Councilmember Wants MetroCard Donation System To Benefit Low-Income Riders

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It is not theirs, it belongs to their parents. They did not earn it, their parents did. 2 million dollars tax free (indexed to inflation) is MORE THAN ENOUGH to "get themselves off the ground", and if it isn't, they're a suckfailure that deserves to be broke and bankrupt...because if they had any skills or work ethic, they'd be able to use 2 million dollars (indexed to inflation) and their skills and work ethic to get through life more comfortably than most people.

 

The surplus above 2 million dollars absolutely should have the hell taxed out of it, because, well, eff the heirs. They didn't earn that money.

 

It is un American to reward each according to birthright rather than by their own merit. Higher estate taxes are better for the economy than high property taxes, high sales taxes, high payroll taxes, and taxes built into consumer products.

So you want to overtax those with more to give to those with less?  Is that it?  Sounds socialist to me....

[CenSin]

So you want to overtax those with more to give to those with less?  Is that it?  Sounds socialist to me....

What’s wrong with socialism?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What’s wrong with socialism?

Everything.  It has no place in a capitalist society like ours.  I personally don't support any of these handout programs.  It's expensive to upkeep and does very little at actually helping people become independent.  If anything, a program such as this donation system should be temporary if people were to receive free Metrocards in the first place.  New York's tax system is rigged... Single professionals like myself are overtaxed, while those receiving handouts (from taxpayers) pay next to nothing.

 

Look at Germany as an example.  When Gerhard Schröder's Socialist Democratic Party (SPD) was in place (a coalition government existed with the SPD and the Greens), handouts were rampant, the economy was in turmoil, and fewer people were working and paying into the system because they said why should we work when we can receive handouts?  Angela Merkel came in, got rid of those handout programs, and people started working and the economy turned around considerably.  

[RailRunRob]

So you want to overtax those with more to give to those with less?  Is that it?  Sounds socialist to me....

People that make more should give a little bit more back to the system. 

We tend to forget that the system is self is what gave them their wealth to begin with give back. Key principal to economics is to ensure that the pie continues to get bigger and more people can take a piece. The world's economy, currency, lending credit all depend on what we're going to spend tomorrow and the idea that the world will get better as we move forward. So yes in order for this Country to move forward we have to give more people at the bottom/Middle the opportunity to move up. In the end the wealthy benefit because more people are able to buy goods and products and take part in the economy more money and capital for them to make. You have to think of the pie is getting larger overtime and moving forward. Think of the pie as always being the same size. You'll start to feel as if people are taking from you in order to get a slice because more people want in. I think that's issue with some people. This goes against modern economics If you haven't already when you get a chance time for you to read “The wealth of Nations” Adam Smith changed the world with this book and way people view economics invented it I should say.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

People that make more should give a little bit more back to the system. 

We tend to forget that the system is self is what gave them their wealth to begin with give back. Key principal to economics is to ensure that the pie continues to get bigger and more people can take a piece. The world's economy, currency, lending credit all depend on what we're going to spend tomorrow and the idea that the world will get better as we move forward. So yes in order for this Country to move forward we have to give more people at the bottom/Middle the opportunity to move up. In the end the wealthy benefit because more people are able to buy goods and products and take part in the economy more money and capital for them to make. You have to think of the pie is getting larger overtime and moving forward. Think of the pie as always being the same size. You'll start to feel as if people are taking from you in order to get a slice because more people want in. I think that's issue with some people.

1. Says who? For someone like yourself who benefits considerably from the current tax system, I suppose that's easy to say.    

2.  The people at the bottom are not moving anywhere because a great deal of them are taking handouts and doing nothing to get themselves out of that cycle, and that's the problem with handouts.  Once they start, they don't stop.

[RailRunRob]

1. Says who? For someone like yourself who benefits considerably from the current tax system, I suppose that's easy to say.    

2.  The people at the bottom are not moving anywhere because a great deal of them are taking handouts and doing nothing to get themselves out of that cycle, and that's the problem with handouts.  Once they start, they don't stop.

Who says? The only reason both me and you live the way that we do is because someone in the Netherlands 500 years ago got sick the king of Spain with his foot on their neck and took a gamble on the system that respected personal property and a shared economy. How do you think Europe came up so quickly the English?  Shared economics, credit and a open market all learned from the Dutch. We all benefit from a tax system I also give opportunity with the people I employ and pay into the system for that as well. Have no problem giving more money back especially on the topic of healthcare and education because in no other country in the world would I be able to do what I'm doing now with the freedoms that I have. So why shouldn't I give back to the next-generation to be able to do the same thing? You keep going back to people mooching the system and not wanting to do better. On top of basic education people have to be taught on how to disseminate and use information to empower themselves. If I sat down and taught you thermodynamics you really know what to do with the information? You would still need to know what to do with the information that you just got on thermodynamics and how you can empower the field. Why would a young person in a poorer neighborhood be any different? That's where you lose me.

[RailRunRob]

1. Says who? For someone like yourself who benefits considerably from the current tax system, I suppose that's easy to say.    

2.  The people at the bottom are not moving anywhere because a great deal of them are taking handouts and doing nothing to get themselves out of that cycle, and that's the problem with handouts.  Once they start, they don't stop.

