NationStates Jolt Archive

I just watched in c-span as the republicans voted down the Pomeroy amendment, which would be a substitute for arepublican house bill outlawing the etstate tax.
the pmeroy amendmnet gives any inheritance under $3 million ( for single) or $7 million ( for married couples) complete immunity from the etsate tax, but charges the remaining estates a 47% tax at the time of death of the propietor.

Now, if you aks me, Im all for the etate tax ( and yes, it would affect me) but the pomeroy amndment has two big faults:

a $3 million business is still a small business, which may not be able to sustain an estate tax.

47% is ridiculous. Bumping it down to 39% would save hundreds of businesses from bankruptcy.

I am against all forms of tax. Let the goverment earn its own money!!
We are a capitalist country and it is high time the goverment started acting like and earned there own dam money :p (j/k)

I am against all forms of tax. Let the goverment earn its own money!!
We are a capitalist country and it is high time the goverment started acting like and earned there own dam money :p
sooo...
the government should be able to own private property?

Before Bush in his infinite greed started messing around with the estate tax there were exemptions in place to protect small businesses and farms, and the rich still paid a reasonable estate tax. Now they pay a tiny fraction of the former tax. I think we should go back to the status quo ante bush.

I am against all forms of tax. Let the goverment earn its own money!!
We are a capitalist country and it is high time the goverment started acting like and earned there own dam money :p
I agree. The government should start it's own businesses in direct competition with private businesses and try to steal market share from them to make a profit. Maybe even drive a few private sector companies out of business. That'll teach those damn liberals. :rolleyes:

Before Bush in his infinite greed started messing around with the estate tax there were exemptions in place to protect small businesses and farms, and the rich still paid a reasonable estate tax. Now they pay a tiny fraction of the former tax. I think we should go back to the status quo ante bush.

Agreed.

I agree. The government should start it's own businesses in direct competition with private businesses and try to steal market share from them to make a profit. Maybe even drive a few private sector companies out of business. That'll teach those damn liberals. :rolleyes:


YELL YA, but lets go one step further and have the goverment run all the businesses. After all they do such a great job with all the public services they provide. And always stay within there budget :p
Most people will say that is communisism. But I say it isnt because we wont call it that. We will just call it ummm... controled capitalism. :D (j/k)

Before Bush in his infinite greed started messing around with the estate tax there were exemptions in place to protect small businesses and farms, and the rich still paid a reasonable estate tax. Now they pay a tiny fraction of the former tax. I think we should go back to the status quo ante bush.
Agreed. How dare we let people get away with working hard for the money they make. How dare they earn more than me and expect to pay only twice as much in taxes. It's just not right when a wealthy family can inherit a house and not loose millions of dollars on the deal.

The estate tax is the only way to tax a lot of the wealthiest people in America. I'd make under $3 million net worth exempt, but anything over would be subject to at least 35% or more. With deficits of $400 billion, the last thing the county needs is less tax cuts, especially ones that are only beneficial to the wealthy.

Agreed. How dare we let people get away with working hard for the money they make. How dare they earn more than me and expect to pay only twice as much in taxes. It's just not right when a wealthy family can inherit a house and not loose millions of dollars on the deal.

Meh.

How does one work hard to earn an inheritence?

Why should the transfer of wealth through an estate be exempt from taxes an ordinary citizen pays?

Meh.

How does one work hard to earn an inheritence?

Why should the transfer of wealth through an estate be exempt from taxes an ordinary citizen pays?
One works hard to provide for his/her children. How can you provide for your children if you expect half of it to go to the government because you went to college and got a decent job?

I never understood why the transfer of wealth is regulated by taxes. If I transfer $20 from my pocket to my child, must I give $10 to Uncle Sam?

How does one work hard to earn an inheritence?

Why should the transfer of wealth through an estate be exempt from taxes an ordinary citizen pays?

A lot of the people who inherithuge sums don't really work at all. They just live off an ever growing trust fund or securities investment and more or less build wealth without working, since their employment is guaranteed, college is guaranteed, and everything they could want is guaranteed. They should be taxed harsher than normal citizens because they usually don't pay income tax and this is the only easy way for the government to collect.

The whole tax code is too complicated. A straight up flat tax straight across the board is what we need. No more whining about rich people paying fewer taxes and what not.
And one-time payments such as an inheritance, selling of a business, or lottery winnings shouldn't be subject to the tax so long as the beneficiary has less than 10 million net to his or her name.

One works hard to provide for his/her children. How can you provide for your children if you expect half of it to go to the government because you went to college and got a decent job?

I never understood why the transfer of wealth is regulated by taxes. If I transfer $20 from my pocket to my child, must I give $10 to Uncle Sam?

On what planet do the wealthy have trouble providing for their children?

If you want to talk real numbers, rather than made up ones we could have a more serious discussion.

A lot of the people who inherithuge sums don't really work at all. They just live off an ever growing trust fund or securities investment and more or less build wealth without working, since their employment is guaranteed, college is guaranteed, and everything they could want is guaranteed. They should be taxed harsher than normal citizens because they usually don't pay income tax and this is the only easy way for the government to collect.
Actually, if you make money in a "trust fund" or "securities investment" it is in most cases counted as income and therefore taxed (which I disagree with, income tax that is).
I don't think it’s fair to tax someone just because their parents/grandparents did a great job establishing a life for their progeny.

Normally, the goal of tax cuts is to spur economic growth. However, the estate tax does not do this, because that money will just be held on to in trust funds and investments that may date back generations and will never go in to the economy. So, if the tax cut does not stimulate the economy and worsens the deficit, what benefit does getting rid of it have?

The whole tax code is too complicated. A straight up flat tax straight across the board is what we need. No more whining about rich people paying fewer taxes and what not.
And one-time payments such as an inheritance, selling of a business, or lottery winnings shouldn't be subject to the tax so long as the beneficiary has less than 10 million net to his or her name.
I think a much more logical idea should be a national sales tax. Get rid of the income tax and impose a national sales tax. This way you could get those money grubbing rich people who have lots of money and choose to spend it on outlandish things.

Meh.

How does one work hard to earn an inheritence?

Why should the transfer of wealth through an estate be exempt from taxes an ordinary citizen pays?

The one who recieves the inheritence may not work hard for it, but the person who built the inheritence likely worked pretty hard to provide it for him. If a father toils day and night for sixty years to build a small business just barely worth 3 million so he can rest easy knowing his family is taken care of, do you think he would appreciate that business being ripped to shreds after his passing?

I think a much more logical idea should be a national sales tax. Get rid of the income tax and impose a national sales tax. This way you could get those money grubbing rich people who have lots of money and choose to spend it on outlandish things.

I would like a NST as well, but the only problem is that it couldn't be tailored to tax as fairly as a progressive income tax would. If it was based on the market value of the item in question, this could cause economic problems because it would reduce demand on big-ticket items and thereby lower durable goods manufacturing and so on.

I think a much more logical idea should be a national sales tax. Get rid of the income tax and impose a national sales tax. This way you could get those money grubbing rich people who have lots of money and choose to spend it on outlandish things.

Good idea, granted basic essentials like clothing and groceries are expempt.

Actually, if you make money in a "trust fund" or "securities investment" it is in most cases counted as income and therefore taxed (which I disagree with, income tax that is).
I don't think it’s fair to tax someone just because their parents/grandparents did a great job establishing a life for their progeny.

I'm only involved with stocks, so a lot of this I'm not sure of.

I would like a NST as well, but the only problem is that it couldn't be tailored to tax as fairly as a progressive income tax would. If it was based on the market value of the item in question, this could cause economic problems because it would reduce demand on big-ticket items and thereby lower durable goods manufacturing and so on.
I don't think you have to progress the tax. I really dislike progressive taxes, by the way.
If person A makes minimum wage and spend money only on necessities (not taxed) they pay nothing.
If person B makes ridiculous amounts of money and chooses to buy a Ferrari for $300,000 and pays 25% sales tax he will pay $75,000 in taxes on that one purchase.
I doubt it will cause economic problems because this system works in Europe for the most part (which is why we have some trouble competing overseas).

I think a much more logical idea should be a national sales tax. Get rid of the income tax and impose a national sales tax. This way you could get those money grubbing rich people who have lots of money and choose to spend it on outlandish things.
Nice idea except that the poor spend a higher percentage of their income than the rich. The poor would be taxed at a higher rate.

I doubt it will cause economic problems because this system works in Europe for the most part (which is why we have some trouble competing overseas).

I don't know if Europe is the best model, solely because of its terrible economy. Still, this is due to high taxes and massive social welfare, not the NST itself (I think they have Value Added Tax, which would work differently than our NST). Still, it is worth trying. After all, how much worse can it be than the mess of a tax code we have now? :)

The one who recieves the inheritence may not work hard for it, but the person who built the inheritence likely worked pretty hard to provide it for him. If a father toils day and night for sixty years to build a small business just barely worth 3 million so he can rest easy knowing his family is taken care of, do you think he would appreciate that business being ripped to shreds after his passing?
That was a scare tactic used by the Bush administration. In actuality there were safeguards built into the system to protect businesses and farms.

Nice idea except that the poor spend a higher percentage of their income than the rich. The poor would be taxed at a higher rate.

Doesn't taxing the rich more just cause them to buy less, though? You might still get a little extra money out of them, but since the rich put a lot more money into the economy than the poor, the economy takes the hit. A weaker economy means lower wages and greater unemployment, right?

Nice idea except that the poor spend a higher percentage of their income than the rich. The poor would be taxed at a higher rate.
Agreed. Though assuming that the "poor" live within their means (not my general observation) they will pay less tax because those things necessary for survival (food, clothing) would not be taxed.

Doesn't taxing the rich more just cause them to buy less, though? You might still get a little extra money out of them, but since the rich put a lot more money into the economy than the poor, the economy takes the hit. A weaker economy means lower wages and greater unemployment, right?
The rich can still afford to buy even if they're taxed at a higher rate. 60% of 500,000 is still way more than 85% of 20,000. They will continue to spend because they want to enjoy their wealthy lifestyle. The poor, however, have a bigger impact on the economy with their spending. The percentage of the population that buys their clothes at Walmart is so much greater than the percentage who buy their clothes from Armani that even though each individual spends less money the total ammount spent at Walmart is greater. I'd favor letting the poor keep a bigger chunk of their change. It makes more economic sense, and it's ethically more sound.

Agreed. Though assuming that the "poor" live within their means (not my general observation) they will pay less tax because those things necessary for survival (food, clothing) would not be taxed.
Less tax in dollars/person, but more in percentage. A poor person typically doesn't save or invest. All his income is spent. A rich person may save more than 50% of his income, which will go untaxed.

That was a scare tactic used by the Bush administration. In actuality there were safeguards built into the system to protect businesses and farms.

Well to tell the truth, I don't know much about that, so I can't argue with you on that point. But still, just because the person enjoying the fortune didn't work for it personally, doesn't mean the fortune is free.

Doesn't taxing the rich more just cause them to buy less, though? You might still get a little extra money out of them, but since the rich put a lot more money into the economy than the poor, the economy takes the hit. A weaker economy means lower wages and greater unemployment, right?

No. Taxing the rich less doesn't spur economic growth, because their spending is not proportionate to their net worth or percentage of the population. Taxing the middle class less does, because they strike a balance between wealth and percentage of the population and account for the most varied consumer spending.

The Clinton policies of the early 90's reflected this. He raised taxes on the rich with the 1993 Tax Act, and also raised the AMT on the poor and middle simultaeneously, spurring spending which led to growth and one of the greatest economic expansions ever.

The rich can still afford to buy even if they're taxed at a higher rate. 60% of 500,000 is still way more than 85% of 20,000. They will continue to spend because they want to enjoy their wealthy lifestyle. The poor, however, have a bigger impact on the economy with their spending. The percentage of the population that buys their clothes at Walmart is so much greater than the percentage who buy their clothes from Armani that even though each individual spends less money the total ammount spent at Walmart is greater. I'd favor letting the poor keep a bigger chunk of their change. It makes more economic sense, and it's ethically more sound.

Sure the poor should keep a bigger chunk of their change. Everyone should keep a bigger chunk of their change, equally. Clothes aren't where the bulk of the rich person's wealth is spent, it's spent in buildings, cars, major investments. The difference on the economy of buying lavish things isn't that great, but investing in things like real estate is, and if taxes are higher the profit margin shrinks.

Well to tell the truth, I don't know much about that, so I can't argue with you on that point. But still, just because the person enjoying the fortune didn't work for it personally, doesn't mean the fortune is free.
My wages aren't free either, but I still pay taxes on them. The rich have benefited greatly from this nation. They've made their fortunes. Why shouldn't they give some back?

Less tax in dollars/person, but more in percentage. A poor person typically doesn't save or invest. All his income is spent. A rich person may save more than 50% of his income, which will go untaxed.
Right, but from my example, the poor would not be taxed on items that are necessary. So a poor person would pay less in tax than they do now (again, living within their means)

Sure the poor should keep a bigger chunk of their change. Everyone should keep a bigger chunk of their change, equally. Clothes aren't where the bulk of the rich person's wealth is spent, it's spent in buildings, cars, major investments. The difference on the economy of buying lavish things isn't that great, but investing in things like real estate is, and if taxes are higher the profit margin shrinks.
I used clothes as an example. If you look at what drives the economy it's ordinary consumer products. Work trucks, blue jeans, DVD players, etc. The rich may spend more/household on such items, but the poor and middle class, because of their numbers, spend more as a group.

Wanna stimulate the economy? Cut taxes on the middle class and make up the budget shortfall on the rich.

Sure the poor should keep a bigger chunk of their change. Everyone should keep a bigger chunk of their change, equally. Clothes aren't where the bulk of the rich person's wealth is spent, it's spent in buildings, cars, major investments. The difference on the economy of buying lavish things isn't that great, but investing in things like real estate is, and if taxes are higher the profit margin shrinks.

The only problem with the purchase of those items is that they do not generate a continuous amount of money in to the economy. Short term and nondurable goods do because they are more steadily purchased and in greater volume than land or buildings, and the money goes to a company rather than simply appreciating in the person's possession. Real estate investment is very rate sensitive, so it should not be the focus of tax cuts since its value can fluctuate wildly even in good economic times.

Right, but from my example, the poor would not be taxed on items that are necessary. So a poor person would pay less in tax than they do now (again, living within their means)
In absolute dollar ammounts, yes, you're right, but if the poor person spends even a quarter of their income on non-essentials then they're probably being taxed at a higher percentage rate than multi millionares.

My wages aren't free either, but I still pay taxes on them. The rich have benefited greatly from this nation. They've made their fortunes. Why shouldn't they give some back?

They give plenty back. The taxes on the inheritence were payed while the person was still alive, taxing it again because he's dead doesn't make sense. If it is a business, the profits can still be taxed in the hands of the inheritor.

No. Taxing the rich less doesn't spur economic growth, because their spending is not proportionate to their net worth or percentage of the population. Taxing the middle class less does, because they strike a balance between wealth and percentage of the population and account for the most varied consumer spending.

The Clinton policies of the early 90's reflected this. He raised taxes on the rich with the 1993 Tax Act, and also raised the AMT on the poor and middle simultaeneously, spurring spending which led to growth and one of the greatest economic expansions ever.
The problem here is a assuming that tax cuts bother the market at all. In most cases tax cuts have little effect on the national economy (as they should). If a good citizen receives a $100 tax cut, he/she should save 10% like a good citizen, and therefore only $90 will be introduced to the economy.

The economy is much larger than the scope of the government. I don't think you can say that a tax cut led to the growth of the 90s. A lot of economic factors fell into the right place at that time (granted, a tax cut might have helped just a little itty bitty bit but don't let that stop anyone from bashing Bush on what a terrible job he has done "with the economy")

I used clothes as an example. If you look at what drives the economy it's ordinary consumer products. Work trucks, blue jeans, DVD players, etc. The rich may spend more/household on such items, but the poor and middle class, because of their numbers, spend more as a group.

Wanna stimulate the economy? Cut taxes on the middle class and make up the budget shortfall on the rich.

I'm not saying taxes shouldn't be cut for the middle class. Of course that provides a great economy boost. And sure as a whole the poor and middle class provide more than the rich. But the rich provide it in concentrate. I'm not saying raise taxes on the poor so you can lower them for the rich. If a deficit forms, cut it out of government spending. There are far too many government programs as it is.

In absolute dollar ammounts, yes, you're right, but if the poor person spends even a quarter of their income on non-essentials then they're probably being taxed at a higher percentage rate than multi millionares.
Yes, but why do percentages matter at all? What is the purpose of requiring a poor person to be taxed at a lower "percentage?" How does this make sense to anybody? The standard of living is an absolute dollar amount. It is not a percentage of your income. I don't understand why a percentage is a viable statistic for comparing taxes spent.

The problem here is a assuming that tax cuts bother the market at all. In most cases tax cuts have little effect on the national economy (as they should).
The economy is much larger than the scope of the government. I don't think you can say that a tax cut led to the growth of the 90s. A lot of economic factors fell into the right place at that time (granted, a tax cut might have helped just a little itty bitty bit but don't let that stop anyone from bashing Bush on what a terrible job he has done "with the economy")

First of All: I made a mistake. I mean the Earned Income Credit, not the Alternative Minimum Tax. Sorry.

Second of All: I agree that tax cuts do not affect the economy considerably. They are kind of like lighter fluid on a fire, they speed up the economy but only temporarily.

There were other factors (NAFTA, the Internet) but the primary benefit of the Tax Act of 1993 wasn't as much the EIC cap hike but the later effect of the budget balance in 1997 and supluses thereafter were very closely related to the boom.

The only problem with the purchase of those items is that they do not generate a continuous amount of money in to the economy. Short term and nondurable goods do because they are more steadily purchased and in greater volume than land or buildings, and the money goes to a company rather than simply appreciating in the person's possession. Real estate investment is very rate sensitive, so it should not be the focus of tax cuts since its value can fluctuate wildly even in good economic times.

But investments like that don't just happen every once in a while. A lot of rich people are always looking for things to invest in. "Spend money to make money," as they say. Some rich people may stock pile money, but usually their wealth is all in stocks and bonds, which is a good thing for the economy.

Yes, but why do percentages matter at all? What is the purpose of requiring a poor person to be taxed at a lower "percentage?" How does this make sense to anybody? The standard of living is an absolute dollar amount. It is not a percentage of your income. I don't understand why a percentage is a viable statistic for comparing taxes spent.
Because the rich can pay taxes on a higher percentage of their income and not see a serious impact on their lifestyle. Not so for the poor and middle class.

But investments like that don't just happen every once in a while. A lot of rich people are always looking for things to invest in. "Spend money to make money," as they say. Some rich people may stock pile money, but usually their wealth is all in stocks and bonds, which is a good thing for the economy.
Stocks aren't that great for the economy unless you define the economy by the Dow Jones average or something. Many companies boost stock prices by laying off US labor in favor of cheap foreign labor. The stock goes up, but the economy at home suffers due to higher unemployment and lower wages for the middle class.

First of All: I made a mistake. I mean the Earned Income Credit, not the Alternative Minimum Tax. Sorry.

Second of All: I agree that tax cuts do not affect the economy considerably. They are kind of like lighter fluid on a fire, they speed up the economy but only temporarily.

There were other factors (NAFTA, the Internet) but the primary benefit of the Tax Act of 1993 wasn't as much the EIC cap hike but the later effect of the budget balance in 1997 and supluses thereafter were very closely related to the boom.
Excellent point.

Excellent point.

Thank you. :)

Because the rich can pay taxes on a higher percentage of their income and not see a serious impact on their lifestyle. Not so for the poor and middle class.
Right, that's my entire point. If a person lives within their means there should not be a problem living a comfortably lifestyle. Unfortunately, many people choose a lifestyle they cannot afford.

Stocks aren't that great for the economy unless you define the economy by the Dow Jones average or something. Many companies boost stock prices by laying off US labor in favor of cheap foreign labor. The stock goes up, but the economy at home suffers due to higher unemployment and lower wages for the middle class.
Many companies also "boost stock prices" by turning a profit and spending that profit on higher wages, more machinery, etc thereby boosting the economy at home.

Many companies also "boost stock prices" by turning a profit and spending that profit on higher wages, more machinery, etc thereby boosting the economy at home.
Not very many choose to hire American or European workers rather than outsource to nations where unions are illegal and people will work for pennies/hour.

Many companies also "boost stock prices" by turning a profit and spending that profit on higher wages, more machinery, etc thereby boosting the economy at home.

True. The only thing slowing job growth is productivity growth. In fact, once productivity hits its next "peak" where technology can't increase it significantly further, hiring will take off. Outsourcing will decline especially in IT when the costs of hiring programmers falls to real levels equal to their qualifications.

The stock market is currently in a secular bear phase, so there is little anyone can do to boost it regardless of earnings and profits.

Stocks aren't that great for the economy unless you define the economy by the Dow Jones average or something. Many companies boost stock prices by laying off US labor in favor of cheap foreign labor. The stock goes up, but the economy at home suffers due to higher unemployment and lower wages for the middle class.

That may be an unfortunate short term tactic, but in the long run the business grows and it is able to employ even more workers. and investment in the market by wealthy people is a boost that is completely separate from tactics like laying off employees. If anything, it helps preventing the practice by raising the value of the stock in the first place.

And by the way, earlier you mentioned that purchases from Walmart were a greater boost to our economy than other more expensive stores. But Walmart is one of the biggest corporations in the world, and the money that Walmart has amassed has allowed it to sell clothing to the poor at lower prices, boosting standard of living and economy, which is proof that what I'm saying works.

And by the way, earlier you or Vetalia mentioned that purchases from Wal Mart were a greater boost to our economy than other more expensive stores. But Wal Mart is one of the biggest corporations in the world, and the money that Wal Mart has amassed has allowed it to sell clothing to the poor at lower prices, boosting standard of living and economy, which is proof that what I'm saying works.

They are beneficial to the economy sometimes because lower prices increase disposable income which stimulate further spending. However, there is a risk that Wal-Mart will unduly burden competition due to its superior finances which lead to very low undercutting and replace the higher paying jobs at local, smaller retailers with the lower paying at Wal-Mart, so the effect may be muted. Still, this is a very case sensitive example and depends on a host of external factors.

They are beneficial to the economy sometimes because lower prices increase disposable income which stimulate further spending. However, there is a risk that Wal-Mart will unduly burden competition due to its superior finances which lead to very low undercutting and replace the higher paying jobs at local, smaller retailers with the lower paying at Wal-Mart, so the effect may be muted. Still, this is a very case sensitive example and depends on a host of external factors.

Well sure, a Walmart can move into an area and knock local businesses on their collective asses. But that's just the free enterprise system. It's unfortunate that it happens, but Walmart still provides more jobs and better prices. Some people's income may be cut, but it's made up for in the number of people employed. As long as there's still a Sears/Kmart, or a Target, the balance of free enterprise is maintained and things generally work out.

Well sure, a Walmart can move into an area and knock local businesses on their collective asses. But that's just the free enterprise system. It's unfortunate that it happens, but Walmart still provides more jobs and better prices. Some people's income may be cut, but it's made up for in the number of people employed. As long as there's still a Sears/Kmart, or a Target, the balance of free enterprise is maintained and things generally work out.

That's the situation we have where we live. Three big stores competing, plus a mall and a host of other retailiers like Best Buy. It creates a competitive, lower price environment and higher pay for workers. A balanced competitive environment is good for both consumer and retailer.

hmmm... one thing i havnt noticed anyone mention yet.

its very easy for the extremely wealthy to avoid taxes through various loopholes and such.

(i dont know all, or even many of the details, so forgive me for any mistakes i have)

i believe when you sell a building/land/etc, if you make a profit from when you bought it, you don't have to pay taxes on it if you put a certain % of it into buying another building/land/etc.

also, i believe a lot of mortgages are tax-exempt, so people wealthy enough to flat out buy a house, get a mortgage, and put the money they would have spent on the item into some sort of investment, that way they can make interest, while cutting the interest for their payments out of their taxes.

plus, if you can get it, mortgages can be as cheap or cheaper then rent, but this isnt an option for many poor people.

*shrug*