The 2025 Government Shutdown Thread

[Fervent]

This matter was raised in Australia. And it was proposed that when my wife and I shuffle off and leave out house to the kids then the value would be taxed.

Ain't no way. We worked very hard indeed to buy that house and we gave up a lot to pay the mortgage. Which went up to 17% at one point. All the money that went into that property was what was left after we had already paid a sizeable chunck of our wages in tax. Would the government want to tax me twice?

Granted that it's now worth a very large sum of money but the principle stands.

This is precisely why systemic prejudices continue on. Those who have benefited from generational growth of wealth pass those privileges on rather than expecting their offspring to show their merit by building their own wealth. Those who were subject to policies like redzoning and other discriminatory policies that prevented them from building wealth have nothing to pass on, and are more likely to fall into a debt trap because of predatory lending practices.

 

[Desk trauma]

I’ve made no attempt to sway your opinion and wouldn’t bother. I don’t care that feel differently nor do I want your support or validation. You’re entitled to your opinion. It has no bearing on my own and would never elicit a shift. Now that we’ve agreed to disagree I trust we’re done.

~bella

Dare I ask what amount of money you consider a lot?

 

[bèlla]

That was quite the post. First, I've never known anyone who could have left behind a $14M estate, even the sole proprietors. It is offensive to think the poors don't have 25 or even 50 year plans. (100 year plans are, of course, silly. No one lives that long.) The rest of this paragraph is written like it is about the landed gentry trying arrange a good marriage and "produce an heir".

What do your personal associations have to do with my position? And why would they factor in my discourse? I expect you to examine it from your perspective understandably. But we’re not the same nor are we experiencing life through identical lenses. So why would I think as you do? That sounds eerily close to group think.

And what if the principles are historical? So what. We’re not following a formula. We each have our way of doing things and that’s okay. I’m not bothered by the way you conduct your affairs or anyone else. And I’m unlikely to weigh in unless you ask. At the end of the day it’s none of my business nor are the consequences mine.

I wouldn’t care if you wanted a $100 million. The principle remains the same. It isn’t my place to decide what’s enough for anyone or their family and it’s a line I‘m unwilling to cross. You may feel differently and that’s alright.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

This is precisely why systemic prejudices continue on. Those who have benefited from generational growth of wealth pass those privileges on rather than expecting their offspring to show their merit by building their own wealth.

That’s a sweeping generalization which doesn’t hold true for all. Bernaud Arnault is the 8th richest man in the world and all of his children work for the firm and that’s fairly common. Larry Fink is another example. He’s the CEO of BlackRock and has three children and didn’t grow up wealthy. None of them work for him. His eldest founded a company in the sector. The second is a philanthropist who aids creatives and the third is involved with the arts.

Nevertheless, if their parents wanted a different reality for them that’s okay. You can’t impose your standard on other people’s children if their behavior isn’t illegal. You’re welcome to disagree of course but that’s all. The only reason it’s being discussed is because of the money.

Those who were subject to policies like redzoning and other discriminatory policies that prevented them from building wealth have nothing to pass on, and are more likely to fall into a debt trap because of predatory lending practices.

How conversant are you on the subject of black wealth? Specifically the sort that isn’t tied to celebrity or entertainment. I’m not dismissing the other. But I want to be sure you’re aware that black wealth existed before and after Jim Crow. It isn’t a topic that’s frequently discussed hence the question.

~bella

 

[Fervent]

That’s a sweeping generalization which doesn’t hold true for all. Bernaud Arnault is the 8th richest man in the world and all of his children work for the firm and that’s fairly common. Larry Fink is another example. He’s the CEO of BlackRock and has three children and didn’t grow up wealthy. None of them work for him. His eldest founded a company in the sector. The second is a philanthropist who aids creatives and the third is involved with the arts.

I'm sure their executive positions have nothing to do with nepotism. I didn't say the wealthy don't work hard, but there's far more to achievement than hard work.

Nevertheless, if their parents wanted a different reality for them that’s okay. You can’t impose your standard on other people’s children if their behavior isn’t illegal. You’re welcome to disagree of course but that’s all. The only reason it’s being discussed is because of the money.

Sure, but pretending that wealth is a product of personal merit is absurd. And a death tax is an entirely reasonable way of returning wealth to the general pot rather than it becoming increasingly concentrated by a handful of people who can afford to tilt the game in their favor.

How conversant are you on the subject of black wealth? Specifically the sort that isn’t tied to celebrity or entertainment. I’m not dismissing the other. But I want to be sure you’re aware that black wealth existed before and after Jim Crow. It isn’t a topic that’s frequently discussed hence the question.

~bella

Exceptions are not relevant to general trends. And the fact that you immediately jumped to that field appears to be a tacit admission that there have been systemic issues and instead of seeking to make redress you want to excuse the experience of the common black person in favor of focusing on exceptional cases. Nearly every statistic has outliers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do your personal associations have to do with my position?

I'm just trying to get you to realize that the scenario you are trying to defend is way beyond the experiences of the vast majority of people. We're not all rich.

And why would they factor in my discourse? I expect you to examine it from your perspective understandably. But we’re not the same nor are we experiencing life through identical lenses. So why would I think as you do? That sounds eerily close to group think.

And what if the principles are historical?

Principles? What principles?

So what. We’re not following a formula. We each have our way of doing things and that’s okay. I’m not bothered by the way you conduct your affairs or anyone else. And I’m unlikely to weigh in unless you ask. At the end of the day it’s none of my business nor are the consequences mine.

I have not discussed my affairs.

I wouldn’t care if you wanted a $100 million. The principle remains the same. It isn’t my place to decide what’s enough for anyone or their family and it’s a line I‘m unwilling to cross. You may feel differently and that’s alright.

~bella

Let me put it this way. I weep not one tear for the "impact" of the $14M limit on untaxed estates.

 

[bèlla]

Dare I ask what amount of money you consider a lot?

What’s in it for me? Are we exchanging ideas or contemplating ventures that are mutually beneficial? If you’re not adding to the coffers what’s the point? I don’t entertain the topic subjectively. When I talk dollars and cents there’s a mutual want for gain and we’re willing to work towards it.

This is your starting point for dialogue.

Cast your bread on the surface of the waters, [be diligently active, make thoughtful decisions], for you will find it after many days. Give a portion to seven, or even [divide it] to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.

You may apply that in two ways. You can divide it as stated or increase the portions and follow suit. I’m interested in people who want to do great things for their faith, families, community etc. When you’re looking to impact at that level $14 million isn’t a lot.

You’re trying to make fun of me because of my comment. I don’t know everything but I’m not a fool. Try that with someone who didn’t see it coming.

~bella

 

[Fervent]

You may apply that in two ways. You can divide it as stated or increase the portions and follow suit. I’m interested in people who want to do great things for their faith, families, community etc. When you’re looking to impact at that level $14 million isn’t a lot.

Do you believe there is some infinite pool of wealth that can simply keep expanding? You have to be pretty far removed from common folk to not think $14 million is a lot. And if they truly want to do great things, why are they opposed to policies that benefit the general good simply because it is at the expense of their direct heirs?

 

[bèlla]

I'm just trying to get you to realize that the scenario you are trying to defend is way beyond the experiences of the vast majority of people. We're not all rich.

My position on wealth is no different than yours on religion. I respect your right to disagree. Just because the majority are on a different page doesn’t mean I should change sides and I won’t. Whether they can accept it or not isn’t my concern.

~bella

 

[Bradskii]

This is precisely why systemic prejudices continue on. Those who have benefited from generational growth of wealth pass those privileges on rather than expecting their offspring to show their merit by building their own wealth. Those who were subject to policies like redzoning and other discriminatory policies that prevented them from building wealth have nothing to pass on, and are more likely to fall into a debt trap because of predatory lending practices.

I appreciate the argumen t. But it was hard work by my wife and myself that has resulted in my (property) wealth. Hard work to earn the money that was taxed quite heavily before we stretched our finances to buy something we could just afford. And then spend more on upgrading and extending. There is not a square inch of our house that I haven't improved updated and/or maintained. I have added value to it.

I will fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that our home is to be taxed in addition to taxing the money used to buy it and practically rebuild it.

There is a lot of resistance to this idea in Australia because it would affect farms. Death duties would require the family property to be sold off to pay them rather than maintaining the farm within the family.

 

[Desk trauma]

You’re trying to make fun of me because of my comment

Saying $14 million dollars in personal wealth isn’t a lot is absurd. I’m not sure if it’s absurd levels of delusion or wealth that allows you to type such nonsense but I’m not about to acquiesce to some agree to disagree crap, you’re wrong.

 

[bèlla]

I'm sure their executive positions have nothing to do with nepotism. I didn't say the wealthy don't work hard, but there's far more to achievement than hard work.

Are you suggesting you’d build a business and wouldn’t employ your children or pass it on? Would you deny them a role in deference to a stranger?

Sure, but pretending that wealth is a product of personal merit is absurd. And a death tax is an entirely reasonable way of returning wealth to the general pot rather than it becoming increasingly concentrated by a handful of people who can afford to tilt the game in their favor.

I didn’t mention merit at all. It appears there’s a problem addressing my statement without adding more to what was said. You have a different perspective on the tax and explained your reasons and that’s fine.

Exceptions are not relevant to general trends. And the fact that you immediately jumped to that field appears to be a tacit admission that there have been systemic issues and instead of seeking to make redress you want to excuse the experience of the common black person in favor of focusing on exceptional cases. Nearly every statistic has outliers.

Or I asked for the reasons stated and your assumption is wrong. Given the fact that I’m biracial I can’t help laughing at what you’re suggesting. Would you like to recant?

~bella

 

[Fervent]

I appreciate the argumen t. But it was hard work by my wife and myself that has resulted in my (property) wealth. Hard work to earn the money that was taxed quite heavily before we stretched our finances to buy something we could just afford. And then spend more on upgrading and extending. There is not a square inch of our house that I haven't improved updated and/or maintained. I have added value to it.

I appreciate the sentiments, and don't doubt you worked extremely hard. But that doesn't erase that you likely had benefits that others don't, and since in real terms there isn't a infinite amount of resources to go around correcting past injustices is going to require concessions to "reset" the balance or else the injustices will simply continue to be self-perpetuating.

I will fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that our home is to be taxed in addition to taxing the money used to buy it and practically rebuild it.

Yeah, I figure you would.

There is a lot of resistance to this idea in Australia because it would affect farms. Death duties would require the family property to be sold off to pay them rather than maintaining the farm within the family.

If farming practices are anything like they are in the US, I'm not all that sympathetic to farms not being passed down generation by generation.

 

[bèlla]

Do you believe there is some infinite pool of wealth that can simply keep expanding? You have to be pretty far removed from common folk to not think $14 million is a lot. And if they truly want to do great things, why are they opposed to policies that benefit the general good simply because it is at the expense of their direct heirs?

Who mentioned pools or expansion? Or policies either? I shared an opinion. I didn’t articulate the what, why, when or where behind my perspective. Others have tried to fill in the blanks as you’ve done in your response. How did you conclude that the who in that comment is responsible for the things you allege based on that statement? Your deduction is flawed and you didn’t have enough to go on to make the leap.

~bella

 

[Fervent]

Are you suggesting you’d build a business and wouldn’t employ your children or pass it on? Would you deny them a role in deference to a stranger?

I'm suggesting that merit has little to do with wealth accumulation, and the idea that the poors just don't work hard enough or aren't clever enough is malarky. If you want to defend nepotism, that's your prerogative.

I didn’t mention merit at all. It appears there’s a problem addressing my statement without adding more to what was said. You have a different perspective on the tax and explained your reasons and that’s fine.

Fair enough, more pertinent is that wealth growth isn't purely a product of the individual who happens to be at the top of the company. In most cases, it involves exploitative practices that take advantage of the power disparity that exists between employer and employee. Wealth is a societal reality, not something that belongs to individuals who have put themselves in the position to cheat laborers

Or I asked for the reasons stated and your assumption is wrong. Given the fact that I’m biracial I can’t help laughing at what you’re suggesting. Would you like to recant?

~bella

You being biracial has nothing to do with the issue and to suggest that it does would be some species of ad hominem. And what assumption are you referring to? are you denying that there have been systemic barriers and privilege?

 

[Fervent]

You can divide it as stated or increase the portions

This statement is what led to my question. Do you think there's an unlimited pool of resources that portions can simply keep increasing without limit?

Who mentioned pools or expansion? Or policies either? I shared an opinion. I didn’t articulate the what, why, when or where behind my perspective. Others have tried to fill in the blanks as you’ve done in your response. How did you conclude that the who in that comment is responsible for the things you allege based on that statement? Your deduction is flawed and you didn’t have enough to go on to make the leap.

~bella

There was no deduction, it was an abductive inference. You seem rather intent on defending the wealthy's ability to hoard wealth across generations, which raises questions that would likely verge on an infraction if they were to be asked. Last time I checked, though, it was blessed are the poor, blessed are the hungry. Camel in the eye of a needle and all of that.

 

[bèlla]

I'm suggesting that merit has little to do with wealth accumulation, and the idea that the poors just don't work hard enough or aren't clever enough is malarky. If you want to defend nepotism, that's your prerogative.

Your suggestion is noted but what you’ve put forth wasn’t part of the dialogue. The conversation began with the death tax and remained around the financial elements of the subject. You’re going in a different direction and no one articulated the things you propose nor were we discussing the poor.

You’re throwing spaghetti on the wall and arguing a position that doesn’t apply. That isn’t the topic and bringing it in won’t shift the focus. If you want to debate that you’ll have to start a thread.

Fair enough, more pertinent is that wealth growth isn't purely a product of the individual who happens to be at the top of the company. In most cases, it involves exploitative practices that take advantage of the power disparity that exists between employer and employee. Wealth is a societal reality, not something that belongs to individuals who have put themselves in the position to cheat laborers

Once again you’re off-topic. I’ve responded to your comment on the death tax and $14 million. Anything else is beyond that.

You being biracial has nothing to do with the issue and to suggest that it does would be some species of ad hominem. And what assumption are you referring to? are you denying that there have been systemic barriers and privilege?

Given the above I think it’s best you start a thread. When I mentioned black wealth I said I wasn’t ignoring the other. I wanted to clarify your awareness of the subject across the board.

~bella

 

[Fervent]

Your suggestion is noted but what you’ve put forth wasn’t part of the dialogue. The conversation began with the death tax and remained around the financial elements of the subject. You’re going in a different direction and no one articulated the things you propose nor were we discussing the poor.

The death tax is relevant to the general pot of available resources, as a means of preventing their concentration across generations.

You’re throwing spaghetti on the wall and arguing a position that doesn’t apply. That isn’t the topic and bringing it in won’t shift the focus. If you want to debate that you’ll have to start a thread.

No, I'm pointing out one of the reasons a death tax should exist which is to resist threads that concentrate wealth.

Once again you’re off-topic. I’ve responded to your comment on the death tax and $14 million. Anything else is beyond that.

It's all relevant, how the wealth was accumulated cannot be dismissed especially the elements that relate to public interest.

Given the above I think it’s best you start a thread. When I mentioned black wealth I said I wasn’t ignoring the other. I wanted to clarify your awareness of the subject across the board.

~bella

You seemed to be trying to cast mud by highlighting that there were exceptional cases of black people having wealth. Unless you are suggesting that the wealthy exceptions are in any way representative, they are not relevant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My position on wealth is no different than yours on religion.

You believe it is a bad idea?

I respect your right to disagree. Just because the majority are on a different page doesn’t mean I should change sides and I won’t. Whether they can accept it or not isn’t my concern.

~bella

I'm thinking we should cut that tax-free portion in half.

 

[bèlla]

The death tax is relevant to the general pot of available resources, as a means of preventing their concentration across generations.

I’m not debating the validity of your position or opinions. I’m saying they’re not a factor in mine and my course is set. I’m not asking you to agree or get on board. Nor am I soliciting christian support. Does that bother you?

~bella