Lion of the Blogosphere

Jeb Bush’s tax cuts for billionaires

His new tax plan calls for abolishing the estate tax, something that Republicans keep pushing for in order to appease their richest donors. (Either that, or just because they are stupid.)

This is just a massive tax cut for the children of centimillionaires and billionaires who are already born incredibly lucky and don’t need a massive tax cut. And as far as I can tell, the children of the super-rich vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so they don’t even want their taxes cut.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 9, 2015 at 4:24 pm

Posted in Politics, Taxes

48 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. If you support eugenics, don’t you want to encourage higher birth rates among the rich, which means letting them pass on their wealth to their children? I’m not against raising taxes on the rich, but not for giving their money to their children. We should be encouraging them to procreate, not give their money to third worlders or welfare bums.

    Hepp

    September 9, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    • No centimillionaire is going to not have children because of the inheritance tax.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 9, 2015 at 6:57 pm

      • According to Wikipedia, estate tax starts at $5 million. I’m sure states probably have estate taxes that go even lower. Reducing the amount you can give your children by 50% may influence how many you have.

        The estate tax is uniquely repulsive on Darwinian grounds. Take from the rich, fine, but not for giving to their children, especially in a world where high IQ people have pretty much stopped having kids.

        Hepp

        September 9, 2015 at 8:12 pm

      • Only a tiny percentage of people are worth enough ($5 million) that they pay any estate tax, and their IQs aren’t any higher than people with $1 million to $5 million net worth. There’s absolutely no reason why people worth $5 million can’t afford to have as many children as they want to. Hasidic Jews manage to have 8 or more and are dirt poor. Jeb Bush’s proposal is NOT eugenic.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 9, 2015 at 11:30 pm

      • Hassidic Jews are not dirt poor. You should know better.

        Yakov

        September 10, 2015 at 12:23 am

      • True life story, not a hypothetical. This is a man I actually know.

        1000 acre farm in central Illinois. Land value is $10k per acre. His business partner owns and operates the necessary equipment. They split the income. When the landowner dies, the $10m farm should be taxed and the proceeds doled out rather than the son just inheriting it? Why? I know this is boring crap to sophisticated high society wannabe’s but the average farmer is now over 50. In ten years, under the proposed new rule we could see farmers dispossessed a la Latin America. Politicians certainly know how this rule will affect farming, farm ownership and farm labor in the future. Remember also that land in the USA is the only land in the world that is actually owned by individuals. In every other country on the planet, the government owns all of the mineral rights in the entire country.

        not too late

        September 15, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    • Also, as elites go, the American rich are mostly not breaking any intellectual records (outside of tech, obviously).

      Viscount Douchenozzlé

      September 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    • There is a cultural aspect to reproduction. It’s one reason why africans often have way to many kids while rich NYers often have very few. By your logic, why didn’t Trump have twelve children instead of five? He could easily afford twelve. Five children is a lot for a rich person. Because too many kids is prole.

      in battle there is no law

      September 9, 2015 at 8:31 pm

      • Wait, I thought that the rich, aka rich men, have more kids than proles.

        not too late

        September 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm

  2. The estate tax should be abolished. There are lots of blue-collar millionaires/small business owners who slaved to make a few million over a lifetime. That money shouldn’t be taxed again before it goes to their heirs. Especially if that tax essentially wrecks the business.

    fakeemail

    September 9, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    • There’s already no tax on the first few million. I don’t see why that’s not enough of a break.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 9, 2015 at 6:57 pm

      • I think it’s an estate tax is stupid but, yeah, there’s a 5 million dollars free. A little more tax planning to hire accountants and lawyers to keep me employed too.

        I really don’t like Jeb Bush (if that’s at all relevant)

        everybodyhatesscott

        September 9, 2015 at 8:05 pm

      • I believe it is now the first 5 million that is exempt. His brother W. already significantly lowered the estate tax beyond the previous 1 million exemption.

        B.T.D.T.

        September 9, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    • There’s already no tax on the first few million. I don’t see why that’s not enough of a break.

      Your notions of what constitutes mega-wealthy is still stuck in the 1950s, unadjusted for inflation. Adjust.

      A threshold of a few million is pitifully low if you want to target only billionaires. An accountant with a jumble 401k would have over a million to leave his descendents in just that on account, that’s before looking into property and other assets.

