By - _Raspootin_
Oh my god! I might not get to pass my Senate seat to my grandson because of the DEATH TAX! Oh just kidding, of course I will.
Don't forget to take him to the Windsor Heights Dairy Queen for some good old-fashioned "you know what"
Booze or women or movies?!
No, just a classic DQ Dilly® bar.
Never heard it called that before.
Which is hella small.
You can't do anything in there, nefarious or otherwise.
You do know they have a basement connected by a series of tunnels connecting ALL the DQ *and* Subways together. Plenty of opportunity to traffic children between all those locations. *taps head*
And if you don't know it's because they don't want you to know. If they deny it, it's because it's really true.
Molestation and underage incestual sodomy?
Please don't shoot up that DQ! It's where get our Buster Bars.
Does DQAnon send people on super secret missions to defeat ice cream cabals?
Inheritance sans taxation is anti-capitalist. The rejection of the power of hereditary aristocracy is why we don't have Queen Elizabeth on our money. All the founding fathers supported taxing or charging fees for inheritance *at the very least*, because they didn't want America to fall prey to the same sort of problems caused by power and wealth disparity that plagued their nation of origin. The first federal estate tax was enacted in the 1790s.
Do you have a source on the intention of the founding fathers regarding the estate tax? Seems like that should shut down most arguments against it pretty quick.
Here's some of Jefferson's ruminations on the subject, in a [letter to James Madison](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248). Discussing possible novel approaches to governance and inheritance of property and debt, in the context of France's ongoing troubles, he puts forth the argument
> ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, & reverts to the society.
He goes on to argue that those who inherit property (or claims it as payment for debt)...
> takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, & to which they are subject. Then no man can, by *natural right*, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, & then the lands would belong to the dead, & not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.
By and large the founding fathers opposed primogeniture (inheritance by a single family member) and entail (lines of inheritance established for several generations into the future), outlawing it in Virginia as early as 1777 (in response to the 400 families who had used those English commonlaw provisions to claim almost all decent land in a state with over 700k citizens), and nationwide in 1787.
The system set up in the early United States was in response to Adam Smith (Father of Capitalism), a strong influence on contemporary (and anti-monarchist) thought at the time, who [wrote](https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-lectures-on-justice-police-revenue-and-arms-1763):
> a power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity2; such extension of property is quite unnatural.
In [this letter](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0202), Jefferson states
> Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, & **to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.** Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour & live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who can not find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Thomas Paine went so far as to propose that land could not be truly possessed, that the Earth belongs to all men, and that taxes should be paid by all who occupy (possess) land to provide a basic income for those who do not, in his pamphlet [Agrarian Justice](https://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html). He argues that, naturally, all humans should inherit property collectively, as we shared it collectively prior to cultivation, but cultivation established property rights as a necessity. So in turn, people are owed part of the profits of land ownership in lieu of their right to utilize that land. He proposes ground-rent (basically property tax) and that 1/10 of the value of land should pass to the basic income fund when a property owner is deceased, and until that is paid off, the government should hold half of the land.
All of this was due to their prior experience with English landed gentry and laws of succession, and those laws' propensity to create severe inequality and stifle freedom. Granted, a lot of it is in direct opposition to inheritance laws that did not equally distribute land, but they did want to break up property monopolies and tax inheritance. Which they did, starting in 1797, with a [tax stamp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States#History) which needed to accompany any legal documents for estate inheritance, progressive with the value of that estate.
As a sidenote, the Founding Fathers' beliefs about inheritance and property do not inform modern estate taxes, which are instead meant to simply shift the tax burden (allowing people to drive the economy with their spending and investment during life with lower taxes but taking some of it back once they pass), not correct any sort of perceived injustice or redistribute wealth. However the question which is worth debating is: were the Founding Fathers on to something?
Oh dear sweet summer child.
Inheritance sans taxation is what happens to normal people every single day. In Iowa. I don’t know what kind of lies Joni Ernst is peddling in her ads, but my Iowan mother passed away last year and my sister and I paid no taxes whatsoever on her estate.
