Post New

History, sociology, psychiatry, psychology books will all have chapters dedicated to the evolution of MAGA, and the con man who identified and seized the opportunity to cultivate cults within it, and monetize the phenomena.

<tt"Cults are notoriously tricky to define. Mainly though, for something to qualify as a cult, it needs to hold a creed that is deviate from the mainstream religious community or have a leader that is somehow deified. A small Christian group that believes its leader is the reincarnation of Jesus almost certainly would. .

Top 10 Cults With Massive Followings
The Children of God
Heavens Gate
Aum Shinrikyo
Branch Davidians.... all so puny compared to the 3rd Reich, the regimes of 20th century Asia, Russia, the major religions, and now.... the American MAGA.

https://historycollection.com/16-infamous-cults-in...

14. Japanese Cult of the Emperor- All throughout history, there have been entire civilizations and religions built upon the worship of a monarch. In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh was worshiped as a god, believed to be a reincarnation of the son of Iris and Osiris, the god Horus. Many of the ancient Roman emperors, such as Nero and Caligula, claimed that they were divine and required people in the empire to burn incense to them as a ritual act of worship. Likewise, in imperial Japan, the emperor was worshiped as if he was a manifestation of the divine.

The Moonies- In 1988, when Moon married 6,516 people in one mass ceremony, he entered the Guinness Book of World Records. When the movement spread to the United States, many parents became outraged that he brainwashed their children, many of whom were teenagers or in college, to sell all of their possessions to him and enter into a scandalous marriage with a stranger.

Aren't these the guys responsible for The Epoch that spams my email but is also distributed outside my grocery store? It's great for lining the bottom of the green waste bin every week.

.........In 1833, John Quincy Adams wrote, “I do conscientiously and sincerely believe that the Order of Freemasonry, if not the greatest, is one of the greatest moral and political evils under which the Union is now laboring.”

Safe to say that's been Trumped by the Trumps who garnered 74,223,975 votes in 2020.

https://historycollection.com/16-infamous-cults-in...

...Trumps who garnered 74,223,975 votes in 2020.

So deeply disturbing. What is wrong with these people!

Top 10 Cults With Massive Followings
The Children of God
Heavens Gate
Aum Shinrikyo
Branch Davidians.... all so puny compared to the 3rd Reich, the regimes of 20th century Asia, Russia, the major religions, and now.... the American MAGA.

I believe Heavens Gate had less than 50 members, and all but a few of them committed mass suicide in 1997. But a cult it surely was.

...Trumps who garnered 74,223,975 votes in 2020.

So deeply disturbing. What is wrong with these people!

I like to be a bit of an optimist at times. And this would be one of those times.

I'm pretty sure that a significant portion of those 74 million votes were people who were not in the cult, but who were voting on their impression of the issues. People who don't pay close attention to the news, were vaguely aware of Trump's personal tendencies, but who believe that the Republican ideas for governing are the better ideas.

It's easy to forget that participants on this board represent a small minority of the population who pay very close attention to politics. Most people don't do that. And while some might disagree, Trump didn't really color that far out of the lines until after the last election. Yes, there was some degree of crossing lines, but he didn't rip up the coloring book and toss it out until after the election.

--Peter

And while some might disagree, Trump didn't really color that far out of the lines until after the last election. Yes, there was some degree of crossing lines, but he didn't rip up the coloring book and toss it out until after the election.

----------------------

This, I do not agree with.

Before Trump ever took the oath of office in January 2017, it was clear his administration would be the most inept, corrupt, unhinged and grift-prone in history, solely from the cabinet appointments and his staff selections, including: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Betsy DeVoss, Ben Carson (a doctor in charge of Housing and Urban Development?), just to name a few.

There was the fact that Trump never released his tax returns prior to the election. Or an audited summary of his financial positions. But we were given assurances operation of the Trump Organization would be handed over to the equivalent of a blind trust. Until about January 11, 2017, when Trump announced he changed his mind. Instead of relinquishing operational control of his business to a third party as promised prior to the election, he announced he would transfer operational control of the business to his two sons for THEM to operate during his Presidency. That is NOT divestment, that is NOT a blind trust and it isn't an arms-length separation of conflicting interests.

