What kind of idiot looks at Vivek RamaSMARMY and says "That's my guy!"?

[Matt]

I'm sincerely confused about what this guy's appeal is. It's well noted that I'm not a Trump fan, but I can comprehend where some of that is coming from. I can't see that with RamaSMARMY.

[bmw]

I haven't seen enough of him to have an opinion either way, but from what little I've seen of him, I would say his appeal is that he's an outsider, he's young, he's at least moderately intelligent, and he's not a crazy liberal. Those are all pluses in my book.

[Bryce]

"I mean, you got the first mainstream Brahman -American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

[MWmetalhead]

Anyone who advocates for a 59 percent inheritance tax is NOT a conservative.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2023/08/30/pe ... -tax-idea/

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelsmerconi ... 1352654126

[Deleted User 15924]

I'm sincerely confused about what this guy's appeal is. It's well noted that I'm not a Trump fan, but I can comprehend where some of that is coming from. I can't see that with RamaSMARMY.

Seems to me his aim is to be a xerox copy of everything Trump believes in. If Donald becomes ineligible, he's the one Trump's Troopers will vote for. And Donald will bestow his endorsement from the stockade. If Trump does get the White House, Vivek gets a cabinet post.

[Lester The Nightfly]

Anyone who called pharma-bro Martin Shkreli "brilliant" is suspect in my book. He seems like just one more tech guy who believes they are the smartest person in the room. (Spoiler: They usually aren't) Screw him.

[bmw]

Anyone who advocates for a 59 percent inheritance tax is NOT a conservative.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2023/08/30/pe ... -tax-idea/

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelsmerconi ... 1352654126

I tracked down that section of his book. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=C5BXE ... 22&f=false

He doesn't so much argue that position in terms of liberal vs. conservative, but rather capitalist vs. Communist, and he suggests that a hefty inheritance tax is beneficial to capitalism for the reason that (a) it would encourage the rich to spend instead of hoard, and (b) that children shouldn't be inheriting wealth that they did nothing to earn.

I see where he's coming from, but there's one gaping hole in his argument: that if inheritance instead goes to the government, the government will simply redistribute that wealth to someone else who didn't earn it. So it boils down to whether you want parents deciding where their wealth goes or the government deciding.

The other problem with his argument is that it essentially suggests that your right to decide what to do with your wealth not only ends the moment you die, but that said right reverts to the government. I fundamentally disagree with that position.

All that said, a hefty inheritance tax hike would be unpopular, and I can't imagine he would push for one if elected President.

[Rate This]

Anyone who advocates for a 59 percent inheritance tax is NOT a conservative.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2023/08/30/pe ... -tax-idea/

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelsmerconi ... 1352654126

I think he (like Trump who is also NOT a conservative) has picked the lane he feels is easiest to run in and have a shot perhaps smartly calculating Trump my be out of the way which explains some of the copying and kowtowing right now from the Swami…

[Bryce]

Anyone who advocates for a 59 percent inheritance tax is NOT a conservative.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2023/08/30/pe ... -tax-idea/

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelsmerconi ... 1352654126

I tracked down that section of his book. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=C5BXE ... 22&f=false

He doesn't so much argue that position in terms of liberal vs. conservative, but rather capitalist vs. Communist, and he suggests that a hefty inheritance tax is beneficial to capitalism for the reason that (a) it would encourage the rich to spend instead of hoard, and (b) that children shouldn't be inheriting wealth that they did nothing to earn.

I see where he's coming from, but there's one gaping hole in his argument: that if inheritance instead goes to the government, the government will simply redistribute that wealth to someone else who didn't earn it. So it boils down to whether you want parents deciding where their wealth goes or the government deciding.

The other problem with his argument is that it essentially suggests that your right to decide what to do with your wealth not only ends the moment you die, but that said right reverts to the government. I fundamentally disagree with that position.

All that said, a hefty inheritance tax hike would be unpopular, and I can't imagine he would push for one if elected President.

The biggest issue to me is that level of inheritance tax totally screws family farms that have been family owned for generations. It almost makes it impossible to hand it down to family members that have worked it their entire life.

[MWmetalhead]

Agreed. It is confiscatory. If inherited assets are subsequently sold for a monetary gain, *that* event should be taxable (at much less than a 59 percent rate) as income. There should be little to no tax on the inheritance event itself.

If we are talking pure cash changing hands as a result of a death in the family, I am open to *that* being taxable, but certainly not at a 59 percent rate.

Thanks bmw for providing that URL.

[TC Talks]

Anyone who advocates for a 59 percent inheritance tax is NOT a conservative.

https://www.radioiowa.com/2023/08/30/pe ... -tax-idea/

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelsmerconi ... 1352654126

I tracked down that section of his book. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=C5BXE ... 22&f=false

He doesn't so much argue that position in terms of liberal vs. conservative, but rather capitalist vs. Communist, and he suggests that a hefty inheritance tax is beneficial to capitalism for the reason that (a) it would encourage the rich to spend instead of hoard, and (b) that children shouldn't be inheriting wealth that they did nothing to earn.

I see where he's coming from, but there's one gaping hole in his argument: that if inheritance instead goes to the government, the government will simply redistribute that wealth to someone else who didn't earn it. So it boils down to whether you want parents deciding where their wealth goes or the government deciding.

The other problem with his argument is that it essentially suggests that your right to decide what to do with your wealth not only ends the moment you die, but that said right reverts to the government. I fundamentally disagree with that position.

All that said, a hefty inheritance tax hike would be unpopular, and I can't imagine he would push for one if elected President.

The biggest issue to me is that level of inheritance tax totally screws family farms that have been family owned for generations. It almost makes it impossible to hand it down to family members that have worked it their entire life.

The farm bill exempts true farms from this burden. Most are LLC's and can easily transfer shares without inheritance.

I do agree with him that wealthy harm the economy by taking money out of the economy and into investments. Money not circulating isn't helping us.

[Honeyman]

Why are you over thinking this? He wants to be Trumps VP.

[Colonel Flagg]

I'm sincerely confused about what this guy's appeal is. It's well noted that I'm not a Trump fan, but I can comprehend where some of that is coming from. I can't see that with RamaSMARMY.

One could ask the same questions about Jeb Bush, supporting whacko ideas like Common Core

[Mega Hertz]

Why is it whenever we finally get someone who isn't a "career politician", it's always some fucking Craftsman tool box?