• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Fixing America

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. The estate is the deceased person's property and liabilities. The heirs are not that. They are those entities that are entitled to those assets minus whatever liabilities remain. The liabilities must be paid before the assets are distributed to the heirs. Surely, you can understand that. Estate taxes are a tax liability. Fortunately NJ doesn't have a estate tax. But property taxes and bills must be paid. And maybe unrealized capital gains taxes depending on the state, county and municipality. How you know they are two different entities is the heirs can walk away from an estate if the liabilities exceed the assets.

Inheritance taxes is a tax not on an estate. It's a tax on an heir. Something an heir is responsible for. But you can always choose to decline an inheritance and not be responsible for the taxes.
Inheritance tax is a tax on an unearned capital gain. Of course there should be a tax on it subject to a reasonable exemption (ie one much lower than most US tax regimes have).
 
The problems we now face:
  • internet-based global monopolies, winner-take-all, affecting both the distribution of goods and the flow of information
  • automation and AI-related mass elimination of blue and white collar jobs
  • industrial economies of scale that limit production to a few nation-states, equating to few-winners-taking-all
  • an approaching demographic cliff that will usher in the era of negative growth as the norm, driving increased monopolization of markets and intensified gate-keeping by the winners, including famine as policy.
  • cognitive science and AI-driven data mining allowing for micro-targeting, i.e., an oligarch whisperer in every ear, cradle to grave.
All of which creates massive joblessness, apart from the clear political considerations, such as AI plus concentrated media using sophisticated profiling, equating to the ability to manipulate opinion on a scale never before imaginable. Once one can seamlessly control everyday "reality", it's a brave new world.

I could suggest fixes; some workable, all minor. I think the age-old consequence of well-armed tyrants vying for wealth, accompanied by huddled and ever-more desperate masses, will lead, and is leading, to global war, this time a doozy. Already the powerful in Israel and the USA are openly naming the war booty they seek.

If war does not devastate all, the solution for the "winners" in the coming age of dwindling production and consumption is utter reliance on robotics as a means to sustain local production of what will inevitably be increasingly expensive goods. But robots only consume electricity and cannot stave off a precipitous decline in consumer and industrial demand, further intensifying the negative trends.

In this scenario, the only ones with a future are machines, and as witnesses to the demise of humanity, they may very well attempt galactic expansion as a way to sustain their own growth. So far, it seems no such bot army has managed that trick in the Milky Way. Hopefully it stays that way, or that AI is smart enough not to attempt limitless growth and to accept homeostasis.

My bet is on a war that knocks everyone back to the stone age, rinse and repeat, including some future sentient being musing about the Silurian hypothesis. On an optimistic note, there are at least 4-5 galactic years left, enough for all that has transpired since the first mass extinction to repeat several times over. Then a hotter, expanding Sol ends the conversation in this system.
 
Last edited:
One problem is when the US attacks its own successful businesses. Opiate addicts used to be able to rely on US produced opiates (oxycodone) and the profits from the sale of the opiates was kept in the US. The drugs were produced to a high and consistent quality. The profit was taxed. Attacking US based manufacture hasn't stopped people being addicted they have just moved to using imported fentanyl, often of variable quality. The profits are off shored, and the US has lost the tax. The US needs substitution therapy, replace Chinese fentanyl with US oxycodone. Use a hypothecated opiuate tax to fund drug addiction services.

(This post is intended to be satirical)
It's satire, but I think there's actually some sense in it. Instead of throwing everyone off prescription drugs maybe some could have been diverted to methadone. Or maintained on oxy, for that matter, but the U.S. doesn't do that. The worst of both worlds was driving the addicts to take up street fentanyl with quality control so awful one in every 8 pills could kill you. They were designed roughly to mimic a 30-mg oxycodone pill. Everyone knew they were fake. The last time I took a deep dive on this subject, maybe 3 years ago, there was no heroin in the U.S., all "dirty thirties" and sometimes fentanyl analogs sometimes mixed with heavy benzos meant to sedate animals. I think I read recently OD deaths were down; their business model sucked. People on message boards were lamenting the good old days of heroin where your dealer actually wanted to keep you alive. The new generation not so much. I suspect they've killed off most of their base, and others have become abstinent or rely on opioid replacement therapy.
 
How much of what someone else has earned belongs to you?
How much they owe to society depends on how much they've earned rather than stolen from others, exploited others, bribed officials to be immune from prosecution for those thefts.

Don't worry though, you'll never be a billionaire.

ETA: If a person wins a billion dollar Powerball, they might expect to pay +/- 50% fed and state combined taxes. Good start.
 
Last edited:
How much depends on how much they've earned rather than stolen from others, exploited others, bribed officials to be immune from prosecution for those thefts.