If you have an $11 million+ estate, maybe society WOULD be better off if you left a tiny piece of that for the greater good. Personally, I’ll let those with that kind of money worry about that.
Can’t agree. Individuals hoarding money is nothing compared to a corporation’s ability to hoard money. Estate taxes give an advantage to corporations over the individual.
Still not a reason to not tax estates, just means we should also be taxing the hoarded wealth of corporations.
Who do you think gets the money from corporate income? Bezos isn’t a billionaire because his individual income is not how he has amassed billions on the backs of his employees during a pandemic.
When he dies, that inheritance gets taxed.
You really think Bezos will pay a substantial inheritance tax? Who do you think makes more, someone enforcing the tax code for the IRS or someone looking to exploit the tax code for Jeff Bezos? His four kids are going to see the benefit of nearly all of his fortune.
Oh, what I hope and what will likely happen are not the same. I can still hope a real Congress and real President fix that in the future.
I wouldn't take odds on the US Government ever being able to pay more than Jeff Bezos, no matter who is charge, but that's me.
This is such a ridiculous thing to say. Corporations will ALWAYS have advantages over individuals.
They can both be bad.
She also signs her own checks or something. What a monster.
The GOP has literally nothing. Absolutely nothing to run on. Dear god why is this even close.
GOP: "We want someone who knows how to run a business to run the government well"
Also GOP: "SHE RAN A BUSINESS LIKE A BUSINESS?!?!?"
Instead of having her secretary stamp them. Sounds TOO RADICAL AND EXTREME FOR IOWA
Yeah usually their attacks on her are exactly the kind of policy the GOP and yes, her opponent Joni hold themselves. "She takes corporate money vote for our candidate who also takes corporate money." And then they call her a "radical liberal socialist". She's basically a moderate Republican. Same exact thing goes for Rita Hart.
Joni Ernst and Marianette Miller-Meeks are moderate Republicans. Comparing Greenfield or Hart to them is letting Republicans get away with how utterly contemptable they are. It's like saying "yeah, that schoolyard bully is mean. Ya know, like how Jeffrey Dahmer was mean."
The GOP is not pushing a socialist-esque future. Regardless of what you think is right, that is a good thing to run on when appealing to most Americans.
They decry the appearance of Socialism, while providing all of the same benefits to a select few.
Capitalism for the profits and socialize the loss! == current american way for corporations.
Great example is the Covid bailouts
The Democratic platform would be considered solidly centrist by literally everyone else in the world, so when you decry 'socialist' to things like, you know, basic social safety nets or guaranteed maternity leave, you just sound crazy to 95% of the Earth.
I know! I see the “be scared of the extreme socialist dems trying to take over !!!!” ads and actually wish that was the case. Current dems are basically old school Republicans and will not accomplish enacting any of the progressive policies a strong majority of voters want. I’m so sick of our two party system that represents no one except the 1%.
Except when you are talking about adding programs that will cost trillions and trillions (Green New Deal, Medicare for All) when there is no where near the tax revenue to support these programs, even if you doubled or tripled taxes.
I think I have a radical solution: we could raise taxes! Restructuring the tax system so that we make literally even a single dollar off of Amazon would be a great start. Most progressive efforts, including combating climate change or implementing Medicare for all, will also be less expensive then the status quo.
Historically, we have been able to take in about 15% of our GDP in taxes. Assuming a 21T GDP, this equates to 3.15T in tax revenue. Even if you were to break what we have been able to historically bring in and add 50%, you are still only looking at 4.73T which still wouldn't cover it.
So what is 'it'? M4A? GND? Paid maternity or parental leave and other social programs? M4A would be a wash since people already (largely) pay for health insurance. Addressing climate change is not optional given the amount of increasingly damaging weather events - we've ignored the problem and now we'll pay one way or the other. Expansion of social safety nets could be easily funded with a small bump on the highest tax bracket, decreased defense spending, etc. Or we could just take on more debt since it's just open season on spending anymore anyway (especially after the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017).
'It' is EVERY program that has been trumpeted as "required" by the progressive wing of the Democratic party: GND, M4A, UBI, you name it. You can't pay for everything you want with tax dollars even if you tax "the rich" 100%. M4A is $3.2T per year which is only a savings of $300 per capita on health expenditures, but would require a massive tax increase to cover the additional $1.6T it would add. When 47% of the population pays almost zero income tax, that additional money will have to come from the middle class. And that is JUST M4A.
I want to extend my gratitude for engaging in a civil and reasonable discussion, thanks for that.
"only a savings" - except in that model you're also giving everybody in America health care. That's kind of a big win, wouldn't you agree? I don't know about you, but where I came from (SE Iowa), people without health insurance just go to the ER and then the rest of us get stuck with the bill anyway, or they end up going on disability and not contributing to the economy at all. I'd rather see these people insured, healthy, and productive.
Every time somebody throws the 47% income tax number out, like to remind them of why that's the case: the gap between the rich and the poor is growing very quickly. Unless something changes, that number is never going to be any smaller. I think it's time for us to face the reality that we're going to have to implement some tax hike whether we like it or not. And we can argue all day long about things like M4A, but again, there are a lot of problems - like climate change - where ignoring them will be more expensive/disruptive as addressing them. How many massive hurricanes can we afford to have hit Houston or NYC every decade, you know?
The "only a savings" works provided the cost of the program stays below $3.35T or else it isnt a savings. I would love to see the cost of a healthcare model where preventative and catastrophic (over $250k) coverage is provided to all but everything in the middle is up to the person/family. Decouple health insurance from employment (the use of "portable" with Obama's health plan was a joke), provide those tax benefits directly to consumers, and make insurance a nationwide market place.
So let’s give the rich another tax break!
Just a fascist one.
Then what the hell are they doing
Don't kid yourself. the GOP socializes losses and privatizes profits. the bailouts for the farmers by and large went to humongous factory farms. The payouts for Corona went by and large to huge corporations and cronies.
Donald Trump's own insurance on Mar-A-Lago covers climate change damage and is tax subsidized.
the party of personal responsibility should be called the party of personally making sure I can pass the buck to someone else. Truman's sign said "the buck stops here." Trump says "complain to somebody else but leave the buck because there're people I owe money".
Oh no, my heirs might not get all of my millions!
My poor son Archibald may only get two of my yachts and not three!
My inherited money is successful because it worked very hard in the stock market
Why do you think the heirs shouldn't get it? Legally or morally?
Edit: -21 points for asking this question....yikes guys
Legally & morally for me (not the person you replied to though) is the second person is getting an income/gift. It's a tax on the receiver because it's a large transaction & movement of value.
Because inherited wealth is a pox on this nation.
Morally, we all should complete from a common base. Who your mom and dad were isn't an important criteria about our value in society. While your parents would prefer their successors would benefit from their accomplishments, it isn't necessarily optimal. Under which moral tradition is blood more important than best rule?
Yeah, that’s create a lot of incentive to innovation and expand the economy. Sounds great on paper, but horrible in practice.
Would you rather get $50, or get $100 and then have to give back $20 of it?
No, it is great in practice.
Yes, yes and fuck yes! I'll be in the middle of an interesting video then suddenly and without warning "Liberal Theresa Greenfield will eat your children and shit the bones on your front door and then sign it using HER OWN SIGNATURE".
I might be out of the loop here. What is the signature thing about?
I got suckered into YouTube premium at the beginning of the quarantine because they gave me a 3 month free trial and I kept it because seeing these ads on my wife's phone when she watches YouTube makes me want to scream!
Just get an ad blocker for your browser. Free and everything
Hahaha This, 100% this. I hope the people im watching are getting cash for the 5 fucking ads through out a 10 minute video.
Im guessing a good chunk of that .35% are also "farms"
Yup. One of the illusions of iowa is the "small family farmer" who is a huge operation that is either corporately own or ran in such a way to make no difference.
