20Gauge
TB Fanatic
Same as they always do when it comes to taxes.
This will "only apply" to those we have demonized ( high earners ) and it will "never" (until we need it to) apply to normal wage earners.
ECON Biden’s estate tax changes will wipe out millions of small businesses: Norquist
- Thread starter 20Gauge
- Start date
This will "only apply" to those we have demonized ( high earners ) and it will "never" (until we need it to) apply to normal wage earners.
20Gauge
TB Fanatic
Yep. One of the reasons I like what Teddy R did when he broke them up. Same with Ma Bell. Much good came from it.
Tristan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
They need more po' folks so they can tell 'em how they're going to hep 'em so dey'll vote for 'em!
So it's ok for the Gob't. to take it instead?
Of course, if you need to or want to use up what you've got before you croak, cool! 110% fine with that. It's yours; do with it what you will. Any remainder, however, should be transferred to who ever in the hell you think deserves it, not the state.
They want to take a piece of the pie again and again until there ain't no pie left.
mistaken1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Professor says that having a 'white nuclear family' is white supremacy
Jessie Daniels, a self-proclaimed 'internationally recognized expert on Internet manifestations of racism' at the City University of New York, made the controversial claim Wednesday.
College professor sparks fury by claiming that having a 'white nuclear family with children you want what's best for' is a form of white supremacy
City University of New York professor Jessie Daniels made claim on Wednesday
Blasted 'white families' for having children - a form of white supremacy, she says
Called on white people to disinherit children and give homes away when they die
By Keith Griffith For Dailymail.com
Published: 09:45 EDT, 31 October 2017 | Updated: 15:31 EDT, 31 October 2017
A sociology professor has claimed that 'white nuclear families' with children are a form of white supremacy.
Jessie Daniels, a self-proclaimed 'internationally recognized expert on Internet manifestations of racism' at the City University of New York, made the controversial claim Wednesday on Twitter.
'Part of what I've learned is that the white nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy,' she opined in a tweet which has since been deleted.
Daniels went on to argue that 'forming a white family' and having 'white children that "you want what's best for"' perpetuates racism and is 'part of the problem'.
Jessie Daniels, a self-proclaimed 'internationally recognized expert on Internet manifestations of racism' at the City University of New York, says having white children is white supremacy
The professor did not let multiracial families off of the hook either, writing that any white person who has multiracial children without confronting 'your own racism or systemic white supremacy' is not helping.
Daniels spoke favorably of a 'feminist critique of The Family as an inherently conservative force in society', lamenting however that it seemed to have fallen out of favor in academic circles due to the push for gay marriage.
The molder of young minds then called on all white families to give away their family wealth and homes when they die.
'White people: do you own your home?' she asked. 'When you die, where's wealth in that house going? If it's to your children, you're reproducing [inequality].'
The tweetstorm blasting white families, which was first reported by Campus Reform, drew considerable criticism, and Daniels has since locked her account to private.
Daniels did not immediately respond to a request for comment from DailyMail.com.
mistaken1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Privilege and Inheritance: Time to disrupt intergenerational transfers of wealth
The transfer of wealth between generations increases inequality and makes it more persistent across generations. In South Africa, the problem has an acute racial dimension, as the transfer of intergenerational wealth is a significant mechanism through which subsequent generations of white South...
www.dailymaverick.co.za
Privilege and Inheritance: Time to disrupt intergenerational transfers of wealth
The transfer of wealth between generations increases inequality and makes it more persistent across generations. In South Africa, the problem has an acute racial dimension, as the transfer of intergenerational wealth is a significant mechanism through which subsequent generations of white South Africans are able to retain and further boost our economic privileges accumulated over generations of colonial and apartheid rule. The time has therefore come to start the process of reimagining how we deal with the transfer of intergenerational wealth.
Last week, as I was poring over news reports and Twitter feeds about the global renewed “Black Lives Matter” protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, I spotted a headline to the effect that a group of white people had “given up” (or had pledged to “give up”) their white privilege. I cringed at the glibness of the headline and moved swiftly on.