And just to further the topic why would we not be able look at you as someone benefiting more from the system and they're giving to it? From a perspective of a person creating employment opportunity and reinvesting in research and development and advancement in certain fields. You didn't put anything into the advancement of the medical field but you're living a longer life and healthier life the your counterparts did 300 years ago. You didn't do anything to advance chip fabrication to get power in your hand with that android handset you're using, but you enjoy all the benefits of mobile modern living. You didn't do anything to help ratify the IPv4/6 protocol that were using to connect servers subnets and devices to this form. You get the freedoms of voicing your opinion. On the very basic level you're not even creating opportunities for other people So how are you not benefiting more than you're giving? 

If I can get some of these inner-city kids a passport and on the plane someplace else and get just a few months for them to give them opportunity im sure they can be trained to do your job as well 9 times out of 10.

You just have a slight headstart.

 

Let me say your squandering it. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Who says? The only reason both me and you live the way that we do is because someone in the Netherlands 500 years ago got sick the king of Spain with his foot on their neck and took a gamble on the system that respected personal property and a shared economy. How do you think Europe came up so quickly the English?  Shared economics, credit and a open market all learned from the Dutch. We all benefit from a tax system I also give opportunity with the people I employ and pay into the system for that as well. Have no problem giving more money back especially on the topic of healthcare and education because in no other country in the world would I be able to do what I'm doing now with the freedoms that I have. So why shouldn't I give back to the next-generation to be able to do the same thing? You keep going back to people mooching the system and not wanting to do better. On top of basic education people have to be taught on how to disseminate and use information to empower themselves. If I sat down and taught you thermodynamics you really know what to do with the information? You would still need to know what to do with the information that you just got on thermodynamics and how you can empower the field. Why would a young person in a poorer neighborhood be any different? That's where you lose me.

Oh please.    All of the immigrants coming here don't have to be taught.  Opening up businesses, etc., and they seem to find a way, so spare me with that lame excuse.  Either you have the drive to better yourself or you don't.  It's that simple.  Some things can't or don't have to be taught.  It comes down to the individual.

 

As for doing my job... Unless they speak multiple languages and have a knack for linguistics, I doubt they'll be able to run my projects the way that I do.  Localization can't be done by just any old Joe Schmoe.  I've managed thousands of projects in my time of all different sizes, and also employ numerous people every year.  

[RailRunRob]

Oh please.    All of the immigrants coming here don't have to be taught.  Opening up businesses, etc., and they seem to find a way, so spare me with that lame excuse.  Either you have the drive to better yourself or you don't.  It's that simple.  Some things can't or don't have to be taught.  It comes down to the individual.

 

As for doing my job... Unless they speak multiple languages and have a knack for linguistics, I doubt they'll be able to run my projects the way that I do.  Localization can't be done by just any old Joe Schmoe.  I've managed thousands of projects in my time of all different sizes, and also employ numerous people every year.  

Please friend you have the same biological limitations and potential as everybody else on the planet you're not special so don't be too fascinated with yourself. Nothing that grit, patience and time can't handle also things that can be taught.  Not discounting the time that you put in but You're not the only person that does global business understanding your market, language barriers, cultural differences, and beliefs part of the process somebody else can do your job . No matter which way you flip it somebody gave you an opportunity. So when you start giving opportunities and creating new markets (not managing) then I can understand A complaint about who's taking. You gain more then you give.

 

If I can give one bit of advice... And you could take it or leave it.  Learn to submit , learn to say you don't understand or you don't know. And last but not least be willing to rewrite what you think you know.  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

Please friend you have the same biological limitations and potential as everybody else on the planet you're not special so don't be too fascinated with yourself. Nothing that grit, patience and time can't handle also things that can be taught.  Not discounting the time that you put in but You're not the only person that does global business understanding your market, language barriers, cultural differences, and beliefs part of the process somebody else can do your job . No matter which way you flip it somebody gave you an opportunity. So when you start giving opportunities and creating new markets (not managing) then I can understand A complaint about who's taking. You gain more then you give.

 

If I can give him one bit of advice... And you could take it or leave it.  Learn to submit , learn to say you don't understand or you don't know. And last but not least be willing to rewrite what you think you know.  

 

Same with you... What annoys me with you is you constantly try to talk down to me and lecture me like I'm an idiot.  You're no better than me, and I didn't ask for your advice. I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to yours, but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that you get to sit back and try to belittle them, but you do this constantly with me, which I find hilarious, but feel free to keep trying though.  That's why I have respect for SubwayGuy.  We have differences, but we have a mutual respect for each other.

[RailRunRob]

Same with you... What annoys me with you is you constantly try to talk down to me and lecture me like I'm an idiot.  You're no better than me, and I didn't ask for your advice. I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to yours, but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that you get to sit back and try to belittle them, but you do this constantly with me, which I find hilarious, but feel free to keep trying though.  That's why I have respect for SubwayGuy.  We have differences, but we have a mutual respect for each other.