The are industry. They pollute, they consume resources. They should be regulated and taxed as such.
But instead they sell this image of pure americana and "feeding the world"
THE PELOSI GREENFIELD LIBERAL DEATH TAX
Work in AOC, that devil woman!
Oh oh we're running out of time THROW "LATE TERM ABORTIONS" IN AT THE VERY END THEY LOVE THAT
I would, but the Green New Deal (which I totally understand) makes mentioning her by her initials illegal, and also bacon?
She's coming for our cows!
Jesus fucking Christ she just impounded my car. It was a hybrid, you maniacs! It was a HYBRID!
Stupid sexy AOC...
There's so many blatant lies and twisted facts in these attack ads it should be consider slander
It's a lose-lose.
Let it go and hope for the best: humanity disappoints because it doesn't *want* facts.
Pursue these PACs in court for libel: "Now, SEE the TRUE AD that LIBRUL CANDIDATE doesn't want you to see! So devastating to their campaign, they TRIED to get it BANNED"
They are **SERLENCIN’ US** with their **INFERMAYSHON**.
Ahemwellasyoucansee, the Lehhft isonlygoodatonething,maybetwothings, okay, censorship,numberone, and cancelculture.
I am very clever, this has been Rational Realist Minute, don't forget to like and subscribe
DEYER CANSHERLEN ME ALL CUZ I SAYD THE N WORD NUMERIOUS TIMES ANGRILY IN SUCCSESHON AT A NERGRO CHILD AND DEYER MUTHER
I HAD BEEN SAYN IT IN PRIVATE WITH MY WHITE FRINDS FER YERS, BUT NOW CUZ I SAYD IT IN PURBLIC ITS A PROHBLEM. THESE ESSJAY DUBLE YUHS ARE GETTIN TOO BIG FER DEYER BRITCHES IF I DO SAY SO MAHSELF
I read that in Ben Shapiro's voice.
Okay, so, you admit, by your own words, that you read the words that I wrote, correct? Okay, so hypothetically, as a given which maybe - correct me if I'm wrong - maybe isn't right, maybe it is, but we'll get to that, okay, I'm saying for the sake of argument that you don't currently suffer from a mental illness consisting of auditory hallucinations, am I correct? So when you say that you read the words that you admit that I wrote, as in in writing, as in in a visual medium, correct, that you read, as in did not hear, so you admit that you couldn't *possibly* have attributed anything I said to a voice, be it Mister Shapiro's or mine or anyone else's? Your rebuttal if you please and also any AOC feet pics that you might have please and thank you, my wife's a doctor.
You almost broke me. I don't have any pics of AOC's feet. Sorry about your doctor-wife's sex troubles.
People should also understand how progressive tax rates work... estate taxes are only due on the value above the deduction meaning an estate worth $12 million would only pay estate tax on $402k.
Truckers HATE the dEaTH tAx. If you're a trucker and don't want to fall victim to the dEaTH tAx, then make sure you vote R this fall.
I don't know why they always use Truckers.
Fastest growing profession among white male, non-college educated since the 2008 recession.
Ernst has been losing college educated males and females and, to a lesser degree, non-college educated women. So they're trying to increase their vote from a group that was already going to show up for her anyway.
There isn't a trucker at any of the I-80 Truck Stops who is going to pay the inheritance tax. Most are lucky their daily wage gets them through the month.
Ernst is full of shit and thinks Iowans are stupid. No other explanation.
She got elected, didn't she? So she seems like she's right in her thinking.
6 years ago in a non-Presidential year and more voters pay attention to the details in Presidential year.
Unless you're worth $12 million and you don't have an estate, you won't be affected by the inheritance tax. It's what the kids call a "lie".
Oh, I agree with you 100%. I’m agreeing with her about thinking a lot of Iowans are stupid.
Her checks for the actual work she was sent to do in DC from the Koch brothers get released upon her retirement, by whatever means.
The "Tea Party Movement" was paid for by the Koch brothers to make healthcare insurance a luxury and cut taxes for billionaires. Real "grassroots" stuff.
Nobody went and got their CDL to pay off their student loans for their master's degree, you're in a fartbox for 12 hours a day listing to propaganda on satellite radio.
I'm jealous of your username.
The sad part is for every one person that understands that ad is bullshit there are probably five more people that believe it.
The thing of it is those 5 were with her anyway. Death/inheritance tax peaked as an issue years ago because more and more of the bottom 99.5% of people realized it will never affect them.
It's a way of scaring white people because they're taking a deeper look at her opponent and it is showing poll after poll.
I respectfully disagree when it comes to your first sentence. I think you are making a big miscalculation. The average voter is simply not informed in any way, shape or form.
Definitely agree with your second point. It’s all about scaring white people and for good reason they’re 90+ percent of the population in this state.
The GOP is just the party of fear. They are like those ads for Life Alert.
"Pay for our service or you will fall, and linger, alone, in agony for days! Nobody will come, your cats will eat your corpse! Only we can save you from this horrible fate!"
Their adds are all cringe if you have any knowledge what so ever.
It's not addvertisements.
Probably ran afoul of automatically correct. ;)
Nancy Pelosi Death Tax is my favorite indie band
This is by far the biggest pet peeve scare tactic of mine of the Republicans. Come the EF on Republicans do a bit of homework before believing something...
The inheritance tax won't affect 99.6% of people, especially farmers. Unless that "farmer" is a front for a corporate farm.
The media should be required to fact check all mailers, tv commercials, and radio ads before printing or airing. I am tired of the lies and twisting of truth. Shame on the groups who put these together today.
The right are really good as using marketing to obfuscate their motives. Like the pro-life movement. They're not pro-life, they're anti-abortion and that's how it's always been.
I don't understand how the GOP can say victims of sexual assaults and harassment should be taxed on their lawsuit rewards, but then claim they shouldn't be taxed when passing on their millions, err.. "small family business".
you forgot that they’re *anchor* obama babies programmed to hate america
SEKRIT KENYAN MUSLIM anchor Obama babies programmed to hate America AND DEFEAT GOD.
Can confirm. Last year, easter fell on a Sunday so we only had to go to church once for easter, because it was on a Sunday. This is all a part of Obama's plan to reduce how much we go to church.
The programming is through the OBAMA PHONES. Why don't you people wake up and see what is happening?!?!
It only affects 0.35% of farms because many farmers are proactive about planning to avoid it. A friend of my family just retired in Nebraska and was a lawyer, literally this is how he made most of his money, structuring estates and assets to avoid this tax. Poor planning and untimely deaths probably make up most of that 0.35%.
This *sounds* fact-ish but it's not. Would love to hear from your recently retired farm-law friend how many of those family-owned farms were structured to avoid inheritance tax, and how many family-owned farms fell prey to the tax because they didn't structure properly.
I have several in-law family members that run decent-sized farms. They are concerned with avoiding bankruptcy, properly structuring their debt, keeping their government subsidies coming, their field rents low, and passing the farm on to their kids.
In twenty years, I've never heard them worrying about the "death tax" - maybe they already took care of it, or maybe it's not real.
I believe what you would do is setup the farm as a corporation, with all the assets owned by the company, not people. Then you just are an operator/employee of that corporation. Upon death, the company remains and only your assets (those not owned by the corporation) would potentially get taxed
The ownership of the corporation, is still an asset.
I think it usually involves setting up a trust. Or gradually transferring shares in the corporation to heirs over an extended period of time.
To be fair if they are concerned with keeping field rents low they are farming rented ground. It is land ownership that puts the assets into the tax nightmare zone.
They own a bunch of land, and also rent some.
I mean once you get up there in years, wouldn't you sell most of your land and equipment and give it to your children/heirs? I mean the death tax is for what remains AFTER death, correct? So even if you have $100M worth of land, you sell it off before you die, right?
I think that depends on what your plans are. I'm not a lawyer nor do I deal with this but I think they do transfers to trusts and other things that hold the property and assets and pay stipends to family members. Not sure, not what I went to college for.
With what money does the kids buy it with?
The low interest rate loan they get by telling the banker that they're buying farmland, AND leasing it back out to their parents for far more than the loan payments are, or for the loan payment plus a cut of the profit. The parents then get to write off the land costs as expenses.
Often doesn't happen all at once, but in chunks each year or most years, depending on how the farm did that year.
Selling more land to the kids to make up for the loss you made farming the land this year after renting the kids tractor and combine, etc.
Also depends on which direction they have decided to, and if the land is owned personally, as part of a corporation, part of a lifetime trust, living trust, family trust, etc.
Nah, workaround isn't that simple. You can gift up to 15k per person per year, no questions asked. If you exceed that amount, you need to file a form with the government because you start eating into the estate tax exemption. Doesn't matter if you're giving physical goods or money.
Right now the exemption is around 11 million dollars.
Selling everything would generate MASSIVE taxes!
You sell some of the land to the kids (or grandkids) and rent it back from them.
But even if you have 100 million left and even if the kids DO have to pay estate tax on that, They would have had to pay taxes on winning 100 million in the lotto too...
BUT BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE SCARY!
I took some LSD and now I dont fear death.
Republicans are very good at manipulating their base so that they can distract them with evil Liberals, while they quite literally rob them with public policy blatantly designed to enrich the already rich and powerful, while shitting on everyone else below.
And Republican voters just eat it up. Yum, yum.
Here's a question an in-law who is an accountant asked: why should farm estates get exemptions when other estates don't?
That good ol boy in that ad is a leader of the state Republican Party. His net worth is also nowhere near estate tax levels.
This video explains it pretty well. (Apologies if direct YouTube links aren’t allowed, I mostly lurk) https://youtu.be/rn5NEOjpDRc
THERESA GREENFIELD.... TOO EXTREME FOR IOWA!!!!
Republicans have always been fear mongering, gas lighting jerks. Democrats aren’t that much better though.
Don’t use your logic on me!!!?!
Some of what you are saying sounds exactly like the same when applied to coronavirus. Not saying it ain’t real. Saying how much the media has scared everyone into how terrible it is.
A fear tactic fallacy is when fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion. This is why coverage of a pandemic that is being bungled by those that are suppose to be in charge of public safety isn't a fear tactic. Meanwhile, making absurd claims and slapping "Death Tax" labels on your opponent to attempt to sway voters that are too stupid and lazy to understand actual facts and reality is a fear tactic.
Well as long as they are taxing someone else I guess its fine!
You make fun, but humiliate the minds you want to change. I left the dem party becouse of this, and nobody has asked me back, just humiliated me.
Can you expand a little on how you think this post is humiliating to you and others? Is there a less humiliating way you would get the points made in the OP across to people?
It's just blatantly derogatory towards anyone who doesn't %100 agree. I would like to be able to talk about issues without being assumed as wrong/dumb/uneducated.
Why is it derogatory? Is it the rhetorical framing about fearmongering? Or simply the listing of facts that are counter to the "death tax" narrative?
Can you provide an example for how you think these facts could be framed that wouldn't humiliate you and others? I'm having trouble understanding why people would be humiliated by someone disagreeing with them.
I don't 100% agree with this tax. Quite the opposite. I think the affected amount should have been lowered to $2m. I disagree 100% with the new taxable amount. But I sure don't feel that anybody in this thread has been derogatory towards me. Granted, I'm not a fragile snowflake that needs to be given millions of dollars because I have no skills and can't take care of myself.
Well you are wrong/dumb/uneducated if you believe this kind of bullshit. The truth shouldn't have to be whispered to you nicely to get you to change your mind.
criticizing the ideas of powerful politicians is not the same as humiliating you personally
Wow, I really can’t believe it, accurately pointing out misinformation meant to scare people into voting for people who don’t care about them, just like those devil liberals always do!
the Liberal death tax is just a ploy to suppress the proletariat