NationStates Jolt Archive

The vote was 57-41, three short of the 60 it needed.

I'm very glad, I'm soooo tired of hearing this BS about a "death tax" when it would only affect the top .25%. It's just the obscenely rich trying to get over on us as usual.

Edit: Oops, forgot the link (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-08T160546Z_01_WAT005774_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-TAX-VOTE.xml&archived=False)

The vote was 57-41, three short of the 60 it needed.

I'm very glad, I'm soooo tired of hearing this BS about a "death tax" when it would only affect the top .25%. It's just the obscenely rich trying to get over on us as usual.

Yeah, that's it. They don't tax inheritance unless you're in the top 0.25%. Do you believe everything that's fed to you? :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's it. They don't tax inheritance unless you're in the top 0.25%. Do you believe everything that's fed to you? :rolleyes:

Well, everyone with an estate under several million dollars is exempt. I don't know of many people who have estates that big, and if they do have them that big, I can't think of anyone better to tax than someone who is both rich and dead.

Yeah, that's it. They don't tax inheritance unless you're in the top 0.25%. Do you believe everything that's fed to you? :rolleyes:

Well, considering that my family's "estate" won't ever add up to anything close to ONE million, much less the multiple millions the tax requires as it stands, I'm inclined to on this issue.

Well, considering that my family's "estate" won't ever add up to anything close to ONE million, much less the multiple millions the tax requires as it stands, I'm inclined to on this issue.

A middle-class family in Massachusetts can easily have a home valued at $500K. Then you add in the value of the land itself. Tell me that's just the top 0.25% that get affected by this tax.

A middle-class family in Massachusetts can easily have a home valued at $500K. Then you add in the value of the land itself. Tell me that's just the top 0.25% that get affected by this tax.
Multiple millions is not equal to one million.

Multiple millions is not equal to one million.

Right, so saying that it only affects the top 0.25% is bullshit. Thanks for agreeing.

Right, so saying that it only affects the top 0.25% is bullshit. Thanks for agreeing.
Uh, no. I was pointing out why your claim that the estate tax applies to the middle class is incorrect.

Uh, no. I was pointing out why your claim that the estate tax applies to the middle class is incorrect.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Only those estates under $2 million are exempt. So if an average middle-class home in MA can be worth $500,000, then this tax surely can't be affecting only the top 0.25%. You can try to throw your silly anti-rich garbage around all you like, but you'll still be full of shite.

According to CNN it's .5%

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/08/pf/taxes/estate_tax_debate/index.htm?section=money_latest

Well, that's where you're wrong. Only those estates under $2 million are exempt. So if an average middle-class home in MA can be worth $500,000, then this tax surely can't be affecting only the top 0.25%. You can try to throw your silly anti-rich garbage around all you like, but you'll still be full of shite.

Im sorry I cant help but laugh at an "average middle class home" being worth $500K

Im sorry I cant help but laugh at an "average middle class home" being worth $500K
I have a gigantic house in Rhode Island, the state with some of the highest property values in the country. Its worth is probably around $300K. So yeah. Stupid.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Only those estates under $2 million are exempt. So if an average middle-class home in MA can be worth $500,000, then this tax surely can't be affecting only the top 0.25%. You can try to throw your silly anti-rich garbage around all you like, but you'll still be full of shite.
The poor and middle class make up what percentage of the country again?

I have a gigantic house in Rhode Island, the state with some of the highest property values in the country. Its worth is probably around $300K. So yeah. Stupid.

Where in RI?

And no, not stupid. Take a look at some of the home listings in MA (or northern Virginia, for that matter). You can throw words like "stupid" around all you like. Won't make your argument accurate.

Where in RI?

East Providence. Beat pretty much only by Newport and Barrington for property values.

I would consider my parents middle class. They bought their home for $60K. $300K is pretty much still unimaginable for them.

East Providence. Beat pretty much only by Newport and Barrington for property values.

Not sure about that. I used to live in East Prov, and depending on what part, of course, (no offense here meant at all!), while some of the houses may have beeen large...uh...I'll just stop. There are 2BR homes in Pawtucket going to $300K.

I would consider my parents middle class. They bought their home for $60K. $300K is pretty much still unimaginable for them.
Property values soared, and it's probably morgaged to all hell.

I would consider my parents middle class. They bought their home for $60K.

When? 1965?

$300K is pretty much still unimaginable for them.

Really? How much do you think that bad boy's worth now?

Not sure about that. I used to live in East Prov, and depending on what part, of course, (no offense here meant at all!), while some of the houses may have beeen large...uh...I'll just stop. There are 2BR homes in Pawtucket going to $300K.
What time? In the mid-90s house prices were extremely low.

Yahoo and INS:

1.17% as of 2002

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_go_co/estate_tax;_ylt=AprTwCZjBBDJKXWfkrHSpKiyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

What time? In the mid-90s house prices were extremely low.

Now. I just bought a place in Attleboro, MA, this past fall, so I was checking out porperty values in the general area.

When? 1965?



Really? How much do you think that bad boy's worth now?

1981

Its probably only $90-120K now. Not no $300k

Now. I just bought a place in Attleboro, MA, this past fall, so I was checking out porperty values in the general area.
Eh, they jacked up recently.

Eh, they jacked up recently.

That they did, until the last 6-9 months, that is. The housing market went through the roof (no pun intended) in the two or three years before that.

1981

Its probably only $90-120K now. Not no $300k

They should have it appraised. I'm sure they'd be surprised.

Repealing the estate tax isn't necessary, but a lifting of the cap is necessary.

This is because ore and more people are starting to exceed the current limit due to growth in home equity and assets and growth in IRAs and similar retirement savings accounts, all of which are factored in to the estate tax calculation. A $3.5 million dollar estate today is far less than it was a decade ago or two decades ago due to the fact that ownership of retirement accounts is far more widespread, people have a higher real personal income more big-ticket items and more people own their homes with more equity than in the past.

Much like another tax that desparately needs reform, the AMT, the estate tax is increasingly taxing people who were not its original intended targets. Therefore, an increase in the cap as well as chaining it to inflation is necessary to prevent the middle class from being taxed by something originally intended for the wealthy.

Much like another tax that desparately needs reform, the AMT, the estate tax is increasingly taxing people who were not its original intended targets. Therefore, an increase in the cap as well as chaining it to inflation is necessary to prevent the middle class from being taxed by something originally intended for the wealthy.


Oka,y here's the problem. No tax should have a target. If we're all equals, we should be taxed equally. No one class should be singled out as a target of a tax.

1981
Its probably only $90-120K now. Not no $300k

It would be at least $153,000 provided the price kept up with inflation, not including actual appreciation or anything improvements made on the property that would increase its value. Depending on the location, it could easily be $200,000, $300,000 or even more if the region's market is frothy enough to bid prices up.

It would be at least $153,000 provided the price kept up with inflation, not including actual appreciation or anything improvements made on the property that would increase its value. Depending on the location, it could easily be $200,000, $300,000 or even more if the region's market is frothy enough to bid prices up.

Hahahahahaha.....Im sorry, no way.

Oka,y here's the problem. No tax should have a target. If we're all equals, we should be taxed equally. No one class should be singled out as a target of a tax.

I agree, but it's too difficult politically to get a flat tax passed.

Oka,y here's the problem. No tax should have a target. If we're all equals, we should be taxed equally. No one class should be singled out as a target of a tax.
The problem is that a flat tax ends up targeting the poor.

I might be mistaken, but I believe the value of the primary residence is excluded from consideration in the estate tax; even if this is not the case, the relative equity in the home is definately considered, which considerably lowers the net worth of the average family's home since they are usually in the process of paying off a 30-year mortgage. Additionally, considering that the house is the single largest source of wealth, I would think even the best-housed middle-class family would have a very hard time coming up the remaining $1.5 million required to even begin to fall under the estate tax.

The average baccalaureate-earning college graduate earns a lifetime pre-tax income of 2.1 million dollars. Counting inflation, living expenses, and taxation, the amount of this income that can be translated into the wealth the income tax collects is miniscule: most such wage-earners are lucky if they can translate 20% of their income into wealth. Even considering savings from another wage-earning spouse and pre-existing assets, you're talking about, at most, a lifetime savings of no more than a million, or less than half of what is hit by the estate tax. The idea that someone is going to lose the family farm or the house to the estate tax is just a myth propogated by Sam Walton's kids to make you believe that you need to support their economic interests.

The problem is that a flat tax ends up targeting the poor.

No, a flat tax doesn't target anyone. It's perfectly equal. You make $1 million and pay, say, 10%, and so does the guy making $20,000. No targeting at all.

No, a flat tax doesn't target anyone. It's perfectly equal. You make $1 million and pay, say, 10%, and so does the guy making $20,000. No targeting at all.
Except there's a much bigger difference in terms of quality of life between $18,000 and $20,000 than between $900,000 and $1,000,000.

No, a flat tax doesn't target anyone. It's perfectly equal. You make $1 million and pay, say, 10%, and so does the guy making $20,000. No targeting at all.

Two problems:

1) You are inadvertantly targeting the poor, because that 10% takes a far more substantial chunk out of their living expenses than 30% of a millionaire's income would. A millionaire isn't going to have to skip meals to make ends meet with a 30% income tax rate; a guy paying 10% on a $20,000 income will.

2) Why shouldn't income taxes be targeted? If a person makes a million dollars in our society, it is an indication that he disproportionately benefits from the advantages of living in society. He benefits more than the poor do from the existence and maintenance of roads. He benefits more from the existence of a police force. He has been served disproportionately well by publicly-financed education. He, in short, benefits disproportionately from the
existence of the rule of law and the existence of a community that exists because of that rule of law. As such, I have no problem with saying that he bears a numerically-disproportionate responsibility for paying for the costs of that rule of law and community.

Except there's a much bigger difference in terms of quality of life between $18,000 and $20,000 than between $900,000 and $1,000,000.

Right on.

Why shouldn't income taxes be targeted? If a person makes a million dollars in our society, it is an indication that he disproportionately benefits from the advantages of living in society.

There's your problem. "OMGooses! He made more money than I did! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: " Juvenile jealousy really.

When? 1965?

Today. There are huge swaths of the US where you can still find a nice home in the $60s. Here's one in my neck of the woods.

http://livingchoices.com/home/homedetail.aspx?refer=homegain&hid=535647878&mid=1920

Though there are also quite a few listed as low as the $30s. That being the case, I have no sympathy for people crying poverty when they have assets in excess of $2 million. Middle class my ass! They're rich.

Middle class my ass! They're rich.

And so we should soak 'em for everything we can! :rolleyes:

I might be mistaken, but I believe the value of the primary residence is excluded from consideration in the estate tax; even if this is not the case, the relative equity in the home is definately considered, which considerably lowers the net worth of the average family's home since they are usually in the process of paying off a 30-year mortgage. Additionally, considering that the house is the single largest source of wealth, I would think even the best-housed middle-class family would have a very hard time coming up the remaining $1.5 million required to even begin to fall under the estate tax.

Well, you also have to factor in all retirement accounts, life insurance policies, savings/checking accounts, other assets (including cars, boats, etc.), collectibles, home equity/property, and any other investments or assets that don't really fall in to these categories.


