For the curious: there is, in reality, no official veto stamp. I suppose a president could make and use one if they wanted, but the usual procedure is that the president returns the proposed legislation unsigned and attaches a signed letter explaining their objection to it I suppose add this to the list of ways The West Wing diverges from our timeline, along with the historical presidents, the text of the 25th amendment, the existence of Qumar, and the peace deal in the Middle East
@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music I doubt that very much; most people evidently oppose the Estate Tax on principle, either because they support the intergenerational transfer of wealth, or they oppose their government rifling through the pockets of the dead merely to make ends meet.
They're acting like a veto threat is such a revolutionary idea. Presidents *always* talk about vetoing bills they don't support. And by the way? This wouldn't be his first veto. Ainsley's first episode had her and Sam arguing about a bill he had vetoed.
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"
Their code of ethics is not worth the paper it was printed on. Millionaires and billionaires purchase senators and representatives in Washington DC with petty cash. Billionaires purchase justices on the SCOTUS with millions.
@@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.
Where do they get off talking about "if we're going to spend tax breaks" - *YOU* DON'T SPEND A TAX BREAK. IT IS *OUR* MONEY, YOU DON'T GET TO ACT LIKE IT IS *YOURS* TO "SPEND"!!
@vdoggydogg3922 that's specious, the money my company makes is taxed when they make it and the money they pay me is taxed when they pay me. Estate taxes punish the immorality of wealth hoarding.
@johnsalvucci7922 the money they pay you is an expense to your company and deducted before they are taxed. You make no sense. Taxes are immoral in general.
So billionaires that keep all their assets in stocks in order to avoid income taxes should be allowed to pass on their untaxed wealth to their children so they can also borrow and die at the cost of the rest of us?
Estate taxes are great in theory, until you realize how they're used as another tool to prevent generational wealth. "So let's see, with the real estate (house), life insurance policies, car value, personal property, stock and bonds, and other incidentals...oh would you look at that, you just manage to qualify for an extra 10% taxable! Yes, the law states that some of these accounts aren't taxable, but are you really going to spend what little money we're letting you keep to pay a lawyer and argue with the government?"
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?
I loved this show though I hated how accurate it was portraying the Democrats view. “Because they can afford it, we should tax them”, horrid stance towards people who created something.
@@jbuster9 yes, because I have been giving a lot to charities. I now have to give less. Did you know that you can only deduct 60% of your income to charities? I didn’t. The last two years I have surpassed that amount.
@@captnmike3260 Glad to. The ‘Trump Tax Cut’ nullified over $18000 in deductions for us (property tax and mortgage interest) and that first year we had to throw in an additional $4293 to the Fed as compared to the previous year with nearly identical numbers. I would imagine though that Donald didn’t even know what was actually in that bill, since he can barely read. That was Paul Ryan’s illegitimate brainchild. All that lousy bill brought this country was a whopping 3% growth for one fiscal quarter, and none of all the touted corporate reinvestment and job growth that was supposed to occur. It did, however allow for record corporate stock buybacks. None of which helped ordinary Americans.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
The way he holds the pen at the end, one of the ones Mrs. Landingham put in his pocket every day.
I hate it when people casually mention yacht ownership to showcase their wealth. I was just yesterday talking to my butler about this.
Oh you can't talk about wealth until you have a conversation with your butler's butler.
LoL
Connie Britton is such a beautiful, classy woman. I wish she had been on the show more.
For the curious: there is, in reality, no official veto stamp. I suppose a president could make and use one if they wanted, but the usual procedure is that the president returns the proposed legislation unsigned and attaches a signed letter explaining their objection to it
I suppose add this to the list of ways The West Wing diverges from our timeline, along with the historical presidents, the text of the 25th amendment, the existence of Qumar, and the peace deal in the Middle East
Didn't they also resolve healthcare?
@@theshlaufonly in the America where republicans and corporations lose can something like that happen.
And the Republic of Equatorial Kundu
And the existence of the 9th Amendment.
@@davidfrederick9973 I see what you did there
I love the details in this clip. Did you notice the Secret Service Agent outside the door? Well thought out set up.
As a short, can you please post Margaret forging the president's signature and vetoing things and sending them back to the Hill? Thanks.
A Gentleman of Taste
That was a funny bit; when the President was sick and Margaret told Leo she could forge the President's signature. Leo went through the roof.
I still tell people they dont make good yachts anymore. The Beer was better, the road had less bumps, and the miller kept his thumb off of the scale
Nice kingkiller reference ;)
The slight at the American dream was fantastic
Democrats hate the American Dream. They want everyone dependent on government handouts.
and true
@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music I doubt that very much; most people evidently oppose the Estate Tax on principle, either because they support the intergenerational transfer of wealth, or they oppose their government rifling through the pockets of the dead merely to make ends meet.
@@Pinkdam It's a nation founded by tax dodgers, but in my lifetime I haven't met any rich kids who weren't shit.
@@Pinkdam Most Americans absolutely delude themselves into thinking that they'll one day be rich; look at how many vote Republicans in.
They're acting like a veto threat is such a revolutionary idea. Presidents *always* talk about vetoing bills they don't support. And by the way? This wouldn't be his first veto. Ainsley's first episode had her and Sam arguing about a bill he had vetoed.
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"
I have never had a butler…I have never had a yacht. However I seem to have managed my life without them!
As someone who works on yachts and is currently typing this from the one I work on, Toby is incorrect
Toby is often incorrect, not just in nautical matters.
Maybe he just has different standards. They should all be wood, hand made, and probably with sails.
Tell that to Jeff Bezos. A yacht that has two swimming pools, a movie theater and needs its own support vessel…with a helipad.
He’s a democrat
George Soros who spends money for lies
That's not a yacht. That's a penis supplement.
Their code of ethics is not worth the paper it was printed on.
Millionaires and billionaires purchase senators and representatives in Washington DC with petty cash.
Billionaires purchase justices on the SCOTUS with millions.
Capital Gains is a type of income tax at least in Canada, and it's taxed at half of what regular income is.
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.
@@SWOBIZ You get taxed only on what you make from the investment, so the money is not taxed twice.
$1 million dollars isn't what it used to be (now).
Does that dramatic music play at key moments in the real White House?
Yes, there is a band on standby at all times.
Very similar to Will Bailey and the interns.
Love Harry
Ahh the American mentality that tells people that they are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires
Dems and tax cuts...on what planet?
Toby wants to be rich...
Where do they get off talking about "if we're going to spend tax breaks" - *YOU* DON'T SPEND A TAX BREAK.
IT IS *OUR* MONEY, YOU DON'T GET TO ACT LIKE IT IS *YOURS* TO "SPEND"!!
the estate tax or "death tax" is immoral.
Nope , it an tool to at least try and stop the ever expanding gap between the 1% and the rest of us
It's unearned income that should be taxed. The thresholds are very high anyway and the vast majority of people aren't impacted.
@Paul_Harper it's already been taxed for the person leaving the money or property. Literally makes no sense.
@vdoggydogg3922 that's specious, the money my company makes is taxed when they make it and the money they pay me is taxed when they pay me. Estate taxes punish the immorality of wealth hoarding.
@johnsalvucci7922 the money they pay you is an expense to your company and deducted before they are taxed. You make no sense. Taxes are immoral in general.
The liberal thinking on the death tax is ludicrous. Student politics.
So billionaires that keep all their assets in stocks in order to avoid income taxes should be allowed to pass on their untaxed wealth to their children so they can also borrow and die at the cost of the rest of us?
The affirmative action of generational wealth…
Estate taxes are great in theory, until you realize how they're used as another tool to prevent generational wealth. "So let's see, with the real estate (house), life insurance policies, car value, personal property, stock and bonds, and other incidentals...oh would you look at that, you just manage to qualify for an extra 10% taxable! Yes, the law states that some of these accounts aren't taxable, but are you really going to spend what little money we're letting you keep to pay a lawyer and argue with the government?"
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.
I loved this show though I hated how accurate it was portraying the Democrats view. “Because they can afford it, we should tax them”, horrid stance towards people who created something.
So . . . instead we should tax the people who can't afford it?
Due to Biden, I will not be a multimillionaire again.
Awww. The Trump ‘tax cut’ cost our household $4300 the first year.
Sorry if I don’t shed any tears for you.
And we are supposed to feel... Sympathy?
@@jbuster9 yes, because I have been giving a lot to charities. I now have to give less. Did you know that you can only deduct 60% of your income to charities? I didn’t. The last two years I have surpassed that amount.
@@hibob418 I am not sure how that could happen. Are you willing to explain further?
@@captnmike3260 Glad to. The ‘Trump Tax Cut’ nullified over $18000 in deductions for us (property tax and mortgage interest) and that first year we had to throw in an additional $4293 to the Fed as compared to the previous year with nearly identical numbers. I would imagine though that Donald didn’t even know what was actually in that bill, since he can barely read. That was Paul Ryan’s illegitimate brainchild.
All that lousy bill brought this country was a whopping 3% growth for one fiscal quarter, and none of all the touted corporate reinvestment and job growth that was supposed to occur. It did, however allow for record corporate stock buybacks. None of which helped ordinary Americans.