Wow. CNBC gets some a-hole guest, but nobody tops this guy David Haslett, who was on last week. Haslett is the author of a book called “Capitalism with Morality,” and he’s advocating a cap on inheritance. Check out this load of monkey poo!
Here is Haslett’s point. We’re in the middle of the largest wealth transfer in human history as a bunch of stinking rich old people die off and leave hundreds of trillions to their kids. This is bad because being rich causes people to lose their inventive to work hard. So it would be better for those poor dears if we took away some of that inheritance so they don’t have “too much.” Then the government can use that money to make the country more equal!
Yay!! Communism!!
● How Much Is Enough: Like all thieving leftists, Haslett tries very hard to avoid being pinned down on exactly what he is advocating. This became clear once they tried to get him to tell them where he would place the cap. Haslett at first shrugged his shoulders and acted cagey, saying it wasn’t up to him. He then said it would be up to the Congress, though clearly we can’t trust the current Congress. The interesting moment finally came a few discussion points later when he floated the idea, as an aside, that a cap at $100,000 would ensure that everyone still had an incentive to work.
$100,000
Yes, $100,000.
Think about that. Haslett tries to sell his idea by complaining about the evil rich having too much... and then he sets the cap at $100,000. Haslett tells us that his big concern is people losing their incentive to work... and then he sets the cap at $100,000.
At $100,000 you couldn’t even pass on half of the median house. So who gets whacked here? The rich or all those middle class people who want to pass on their homes and their cars and what little money they’ve saved to their kids? This is a “RAPE EVERYONE” plan. This is communism using a meaningless $100,000 figure rather than a $0 figure.
It’s no wonder he tried to avoid answering this question.
● It Won’t Work Anyway: Even if we accept Haslett’s stupid idea, it still won’t work. The rich, i.e. the people who hold 70% of the nation’s assets, will simply transfer them out of the country, where they can pass them under Swiss law or Cayman law. In effect, Haslett will leave this country as barren as a Walmart after a riot. Smart thinking jerk.
As for the assets that can’t be yanked out of the country, those can be put into corporations that do not die and then the corporations can be inherited overseas. And if you want to get your kids some easy cash, just employ them and pay them that way.
In the end, the only people who will pay this tax are middle class people who have no way to avoid it. And in doing so, Haslett will effectively destroy the American middle class and will recreate the 14th Century, where the ultra-rich live a privileged multinational life and everyone else is poor and unable to own property.
That means they have no incentive to earn or save. Their incentive will be to live off the government... a government with no income because all the rich people fled.
This is so typical of liberals. They come up with these broad-brush overly-simple solutions without having the slightest clue how their plan will affect people. This jerkoff claims he wants to reduce inequality, but his plan is not only guaranteed to increase inequality, it will increase it to a level not seen since the age of divine despots. He doesn’t even realize that he can’t reach the people covets with his stupid plan. All he’ll do is drive US wealth overseas.
You’d think they would have learned something from their failure in the Soviet Union, but I guess all they learned was to hide their true goals.
Here is Haslett’s point. We’re in the middle of the largest wealth transfer in human history as a bunch of stinking rich old people die off and leave hundreds of trillions to their kids. This is bad because being rich causes people to lose their inventive to work hard. So it would be better for those poor dears if we took away some of that inheritance so they don’t have “too much.” Then the government can use that money to make the country more equal!
Yay!! Communism!!
● How Much Is Enough: Like all thieving leftists, Haslett tries very hard to avoid being pinned down on exactly what he is advocating. This became clear once they tried to get him to tell them where he would place the cap. Haslett at first shrugged his shoulders and acted cagey, saying it wasn’t up to him. He then said it would be up to the Congress, though clearly we can’t trust the current Congress. The interesting moment finally came a few discussion points later when he floated the idea, as an aside, that a cap at $100,000 would ensure that everyone still had an incentive to work.
$100,000
Yes, $100,000.
Think about that. Haslett tries to sell his idea by complaining about the evil rich having too much... and then he sets the cap at $100,000. Haslett tells us that his big concern is people losing their incentive to work... and then he sets the cap at $100,000.
At $100,000 you couldn’t even pass on half of the median house. So who gets whacked here? The rich or all those middle class people who want to pass on their homes and their cars and what little money they’ve saved to their kids? This is a “RAPE EVERYONE” plan. This is communism using a meaningless $100,000 figure rather than a $0 figure.
It’s no wonder he tried to avoid answering this question.
● It Won’t Work Anyway: Even if we accept Haslett’s stupid idea, it still won’t work. The rich, i.e. the people who hold 70% of the nation’s assets, will simply transfer them out of the country, where they can pass them under Swiss law or Cayman law. In effect, Haslett will leave this country as barren as a Walmart after a riot. Smart thinking jerk.
As for the assets that can’t be yanked out of the country, those can be put into corporations that do not die and then the corporations can be inherited overseas. And if you want to get your kids some easy cash, just employ them and pay them that way.
In the end, the only people who will pay this tax are middle class people who have no way to avoid it. And in doing so, Haslett will effectively destroy the American middle class and will recreate the 14th Century, where the ultra-rich live a privileged multinational life and everyone else is poor and unable to own property.
That means they have no incentive to earn or save. Their incentive will be to live off the government... a government with no income because all the rich people fled.
This is so typical of liberals. They come up with these broad-brush overly-simple solutions without having the slightest clue how their plan will affect people. This jerkoff claims he wants to reduce inequality, but his plan is not only guaranteed to increase inequality, it will increase it to a level not seen since the age of divine despots. He doesn’t even realize that he can’t reach the people covets with his stupid plan. All he’ll do is drive US wealth overseas.
You’d think they would have learned something from their failure in the Soviet Union, but I guess all they learned was to hide their true goals.
21 comments:
It's bound to be popular with the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
Maybe I'm in a magnanimous mood today, but I'm willing to give Haslett and CNBC the benefit of the doubt and suggest they are just stoopid. (i.e. too dumb to even spell it right) Not that there aren't malicious leftist elites ready to turn these useful idiots to their own purposes.
I'm developing the opinion that what really makes America unique is that, for once, a group of smart individuals came together to manipulate people's basic populist impulses toward liberty rather than captivity. Modern conservatives (conservative in the preservation of American liberalism) have forgotten how nefarious and manipulative the founders actually needed to be to get the country started.
I'd be curious to know how much Haslett, as an author successful enough to appear on CNBC, made last year. Not that it would faze him, of course; he gets to be exempted, because he cares about poor people.
I find it fascinating that these Bozos actually think that "rich people" just sit around sipping cocktails counting their money and do nothing else. For all the dislike I have for Michael Bloomberg, I would never say that he is a lazy, lay-about. No doubt there ARE lazy trust-fund babies, but mostly these types are multi-millionaire Hollywood stars and starlets who claim that their pampered lives are so much harder than soldiers and regular working moms...
What an imbecile. I bet Obama ( "Hey! Let's trade the top 5 Taliban commanders for a deserter and probably traitor to deflect from the VA debacle!")
Would love this plan.
Although, to be fair, Obama would probably say a $250,000 instead of $100,000.
People like George Soros would be exempt, of course because of all their "charity" work for the left...I mean down n' out useful idiots.
Ben! How've you been! :D
LL, Ironically, I'll bet it isn't because (1) they all live on inheritances and (2) waiting until someone dies is too long to go without trying to tax them 100%.
tryanmax, I don't know if he's malicious. I suspect he really thinks this will be for everyone's good. The problem is that his instincts are malicious -- take by force from those I don't like so I can use what they have to reshape the world the way I want it.
T-Rav, The right people should always be exempt from law because they are needed to lead the sheep.
Bev, That's what stereotyping is about. What I find funny is that when these people attack the rich, they almost always pick on the productive ones who earned their money and continue to work rather than the trust fund kids like the Kennedys.
I don't think for a second most Americans (even liberals) give a damn about what the next guy is making provided they have enough.
If they have that (as was the case in the 80s and 90's) how much more the next guy is making and how they made it doesn't matter.
Even now I don't see much appetite for soaking the rich. The Obama administration has been as friendly to the rich/powerful as any administration. Politically active types on either side only tend to talk with real venom about the rich when they are on the wrong side (nods towards Soros and the Koches).
The political party that offers a plausible solution to 'un' and 'under' employment is the party that will win the public of economic matters. That won't be the Democrats in the near future, but it might not be the Republicans either.
Anthony, I think that's true for the most part. I will say though that right now, both left and right are in a very populist mood and that means the "insider" rich are an easy target.
In any event though, I can't imagine Haslett ever getting his plan endorsed. Though, I definitely see the Democrats pushing it at a higher level.
My parents were pretty wise not give me a trust fund because they probably sensed that I probably would've wasted my life sitting around sipping cocktails counting my money and do nothing else. Of course, they didn't have the money for a trust fund, but that's beside the point...they cared enough not to make the money.
Hi Andrew!
Sorry for the late response and lack of commenting. Been incredibly busy and just don't have a lot of energy to do what I used to.
Plus, my computer crashed so I hafta use an old IPad in the online-verse and it's more time consuming to comment, but I have been reading most of your articles as well as Bev's ( miss you posting, T-Rav but I understand when life makes de,ands you gotta do what you gotta do).
So... leftist stupidity at work?
Ben, I'm glad to hear you're still around! I've always enjoyed hearing your opinion. Sorry to hear that you're short on energy. I know exactly what you mean. I'm fighting an on-going leg infection that just wipes me out sometimes.
Kit, It's hard to tell if he's just stupid or stupid in a different direction, but yeah, leftist stupidity. :D
Bev, Your parents were very wise. LOL!
I hope your leg heals up soon, Andrew.
Thanks Ben!
Thanks Ben! I'm trying to get back into things now.
Post a Comment