The average baccalaureate-earning college graduate earns a lifetime pre-tax income of 2.1 million dollars. Counting inflation, living expenses, and taxation, the amount of this income that can be translated into the wealth the income tax collects is miniscule: most such wage-earners are lucky if they can translate 20% of their income into wealth. Even considering savings from another wage-earning spouse and pre-existing assets, you're talking about, at most, a lifetime savings of no more than a million, or less than half of what is hit by the estate tax. The idea that someone is going to lose the family farm or the house to the estate tax is just a myth propogated by Sam Walton's kids to make you believe that you need to support their economic interests.

That's only true if the person has no life insurance policy, no retirement savings, no investments, doesn't own their home, has no collectibles or big ticket items, and saves nothing. Also, the $2.5 million doesn't factor in money made from investments and doesn't factor in the assets purchased through credit card or other debt. Don't forget that small business owners and farmers are also hit by the estate tax; they are the ones who tend to be hit hardest because their business is what usually pushes them over the limit.

Don't forget that small business owners and farmers are also hit by the estate tax; they are the ones who tend to be hit hardest because their business is what usually pushes them over the limit.
Last I checked, farmers were specifically exempt from the estate tax.

And so we should soak 'em for everything we can! :rolleyes:

That's hardly the case.

Though there are also quite a few listed as low as the $30s. That being the case, I have no sympathy for people crying poverty when they have assets in excess of $2 million. Middle class my ass! They're rich.

A Roth IRA started at age 30 with a ROI of 10% per year and a yearly contribution of $5,000 will have a value of $1.5 million by age 65. If you contribute $5,000 starting at age 25, it grows to $2.4 million; it could be easily higher given the average nominal return in the stock market is around 12%.

You're already hitting the cap just from your retirement account; a $5,000 dollar contribution is high early on, but it's quite small once you take in to account the growth in income over time. Add on at least $500,000 or more in life insurance, home equity, property, savings, and all other assets/investments and it is not hard to hit the cap.

Last I checked, farmers were specifically exempt from the estate tax.

No, they have to. However, most farmers avoid paying it by giving away the property during their lifetime as gifts or charitable contributions.

No, they have to. However, most farmers avoid paying it by giving away the property during their lifetime as gifts or charitable contributions.
Huh. Maybe it got changed recently.

Huh. Maybe it got changed recently.

So few farmers actually pay it that it doesn't really affect them. They can give away pretty much all of their assets as gifts throughout their lifetime, and the actual property usually isn't that valuable. Plus, there aren't that many people involved in indivudal farming anymore.

Farmers and estate tax:

A new study by the Congressional Budget Office examined estate tax returns filed by farmers and owners of small businesses in 1999 and 2000. The numbers that owed estate tax, the CBO found, were paltry, and the number without enough cash on hand to pay the bill even punier: In 2000, for example, just 1,659 farm estates had taxes due, of which 138 didn't report enough liquid assets to cover their tax liability.

But at that time the amount of money that could be passed on to heirs free of taxes was just half what it is now. With the current exemption level of $1.5 million, the CBO analysis found, only 300 farm estates in 2000 would have owed any tax at all -- and of those, just 27 would have a tax bill in excess of their liquid assets. At the even more generous exemption scheduled to take effect in 2009, $3.5 million, the ranks of those potentially hit hard by the tax would have dwindled even further; 65 farm estates would owe taxes and 13 would not have enough cash to cover the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300741_pf.html

And so we should soak 'em for everything we can! :rolleyes:

For a good deal of what they can handle, which is quite a bit more than a poor person could.

-snip-

Yeah, most farmers don't pay the tax. It's mostly small business owners that are affected, not farmers.

I have a gigantic house in Rhode Island, the state with some of the highest property values in the country. Its worth is probably around $300K. So yeah. Stupid.

Rhode Island ? thats laughable.. try moving to Long Island New York, where we have the highest property values in the country.. your average 1 family home is easily 500k...

Yeah, that's it. They don't tax inheritance unless you're in the top 0.25%. Do you believe everything that's fed to you? :rolleyes:

You're using a tactic that has proven very successful for republicans in recent years. A strange brew composed of arrogance, ignorance and stupidity. Rather like that guy the other day who said that you're an idiot not to understand that since a bit of an ice cube floats above the water, then when the ice cube melts there'll be more water.

In this case you're basing your scorn on ignorance of the fact that there's a difference between an estate tax and an inheretence tax.

Right now there are different inheretence tax rates in the 50 states, but the federal estate tax only applies to property after the first 2 million. That means that if you have an estate worth 2.1 million, only the .1 is subject to the estate tax.

If you leave behind a500k home you've still got another 1.5 million to go before anything is going to be subject to the estate tax.

You're using a tactic that has proven very successful for republicans in recent years. A strange brew composed of arrogance, ignorance and stupidity. Rather like that guy the other day who said that you're an idiot not to understand that since a bit of an ice cube floats above the water, then when the ice cube melts there'll be more water.

In this case you're basing your scorn on ignorance of the fact that there's a difference between an estate tax and an inheretence tax.

Right now there are different inheretence tax rates in the 50 states, but the federal estate tax only applies to property after the first 2 million. That means that if you have an estate worth 2.1 million, only the .1 is subject to the estate tax.

If you leave behind a500k home you've still got another 1.5 million to go before anything is going to be subject to the estate tax.
It also only applies to the estate, as in the house and the land. Not the stuff in it.

Welcome back, by the way.

You're using a tactic that has proven very successful for republicans in recent years. A strange brew composed of arrogance, ignorance and stupidity. Rather like that guy the other day who said that you're an idiot not to understand that since a bit of an ice cube floats above the water, then when the ice cube melts there'll be more water.

In this case you're basing your scorn on ignorance of the fact that there's a difference between an estate tax and an inheretence tax.

Right now there are different inheretence tax rates in the 50 states, but the federal estate tax only applies to property after the first 2 million. That means that if you have an estate worth 2.1 million, only the .1 is subject to the estate tax.

If you leave behind a500k home you've still got another 1.5 million to go before anything is going to be subject to the estate tax.


That plus the mention in several articles that less than 1% of the estates are affected at all.

Im sorry I cant help but laugh at an "average middle class home" being worth $500K

I bought my small house five years ago for $125K.

Now it is valued at over $300K.

Same small house (one of the smallest in the neighborhood-1300 sq.ft.), same place, no improvements to date...

If I had bought a larger house in the neighborhood, it would be worth $500K by now...

And I'm a lower middle-class guy, way behind on my bills...

And so we should soak 'em for everything we can! :rolleyes:

You make it sound like they're paying their fair share as it is. Right now wages from working are taxed more heavily than money earned by simply already having it (stock dividends, rental properties, etc.)

It is entirely fair to take a bigger chunk out of the money that the rich get more than the poor.
a) they benifit more from the infrastructure provided by the government
b) they've got more of it and right now the government is going broke from trying to be too pro-rich
c) as Ben Franklin put it, the rich know how to manage their figures better than the poor, so no matter how much you tax them, the cost ends up getting passed along to the poor anyway.

e.g. If you get a billion dollar settlement from a tobbacco company, the price of cigarettes goes up a bit and they break, more or less, even.

d) It's cheaper for the gov't to tax the rich, because the rich spend their lives getting money to accumulate in their hands. If the gov't tries taxing the poor, there's a cost involved in processing each person's taxes, so the government spends more money on bureacratic expenses per dollar earned in taxes.

I am far from rich, and have no hopes of making it, but

I still resent the death tax, on principle.

After all, everything in the estate was already taxed several times.

Income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc, etc, etc.

I say no more death tax, no matter who it affects!

It also only applies to the estate, as in the house and the land. Not the stuff in it.

Welcome back, by the way.

Thanks. I was surprised to discover I was gone, then I tried posting yesterday and discovered my country didn't exist anymore. :( .

Only (point) .3% pay. That means that 99.7% don't pay. Really only 18 families pay to any extent. 1200 estates last year.

I'm sure there is a farmer in there. (Do you count Tyson as a farmer?)

Every tax break over the last 26 years has been to give more money to the richest of the rich. So they could dribble it down to the peons. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer.

The estate tax is the final tax and they will sell it to the masses any way they can.

I am far from rich, and have no hopes of making it, but

I still resent the death tax, on principle.

After all, everything in the estate was already taxed several times.

Income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc, etc, etc.

I say no more death tax, no matter who it affects!

No. It hasn't all been taxed several times. A lot of it comes from tax-defered income that the rich tend to benifit from in dispropportionate amounts. Capital gains and things like that.

Also, these sorts of estates tend to be acrued by people who have the assets to protect it from taxation via numerous shadey tax dodges.

And in one hundred percent of the cases of estates subject to this tax, they are estates that benifit from the gov't infrastructure more than other money did. It's fair to tax it more. Think of it like a toll bridge. Your money has already been taxed when you earned it. Your car was taxed when you registered it. But now you benifit from an expensive road construction project more than people who don't drive on that bridge, so you have to pay a toll, even though people who buy food delivered on trucks that cross that bridge benifit from it too.

No. It hasn't all been taxed several times. A lot of it comes from tax-defered income that the rich tend to benifit from in dispropportionate amounts. Capital gains and things like that.

Also, these sorts of estates tend to be acrued by people who have the assets to protect it from taxation via numerous shadey tax dodges.

And in one hundred percent of the cases of estates subject to this tax, they are estates that benifit from the gov't infrastructure more than other money did. It's fair to tax it more. Think of it like a toll bridge. Your money has already been taxed when you earned it. Your car was taxed when you registered it. But now you benifit from an expensive road construction project more than people who don't drive on that bridge, so you have to pay a toll, even though people who buy food delivered on trucks that cross that bridge benifit from it too.

So small business owners don't pay taxes before they die?

All their income is in the form of stocks or able to be hidden via shadey tax dodges?

Guess I should become a small business owner...

After all, I pay taxes on my telephone, my television, my car, gasoline, nearly every non-food item I buy at the supermarket, my house, my electricity usage, my water usage, my natural gas usage, etc., and these are all pay-as-you-go taxes. No way to defer them.

But if I become a successful small business owner, I no longer have to pay those taxes? Wow!

Why, exactly, someone should be entitled to extra wealth because of luck in birth is beyond me.

It's exactly the same principle as putting somebody into a privileged class because he was born white, or male, or straight, only it is done because his parents were rich instead.

Rich or poor why should the government re-tax estates that they already taxed before the person died?

Let it all be doled out as the will says or if there is no will let the family of the dead split it up amicably or in court. Bad enough the government taxed it all once and will collect property taxes forever. Dont let them tax it again.

Why, exactly, someone should be entitled to extra wealth because of luck in birth is beyond me.

It's exactly the same principle as putting somebody into a privileged class because he was born white, or male, or straight, only it is done because his parents were rich instead.

That's it, we need a luck tax!

That would cover all non-gambling winnings in life. Being lucky enough to be born to parents who worked hard, saved their money, were successful---and we can give the money to those who were born unlucky, to lazy, stupid parents who have nothing to their name because they didn't want to work...

Why, exactly, someone should be entitled to extra wealth because of luck in birth is beyond me.

It's exactly the same principle as putting somebody into a privileged class because he was born white, or male, or straight, only it is done because his parents were rich instead.

To make it completely fair and eliminate the unfairness of birth and the unconscienable horror of fully half the people having an economic head start over the other half then each time a person dies we must divide their estate evenly between every living person on the planet. Is this what you are suggesting?

