which helps all including the person who's wealth is being taken.
To me tax policy should be aimed at making that equation as least "sub-optimal" as possible. With optimal being the right of the individual to keep as much as they earn or possess.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't think Cortez caused Amazon to leave, there were some pretty enterprising NY state senators, one especially apparently that did, but I do think it funny that Joe Crowley, who was old school precinct-to-ward Democratic pol who was known for bringing home the funding and jobs to his district was replaced by someone who apparently took the position of driving them away. Congratulations?
I get the point in principle. It's the same discussion that goes on with sports teams and lots of states in the South and I guess elsewhere who offer benefits to franchises or businesses to locate. You're totally free to like or not like that and to be frank I'm not sure if it's conservative or socialist to view it one way or the other. Sometimes the difference solely seems to be how the money flows, with conservatives saying they will skim obligations off the top and socialists saying they will infuse money from the top down. Either way you're giving incentives or lending aid. Alternatively conservatives could object that the state has no role and socialists could say that the state shouldn't be supporting private capital. Totally up to you how you call that shot.
I saw Rahm Emanuel for a snip on Maher late last night and he made a pretty fervent pitch for Amazon to come to Chicago. In the end, there will be suitors.
I get the point in principle. It's the same discussion that goes on with sports teams and lots of states in the South and I guess elsewhere who offer benefits to franchises or businesses to locate. You're totally free to like or not like that and to be frank I'm not sure if it's conservative or socialist to view it one way or the other. Sometimes the difference solely seems to be how the money flows, with conservatives saying they will skim obligations off the top and socialists saying they will infuse money from the top down. Either way you're giving incentives or lending aid. Alternatively conservatives could object that the state has no role and socialists could say that the state shouldn't be supporting private capital. Totally up to you how you call that shot.
I saw Rahm Emanuel for a snip on Maher late last night and he made a pretty fervent pitch for Amazon to come to Chicago. In the end, there will be suitors.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Narrator
Footballguy
A federal law restricting the ability of states to determine what to do with their tax revenue seems to strike at the heart of the "united states" doesn't it?
Shula-holic
Footballguy
The article discussed lowering the exemption and raising the estate tax rates. It also mentioned he backed a wealth tax to pay for a Medicare for All.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
Lets use moral. You believe for moral reasons that a person should be able to determine ownership of worldly possessions following death. If the government takes 100% for "just" reasons, as determined by government, is that optimal?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
The government can be federal or state tax authorities. I don't think its even worthwhile to identify what just reasons are and that rabbit-hole is part of the core problem. There will forever be a debate as to what is just or needed and the way our government works today the people we elect will determine that. There are many opportunities for moral sub-optimal in that environment.
I think off of this hierarchy I can explain most of how I think on this topic. The more you compromise the top items the less optimal.
I believe in the right of the individual to do what they want and keep what they earn.
I believe government needs to exist and it needs to be funded. Because of my hierarchy and the fact the government exists only by taking from individuals I believe it should be funded to provide a minimal support structure. Minimal, similar to "just", is up for definition but my first priority is the right of the individual.
I believe people who earn/retain more will need to disproportionately fund the minimal governmental support structure.
Protect the individual is my guiding principle. Based on this hierarchy my standard will likely skew to a more limited definition of government and larger focus on lower taxes on individuals than most members on this forum. Thats ok, I completely understand the reasoning others think differently and they are goals to be admired, I just don't think its optimal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
