2016 Presidential Horse Race

[RDU Irish]

Yes, principle aside, that comment is asinine and tone deaf from a purely political perspective.


*Shrug.* It's the only tax that seems killable. Even if it's the least problematic tax, I still consider the elimination of any tax a net positive thing.

Stepped up capital gains basis is a boon for the sub $11 million estates. I like that it cleans up accounting but hate the moral hazard created from old folks "stuck" with appreciated securities and incentivized to maintain concentrated positions in equity to get that stepped up basis.

Getting rid of Estate tax would complicate the estates of 99.5% of Americans who would now have to work without stepped up cost basis.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

*Shrug.* It's the only tax that seems killable. Even if it's the least problematic tax, I still consider the elimination of any tax a net positive thing.

That's an extreme and tin-eared stance which, unfortunately, is shared by those who still control the GOP (or what's left of it). There's simply no constituency for a party that relentlessly focuses on the policy priorities of the super rich to the exclusion of most else.

 

[wizards8507]

Stepped up capital gains basis is a boon for the sub $11 million estates. I like that it cleans up accounting but hate the moral hazard created from old folks "stuck" with appreciated securities and incentivized to maintain concentrated positions in equity to get that stepped up basis.

It's a boon but it's also completely illegitimate. As long as we're operating under the assumption that there should be capital gains taxes in the first place, we shouldn't give folks a free step-up just because grandpa kicked the bucket. Also, it screws people who inherit when the market is down because basis doesn't just step up, it also steps down.

Getting rid of Estate tax would complicate the estates of 99.5% of Americans who would now have to work without stepped up cost basis.

How do you figure? With no step-up, you have one calculation. Sale price - Original owner's cost = Net gain (loss). With the step-up, you have to revalue everything to FMV DOD, which is a major PITA for non-liquid assets. Common stock is easier, but it's still an additional step.

 

[wizards8507]

That's an extreme and tin-eared stance which, unfortunately, is shared by those who still control the GOP (or what's left of it). There's simply no constituency for a party that relentlessly focuses on the policy priorities of the super rich to the exclusion of most else.

How would the elimination of the estate tax be detrimental to anybody? If you're poor, it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever. Isn't a policy that's good for the rich and neutral to everyone else still net good?

Of course not, because your populism is an ideology of envy. We must screw the rich so the poor don't feel so bad about themselves. After all, we wouldn't want them motivated to actually bring themselves out of poverty, now would we?

Also, for the record, $5M isn't that much money when we're talking about end-of-life holdings. I make well under six figures and I should have at least $7M when I retire if the market cooperates. Yes, I earn an above-average salary, but I'm neither "super rich" nor "rich."

 

[Domina Nostra]

That's an extreme and tin-eared stance which, unfortunately, is shared by those who still control the GOP (or what's left of it). There's simply no constituency for a party that relentlessly focuses on the policy priorities of the super rich to the exclusion of most else.

It's a little more complicated than that, since so many of the super-rich are democrats. I guess we just assume they are all working against their self-interest, but I tend to doubt it.

I also don't like the idea of an estate tax because (1) I think family is more primary than the state, (2) all that money has already been taxed (at least theoretically--if it hasn't, that's another issue), and (3) I think government spending is so wasteful. It seems like a policy of envy.

But I do agree its crazy to be proposing anything like that right now. And I do think we have to balance budgets, so don't talk to me about tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, unless you are talking about massive spending cuts to match. I understand that tax cuts can actually lead to larger tax collections (that theory seems very straightforward to me--if I pay less in taxes and can buy a better lawn mower, I may end up mowing more lawns and generating a higher income), but I am focused on the national debt, not just a yearly deficit. I think we need to be paying down some principal.

Our kids benefited from socialization quite a bit in daycare. When they hit school they have been well ahead of virtually all of the stay at homers socially and academically out of the gate.

I think there are far too many variables and ambiguous terms for this statement to be verifiable in any meaningful sense. I understand what people mean when they say it, but I think its a throw-away.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How would the elimination of the estate tax be detrimental to anybody? If you're poor, it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever. Isn't a policy that's good for the rich and neutral to everyone else still net good?

Because we've been running historically large budget deficits for the last 20 years? Someone's going to have to pay the piper sooner or later, and I'd rather not saddle my descendants with crippling levels of public debt. Any tax cut that isn't at least revenue neutral is a big f*ck you to future generations.