Why, exactly, someone should be entitled to extra wealth because of luck in birth is beyond me.

It's exactly the same principle as putting somebody into a privileged class because he was born white, or male, or straight, only it is done because his parents were rich instead.


I agree with this. And, personally I think the estate tax is a sort of "thanks for allowing me to be successful in this country" tax. Sort of a giving back to the country who's rules, laws, and practices allowed you and your family to become so incredibly well off. Is it really that much to ask? For those who are subject to this tax (an extraordinarily small minority at that) there will still be massive amount of money and property left. It's not like they're stripping them to their skivies.

To make it completely fair and eliminate the unfairness of birth and the unconscienable horror of fully half the people having an economic head start over the other half then each time a person dies we must divide their estate evenly between every living person on the planet. Is this what you are suggesting?


Im sorry there is another way to make it fair. Each time someone dies their entire estate should be seized by the nearest government and we can all start at 0 with clean slates and the government can use the revenue wisely for our own good.

Im sorry there is another way to make it fair. Each time someone dies their entire estate should be seized by the nearest government and we can all start at 0 with clean slates and the government can use the revenue wisely for our own good.

I'll bet this is a bad attempt at sarcasm. But, on the chance that it isn't, I'd say that I like this idea. ;)

To make it completely fair and eliminate the unfairness of birth and the unconscienable horror of fully half the people having an economic head start over the other half then each time a person dies we must divide their estate evenly between every living person on the planet. Is this what you are suggesting?

Practically, there are a number of problems with any radical solution, most prominently the fact that if one is going to lose all of one's property after death, there is no longer as much of an incentive to save.

Personally, keeping to reforms within the present economic system, I'd increase and expand the estate tax, but I wouldn't abolish inheritance entirely.

Rich or poor why should the government re-tax estates that they already taxed before the person died?

Let it all be doled out as the will says or if there is no will let the family of the dead split it up amicably or in court. Bad enough the government taxed it all once and will collect property taxes forever. Dont let them tax it again.

Money is in circulation, meaning every scrap of it has been taxed numerous times as it passes from hand to hand to hand, so it's a little silly to single out a sudden windfall going to a person who didn't actually work to earn it.

Only (point) .3% pay. That means that 99.7% don't pay. Really only 18 families pay to any extent. 1200 estates last year.

I'm sure there is a farmer in there. (Do you count Tyson as a farmer?)

Every tax break over the last 26 years has been to give more money to the richest of the rich. So they could dribble it down to the peons. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer.

The estate tax is the final tax and they will sell it to the masses any way they can.

Am I the only liberal happy about this renewed enthusiasm for the repeal though? That they're trying to raise such a racket over it now tells me that the Neo-cons don't like their chances in November.

So small business owners don't pay taxes before they die?

All their income is in the form of stocks or able to be hidden via shadey tax dodges?

Guess I should become a small business owner...

After all, I pay taxes on my telephone, my television, my car, gasoline, nearly every non-food item I buy at the supermarket, my house, my electricity usage, my water usage, my natural gas usage, etc., and these are all pay-as-you-go taxes. No way to defer them.

But if I become a successful small business owner, I no longer have to pay those taxes? Wow!

Small businesses don't amount to $2,000,000. At that point, your business is pretty big. In fact, you ought to consider incorporating. Move those assets into a corporate holding company, so that you don't risk loosing them.

Also, a business that amounts to over 2 million still falls under the catagory of "benifits most from gov't infrastructure." The toll bridge thing.

Money is in circulation, meaning every scrap of it has been taxed numerous times as it passes from hand to hand to hand, so it's a little silly to single out a sudden windfall going to a person who didn't actually work to earn it.

It isn't a tax on money going to a person. That's an inheretence tax.

An estate tax is money left behind.

The analogy that Bill Maher used is, "if you're a housewife married to a guy who makes a lot of money and you get divorced, you didn't technically earn the money, but you provided a situation that let him do it while keeping a clean house and raising children. You're entitled to take some of it with you when he leaves the marriage. If you benifit from the services of the government then the government is entitled to take back something for its trouble." It's sort of like the government is your widow. Sure you payed for her house and food and children, but that doesn't mean that she (the gov't) isn't entitled to any of what you earned once you're gone.

Money is in circulation, meaning every scrap of it has been taxed numerous times as it passes from hand to hand to hand, so it's a little silly to single out a sudden windfall going to a person who didn't actually work to earn it.

So in your opinion instead of the family getting the estate (after doing nothing worthwhile for the dead person presumably) the government which has diligently worked hard to earn the money should get the windfall.

I agree with this. And, personally I think the estate tax is a sort of "thanks for allowing me to be successful in this country" tax. Sort of a giving back to the country who's rules, laws, and practices allowed you and your family to become so incredibly well off. Is it really that much to ask? For those who are subject to this tax (an extraordinarily small minority at that) there will still be massive amount of money and property left. It's not like they're stripping them to their skivies.

The death tax rate is 46%.

The really rich, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (who oppose repeal of the death tax), create foundations and other tax shelters to pass their wealth on to whomever they wish.

The result is that only middle class estates pay. Only successful entrepreneurs and small business people have their business broken up to pay this tax. So that there is nothing for the children to inherit.

So we are stripping them to their skivvies, and destroying jobs at the same time.

The death tax rate is 46%.

The really rich, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (who oppose repeal of the death tax), create foundations and other tax shelters to pass their wealth on to whomever they wish.

The result is that only middle class estates pay. Only successful entrepreneurs and small business people have their business broken up to pay this tax. So that there is nothing for the children to inherit.

So we are stripping them to their skivvies, and destroying jobs at the same time.

So your argument agains the estate tax is that we should abolish it because it isn't efficient enough at doing what we want?

Rich or poor why should the government re-tax estates that they already taxed before the person died?

Let it all be doled out as the will says or if there is no will let the family of the dead split it up amicably or in court. Bad enough the government taxed it all once and will collect property taxes forever. Dont let them tax it again.

The government taxed my paycheck when I earned it. They tax it again when I buy stuff. They tax it again when it earns interest in the bank. If I give it to someone as a gift then that money gets taxed again.

It's the government infrastructure that makes economics happen at all, and so the government is entitled to claim a share at any point where money changes hands. From consumer to retailer, from broker to client, from corpse to estate to heir. Wherever.

Money is like water. Very little of it is around that wasn't around centuries ago. Some of it may have been freed up more recently than the rest, some of it may have accumulated in surprising spots, and some of it may have gone somplace where we can't recover it, but essentially all taxes tax money that has already been taxed, because it's just a way to measure all the stuff we've got as a society.

To make it completely fair and eliminate the unfairness of birth and the unconscienable horror of fully half the people having an economic head start over the other half then each time a person dies we must divide their estate evenly between every living person on the planet. Is this what you are suggesting?


Actually that was suggested on a federal basis by Ben Franklin. Of course - he also suggested the turkey as the national bird.

So in your opinion instead of the family getting the estate (after doing nothing worthwhile for the dead person presumably) the government which has diligently worked hard to earn the money should get the windfall.

The family gets the lion's share. But the government, who has, after all, protected their fabulous wealth from "the terrists," put better and more police officers in affluent areas, provides better road repair service, and consistently delivers legislation to benefit the very richest, that government gets their share too.

The death tax rate is 46%.

The really rich, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (who oppose repeal of the death tax), create foundations and other tax shelters to pass their wealth on to whomever they wish.

The result is that only middle class estates pay. Only successful entrepreneurs and small business people have their business broken up to pay this tax. So that there is nothing for the children to inherit.

So we are stripping them to their skivvies, and destroying jobs at the same time.

Actually, Bill Gates is against the repeal of the estate tax. He sees it as a way to create a permanent aristocracy of people who never have to work and get to control the underclass simply because they were born with all the resources.

That's why he's only leaving 0.01% of his money to his kids. Of course, that's still $10,000,000 each.

Creating foundations still means that the money is going to broader society, becuase the gov't can then tax whoever gains control of the foundations. Shares in a corporation are still taxable assets. The .25% of the people to whom the estate tax applies is not the middle class.

So your argument agains the estate tax is that we should abolish it because it isn't efficient enough at doing what we want?

No, my argument would be that it is immoral to take or destroy what someone has worked a lifetime to achieve, to prevent it from being passed on to their children.

But it also does not do what the envious among us wish it to do...

At present, it only destroys the estates of successful working people.

This tax has been around since 1917. Time for it to die.

At present, it only destroys the estates of successful working people.

...We're talking about the dead people tax right?

No, my argument would be that it is immoral to take or destroy what someone has worked a lifetime to achieve, to prevent it from being passed on to their children.

...So, if your parents worked a lot, you shouldn't?

This tax has been around since 1917. Time for it to die.

Hey, I have relatives what have been around since then...You went 'em dead as well?

No, my argument would be that it is immoral to take or destroy what someone has worked a lifetime to achieve, to prevent it from being passed on to their children.

But it also does not do what the envious among us wish it to do...

At present, it only destroys the estates of successful working people...

Wow! Just wow.

Working people? That's who you think the estate tax applies to? Have you read anything about this tax from sources other than Frontpagemag and FOX news?

...We're talking about the dead people tax right?



...So, if your parents worked a lot, you shouldn't?



Hey, I have relatives what have been around since then...You went 'em dead as well?

Hopefully, having grown up in a family which built the wealth, and having seen their parents blood sweat and tears, they will not be the types who sit around and do nothing with their lives. But that can happen in any family, whatever their level of wealth or non-wealth.

And no, having lost both of my parents, as well as all of my grandparents, and one brother, I wish death upon no ones relatives.

I say...Death to Taxes!!!:mp5:

Wow! Just wow.

Working people? That's who you think the estate tax applies to? Have you read anything about this tax from sources other than Frontpagemag and FOX news?

Have you heard anything about this tax from sources other than the rich Democrats in congress who oppose repeal, or the rich insurance companies who oppose repeal, or the ultra-rich who oppose repeal?

So in your opinion instead of the family getting the estate (after doing nothing worthwhile for the dead person presumably) the government which has diligently worked hard to earn the money should get the windfall.

The government has worked diligently to earn the money. It maintains the courts, the law enforcement, the infrastructure, the monetary system, the business regulations and everything else that allowed that business to be successful.

And I can almost hear you now complaining that business regulation stifles business instead of supporting it. That's nonsense, all regulations it easier for some businesses and harder for others. The ones that do well are 99999 times out of 100000 then ones that were helped, and it's time to pay back both the government that helped them, and the businesses that had to suffer for their good fortune.

Take for example the efforts to produce ethanol from corn, when sugar would be so much better. The government is helping the corn industry make money, when by rights, it should fail. At least in this endeavor.

Wow! Just wow.

Working people? That's who you think the estate tax applies to? Have you read anything about this tax from sources other than Frontpagemag and FOX news?

And how do these estates come about?

Do they just appear out of nowhere?

Are they all just the ill-gotten gains of politicians and other criminals?

Or did someone work hard, save hard, invest wisely?

Is there any moral way to accumulate wealth?

Or is it automatically immoral to have over a certain amount of money?

And who determines that amount?

People like Al Gore, who while in office said that a millionaire is someone who earns $250,000 per year four years in a row.

I've seen few posts from anyone who really understands anything to do with the estate tax - so I find it hard to engage anyone here on a meaningful basis. Suffice to say - the estate tax exemption is NOT $4 mil for a married couple - it is misinformation distributed through our ever accurate press. It is currently $2 mil per person. Since married people seldom die simultaneously there is no real double of the exemption. It can be done (or made even greater), but only through the intentional implementation of expensive and specific instruments and with cumbersome restrictions. Also worth note - it is only $2 mil today, will increase to infinity in 2010, but it will reduce to $1 mil after 2010 - though it will increase at the rate of inflation after that. Finally - any repeal of the estate law is usually on conjunction with a simultaneous repeal of the stepped-up cost basis of an inherited asset - which is a very important tax consideration.

I agree - it is immoral to tax an estate - but it is also immoral to wash away a taxable gain due to an estate transfer. I don't care if it only applies to 1/5 of 1% of half of all people in one time zone on Tuesdays. Unfair is what unfair is. The fact that I am not affected is irrelevant.

If wealth were all that a person feels matters in life then I can say with certainty that 1) They will never deserve any wealth 2)they will never have enough and 3) they will never feel they have been treated fairly - ever.

Meanwhile - in the real world - a person who earns a considerable estate owns the property. As the rightful owner they retain the right to decide what to do with it - including give it away. Their death does not eliminate that last right. We live in a society which considers it just to revoke a persons right to own property to pay tax. This is fair. However a person does not have 'less' right to their property as they accumulate it.

People like me that are part of a family-owned business can get crushed by this. We work our butts of to be solidly lower middle class. Not complaining, we have a nice house, are debt-free, and care taking good care of our kid, but we aren't driving around in a Range Rover or trying to decide what color yacht to buy. Here is the problem, my father and mother own more than 50% of the business, but what happens if they both die. Well, I inherit the business, right? What is that business worth. The government can say just about anything they want, but lets say $5 million. OK, I now owe the IRS over 2.5 mil in estate/inheritance taxes. We don't really have that kind of capital laying around. So I have to sell the business and hope I recoup enough to pay the taxes. Now I don't have a job, no health insurance, etc. not to mention all my employees who are now SOL. Gee, that really doesn't seem entirely fair, does it. And even if it only affected just the top whatever percentage, why does the federal government have any right to that money? And if it works so well, against the rich, lets move down a few notches to the middle class, why don't we. They didn't complain when we took it from richer people, so they won't complain now, would they. Think about it.

People like me that are part of a family-owned business can get crushed by this. We work our butts of to be solidly lower middle class. Not complaining, we have a nice house, are debt-free, and care taking good care of our kid, but we aren't driving around in a Range Rover or trying to decide what color yacht to buy. Here is the problem, my father and mother own more than 50% of the business, but what happens if they both die. Well, I inherit the business, right? What is that business worth. The government can say just about anything they want, but lets say $5 million. OK, I now owe the IRS over 2.5 mil in estate/inheritance taxes. We don't really have that kind of capital laying around. So I have to sell the business and hope I recoup enough to pay the taxes. Now I don't have a job, no health insurance, etc. not to mention all my employees who are now SOL. Gee, that really doesn't seem entirely fair, does it. And even if it only affected just the top whatever percentage, why does the federal government have any right to that money? And if it works so well, against the rich, lets move down a few notches to the middle class, why don't we. They didn't complain when we took it from richer people, so they won't complain now, would they. Think about it.

Actually - you ought to have your folks buy life insurance and pay out of the business. There are tax advantages if they structure it correctly.

And how do these estates come about?

Do they just appear out of nowhere?

Are they all just the ill-gotten gains of politicians and other criminals?

Or did someone work hard, save hard, invest wisely?

Is there any moral way to accumulate wealth?

Or is it automatically immoral to have over a certain amount of money?

And who determines that amount?

People like Al Gore, who while in office said that a millionaire is someone who earns $250,000 per year four years in a row.

Or is it people like Bill Frist who thinks that he can diagnose neurological disorders over videotape and had money fall into his lap.

Get the rags to riches myth out of your head. That's not who this tax affects. It affects, overwhelmingly, people whose families haven't had to work in over a generation. And the purpose of repealing this tax it to see to it that they won't have to work for generations to come. It's helping a few families tie up a huge amound of the monetary stream in family trust funds.

And the bulk of these monetary gigantic famlies did not get rich through hard work. They did it through sweetheart deals through corrupt politicians. Very few people become rich through hard work. And those who do tend to favor the continuation of the estate tax. Like when George Bush had a plot of land condemned so that he could sell it to his friends for a song and build a sports stadium on it.

The government had no hand in creating that?

The government has worked diligently to earn the money. It maintains the courts, the law enforcement, the infrastructure, the monetary system, the business regulations and everything else that allowed that business to be successful.

And I can almost hear you now complaining that business regulation stifles business instead of supporting it. That's nonsense, all regulations it easier for some businesses and harder for others. The ones that do well are 99999 times out of 100000 then ones that were helped, and it's time to pay back both the government that helped them, and the businesses that had to suffer for their good fortune.

Take for example the efforts to produce ethanol from corn, when sugar would be so much better. The government is helping the corn industry make money, when by rights, it should fail. At least in this endeavor.

And what about all the taxes those businesses paid along the way, supporting the government while the business was becoming successful?

What about my friend who operates a successful small business out of his home, and also volunteers as an unpaid worker for the police department, ulitizing his accounting skills on their behalf, and his wife who volunteers at the police department as an unpaid worker who takes traffic accident reports and photographs accident scenes? Should they get a break on their taxes now, to justify the government taking more down the line?

People seem to think that government allows businesses to operate tax-free and fee-free until after the business owner dies.

:confused:

No, my argument would be that it is immoral to take or destroy what someone has worked a lifetime to achieve, to prevent it from being passed on to their children.

But it also does not do what the envious among us wish it to do...

At present, it only destroys the estates of successful working people.

This tax has been around since 1917. Time for it to die.

Blah blah, talking points, blah blah. It doesn't "destroy" anything. It's no more immoral for a government to tax it's citizens than it is for someone to hoard more money than they can spend

People like me that are part of a family-owned business can get crushed by this. We work our butts of to be solidly lower middle class. Not complaining, we have a nice house, are debt-free, and care taking good care of our kid, but we aren't driving around in a Range Rover or trying to decide what color yacht to buy. Here is the problem, my father and mother own more than 50% of the business, but what happens if they both die. Well, I inherit the business, right? What is that business worth. The government can say just about anything they want, but lets say $5 million. OK, I now owe the IRS over 2.5 mil in estate/inheritance taxes. We don't really have that kind of capital laying around. So I have to sell the business and hope I recoup enough to pay the taxes. Now I don't have a job, no health insurance, etc. not to mention all my employees who are now SOL. Gee, that really doesn't seem entirely fair, does it. And even if it only affected just the top whatever percentage, why does the federal government have any right to that money? And if it works so well, against the rich, lets move down a few notches to the middle class, why don't we. They didn't complain when we took it from richer people, so they won't complain now, would they. Think about it.

1.5 mill. You subtract the original 2 mill. You also have 10 years to defer the estate tax for just this eventuality. Also, if you're really a part of running this business and are going to take it over, then your parents ought to sign a portion of it over to you now, make you a partner in it. That would bring it all down to below the liability level.

Not to mention that you could just incorporate and devalue the stock so that it doesn't look like much on paper. Then you make out like a bandit in taxes because the business still has all its earnings potential and you get to claim it as a loss.

Get the rags to riches myth out of your head. That's not who this tax affects. It affects, overwhelmingly, people whose families haven't had to work in over a generation.
Really? And you know this how exactly? Proove it.


And the purpose of repealing this tax it to see to it that they won't have to work for generations to come. It's helping a few families tie up a huge amound of the monetary stream in family trust funds.
What, exactly, is 'the money stream'? I'd quite like to know. Is fishing allowed there?


And the bulk of these monetary gigantic famlies did not get rich through hard work. They did it through sweetheart deals through corrupt politicians. Very few people become rich through hard work. And those who do tend to favor the continuation of the estate tax.
Oooh - two made up facts in one! Go ahead - proove it.

Damn - credibility is so demanding for you - isnt it!

And what about all the taxes those businesses paid along the way, supporting the government while the business was becoming successful?

What about my friend who operates a successful small business out of his home, and also volunteers as an unpaid worker for the police department, ulitizing his accounting skills on their behalf, and his wife who volunteers at the police department as an unpaid worker who takes traffic accident reports and photographs accident scenes? Should they get a break on their taxes now, to justify the government taking more down the line?

People seem to think that government allows businesses to operate tax-free and fee-free until after the business owner dies.

:confused:

OMG HE'S A VOLUNTEER! Stop charging taxes on him, he helps people!

Blah blah, talking points, blah blah. It doesn't "destroy" anything. It's no more immoral for a government to tax it's citizens than it is for someone to hoard more money than they can spend


WTF? Saving money is immoral to you? Damn. No wonder you like the government so much!

Or is it people like Bill Frist who thinks that he can diagnose neurological disorders over videotape and had money fall into his lap.

Get the rags to riches myth out of your head. That's not who this tax affects. It affects, overwhelmingly, people whose families haven't had to work in over a generation. And the purpose of repealing this tax it to see to it that they won't have to work for generations to come. It's helping a few families tie up a huge amound of the monetary stream in family trust funds.

And the bulk of these monetary gigantic famlies did not get rich through hard work. They did it through sweetheart deals through corrupt politicians. Very few people become rich through hard work. And those who do tend to favor the continuation of the estate tax.

Myth? So no small businesses are successful? Just because you or I don't own one, I know people who do, and they work their butts off.

Or is it only conservatives who have compassion for successful hard-working people? And liberals favor only unsuccessful people?

The tax only affects those who work to build up a business. Anyone with tens of millions of dollars can hire people to hide the money and shelter it. Those who work don't have the time or the extra money to find expensive tax shelter attorneys, so their businesses are broken up to pay the tax.

1.5 mill. You subtract the original 2 mill. You also have 10 years to defer the estate tax for just this eventuality. Also, if you're really a part of running this business and are going to take it over, then your parents ought to sign a portion of it over to you now, make you a partner in it. That would bring it all down to below the liability level.

Not to mention that you could just incorporate and devalue the stock so that it doesn't look like much on paper. Then you make out like a bandit in taxes because the business still has all its earnings potential and you get to claim it as a loss.

Estate tax may not be deferred beyond 180 days. If a portion of the business is signed over then there is gift tax to consider - which is a rate quite similar to estate tax at this time. (Except for the forst $11,000) Incorpaorating a business is a liability/income tax issue but it does not change the value of an enterprise. (In fact it can result in double taxation of income - nice) Try that and you end up in jail with Leona H.

OMG HE'S A VOLUNTEER! Stop charging taxes on him, he helps people!

Volunteers for the government!:)

And what about all the taxes those businesses paid along the way, supporting the government while the business was becoming successful?

What about my friend who operates a successful small business out of his home, and also volunteers as an unpaid worker for the police department, ulitizing his accounting skills on their behalf, and his wife who volunteers at the police department as an unpaid worker who takes traffic accident reports and photographs accident scenes? Should they get a break on their taxes now, to justify the government taking more down the line?

