Is the Dilbert creator, Scott Adams, the most important public intellectual of our time?

Wendell Gee wrote:

I'd like to see any calculation that show an effective tax rate of 75% on earnings. If he's paying that much he's an idiot. I call serious BS on that one.

50% income (Federal and CA) compounded by another 50% when he dies and tries to pass it on

Did you read Adams' blog entry that other posters are referencing before calling someone an idiot? May help provide some insight. His tax calculation is based on Hillary's tax proposals and is a near reality to the liberal dream of having the government take all of one's wealth at death.

HardLoper wrote:

Wendell Gee wrote:

I'd like to see any calculation that show an effective tax rate of 75% on earnings. If he's paying that much he's an idiot. I call serious BS on that one.

50% income (Federal and CA) compounded by another 50% when he dies and tries to pass it on

Again, you'd have to be moron for that to apply in any way. Further, the exemption on the estate tax is pretty large. And it's 40%, not 50%. Other than that, you're spot on.

Most importantly, once again, unless you have NO estate planning and are a complete idiot, there is no reason to be paying 50% taxes in a regular year. And 75% is intellectually dishonest and nearly impossible.

try reading wrote:

Did you read Adams' blog entry that other posters are referencing before calling someone an idiot? May help provide some insight. His tax calculation is based on Hillary's tax proposals and is a near reality to the liberal dream of having the government take all of one's wealth at death.

You and I both know that Hillary's proposal is going nowhere.

Wendell Gee wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

50% income (Federal and CA) compounded by another 50% when he dies and tries to pass it on

Again, you'd have to be moron for that to apply in any way. Further, the exemption on the estate tax is pretty large. And it's 40%, not 50%. Other than that, you're spot on.

Most importantly, once again, unless you have NO estate planning and are a complete idiot, there is no reason to be paying 50% taxes in a regular year. And 75% is intellectually dishonest and nearly impossible.

Pay attention please. These are the numbers IF Hillary Clinton gets what she proposed and IF he makes a large net worth than he currently has. Then yes he would pay that much.

Souped American wrote:

An Econ Major wrote:

Besides, the argument in favor of estate tax is that it's among the least distortionary forms of taxation. People (usually) won't alter their present consumption patterns in anticipation of a post-death tax. Even if some do, it will have a far less adverse impact on the economy than a sales tax, or an income tax.

Maybe when you graduate and get a little older, you will learn that the desire to leave something behind is actually a very large motivator, particularly for very senior high-productivity workers who could easily retire but instead selflessly continue to contribute to the economy.

Maybe when you get out of diapers and into the real world you will learn that everyone is better off if everyone has to make it on their own talents and efforts (and not on daddy's inheritance).

Oh wait, is your little liberal butt hurt that someone is suggesting that you should have to make your own way and not rely on handouts? So sorry.

An Econ Major wrote:

If "fairness is an argument for idiots and children", why require every single person to pay taxes? Why don't we just arbitrarily pick out 10,000 Americans and require them to pay a 100 percent effective tax rate?

Besides, the argument in favor of estate tax is that it's among the least distortionary forms of taxation. People (usually) won't alter their present consumption patterns in anticipation of a post-death tax. Even if some do, it will have a far less adverse impact on the economy than a sales tax, or an income tax.

I love Dilbert, and respect Scott Adams, but what you quoted is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It sounds like something an idiotic loudmouth at a community college would spout when put on the spot in an economics lecture.

Yup

Wendell Gee wrote:

try reading wrote:

Did you read Adams' blog entry that other posters are referencing before calling someone an idiot? May help provide some insight. His tax calculation is based on Hillary's tax proposals and is a near reality to the liberal dream of having the government take all of one's wealth at death.

You and I both know that Hillary's proposal is going nowhere.

It will if she is elected president...or are you suggesting that she is a big fat liar liar with pantsuits on fire and that she has no intention of implementing the elements of her platform?

fdsdfsDad wrote:

An Econ Major wrote:

If "fairness is an argument for idiots and children", why require every single person to pay taxes? Why don't we just arbitrarily pick out 10,000 Americans and require them to pay a 100 percent effective tax rate?

I honestly hope you aren't an econ major, because you should be able to answer that question.

And we don't require every single person to pay taxes. Like Romney pointed out, almost half don't.

Actually essentially every adult pays taxes. You might find it surprising that federal income tax is not the only tax in the world. Learn something new every day.

HardLoper wrote:

Wendell Gee wrote:

Again, you'd have to be moron for that to apply in any way. Further, the exemption on the estate tax is pretty large. And it's 40%, not 50%. Other than that, you're spot on.

Most importantly, once again, unless you have NO estate planning and are a complete idiot, there is no reason to be paying 50% taxes in a regular year. And 75% is intellectually dishonest and nearly impossible.

Pay attention please. These are the numbers IF Hillary Clinton gets what she proposed and IF he makes a large net worth than he currently has. Then yes he would pay that much.

I'll give you credit for stubbornness if not intelligence. Have you actually read her policy?

The highest bracket kicks in at $1 billion dollars.