  120% for me as well. Fully practice what I preach. Sorry you feel that way it's not really my intent. I have no problem submitting if I'm wrong. One of my flaws more than likely that I am analytical thinker and I do look for the rationale and data in a discussion. I get confused sometimes when somebody makes a comment and the data easily can point otherwise. So in questioning either I'm unclear or don't understand or i'm pointing to history or proven data. By all means if I'm wrong call me out!!. I Don't know everything and I learn alot from members all the time.. One thing I know from my profession is that human perception is unreliable not our fault we process via analogies and patterns our world is perception. There's been multiple times you might've made a point and when asked for data to back up your claim. The responses something like because I said so. Or I don't have to. To be living in the Information Age how does that make for a productive conversation?  How do we learn from that? That's where I'm coming from it scrambles my radar. Maybe it's just banter and I just need to see it that way and stop taking it serious. For the record I also respect Subway Guy he explains his points thoroughly. Nothing nebulous.  Make no mistake I respect your opinions which is why take the time to challenge them in the first place. Unless I wouldn't waste my time at all. 

 

No hard feelings

[CenSin]

Please friend you have the same biological limitations and potential as everybody else on the planet you're not special so don't be too fascinated with yourself.

There’s an inconvenient truth in this world, and that is the fact that people actually are not born equal: the mentally handicapped, for example. What could such a person do to become my equal when averaging all the possible measures of human value? There are always those who want a glimmer of hope, salvation from despair, and a way out, but nature is cruel and not everyone can work their way out of a bad situation.

[RailRunRob]

There’s an inconvenient truth in this world, and that is the fact that people actually are not born equal: the mentally handicapped, for example. What could such a person do to become my equal when averaging all the possible measures of human value? There are always those who want a glimmer of hope, salvation from despair, and a way out, but nature is cruel and not everyone can work their way out of a bad situation.

True there's definitely exceptions to the rules my comment came from the point of view as a species overall biologically. Yes, there are other factor that can play a role from environmental to genetics issues. This is one of the great things about our society and the moral standings of people we can recognize the people that do have and unfair advantage or disability and try to help them compensate for that. 

But you're right that's the way the world works but at least you acknowledge it. 

[SubwayGuy]

So you want to overtax those with more to give to those with less?  Is that it?  Sounds socialist to me....

 

How is it "overtaxing"? Everyone would benefit from lower taxes at all levels of income. Then in death, those who have accumulated the most, and their wealth has outlived them, die, no longer give a shit about money because of that whole "dead" thing, and then the government takes a high percentage of everything above 2 million (indexed to inflation) to prevent their kids from becoming spoiled brats who never have to work a day in their life, and to make the budget work (and reduce the debt) with the proceeds from the estate tax in lieu of other taxes on the living.

 

Then those dead rich people's kids, in turn, get jobs, contribute to the economy, drive American innovation here in the US (rather than just throw money at investments without working, contributing to a bubble stock market that trades mostly on macro news and lacks real substance), and those rich kids grow up and benefit from the same decreased tax burden while living that their parents' generation enjoyed, allowing them to earn as much as their own skills and work ethic permit, and to enjoy the fruits of that labor while alive.

 

And then the cycle repeats.

 

There is no way in which that is not a fair system that is as capitalistic and meritocratic as a "conservative" like you would want. The problem is the neoconservative retards who want dynastic familial wealth and hoarding, which is the least useful capital possible in an economy, and why growth has been flat for the better part of 15 years, and why the American middle class has been dying out for 35, and all the "experts" are still shaking their heads.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

How is it "overtaxing"? Everyone would benefit from lower taxes at all levels of income. Then in death, those who have accumulated the most, and their wealth has outlived them, die, no longer give a shit about money because of that whole "dead" thing, and then the government takes a high percentage of everything above 2 million (indexed to inflation) to prevent their kids from becoming spoiled brats who never have to work a day in their life, and to make the budget work (and reduce the debt) with the proceeds from the estate tax in lieu of other taxes on the living.

 

Then those dead rich people's kids, in turn, get jobs, contribute to the economy, drive American innovation here in the US (rather than just throw money at investments without working, contributing to a bubble stock market that trades mostly on macro news and lacks real substance), and those rich kids grow up and benefit from the same decreased tax burden while living that their parents' generation enjoyed, allowing them to earn as much as their own skills and work ethic permit, and to enjoy the fruits of that labor while alive.

 

And then the cycle repeats.

 

There is no way in which that is not a fair system that is as capitalistic and meritocratic as a "conservative" like you would want. The problem is the neoconservative retards who want dynastic familial wealth and hoarding, which is the least useful capital possible in an economy, and why growth has been flat for the better part of 15 years, and why the American middle class has been dying out for 35, and all the "experts" are still shaking their heads.

Think about it.  Parents work hard to provide for their family, and if they are able to do that and allow their kids some level of joy, why not?  I speak from personal experience.  One of my parents died from cancer when I was rather young and I inherited some money, which came in handy.  It takes years for the kids to recover sometimes from the loss, and there's all sorts of things that one goes through financially, so I think it would be rather indecent to enact such a high tax.  In my case I didn't know about the monies until after the fact because the thinking was that my parent would make it through the circumstances, but sometimes the unexpected happens.  Looking back on the event though, the monies came in handy given the fact that I had just finished college and was in the process of starting my career, etc.

[SubwayGuy]

What’s wrong with socialism?

Everything.  It has no place in a capitalist society like ours.  I personally don't support any of these handout programs.  It's expensive to upkeep and does very little at actually helping people become independent.  If anything, a program such as this donation system should be temporary if people were to receive free Metrocards in the first place.  New York's tax system is rigged... Single professionals like myself are overtaxed, while those receiving handouts (from taxpayers) pay next to nothing.