People seem to think that government allows businesses to operate tax-free and fee-free until after the business owner dies.

:confused:

Like I said. Some businesses benifit more from the government's system than others. Unsuccessful businesses pay taxes too. Some fail or succeed on the lucky stroke of a new piece of legislation. It's mostly unintended consequences, but the ones who succeed the most benifitted the most, and the government is entitled to a bigger share of those fortunes that it helped the most.

Your sentimental appeals don't mean much, because I'm not making a "grrr, those rich people make me so mad" type of argument here. I'm trying to appeal to logic an reason, not sappy violin music.

Not to mention, he is entitled to claim donated services on his taxes as a deduction on his schedule A.

WTF? Saving money is immoral to you? Damn. No wonder you like the government so much!

No, I said it's "no more immoral." It was comparative. Reading comprehension is your friend.

Estate tax may not be deferred beyond 180 days. If a portion of the business is signed over then there is gift tax to consider - which is a rate quite similar to estate tax at this time. (Except for the forst $11,000) Incorpaorating a business is a liability/income tax issue but it does not change the value of an enterprise. (In fact it can result in double taxation of income - nice) Try that and you end up in jail with Leona H.

When its an issue of asset liquidity there is a longer deferment period.

A person can give a gift of up to $20,000 per person per year. Your parents could give you a combination of $40,000 worth of the business every year tax free.

. Anyone with tens of millions of dollars can hire people to hide the money and shelter it.

Proove it. Oh wait - you can't - because that is a myth. Don't get me wrong - it can be done - but it is not like putting it in a pillowcase under you floorboard. The rules/restrictions are quite limiting - and the government never comes out behind.

When its an issue of asset liquidity there is a longer deferment period.

A person can give a gift of up to $20,000 per person per year. Your parents could give you a combination of $40,000 worth of the business every year tax free.


Wrong - on both counts. The tax is due when the tax is due - no exceptions.

The gift tax free limit in the US is nowhere near $20,000 per person. (And of little benefit to anyone with a multi-million dollar owned family business even if it were)

Wrong - on both counts. The tax is due when the tax is due - no exceptions.

The gift tax free limit in the US is nowhere near $20,000 per person. (And of little benefit to anyone with a multi-million dollar owned family business even if it were)

As you've said several times so far in this thread, "prove it!" oh-he-of-poor-reading-comprehension.

No, I said it's "no more immoral." It was comparative. Reading comprehension is your friend.

"not more immoral" clearly indicates you consider both to be immoral. Comprehension is fine - you could brus up not only on your grammar, but also your tax code and morality classes.

Myth? So no small businesses are successful? Just because you or I don't own one, I know people who do, and they work their butts off.

Or is it only conservatives who have compassion for successful hard-working people? And liberals favor only unsuccessful people?

The tax only affects those who work to build up a business. Anyone with tens of millions of dollars can hire people to hide the money and shelter it. Those who work don't have the time or the extra money to find expensive tax shelter attorneys, so their businesses are broken up to pay the tax.

I didn't say that no small businesses are successful. I said that $2 million isn't small.

On the subject of myths, there's another. Compasionate conservative. Conservatism is by nature a callous, angry, and fearful philosophy. It opposes pre-school funding which would cut down on the number of criminals for pennies on the dollar compared to the prison system and goes out of it's way to create new criminals to support the privatized prison industry. I could go on, but really, if you think that conservatives have compassion, there's not much I can do do help you. You may as well think that evolution is "just a theory," or that the Earth is flat.

The tax does not only affect those who build up a business. That's a blatant lie. Are you really claiming that it doesn't affect those whose family fortunes are generations old? If so then how come Bill Gates who built his financial empire is pro-estate tax, and the mars candy people who inherited it all are the main financiers of the anti-estate tax drive?

As you've said several times so far in this thread, "prove it!" oh-he-of-poor-reading-comprehension.


Why do I need to prove the figure YOU posted are incorrect. Prove them correct you lazy arse!

"not more immoral" clearly indicates you consider both to be immoral. Comprehension is fine - you could brus up not only on your grammar, but also your tax code and morality classes.

No, it doesn't indicate that at all. It's comparative. I was merely stating that if one is immoral, so is the other, and if one is indeed moral, then so is the other. It links the two, but does not pigeonhole either.

Wrong - on both counts. The tax is due when the tax is due - no exceptions.

The gift tax free limit in the US is nowhere near $20,000 per person. (And of little benefit to anyone with a multi-million dollar owned family business even if it were)

It is precisly $20,000 per person per year. It is even greater for parents to children. I know this because I work for the IRS. I can't post the documents because they're classified, but you can look it up for yourself.

And it is of use to those whose estates are middle class levels in excess of $2 million in non-liquid assets. Like I said, they can give you $40,000 per year. If they get started now then you'll have quite a bit by the time they die. And if it's an estate worth tens of millions, well then it falls under the catagory of "deserving to be taxed" I've been talking about.

Why do I need to prove the figure YOU posted are incorrect. Prove them correct you lazy arse!

I haven't posted any figures. That was New Domici. Is your short term memory as poor as your reading comprehension?

No, it doesn't indicate that at all. It's comparative. I was merely stating that if one is immoral, so is the other, and if one is indeed moral, then so is the other. It links the two, but dies not pidgeonhole either.

You are not more immoral than Jeffrey Dahmer.

You are not more immoral than kittens.

Hmm. I suppose...

I have a gigantic house in Rhode Island, the state with some of the highest property values in the country. Its worth is probably around $300K. So yeah. Stupid.
And you haven't sold it and given the money to the poor? Selfish, selfish selfish.

Not that I disagree with the estate tax, that's just part of life, not getting the full inheritance you expect, but I do so detest hypocrites.

And you haven't sold it and given the money to the poor? Selfish, selfish selfish.

Not that I disagree with the estate tax, that's just part of life, not getting the full inheritance you expect, but I do so detest hypocrites.

Is he dead?

BOzzy, we have. But it is an incredibly complicated series of hoops you have to jump through to protect yourself... basically from the government. We have spent literally weeks sorting it out (days we could have been actually earning money or spending time as a family)

New Domici, problem is, the "value" of said business and the property it rests on is almost completely arbitrary. It still means that upon a sudden death, we have to scramble around to somehow produce enough cash just so we can keep working.

And that crap about the government deserving its "share" for providing the umbrella structure we all work under, what the hell do you think we pay current taxes for? Property taxes, sales tax, income tax, etc, etc. etc.

I probably wouldn't get so mad about it, but it would be nice to see the taxes I pay used efficiently!!!

You are not more immoral than Jeffrey Dahmer.

You are not more immoral than kittens.

Hmm. I suppose...

You are not more immoral than Mother Theresa.

It is precisly $20,000 per person per year. It is even greater for parents to children. I know this because I work for the IRS. I can't post the documents because they're classified, but you can look it up for yourself.

ROFLMAO!!! Tax law regarding gifts is classified? Oh thats RICH! Well, if you really worked for the IRA then you'd know this;

you can give up to the annual exclusion amount ($11,000 in 2005) to a person, every year, without facing any gift taxes, and without the recipient owing an income tax on the gifts. (http://www.turbotax.com/articles/TheGiftTax.html)

Don't be such a dumbshit next time. Oh, and try telling the truth next time about your employment. classified tax codes.... LOL! Is that anything like double-secret probation?


And it is of use to those whose estates are middle class levels in excess of $2 million in non-liquid assets. Like I said, they can give you $40,000 per year. If they get started now then you'll have quite a bit by the time they die. And if it's an estate worth tens of millions, well then it falls under the catagory of "deserving to be taxed" I've been talking about.
Really? When are they going to die? Please - I'd love to know. Now you are using multiple flawed assumptions - an incorrect gift rate, complete ignorance of it's inflation adjustment, and a total disregard for the time value of money.

I probably wouldn't get so mad about it, but it would be nice to see the taxes I pay used efficiently!!!


What a quaint idea. We should comission a multi-billion dollar government study into the feasability of that. :)

Is he dead?
The charge of hypocrisy is based on other things he has said in the past, not the status of his vital signs.

Anyone who's bitching about the supposed burden on small businesses, and farmers, and other BS that they're trying to use to frighten people about this tax need to provide specific examples of their fears in action. Links would be best. Otherwise STFU.

I haven't posted any figures. That was New Domici. Is your short term memory as poor as your reading comprehension?

Why would you ask me to verify his omission of fact? Regardless - I did it just because he was being such a dumbass I had to take THAT shot.

What a quaint idea. We should comission a multi-billion dollar government study into the feasability of that. :)


I hear ya! :headbang:

What percentage of the amount over 2 million is taxed?

I don't think it's unfair to tax extreemly huge amounts of money when it changes hands like that... just like the gift tax right?

Aparrently it's better than what goes on in England at any rate. My friends grandfather just died and has about 700,000 pounds (about 1.4 million US I think) in the bank to will to the kids, but apparently the govt there takes over half of it for themselves. I don't know if there is a minimum amount that can be taxed but that's a lot of dough. Although getting 350,000 pounds is nothign to scoff at, it does seem like a hefty blow. I'd have less sympathy about it if the kids got 2 million and half of anythign left over that taken though.

What percentage of the amount over 2 million is taxed?

I don't think it's unfair to tax extreemly huge amounts of money when it changes hands like that... just like the gift tax right?

Aparrently it's better than what goes on in England at any rate. My friends grandfather just died and has about 700,000 pounds (about 1.4 million US I think) in the bank to will to the kids, but apparently the govt there takes over half of it for themselves. I don't know if there is a minimum amount that can be taxed but that's a lot of dough. Although getting 350,000 pounds is nothign to scoff at, it does seem like a hefty blow. I'd have less sympathy about it if the kids got 200 and half of anythign left over that taken though.
Nice - so the government gets more than his loved ones.

The tax rate starts quite high and goes up quite fast. I don't feel like looking it up right now but I think it begins at 35% and goes to almost 50% quite fast - and that does not include and estate tax from the state - which many - if not most - do.

I probably wouldn't get so mad about it, but it would be nice to see the taxes I pay used efficiently!!!


Theres the kicker and is what gets me so worked up about any and all taxes. Oh how I wish we could all decide what we want our taxes to go to... I'd give little to military and majority to education, health and social services.

It isn't only "fat cats" who feel the squeeze of estate taxes. Lets take an example. Lets say that you live in Chicago and your parents own an auto mechanic's shop in that city. They first opened it twenty years ago in what was kind of a shady neighborhood that they could afford, but that has since become quite nice. We'll say the neighborhood is Lincoln Park. In a year, after expense, your parents make maybe $70,000.00, good money, but not enough to land them in the top 25%, much les the top 0.25%. You're 25 and working as a mechanic in their shop with the expectation of someday owning it, and your parents are both in their early 50s. Now lets say that they die in an accident and leave everything to you. Now, your parents were mechanics, not accountants, and they didn't know to create an elaborate system of tax shelters, or to incorporate and try to dodge the government. They were honest people who believed in paying their fair share.

Lets do the math, shall we?

The shop sits on a triple plot of land that 108'X120'. Your parents first bought the land for $300,000.00 in the early 80s, now its worth about $1,750,000.00(going land value for a triple lot in Lincoln Park). Your parents also own their own home, which is a modest 3 bedroom home in an area that hasn't apreciated nearly as much as the one their shop is located in. Still, its worth $325,000.00(not too far off for an average home in a nice area).

