*affect

This place....... :D

Norway's neoliberal government removed the inheritance tax a while ago as well, along with a bunch of other tax cuts for the wealthy, including a cut to the tax on fortune. The argument goes that inheritors have an innate right to their families' wealth (because **** kids who are born into poorer families) and that tax cuts for the wealthy increase investments among entrepreneurs. The government acually hired a commission to research the economic benefits of the tax cuts, and they found that they had very little effect on investements, and that most of the money just went into the personal paychecks of business managers and owners. Then the neoliberals proceeded to keep slashing the taxes.

I'm not against all inheritance. But there should definitely be a limit on how much money you can inherit, in order to alleviate some economic inequality. 77 of Norway's 100 richest people inherited their wealth. This means that the usual liberal/right-wing argument about "job creators" or "hard work" or "risk and investments" really don't apply here, since these people have not made any risk, nor made any investments, nor worked hard. A progressive inheritance tax is not a radical suggestion. It makes perfect sense even from a centrist point of view. The only people to whom it makes sense to remove taxes on inheritance are the super wealthy.

How about we all stop voting for politicians that solely represent the bourgeoisie so that we'll no longer have to deal with **** like this?

This is where it gets interesting. Suppose we managed to close all loopholes and then introduce a steeply progressive tax on income, fortune, ownership and inheritance. The wealthy/business-owners would see this as an immense blow to their personal fortunes, and lose a lot of incentive to invest. What's the point of investing if it's not profitable? So they would either:
1. Try to revert these taxes by all means (parliamentary struggle, capital strike, illegal means)
2. Move their enterprises (and fortunes) abroad to somewhere more profitable

This is going to happen as long as the means of production and immense amounts of wealth are in private hands. The only way to deal with this is to take over the privately-owned means of production in the hands of the collective, and then radically distribute society's wealth.

Trump's White House trying to blame Obama for all of Flynn's **** ups.

Jesus Christ. How long will his leaches keep swallowing this ****.

Seriously. Hey, white conservative "Make America Great Again" person: He's ****ing you in the ass just to further his and his family's personal businesses.

China Defends Trademark Grants For Ivanka Trump Products : The Two-Way : NPR

Just how stupid are a large percentage of the voting populace of this ****ing country.

*banging head against wall. again.*

Really does make you wonder what he did in his time with the Obama administration though. Would he make such an overwhelmingly stupid move if he didn't have some kind of precedent of getting away with it? Speculation of course, but Flynn's trustworthiness is not contingent on who his boss is.

Do you know the net worth of all of those people leaving the U.S.? Some of them own businesses worth hundreds of millions. But the estate tax is easy to evade in comparison, and only a small fraction of the wealthy deal with it at all. Hence why I see it as a non-issue.

Elph might be on to something if both could be revamped.

+1

Do you have a list of their net worth? Are you saying all 5,000 of them are multi-millionaires? Again, how much would a higher tax bracket on 0.0017% of the population help the economy, even if they are all mega rich? It's all simple math dude.

Easy to evade = fix the easy evasion.

Wealthy don't deal with it = make it harder to not deal with.

0.0017% of 100 billion dollars is $1,700,000. Doled out to 200 million people it equals less than 1 - 100th of a ****ing penny each.

(I think my calculator just blew up)

If even 100 of those 5,000 were multi-millionaires, it would still be more useful than the estate tax as it currently stands. You should re-read the part of my sentence where I said "some of them own businesses worth hundreds of millions".

But like you said, if it can be "fixed" then there you go. Otherwise might as well not have it at all.