Then there was Michael Flynn, a man appointed to serve as a national security advisor and was chased out after only 22 days due to his involvement in with a variety of Russian contacts and likely due to the fact he could not gain the required security clearances. This is a guy who pocketed nearly a half million dollars giving a speech at a party for RT, the Russian news "outlet", in Moscow, sitting at Putin's table.

Then there was the revolving door of press secretaries whose sole qualification for the position was their willingness to look at the noon sun and declare it midnight... Because that's what Trump wanted to convey. Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee, Stephanie Grisham, Kayleigh McEnany...

Once he entered office, it became apparent that he had no understanding of the nature of the power of the Presidency. As the owner of a privately held business (and a thoroughly corrupt one at that), Trump had zero prior experience with operating in an environment where other parties to a dispute had alternate powers to achieve their aims or thwart his aims unless concessions were made. One hundred percent of his life experience involved situations where his wealth created a lopsided playing field with opposing parties and his side of an issue was under his sole control as head of his business entity. Nothing in American politics resembles that situation or was ever MEANT to resemble a corporate dictatorship.

As he began clashing with his own hand-picked staff and cabinet and the churn began, his other lifelong pattern of simply ignoring laws and ethics that conflicted with his goals became apparent and the churn in personnel began making it clear that it is impossible for a man with flawed character to excel at hiring competent, ethical people around him. Partly because a man with no ethics or morality has none to leverage in selecting others in the first place and partly because his policies and communications were so beyond the pale, no reasonably sane person in approximate touch with reality would agree to enter his sphere.

Upon his inauguration in 2017, his inauguration speech made the paranoid, hateful, fear-mongering vibe of his term clear from literally his first act as President. How unhinged was his inauguaral address? Three different people who attended the event on the rostrum said former President George W Bush was heard at the conclusion of the speech turning to his neighbor and saying "That was some wierd shit." This isn't someone commenting on some random YouTuber's video or podcaster's rant, this is an EX PRESIDENT commenting on the words of a newly sworn-in President addressing the American nation for the first time.

The inauguration also made it crystal clear how disconnected Trump was from reality when he insisted his press secretary LIE to the press and the public in his very first press conference. And not just lie about some subtle interpretation of an ambiguous word in a proposed bill that could be interpreted multiple ways. Trump instructed his press secretary to lie that his inauguration crowd was the "largest in history" and "larger than Obama's"... Even though a child of five could view public photographs of the two events and instantly conclude with zero ambiguity that Trump's crowd was vastly SMALLER than any in recent memory. Because by 2017, Trump DESPISED Barack Obama. Obama had griled Trump to his face in the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner and again in the 2016 edition:

--------------------
Sitting at the same table, I see Mike Bloomberg. (Applause.) Mike, a combative, controversial New York billionaire is leading the GOP primary and it is not you. (Laughter.) That’s has to sting a little bit. (Laughter.) Although it’s not an entirely fair comparison between you and the Donald. After all, Mike was a big-city mayor. He knows policy in depth. And he’s actually worth the amount of money that he says he is.

The Republican establishment is incredulous that he is their most likely nominee -- incredulous, shocking. They say Donald lacks the foreign policy experience to be President. But, in fairness, he has spent years meeting with leaders from around the world: Miss Sweden, Miss Argentina, Miss Azerbaijan. (Laughter and applause.)

And there's one area where Donald’s experience could be invaluable -– and that’s closing Guantanamo. Because Trump knows a thing or two about running waterfront properties into the ground. (Laughter and applause.)

All right, that’s probably enough. I mean, I've got more material -- (applause) -- no, no, I don’t want to spend too much time on The Donald. Following your lead, I want to show some restraint. (Laughter.) Because I think we can all agree that from the start, he’s gotten the appropriate amount of coverage, befitting the seriousness of his candidacy. (Laughter and applause.)

I hope you all are proud of yourselves. (Laughter.) The guy wanted to give his hotel business a boost, and now we’re praying that Cleveland makes it through July. (Laughter.)
--------------------

Trump could not admit Obama had outdrawn him. By hundreds of thousands. It was that point at which anyone else connected to reality should have realized "we just put a man this petty and disconnnected from reality in the Situation Room."