Now, at this point all we've considered is land and we're already over the $2,000,000.00

The tools, lifts, equipment, diagnostic apparatus, and parts kept in inventory for the shop total around $180,000.00 The rest of your parent's non-liquid assets(clothes, dishes, cars, EVERYTHING) comes to about $50,000.00. Further, they had about $30,000.00 in retirement savings.

Finally, each of your parents carried a life insurance policy that paid out $50,000.00 on death.

The final tally of your parent's estate is $2,485,000.00. The taxable portion of that estate is $485,000.00 at a marginal rate of 46%. That means that you are now responsible for $223,100.00 in taxes. Your parents only had $130,000.00 in liquid assets(including their life insurance) which means you need to come up with $93,100.00 or start selling everything your parents owned, the buisness you were set to inherit, or the home you grew up in.

Theres the kicker and is what gets me so worked up about any and all taxes. Oh how I wish we could all decide what we want our taxes to go to... I'd give little to military and majority to education, health and social services.

Yay you. What would most people do, I wonder...

Okay, I have read these arguments and I agree that there should not be an estate tax or income tax. Instead, there should just be payroll taxes and a national tax on all items and services purchased. This tax should be adjusted appropriately with inflation, and anti-corruption legistation should be written for it (i.e. tax fraud, etc.).

I am still for the tax refund for private donations of $XX000 and up, married /civil union couples, households with dependents, etc.. There should be a good formula for calculating the refund.

Also the federal budget needs to be sized down so there will not be a need for an increase in the national tax. Stop the pork!

One side note that I would like to get some insight on is handling Social Security. I say we don't have th e government handle it, but let financial companies handle it. Well, a person chooses which company will handle their accounts. The same rules apply, a portion of your paycheck is deposited into the account, and you earn interest. You have the option for a well informed investment into stocks and bonds, whatever. You get full access to your account when you turn 65. So no checks from gov. or company. You just get your pin#/card to make further deposits and withdraw cash from it. Their needs to be excellent anti-fraud, identity theft, etc. protection. And then the gov. doesn't have to deal with.. what $several hundred million dollars from the budget lost to Social Security (someone please reply with a better estimate).

I know this is difficult to put into practice and may have flaws of it own, but I think this is better than the current system. Now I am not a economics/tax major, and I am a liberal, mostly moderate, so please keep criticism at a low burn.
I invite others to improve upon the flaws.

It isn't only "fat cats" who feel the squeeze of estate taxes. Lets take an example. Lets say that you live in Chicago and your parents own an auto mechanic's shop in that city. They first opened it twenty years ago in what was kind of a shady neighborhood that they could afford, but that has since become quite nice. We'll say the neighborhood is Lincoln Park. In a year, after expense, your parents make maybe $70,000.00, good money, but not enough to land them in the top 25%, much les the top 0.25%. You're 25 and working as a mechanic in their shop with the expectation of someday owning it, and your parents are both in their early 50s. Now lets say that they die in an accident and leave everything to you. Now, your parents were mechanics, not accountants, and they didn't know to create an elaborate system of tax shelters, or to incorporate and try to dodge the government. They were honest people who believed in paying their fair share.

Lets do the math, shall we?

The shop sits on a triple plot of land that 108'X120'. Your parents first bought the land for $300,000.00 in the early 80s, now its worth about $1,750,000.00(going land value for a triple lot in Lincoln Park). Your parents also own their own home, which is a modest 3 bedroom home in an area that hasn't apreciated nearly as much as the one their shop is located in. Still, its worth $325,000.00(not too far off for an average home in a nice area).

Now, at this point all we've considered is land and we're already over the $2,000,000.00

The tools, lifts, equipment, diagnostic apparatus, and parts kept in inventory for the shop total around $180,000.00 The rest of your parent's non-liquid assets(clothes, dishes, cars, EVERYTHING) comes to about $50,000.00. Further, they had about $30,000.00 in retirement savings.

Finally, each of your parents carried a life insurance policy that paid out $50,000.00 on death.

The final tally of your parent's estate is $2,485,000.00. The taxable portion of that estate is $485,000.00 at a marginal rate of 46%. That means that you are now responsible for $223,100.00 in taxes. Your parents only had $130,000.00 in liquid assets(including their life insurance) which means you need to come up with $93,100.00 or start selling everything your parents owned, the buisness you were set to inherit, or the home you grew up in.

can I pay it off in installments? still I wouldnt be too hurt to inherit 2 mill in assets even if I had to sell off the house I grew up in. And I still have r running business to keep the cash flow of 70,000/yr - nice!

Theres the kicker and is what gets me so worked up about any and all taxes. Oh how I wish we could all decide what we want our taxes to go to... I'd give little to military and majority to education, health and social services.
For the most part you already do...

In order of government spending it is;

Education
Heath and social services (though moving up fast)
Military

Anyone who's bitching about the supposed burden on small businesses, and farmers, and other BS that they're trying to use to frighten people about this tax need to provide specific examples of their fears in action. Links would be best. Otherwise STFU.

Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/article328m.html)

It's not the apocalyptic scenario some opponents paint it to be, but there are people affected.

Yay you. What would most people do, I wonder...

I have a feelign that the poor would be pushing the majority of their taxes into the public good (except in the south :p ) while the rich would be paying their taxes into corporate welfare and military stuff

not sure really but it is fun to guess.

For the most part you already do...

In order of government spending it is;

Education
Heath and social services (though moving up fast)
Military

Proof? This says you're full o'crap: http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday.pdf

For the most part you already do...

In order of government spending it is;

Education
Heath and social services (though moving up fast)
Military


But I want to say what percentage of the taxes I personally pay go to what. Military would mostly likely get like .001% if I had it my way.

One side note that I would like to get some insight on is handling Social Security. I say we don't have th e government handle it, but let financial companies handle it. Well, a person chooses which company will handle their accounts. The same rules apply, a portion of your paycheck is deposited into the account, and you earn interest. You have the option for a well informed investment into stocks and bonds, whatever. You get full access to your account when you turn 65. So no checks from gov. or company. You just get your pin#/card to make further deposits and withdraw cash from it. Their needs to be excellent anti-fraud, identity theft, etc. protection. And then the gov. doesn't have to deal with.. what $several hundred million dollars from the budget lost to Social Security (someone please reply with a better estimate).

Social security is not only a retirement savings - but also disability insurance. So the savings acocunt would not quite fill the bill. Now - some very healthy financial services will insure the income producing ability of your investments to provide a safe floor minimum - around 5% per year - WAY better than Social Security. If the feds simply insured their ability to pay claims the same way they insure FDIC it owuld work beautifully (and cheaply). Now - in addition to the savings there would have to be a universal cost for disability insurance. THAT is where it gets a bit tricky - though I have little doubt that even with that it would be far more efficient than the current social security system.

I have a feelign that the poor would be pushing the majority of their taxes into the public good (except in the south :p ) while the rich would be paying their taxes into corporate welfare and military stuff

Well, the poor really don't pay any taxes...coincidentally (or not, depending on your view of the government) we spend a large chunk of the budget on the military.

Proof?


Sure -here ya go. Enjoy!


http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
Total taxpayer investment in K-12 education in the United States for the 2004-05 school year is estimated to be $536 billion. In addition to the K-12 money mentioned above, taxpayers will spend an estimated $373 billion for higher education in the same school year. Combined = $909 bil

http://www.hhs.gov/budget/
The FY 2007 budget for HHS is $698 billion. Approximately 90 percent of our budget is directed towards mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. (not including social security)

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending
The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion.

Today. There are huge swaths of the US where you can still find a nice home in the $60s. Here's one in my neck of the woods.

http://livingchoices.com/home/homedetail.aspx?refer=homegain&hid=535647878&mid=1920

Though there are also quite a few listed as low as the $30s. That being the case, I have no sympathy for people crying poverty when they have assets in excess of $2 million. Middle class my ass! They're rich.

You know, this kind of thing really gets to me. If you have a job in a large city, you don't really have the choice to move out to the middle of nowhere so you can get a dirt-cheap house. If you have a family and want your kids to be in a decent school district or to feel safe going to the corner for a pint of milk, you have to pay a little bit of money.

I'm in real estate, I know how bad it is living in an inflated market. If you live in Chicago, you end up having to pay more for the roof over your head. If thats where your job is, you don't really have much of a choice. Sure, me and my wife could move out to rural Texas, but where would we work? The local Wal Mart? No, shes in computers and I work full time leasing apartments and studying for a doctorate. Moving out to the middle of nowhere where land is cheap isn't an option unless we decide its time to start living off the land.

My parents bought their home twenty five years ago for $80,000(which was pretty low in Chicago at the time). They're still paying the mortgage. Now the land is worth close to $350,000 for someone who wants to tear the place down. Does that make them rich? Not really, it isn't like they have access to that money. Sure, they could get a second mortgage, but they still make the same amount of money they always have so theres no way they'd be able to pay it. They could sell the place, but it would cost them just as much to buy, and they simply wouldn't be able to buy in the same neighborhood.

There are huge swaths of the country where land is cheap because there aren't jobs that make people want to live in that area. Sure, you can pick up a great place for cheap in rural Illinois in a community with negative population growth, but thats a factor of the market(and the community) slowly dying. Low property values are a sign of a community in decline. They symbolize and area in which people cannot afford to pay more than the unusually low rate that property commands. I don't think theres anything wrong with wanting to live in a place where you can find work, where your children can go to a good school, or where your options for a fun night out don't break down to beer and cow tipping or a tent revival.

Social security is not only a retirement savings - but also disability insurance. So the savings acocunt would not quite fill the bill. Now - some very healthy financial services will insure the income producing ability of your investments to provide a safe floor minimum - around 5% per year - WAY better than Social Security. If the feds simply insured their ability to pay claims the same way they insure FDIC it owuld work beautifully (and cheaply). Now - in addition to the savings there would have to be a universal cost for disability insurance. THAT is where it gets a bit tricky - though I have little doubt that even with that it would be far more efficient than the current social security system.

Thanks, I didn't realize the disability part. I just thought that was all with worker's compensation.:D

can I pay it off in installments? Yeah, they let you pay in installments, at a fairly high rate of interest of course. And yes, I speak from experience having had to pay taxes that I was almost unable to afford.

You know, this kind of thing really gets to me. If you have a job in a large city, you don't really have the choice to move out to the middle of nowhere so you can get a dirt-cheap house. .
Yeah! You can't get a different job in a different place. They'll come out - arrest you and throw you into a gulag for re-education...

what? They wont? Oh - well WTF then?

You'r occupation and lifestyle is your own choice. I moved 10 years ago from an urban area to live in a rural area and do quite well without having to 'live off of the land' - it is insulting to imply that I do. I am cartain, in fact, that I am in the top 10% of earners on this forum.

I will concede however, that commuting SUCKS! You are in real estate - you know it is al about supply and demand - or LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!

can I pay it off in installments? still I wouldnt be too hurt to inherit 2 mill in assets even if I had to sell off the house I grew up in. And I still have r running business to keep the cash flow of 70,000/yr - nice!

