September 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm #23456paulwalkerParticipant
And doesn’t know how to write a headline.September 27, 2016 at 7:14 pm #23457BroadwayParticipant
>>TO BELITTLE IS TO BE LITTLE.
Wow…apropos here…September 27, 2016 at 9:15 pm #23458proud2baconservativeSpectator
I just caught my mistake with the headline. Oops.
That’s about as bad as my inadvertent “bacon” handle, though I think it’s very funny and I’m growing fond of it as well as “Pope Bacon.”
Getting back on topic, Dilbert’s father makes another good point about confiscation of wealth under Hillary. He worked hard for his money and rightly doesn’t believe Uncle Sam should be an heir to his fortune. He paid tax on his income. Why should he be taxed again when he passes on the things the remaining income purchased?
2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.
So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.
The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.September 27, 2016 at 9:19 pm #23459VitalogyParticipant
Fuck off.September 27, 2016 at 9:28 pm #23460proud2baconservativeSpectator
“>>TO BELITTLE IS TO BE LITTLE.
What can you do when someone feels entitled to be abusive?
Maybe we should treat them the same way we should those who have road rage. Try not to look them in the eye or they might go further out of control and hurt themselves or someone else.September 28, 2016 at 9:09 am #23468LurkingGrendelParticipant
You’re a giant piece of shit.September 28, 2016 at 1:55 pm #23476
For the record, yesterday, I attempted to start a thread with the correct headline, “Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Switches Endorsement From Clinton to Trump,” but the posting did not go through when I hit the SUBMIT button. Does the message board software prohibit the starting of a new thread when too many keywords in the title match those of an existing thread?September 28, 2016 at 2:19 pm #23477
Regarding Scott Adams’s claim about “confiscation of property,” I will hazard a guess that most people whose net worth is near the $5 million threshold where high federal estate tax rates take effect are savvy enough to use legal instruments such as trusts, limited liability companies, and family limited partnerships in order to protect their assets after death. Of course, this creates an entire industry for attorneys and accountants whose job it is to set these up.September 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm #23485
Yesterday, while cleaning the house, I went through _Must Control Fist of Death_, a Dilbert calendar from 1999. There were a lot of great strips there; I guess that I am a fan of _Dilbert_. I find that the pointy-haired boss in the strip is much like Donald Trump: both are narcissists, both are completely oblivious to the pain of those around them, both will cheat if they can get away with it, and both lack some of the basic competencies to do their jobs. In light of how much Adams mocks the pointy-haired boss and the shortcomings of corporate culture, I find it sadly ironic that he would support Trump.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.