Trump outrage of the day

[GuitarStv]

The exemption should be 25X median HH income in the US, perhaps with primary residence thrown in for free.

1.6 million then?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Comfortable life / good education would probably have a wide range on the spectrum not sure that is a good measure.

I remain unconvinced that it is moral or right to take a persons assets or that it would have a beneficial impact on society as a whole.

A wealth tax that is reasonable I could see that, but forfeiture of assets just to make sure someone has to start on an even playing field and not have too much of a leg up seems unreasonable.

I feel like I am pretty liberal when it comes to many things including free college / healthcare ETC but there is almost zero chance I will change my mind on this I just fail to understand why we would punish success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are just starting this tangential discussion to troll?  Sounds like it needs a separate thread and also that you've made up your mind and just want to argue.

[Boll weevil]

This very thread documents how many things can go wrong when the guy we put in charge has used inherited wealth to become famous for being a successful businessman.

I started paying attention to all this estate tax stuff somewhere around 2004, when the second Bush was president, and I wouldn’t call his wealth inherited because the first President Bush didn’t die until well after number 2 left office, but that sorta puts us in hair splitting territory.

[Just Joe]

Good discussion. These are things I haven't put alot of thought into.

[the_fixer]

Comfortable life / good education would probably have a wide range on the spectrum not sure that is a good measure.

I remain unconvinced that it is moral or right to take a persons assets or that it would have a beneficial impact on society as a whole.

A wealth tax that is reasonable I could see that, but forfeiture of assets just to make sure someone has to start on an even playing field and not have too much of a leg up seems unreasonable.

I feel like I am pretty liberal when it comes to many things including free college / healthcare ETC but there is almost zero chance I will change my mind on this I just fail to understand why we would punish success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are just starting this tangential discussion to troll?  Sounds like it needs a separate thread and also that you've made up your mind and just want to argue.

I am not the one who started the conversation about wealth tax just simply responding to the person that floated the idea of selling everything upon death as an idea.

Sorry you see me as trolling for asking questions and sharing my thoughts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nereo]

This very thread documents how many things can go wrong when the guy we put in charge has used inherited wealth to become famous for being a successful businessman.

I started paying attention to all this estate tax stuff somewhere around 2004, when the second Bush was president, and I wouldn’t call his wealth inherited because the first President Bush didn’t die until well after number 2 left office, but that sorta puts us in hair splitting territory.

Are you deliberately trolling?  The subject of this thread is Trump.  The president being referenced is Trump.

[FIPurpose]

I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For 2021, our Congress has set the number at $11,700,00.00 or $23,400,000.00 for a couple.  Above that, the estate pays tax that phasing in over the first $1 million in excess to 40%.  So, we have decided that $11.7 million is enough ($23.4 million for a couple), and above that we the people are going to pull back some of those deferred capital gains or income that went unpaid over the life of the deceased.

That is a tax and as I said I can see a reasonable tax being ok. What I fail to understand is wanting to wipe out someone’s life work / wealth at the end of their life so the next generation does not start out too advantaged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the problem in your thinking. You're presenting a strawman argument here. No one is advocating for "wiping out" someone's life work.

The arguments against an estate aren't any different from the arguments a libertarian would make against an income tax. "Why would you punish my success? If middle class people are just trying to make a life and build their wealth, why should we punish them with income taxes?"

I think you'd agree that it's an ignorance from the people who make this argument that income taxes play an important role in our economy in not just paying for government services, but also in a general regulation of the currency itself. It also creates a more or less fair system where the richest and wealthiest earners are expected to pay a larger share of their income to the government.

When estates start getting to super massive sizes (let's say anything over 20MM dollars), 2 problems happen: 1. the people with this capital no longer derive their income from wages, so they more or less avoid income taxes and actually start paying less in taxes than people with less wealth. (see: Warren Buffet paying less in taxes than his assistants) 2. Despite this tax differential, they continue to grow wealthier faster than even most top income earners. (see: Warren Buffet's assets gaining him more wealth than all of his assistants combined)

So my conclusions are:
1. An estate tax of 40% (which let's be real, would likely only end up capturing an effective 20% at best), doesn't even begin to make up for the years and years of tax advantages that wealthy people have enjoyed (And the 20% Capital Gains tax that they get to avoid at death that is still written into our tax code). It only makes a dent in making a fair tax structure (plus they only have to pay it when they're dead, how many of us would prefer to delay our tax bill to death?)