 

Look at Germany as an example.  When Gerhard Schröder's Socialist Democratic Party (SPD) was in place (a coalition government existed with the SPD and the Greens), handouts were rampant, the economy was in turmoil, and fewer people were working and paying into the system because they said why should we work when we can receive handouts?  Angela Merkel came in, got rid of those handout programs, and people started working and the economy turned around considerably.

 

Jesus Christ people.

 

READ WHAT I AM WRITING.

 

Stop labeling shit. The reason we can't have intelligent discourse about these problems, is because of the amount of stupid motherf*ckers in this country who can't read a paragraph and have an intelligent discussion.

 

It's easier to say "But that's socialist" than it is to respond to the individual points. It's a way of belittling someone's argument without actually considering it and evaluating it objectively.

 

This is EXACTLY why we are in the mess we are today. Because our f*cktard politicians do this, the bought and paid for pundits in the media do this, and the idiotic average American who can't think critically and stumbled through 8th grade math believes everything he or she reads or sees on television.

 

Make a Facebook post saying "today is nude selfie day" and put it on your timeline and see how many retards blindly post a picture (probably the ones you'd least want to do this also).

 

This is what our nation has become. And it all starts because it's easier to label someone's argument, drop a loaded word and equate their argument with that.

 

NOTHING I advocate is socialism. Everything I advocate is an extremely capitalistic, meritocratic system. WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. What we have is a plutocratic chrony capitalist system where the richest .1% (not 1%... - .1%) control the entire means of production (which is largely overseas), have regulators in their pocket, and are blatantly striking down laws to limit corporate and individual influence on politics and anti-bribery laws. We also have a tax code that disproportionally disfavors the middle class, while we have a "social safety net" that has been miscast as a working person funded subsidy to poor people that generally disincentivizes work and productive behavior, and a toxic popular culture and values system that encourages each class to stay in its lane, and limits upward mobility (and downward mobility).

 

And yes, "free" speech, the most seemingly American of values, is under attack too, as it is currently being equated with money. Despite free speech meaning you shouldn't have to pay for it. Despite the fact that something can't be free if someone with less money has less access to it.

 

You have corporate personhood. Corporations aren't people. They aren't citizens. They are tax paying entities, but that does not entitle them to vote, give them a say, etc. Their ability to have a voice in politics is endowed equally and equitably to all of the individuals who comprise it, but it does not get its own say. Because at the end of the day, it is a f*cking inanimate object.

 

This is the America the plutocrats, their neocon scum, and their neoliberal retard politicians want. This is what the politicians you all pom pom for every few years "reaching across the aisle" to birds of a slightly different but mostly similar feather (that you abhor) gets you.

 

Now America is reaping what has been sown. And it is ANGRY, but in typical idiocracy fashion, is angry at all the wrong people. And so while we blame Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, gays, Christians, illegals, poor people, the real culprits go blamess. But I ain't about that, so I will put blame where it goes.

 

Seriously...read what I wrote. Taxing dead people who have enjoyed their wealth to the grave and stand to benefit from it no more is not socialist. You know, to pay off a national debt that harms the federal budget (and requires more revenue to cover interest on debt to foreign nations that increasingly think they have a say in how we run OUR country). You know, to reduce the tax burden on living people (and even businesses too! - provided their compensation scheme is not excessively plutocratic of course, which doesn't mean socialist or communist, it means paying a CEO 50 to 100 times what a worker makes, not 500 times). To provide opportunity for more, so that taking a minimum wage job isn't "a dumb financial decision" when it means forfeiting unemployment assistance that pays more. To drive productivity and job gains, so that we aren't constantly outsourcing every damn thing. To reduce the cost of living, since everything is a scam nowadays, so that people who do work can feel good about it, not like a dead end job, that they are doing something with their lives, and improving their prospects...not stuck in an endless cycle of paying a rent bill that keeps going up, and having nothing left.

 

Asking the young people that have no particular skills in life other than being lucky enough to be born to someone with money, to earn their own keep, and prove that they are deserving of vast sums of wealth by making them earn their own rather than inherit it, is not socialist. It's meritocractic.

 

Maybe if society is more fair, we'd see more competence...where competent people don't have to "work their way up" from the bottom, while someone stupid starts 5 rungs from the top by birthright. Maybe we'd see more innovation, more improvement, more efficiency, more growth, and more economic activity instead of blindly rewarding people who happen to have the right parents. And maybe if society were fair this way, then in time we could have the right discussions about lazy people, and how to ensure they don't defraud their way into a quality standard of living they didn't earn by "getting someone else to pay for it."

 

And then maybe America would be the land the blind like to think it is, instead of the wasteland we live in now that continues to be slowly gutted, year by year, while all around us, the people PAID to fix it sit around, wring their hands, and come up with bullshit excuses that you all eat up for why you will not have the same quality standard of life your parents had, and why your children's will be worse still.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

Jesus Christ people.

 

READ WHAT I AM WRITING.

 

Stop labeling shit. The reason we can't have intelligent discourse about these problems, is because of the amount of stupid motherf*ckers in this country who can't read a paragraph and have an intelligent discussion.

 

It's easier to say "But that's socialist" than it is to respond to the individual points. It's a way of belittling someone's argument without actually considering it and evaluating it objectively.

