14 ms·

It's a funny argument the one about the family farm. In this case it's not even about inheritance tax. It's a sob story about a guy who couldn't inherit the far

It's a funny argument the one about the family farm. In this case it's not even about inheritance tax. It's a sob story about a guy who couldn't inherit the farm because his dad owed the state money because they had let him not pay tax on his capital gains for a long time. Sorry for not tearing up.

gammarator 2y ago
It also rarely applies to farms. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-myth-that-the-estate-tax-threatens-small-farms https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-myth-that-the-estate-tax-threa...
Rebelgecko 2y ago
When should he have paid his capital gains tax? Had the farm changed hands back and forth?
_bin_ 2y ago
You can't just arbitrarily set the status quo that way, can't just sneak a premise that the state has default a right to collect a piece of arbitrary appreciation on an asset (as all assets are used for speculation) when the owner hasn't actually gotten cash from that, and that any government that doesn't tax that is just cutting someone a break on something rightfully owed. The state of nature is no tax, and as it's unpleasant, we create societies and fund them with taxes that we must deliberate and determine to be just and reasonable. You don't get to argue from the point that your preferred taxation regime is simply how things should be and that how things are is therefore wrong, especially not without a justification. I'd also point out that people's assets have gone up in nominal terms in the past few years, but for many that's not reflective of an increase in purchasing power. Much of that increase is due to excess inflation from the profligate overspending of our past two administrations, so the cycle currently looks like this: government prints money and causes inflation -> your assets are "worth more" -> taxman says "give me a piece of that" even though your real wages have fallen or have just barely recovered to pre-2020 levels. And of course, even if we index to inflation, that will necessarily hit the poor harder: food and energy are deemed "too volatile" to include in headline CPI, but as necessities, they comprise a larger part of poor households' spending and so inflation will hit them harder than the numbers suggest.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  yes, we can. the whole premise of a democracy is that every law is a solid majority away from being turned over.one of the reasons big money is inherent anti-democratic.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    Okay, I don't actually believe in that form of democracy. Not all things that are legal are good, therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do. I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule. And no, that is not the premise of every system that incorporates democracy as an element, it's the premise of an absolute democracy.
    - FactKnower69 2y ago
      >I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule. lmfao this is always, always, always the refrain
    - jjav 2y ago
      > therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do Which inevitably leads to the question: who should get the power to do that and why they, specifically?
      - pdonis 2y ago
        You have it backwards. The actual question is, how did the majority magically get the power to enforce its will on the minority in the first place?
        kjkjadksj 2y ago
        The majority held this power as long as we’ve been a social species. Even a Pharaoh lives with consent of the majority even if they’ve convinced that majority they are divine.
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Not even sure why I should be upset in the first place. If I get fired from my job, nobody is going to run to my aid crying that I deserved that job because my daddy worked really hard to put me through school (he didn't, but that's besides the point) and he wanted me to have it. No, I just get fired. How is a family farm any different? It's just an asset. Birthrights shouldn't exist past citizenship.
- lazide 2y ago
  Because the idea of leaving something to your kids (and a legacy beyond oneself) is a fundamental motivator for most people?
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    Boo. That's not what's at stake here; people don't wanna pay taxes that are fairly owed to the government.
    - Slava_Propanei 2y ago
      The asset has not moved outside the family, has not been sold, no profit on sale has been realized. You think a profit transfer has been made, because you think in terms of atomized individuals with no family.
      - MisterBastahrd 2y ago
        Citizens are taxed as individuals, not families. A person did not have assets, and now they do. I don't care that the land was "in their family." If they are even decent at managing their assets, then they will have more assets when they die than when their parents did. And if they don't, then it's not my concern. I don't believe in government policies to perpetuate generational capital wealth, and I will vote against them as long as we have a system where money can be used to influence the government.
        2y ago
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Yes, let’s implement this so that all farms are owned by large corporations.

gammarator 2y ago

It also rarely applies to farms. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-myth-that-the-estate-tax-threatens-small-farms https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-myth-that-the-estate-tax-threa...

Rebelgecko 2y ago

When should he have paid his capital gains tax? Had the farm changed hands back and forth?

_bin_ 2y ago

You can't just arbitrarily set the status quo that way, can't just sneak a premise that the state has default a right to collect a piece of arbitrary appreciation on an asset (as all assets are used for speculation) when the owner hasn't actually gotten cash from that, and that any government that doesn't tax that is just cutting someone a break on something rightfully owed. The state of nature is no tax, and as it's unpleasant, we create societies and fund them with taxes that we must deliberate and determine to be just and reasonable. You don't get to argue from the point that your preferred taxation regime is simply how things should be and that how things are is therefore wrong, especially not without a justification. I'd also point out that people's assets have gone up in nominal terms in the past few years, but for many that's not reflective of an increase in purchasing power. Much of that increase is due to excess inflation from the profligate overspending of our past two administrations, so the cycle currently looks like this: government prints money and causes inflation -> your assets are "worth more" -> taxman says "give me a piece of that" even though your real wages have fallen or have just barely recovered to pre-2020 levels. And of course, even if we index to inflation, that will necessarily hit the poor harder: food and energy are deemed "too volatile" to include in headline CPI, but as necessities, they comprise a larger part of poor households' spending and so inflation will hit them harder than the numbers suggest.

Log_out_ 2y ago
yes, we can. the whole premise of a democracy is that every law is a solid majority away from being turned over.one of the reasons big money is inherent anti-democratic.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  Okay, I don't actually believe in that form of democracy. Not all things that are legal are good, therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do. I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule. And no, that is not the premise of every system that incorporates democracy as an element, it's the premise of an absolute democracy.
  - FactKnower69 2y ago
    >I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule. lmfao this is always, always, always the refrain
  - jjav 2y ago
    > therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do Which inevitably leads to the question: who should get the power to do that and why they, specifically?
    - pdonis 2y ago
      You have it backwards. The actual question is, how did the majority magically get the power to enforce its will on the minority in the first place?
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        The majority held this power as long as we’ve been a social species. Even a Pharaoh lives with consent of the majority even if they’ve convinced that majority they are divine.

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

Not even sure why I should be upset in the first place. If I get fired from my job, nobody is going to run to my aid crying that I deserved that job because my daddy worked really hard to put me through school (he didn't, but that's besides the point) and he wanted me to have it. No, I just get fired. How is a family farm any different? It's just an asset. Birthrights shouldn't exist past citizenship.

lazide 2y ago
Because the idea of leaving something to your kids (and a legacy beyond oneself) is a fundamental motivator for most people?
- SR2Z 2y ago
  Boo. That's not what's at stake here; people don't wanna pay taxes that are fairly owed to the government.
  - Slava_Propanei 2y ago
    The asset has not moved outside the family, has not been sold, no profit on sale has been realized. You think a profit transfer has been made, because you think in terms of atomized individuals with no family.
    - MisterBastahrd 2y ago
      Citizens are taxed as individuals, not families. A person did not have assets, and now they do. I don't care that the land was "in their family." If they are even decent at managing their assets, then they will have more assets when they die than when their parents did. And if they don't, then it's not my concern. I don't believe in government policies to perpetuate generational capital wealth, and I will vote against them as long as we have a system where money can be used to influence the government.
      - 2y ago

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Yes, let’s implement this so that all farms are owned by large corporations.