Those that voted for Trump in 2016 might be plausibly due an electoral mulligan. Maybe they weren't followers of his business ventures in east coast real estate to understand his financial track record was one of consistent FAILURES, not SUCCESSES. Maybe they didn't understand his thirty year track record of cheating his various contractors, refusing to pay bills, forcing others to sue him for money he owed them, etc. Maybe they had some sense of that financial / ethical past but were so wrapped up in disgust that YET ANOTHER CLINTON was leading the Democrats and that neither party had been able to widen its talent search for someone seemingly outside traditional, sclerotic party norms in either party. Maybe they thought voting for a "billionaire" who financially didn't have to care what ANYONE thought would have enough independence to break some policy logjams and materially combat the captive corruption of both parties.

All of those rationales for "forgiving" a 2016 vote for Trump no longer applied after his first term.

Anyone who voted for Trump in 2020 saw how his reluctance to accept the fact that large numbers were at risk with COVID led to over ONE MILLION Americans dying when perhaps it could have only been 250,000 or 400,000. They saw his administration push and enable a policy of separating children of incoming immigrants (legal or otherwise, it doesn't matter) as a means of inflicting cruelty as an incentive to discourage additional immigrants from coming. They saw a President rightly impeached (and wrongly acquited by a corrupt Republican-controlled Senate) for attempting to extort a foreign leader by withholding weapons and material already approved for delivery by Congress in exchange for publicly announcing an investigation in to Hunter Biden as an attempt to smear Trump's likely 2020 Presidential rival. As of November 2020, Trump was already easily the most corrupt and flawed President in history.

And then there are the months of plotting by Trump and his advisors (official and outsiders) regarding the 2020 election. Trump's plans for distorting election results through media confusion and actual manipulation of electoral votes began BEFORE the actual election. His efforts were NOT merely the result of realizing he lost the election AFTER LOSING the election. Trump knew the outcome was at risk well before November and had arranged conversations and strategies for doing exactly what he did BEFORE voting began. The mechinations and manipulations pursued by Trump and his staff between roughly September 2020 and January 6 to flip enough electoral votes to steal the 2020 election were ALONE enough to justify a second impeachment and justify him being banned from office for life. His actions on January 6 -- to promote and attend a rally outside the White House under the premise of "stopping the steal", pointing that mob at the Capital building, then doing NOTHING for HOURS as that mob violently attacked the Capital itself and attacked hundreds of Capital Police -- themselves are worthy of impeachment, conviction, a ban from office, and criminal prosecution, conviction and punishment.

At this point, anyone still supporting Trump in 2024 falls into one of these buckets:

A) Thinks they are in a special financial category slated to extract enormous financial gains from tax cuts or other spending policies and doesn't care about any other carnage resulting from all of Trump's other baggage. People in this category don't care about abortion bans cuz they assume the rich will always be able to find any treatment they need - price is no object, right? People in this category don't care about workplace safety, they don't work in a chemical factory or Amazon warehouse.

B) Is literally clueless about the basics of economics, the basics of criminal law, the basics of separation of powers and the balance of powers within the US Constitution and is fortunate enough to not be in close proximity to the harm induced by Trump's actions to date to properly correlate his actions to his outcomes to know he will NEVER act in anyone ELSE'S best interest before ensuring his own interests are optimized first and then, maybe not even then. People in this category haven't been exposed to enough risk or actual loss to justify learning more about what is actually being proposed and why it will produce more harm than good. Let the good times roll...

C) Is literally clueless in all the same areas as (B) but is much closer to where the rubber hits the road when bad policies fail to correct long standing problems with housing, education, job opportunities, etc. Because they feel the IMPACTS of these failures personally, they are in a position where their literal ignorance can be manipulated to create fear and resentment that drive them to support people and policies which inevitably WORSEN their plight. Without purposely trying to psycho-diagnose an entire demographic, people in this category are -- for lack of a better term -- stuck in a low-information doom loop. The more they are exposed to simplistic solutions they THINK they understand, the more they are pulled into thinking that uses "otherism" to transfer "fault" to other groups. It's way easier to explain that illegal Mexican immigrants are taking all of our jobs when in fact it is American companies that are either offshoring jobs or eliminating them entirely OR that illegal Mexican immigrants are COMING to America because there are thousands of jobs in lettuce fields, slaughterhouses, road construction crews and roofing companies that NO AMERICANS seem to want, at ANY hourly rate. And when we have a consistent 4.5% unemployment rate, the actual problem is that US population growth has slowed, creating an actual shortage of labor.