But it did make me reflect again on practical and concrete steps that could be taken to begin to dismantle the system that produces and reinforces privilege. One such – relatively modest – step would be to abolish the system of intergenerational inheritance or at least to heavily tax intergenerational inheritance and donations. (Another concrete step would be the imposition of a wealth tax, but as I have previously written in support of a wealth tax, I leave that aside for now.)
Writing about white privilege from an American perspective, Cory Collins argues that “the ability to accumulate wealth has long been a white privilege – a privilege created by overt, systemic racism in both the public and private sectors”.
As is the case in South Africa, there is an enormous wealth gap between white households and black households in America. Research from Brandeis University and Demos found that, in the American context, the racial wealth gap is not closed when black people attend university. Nor do they close the gap when they work full time, or when they spend less and save more. Collins thus concludes:
“The gap, instead, relies largely on inheritance – wealth passed from one generation to the next. And that wealth often comes in the form of inherited homes with value. When white families are able to accumulate wealth because of their earning power or home value, they are more likely to support their children into early adulthood, helping with expenses such as college education, first cars and first homes. The cycle continues.”
Of course, intergenerational inheritance does not only benefit white people (although it disproportionately benefits us), and the abolition (or radical curtailment) of inheritance would also impact on wealthy black people and their offspring. But I would argue that the unchecked transfer of wealth between generations is an injustice in and of itself and that it should be corrected, even when this is unrelated to white privilege.
Inheritance provides for the intergenerational transmission of inequality. The work of Thomas Piketty in this regard is now well known. (Piketty’s views on the manner in which inheritance perpetuate and accentuate inequality have been criticised by some economists who do not share his ideological disposition, but it seems to me that it is difficult to argue in the South African context that intergenerational inheritance does not perpetuate race-based inequality in South Africa.)
Intergenerational inheritance benefits individuals who, through no effort of their own, happen to have been born to parents who have amassed some wealth. These parents, in turn, may well have inherited from their parents, also through no effort of their own. There is a double injustice here, as those whose parents or larger family have no wealth of their own often have to financially support their parents when they grow old, while those who are already financially privileged because they do not have this extra responsibility will inherit from their parents.
Ironically, the abolition (or radical curtailment) of intergenerational inheritance should, in principle, not only appeal to individuals on the left of the political spectrum. Those who claim they believe in an “equal opportunity society” – in other words, a meritocratic system in which individuals get ahead based on their own talents and efforts – should in theory support efforts to curtail inheritance rights as inheritance is gifted, not earned.
Of course, many people who claim to have achieved their success on merit, ignore the many ways in which privilege of all types gave them an unmerited leg up. But those who genuinely support a meritocratic system would be hard pressed to argue that individuals who inherit from their parents do so on the basis of merit.
There are two broad approaches to curtail the effects of inheritance on the perpetuation of inequality.
First, the right to inherit (or to inherit more than intimate personal belongings or more than a certain amount) could be abolished entirely, but with exceptions made for spouses or partners and for non-adult children. The exceptions would be based on the assumption that it would be unjust to leave spouses or partners (especially those financially dependent on their spouse or partner) in the lurch when their spouse or partner dies. Children who are orphaned, and any other people who have been genuinely dependent upon the deceased, should also not be disadvantaged by the death of their parents or ward.
Second, a slightly more modest intervention would be the imposition of an inheritance tax, calculated on a sliding scale with the top scale at 100%, along with a similar tax on intergenerational donations made before death. For example, the scale could provide for an inheritance tax of, say, 10% to kick in on any amount of more than R100,000 in an estate, and then gradually increase until everything over, say, R1-million in an estate, could be taxed at 100%. (I am not wedded to these figures and only use them to illustrate my point.) This approach would mitigate against the potentially harsh consequences on poorer individuals who were financially dependent on the deceased. It would thus allow for modest inheritance without perpetuating intergenerational inequality.