Yeah, and I mean, after all, the government has a right to some chunk of that. Even though your parents paid 30 cents out of every dollar they made, its only fair that you should have to pay a little bit more. Even though your parents worked to provide for you, its only fair that the home you could have started a family in should gave to go. I mean, its not YOUR money(well it is, but not really, not if someone witth enough votes thinks otherwise), you should be happy with what the government lets you keep, right?

Hows it feel to be a beggar?

But I want to say what percentage of the taxes I personally pay go to what. Military would mostly likely get like .001% if I had it my way.

But you don't. The money goes wherever it goes. It kight pay for things you don't care about, are morally opposed to, or just end up getting wasted in the endless pit of fire that is our government.

Well, the poor really don't pay any taxes...coincidentally (or not, depending on your view of the government) we spend a large chunk of the budget on the military.


Well they do pay taxes, they just get it back. Doesnt the US govt make any interest on the taxes they are paid in the mean time though? Probably not as it all goes into debt payments huh?

But then again what do you call poor? With inflation going so high while wages remain the same and the govt's class definitions becomming more and more outdated it seems, I would say that the amount of "poor" people (which in my personal opinion is people who have no choice but to live paycheck to paycheck) is greater than we think (even if they own their own home and have two incomes and no kids - my personal reality). Someone could be living in luxury but the amount of debt they accrue is greater than their accumulatesd assets because of high interest and whatnot - so I would still call them technically poor.

Proof? This says you're full o'crap: http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday.pdf


Funny - the difference between news and propoganda, eh? You'll find the real facts a few posts back. Enjoy you'r crow...

Sure -here ya go. Enjoy!


http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
Total taxpayer investment in K-12 education in the United States for the 2004-05 school year is estimated to be $536 billion. In addition to the K-12 money mentioned above, taxpayers will spend an estimated $373 billion for higher education in the same school year. Combined = $909 bil

http://www.hhs.gov/budget/
The FY 2007 budget for HHS is $698 billion. Approximately 90 percent of our budget is directed towards mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. (not including social security)

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending
The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion.

A few problems. You're mixing state and federal taxes here with regards to education. Also, with regards to the defense budgets, they never contain the amounts for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Those are passed as additional spending by congress.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

also, to put things in perspective (from your own source.)

* The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
* The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
* It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
* The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

ROFLMAO!!! Tax law regarding gifts is classified? Oh thats RICH! Well, if you really worked for the IRA then you'd know this;

you can give up to the annual exclusion amount ($11,000 in 2005) to a person, every year, without facing any gift taxes, and without the recipient owing an income tax on the gifts. (http://www.turbotax.com/articles/TheGiftTax.html)

Don't be such a dumbshit next time. Oh, and try telling the truth next time about your employment. classified tax codes.... LOL! Is that anything like double-secret probation?

Not the law, the documents in which I have seen the law. They're classified because of procedural loopholes that aren't part of the law. For example, you are called upon to provide reciepts for your deductions, but if they're below a certain amount the IRS won't check up on them and will approve the deduction without a reciept. Legally you are required to provide it, but there is a certain amound that the IRS decides isn't worth bothering with. I'm not allowed to tell you what that is or what line of which form it appears, because it would be helping you commit tax fraud.

Really? When are they going to die? Please - I'd love to know. Now you are using multiple flawed assumptions - an incorrect gift rate, complete ignorance of it's inflation adjustment, and a total disregard for the time value of money.

No, the only assumption I'm going on is that you're actually talking about a small business. If that assumption is wrong, then everything I'm talking about does go out the window, but I'm not trying to argue that large businesses are protected from the estate tax.

A few problems. You're mixing state and federal taxes here with regards to education. Also, with regards to the defense budgets, they never contain the amounts for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Those are passed as additional spending by congress.


Well, first of all - what difference does it make what government entity it is who is funding the program - taxes are taxes and they are paid all the same by the people. Government spending IS government spending.

2nd - no - the Iraq military budget is not a seperate item. Nor is the Afganistan, nor is the Korean, nor is any other.

Yeah, and I mean, after all, the government has a right to some chunk of that. Even though your parents paid 30 cents out of every dollar they made, its only fair that you should have to pay a little bit more. Even though your parents worked to provide for you, its only fair that the home you could have started a family in should gave to go. I mean, its not YOUR money(well it is, but not really, not if someone witth enough votes thinks otherwise), you should be happy with what the government lets you keep, right?

Hows it feel to be a beggar?

I think that they do in the sense that what you are getting is basically a gift that you didnt earn right?

Although I dont agree with the way they handle our taxes and would liek to see some massive over hauling and cuts in many places. Get rid of pork - stop corporate subsidies to highly profitable companies - cut the pay and benefits of our law makers by like 75% and so on...

Taxes are necessary aren't they? Dont we need them to keep our standard of living high? I live paycheck to paycheck tryign to keep up with life (which would be so much easier without taxes) and I aint complaining (much :D ). If I got a large inheritance and had to sell something off to pay taxes on it but still be able to enjoy the majority of it, then I might complain but I'm still set for life with the two million in assets that I still have. If I'm not then I either need to learn how to manage money or stop living such an extravagant lifestyle.

Besides, do we ever really own anything? You own your house yet you still pay taxes on it or else you are screwed. You own your car yet you have to pay yearly to drive it on the roads. I dont feel like the money I earned really is mine because I never get to keep it for long. I feel like even I belong to the govt. So whatever...

Well they do pay taxes, they just get it back. Doesnt the US govt make any interest on the taxes they are paid in the mean time though? Probably not as it all goes into debt payments huh?

I don't know; I figure they use the taxes and then borrow to pay back the refund.


But then again what do you call poor? With inflation going so high while wages remain the same and the govt's class definitions becomming more and more outdated it seems, I would say that the amount of "poor" people (which in my personal opinion is people who have no choice but to live paycheck to paycheck) is greater than we think (even if they own their own home and have two incomes and no kids - my personal reality). Someone could be living in luxury but the amount of debt they accrue is greater than their accumulatesd assets because of high interest and whatnot - so I would still call them technically poor.

You're right; poverty is only measured as a cutoff level but doesn't measure the people who could be considered poor or marginally so due to debt and stagnant wages. In fact, that was demonstrated very clearly in the 1990's, when the perceptions of the economy diverged more and more between rich and poor as the decade advanced; in 1999, when the stock markets were soaring, the number of people saying the US was a "two tiered society" was as high as 63% compared to 34% in 1993.

The number of people living paycheck to paycheck generally began in the 1970's, when the oil shocks really put the crunch on the manufacturing industry and put it in to terminal decline even during the 1980's and 1990's. Unfortunately, at the same time the cost of education and training became more expensive creating an artificial wall of income inequality that prevents people who want to escape poverty from doing so.

On a side note:

Undoubtedly, this is a product of the fact that a lot of economic growth is driven by high-skill industry; while that is a desirable end by any means, the problem is that too few people are able to enjoy the benefits of the changing economy due to lack of skills and are so forced in to a gray sector of semipoverty. This will not change until the government takes action to mitigate the effects of soaring inflation in education and health services on the lower classes.

Yeah! You can't get a different job in a different place. They'll come out - arrest you and throw you into a gulag for re-education...

what? They wont? Oh - well WTF then?

You'r occupation and lifestyle is your own choice. I moved 10 years ago from an urban area to live in a rural area and do quite well without having to 'live off of the land' - it is insulting to imply that I do. I am cartain, in fact, that I am in the top 10% of earners on this forum.

I will concede however, that commuting SUCKS! You are in real estate - you know it is al about supply and demand - or LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!

The point you seem to be missing is that you can't have an middle class job in a big city and a cheap house in the middle of nowhere. If you have a middle class job in the city then you're competing with upper class people for housing and will have to pay an exhorbitant amount.

e.g. You can't get a job at a design firm in NYC if you live in the middle of Nebraska. And while Long Island may feel like it's the middle of nowhere, and have a huge communte, the prices aren't much better than NYC, and a lot of the property tax is far worse.

* The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
Yeah. so? You asked about three items and you got three items. Government spending on education and social services are each more than military spending. Determinag a ratio between them is really quite pointless.

* The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
* It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
* The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

I really don't have a problem with most of this. Do you thing the US should not have a well funded military? Maybe you also think the US should mirror the social or educational spending of the countries? Really a moot point.

Taxes are necessary aren't they? Dont we need them to keep our standard of living high?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! NO SOCIETY HAS EVER TAXED ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY! NONE. NEVER FORGET THAT!

ABSOLUTELY NOT! NO SOCIETY HAS EVER TAXED ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY! NONE. NEVER FORGET THAT!

Well, no organized society has existed without some kind of tax...

The point you seem to be missing is that you can't have an middle class job in a big city and a cheap house in the middle of nowhere. If you have a middle class job in the city then you're competing with upper class people for housing and will have to pay an exhorbitant amount.

e.g. You can't get a job at a design firm in NYC if you live in the middle of Nebraska. And while Long Island may feel like it's the middle of nowhere, and have a huge communte, the prices aren't much better than NYC, and a lot of the property tax is far worse.

Believe me - my community used to be affordable but now it is not. Middle class folks (like teachers) are having a rough go at finding housing. What happens then is wage inflation. If people won't move to an area because the cost of housing is too high then jobs don't get filled until they pay more. Hence the inflationary pressures of housing costs. Eventually the market takes care of itself. Wages increase, people commute or values drop. (all three seem to be happeining right now)

Proof? This says you're full o'crap: http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday.pdf

On that note. Did anyone see the Penn and Teller's Bullshit that was talking about how manipulated statistics are Bullshit?

One of their first examples was to ask two professionals about where tax dollars go. The only number that they could agree on was that 20% goes to the military.

Well, no organized society has existed without some kind of tax...
That is quite different than taxing oneself to a higher standard of living.

Yeah. so? You asked about three items and you got three items. Government spending on education and social services are each more than military spending. Determinag a ratio between them is really quite pointless.

I really don't have a problem with most of this. Do you thing the US should not have a well funded military? Maybe you also think the US should mirror the social or educational spending of the countries? Really a moot point.


You didn't even read your own source, which means it was a source that was handed to you by someone who told you it was proof, and yet you never bothered to read it. That "2/5 of the whole" referred to the amount governmnts of the world spent on their military.

Anyway, I have no problem with a well-funded military, but the only reason to fund it as much as the next 14 biggest militaries in the world put together is either because you plan on taking over the world or you are wasting money through bereaucratic incompetence.

It's sheer paranoia or sheer waste to fund it to that level. Period.

On that note. Did anyone see the Penn and Teller's Bullshit that was talking about how manipulated statistics are Bullshit?

One of their first examples was to ask two professionals about where tax dollars go. The only number that they could agree on was that 20% goes to the military.

Agreed.

Believe me - my community used to be affordable but now it is not. Middle class folks (like teachers) are having a rough go at finding housing. What happens then is wage inflation. If people won't move to an area because the cost of housing is too high then jobs don't get filled until they pay more. Hence the inflationary pressures of housing costs. Eventually the market takes care of itself. Wages increase, people commute or values drop. (all three seem to be happeining right now)

The thing is, the market isn't the invisible benificent diety that a lot of market people seem to thing it is.

There is a lot of manipulation that goes on with these forces. Right now there is a tremendous political effort to keep housing prices artificially high because the people who benifit from that state of affairs are politically powerful and it's easy to convince most people that if their house looses value then they've lost something valuable, even though if you're not planning on moving then the value of your house is pretty much irrelevant. If the real estate market were suddenly subject to the real forces of supply and demand then there'd be a plummet that would ruin some very influential people.

