DISQUS

Mark J · 4 years ago

I don't get his reasoning. Are you a bad bad monkey for inheriting money and you need to be spanked by the government? Do you deserve to have your good fortune shared with everyone else because it's the government's job to force you to be charitable? All I see here is "You have-ee money, we take-ee money!"

How about this:

F*** unlucky lazy people. Or don't... whatever. They've pretty much f***ed themselves, anyway. ;-)

Seriously... this is just fortune envy. "Hey, if we can't get lucky, we'll take things away from the people who do!"

likwidshoe · 4 years ago

Ressentiment, my comrades, will only get you so far.

Matthew Yglesias is a communist. Fuck communists. They're evil. They deserve death.

Jadegold · 4 years ago

Sounds like a threat against Matthew Yglesias. Likwud is one of yours, Rob.

canuck · 4 years ago

my eyes! my eyes! that website hurt my eyes! they feel so dirty now.

likwid, you're right. they aren't just left, they are very much the communist.

justbarkingmad.com » Mar · 4 years ago

[...] sias Filed under: General — Onethumb @ 5:56 am People are, rightfully so, jumping on Ygelsias for his comment “Fuck the small busine [...]

Aaron · 4 years ago

Using Yglesias reasoning, there should be a 79.3% tax on all lotto winnings over $7 million. If you get lucky and hit the bigtime, the gov't should spank you and take most of it away to redistribute to all those who bought lotto tickets and didn't win. (cause they might feel bad for not winning)

LoadTheMule · 4 years ago

If you remember nothing else, please remember this: Under the very thin skin of every liberal lurks a commissar yearning to breathe free.

Regards...

Hus · 4 years ago

Rob,

I think you mean "bureau-crats."

JG · 4 years ago

Uh oh. Aaron's caught lying once again.

Using Yglesias reasoning, there should be a 79.3% tax on all lotto winnings over $7 million.

Where Aaron gets a 79.3% tax rate is apparent: Aaron made it up.

slarrow · 4 years ago

The irritating thing about Yglesias' reasoning is that it isn't reasoning. He doesn't argue for an inheritance tax; he simply states that if you get an inheritance, the government should take a big bite, and dem's the berries.

This is something that some people just don't seem to get. When your rationale is "tax everything that moves" (the closest I can come to what Yglesias might think on this), then things stop moving. When your system is based on economic activity and things stop moving, life gets worse. People who insist on viewing everything by economic status end up supporting measures that hurt the ones they purport to help (e.g., Yglesias' whole "f--- the small businessman" actually costs some of his employees their jobs, a more vital hit than the one the businessman suffers.)

likwidshoe · 4 years ago

Jadegold spits out, "Sounds like a threat against Matthew Yglesias. Likwud is one of yours, Rob."

Who's "Likwud"? I didn't see that commentator.

Aaron · 4 years ago

Of course I made it up, JG. I never said such a tax exsists. But this dudes' reasoning would lead one to believe that the lotto should be taxes heavily because it's pure luck and you don't really 'deserve' it.

Once again, you should learn what the word "lie" means...

JG · 4 years ago

An honest-to-God economist comments on the estate tax:

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001320.html

Some excellent points:

1. The event that triggers the tax is NOT death. "Death tax" is a politically-interested misnomer. Most who die (98%) pay no such tax. The occasion for the tax is the transfer of a large amount of wealth. That's why it is called "The Estate and Gift Tax."

..............

Estate taxation IS NOT double-taxation. Much of the income accumulated in estates has NEVER been taxed. This includes appreciation in the value of financial assets, unincorporated businesses, and farms held until death. Even so, double taxation is not exactly unknown. If they don't like double-taxation, why don't the wingnuts campaign for the abolition of the sales tax? It taxes the use of income that has already been taxed. I think I know why.
....................

There is NO NEED for the recipient of a family business or farm to liquidate in order to pay tax. In today's world of marvelous financial intermediation, it is a trivial matter to securitize that portion of an illiquid firm required to pay the tax, which incidentally need not be paid all at once. Contrary to Matt, the Gov already facilitates paying the tax on the installment plan for "small business." Some say the value of the business lies in the expertise of the decedent. If this is so, the business is worthless and no tax would be due with appropriate appraisal of the firm's value.

The last point is important as we have red state mouthbreathers like Slarrow *so* worried about small businessmen and their employees (wonder if Slarrow was waving the pom-poms for the bankrupcy bill which will hurt small business far, far worse)---the fact is *any* businessman who isn't actively monitoring his tax exposure isn't much of a businessman and deserves his or her fate.