Democrats hate the American Dream. They want everyone dependent on government handouts.

Didn't they also resolve healthcare?

@@theshlaufonly in the America where republicans and corporations lose can something like that happen.

Nice kingkiller reference ;)

I assume this was part of a larger bill (eg an appropriations or spending bill) which presidents tend to not veto? Though I assume the idea of vetoing a tax cut in an election year tends to be unprecedented, and this show has never been the most consistent with what Bartlet’s done (or hasn’t done)

@@ethanpan2335 In a later episode, the one with the dinner for the Nobel laureates, C.J. makes it clear that the bill is specifically and solely about repealing the estate tax. It would definitely have made more sense to have folded it in with a larger bill, though.

@@ethanpan2335 On the appropriations bill, I believe that would be a line-item veto, which the federal executive branch does not possess. Unless it was "veto" in the sense of "Congressional Democrats won't support this because the President doesn't"

He’s a democrat

A Gentleman of Taste

Tax rate should be zero. The income has already been taxed once. Shouldn't be taxed when it's saved.

@@SWOBIZ could you explain to me what you think Capical Gains is? Could be something different in the US, but from my research it's income from the sale of a capital asset, and doesn't have much to do with saved money.

@@thresherGnat Certainly. Say I earn $50,000, and pay 5,000 in taxes. If I invest some of my remaining income instead of spending it, I get taxed a second time. By deferring consumption, my savings is growing the economy. If you want prosperity, don't double-tax savings & investment.

@@SWOBIZ If you invested $50,000 and earned $100 in interest, dividends, rent or royalties, you would only be taxed on the $100. And it would be property income, not Capital Gains. Capital Gains would be buying $50,000 of stocks or commodities and selling them for $50,100. Even then, only the $100 earned would be taxed and that would be after deducting Capital Losses. Again it might be different in the US, but my limited research says it isn't.

Toby is often incorrect, not just in nautical matters.

Awww. The Trump ‘tax cut’ cost our household $4300 the first year. Sorry if I don’t shed any tears for you.

Of course, estate taxes are used to reduce intergenerational wealth. That's their purpose. The growing wealth gap in this country will eventually lead to a revolution and inherited wealth and unfair tax breaks are 2 of the primary factors driving wealth inequality. So yes, preventing excessive intergenerational wealth transfers is important to our future.

2 percent of Americans have a net worth over $2.4 million and 5% over 1 million that this estate tax would qualify for, however the present day federal estate tax only applies to estates worth over $13.6 million…… let that sink in…. Now I personally argue that the spoiled rotten kids of multi millionaires are gonna do just fine with $10 mil rather than $13. You’ve been drinking a way too strong cocktail of dumb bitch juice mixed with delulu sauce and need to do some dam research

The estate tax should be aimed at the big inter generational wealth transfers involving billion of dollars. The fight over the estate tax threshold that is orders of magnitude smaller than the billion dollar estates that have been protected by a cadre of highly paid lawyers and accountants diverts attentions. The estate taxes paid by those at or barely above the threshold are minuscule and rounding errors compared to properly implementing an escape proof estate tax on the estates of the Forbes 400. It also avoids targeting the small farm and businesses.

Do you think estate taxes strip estates clean? No. Do they in part prevent people from receiving money that they didn't earn? Yes. That's a good thing. Also, no one is qualifying for estate taxes because of a car. And if they did....so what?

Next he'll tell us there is no war in Ba Sing Se.