      A small to medium business owner could have millions worth assets in the form of business valuations, savings, and property. But you would penalize them as if they were worth ten times as much.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      September 9, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    • There are lots of blue-collar millionaires/small business owners who slaved to make a few million over a lifetime.

      except there aren’t. you just made it up, because iss juss gots to be true.

      truth and truthiness are two different things. believe it or not.

      and to add insult to injury there could be an exception for those who earned it by the sweat of their brow… the <<1%.

      guns don't kill people. republicans kill people.

      kim jong un

      September 9, 2015 at 9:57 pm

  3. I read his plan in Jeb’s Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal. It’s strictly standard Republican boilerplate. It could have been produced in any election year since 1988, and has about the same chance of being implemented as ever, meaning no chance. Maybe he can add how he’s going to make the military stronger and work to reduce abortions too. Same old, same old.

    Mike Street Station

    September 9, 2015 at 4:38 pm

  4. I dunno, my descendants maybe hit with an estate tax and I don’t like it. I think it should start at $25,000,000, because anything less isn’t realy a lot for a large family to inherit. I mean, there maybe like 70-80 people. Bush is totally stupid, it’s scary how stupid he realy is. Actually, at 50 million, I’ve changed my mind.

    Yakov

    September 9, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    • You’re not rich enough to be affected by the currently implemented estate tax.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 9, 2015 at 6:58 pm

      • @Lion

        First of all its not about me, it’s about what’s the right thing to do. A few of my friends are millionairs and there is no need to milk them again.

        Secondly, I may become one. I’m working on it. My kids will quite likely be ones. I think that the prole bissiness girl already is. Todayy a million is not a lot of money at all. Anything less than 10,000,000 doesn’t impress me as a lot of money. Everything is crazy expensive.

        Here is a good rule, I think – anybody who worked for his money, started with less than 5,000,000 and has less than 50,000,000 at the end if the day is exempt from the inheritance tax.

        Yakov

        September 9, 2015 at 8:39 pm

      • You are vastly overestimating your chances of being worth $10 million.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 9, 2015 at 11:32 pm

    • Funniest lionofhelbogosphere comment ever. Not a doubt in my mind. But don’t let the utter hilarity distract you from the fact that this is a very common mindset in regards to progressive taxation of all forms.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      September 9, 2015 at 9:55 pm

      • Funniest lionofhelbogosphere comment ever.

        The funniest and dumbest comment ever was your claiming that if a trait’s variance across two populations is genetic then their mean difference on that trait can still be environmental (it can’t).

        Where did you get that crayon-drawn picture from, you stupid asshole.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 9, 2015 at 11:53 pm

      • Well I didn’t say exactly what you just said because (to the extent you clearly said anything at all) that’s a clear contradiction. I said that if a trait has a genetic component it is still possible for the difference between two genetically distinct populations to be caused purely by environmental factors. For the exact same reason that is possible for the same trait to vary in the same way across two populations that are not genetically distinct.

        You’re wrong and I’m right I’m sorry that you’ve devoted as much time and thought as you have to this issue and are still unable to think about it clearly.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        September 10, 2015 at 3:30 pm

      • It can’t be true because the variance and average are parameters of the individual sample observations.

        You gave this picture:

        In the image, the heritability of plant group B is 100%, even though that group’s soil is nutrient deficient.

        If the soil is nutrient deficient, then Group B’s heritability must be less than 100% because the environmental variance (var.E) is greater than 0.

        The formula for h2 according to Jensen:

        h2 = (var.G)/(var.G + var.E)

        The phenotypic variance (var.P), is composed of the genetic variance (var.G) plus the nongenetic variance (var.E), also called the environmental variance, or

        var.P = var.G + var.E.

        Heritability (h2 ) is simply the ratio of the genetic variance to the
        total variance:

        h2 = (var.G)/(var.G + var.E)

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 10, 2015 at 11:24 pm

      • Explain how can Group B’s height heritability be 100% if the environmental impact is greater than 0…

        h2 = (var.G)/(var.G + var.E)

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 10, 2015 at 11:26 pm

      • Why is Group B’s heritability 100% when that group’s soil deficiency means the environmental impact is greater than zero and heritability is less than 100%?

        Did you make the mistake of using a faulty picture from a sociology textbook instead of statistics textbook?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 11, 2015 at 10:48 pm

  5. OT: LA Times, 09/09/15 – Man killed, woman injured in ‘vicious’ pit bull attack in Riverside County

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-man-killed-dog-attack-20150909-story.html

    A man was killed and a woman was severely injured after they were attacked by two pit bulls outside a home in a Riverside County neighborhood, authorities said. Emilio Rios, 65, went for a morning stroll about 6:30 a.m. Tuesday when he was attacked by the two dogs, authorities said…

    Again, one must get on a sufficiently lucrative career track to earn enough money to move away from the kind of people that keep pit bulls.

    E. Rekshun

    September 9, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    • @Lion

      First of all its not about me, it’s about what’s the right thing to do. A few of my friends are millionairs and there is no need to milk them again.

      Secondly, I may become one. I’m working on it. My kids will quite likely be ones. I think that the prole bissiness girl already is. Todayy a million is not a lot of money at all. Anything less than 10,000,000 doesn’t impress me as a lot of money. Everything is crazy expensive.

      Here is a good rule, I think – anybody who worked for his money, started with less than 5,000,000 and has less than 50,000,000 at the end if the day is exempt from the inheritance tax.

      Yakov

      September 9, 2015 at 8:42 pm

    • Tell it Lion, he insists that cows are dangerous. Why don’t they just ban them, like they baned serval in NYC?

      Yakov

      September 9, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    • SWPLs buying pitbulls and germans adopting syrians…I suspect these behaviors are on the same spectrum.

      jjbees

      September 9, 2015 at 11:14 pm

      • youre gonna need a shock collar to train either one.

        driveallnight

        September 10, 2015 at 1:52 am

  6. But alot of big fish in small ponds – the Republican small biz owner in flyover country e.g. – want the freedom to amass wealth more than they want to impede similar moves among the 1%. They’re liberty lovin’ true believers, and class war stuff is lost on them. Unless it’s the political class, in which case they’re almost Jacobins.

    Dain

    September 9, 2015 at 5:56 pm

  7. “And as far as I can tell, the children of the super-rich vote overwhelmingly Democratic”

    Lol! Yup. This tax cut is a great way to ensure that future Democratic donors still have lots of money to give to Democrats and Liberal causes!

    But then, Heb is just a shady bag-man and the ultimate false opposition candidate. That’s why he was able to raise a ton of money from the donor class so quickly. They know that Heb or Hillary is a meaningless distinction as far as they’re concerned. That was the whole setup: have two “inevitable” candidates who were both shills for the big money. Too bad another big money guy showed up and rained on the parade!

    peterike

    September 9, 2015 at 6:11 pm

  8. I dont know how the supposedly fiscally responsible republicans plan to perpetually cut taxes without cutting spending also. This just makes no sense. We will have bigger deficits thats all. You could say that the economy would re-energize with more money in peoples hands, but thats 1920s Fordism. The US doesnt do that anymore. Now it would be more illegal immigrants and HIB visas for the owner class.

    Jumpin Jack Fash

    September 9, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    • Of course it makes no sense. Not for nothing are the Republicans called the stupid party, but they may be – like the Democrats – just down right evil too. There is no free lunch with deficit spending. One way or another the borrowing necessary to close the gap dilutes the money supply and inflation rears its head. Inflation is a tax on the poorer, less nimble and middle class who have no way to dodge the diluting effects of deficit spending. Republicans yammer on endlessly about every tax except the inflation tax.

      Daniel

      September 9, 2015 at 9:37 pm

      • “There is no free lunch with deficit spending. One way or another the borrowing necessary to close the gap dilutes the money supply and inflation rears its head.”

        Exactly wrong, governments with a sovereign currency can issue money by fiat. If the result of this new money (people with money like to spend it, spending money stimulates production) leads to the production of goods that *would not have been bought otherwise* you have a corresponding increase in output to go with the increase in money supply, and you do not have undesirable inflation. Inflation is the ultimate boogey man of the right, it’s a strange historical/ideological quirk.

        chairman

        September 10, 2015 at 12:48 am

    • Only a few eggheads in the Concord Coalition give a fig about fiscal responsibility in the abstract. Dems don’t care about it when they have the White House; it’s only an issue when a Republican wants to cut taxes. The only way the debt will get reined in is 1) if it leads to a crisis (e.g., skyrocketting interest rates) forcing pols to make radical changes, or 2) by accident, when a economic boom leads to higher than expected tax revenues.

      Dave Pinsen

      September 9, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    • Its the “starve the beast” strategy, and its completely irresponsible – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

      Alex

      September 10, 2015 at 1:52 am

  9. Inheritance is a form of income so why shouldn’t it be taxed like any other income? I don’t think the rich should be taxed twice, but i don’t see it as a tax on the rich. I see it as a tax on their heirs.

    pumpkinperson

    September 9, 2015 at 7:32 pm

  10. A centimillionaire would have $10,000, just like a centimeter is 1/100th of a meter. You mean a hectomillionaire who would have $100,000,000+.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix

    MetricSystem

    September 9, 2015 at 8:02 pm

  11. The current estate tax already has an exemption of the first 5 million dollars. I can tell you that the VAST majority of rich, red state/flyover Republicans are at this level or lower. These are your small business entrepreneurial/corporate exec types. Once you get over 5 or 10 million then you are more in liberal, big city Democrat territory. This greater exemption would only further the power of liberal elites, and not the lesser petit bourgeois conservative elites.

    This, like so many other things he does, makes absolutely no sense until you come to the realization that Jeb Bush is nothing more than an establishment plutocrat tool. It is obvious that he and Hillary are both working for the same people. The same people that want mass indoctrination via Common Core and endless cheap labor through illegal immigration. They don’t give a damn about the American people.

    B.T.D.T.

    September 9, 2015 at 8:26 pm

  12. I would not vote for Jeb Bush under any circumstances, because even if he did succeed in reducing or getting rid of the estate tax (temporarily), his immigration policy will result in the importation of tens of millions of people who would vote for a 100% estate tax on anyone who dies with a positive net worth.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    September 9, 2015 at 8:47 pm

  13. No one cares about giving the rich tax cuts right now. If anything, it’s likely to piss people off. Jeb just threw an airball.

    destructure

    September 9, 2015 at 9:26 pm

  14. Germany has no estate tax. There is an inheritance tax but pretty easy to circumvent. I don’t see any evidence that Germany has a more dynamic economy than the US or that the lack of an estate tax is encouraging “eugenic breeding”. Sweden abolished their inheritance tax in 2005. So basically Jeb is trying to get the US in line with other socialistic, elite dominated economies. No surprise there.

    Peter Akuleyev

    September 10, 2015 at 6:18 am

  15. We can see how out-of-touch Jeb Bush is buying looking at his policy proposals. He supports flat taxes, charter schools, and elimination of estate taxes.

    These were cutting-edge ideas…in 1998. People are not excited about those things in 2015.

    Immigration, out of control globalization, uptick in urban violence, endless foreign wars, declining living standards…these are the issues people are concerned with today. And Jeb! has nothing to say about these things.

    Jimi

    September 10, 2015 at 10:11 am

  16. Look, there are good arguments against the estate tax. The problem is, the are all political losers. Furthermore, few among the rich even pay those taxes so there is no dysgenic effect.

    Why paint yourself a clueless plutocrat by arguing against something that has no effect anyway?

    Map

    September 10, 2015 at 1:57 pm

  17. Our next generation of smart kids will be mostly coming from the families with $75,000 to $300,000 in income, families who are certainly cash constrained in their ability to have more children.

    While people with $300,000+ incomes have smart kids, there are far too few of them to have any real eugenic effect. $300,000+ is about 1% of the population, and far less than 1% of the *fertile-age population.*

    This graph illustrates the “winners” of capital gains tax cuts:

    75.9% of the value of the cut goes to people with incomes above $1,000,000, the top 0.2% roughly, and probably only 0.1% of fertile age earners. The much more numerous group making $100,000 to $200,000 get 4.4% of any capital gains tax cut.

    In summary: GOP policy on taxes is to give more than 90% of the value of tax cuts to less than 1% of the population, who themselves are mostly 60 and older. A eugenic policy would give big tax cuts to people making between $75,000 to $300,000.

    Indeed, making the super rich even richer is dysgenic, because it depresses the eugenic fertility of the upper-middle class, who have the conspicuous consumption of the super-rich shoved in their face, both in person and by the media, making them feel poorer and less secure, and also encouraging them to waste their income on their own conspicuous consumption trying to keep up.

    Lot

    September 10, 2015 at 2:30 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: