United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
It means they just approved 3.5 TRILLION more in spending, programs to kill the ideas the USA was built on, more taxes, more surveillance, more bullshit. It's the ultimate expression of the selfish greed of the Boomer in the USA, "fuck the debt I need my SS payments!" fuck all of them.
That did not get passed.

Just a funding resolution to keep the government 'funded' through October or December 8th. I don't remember which.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
There are 29.3 million American women over the age of 65. There are 1.35 million active US Military personnel. Don't mess with grandma because when grandma ain't happy, nobody's happy.
The military has people coming in and out.
The military also includes DoD which is fucking huge. Contractors, civies, etc etc
 

bintananth

behind a desk
December. Apparently December 2022 at that. And given how easy they capitulated on this I have a feeling they will just give in to the other stuff too but I hope you are right and that bullshit dies.
"Keep it funded at present levels" is the practically the best the opposition (D or R) can get when the majority wants to do something different.
 

Sobek

Disgusting Scalie


The signing of the bill is not really news. The second part however, is.

They are refusing to let people see him signing a bill. Putting a pen to paper and squiggling a line is apparently not something they are confident on having Biden do.

Fucker is probably comatose isn't he?
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
To echo this, part of why death taxes are unjust, is because you're paying that tax on wealth that you were already taxed for earning.

So it's a whole 'nother layer of tax.
Not always. By the way, were you this adamant in your defense of SALT deductions?
Also, why do you assume that life must be taxed?
If we have gotten to the point that you are questioning the need for taxes to exist, then I think we have strayed too far away from the thread topic.
The boomers got us in this mess, they can get fucked. The entire system is straining and they keep just piling more and more debt on it.
Honestly, as long as people can have their programs "for free" (meaning via unsustainable deficit spending) then I don't know why they'd ever pressure their representatives to turn off the spigot. And if people won't support program cuts, then the alternative is tax hikes until they realize what those programs truly cost and agree that cuts are necessary. Or until the budget reaches a sustainable level. Every year I give less of a damn which of those two things happen, as long as one of them does.

"Fiscal conservatives" what a joke
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Not always. By the way, were you this adamant in your defense of SALT deductions?

If we have gotten to the point that you are questioning the need for taxes to exist, then I think we have strayed too far away from the thread topic.

Honestly, as long as people can have their programs "for free" (meaning via unsustainable deficit spending) then I don't know why they'd ever pressure their representatives to turn off the spigot. And if people won't support program cuts, then the alternative is tax hikes until they realize what those programs truly cost and agree that cuts are necessary. Or until the budget reaches a sustainable level. Every year I give less of a damn which of those two things happen, as long as one of them does.

"Fiscal conservatives" what a joke
'Fiscal Conservatives' are also mostly neocons, who we shit on regularly around here.

Fiscal conservatism is not a serious force on the Right anymore, not sure why you think appeals to that label have any power or impact here.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
'Fiscal Conservatives' are also mostly neocons, who we shit on regularly around here.

Fiscal conservatism is not a serious force on the Right anymore, not sure why you think appeals to that label have any power or impact here.

There are still some of us (fiscal conservatives) around, but we're willing to deal with profligate spenders like Trump if it'll get Federal funding away from Planned Parenthood and into the border wall.

Balancing the budget is important. It matters. But there are other things which matter much more.
 
Last edited:

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
If we have gotten to the point that you are questioning the need for taxes to exist, then I think we have strayed too far away from the thread topic.
I never said that taxes shouldn't happen.

All I did was ask why someone's work and life should be taxed a 2nd time when they die. Unsurprisingly, no one has answered the question.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
I never said that taxes shouldn't happen.

All I did was ask why someone's work and life should be taxed a 2nd time when they die. Unsurprisingly, no one has answered the question.
While I personally do not agree with death taxes, for the same reasons you have laid out, I'll try to give an answer anyway.

The ideal of death taxes is to "level the playing field" between generations so that institutional wealth does not stay in the same families generation after generation constantly accumulating more wealth for no other reason than a great-ancestor accumulated more wealth and accelerating the "rich get richer" process.

In practice, it doesn't work that way at all, of course, the rich keep getting richer and get out of said taxes via lawyers and shenanigans, the poor don't have anything to tax, and the middle class gets squeezed like a tube of toothpaste in the hands of an enraged gorilla. Actually, this seems to be true of nearly all taxes and most federal programs, almost like the richest class don't want more competition.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
The idea of the government leveling the playing field with property is an abhorent concept.

It's fundamentally NOT something that free people should be accepting.
I have to disagree here. The idea that Johnny shouldn't start life in a dramatically inferior position to Charles through no fault of his own, but because Charles' mom was married to a wealthy man and Johhny's was the maid their mutual dad had an affair with is hardly abhorrent.

The application is terrible in practice but the idea that the playing field should be level and everybody should have equality of opportunity is not.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I have to disagree here. The idea that Johnny shouldn't start life in a dramatically inferior position to Charles through no fault of his own, but because Charles' mom was married to a wealthy man and Johhny's was the maid their mutual dad had an affair with is hardly abhorrent.

The application is terrible in practice but the idea that the playing field should be level and everybody should have equality of opportunity is not.

The problem with this, is it assumes a 'baseline' of wealth and privilege that everybody 'should' have.

The correct attitude to have, is that everyone is born into this world naked, wet, and crying. Anything above and beyond that is a blessing, and while it is good and right for some blessings to be as widely-had as possible (above all else having both a mother and a father to raise you), and being jealous of those more blessed than you is a sin.

Unless they literally stole something from you.

Entitlement mentality; 'they didn't earn that, it should rightfully be mine,' is one of the most destructive mindsets there is.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I have to disagree here. The idea that Johnny shouldn't start life in a dramatically inferior position to Charles through no fault of his own, but because Charles' mom was married to a wealthy man and Johhny's was the maid their mutual dad had an affair with is hardly abhorrent.

The application is terrible in practice but the idea that the playing field should be level and everybody should have equality of opportunity is not.
Except that isn't what happens, and is a really crap example too boot.

The only equality anyone is entitled to is legal equality, not economic equality or social status equality.

All death taxes do is ensure that the truly rich keep their money off-shore or hire enough tax lawyers to find every loop hole and edge case on the books, while small business owners and people who saved smartly just see their hard work they wanted to leave to their kids taken by the state in increasing amounts when they pass on.
The problem with this, is it assumes a 'baseline' of wealth and privilege that everybody 'should' have.

The correct attitude to have, is that everyone is born into this world naked, wet, and crying. Anything above and beyond that is a blessing, and while it is good and right for some blessings to be as widely-had as possible (above all else having both a mother and a father to raise you), and being jealous of those more blessed than you is a sin.

Unless they literally stole something from you.

Entitlement mentality; 'they didn't earn that, it should rightfully be mine,' is one of the most destructive mindsets there is.
Yes, the whole concept of a death tax to 'level the playing field' is just making it so those who are already wealth can stay wealthy, while making accumulation of new wealth even more difficult.

No one picks who they are born to, what their race, class, economic condition, or geographic location of their family is when they are born. A death tax is a tax on heirs for their parents success and to keep the heirs from 'having more than they deserve', which assumes that someone is entitled to another's wealth just because they have more than others.

It's base jealousy and spite made tax law, not some moral mechanism of creating opportunity. It only truly hurts successful bits of the middle class, most upper class people already have the lawyers to make trusts and the like to legally shelter the money, or just have it tied up in stocks/property.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I would hardly call the Neocons "Fiscal Conservatives". Their stupid wars and caving to the left are part of the reason the debt is so bad.
I tend towards fiscal conservative beliefs but I have accepted I'm not going to get my way on that front for at least 80 years so I shifted focus to saving what' little civil liberties I have left
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
I never said that taxes shouldn't happen.

All I did was ask why someone's work and life should be taxed a 2nd time when they die. Unsurprisingly, no one has answered the question.
Perhaps that's not what you meant by "why do you assume that life must be taxed?" But I did not assume that there must be an estate tax; in fact, I asked you what about it is so bad, which answer appears to be at least largely the dreaded double taxation.

1. It's not like there aren't assets whose value has gone at least partially untaxed at the point of death. That is, after all, the entire purpose of the step up in basis, right?

2. We are arguing about the merits of this or that form of taxation rather than the overall level of revenue the government raises, yes? So whatever taxes you propose eliminating will implicitly have to be made up with tax hikes elsewhere, and conversely raising the tax in question would allow a reduction in other forms of taxation. (Otherwise you are conflating this discussion with a discussion of the overall tax rate; at least, that's my position, and let me know if you disagree.) On average, then, "double taxation" is a red herring because if you were scrupulously taxed only once per dollar the said tax would be higher.

A discussion of tax rates, of course, has little to do with the method of taxation; with the exception of, say, discussing flat vs. progressive schemes, which would of course be highly relevant to the estate tax. (Since no one wants the utter insanity of an estate tax that starts at estates of $1.)

3. You mentioned that property taxes are assessed every year. That's true. This is orders of magnitude worse than merely twice in a lifetime! And sales tax hits people who are of course taxed on the income they spend. I don't like double taxation either, but it's hardly special to the estate tax, and none of these other double taxes wait until I am dead to be collected.

4. I reiterate my question about whether you find the estate tax particularly inconvenient in its relative unpredictability (you don't know too far in advance when you'll die, usually) and the fact that is a big chunk instead of spread out over a lifetime. Specifically, whether that outweighs the convenience of what is effectively a lifetime deferral.
In practice, it doesn't work that way at all, of course, the rich keep getting richer and get out of said taxes via lawyers and shenanigans, the poor don't have anything to tax, and the middle class gets squeezed like a tube of toothpaste in the hands of an enraged gorilla. Actually, this seems to be true of nearly all taxes and most federal programs, almost like the richest class don't want more competition.
Well, I would think this mainly applies to families whose assets are relatively non-fungible (e.g. the family farm) and whose income is relatively marginal compared to the property required to generate it. Otherwise having much more than $12 million for individuals and $23 million for couples is, to me, stretching the definition of middle class a bit. (The tax would be relatively low on, say, an individual's $13 million estate against the total value.) I would agree with strengthening protections for families whose nominal net worth is high but whom it does not make sense for society to be taxing at that rate. And of course closing loopholes on the super-wealthy, which (let me preempt you) I am aware is easier said than done.
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
Insert 'Taxation is Theft' meme here.

But honestly yeah, its far from uncomment or even unjustified to complain or wonder about the justifications for taxes imposed on them. Because in the end the west and people in general are a 'what does that do for me' sort of attitude. Which is probably right as nobody else will honestly consider you over themselves and theirs whatever platitudes they say outloud.

And @LordsFire is spot on with his opinion on what a person is 'owed' by 'society'. With the addon that what people consider a public good varies wildly especially in terms of whether they should be the ones paying for it for other people.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top