2. You only have to look at the ability of super wealthy oligarchs ability to influence our lives and politics to know that anyone with more than $20MM usually start playing politics to start accumulating power for themselves. (see: the Koch brothers, or heck why did everyone just let Gates control the discussion on whether the Covid vaccine should be patented or not? the man has money and blackmailed (ie, said his donations would stop showing up) the company with the patent from open-sourcing the patent.) The wealthy absolutely hold power and control over our politics not because they're better people or worked hard to provide for their children. The estate tax is one of the few things that actually tries to curtail that, and in my opinion should have less loopholes (ie, no "donating" to charity and continuing to maintain complete control over the money), and should really be in the 60-80% range for anything over $1B.

3. The ultra-wealthy don't make their money because they work super hard. They make their money from leveraging their power over labor. You can find 100 examples of Bezos playing fast and dirty with the law, union busting, paying dirt wages, treating employees like crap, and purposefully undercutting competition in order to drive small companies out of business even if Amazon was losing money on the product. Bezos, the Sacklers, Koch's, Trumps, etc. Even Gates made his money by suing competitors out of business in the 90's and attempting to create a monopoly. Honestly you don't have to look very far to understand that they made the majority of their money through disgusting and predatory practices. And not a single one of us should feel sorry for putting them through an additional tax after they're dead.

Without taxing the ultra-wealthy, our democracy would be over, or we'd be on the road to the country having a revolution where they all get eaten anyways (and on the way, our portfolios would get eaten too since I believe almost everyone here is top 10% of wealth). I think it's in all our best interest to avoid that.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I am not the one who started the conversation about wealth tax just simply responding to the person that floated the idea of selling everything upon death as an idea.

Sorry you see me as trolling for asking questions and sharing my thoughts.

Which is exactly something a troll would say...

[JLee]

I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For 2021, our Congress has set the number at $11,700,00.00 or $23,400,000.00 for a couple.  Above that, the estate pays tax that phasing in over the first $1 million in excess to 40%.  So, we have decided that $11.7 million is enough ($23.4 million for a couple), and above that we the people are going to pull back some of those deferred capital gains or income that went unpaid over the life of the deceased.

That is a tax and as I said I can see a reasonable tax being ok. What I fail to understand is wanting to wipe out someone’s life work / wealth at the end of their life so the next generation does not start out too advantaged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the problem in your thinking. You're presenting a strawman argument here. No one is advocating for "wiping out" someone's life work.

The arguments against an estate aren't any different from the arguments a libertarian would make against an income tax. "Why would you punish my success? If middle class people are just trying to make a life and build their wealth, why should we punish them with income taxes?"

I think you'd agree that it's an ignorance from the people who make this argument that income taxes play an important role in our economy in not just paying for government services, but also in a general regulation of the currency itself. It also creates a more or less fair system where the richest and wealthiest earners are expected to pay a larger share of their income to the government.

When estates start getting to super massive sizes (let's say anything over 20MM dollars), 2 problems happen: 1. the people with this capital no longer derive their income from wages, so they more or less avoid income taxes and actually start paying less in taxes than people with less wealth. (see: Warren Buffet paying less in taxes than his assistants) 2. Despite this tax differential, they continue to grow wealthier faster than even most top income earners. (see: Warren Buffet's assets gaining him more wealth than all of his assistants combined)

So my conclusions are:
1. An estate tax of 40% (which let's be real, would likely only end up capturing an effective 20% at best), doesn't even begin to make up for the years and years of tax advantages that wealthy people have enjoyed (And the 20% Capital Gains tax that they get to avoid at death that is still written into our tax code). It only makes a dent in making a fair tax structure (plus they only have to pay it when they're dead, how many of us would prefer to delay our tax bill to death?)

2. You only have to look at the ability of super wealthy oligarchs ability to influence our lives and politics to know that anyone with more than $20MM usually start playing politics to start accumulating power for themselves. (see: the Koch brothers, or heck why did everyone just let Gates control the discussion on whether the Covid vaccine should be patented or not? the man has money and blackmailed (ie, said his donations would stop showing up) the company with the patent from open-sourcing the patent.) The wealthy absolutely hold power and control over our politics not because they're better people or worked hard to provide for their children. The estate tax is one of the few things that actually tries to curtail that, and in my opinion should have less loopholes (ie, no "donating" to charity and continuing to maintain complete control over the money), and should really be in the 60-80% range for anything over $1B.

3. The ultra-wealthy don't make their money because they work super hard. They make their money from leveraging their power over labor. You can find 100 examples of Bezos playing fast and dirty with the law, union busting, paying dirt wages, treating employees like crap, and purposefully undercutting competition in order to drive small companies out of business even if Amazon was losing money on the product. Bezos, the Sacklers, Koch's, Trumps, etc. Even Gates made his money by suing competitors out of business in the 90's and attempting to create a monopoly. Honestly you don't have to look very far to understand that they made the majority of their money through disgusting and predatory practices. And not a single one of us should feel sorry for putting them through an additional tax after they're dead.

Without taxing the ultra-wealthy, our democracy would be over, or we'd be on the road to the country having a revolution where they all get eaten anyways (and on the way, our portfolios would get eaten too since I believe almost everyone here is top 10% of wealth). I think it's in all our best interest to avoid that.

If I worked at a paycheck job and earned $10 million a year, I would pay 48.72% in taxes (using this calculator in my area).

The argument of "nobody should take away what someone has earned" falls rather flat on its face when the actual worker pays extraordinary amounts of taxes on the same amount of money that just gets passed onto descendants at no cost...

[the_fixer]

I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For 2021, our Congress has set the number at $11,700,00.00 or $23,400,000.00 for a couple.  Above that, the estate pays tax that phasing in over the first $1 million in excess to 40%.  So, we have decided that $11.7 million is enough ($23.4 million for a couple), and above that we the people are going to pull back some of those deferred capital gains or income that went unpaid over the life of the deceased.

That is a tax and as I said I can see a reasonable tax being ok. What I fail to understand is wanting to wipe out someone’s life work / wealth at the end of their life so the next generation does not start out too advantaged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the problem in your thinking. You're presenting a strawman argument here. No one is advocating for "wiping out" someone's life work.

The arguments against an estate aren't any different from the arguments a libertarian would make against an income tax. "Why would you punish my success? If middle class people are just trying to make a life and build their wealth, why should we punish them with income taxes?"

I think you'd agree that it's an ignorance from the people who make this argument that income taxes play an important role in our economy in not just paying for government services, but also in a general regulation of the currency itself. It also creates a more or less fair system where the richest and wealthiest earners are expected to pay a larger share of their income to the government.

When estates start getting to super massive sizes (let's say anything over 20MM dollars), 2 problems happen: 1. the people with this capital no longer derive their income from wages, so they more or less avoid income taxes and actually start paying less in taxes than people with less wealth. (see: Warren Buffet paying less in taxes than his assistants) 2. Despite this tax differential, they continue to grow wealthier faster than even most top income earners. (see: Warren Buffet's assets gaining him more wealth than all of his assistants combined)

So my conclusions are:
1. An estate tax of 40% (which let's be real, would likely only end up capturing an effective 20% at best), doesn't even begin to make up for the years and years of tax advantages that wealthy people have enjoyed (And the 20% Capital Gains tax that they get to avoid at death that is still written into our tax code). It only makes a dent in making a fair tax structure (plus they only have to pay it when they're dead, how many of us would prefer to delay our tax bill to death?)

2. You only have to look at the ability of super wealthy oligarchs ability to influence our lives and politics to know that anyone with more than $20MM usually start playing politics to start accumulating power for themselves. (see: the Koch brothers, or heck why did everyone just let Gates control the discussion on whether the Covid vaccine should be patented or not? the man has money and blackmailed (ie, said his donations would stop showing up) the company with the patent from open-sourcing the patent.) The wealthy absolutely hold power and control over our politics not because they're better people or worked hard to provide for their children. The estate tax is one of the few things that actually tries to curtail that, and in my opinion should have less loopholes (ie, no "donating" to charity and continuing to maintain complete control over the money), and should really be in the 60-80% range for anything over $1B.

3. The ultra-wealthy don't make their money because they work super hard. They make their money from leveraging their power over labor. You can find 100 examples of Bezos playing fast and dirty with the law, union busting, paying dirt wages, treating employees like crap, and purposefully undercutting competition in order to drive small companies out of business even if Amazon was losing money on the product. Bezos, the Sacklers, Koch's, Trumps, etc. Even Gates made his money by suing competitors out of business in the 90's and attempting to create a monopoly. Honestly you don't have to look very far to understand that they made the majority of their money through disgusting and predatory practices. And not a single one of us should feel sorry for putting them through an additional tax after they're dead.

Without taxing the ultra-wealthy, our democracy would be over, or we'd be on the road to the country having a revolution where they all get eaten anyways (and on the way, our portfolios would get eaten too since I believe almost everyone here is top 10% of wealth). I think it's in all our best interest to avoid that.

As I mentioned above I was asking questions about the person saying that when someone dies everything they own should be forced to be sold and if the family wants it they should buy it.

——-

As for the rest of it I already said that I do not see a problem with a reasonable tax. I would however say that it seems silly to wait until someone dies to collect said tax if you are worried about their political influence.

Many of the wealthy that you are using as an example of influence are the ones that generated this massive income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LennStar]

I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if you really want to put a number on it, it is minimum wage*standard working life (time). If you leave school with 18 and pension age is 67, that would mean 41 years multiplied with minimum wage in a 40 hour job.
Everything above that is luxury, right? And definitely something that damages the Free Market.

That being said, it is absolutely important that we do it. Massive generational wealth is a huge problem. The government should fix it, but that fix is a necessary evil.

That may be true or not. But inheritance is definitely even more evil!

I think you fail to see the good / amazing things people can do with wealth as well, just because you have latched onto the negative aspects of a few bad actors does not mean that wealth cannot and has not been used for good.

I think you seem to fail to recognize the reality. Money in private hands is more often used in a bad way than in a good way. You know the saying "power currupts?" Well, it is true (not directly, but anyway). And money is power. So money corrupts.
It has been shown again and again that more money makes people more egoistic, less helpful and have lower opinions of others (and screw up their sense of fairness).

Then why wait until death / inheritance?

The person that earned and has large sums of money while still alive has the ability to cause just as much damage (or good) as the person that inherits the money.

Why does it suddenly become a problem when they die or it is an inheritance?

Great! Wealth tax! I am all for it. But politically speaking it's impossible (surely no connection to the fact that to be a successful politician you need a lot of money in 95% of cases).

Historically, the hoarding of resources, wealth, and power has not proven to be a healthy long term strategy - for anybody except the hoarders and their dynasties.

Not even for them. Not in the long run. The end Dynasties is generally when the wealth difference get's too big. An economist would put it into a formula like
Chance for revolution = Amount of wealth imparity * Freedoms / army loyality

[nereo]

Looks like Vance has convened a grand jury in his investigation of the Trump Organization.  In brief, this means that the Manhattan district attorney believes he has sufficient evidence to charge at least one person in the investigation of at least one criminal charge.

The question now: who, and what charge(s) will be filed?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Then why wait until death / inheritance?

The person that earned and has large sums of money while still alive has the ability to cause just as much damage (or good) as the person that inherits the money.

Why does it suddenly become a problem when they die or it is an inheritance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many people have already answered with their thoughts on this. I will answer with mine. It goes back to my opinion of the government only needing to do what is absolutely required to stop serious issues. Dynastic wealth handled appropriately has the potential for significant positive things, but also the potential for significant negative things. It's also one of those situations where, unlike the government, there's a much harder time ratcheting back on the negative side because we don't have regular voting on people or families that control huge amounts of wealth generation after generation, and with that wealth comes tremendous power. It can be extremely long-lasting. Taxing upon death is a natural dividing line as well - plus, it's a point where money completely changes hands, which is something where taxes do tend to come into play. Again, I am not a fan of it. People earned their money and saved it, and I think it is punishing them to say there will be a significant tax on their wealth because they chose to give it to their kids - pretty much one of the most universal, general human desires for their lives, the building up and saving of a legacy so your kids have an easier future. However, to me, it's truly the least worst option here.

That's the difference to me compared to a wealth tax. A wealth tax will redistribute things and can correct significant problems. However, it is within a single person's life - the person who has earned the money and "presumably" been taxed on it as he got it. It's punitive saying you can't have this kind of money even though you, yourself earned it. That crosses a line that I'm not excited about at all. Additionally, I think that a wealth tax has implications for people currently working doing the jobs that got them the money (whether or not they relocate because of it, how it looks to get the wealth tax out of stocks they have, etc.) that aren't as impactful if it's done at their deaths when they're not knee deep in the work they're still doing to *hopefully* improve things for the world as they generate more wealth. It's a subjective thing, and each situation will be different. However, we have to, in my mind, put a dividing line somewhere, at some amount of where we tax things to keep a small group from gaining defacto power over the whole country due to wealth, and at death seems as reasonable a time as any.

[talltexan]

Looks like Vance has convened a grand jury in his investigation of the Trump Organization.  In brief, this means that the Manhattan district attorney believes he has sufficient evidence to charge at least one person in the investigation of at least one criminal charge.

The question now: who, and what charge(s) will be filed?

I enjoy discussing the estate tax, but I also am grateful to @nereo for returning this thread to what it does best. Here's a link to Washington Post coverage of the grand jury being "seated": https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-grand-jury-seated-for-next-stage-of-trump-investigation/2021/05/25/613a9fc6-bdad-11eb-922a-c40c9774bc48_story.html

Frankly, I couldn't imagine Trump himself ever being found guilty of anything in a jury trial. My argument has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with simple probability:

How do you form a group of twelve Americans fairly and not have at least one MAGA fanatic.

I'm sure there are many people who'd classify me in the other side, as being incapable of rendering a "not guilty" verdict, and they may well be correct. I just cannot imagine a reasonable group of jurors ever being convened on this. How would someone be so ill-informed as to not know who this person is?

[nereo]

"Can a fair jury be convened for a case as high-profile as one involving Trump?"
That's an interesting question. I think it would be extremely difficult but not impossible.  As with the Derrick Chauvin trial there would undoubtedly an initial pool of several hundred (his IIRC started with 300), weeded down to around eighty via questionnaires, and then down to the ultimate 12 + alternates.  It's unlikely that any will be completely ignorant of Trump, but I would suspect most fanatics (on either side) would similarly be rejected out of hand.

My bigger worry isn't jury selection but Trump's delay tactics.  This is a man who successfully avoided testifying (or even being interviewed) in his own impeachment trial, and kept his tax records out of prosecutors' hands for five+ years (despite promising to release them multiple times). He'll file objections to the venue, the prosecuting attorney, the timing, the weather and who knows what else.  He could simply run out the clock (die) or he could hope for a GOP pardon in 3 years (which to me seems a plausible strategy).

All of which is assuming Trump himself will be charged. I'm skeptical of that - he's been careful enough to have a fall guy, and intent is always the hardest to prove.

[dandarc]

Now I'm wondering if the author of xkcd frequents this site.

https://xkcd.com/2468/

"No one wants to play board games with me since I inherited 4,000,000 victory points from my grandfather."

[sui generis]

"Can a fair jury be convened for a case as high-profile as one involving Trump?"
That's an interesting question. I think it would be extremely difficult but not impossible.  As with the Derrick Chauvin trial there would undoubtedly an initial pool of several hundred (his IIRC started with 300), weeded down to around eighty via questionnaires, and then down to the ultimate 12 + alternates.  It's unlikely that any will be completely ignorant of Trump, but I would suspect most fanatics (on either side) would similarly be rejected out of hand.

My bigger worry isn't jury selection but Trump's delay tactics.  This is a man who successfully avoided testifying (or even being interviewed) in his own impeachment trial, and kept his tax records out of prosecutors' hands for five+ years (despite promising to release them multiple times). He'll file objections to the venue, the prosecuting attorney, the timing, the weather and who knows what else.  He could simply run out the clock (die) or he could hope for a GOP pardon in 3 years (which to me seems a plausible strategy).

All of which is assuming Trump himself will be charged. I'm skeptical of that - he's been careful enough to have a fall guy, and intent is always the hardest to prove.

You raise a lot of good points.  Only quibble is that a GOP pardon (assuming you mean presidential) wouldn't help here, since this is the Manhattan DA (and the NY State AG) and they will bring state claims. 

[former player]

"Can a fair jury be convened for a case as high-profile as one involving Trump?"
That's an interesting question. I think it would be extremely difficult but not impossible.  As with the Derrick Chauvin trial there would undoubtedly an initial pool of several hundred (his IIRC started with 300), weeded down to around eighty via questionnaires, and then down to the ultimate 12 + alternates.  It's unlikely that any will be completely ignorant of Trump, but I would suspect most fanatics (on either side) would similarly be rejected out of hand.

My bigger worry isn't jury selection but Trump's delay tactics.  This is a man who successfully avoided testifying (or even being interviewed) in his own impeachment trial, and kept his tax records out of prosecutors' hands for five+ years (despite promising to release them multiple times). He'll file objections to the venue, the prosecuting attorney, the timing, the weather and who knows what else.  He could simply run out the clock (die) or he could hope for a GOP pardon in 3 years (which to me seems a plausible strategy).

All of which is assuming Trump himself will be charged. I'm skeptical of that - he's been careful enough to have a fall guy, and intent is always the hardest to prove.

He'd have to start paying his lawyers first.

[Glenstache]

Seems like there should be enough people hawking condos via seminar as part of "free vacations" to make a jury of his peers.

[brandon1827]

"Can a fair jury be convened for a case as high-profile as one involving Trump?"
That's an interesting question. I think it would be extremely difficult but not impossible.  As with the Derrick Chauvin trial there would undoubtedly an initial pool of several hundred (his IIRC started with 300), weeded down to around eighty via questionnaires, and then down to the ultimate 12 + alternates.  It's unlikely that any will be completely ignorant of Trump, but I would suspect most fanatics (on either side) would similarly be rejected out of hand.

My bigger worry isn't jury selection but Trump's delay tactics.  This is a man who successfully avoided testifying (or even being interviewed) in his own impeachment trial, and kept his tax records out of prosecutors' hands for five+ years (despite promising to release them multiple times). He'll file objections to the venue, the prosecuting attorney, the timing, the weather and who knows what else.  He could simply run out the clock (die) or he could hope for a GOP pardon in 3 years (which to me seems a plausible strategy).

All of which is assuming Trump himself will be charged. I'm skeptical of that - he's been careful enough to have a fall guy, and intent is always the hardest to prove.

You raise a lot of good points.  Only quibble is that a GOP pardon (assuming you mean presidential) wouldn't help here, since this is the Manhattan DA (and the NY State AG) and they will bring state claims.

Could a state level official (Mayor/Governor) potentially pardon him? Could this be why Guliani' son is now running for Governor of New York?

[JLee]

"Can a fair jury be convened for a case as high-profile as one involving Trump?"
That's an interesting question. I think it would be extremely difficult but not impossible.  As with the Derrick Chauvin trial there would undoubtedly an initial pool of several hundred (his IIRC started with 300), weeded down to around eighty via questionnaires, and then down to the ultimate 12 + alternates.  It's unlikely that any will be completely ignorant of Trump, but I would suspect most fanatics (on either side) would similarly be rejected out of hand.

My bigger worry isn't jury selection but Trump's delay tactics.  This is a man who successfully avoided testifying (or even being interviewed) in his own impeachment trial, and kept his tax records out of prosecutors' hands for five+ years (despite promising to release them multiple times). He'll file objections to the venue, the prosecuting attorney, the timing, the weather and who knows what else.  He could simply run out the clock (die) or he could hope for a GOP pardon in 3 years (which to me seems a plausible strategy).

All of which is assuming Trump himself will be charged. I'm skeptical of that - he's been careful enough to have a fall guy, and intent is always the hardest to prove.

You raise a lot of good points.  Only quibble is that a GOP pardon (assuming you mean presidential) wouldn't help here, since this is the Manhattan DA (and the NY State AG) and they will bring state claims.

Could a state level official (Mayor/Governor) potentially pardon him? Could this be why Guliani' son is now running for Governor of New York?

Governors can issue pardons at the state level...that's an interesting angle.

[talltexan]

There are all sorts of political benefits to pardoning/protecting Trump if you are a Republican office-holder.

[nereo]

In the news:  Trump apparently attempted to bribe a GOP senator to drop the congressional investigation into 'deflateGate' (that is: whether the Patriots illegally deflated footballs to gain an advantage in the 2014 conference championship game).  The late senator - Arlon Spector (R - PA), was apparently offered cash by Trump, say both his son and his ghostwriter.

Here's the thing:  I don't get this.  Trump has shown numerous times that he'll offer bribes to make bad things 'go away', but they always seem to be in his self interest. He's not known for sticking his neck out for his "friends" (here, apparently, Patriot's owner Kraft) Why would he try to bribe a sitting US Senator over this?  Why take that risk for someone else - for a billionaire no less? What did Trump expect to gain here?  We know he wanted (and was rejected) an NFL franchise, but there's no obvious opportunity of one now (or then).

What am I missing?

[former player]

In the news:  Trump apparently attempted to bribe a GOP senator to drop the congressional investigation into 'deflateGate' (that is: whether the Patriots illegally deflated footballs to gain an advantage in the 2014 conference championship game).  The late senator - Arlon Spector (R - PA), was apparently offered cash by Trump, say both his son and his ghostwriter.

Here's the thing:  I don't get this.  Trump has shown numerous times that he'll offer bribes to make bad things 'go away', but they always seem to be in his self interest. He's not known for sticking his neck out for his "friends" (here, apparently, Patriot's owner Kraft) Why would he try to bribe a sitting US Senator over this?  Why take that risk for someone else - for a billionaire no less? What did Trump expect to gain here?  We know he wanted (and was rejected) an NFL franchise, but there's no obvious opportunity of one now (or then).

What am I missing?

Two possibilities.  One is that he wouldn't have seen it as being risky, either because he didn't think it was a potential problem or he thought any potential problem wouldn't come back to him.  Whichever, he has been proved right so far.  The other possibility is that he saw the potential risk but also thought the potential for reward outweighed it.  I think his judgement on risk/reward is flawed, hence his many business failures, and that the first possibility is the more likely.

[talltexan]

Did he misjudge the risk/reward?

What possible legal consequence will come to Trump because of this news item? Will a bunch of red-state supporters of his suddenly stop supporting him because Trump tried to help the Patriots?

[nereo]

Did he misjudge the risk/reward?

What possible legal consequence will come to Trump because of this news item? Will a bunch of red-state supporters of his suddenly stop supporting him because Trump tried to help the Patriots?

Note the date:  2014.  He wasn't president, and I don't think even he thought it was a real possibility. Losing red-state supporters wasn't even in his headspace back then, and back then he was viewed as the brash new yorker who hosted a reality show, not the champion for rural red-staters. 

Trying to bribe a US Senator is certainly a crime. So why do it?

[LennStar]

I wondered if Randal Munroe (XKCD) is here before - but I guess it's just that we are a group that picks up stuff, as he is (or the readers that mail him).

But if you are here: Nice to meet you! I am a longtime XKCD fan! :D

There are all sorts of political benefits to pardoning/protecting Trump if you are a Republican office-holder.

Especially if you know Trump will be put behind bars somewhere else. You can do virtue signalling to the Trump crowd while also getting rid of him.
And in worst case you only have his crowd and his backing for an election. As long as the Reps have a real chance, that is you best bet.

[Boll weevil]

In the news:  Trump apparently attempted to bribe a GOP senator to drop the congressional investigation into 'deflateGate' (that is: whether the Patriots illegally deflated footballs to gain an advantage in the 2014 conference championship game).  The late senator - Arlon Spector (R - PA), was apparently offered cash by Trump, say both his son and his ghostwriter.

Here's the thing:  I don't get this.  Trump has shown numerous times that he'll offer bribes to make bad things 'go away', but they always seem to be in his self interest. He's not known for sticking his neck out for his "friends" (here, apparently, Patriot's owner Kraft) Why would he try to bribe a sitting US Senator over this?  Why take that risk for someone else - for a billionaire no less? What did Trump expect to gain here?  We know he wanted (and was rejected) an NFL franchise, but there's no obvious opportunity of one now (or then).

What am I missing?

My guess is the “friend” he would’ve been helping out was Tom Brady. As quarterback, he would’ve requested or approved it because it would affect his ability to throw the ball.

[talltexan]

It just seems like such a small problem (whether the footballs used by the Patriots' offense during a Football game were properly inflated) compare to the other things for which a President is responsible (like whether the results of free and fair democratic elections get respected by a society.

[nereo]

It just seems like such a small problem (whether the footballs used by the Patriots' offense during a Football game were properly inflated) compare to the other things for which a President is responsible (like whether the results of free and fair democratic elections get respected by a society.

But... he wasn’t president...

[talltexan]

I suppose it's slightly more excusable that a private citizen was focused on football.

Not that President Trump was always focused on the most salient priorities of the job, either.

[nereo]

It does make me wonder whether there will be a criminal inquiry - it’s illegal to attempt to bribe a senator, and I believe that’s a federal offense.

[GuitarStv]

It will be interesting to see if Trump proves or disproves the theory that US Presidents are above the law . . . to date, no US president has every been criminally convicted after leaving office.

[nereo]

It will be interesting to see if Trump proves or disproves the theory that US Presidents are above the law . . . to date, no US president has every been criminally convicted after leaving office.

I wonder, how many heads of state have been in the last 200 some years?

[Roadrunner53]

Here is the latest!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-scottish-golf-resorts-all-cash-wealth-order-court-action_n_60b04eb3e4b04ddf13ebf50a

[GuitarStv]

It will be interesting to see if Trump proves or disproves the theory that US Presidents are above the law . . . to date, no US president has every been criminally convicted after leaving office.

I wonder, how many heads of state have been in the last 200 some years?

It's pretty common actually . . . recent ones that come to mind would include Burlesconi (Italy), Sarkosy and Fillion (France), At least four South Korean presidents/vice presidents, and Lula (Brazil) but I'm sure there are quite a few more.

[jrhampt]

Well, no one had ever been impeached twice before either as president. He managed it, though. So I’m rooting for him to set some more records.

[Glenstache]

It will be interesting to see if Trump proves or disproves the theory that US Presidents are above the law . . . to date, no US president has every been criminally convicted after leaving office.

I wonder, how many heads of state have been in the last 200 some years?

It's pretty common actually . . . recent ones that come to mind would include Burlesconi (Italy), Sarkosy and Fillion (France), At least four South Korean presidents/vice presidents, and Lula (Brazil) but I'm sure there are quite a few more.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_who_were_later_imprisoned
-granted a good number of these coincided with coups.

[talltexan]

When I first lived in Illinois, my landlord and landlady cynically remarked that the governor's office was "a waiting room for State Prison". So set them alongside those countries you named.

[Glenstache]

When I first lived in Illinois, my landlord and landlady cynically remarked that the governor's office was "a waiting room for State Prison". So set them alongside those countries you named.

And speaking of Trump outrages, and on-topic with Illinois corruption:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/trump-pardon-blagojevich-debartolo.html

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

As a libertarian I'm heavily in favour of an estate tax:

1. The money you earned is your money but it's not your descendants'. I don't support a wealth tax but an estate/gift tax is fine by me.

2. More tax revenue from estates = less required from income. All things being equal I'd rather tax a dead guy than a living one.

3. If we put the estate tax into early learning/education opportunities, it takes away the biggest anti-libertarian argument there is (that people have unequal starting points). Imagine if every child had education and tuition vouchers. That would give a meritocracy - with all the inequality it entails - much more justification.

[Kyle Schuant]

Now, why didn't old Drumpf think of this?

"It's for public safety."

https://globalnews.ca/news/7893274/covid-canada-election-motion/

[jambongris]

Now, why didn't old Drumpf think of this?

"It's for public safety."

https://globalnews.ca/news/7893274/covid-canada-election-motion/

This appears to be symbolic and wouldn't actually stop an election from occurring during a pandemic.

As far as I can tell the parties are just signalling that they think the ruling Liberal party should try to not take advantage of the fact that Canadians don't really want to go to the polls during the pandemic because the minority parties really don't want be responsible for holding a vote of no confidence.

[RetiredAt63]

Several provinces have elections during the pandemic.  Increased use of as advanced polling and mail-in ballots worked, there was no case surge 2 weeks after any of the elections.

No one wants an election, we are basically in a holding pattern while we get cases down (R is less than 1 now!) and vaccinated numbers up.  So its all perception.

[scottish]

As a libertarian I'm heavily in favour of an estate tax:

1. The money you earned is your money but it's not your descendants'. I don't support a wealth tax but an estate/gift tax is fine by me.

2. More tax revenue from estates = less required from income. All things being equal I'd rather tax a dead guy than a living one.

3. If we put the estate tax into early learning/education opportunities, it takes away the biggest anti-libertarian argument there is (that people have unequal starting points). Imagine if every child had education and tuition vouchers. That would give a meritocracy - with all the inequality it entails - much more justification.

Right.   If you don't think the government can make good use of your estate, you can give it away before you die!   Of course, there's the problem of how to pay for your end of life care if you give everything to charity.

But...   what about things like privately owned companies?    It may be to the benefit of society to keep the company going - there could be a few hundred employees!   But the government isn't going to be able to take over and run the company when the owner dies.     Not successfully, anyway.

[RetiredAt63]

And farms.  Farms are notorious for looking like lots of money on paper, but it's all land value and the equipment to run it.

[former player]

As a libertarian I'm heavily in favour of an estate tax:

1. The money you earned is your money but it's not your descendants'. I don't support a wealth tax but an estate/gift tax is fine by me.

2. More tax revenue from estates = less required from income. All things being equal I'd rather tax a dead guy than a living one.

3. If we put the estate tax into early learning/education opportunities, it takes away the biggest anti-libertarian argument there is (that people have unequal starting points). Imagine if every child had education and tuition vouchers. That would give a meritocracy - with all the inequality it entails - much more justification.

Right.   If you don't think the government can make good use of your estate, you can give it away before you die!   Of course, there's the problem of how to pay for your end of life care if you give everything to charity.

But...   what about things like privately owned companies?    It may be to the benefit of society to keep the company going - there could be a few hundred employees!   But the government isn't going to be able to take over and run the company when the owner dies.     Not successfully, anyway.

If there's a viable business without the owner a private company can be sold.  Possibly even sold back to the family at a discount if that's appropriate.

And farms.  Farms are notorious for looking like lots of money on paper, but it's all land value and the equipment to run it.

There can be exemptions for farms.  (Which of course leads to the likes of James Dyson buying up thousands of acres of farmland.)

[nereo]

Small businesses, including farms, can be corporations. The advantage there is that if the founder or CEO dies the business does not fall under the estate tax

Some people want absolute control of their business while alive, but then wish it were not taxed as their personal assets upon death. Seems like a double standard to me. If a business is large enough, just form a private corporation, retain majority decision making but put your heirs on as joint owners.

[GuitarStv]

Now, why didn't old Drumpf think of this?

"It's for public safety."

https://globalnews.ca/news/7893274/covid-canada-election-motion/

This appears to be symbolic and wouldn't actually stop an election from occurring during a pandemic.

As far as I can tell the parties are just signalling that they think the ruling Liberal party should try to not take advantage of the fact that Canadians don't really want to go to the polls during the pandemic because the minority parties really don't want be responsible for holding a vote of no confidence.

This motion passed with a majority vote from all parties!  There was only a single vote against.  Doesn't really sound like much of a power grab . . .

[markbike528CBX]

...snip.....
Right.   If you don't think the government can make good use of your estate, you can give it away before you die!   Of course, there's the problem of how to pay for your end of life care if you give everything to charity.
---sniip.....

My undergraduate college has something called a "charitable gift annuity", so you might have some income while shaving off some excess wealth in your desired direction while still alive.
I think that's how it works, but I have not yet found out full details.