So, presuming Adams was a total moron with estate planning, which you're trying to convince me. AND his estate is valued at over $1 billion dollars, of which I am skeptical, even THEN the effective tax rate would only be 46% on the estate value of $1 billion.

You clearly do not understand how marginal taxes work.

try reading wrote:

Wendell Gee wrote:

You and I both know that Hillary's proposal is going nowhere.

It will if she is elected president...or are you suggesting that she is a big fat liar liar with pantsuits on fire and that she has no intention of implementing the elements of her platform?

OK, #1 "pantsuits on fire" is funny, kudos to you on that one.

#2 Believe it or not, not every item in a platform actually happens, even if the candidate wants it to.

Do you really believe that every illegal will be deported if Trump is elected? Do you really believe a wall will be built along our entire Southern border AND Mexico will pay for it?

You're either naive or intellectually dishonest. We both know her proposal won't get through Congress as is. And I support it.

Lazy fare wrote:

The fact that so many people absolutely loathe him seems to be a good indication that he is saying important things that nobody wants to hear.

"You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to

The founding father's would strongly disagree with Scott Adams. The gave a list of fundamental rights of man. They would think anyone who would deprive a man of one of these rights, would be treating him unfairly.

I don't think the founding father were idiots or children.

Wendell Gee wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Pay attention please. These are the numbers IF Hillary Clinton gets what she proposed and IF he makes a large net worth than he currently has. Then yes he would pay that much.

I'll give you credit for stubbornness if not intelligence. Have you actually read her policy?

The highest bracket kicks in at $1 billion dollars.

So, presuming Adams was a total moron with estate planning, which you're trying to convince me. AND his estate is valued at over $1 billion dollars, of which I am skeptical, even THEN the effective tax rate would only be 46% on the estate value of $1 billion.

You clearly do not understand how marginal taxes work.

1. Really? Why do you not think I understand marginal taxes? Assuming he makes a large amount of money his effective income tax rate is very close to the top marginal tax rate, which in CA might be over 50% under Hillary's proposal.

2. No I have not read Hillary's plan, but after Googling it, it looks like the 50% marginal rate starts at $10M, 55% at $50M. So effective rate for a single person with $500M = 53.5%.

3. Hillary's plan is indeed going nowhere. But if you read Scott Adams's blog posts you would know that what he is doing is creating a "fake because," which he argues all voters do. I Again, if you have not read his last year or so of posts, most things will just not make sense or sound ridiculous.

Wendell Gee wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Pay attention please. These are the numbers IF Hillary Clinton gets what she proposed and IF he makes a large net worth than he currently has. Then yes he would pay that much.

I'll give you credit for stubbornness if not intelligence. Have you actually read her policy?

The highest bracket kicks in at $1 billion dollars.

So, presuming Adams was a total moron with estate planning, which you're trying to convince me. AND his estate is valued at over $1 billion dollars, of which I am skeptical, even THEN the effective tax rate would only be 46% on the estate value of $1 billion.

You clearly do not understand how marginal taxes work.

You also missed the part where he decries this process as welfare for lawyers. But as a liberal, you probably have no idea that there is a difference between creating wealth and diverting wealth.

Souped American wrote:

Wendell Gee wrote:

I'll give you credit for stubbornness if not intelligence. Have you actually read her policy?

The highest bracket kicks in at $1 billion dollars.

So, presuming Adams was a total moron with estate planning, which you're trying to convince me. AND his estate is valued at over $1 billion dollars, of which I am skeptical, even THEN the effective tax rate would only be 46% on the estate value of $1 billion.

You clearly do not understand how marginal taxes work.

You also missed the part where he decries this process as welfare for lawyers. But as a liberal, you probably have no idea that there is a difference between creating wealth and diverting wealth.

What makes you think I am a liberal? Recognizing flaws in his argument puts me on neither side of said argument.

Dilbert was, from the late 80s to around 2000, one of the funniest comic strips out there. It started going downhill after that, but managed to stay decent for another half decade before descending into utter irrelevance. Too bad Scott Adams didn't follow Bill Watterson's example and retire Dilbert once he began to run out of ideas. I mean, I totally understand why he's kept going for all these years, but it's just a shame that Dilbert's been crappy for so long that some people forget or don't even realize that it used to be really good.

It's not just a desire. It's actually an instinct. The primary purpose of life is to stay alive. The second purpose of life is to reproduce. The third purpose of life is to maximize the number of offspring that survive. It actually falls around the lower half of Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid. Point is, an estate is a final opportunity for someone to increase the success rate of his or her descendants by directly benefitting them and the family in general. The U.S. government, and the progressive-socialist-democrats have demonstrated fairly consistently that they are totally anti-family. Massive support for supporting broken marriages. Massive support for prevention of reproduction. Massive support for all non-reproductive lifestyles. Massive support for reproductive lifestyles most likely to get venereal diseases resulting in lowered fertility rates. The list can easily be expanded on. When we totaled up my father's estate, it came to a very modest $250,000 that got split 5 ways. $50,000 helped with student loans, but didn't completely retire that child's, and we have others with more. Oh yeah, and giving more loan opportunities to college bound people merely jacked the price out of reach for the poor.

He is superior to the democrat pundits.

He is superior to the democrat pundits.