 

This is EXACTLY why we are in the mess we are today. Because our f*cktard politicians do this, the bought and paid for pundits in the media do this, and the idiotic average American who can't think critically and stumbled through 8th grade math believes everything he or she reads or sees on television.

 

Make a Facebook post saying "today is nude selfie day" and put it on your timeline and see how many retards blindly post a picture (probably the ones you'd least want to do this also).

 

This is what our nation has become. And it all starts because it's easier to label someone's argument, drop a loaded word and equate their argument with that.

 

NOTHING I advocate is socialism. Everything I advocate is an extremely capitalistic, meritocratic system. WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. What we have is a plutocratic chrony capitalist system where the richest .1% (not 1%... - .1%) control the entire means of production (which is largely overseas), have regulators in their pocket, and are blatantly striking down laws to limit corporate and individual influence on politics and anti-bribery laws. We also have a tax code that disproportionally disfavors the middle class, while we have a "social safety net" that has been miscast as a working person funded subsidy to poor people that generally disincentivizes work and productive behavior, and a toxic popular culture and values system that encourages each class to stay in its lane, and limits upward mobility (and downward mobility).

 

Taxing dead people who have enjoyed their wealth to the grave and stand to benefit from it no more is not socialist. You know, to pay off a national debt that harms the federal budget (and requires more revenue to cover interest on debt to foreign nations that increasingly think they have a say in how we run OUR country).

 

Asking the young people that have no particular skills in life other than being lucky enough to be born to someone with money, to earn their own keep, and prove that they are deserving of vast sums of wealth by making them earn their own rather than inherit it, is not socialist. It's meritocractic.

 

Maybe if society is more fair, we'd see more competence...where competent people don't have to "work their way up" from the bottom, while someone stupid starts 5 rungs from the top by birthright. Maybe we'd see more innovation, more improvement, more efficiency, more growth, and more economic activity instead of blindly rewarding people who happen to have the right parents. And maybe if society were fair this way, then in time we could have the right discussions about lazy people, and how to ensure they don't defraud their way into a quality standard of living they didn't earn by "getting someone else to pay for it."

 

And then maybe America would be the land the blind like to think it is, instead of the wasteland we live in now that continues to be slowly gutted, year by year, while all around us, the people PAID to fix it sit around, wring their hands, and come up with bullshit excuses that you all eat up for why you will not have the same quality standard of life your parents had, and why your children's will be worse still.

And if that dead person has kids, what are the kids supposed to do? Something you conveniently exclude from your argument.  Whatever you want to call this I don't support it.  I think people should find their own way instead of depending on others.  If parents worked hard and have monies for their kids that's something completely different, and I believe in wealth staying within a family.  Why should someone else get the monies that I've worked for and want to pass down to my next of kin?  Just to be clear though, you don't support this low income rider donation system, but you basically support all other handouts, is that the idea?

[SubwayGuy]

With 2 million dollars, plus 20% of what isn't taxed, I am sure their kids will be fine.

 

Their kids will benefit the entire time their parents are alive. Rich parents take their kids to do more travelling, life changing experiences poor kids don't have.

 

But once the parents kick the bucket, it's big boy time. 2 million dollars tax free is more than enough to take care of any needs that kid may have during childhood as well, in case the parents kick the bucket when he/she is still a child. That's enough to pay for a college and post grad education AND an elite high school as well, with money left over. And to pay for a trust administrator to handle things if there are greedy relatives that must be kept away from the kid's inherited money.

 

You say you don't support relying on others. How is relying on your parents and birthright to use inherited wealth to save you from a lifetime of poverty if you have no skills, any different than relying on social programs?

 

The problem with our economy is excess. Everything above that point is excess. There's no such thing as I have enough. Think of it like sportsmanship. Play to win, but when it's 120-60 in the 4th quarter with 23 seconds left and the shot clock's off, just hold on to the ball and take the win. That mentality doesn't exist though. It's always greed. I want more. And it's destroying this once great nation and its economy.

 

The numbers may change with inflation, so that's why you index them to inflation, so that this statement is as relevant in 75 or 200 years as it is today.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

With 2 million dollars, plus 20% of what isn't taxed, I am sure their kids will be fine.

 

Their kids will benefit the entire time their parents are alive. Rich parents take their kids to do more travelling, life changing experiences poor kids don't have.

 

But once the parents kick the bucket, it's big boy time. 2 million dollars tax free is more than enough to take care of any needs that kid may have during childhood as well, in case the parents kick the bucket when he/she is still a child. That's enough to pay for a college and post grad education AND an elite high school as well, with money left over. And to pay for a trust administrator to handle things if there are greedy relatives that must be kept away from the kid's inherited money.

 

The problem with our economy is excess. Everything above that point is excess. There's no such thing as I have enough. Think of it like sportsmanship. Play to win, but when it's 120-60 in the 4th quarter with 23 seconds left and the shot clock's off, just hold on to the ball and take the win. That mentality doesn't exist though. It's always greed. I want more. And it's destroying this once great nation and its economy.

 

The numbers may change with inflation, so that's why you index them to inflation, so that this statement is as relevant in 75 or 200 years as it is today.

The money is only half of the story though.  Ultimately an inheritance isn't the same as this donation crappola.  The parents earned the money through work and/or investments.  Your way of thinking would deter people from investing in the market.  Why should someone who is successful in earning dividends from their investments not be rewarded?  Besides, if you hike up the inheritance tax, you know those monies would just be moved elsewhere.  That's just a no-brainer.  

[SubwayGuy]

I support taxing the dead because I believe each generation has to pay its own bills and earn its own keep.

 

I don't support subsidies of discounted fares for poor people because it is yet another way of lowering the bar, something we've done too much of lately. It also costs money people don't understand...someone has to vet applications for this, and then it becomes just another handout that is ladled full of opportunities to lie, cheat, steal, and defraud to qualify for.

 

Want to make subway fares more affordable? Here's how. Rent reform. Reduce the tax burden on ALL working people by taxing estates as I've said to offset the reduction in income/property/sales taxes coming in. Use some of the proceeds to pay down federal and state debt, which reduces interest, which reduces the cost of the budget each year by eliminating a line item. Now - properly fund transportation at all levels (including roads and bridges). Deteriorating infrastructure costs this country a fortune in lawsuits, lost economic activity, frivolous activity (like latneness notes), delays, spoiled goods, lost productivity, etc. Reduce healthcare costs by decoupling healthcare from employment, therefore eliminating the need for COBRA or administrators, and allowing insurance companies to compete for your dollar. Stop sending people to every middle eastern shithole to fight for big corporation priorities, and incompetently decentralizing entire regions so that movements like ISIS have the void space to put down roots and grow like a cancer. Cut military spending accordingly. We'll still be spending more than the next 5 countries combined, so any argument that we'd lose supremacy is either bogus, or an ardent call to review the efficiency practices of the military industrial complex..which would certainly be welcome since orders for already outdated equipment the military doesn't want anymore routinely go through anyway citing "a previous agreement"...

 

Then you will have taken the steps towards creating a fair system here in this country. And then, if there are still a lot of people on the public dole, you can have a very serious look at those people and WHY. Like I said, there are 2 reasons - disability and mental illness. And in the case of mental illness you can reform how we treat it, so that these people aren't habitually out in streets terrorizing and harrassing people, so that might reduce their numbers. And in the case of disability, you HAVE to provide for those people...that is the measure of a true society is how well it takes care of those who REALLY CANNOT do any better...some MINIMUM standard of living. And anyone that is NOT in either of those categories, you really look at and can possibly even remove from the dole (especially after some maximum amount of time) because at that point they can't say "there's no work" they can't say "i have no skills" when there are open jobs that pay a livable (but not extravagant) wage that require no skills. And you can get rid of the freeloader lifestyle at the bottom having already gotten rid of the freeloader lifestyle at the top where people who inherit everything really and honestly believe they've "made it" through their own merits, and continue to enrich themselves accordingly...all of this on both ends at the expens of the middle class. And you can be tough on crime because there will literally be no reason to commit it, no justification that can make the truly liberal mind try to explain it away. No reason for soft sentences for violence, only long punitive sentences that keep the worst offenders off our streets for good.

 

But politicians don't want to do all that. That's hard. That's, as a matter of fact, the job they were elected to do. It's easier to submit bullshit, like sending the F express to cut 4 stations off a long commute, or unleash a massive government spending program to vet and qualify low income people for a reduced fare. I can see it now...fill out your FAFSA every year! And government will pay people with our tax dollars to read them, so the fares can go up higher, and the service can get shittier when government shrugs and doesn't pay the TA for the lost revenue. But then, what do I actually care? I got a pass. Free transit for life. Why better the world when I can just do as I see and enrich myself? HEY IT'S CONTRACT TIME. Imagine if I thought that way. Imagine if everyone did. Actually that second one's not too far off. From that point, it's mostly true.

 

It's as if everyone, even rich white old women, are taking their cues from 50. GIT MONEY. And when this becomes the mantra of an entire society, you end up with a lot of thieves from all walks of life, just as we have now. And it's not about "legal" or "illegal". It's about the mentality and the damage it's doing to our country. This is the ethos of Somalia, not America.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I support taxing the dead because I believe each generation has to pay its own bills and earn its own keep.

 

I don't support subsidies of discounted fares for poor people because it is yet another way of lowering the bar, something we've done too much of lately. It also costs money people don't understand...someone has to vet applications for this, and then it becomes just another handout that is ladled full of opportunities to lie, cheat, steal, and defraud to qualify for.

 

Want to make subway fares more affordable? Here's how. Rent reform. Reduce the tax burden on ALL working people by taxing estates as I've said to offset the reduction in income/property/sales taxes coming in. Use some of the proceeds to pay down federal and state debt, which reduces interest, which reduces the cost of the budget each year by eliminating a line item. Now - properly fund transportation at all levels (including roads and bridges). Deteriorating infrastructure costs this country a fortune in lawsuits, lost economic activity, frivolous activity (like latneness notes), delays, spoiled goods, lost productivity, etc. Reduce healthcare costs by decoupling healthcare from employment, therefore eliminating the need for COBRA or administrators, and allowing insurance companies to compete for your dollar. Stop sending people to every middle eastern shithole to fight for big corporation priorities, and incompetently decentralizing entire regions so that movements like ISIS have the void space to put down roots and grow like a cancer. Cut military spending accordingly. We'll still be spending more than the next 5 countries combined, so any argument that we'd lose supremacy is either bogus, or an ardent call to review the efficiency practices of the military industrial complex..which would certainly be welcome since orders for already outdated equipment the military doesn't want anymore routinely go through anyway citing "a previous agreement"...