I assume that many people will not be keen on my (not remotely original) proposal, because the idea of inheritance as something natural and inevitable is deeply embedded in our various cultures. Others will point out potential practical problems, or will argue that imposing decisive limitations on the intergenerational transfer of wealth may be incompatible with the global financial system we operate in. Yet others would argue that the abolition of inheritance or the imposition of a steep inheritance tax potentially infringes on the right to property guaranteed in section 25 of the Constitution.
While I would – given some time – probably be able to develop relatively cogent (hopefully even persuasive) counterarguments to most of these objections, the purpose of this article is not to provide a watertight policy blueprint on how to deal with the problem of inheritance.
My aim has been more modest: to identify a specific legal mechanism – inheritance – that is widely accepted and deeply entrenched in our society, but which I believe contributes to the perpetuation of race-based inequality in South Africa, and to urge change. Such change will, by its very nature, be incremental. (I am not a believer in revolutionary change because I always worry about who will take power the day after the revolution is done.) But I believe, over time, a complete overhaul of the inheritance system could have a profound impact on racial inequality. DM
mistaken1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
The Case for a 100% Tax on White People’s Inheritance
White people owe a debt to Black America — here’s how it can be repaid.
medium.com
The Case for a 100% Tax on White People’s Inheritance
Recently, I revisited Eula Biss’s insightful essay “White Debt,” published in the New York Times Magazine in 2015. Using the metaphor of home ownership, Biss calls whiteness “forgotten debt”: we live in a house we think we own, bought with a debt we’ve never repaid. It’s an apt comparison and one that seems to have resonated with white liberals over the last few years. Since the Black Lives Matter movement began in 2014, Democrats have more seriously considered the case for reparations — one method of starting to repay that debt.
In addition to rising support in the polls, the Democratic-controlled House held a combative committee hearing on the measure last June and Tom Steyer made it a cornerstone of his recent presidential campaign. But Mitch McConnell, and other white conservatives, insist they’re not responsible for the sins of their ancestors and shouldn’t be held accountable for them.
“I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago — for [which] none of us currently living are responsible — is a good idea,” McConnell told reporters.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, who re-popularized reparations in a landmark essay for The Atlantic in 2014, testified at the hearing. Responding to arguments like McConnell’s, Coates once wrote, “It is as though we have run up a credit card bill and, having pledged to charge no more, remain befuddled that the balance does not disappear.” But while his logic is certainly sound, it’s unlikely to convince any white conservatives to support the cause. They simply do not want to pay the price of their ancestors’ crimes.
If we don’t hold white people responsible for their ancestors’ liabilities, they shouldn’t get to inherit their assets, either.
But any descendant of a relative who has passed away deeply in debt knows that you (or at least the deceased’s estate) become responsible for your ancestors’ debts, regardless of whether you had a hand in acquiring them. All accounts must be settled, one way or another.
Rereading “White Debt,” I decided it might be time to try a new approach to reparations. If white people don’t want to settle their debt by paying out of pocket, perhaps we shouldn’t force them. They’ve made clear that they don’t feel responsible, so they don’t feel that they should be punished. I say we stop trying to convince them otherwise. That said, if we don’t hold white people responsible for their ancestors’ liabilities, they shouldn’t get to inherit their assets, either. As long as reparations are not in effect, I propose instituting a 100% tax on all estates inherited by any white person, not Hispanic or Latino.
This is, of course, only fair. You can’t choose to inherit the good and leave out the bad — yet this is exactly what white people want to do with the legacy of slavery. They wish to preserve their economic status, built entirely on a heinously criminal enterprise, without making a compensatory apology for their cruelty and thievery (I include the crime of theft because labor absolutely has value, can very much be stolen, and thus, will need to be repaid). But we white people haven’t made a single payment on our stolen house, mortgaged on 400 years of chattel slavery. And that can no longer stand. If we insist on locking away our checkbooks, then it’s time for our house to be foreclosed.
I expect this proposition to come as only a mild inconvenience to white conservatives, who should be able to quickly reclaim their once-stolen wealth by simply pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. This is still America, after all, where it shouldn’t matter whether you inherit anything from your ancestors because all you need to do to make money grow on trees is put in a little extra elbow grease when you plant the seeds.