Don't worry though, you'll never be a billionaire.
It's really sad that people have been conditioned to believe that success only comes by stealing, exploiting, and bribery. Oprah is a billionaire - who did she exploit?
 
How much they owe to society depends on how much they've earned rather than stolen from others, exploited others, bribed officials to be immune from prosecution for those thefts.
That isn't how our tax code works, though. Do you have an actual proposal to make it work that way, or is this just your fantasy ideal?
 
◊◊◊◊ that strawman; where did I say that was the only path to succcess? What's sad is that history is so rife with examples of wealth aquired exactly through those means, yet people admire them. ◊◊◊◊, this corrupt president is pardoning b/millionaire fraudsters; I wonder why?

As for Oprah, she should be heavily taxed for foisting Dr. Oz (and other woosters) on a credulous public.
 
Last edited:
◊◊◊◊ that strawman; where did I say that was the only path to succcess? What's sad is that history is so rife with examples of wealth aquired exactly through those means, yet people admire them. ◊◊◊◊, this corrupt president is pardoning b/millionaire fraudsters; I wonder why?

As for Oprah, she should be heavily taxed for foisting Dr. Oz (and other woosters) on a credulous public.
History is also rife with lots of people creating wealth and achieving success without fraud or corruption. Don't punish people simply because they're doing better in life than you.
 
Last edited:
History is also with lots of people creating wealth and achieving success without fraud or corruption
So what? That doesn't excuse the wealthy abusing their wealth and influence. Jeff Bezos (as one example) should have no more sway on public policy that you or I.
. Don't punish people simply because they're doing better in life than you.
Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Christ in a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ canoe. You're not actually pulling the "jealousy" card here, are you? Asking people to pay their fair share for acquiring wealth in what some might call the "greatest country in the world" isn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ punishment, it's an operating expense.
 
So what? That doesn't excuse the wealthy abusing their wealth and influence.

My dude, there are liars and cheats at all income levels.

Jeff Bezos (as one example) should have no more sway on public policy that you or I.

You're aware that Bezos is not a government bureaucrat, right? Should we muzzle celebrities who spout off their politics at award shows and during concerts?

Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Christ in a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ canoe. You're not actually pulling the "jealousy" card here, are you? Asking people to pay their fair share for acquiring wealth in what some might call the "greatest country in the world" isn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ punishment, it's an operating expense.

How is that some folks don't know the top 1% in the US contribute to nearly 40% of federal income taxes? Surely, the folks not paying their "fair" share are those who pay nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
My dude, there are liars and cheats at all income levels.

Not your dude. And that excuses nothing.
You're aware that Bezos is not a government bureaucrat, right? Should we muzzle celebrities who spout off their politics at award shows and during concerts?
Who said anything about muzzling? I'm talking about influence, and if you think Bezos $$$ don't have any influence on this corrupt administration you are more credulous than I originally surmised.
How is that some folks don't know the top 1% in the US contribute to nearly 40% of federal income taxes?
Good! As they make so much more than the average household, hoarding nearly that much of the wealth. If the taxes they pay hurt their lifestyle, they're not living within their means, you know, the way I Got Miners demand SNAP recipients live. Roughly 32% of their income comes from "wages" versus 84% for the other 99%.
Surely, the folks not paying their "fair" share are those who pay nothing at all.
Surely not. How stupid. Unless you mean crooks like Trump who paid nothing in tax for a number of years in the teens and early 20s.
 
Last edited:
Not your dude. And that excuses nothing.

Who said anything about muzzling? I'm talking about influence, and if you think Bezos $$$ don't have any influence on this corrupt administration you are more credulous than I originally surmised.

Why should the New York Times editorial board have more influence than Trausti, anonymous forum poster?

Good! As they make so much more than the average household, hoarding nearly that much of the wealth. If the taxes they pay hurt their lifestyle, they're not living within their means, you know, the way I Got Miners demand SNAP recipients live. Roughly 32% of their income comes from "wages" versus 84% for the other 99%.

That doesn't change the silliness of proclaiming that those who already pay the lion share of taxes are failing to pay their "fair" share.

Surely not. How stupid. Unless you mean crooks like Trump who paid nothing in tax for a number of years in the teens and early 20s.

Does anyone remember when Rachel Maddow acquired a copy of Trump's past tax return and it showed a rich guy who paid millions in taxes? Good times.
 
It's about being ripped off. Every MAGA voter knows they are being ripped off, somehow.

Yes. Nick Shirley exposed a lot of fraud in Minnesota which is now hamstringing the Dem senate nominee.

Even if you pay no tax you are being ripped off. You are not making what your work is worth.

That doesn't make any sense.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom