Scott Adams Switches Endorsement to Trump - Granite Grok

Scott Adams Switches Endorsement to Trump

trump-dilbertDilbert Creator Scott Adams switched his presidential candidate endorsement to Donald Trump. You can read the entire explanation here, but I happen to like the second one the best. It explains the inherent flaw in Democratic Socialism, by which they mean socialism.

Socialism (regardless of what name it is given) is a fancy way of saying all your stuff belongs to the state. You are incapable of earning anything on your own.  You are incapable of creating anything on your own. Therefore all wealth, property, or the labor expended to create it belongs to the state.

It explains the inherent flaw in Democratic Socialism, by which they mean the economic policies of the Democrat party, by which they mean socialism. Socialism is a fancy way of saying all your stuff belongs to the state. You are incapable of earning anything on your own.  You are incapable of creating anything on your own.  It’s all a happy accident that could have never come about without the Political Class (lead by Democrats) making it possible, therefore all wealth, property, or the labor expended to create it belongs to them.

As such, they will happily confiscate as much as they can at every opportunity.  And you’d best be grateful. For their wisdom, their benevolence (always at the expense of others as there is no other means), and for whatever time you had with the fruits of your labors (or your ability to labor freely at all) because everything costs money, doubly so when the government is spending it.

Now, I’m not sure if Scott spent some time with the words of Bastiat or Smith or even Laffer, or if Hillary simply exceeded his threshold for being “lawfully” plundered, but he’s no longer willing pay that much for what Hillary (and the whole lot of them) are selling–at his considerable expense.

2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.

So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.

The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.

Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.

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. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)

To be honest, my gorge rises at any number above zero but realizing that some shared responsibilities need tending it does not seem unreasonable to pay something less than God asks for, which means I’m already giving the “sinners” more than the “saints,” if you catch my meaning. So I’ll continue using my free time to advocate for less legal plunder (and a culling of the mechanisms that inflate the cost of doing government) until it’s put right.

 

>