Of course not, because your populism is an ideology of envy. We must screw the rich so the poor don't feel so bad about themselves. After all, we wouldn't want them motivated to actually bring themselves out of poverty, now would we?

Read the f*cking bible, dude. I must have missed the bit about "Blessed are the Makers™, for they are the drivers of GNP. But woe to the Poor, for they hold back the Great Men." Jesus totally would have loved Ayn Rand, amirite?

Also, for the record, $5M isn't that much money when we're talking about end-of-life holdings. I make well under six figures and I should have at least $7M when I retire if the market cooperates. Yes, I earn an above-average salary, but I'm neither "super rich" nor "rich."

Your concept of what constitutes "wealthy" is wildly skewed. We live in the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and our estate tax still only hits 0.2% of estates. If you're on track to have that sort of "problem", then you're wealthy, regardless of whether you consider yourself so.

Did you miss the parable of the rich fool at mass two weeks ago?

Then he told them a parable. “There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.

He asked himself, ‘What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?’

And he said, ‘This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods

and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’

But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’

Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God.”

It's a little more complicated than that, since so many of the super-rich are democrats. I guess we just assume they are all working against their self-interest, but I tend to doubt it.

I often argue here that there's little meaningful difference between our two major parties. F*ck liberalism.

I also don't like the idea of an estate tax because (1) I think family is more primary than the state, (2) all that money has already been taxed (at least theoretically--if it hasn't, that's another issue), and (3) I think government spending is so wasteful. It seems like a policy of envy.

Assuming you agree that: (1) taxes are a necessary evil; (2) regressive taxes are bad; and (3) taxes that cause market distortions are also bad, then there's simply no argument against the estate tax. It's the least regressive and distorting tax available to us. I'm obviously not arguing that the estate tax is per se a good thing, but unless you've designed a compelling new way to run a nation state without compulsory taxation, these sorts of criticisms are completely besides the point.

 

[ACamp1900]

Read the f*cking bible, dude.

lol

 

[pkt77242]

Because we've been running historically large budget deficits for the last 20 years? Someone's going to have to pay the piper sooner or later, and I'd rather not saddle my descendants with crippling levels of public debt. Any tax cut that isn't at least revenue neutral is a big f*ck you to future generations.


Read the f*cking bible, dude. I must have missed the bit about "Blessed are the Makers™, for they are the drivers of GNP. But woe to the Poor, for they hold back the Great Men." Jesus totally would have loved Ayn Rand, amirite?


Your concept of what constitutes "wealthy" is wildly skewed. We live in the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and our estate tax still only hits 0.2% of estates. If you're on track to have that sort of "problem", then you're wealthy, regardless of whether you consider yourself so.

Did you miss the parable of the rich fool at mass two weeks ago?



I often argue here that there's little meaningful difference between our two major parties. F*ck liberalism.


Assuming you agree that: (1) taxes are a necessary evil; (2) regressive taxes are bad; and (3) taxes that cause market distortions are also bad, then there's simply no argument against the estate tax. It's the least regressive and distorting tax available to us. I'm obviously not arguing that the estate tax is per se a good thing, but unless you've designed a compelling new way to run a nation state without compulsory taxation, these sorts of criticisms are completely besides the point.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Relevant to this discussion:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Central inequality debate, for me, is less a left-right contrast, more about beliefs about how societies work, e.g.:</p>— Reihan Salam (@reihan) <a href="https://twitter.com/reihan/status/763053512058085376">August 9, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

Because we've been running historically large budget deficits for the last 20 years? Someone's going to have to pay the piper sooner or later, and I'd rather not saddle my descendants with crippling levels of public debt. Any tax cut that isn't at least revenue neutral is a big f*ck you to future generations.

And taxes are a big f*ck you to the current generation. How about we cut spending and not f*ck anybody? Federal revenue is what, $3 trillion? You should be able to keep your people free and prosperous on a lot less than $3 trillion.

Read the f*cking bible, dude. I must have missed the bit about "Blessed are the Makers™, for they are the drivers of GNP. But woe to the Poor, for they hold back the Great Men." Jesus totally would have loved Ayn Rand, amirite?

Jesus wasn't running for Head of State, was he? Jesus didn't endorse Tiberius-Pilate 0014 on their platform of redistribution. Yes, the wealthy are called to alms-giving and stewardship of the poor, but taxation by force of law is not a f*cking virtue, it's state-sanctioned theft. This is a poison theology you've concocted for yourself wherein robbing the wealthy to "help" the poor is somehow the moral equivalent of the wealthy helping the poor through caritas. There is no moral imperative on "we" as a society since "society" is an anthropological construct with no metaphysical underpinnings. "Society" has neither a conscience nor a soul and therefore has no moral imperative whatsoever. "Society," qua society is neither good nor evil any more than its individual citizens are good or evil.

Your concept of what constitutes "wealthy" is wildly skewed. We live in the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and our estate tax still only hits 0.2% of estates. If you're on track to have that sort of "problem", then you're wealthy, regardless of whether you consider yourself so.

I understand that. I was pushing back on your caricatured implication that the estate tax only hits "fat cat" types who get rich by screwing the little guy. You can acquire great wealth by earning a good income and saving diligently.

Did you miss the parable of the rich fool at mass two weeks ago?

In the house of the wise are precious treasures and oil, but the fool consumes all he has.

For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.'

Whoever sows sparingly will reap sparingly; whoever sows bountifully will reap bountifully.

Oh look, I can find Bible verses that support my positions too. The fact is, we're called to be good stewards of God's money, since all things belong to Him. I believe that the best way to be a steward of God's money is to give, live, and invest. Then, when I'm old and dying and have a bank account with a lot of zeroes on the end, I'll cut a big ass check to the University of Notre Dame. I find this to be better stewardship than sending money to Washington to be used to enslave people in cyclical poverty and murder their unborn children by the millions.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And taxes are a big f*ck you to the current generation. How about we cut spending and not f*ck anybody? Federal revenue is what, $3 trillion? You should be able to keep your people free and prosperous on a lot less than $3 trillion.

Subsidiarity is just as important as solidarity. Let's hear your politically feasible plan for achieving a balanced budget via cutting Federal programs alone.

Jesus wasn't running for Head of State, was he?

He didn't have to run for anything. He declared himself priest, prophet and king. The social kingship of Christ is Catholic doctrine.

Yes, the wealthy are called to alms-giving and stewardship of the poor, but taxation by force of law is not a f*cking virtue, it's state-sanctioned theft.

Point me to a society anywhere in recorded human history that didn't involve compulsory taxation? It's necessary to provide for public goods.

This is a poison theology you've concocted for yourself wherein robbing the wealthy to "help" the poor is somehow the moral equivalent of the wealthy helping the poor through caritas.

"Poison theology" my ass. Read the encyclicals, bro. I never argued that supporting progressive taxation in order to fund social safety nets is the "moral equivalent" to actual charity, but what you're suggesting has zero support in orthodox Christianity. Jesus didn't order his followers to practice bourgeois restraint, pat themselves on the back for it, and then hector the poor to follow their example.

There is no moral imperative on "we" as a society since "society" is an anthropological construct with no metaphysical underpinnings. "Society" has neither a conscience nor a soul and therefore has no moral imperative whatsoever. "Society," qua society is neither good nor evil any more than its individual citizens are good or evil.

Catholicism is both/and. Subsidiarity and solidarity. The latter has no truck with your Randian individualism.

I understand that. I was pushing back on your caricatured implication that the estate tax only hits "fat cat" types who get rich by screwing the little guy. You can acquire great wealth by earning a good income and saving diligently.

First, I never said that. Second, no one acquires "great wealth" through his own virtue. Everything you are and everything you own is built ultimately upon the sacrifices of your forebears and God.

For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.'

And from a few verses later, "In the same way, any one of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."

Oh look, I can find Bible verses that support my positions too. The fact is, we're called to be good stewards of God's money, since all things belong to Him. I believe that the best way to be a steward of God's money is to give, live, and invest. Then, when I'm old and dying and have a bank account with a lot of zeroes on the end, I'll cut a big ass check to the University of Notre Dame. I find this to be better stewardship than sending money to Washington to be used to enslave people in cyclical poverty and murder their unborn children by the millions.

You know you aren't arguing with a Progressive, so why the constant strawmen? We live in a modern social democracy which provides social safety nets through taxation. If you'd like to discuss ways to reform it that encourage subsidiarity and solidarity, I'm all ears. But as with our previous discussion about abortion, you're all in on one (subsidiarity) with nothing but lip service for the other.

 

[wizards8507]

We live in a modern social democracy which provides social safety nets through taxation.

