4 ms·

In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroot

by and0 9y ago

In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people.

malvosenior 9y ago
> In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. If I benefit from something, it doesn't bother me at all that someone benefits even more. Should I forfeit my benefits out of spite? > What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people. Maybe people feel it's fair to get to pass your wealth onto your children and that if they were rich they would support this idea. There's something to be said about sticking to your moral values and not being a hypocrite especially when what is being debated is having the state take a private citizen's money away from them.
- and0 9y ago
  The choice isn't between no benefits and the status quo for lower classes / income brackets. It's about lower classes getting a bigger piece of the pie. You're acting as though questioning how resources are divided among a populace, which is almost entirely what politics is, is irrational or pointless, as though we've arrived to the current state of things via some other perfect, entirely natural process that we're foolish to tamper with.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    I'm giving you insight into why people disagree with you. I think if you actually look at it from their point of view it makes sense as it's logical and/or consistent with their morals. A lot of people just aren't that bothered that choosing an option that benefits them also benefits the 1% (often even more so).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by and0 9y ago

malvosenior 9y ago

> In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. If I benefit from something, it doesn't bother me at all that someone benefits even more. Should I forfeit my benefits out of spite? > What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people. Maybe people feel it's fair to get to pass your wealth onto your children and that if they were rich they would support this idea. There's something to be said about sticking to your moral values and not being a hypocrite especially when what is being debated is having the state take a private citizen's money away from them.

and0 9y ago
The choice isn't between no benefits and the status quo for lower classes / income brackets. It's about lower classes getting a bigger piece of the pie. You're acting as though questioning how resources are divided among a populace, which is almost entirely what politics is, is irrational or pointless, as though we've arrived to the current state of things via some other perfect, entirely natural process that we're foolish to tamper with.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I'm giving you insight into why people disagree with you. I think if you actually look at it from their point of view it makes sense as it's logical and/or consistent with their morals. A lot of people just aren't that bothered that choosing an option that benefits them also benefits the 1% (often even more so).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]