Uh, did you read the article? Says right there that a very short time ago she made strong arguments against and now she's arguing for and the difference is who's paying her.
You're no dummy, I know that, but I don't think you're seeing this as clearly as you do.
Have you seen the little piggies crawling in the dirt?And for the little piggies life is getting worse.Always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies in their starched white shirts?You will see the bigger piggies stirring up the dirt,Always have clean shirts to play around in.
In their styes with all their backing, they don’t care what goes on around.In their eyes there’s something lackingWhat they need’s a damn good whacking.
I think certain exemptions for certain things -- primary home, primary transportation -- with reasonable but solid caps, can be good. Otherwise, it could get very regressive very fast.
I know you don't lose money with brackets. But some people think they'll lose money, and have foregone raises, bonuses, benefits programs, etc. because of it.
The article says she heads a nonprofit, and you're taking that as proof that she has been bribed into adopting the views of that nonprofit? It is every bit as likely -- and probably moreso -- that her views on this have changed, and she agrees with SAFE.
As to what may have changed her mind, I can think of a very likely impetus: she talked to people who would be hurt by Biden's approach, and she thinks there is a better way to go about it. Now, I am not arguing for or against Heitkamp's position. I am just saying that it is garbage to conclude that she has been bribed based on, she doesn't agree with the position that Dok told us was the only right one.
This business of condemning every Democrat who doesn't agree with what progressives are calling for this week, is foolish and destructive.
This nonprofit is in the news for taking out a six-figure ad buy to lobby against the tax change. It's a fair bet that it's not poor dirt farmers or Joe-Bob worried about his pap-pap's cabin in the woods backing it but we don't know because they are hiding their donors.
Her argument is also disingenuous because of the very high floor for even engaging the inheritance tax. This won't affect 98% of Americans but ohmygod Heitkamp is sure worried that the little guy will be hurt if some of his $11 million+ inheritance is taxed.
You may think it's foolish to condemn Heitkamp but I think it's pretty clear that she's not arguing in good faith, given her own arguments. I think it's foolish to look at the sum of the evidence and assume she's doing anything in good faith.
Although I had heard of the Dred Scott decision I had never read the tortured legalistic logic behind it - now that I have (thank you for that) it's appalling that the template for mass subjugation is right there - so easy to cut and paste.
If lower-income people own stocks, it tends to be in funds. They don't have the expertise or the time to pick individual stocks and should invest in funds to minimize risk. But funds pay capital gains yearly in the form of dividends - that is most fund assets are automatically stepped up yearly. If you pass on shares in an investment fund to your heirs, you have already paid the capital gains. Even moderately affluent investors who don't have funds may buy and sell several times in their lifetimes, paying the capital gains.The main benefit of the step-up goes to people who get in on the ground floor of something like Amazon, and just hold on to the stocks. These tend to be the richest people.
agreed: if you inherit your parents bought and paid for house and you are on the lower end of middle class, that would be a good law to have - not if you are inheriting your share of an investment portfolio of properties and stocks to add to your own multiple properties and stocks
I figure we're about ten years from being like Brasil, where you can't walk out of your house at eight in the morning without worrying about getting shot dead for your cell phone, and where fifteen percent of women are maids and the average wage is about 80 dollars a month.
No, you're making sure the working poor aren't being taxed for the roof over their head or the way they get to work in the first place. See "reasonable but solid caps".
Unlike North Dakota, Montana has a fair number or really rich people with summer houses there. Tester might be susceptible to them.
Uh, did you read the article? Says right there that a very short time ago she made strong arguments against and now she's arguing for and the difference is who's paying her.
You're no dummy, I know that, but I don't think you're seeing this as clearly as you do.
Have you seen the little piggies crawling in the dirt?And for the little piggies life is getting worse.Always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies in their starched white shirts?You will see the bigger piggies stirring up the dirt,Always have clean shirts to play around in.
In their styes with all their backing, they don’t care what goes on around.In their eyes there’s something lackingWhat they need’s a damn good whacking.
Heidi? GFY. Ta, Dok.
I think certain exemptions for certain things -- primary home, primary transportation -- with reasonable but solid caps, can be good. Otherwise, it could get very regressive very fast.
I know you don't lose money with brackets. But some people think they'll lose money, and have foregone raises, bonuses, benefits programs, etc. because of it.
The article says she heads a nonprofit, and you're taking that as proof that she has been bribed into adopting the views of that nonprofit? It is every bit as likely -- and probably moreso -- that her views on this have changed, and she agrees with SAFE.
As to what may have changed her mind, I can think of a very likely impetus: she talked to people who would be hurt by Biden's approach, and she thinks there is a better way to go about it. Now, I am not arguing for or against Heitkamp's position. I am just saying that it is garbage to conclude that she has been bribed based on, she doesn't agree with the position that Dok told us was the only right one.
This business of condemning every Democrat who doesn't agree with what progressives are calling for this week, is foolish and destructive.
i'm not sure he has 'heirs'
i imagine you're going to get a lot of shit.
the only thing i ask (old friend) is...
salon?
This nonprofit is in the news for taking out a six-figure ad buy to lobby against the tax change. It's a fair bet that it's not poor dirt farmers or Joe-Bob worried about his pap-pap's cabin in the woods backing it but we don't know because they are hiding their donors.
Her argument is also disingenuous because of the very high floor for even engaging the inheritance tax. This won't affect 98% of Americans but ohmygod Heitkamp is sure worried that the little guy will be hurt if some of his $11 million+ inheritance is taxed.
You may think it's foolish to condemn Heitkamp but I think it's pretty clear that she's not arguing in good faith, given her own arguments. I think it's foolish to look at the sum of the evidence and assume she's doing anything in good faith.
"All for sale!"
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Although I had heard of the Dred Scott decision I had never read the tortured legalistic logic behind it - now that I have (thank you for that) it's appalling that the template for mass subjugation is right there - so easy to cut and paste.
If lower-income people own stocks, it tends to be in funds. They don't have the expertise or the time to pick individual stocks and should invest in funds to minimize risk. But funds pay capital gains yearly in the form of dividends - that is most fund assets are automatically stepped up yearly. If you pass on shares in an investment fund to your heirs, you have already paid the capital gains. Even moderately affluent investors who don't have funds may buy and sell several times in their lifetimes, paying the capital gains.The main benefit of the step-up goes to people who get in on the ground floor of something like Amazon, and just hold on to the stocks. These tend to be the richest people.
agreed: if you inherit your parents bought and paid for house and you are on the lower end of middle class, that would be a good law to have - not if you are inheriting your share of an investment portfolio of properties and stocks to add to your own multiple properties and stocks
I figure we're about ten years from being like Brasil, where you can't walk out of your house at eight in the morning without worrying about getting shot dead for your cell phone, and where fifteen percent of women are maids and the average wage is about 80 dollars a month.
Rock the Beatles, baby.
No, you're making sure the working poor aren't being taxed for the roof over their head or the way they get to work in the first place. See "reasonable but solid caps".