Just because we do doesn't mean we must. What's the point of having a belief contrary to the status quo if it's a legitimate counter-argument to say "yeah, but that's the way it is." We live in a modern secular democracy which provides for legal abortion. That doesn't me we have to support it.

If you'd like to discuss ways to reform it that encourage subsidiarity and solidarity, I'm all ears. But as with our previous discussion about abortion, you're all in one (subsidiarity) with nothing but lip service for the other.

That's completely untrue. In the abortion discussion, I expressed my support for crisis pregnancy centers. State-enforced solidarity is not solidarity in any real sense.

 

[IrishLax]

Because we've been running historically large budget deficits for the last 20 years? Someone's going to have to pay the piper sooner or later, and I'd rather not saddle my descendants with crippling levels of public debt. Any tax cut that isn't at least revenue neutral is a big f*ck you to future generations.

Read the f*cking bible, dude. I must have missed the bit about "Blessed are the Makers™, for they are the drivers of GNP. But woe to the Poor, for they hold back the Great Men." Jesus totally would have loved Ayn Rand, amirite?

Your concept of what constitutes "wealthy" is wildly skewed. We live in the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and our estate tax still only hits 0.2% of estates. If you're on track to have that sort of "problem", then you're wealthy, regardless of whether you consider yourself so.

Did you miss the parable of the rich fool at mass two weeks ago?

I often argue here that there's little meaningful difference between our two major parties. F*ck liberalism.

Assuming you agree that: (1) taxes are a necessary evil; (2) regressive taxes are bad; and (3) taxes that cause market distortions are also bad, then there's simply no argument against the estate tax. It's the least regressive and distorting tax available to us. I'm obviously not arguing that the estate tax is per se a good thing, but unless you've designed a compelling new way to run a nation state without compulsory taxation, these sorts of criticisms are completely besides the point.

 

[tussin]

Just like to chime in that I have really enjoyed this back and forth between Wiz and Whiskey. A+.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Just because we do doesn't mean we must. What's the point of having a belief contrary to the status quo if it's a legitimate counter-argument to say "yeah, but that's the way it is." We live in a modern secular democracy which provides for legal abortion. That doesn't me we have to support it.

Welfare programs weren't invented by FDR in 1933, but by the Catholic Church in medieval Europe. It's a pretty obvious political outworking for any society that embraces Christianity.

You'll surely retort Imago Dei, something something... therefore Ayn Rand was right, and we should all work toward some libertarian utopia which resembles exactly zero nations that have ever existed in human history. Radical individualism is a protestant thing, wizards. Heresy isn't cool.

That's completely untrue. In the abortion discussion, I expressed my support for crisis pregnancy centers. State-enforced solidarity is not solidarity in any real sense.

It's called politics. If the Left offered to outlaw abortion in exchange for increased support for poor single mothers, and you wouldn't immediately and enthusiastically sign on for that bargain, then I'd suggest your moral sense is disordered. At the very least, it wouldn't be very Catholic.

 

[wizards8507]

Welfare programs weren't invented by FDR in 1933, but by the Catholic Church in medieval Europe. It's a pretty obvious political outworking for any society that embraces Christianity.

You'll surely retort Imago Dei, something something... therefore Ayn Rand was right, and we should all work toward some libertarian utopia which resembles exactly zero nations that have ever existed in human history. Radical individualism is a protestant thing, wizards. Heresy isn't cool.

The Catholic Church started social welfare programs in medieval Europe? Good, then let the Catholic Church take up that cross in modern America. Make the State obsolete. I reject the notion that I'm a Randian individualist because I'm neither a Randian nor an individualist when it comes to morality. I'm a libertarian when it comes to how people should vote and closer to a communitarian when it comes to how people should actually live their lives. The difference is that the State wields the force of law which ends, ultimately, with threat of imprisonment or death for noncompliance. That's the difference. I believe in all of these social values that you preach. But to endorse the State as the enforcer means you need to be okay with imprisoning those who don't comply, and I'm not.

It's called politics. If the Left offered to outlaw abortion in exchange for increased support for poor single mothers, and you wouldn't immediately and enthusiastically sign on for that bargain, then I'd suggest your moral sense is disordered. At the very least, it wouldn't be very Catholic.

You're misremembering. Me, three months ago in response to your hypothetical:

I'd take that deal every day of the week.

 

[RDU Irish]

It's a boon but it's also completely illegitimate. As long as we're operating under the assumption that there should be capital gains taxes in the first place, we shouldn't give folks a free step-up just because grandpa kicked the bucket. Also, it screws people who inherit when the market is down because basis doesn't just step up, it also steps down.


How do you figure? With no step-up, you have one calculation. Sale price - Original owner's cost = Net gain (loss). With the step-up, you have to revalue everything to FMV DOD, which is a major PITA for non-liquid assets. Common stock is easier, but it's still an additional step.

Very true about non-liquid assets - at the same point the amount of people with no clue about the cost basis of their holdings always amazes me. Tons of legacy assets out there (including mutual fund shares) that require a lot of leg work to track down and frequently just guess on original cost basis. Especially when you start talking about 90+ year olds losing their mental capacity while maintaining poor records.

Completely agree that if we implement a capital gains tax it is bogus to absolve folks of this tax simply because gramps kicks the bucket. At the same point, it is a reasonable trade-off to ignore this tax in conjunction with an estate tax. By "boon" to beneficiaries under $11M I mean exactly as you say - they get a free ride avoiding cap gains AND estate taxes.

45% is a ridiculous number for an estate tax when you consider the liquidity crunch it puts on what more often than not are closely held small businesses. Yes proper planning can make it plenty manageable but why put that extra burden on small businesses? The stupid tax doesn't really raise that much money anyway.

 

[phgreek]

Our kids benefited from socialization quite a bit in daycare. When they hit school they have been well ahead of virtually all of the stay at homers socially and academically out of the gate.

As for the wife's roll, barefoot and preggers is their place, right!

There is no recovering from an extended departure from a career for men or women. I see (usually moms) take years off during their kids formative years only to be relegated to menial, low skill positions when they try to re-enter the work force (often once they hit school age and especially once they hit middle school and parent in school involvement is more limited).

So please, take care to contribute to her spousal IRA and keep her skills up to par (mind you probably not advancing) while she is child rearing. Her long term mental health, including self worth and self confidence, are usually better served as her ability to be independent is preserved. Not to mention the risk dependent spouses take in case they end up divorced or widowed. Financial risks for single income families are substantially higher than that for two income families for if/when someone loses their job.

My wife stayed home with them for a year after we moved (Kindergarten and 2 year old at the time) and started getting batty. She needed work life balance and hanging with kids all day wasn't getting it done. Plus - her credentialing could only be on hold for a few years before she would have to completely re-do her NP education

FWIW...Either or both my wife and I have been working from home since the birth of our first kid...And we CHOSE to have the kids go to daycare a couple times a week since they were about 3. They loved it....can't say if they benefited from it, other than building up their immune systems...but they seemed to have a ball. The only thing I saw was, that you start to see a separation between kids whose parents spend time with them reading, and doing fun educational things...those kids get bored pretty quickly if you don't find a daycare that engages them...that took a couple runs...but we found one.

 

[wizards8507]

Very true about non-liquid assets - at the same point the amount of people with no clue about the cost basis of their holdings always amazes me. Tons of legacy assets out there (including mutual fund shares) that require a lot of leg work to track down and frequently just guess on original cost basis. Especially when you start talking about 90+ year olds losing their mental capacity while maintaining poor records.

It can't be too long before that's all automated, right? Ten years, if that?

 

[gkIrish]

SIAP but....what in the actual F**k?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Video—Trump: "If she gets to pick her judges —nothing you can do…Although the 2nd Amendment people maybe there is" <a href="https://t.co/eeofxE9qL4">https://t.co/eeofxE9qL4</a></p>— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) <a href="https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/763092098039939072">August 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


*I have not listened to the audio

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Catholic Church started social welfare programs in medieval Europe? Good, then let the Catholic Church take up that cross in modern America. Make the State obsolete. I reject the notion that I'm a Randian individualist because I'm neither a Randian nor an individualist when it comes to morality. I'm a libertarian when it comes to how people should vote and closer to a communitarian when it comes to how people should actually live their lives.

Cognitive dissonance. We've been over this before. Libertarianism is a comprehensive philosophy of radical individualism. Catholic social teaching is profoundly communitarian. They can't both be true.

The difference is that the State wields the force of law which ends, ultimately, with threat of imprisonment or death for noncompliance.

And the Church has the power to bind and loose your sins, which has much greater implications for your long-term well being than the State's police power, no? Your argument against state power can just as easily be deployed against the Catholic Church (and in fact it was, during the Protestant Reformation. Remember when I said you'd make a great Episcopalian?)