Plus, as my white conservative family taught me all too well, the world doesn’t owe you anything and you should want to work for everything you have. I expect white conservatives to welcome this opportunity to prove their “self-made-ness,” independent of any free rides from Mommy and Daddy or Grandma and Grandpa (especially since anything that was the product of someone else’s labor and then given to you for free is socialism).
So as progressives continue making reparations a talking point of the 2020 election, I encourage them to consider confiscating the inheritances of white people instead. Over the next 25 years, it’s estimated that Baby Boomers will pass down $68 trillion to their heirs. Because white families have about 14x more wealth than Black families, I would expect to impose a 100% tax on the vast majority of that money, which could be used to pay for a slew of initiatives aimed at closing the racial wealth gap and improving the lives of Black Americans. For example, investing in Black entrepreneurs, restoring low-income housing and making it more affordable, eliminating student loan debt, legalizing marijuana, ending cash bail, and banning private prisons would cost a mere fraction of the wealth white people intend to hoard and never repay.
In an election cycle driven by a misguided need to appeal to moderates, why not advocate for a policy everyone can get behind? Liberals will see it as a method of paying back the wealth to Black Americans that white people have stolen from them for centuries, and conservatives will see it as a testament to one of their core values: never taking a free lunch and becoming wealthy through hard work alone.
In times as divisive as these, I can’t think of a policy to better unite us.
EDIT 07/19/2020: Since this article was posted to 4chan, it’s come to my attention that many of you have completely missed the point. It should be obvious that a tax on white people’s inheritances isn’t a real or legitimate proposal. Beyond the logistical concerns of trusts and off-shore tax havens, it simply wouldn’t be constitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Rather, much like eating children in Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” the idea is simply a rhetorical device meant to illuminate contradictions and inconsistencies in white conservative thinking. Namely, that you reject a relationship with your ancestors when it comes to their economic liabilities but defend to your dying breath your “heritage” in a positive sense, both economically and emotionally.
Anticipating your response, I also critique the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality by simply challenging you to do so without depending on a handout from Mommy and Daddy.
So be ye not afraid — they’re just words, fellas. No one’s coming for your parent’s McMansion.
That was tax being sent across the Atlantic ... the English were fine with taxing the colonies since it helped rather than hindered them.
Similar problems now. Until people realize that their taxes are going to others to make them wealthier and NOT to what will help their socioeconomic strata, they either don't give a flying frick or they are all for it because of "fairness".
The Case for a 100% Tax on White People’s Inheritance
White people owe a debt to Black America — here’s how it can be repaid.
The Case for a 100% Tax on White People’s Inheritance
Recently, I revisited Eula Biss’s insightful essay “White Debt,” published in the New York Times Magazine in 2015. Using the metaphor of home ownership, Biss calls whiteness “forgotten debt”: we live in a house we think we own, bought with a debt we’ve never repaid. It’s an apt comparison and one that seems to have resonated with white liberals over the last few years. Since the Black Lives Matter movement began in 2014, Democrats have more seriously considered the case for reparations — one method of starting to repay that debt.
In addition to rising support in the polls, the Democratic-controlled House held a combative committee hearing on the measure last June and Tom Steyer made it a cornerstone of his recent presidential campaign. But Mitch McConnell, and other white conservatives, insist they’re not responsible for the sins of their ancestors and shouldn’t be held accountable for them.
“I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago — for [which] none of us currently living are responsible — is a good idea,” McConnell told reporters.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, who re-popularized reparations in a landmark essay for The Atlantic in 2014, testified at the hearing. Responding to arguments like McConnell’s, Coates once wrote, “It is as though we have run up a credit card bill and, having pledged to charge no more, remain befuddled that the balance does not disappear.” But while his logic is certainly sound, it’s unlikely to convince any white conservatives to support the cause. They simply do not want to pay the price of their ancestors’ crimes.
If we don’t hold white people responsible for their ancestors’ liabilities, they shouldn’t get to inherit their assets, either.
But any descendant of a relative who has passed away deeply in debt knows that you (or at least the deceased’s estate) become responsible for your ancestors’ debts, regardless of whether you had a hand in acquiring them. All accounts must be settled, one way or another.
Rereading “White Debt,” I decided it might be time to try a new approach to reparations. If white people don’t want to settle their debt by paying out of pocket, perhaps we shouldn’t force them. They’ve made clear that they don’t feel responsible, so they don’t feel that they should be punished. I say we stop trying to convince them otherwise. That said, if we don’t hold white people responsible for their ancestors’ liabilities, they shouldn’t get to inherit their assets, either. As long as reparations are not in effect, I propose instituting a 100% tax on all estates inherited by any white person, not Hispanic or Latino.
This is, of course, only fair. You can’t choose to inherit the good and leave out the bad — yet this is exactly what white people want to do with the legacy of slavery. They wish to preserve their economic status, built entirely on a heinously criminal enterprise, without making a compensatory apology for their cruelty and thievery (I include the crime of theft because labor absolutely has value, can very much be stolen, and thus, will need to be repaid). But we white people haven’t made a single payment on our stolen house, mortgaged on 400 years of chattel slavery. And that can no longer stand. If we insist on locking away our checkbooks, then it’s time for our house to be foreclosed.
I expect this proposition to come as only a mild inconvenience to white conservatives, who should be able to quickly reclaim their once-stolen wealth by simply pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. This is still America, after all, where it shouldn’t matter whether you inherit anything from your ancestors because all you need to do to make money grow on trees is put in a little extra elbow grease when you plant the seeds.
Plus, as my white conservative family taught me all too well, the world doesn’t owe you anything and you should want to work for everything you have. I expect white conservatives to welcome this opportunity to prove their “self-made-ness,” independent of any free rides from Mommy and Daddy or Grandma and Grandpa (especially since anything that was the product of someone else’s labor and then given to you for free is socialism).
So as progressives continue making reparations a talking point of the 2020 election, I encourage them to consider confiscating the inheritances of white people instead. Over the next 25 years, it’s estimated that Baby Boomers will pass down $68 trillion to their heirs. Because white families have about 14x more wealth than Black families, I would expect to impose a 100% tax on the vast majority of that money, which could be used to pay for a slew of initiatives aimed at closing the racial wealth gap and improving the lives of Black Americans. For example, investing in Black entrepreneurs, restoring low-income housing and making it more affordable, eliminating student loan debt, legalizing marijuana, ending cash bail, and banning private prisons would cost a mere fraction of the wealth white people intend to hoard and never repay.
In an election cycle driven by a misguided need to appeal to moderates, why not advocate for a policy everyone can get behind? Liberals will see it as a method of paying back the wealth to Black Americans that white people have stolen from them for centuries, and conservatives will see it as a testament to one of their core values: never taking a free lunch and becoming wealthy through hard work alone.
In times as divisive as these, I can’t think of a policy to better unite us.
EDIT 07/19/2020: Since this article was posted to 4chan, it’s come to my attention that many of you have completely missed the point. It should be obvious that a tax on white people’s inheritances isn’t a real or legitimate proposal. Beyond the logistical concerns of trusts and off-shore tax havens, it simply wouldn’t be constitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Rather, much like eating children in Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” the idea is simply a rhetorical device meant to illuminate contradictions and inconsistencies in white conservative thinking. Namely, that you reject a relationship with your ancestors when it comes to their economic liabilities but defend to your dying breath your “heritage” in a positive sense, both economically and emotionally.
Anticipating your response, I also critique the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality by simply challenging you to do so without depending on a handout from Mommy and Daddy.
So be ye not afraid — they’re just words, fellas. No one’s coming for your parent’s McMansion.
This is a crapfest of an article, and some of the assumptions about estates is not true. Ask anyone that has ever tried to collect an unsecured debt.
vector7
Dot Collector
Obama: “If You’ve Got a Business — You Didn’t Build That.”