 

Then you will have taken the steps towards creating a fair system here in this country. And then, if there are still a lot of people on the public dole, you can have a very serious look at those people and WHY. Like I said, there are 2 reasons - disability and mental illness. And in the case of mental illness you can reform how we treat it, so that these people aren't habitually out in streets terrorizing and harrassing people, so that might reduce their numbers. And in the case of disability, you HAVE to provide for those people...that is the measure of a true society is how well it takes care of those who REALLY CANNOT do any better...some MINIMUM standard of living. And anyone that is NOT in either of those categories, you really look at and can possibly even remove from the dole (especially after some maximum amount of time) because at that point they can't say "there's no work" they can't say "i have no skills" when there are open jobs that pay a livable (but not extravagant) wage that require no skills. And you can get rid of the freeloader lifestyle at the bottom having already gotten rid of the freeloader lifestyle at the top where people who inherit everything really and honestly believe they've "made it" through their own merits, and continue to enrich themselves accordingly...all of this on both ends at the expens of the middle class. And you can be tough on crime because there will literally be no reason to commit it, no justification that can make the truly liberal mind try to explain it away. No reason for soft sentences for violence, only long punitive sentences that keep the worst offenders off our streets for good.

 

But politicians don't want to do all that. That's hard. That's, as a matter of fact, the job they were elected to do. It's easier to submit bullshit, like sending the F express to cut 4 stations off a long commute, or unleash a massive government spending program to vet and qualify low income people for a reduced fare. I can see it now...fill out your FAFSA every year! And government will pay people with our tax dollars to read them, so the fares can go up higher, and the service can get shittier when government shrugs and doesn't pay the TA for the lost revenue. But then, what do I actually care? I got a pass. Free transit for life. Why better the world when I can just do as I see and enrich myself? HEY IT'S CONTRACT TIME. Imagine if I thought that way. Imagine if everyone did. Actually that second one's not too far off. From that point, it's mostly true.

 

It's as if everyone, even rich white old women, are taking their cues from 50. GIT MONEY. And when this becomes the mantra of an entire society, you end up with a lot of thieves from all walks of life, just as we have now. And it's not about "legal" or "illegal". It's about the mentality and the damage it's doing to our country. This is the ethos of Somalia, not America.

You talk about rent reform.  What about all of the property that the continues to sit on and not turn into a profit from a business perspective?  I've brought that up before in previous threads...  I wonder how that downstairs eatery is doing in Columbus Circle.  I've been saying that I wanted to check it out, but the thought of eating food in some dirty subway station with rats about doesn't appeal to me.  

[SubwayGuy]

The money is only half of the story though.  Ultimately an inheritance isn't the same as this donation crappola.  The parents earned the money through work and/or investments.  Your way of thinking would deter people from investing in the market.  Why should someone who is successful in earning dividends from their investments not be rewarded?  Besides, if you hike up the inheritance tax, you know those monies would just be moved elsewhere.  That's just a no-brainer.  

 

Donations have limits. The parents are still incentivized to invest in the market. No one knows their death date, sometimes these things just happen. People will continue to invest based on their expected lifestyle. Also, to play devil's advocate, less investment isn't actually always a bad thing. I see it in a contrary light. Right now the stock market is at a ridiculous P/E ratio, you have companies that aren't even profitable with huge valuations...it could all stand to come back down again...and with the way wealth is hoarded at the top and federal reserve policy that has made literally anything else (including savings bonds, once a stalwart safe investment) unworkable with extremely low return rates, there is no other game in town other than the casino. So money is poured into stocks constantly, creating this bubble and bust cycle we've seen repeat pretty much on and off since the turn of the milennium. Not only that, this limits investment opportunity. There's a ton of shit I'd like to buy RIGHT NOW, but it's just too damn high. Most stocks don't cut dividends in downturns. Counterintuitively, discouraging this heavy level of investment actually allows everyone to get a better return because the same stock with the same dividend at a lower price has a higher yield. If a stock pays $2/share dividend/year and I buy it at 100, that's a 2% yield. If I buy the same stock at $80, that's a 2.5% yield, so my dollars will generate more income for me if I buy the stock at $80, than I do at $100. Because I can buy more "2$/year annuities" with the same amount of money at $80/sh than at $100/sh. This (dividends not being cut during downturns) is usually the case because the company's fundamentals don't change, only the valuation on the market which often has nothing to do with anything. "OMG! RECORD QUARTER. I WANT TO BUY BUT THE FED SAYS THEY MAY RAISE RATES!!! SELL!!!!" - sound familiar? The only exceptions are highly cyclical, known high risk sectors like energy and precious metals. Plus anyone can look up a stock's dividend history and earnings to see if the dividend might be sustainable or not, and if the company has a history of cutting dividends during downturns. But this would require investment skill, research, and work, instead of panic selling every time Janet Yellen is supposed to get in front of a TV camera, and panic buying when she actually does and the announcement isn't that there's a 6 mile radius asteroid headed for the earth.

 

This would also allow trust administrators, and heirs to sell the worst investments at point of inheritance to pay the tax bill. A way of cleaning house if you will. So much of pure laissez faire economics is based on "efficient markets" theory, which is a downright lie since people don't invest rationally, don't have perfect information (due to the existence of flash trading) when they act, and you do have plenty of insider trading that still goes on too. Thinning the herd is not a bad thing. Investments should be more "picking winners and losers" than buying indexes, etc. And this actually would help Wall Street in a way, since it would be a return to promoting the value of actively managed funds that could justify them as investment alternatives to indexes or passively managed ETFs. Thinning the herd, pruning back bushes, etc. is actually part of the recycle and renewal process that is naturally present in a truly efficient economy, and we don't have that. We have corporate welfare, bailout, balloon valuations, and 6 months of reckoning every decade where everyone swears off stock market investing forever, only to believe that "this time it's different" in 9 years, only to come back just before the next crash.

 

Last...Re: moving monies to avoid inheritance tax. This is why politicians need to stop being so dumb. You already have gift taxes also above certain thresholds. Hike gift taxes accordingly (and proactively) and close the loophole before someone exploits it. Or preventing children from being "joint" on accounts with parents, creating an option like "secondary" where the child can access the money, but is not entitled to it legally. You have tax accountants all around the country employed by the uber wealthy that show them these loopholes. You're telling me that for all the money the government spends, they can't hire a few to find loopholes with a proposed change and close them in advance? Failure to do so does not represent getting blindsided when laws are changed, it represents willfull negligence in a crony capitalistic nod and wink to look the other way to appease the powers that be that put them in office in the first place. And that's not only a breach of duty, it's a major problem.

You talk about rent reform.  What about all of the property that the continues to sit on and not turn into a profit from a business perspective?  I've brought that up before in previous threads...  I wonder how that downstairs eatery is doing in Columbus Circle.  I've been saying that I wanted to check it out, but the thought of eating food in some dirty subway station with rats about doesn't appeal to me.  

 

And I would agree with this also. MTA is not a landlord, neither is the TWU. Unless these lands are specifically earmarked for a transportation related project (building a new bus depot, medical center, train yard, station, etc.) they should not be held.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Donations have limits. The parents are still incentivized to invest in the market. No one knows their death date, sometimes these things just happen. People will continue to invest based on their expected lifestyle. Less investment isn't actually always a bad thing. I see it in a contrary light. Right now the stock market is at a ridiculous P/E ratio, you have companies that aren't even profitable with huge valuations...it could all stand to come back down again...and with the way wealth is hoarded at the top and federal reserve policy that has made literally anything else (including savings bonds, once a stalwart safe investment) unworkable with extremely low return rates, there is no other game in town other than the casino. So money is poured into stocks constantly, creating this bubble and bust cycle we've seen repeat pretty much on and off since the turn of the milennium. Not only that, this limits investment opportunity. There's a ton of shit I'd like to buy RIGHT NOW, but it's just too damn high. Most stocks don't cut dividends in downturns. Counterintuitively, discouraging this heavy level of investment actually allows everyone to get a better return because the same stock with the same dividend at a lower price has a higher yield. If a stock pays $2/share dividend/year and I buy it at 100, that's a 2% yield. If I buy the same stock at $80, that's a 2.5% yield, so my dollars will generate more income for me if I buy the stock at $80, than I do at $100. This is usually the case because the company's fundamentals don't change, only the valuation on the market which often has nothing to do with anything. "OMG! RECORD QUARTER. I WANT TO BUY BUT THE FED SAYS THEY MAY RAISE RATES!!! SELL!!!!" - sound familiar?

 

This would also allow trust administrators, and heirs to sell the worst investments at point of inheritance to pay the tax bill. A way of cleaning house if you will. So much of pure laissez faire economics is based on "efficient markets" theory, which is a downright lie since people don't invest rationally, don't have perfect information (due to the existence of flash trading) when they act, and you do have plenty of insider trading that still goes on too. Thinning the herd is not a bad thing. Investments should be more "picking winners and losers" than buying indexes, etc. And this actually would help Wall Street in a way, since it would be a return to promoting the value of actively managed funds that could justify them as investment alternatives to indexes or passively managed ETFs. Thinning the herd, pruning back bushes, etc. is actually part of the recycle and renewal process that is naturally present in a truly efficient economy, and we don't have that. We have corporate welfare, bailout, balloon valuations, and 6 months of reckoning every decade where everyone swears off stock market investing forever, only to believe that "this time it's different" in 9 years, only to come back just before the next crash.

 

Last...Re: moving monies to avoid inheritance tax. This is why politicians need to stop being so dumb. You already have gift taxes also above certain thresholds. Hike gift taxes accordingly (and proactively) and close the loophole before someone exploits it. You have tax accountants all around the country employed by the uber wealthy that show them these loopholes. You're telling me that for all the money the government spends, they can't hire a few to find loopholes with a proposed change and close them in advance? Failure to do so does not represent getting blindsided when laws are changed, it represents willfull negligence in a crony capitalistic nod and wink to look the other way to appease the powers that be that put them in office in the first place. And that's not only a breach of duty, it's a major problem.

 

 

And I would agree with this also. MTA is not a landlord, neither is the TWU. Unless these lands are specifically earmarked for a transportation related project (building a new bus depot, medical center, train yard, station, etc.) they should not be held.

They seem to be divesting themselves of these properties, albeit slowly... Still sitting on the Midtown headquarters 341, 345 & 347 Madison for example (to my knowledge)...