I believe in all of these social values that you preach.

You've given them a certain amount of intellectual assent, though your congenital allergy to natural authority prevents you from truly accepting them.

You're misremembering. Me, three months ago in response to your hypothetical:

I remember it quite well, and when I suggested that "those who are serious about protecting the unborn also need to be serious about making life easier for struggling mothers, through policies like paid maternity leave," you proceeded to argue with me about the evils of Federal welfare programs. Thus my mention of "immediately and emphatically" above.

 

[woolybug25]

SIAP but....what in the actual F**k?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Video—Trump: "If she gets to pick her judges —nothing you can do…Although the 2nd Amendment people maybe there is" <a href="https://t.co/eeofxE9qL4">https://t.co/eeofxE9qL4</a></p>— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) <a href="https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/763092098039939072">August 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


*I have not listened to the audio

He said it like you think he did. Rational people will take it exactly how he meant it, which is that he is encouraging gun owners to use them if she is elected. Kmoose will be here shortly to wax poetic about how "that's not what he SAID" as if the rest of the world are window licking idiots.

Rinse. Repeat.

 

[wizards8507]

Cognitive dissonance. We've been over this before. Libertarianism is a comprehensive philosophy of radical individualism. Catholic social teaching is profoundly communitarian. They can't both be true.

Libertarianism doesn't have a magisterium like the Catholic Church. It's nowhere near as absolute as you like to portray it. I don't think I'm a libertarian at all as you understand the term.

And the Church has the power to bind and loose your sins, which has much greater implications for your long-term well being than the State's police power, no? Your argument against state power can just as easily be deployed against the Catholic Church (and in fact it was, during the Protestant Reformation. Remember when I said you'd make a great Episcopalian?)

1. Church's authority is divinely legitimate and the State's authority is arbitrary.

2. My problem with State power is not that is more grave than Church power but that it is less legitimate.

3. The Church can bind and loose sins, but it does not legislate new sins based on democratic vote. The morality of a thing is subject to neither legislative decree nor executive fiat. If something is sinful, it is sinful across space and time. It's the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se.

You've given them a certain amount of intellectual assent, though your congenital allergy to natural authority prevents you from truly accepting them.

I fully endorse natural authority as it applies to families, the Church, and local governance. I'm much more skeptical of natural authority as it applies to a representative republic of 300 million people. To the extent that authority extends so far from the individual, its legitimacy is tremendously diluted.

I remember it quite well, and when I suggested that "those who are serious about protecting the unborn also need to be serious about making life easier for struggling mothers, through policies like paid maternity leave," you proceeded to argue with me about the evils of Federal welfare programs. Thus my mention of "immediately and emphatically" above.

You're changing the terms of the debate between principle and politics. If a bill were proposed that would make abortion illegal in this country, I'd sign up for full-on socialism if that's the political trade necessary. That doesn't mean I have to endorse socialism or stop speaking out against it.

He said it like you think he did. Rational people will take it exactly how he meant it, which is that he is encouraging gun owners to use them if she is elected. Kmoose will be here shortly to wax poetic about how "that's not what he SAID" as if the rest of the world are window licking idiots.

Oh that's DEFINITELY what he said. I laughed.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Assuming you agree that: (1) taxes are a necessary evil; (2) regressive taxes are bad; and (3) taxes that cause market distortions are also bad, then there's simply no argument against the estate tax. It's the least regressive and distorting tax available to us. I'm obviously not arguing that the estate tax is per se a good thing, but unless you've designed a compelling new way to run a nation state without compulsory taxation, these sorts of criticisms are completely besides the point.

LOL. You seem to have a fan club! If you can have gotcha moments in a discussion of tax and social policy, I'm not really sure you are discussing them at all. But obviously your conclusion does not flow from your premise. I can agree with all of what you said and still think that other values come into play.

You don't like liberalism, but it seems to me that the estate tax is about as radically individualistic a tax as there is. Everyone is treated as an individual whose primary duty is to the state. When they die, they are treated as an individual (rather than a family member) and their assets are first and foremost the state's, to be put to the state's end. I think its fine that the State takes its share, but I don't like the double-nature of the estate tax. I think of it more like the tax entering the family, and should not get taxed again if it stays in the family.

I think that there are other institutions--family, Church--that proceed the State, and I favor a tax code that does not automatically place the State ahead of them. So, for example, within our system I support exemptions for gifts to family members, homestead exemptions, and some charitable exemptions.