So, no... I disagree. Trump was coloring well outside the normal boundaries well before he took office, did so continuously while IN office, even before January 6, and literally threw all of the crayons and the coloring book away with his actions on January 6, 2021 and beyond. There's no "reasonable minds can differ" space left given how far gone Trump has gone and knowing how much additional rope the Supreme Court has tossed to any President willing to use and abuse it.


WTH

All of those rationales for "forgiving" a 2016 vote for Trump no longer applied after his first term.

After his first term - yes. But the election was held before his first term was over.

I agree that as of the end of October 2020, there were a bunch of things known about Trump, most of them not good. But to repeat, most of those were known only by people that follow politics to some degree. I believe there are a lot of people who don't follow politics that closely. If you had mostly ignored politics throughout Trump's first term, you would be hearing things that sound like the typical jabs of a political campaign:

Trump had a lot of turnover.
Trump made some questionable appointments.
Trump didn't release his tax returns.
There was a scandal in the Trump administration.

And more as you correctly point out.

Then you'd hear Trump saying similar bad things about Biden.

To those who aren't thinking about politics daily (like we do here), this is all just ordinary campaigning. Say bad things about your opponent. Say good things about yourself. Sure, with Trump there'd be some things that are a bit weird:
Why does he keep going on about crowd sizes? But who cares? Whatever, that just his quirk. They all have quirks. They all stretch the truth to make themselves look good and their opponent look bad.

I'm kind of deliberately avoiding covid in this discussion. I'm not really sure how much of a role that played. It could have been the tipping point. It could have been just another bit of political whining and moaning in these voters' minds.

Anyway, when we get down to election day, there's a camp of folks one one side. There's a camp of folks on the other side. They're not terribly moved by anything that has happened to this point. And just as it will be this time around, the votes of 90% of the people won't matter.** (Please see note below.) It's the 10% in the middle of a handful of states that swing the election one way or the other. And those folks tend to vacillate back and forth. If the last administration has been unusually good, they can say. If they haven't been really good, they'll vote for change.

By election day 2020, Trump was just an ordinary President clearly in the not-great category. So those few folks in the middle, who aren't paying close attention every day or every week, decided to switch horses. They went from a "meh" horse of the last 3+ years to a different horse.

And that's when the "meh" horse blew up and became an outright threat to our democratic processes.

So yeah, I'm going to cut some folks a bit of slack in the 2020 election. SOME folks. It wasn't until after the election that Trump showed us how bad he really was. Before the election, he was just an "ordinary" level of bad. You could still vote for him because he was the Republican and you always vote Republican. You knew he wasn't great (unless you were in the cult, which I believe to be smaller than most people think), but he was still the Republican. And even a "meh" Republican is better than any Democrat.

Of course, today things are much different. We know a whole lot more. But that's today, and not November 2020.

--Peter

** Note:
Those votes won't matter for President. They matter much more - MUCH more - for Congress and various state and local positions. So please vote even if you are in the bluest of blue states, or reddest of red states.
And yes, 90% here is a rhetorical tool. Could be 70%, could be 80%, could be something else. The point is that it's a small subset of voters whose votes matter the most for electing a President. That's why both campaigns will travel mainly to a handful of states for rallies. If they are somewhere other than those half-dozen or so states, it's probably a fundraiser.

Excellent post, WTH.

I think there is another bucket of Trump voters in 2024.

D) The hardcore racists, misogynists, incels, fascists/Nazis, white supremacists, anti-semites and all the other dreck of the deep dark far right. Many of these groups have endorsed Trump or said that, while he may not be their perfect candidate, he is the best they can do for now and he moves America closer to the (gawdawful) world they dream of.

It's the 10% in the middle of a handful of states that swing the election one way or the other. And those folks tend to vacillate back and forth.

I don’t dispute that there are some people who vacillate back and forth, although with a contest so clearly defined and polarized it’s hard to imagine.

But I am coming more to the view that elections are decided at least as much by enthusiasm and turnout as by “switchers.” I know a couple of people who didn’t vote for Hillary, not because they didn’t like her but because “she had it in the bag.” It wouldn’t have mattered (much) because they weren’t in a swing state, but I can see how that effect, multiplied again and again, could swing an election.

While Biden was behind in the polls, after the disastrous debate performance, I suspect his final vote would have been even worse because so many people were dispirited and thought he wouldn’t have a chance. That has been reversed, of course, but it’s also true that Trump’s minions are energized as well, but at least that puts things back on a more or less even keel.

And yes, the (long outdated) Electoral College means the election really comes down to just a handful of states, meaning the candidates can sometimes avoid important national problems to pander to parochial issues. I would like to see us try, at least once, a national election by popular vote. Crazy idea, I guess but no crazier than changing how Senators are elected, taking it away from state legislatures and handing it to - voters. Doesn’t seem to have worked out so badly, does it?

Actually WTH there's a 4th category, D: Democrat haters. They're not the ugly, stupid, ignorant stereotypes you paint with categories A through C. They're well-educated, upper-middle class or upper class, usually professional people or business owners who have a firm grasp on personal and business economics, somewhat libertarian. They can't stand "Democrat socialism", confiscatory tax policy as they see it to line corrupt politicians' pockets and handing out unsustainable piles of money to public sector union pensions to stay elected. They don't like being demonized as "the rich" as some of the Dem leadership has been doing ad nauseum for 30 years now. And they can't stand having too-progressive social norms shoved down their throats with the thread of government policy. Or, using public money in the billions in legal goose chases in part to keep beating the anti-Pub war drums messaging going from Radio DNC - while Hunter Biden's obvious corruption gets buried.

I'm not one, but I hear about it too much from a few of my neighbors. They don't excuse J6, but they see a lot of what Biden and the Dems do as even more dangerous - anti-democratic, anti-jobs, anti-business and anti-freedom - than Trump.

Speaking as a #neverTrumper - but dear God the Democrats could turn this into a slam dunk win if they would stop labeling non-progressives as fascists. The answer to beating Trump has never been calling half of the country deplorables, then declaring "we're unifiers" and going further left!

FC

I'm not one, but I hear about it too much from a few of my neighbors. They don't excuse J6, but they see a lot of what Biden and the Dems do as even more dangerous - anti-democratic, anti-jobs, anti-business and anti-freedom - than Trump.

Excellent analysis. I wouldn’t call it “democrat haters”; I’d call it “Sane and well adjusted”. Put me in this category.

Or, using public money in the billions in legal goose chases in part to keep beating the anti-Pub war drums messaging going from Radio DNC

What's anti-Pub?

confiscatory tax policy

Huh? Are you aware of any voluntary tax policy?

One of the points of having elections is to determine what we spend taxes on. And of course there will always be differences among a population of over 300 million people. That’s pretty normal.

And every person in America can point to things they want to spend tax money on and things they don’t want to spend tax money on.

I believe the people you are referring to were included in WTH’s bucket A. Sure they’re anti Democrat. Always have been, always will.

I know people like that. The only issue they care about is their own bottom line. And that’s all they care about when they vote.

Just my opinion, I’m thankful that the majority of Americans are more compassionate than that. America is a better place because of it.

...the (long outdated) Electoral College

One of the worst aspects of our Constitution and I'm sure if the electoral college were benefitting Democrats now, the right would be all in favor of reforming it.

Or, using public money in the billions in legal goose chases in part to keep beating the anti-Pub war drums messaging going from Radio DNC


Are you channelling word salad Donnie now?

>>confiscatory tax policy<<

Huh? Are you aware of any voluntary tax policy? - AW

-----------------

Some say state run lotteries are a form of this.

>>...the (long outdated) Electoral College<<

One of the worst aspects of our Constitution - ges/I>

-----------------

My vote for the absolute worst is lack of term limits on congress-weasels.

The Dems support taxes on unrealized gains.

Speaking as a #neverTrumper - but dear God the Democrats could turn this into a slam dunk win if they would stop labeling non-progressives as fascists.

Ya know the entire Democratic party isn't made up of progressives. Progressives are welcome to the party though, and the Social Democrats are a welcome recent addition. I would like to understand how some of our party not calling the other party fascists would make this a slam dunk. Sounds pie-in-the-sky.

I call parts of MAGA proto-fascist, while there are some full fledged fascists there I see them as a tiny part of the party, but they're there.

It's never going to be slam dunk as long as there are Dopes that believe there's a "Biden Crime Family". People who think *because* we're a Republic we aren't a Democracy. People who believe that adding countries near Russia to NATO absolves Putin from starting a war. People who believe that United States is a Christian Nation and the Constitution was inspired by God to bring about a Christian Nation.

We don't have the ability to pass amendments anymore. We spend a lot of time devising ways to limit people's power to vote so we can have minority rule.

see a lot of what Biden and the Dems do as even more dangerous - anti-democratic, anti-jobs, anti-business and anti-freedom - than Trump.

Now this is interesting. I think this may possible mean all this as anti-money. We do have policies that do some of these things, but it takes a stilted viewpoint to come up "with we're worse than Trump," nor do I see how a small part of the party calling someone a fascist prevents a slam dunk. Nice post though. :)

...the (long outdated) Electoral College

One of the worst aspects of our Constitution and I'm sure if the electoral college were benefiting Democrats now, the right would be all in favor of reforming it.

And I've never known someone to freely give up an advantage once they have it. So the odds of us correcting by amendment these problems with voting approach zero. So we'll continue to have opponents research novel ways of suppressing the vote, while suppressing the vote.

I don't even think we can pass an amendment on term limits on Congress even though a lot of MAGAs agree with that also.

The Dems support taxes on unrealized gains.

I’m a registered Democrat and I don’t support taxes on unrealized gains.

So your statement is not accurate.

However, Biden’s latest budget proposal does include a 25% annual minimum tax on unrealized capital gains for individuals with incomes and assets exceeding $100 million.

Fortunately, this proposal has no impact on me. Wait. Now that I think about it, I wish it DID impact me!

In any case, it has as much chance of passing as I do of winning Friday’s Mega Millions lotto.

However, Biden’s latest budget proposal does include a 25% annual minimum tax on unrealized capital gains for individuals with incomes and assets exceeding $100 million. - AW

--------------------

Taxing assets should be opposed at the conceptual level.

Bbbbut only on those rat bastard billionaires....

The proverbial camel's nose under the tent. I remember when the AMT only applied to a few uber-wealthy.

Taxing assets should be opposed at the conceptual level.

How about property taxes?

Also, depending on how it is done, I just generally don't agree here. The whole point is to capture revenue on multi-generational wealth that likely will never be realized. Some folks are just so rich they don't have to touch the principal, and as it gets passed down it enjoys various exemptions (like stepped-up basis). Getting those people to pay a fair share is tricky under those circumstances, but we need to figure it out. After all, they made their fortunes utilizing the benefits of America (e.g. infrastructure, rule of law, educated workers, etc). They should pay a fair share.

Off-hand, I would eliminate the stepped-up basis (even though I get to take advantage of it since 1poormom died last year). Actually...let me restate that. There should be a stepped-up basis, and taxes should be owed on the difference between the old and the new basis. THAT is probably the most fair way to get some taxes from that accumulated wealth. Off the top of my head.

Taxing assets should be opposed at the conceptual level.

Taxes on unrealized gains is their wet dream; sets the stage for them to raid Normies' 401(k)s and all sorts of other things to fund their Big Government programs. They'll deny it, but there is literally trillions of dollars sitting there they could seize.

How about property taxes?

Those are state and local, not federal.

The whole point is to capture revenue on multi-generational wealth that likely will never be realized.

Why?

Why?

Reread my post. I explained why.

Taxing assets should be opposed at the conceptual level.

We do that with property tax. But taxing someone out of their home is not something we should do lightly. In Indiana, clearing your drainage ditches is required by law. If you don't do it, and it looks like it could cause a problem, the state does it for you. Lots of cooperatives so the drainage ditches get cleared - the area was swampy ya know - and if you don't pay at some point your land may get sold to pay it. Lots of disputes and the power of the state needs to be watched here.

My brother dammed up a teeny rivulet of a stream that crossed his property. The water backed up onto part of his neighbor's property. The state declared it a wetlands and my brother was happy because no houses could be built there. Don't live near my brother.

Reread my post. I explained why.

I did read it. They made it, you feel entitled to it.
Why not help other people accumulate generational wealth?

There should be a stepped-up basis, and taxes should be owed on the difference between the old and the new basis. THAT is probably the most fair way to get some taxes from that accumulated wealth.

We already do that in a way. It's called the estate tax.

--Peter

sets the stage for them to raid Normies' 401(k)s

401k plans are already taxed. They're not tax free, just tax deferred. Once you get into your 70s, you have to start paying tax on that accumulated money. And if you leave some behind, your beneficiary will pay income taxes on it.

--Peter

Taxes on unrealized gains is their wet dream; sets the stage for them to raid Normies' 401(k)s and all sorts of other things to fund their Big Government programs. They'll deny it, but there is literally trillions of dollars sitting there they could seize.

So their wet dream is to have everyone pay the lower capital gains tax rate on 401(k)s rather than the higher ordinary income tax rate on 401(k)s.

Brilliant concept.

Where do I sign up?

>>Taxing assets should be opposed at the conceptual level.

How about property taxes? - 1pg

---------------

Never at the Federal Level!!!!

And here in freedom loving Texas, no state level taxes on property.

Local level is where property taxes should be in my estimation, easier for taxpayers to exercise some level of control over what is spent in their communities.

Are there any states with a property tax levied by and paid to the state -separately from the local property taxes for schools, community parks, etc.

My google foo was not strong enough to get at this question. The results were usually ranked the states by the combined sales and property tax load without which doesn't break out who levies what....

My brother dammed up a teeny rivulet of a stream that crossed his property. The water backed up onto part of his neighbor's property. The state declared it a wetlands and my brother was happy because no houses could be built there. Don't live near my brother. - Lapsody

----------

That's LOL. Kudo's to your brother.

Never at the Federal Level!!!!

You didn't specify "federal taxing of assets should be opposed at the conceptual level". You pretty clearly were saying that the concept of taxing assets is odious (to you) in general.

And while it's easier to influence at the local level, I don't see that as relevant. It's also easier to affect how your tax dollars at the state level are spent. But, ultimately, it's all controlled in the same manner. Specifically, whom you vote for based on their stated policies (and their follow-through on said policies).

Property taxes are an example of taxing assets. Estate taxes (which I'm less familiar with) are another. Whether the taxing entity is county, state, or federal.

I don't know in Indiana, but in the "west", water rights are a BIG deal. Generally, you cannot do whatever you want to a waterway that happens to flow across your land because it can affect others' properties near (or transited) by the waterway. If you tried to dam a waterway, you could expect a lot of lawsuits (and you'd probably have to tear the dam down unless you could reach accommodation with the others affected by that waterway).

Never at the Federal Level!!!!

The federal government cannot impose a tax on "assets," generally. At least, not without apportionment - and it's incredibly unlikely that the Congress would adopt an apportioned direct tax.

Congress can only pass taxes on "income," whatever that term means. It's not defined in the Constitution. We can debate whether appreciation of an asset meets that standard. But a straight-up tax on the entire value of an asset, not an appreciated portion of an asset, would not meet that standard. So if I buy a house for $500K (for example), and the next year it is worth $505K, Congress would clearly not have the power to tax the first $500K of value.

4th category, D: Democrat haters.

is this a small group?
mostly rational in all discussions, yet they simply cannot imagine that a trump threat is worse than proven Dem outperformance.

look no further than this week's PBS interview with former ambassador to russia for ~1 year under both trump and biden.
although far more critical of trump PER HIS OWN experience doing a difficult job as a public servant, he finishes the interview saying he will vote for trump, thus becoming effectively as clueless as any of the more MAGA groups.

in book & interview:
"Trump had a undisciplined style, The White House was chaotic, unpredictable, the president could not or would not draw a distinction between his own interests and those of the country, Trump has no interest in the ordinary duties of his office."


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/former-u-s-diplo...

Never at the Federal Level!!!!

The federal government cannot impose a tax on "assets,"

I don't think anyone would mind about unrealized gain as long as it doesn't escape taxation. But it seems like a bunch of it escapes taxation.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.