At a campaign event on July 13 in Roanoke, VA President Barack Obama, proclaimed that “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” This bit of inspirational leadership will undoubtedly come as a shock to the millions of business owners who have long taken pride in building their businesses.
View: https://youtu.be/6j8XhQfvpW8
RT 12secs
At a campaign event on July 13 in Roanoke, VA President Barack Obama, proclaimed that “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” This bit of inspirational leadership will undoubtedly come as a shock to the millions of business owners who have long taken pride in building their businesses.
RT 12secs
Henry Bowman
Veteran Member
Agree, the average person has slim and no chance of collecting unsecured debt, HOWEVER, a determined Communistic/Globalist Government sure could....Tax debt is unsecured, as is Student loan....the list goes on...they are adding loads to THEIRS to help them collect that so called unsecured Theft.
Bps1691
Veteran Member
They already said what they thought of people like todays--- they warned those that followed them multiple times and ways and gave us the tools (second) to enforce it.
These two quotes says it the best...
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin
... how many have been content to take welfare and never better themselves or their skills, how many right now refuse to go back to work because they are getting today's equivalent of the Dole, how many are demanding more-more-more from the government?
And even more important and to the point....
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
... can anyone still seriously not see that at least 1/2 if not more of those who people this land are anything but moral?
One last one that perfectly describes the oligarchy behind the communist takeover...
Dux
Veteran Member
yes
vector7
Dot Collector
By Design the Destruction of the Independent Middle Class...
President @JoeBiden’s new taxes will hit smaller firms, @taxreformer warns.
View: https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1389959674087329797
President @JoeBiden’s new taxes will hit smaller firms, @taxreformer warns.
View: https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1389959674087329797
Inflation and devaluation.
They tried this before back in the 1990s, the bill allowed congress to tax anyones estate upon death that was worth $600 thousand dollars at 50% of it's net and it was done away with.
They want to tax something that is not theirs to start with and somehow feel they have the right to take/tax whatever they want. We're right back to where we were in 1776 with the crown taxing anything and everything.
They want to tax something that is not theirs to start with and somehow feel they have the right to take/tax whatever they want. We're right back to where we were in 1776 with the crown taxing anything and everything.
Last edited:
Tristan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
I don't know if the destruction of small business was a primary objective, but it wouldn't surprise me if proven to be so.
Their rapacious need to take as much as possible from some, so as to pass a little on to others, while settin' up their friends, family and associates in the margins, is certainly a primary motivation.
Their rapacious need to take as much as possible from some, so as to pass a little on to others, while settin' up their friends, family and associates in the margins, is certainly a primary motivation.
20Gauge
TB Fanatic
Of this there is no doubt. All that seems to happen is the government largesse moves to the hands of family members of those in power.
Using the Logic put forth by the "Black Militants" (Communists) I'm a firm believer in Reparations based on the aftermath of the Civil War. My family (white Northerners) had 4 individuals (husbands, fathers, family men, breadwinners) killed freeing the Southern Negroes. Their deaths impovershed my family over the space of many generations, both emotionally and financially. IMHO, the descendants of these freed individuals owe my family compensation for their deaths and the loss of multi-generational family income over the following decades. That debt has never been addressed, much less paid.
I feel it's encumbant on the descendants of the freed Negroes to finally make restitution for the grievous losses suffered by my family for their sacrifice in freeing them from Southern (Democratic) slavery. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of the descendants of the freed Black slaves seeking reparations from the descendants of the Southern White Democrat slaveowners.
I feel it's encumbant on the descendants of the freed Negroes to finally make restitution for the grievous losses suffered by my family for their sacrifice in freeing them from Southern (Democratic) slavery. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of the descendants of the freed Black slaves seeking reparations from the descendants of the Southern White Democrat slaveowners.
Last edited:
Also the lest time they tried this it seemed right from the start it was aimed at farmers and this is just wrong.
Raggedyman
Res ipsa loquitur
NEVER
HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR THE DEED