I don't like estate taxes because people should be able to think of the family as an economic unit, and if they have worked, payed fair taxes, and then deferred enjoyment and saved assets for the long-term benefit of their family, I think that is a good thing. A wealthy, independent family is not a threat to society.

In the end, I tend to think a modest combination of income, property, estate, and consumption taxes are fine. But my overall desire would be a simple tax code with limited exemptions to aid families and small businesses, with slightly graduated tax rate, and reduced overall spending.

 

[woolybug25]

LOL. You seem to have a fan club! If you can have gotcha moments in a discussion of tax and social policy, I'm not really sure you are discussing them at all.

But obviously your conclusion does not flow from your premise. I can agree with all of what you said and still think that other values come into play.

You don't like liberalism, but it seems to me that the estate tax is about as radically individualistic a tax as there is. Everyone is treated as an individual whose primary duty is to the state. When they die, they are treated as an individual (rather than a family member) and their assets are first and foremost the state's, to be put to the state's end. I think its fine that the State takes its share, but I don't like the double-nature of the estate tax. I think of it more like the tax entering the family, and it does not need to get taxed again if it stays in the family.

I think that there are other institutions--family, Church--that proceed the State, and I favor a tax code that does not automatically place the State ahead of them. So, for example, within our system I support exemptions for gifts to family members, homestead exemptions, and some charitable exemptions.

I don't like estate taxes because people should be able to think of the family as an economic unit, and if they have worked, paid fair taxes, and then deferred enjoyment and saved assets for the long-term benefit of their family, I think that is a good thing. A wealthy, independent family is not a threat to society.

I tend to think a modest combination of income and consumption taxes are fine.

I'm the president of the Whiskey Fan Club. You can make your $5 check out to Woolybug25. I also take PayPal.

 

[irishfan]

SIAP but....what in the actual F**k?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Video—Trump: "If she gets to pick her judges —nothing you can do…Although the 2nd Amendment people maybe there is" <a href="https://t.co/eeofxE9qL4">https://t.co/eeofxE9qL4</a></p>— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) <a href="https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/763092098039939072">August 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


*I have not listened to the audio

Tough to tell what exactly he means when he goes off on a quick tangent....honestly I interpreted this as: "if Hillary is elected, your 2nd amendment and your guns will be gone, although maybe you gun-owners will use them and fight back. "

I've seen tweets out there about he's calling on someone to assassinate Hillary. That's not how I heard it at all, but who the hell knows with Trump.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I'm the president of the Whiskey Fan Club. You can make your $5 check out to Woolybug25. I also take PayPal.

Here's 5 million v-bucks. They aren't backed by anything, but $5,000,000 is still a huge number!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In the end, I tend to think a modest combination of income, property, estate, and consumption taxes are fine. But my overall desire would be a simple tax code with limited exemptions to aid families and small businesses, with slightly graduated tax rate, and reduced overall spending.

That's a perfectly coherent position. You'll recall this whole discussion kicked off when I shared a tweet alleging that a top GOP donor claims repealing the estate tax is "the linchpin of the conservative movement," which I think neatly encapsulates why it's currently being torn apart by a populist insurgency. It was only after wiz called it "evil" that I started defending it as the least problematic (in general terms) of the alternatives. But I can easily imagine tax reforms that do away with it entirely and leave us with a much more efficient and comprehensible system than we have now.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Tough to tell what exactly he means when he goes off on a quick tangent....honestly I interpreted this as: "if Hillary is elected, your 2nd amendment and your guns will be gone, although maybe you gun-owners will use them and fight back. "

I've seen tweets out there about he's calling on someone to assassinate Hillary. That's not how I heard it at all, but who the hell knows with Trump.

What do you mean by "use them and fight back" if you don't mean "try to shoot someone"? (ETA: Or, at a minimum, threaten to shoot someone.)

 

[irishfan]

What do you mean by "use them and fight back" if you don't mean "try to shoot someone"? (ETA: Or, at a minimum, threaten to shoot someone.)

I more or less mean it that I heard nothing in there about assassinating Hillary which is what I'm seeing all over social media. Seemed like it was more of a call to not give up your guns if it comes to that, or a call to vote this year for gun-owners.

This is very similar to his Mexican/rapists comment. I think he knows this will cause a shitstorm and that it will be interpreted differently by many people.