Not as big as if diamonds and oil were suddenly subject to unfettered supply and demand, but still pretty big.

You didn't even read your own source, which means it was a source that was handed to you by someone who told you it was proof, and yet you never bothered to read it. That "2/5 of the whole" referred to the amount governmnts of the world spent on their military.
I misunderstood your point - easy enough to do based on the volume of numbers. I didn't see where you specified the source over the ratio of the combined sources.


Anyway, I have no problem with a well-funded military, but the only reason to fund it as much as the next 14 biggest militaries in the world put together is either because you plan on taking over the world or you are wasting money through bereaucratic incompetence.

It's sheer paranoia or sheer waste to fund it to that level. Period.

Then you would agree that if the military should be proportionate that all other spending should also. It has nothing to do with size, obligations or population. So go ahead - suggest that our education and social spending also is on the level of a severe mental disorder.

The thing is, the market isn't the invisible benificent diety that a lot of market people seem to thing it is.

There is a lot of manipulation that goes on with these forces. Right now there is a tremendous political effort to keep housing prices artificially high because the people who benifit from that state of affairs are politically powerful

really - you mean like - voters? (gasp!) Those BASTARDS!


and it's easy to convince most people that if their house looses value then they've lost something valuable, even though if you're not planning on moving then the value of your house is pretty much irrelevant. If the real estate market were suddenly subject to the real forces of supply and demand then there'd be a plummet that would ruin some very influential people.

...like those voter bastards. You've never really seen a down real estate market... have you.



Not as big as if diamonds and oil were suddenly subject to unfettered supply and demand, but still pretty big.
ROFLMAO!

Yeah, the Deboers are sooo snuggly with the US feds.... :rolleyes: So is OPEC...

I misunderstood your point - easy enough to do based on the volume of numbers. I didn't see where you specified the source over the ratio of the combined sources.

Wasn't my point, it was your own source's point.



Then you would agree that if the military should be proportionate that all other spending should also. It has nothing to do with size, obligations or population. So go ahead - suggest that our education and social spending also is on the level of a severe mental disorder.

Do you have numbers that reflect other countries' spending on those other aspects of spending?

My overall point is that spending in this country is broken. We're horribly inefficient at spending tax dollars. We have to fix that before we do anything else. IF we lower taxes without first fixing how inefficiently our government spends money, then all we have are fewer dollars being spent unwisely...which basically would mean a collapse in the physical and social infrastructure of our country.

It does no good to say "well, government is just inefficient." if that's the case then you'd be for privatrizing the military and police as well as schools and utilities. Barely anyone is for such sweeping privitization.

Government CAN be more efficient. It's like any other endeavor. We as a people have to demand it, though.

That is quite different than taxing oneself to a higher standard of living.

Not really; taxes provide the military might to protect the nation and money for infrastructure that the private sector can't provide. You can't have prosperity without stable borders, stable government, and infrastructure...the economy simply won't be able to allocate resources. Judicious taxation is as necessary to prosperity and a high living standard as capitalism and private property.

And you haven't sold it and given the money to the poor? Selfish, selfish selfish.

Not that I disagree with the estate tax, that's just part of life, not getting the full inheritance you expect, but I do so detest hypocrites.
Considering the mortgage on it, I'd lose money if I sold it.

Yeah! You can't get a different job in a different place. They'll come out - arrest you and throw you into a gulag for re-education...

what? They wont? Oh - well WTF then?

You'r occupation and lifestyle is your own choice. I moved 10 years ago from an urban area to live in a rural area and do quite well without having to 'live off of the land' - it is insulting to imply that I do. I am cartain, in fact, that I am in the top 10% of earners on this forum.

I will concede however, that commuting SUCKS! You are in real estate - you know it is al about supply and demand - or LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!

Its more than just location. A three hour commute for someone who works 50 hour weeks simply isn't feasible. For someone who is working and moving towards a graduate degree, any kind of commute from outside city limits is almost impossible. Beyond that you run into major problems in suburbs that have low property values. Low property values mean low property tax revenues which translates to a whole host of other problems(slow emergency response times, distant hospitals, bad roads, lower water quality, lower quality sewage systems). Now, if someone is willing to put up with all of that for cheap land, I don;t have any problem with that choice.

What I do have a problem with(and I know it wasn't you who made this assumption) is the concept that people who do not make that choice are somehow obligated to give a larger portion of their property to the government. I dislike the concept of the tax code being used to punish people for making choices that others disagree with.

I believe that what a person works for is what they work for, that their property is theirs. We already have several layers of progressive taxation systems designed to bleed more money from people who earn more, but all of these taxes have something of a purpose. Property taxes go to pay for municipal services like roads and school, water bills go to maintain the municipal water supply(and in my community they also help pay for police and firefighters), income taxes pay for the myriad of federal services that an individual has access to. What does an inheritance tax pay for other than the piece of mind it gives bitter populists, the feeling that they've somehow struck a blow against the man by stealing from his children?

I think that they do in the sense that what you are getting is basically a gift that you didnt earn right?

Although I dont agree with the way they handle our taxes and would liek to see some massive over hauling and cuts in many places. Get rid of pork - stop corporate subsidies to highly profitable companies - cut the pay and benefits of our law makers by like 75% and so on...

Taxes are necessary aren't they? Dont we need them to keep our standard of living high? I live paycheck to paycheck tryign to keep up with life (which would be so much easier without taxes) and I aint complaining (much :D ). If I got a large inheritance and had to sell something off to pay taxes on it but still be able to enjoy the majority of it, then I might complain but I'm still set for life with the two million in assets that I still have. If I'm not then I either need to learn how to manage money or stop living such an extravagant lifestyle.

Besides, do we ever really own anything? You own your house yet you still pay taxes on it or else you are screwed. You own your car yet you have to pay yearly to drive it on the roads. I dont feel like the money I earned really is mine because I never get to keep it for long. I feel like even I belong to the govt. So whatever...


Thats...sad. Defeatist. I mean, on the once hand you recognize the fact that heavy taxes hurt your, but on the other hand you just accept it because you don't believe anything could be done.

How is it that the government can have more of a claim on your money than you? How is it that you are somehow obligated to pay tax after tax for services you seldom see. I've bitched a lot about property taxes but I can understand the need, a city needs revenue to provide the basic services that are expected. The same goes for vehicle registration, tolls, and gasoline taxes. I don't like paying the money but I'd be more unhappy with unpaved roads. What does the death tax pay for? It represents a tiny portion of tax revenue for the government, and is generally just money which is collected and left unearmarked. It has no purpose other than ot become dollars that congress can play with, dollars to be spent and wasted with little in the way of accountablity. Thats how pork happens, thats how benefits packages and raises become so astronomical. The government sees so much money come in that everyone thinks they can take just a little off the top and no one will notice.

The thing is, the market isn't the invisible benificent diety that a lot of market people seem to thing it is.

There is a lot of manipulation that goes on with these forces. Right now there is a tremendous political effort to keep housing prices artificially high because the people who benifit from that state of affairs are politically powerful and it's easy to convince most people that if their house looses value then they've lost something valuable, even though if you're not planning on moving then the value of your house is pretty much irrelevant. If the real estate market were suddenly subject to the real forces of supply and demand then there'd be a plummet that would ruin some very influential people.

Not as big as if diamonds and oil were suddenly subject to unfettered supply and demand, but still pretty big.


Only in speculatory and luxury markets. The big real estate markets(New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, etc) are pretty much already locked into a supply/demand situation. One of the major reasons that housing costs of increased so dramatically over the past few years is an influx of people coming back into or moving into cities.

See, back in the 50s America had something called the Great White Flight when a combination of racial fears and a new superhighway system allowed middle class and upper-middle class white families to move out of inner cities and into planned suburbs(often with cheap land and large houses). This pattern has remained essentially unchanged for decades as low property values lead to inner city crime and more people moving out as soon as they could. Over the past few years(around 15 or so), however, the trend has begun to reverse itself. Cities are again becoming popular as young people settle previously depressed neighborhoods(the Wicker Park and Lincoln Park neighborhoods of Chicago are great examples) and drive up property values. People are marrying later and having children later, so that four bedroom house is less necessary. Besides, if you're going out three nights a week and hooking up, you want to be in an area with alot of people. Its the Yuppie effect.

Under these conditions you never really can have unfettered demand. The demand isn't generated by market manipulations or artifical restraints, but by culture. Suburbs simply aren't densely populated enough to give the feel that is in demand, they don't look like cities, they don't act like cities. You can't catch a cab in a suburb and see the latest play with big name actors, then hit a five star restaurant, then flash to a hot nightclub before heading home. The infrastructure to support those kinds of places and activities in the numbers they are desired requires a city. A city demands higher real estate prices because it has more people in a smaller amount of space. Large cities also attract large buisnesses, more commerce, and higher wages, all of which have the effect of driving up real estate values by attracting more people with more spending potential. Its a simply supply/demand game.

2nd - no - the Iraq military budget is not a seperate item. Nor is the Afganistan, nor is the Korean, nor is any other.

Yes, they are. Those are items of additional spending that are not included in the budget. They are passed seperately by Congress, and the numbers the Bush administration released NEVER include them.

Its more than just location. A three hour commute for someone who works 50 hour weeks simply isn't feasible. For someone who is working and moving towards a graduate degree, any kind of commute from outside city limits is almost impossible. Beyond that you run into major problems in suburbs that have low property values. Low property values mean low property tax revenues which translates to a whole host of other problems(slow emergency response times, distant hospitals, bad roads, lower water quality, lower quality sewage systems). Now, if someone is willing to put up with all of that for cheap land, I don;t have any problem with that choice.

What I do have a problem with(and I know it wasn't you who made this assumption) is the concept that people who do not make that choice are somehow obligated to give a larger portion of their property to the government. I dislike the concept of the tax code being used to punish people for making choices that others disagree with.

I believe that what a person works for is what they work for, that their property is theirs. We already have several layers of progressive taxation systems designed to bleed more money from people who earn more, but all of these taxes have something of a purpose. Property taxes go to pay for municipal services like roads and school, water bills go to maintain the municipal water supply(and in my community they also help pay for police and firefighters), income taxes pay for the myriad of federal services that an individual has access to. What does an inheritance tax pay for other than the piece of mind it gives bitter populists, the feeling that they've somehow struck a blow against the man by stealing from his children?


Let's get this straight. You want high quality govenment services but only those you can immediately see? Or you want high quality government services but you don't want people with money to pay for them? Or you want every tax dollar to be designated so Congress has no decision on how to spend it?

The "progressive" tax system has reached a point where it is virtually a flat tax. Warren Buffet has said that his secretary pays at the same rate he does. This has been sold to the populus as the "fairest" tax. And one that will bring prosperity. Yet as we look at history the most prosperous time in the history of the nation was the 1950-60 era when the top tax rate was 90%. Families could live rather well on one income. A second income was designated for luxuries. The idea was then you put water at the bottom and the whole ship rises. The poor spend everything. The people they spend money with spend it. And those they spend it with spend it. Eventually the rich end up with it but it has prospered all levels on the way. The theory today is you give money to the rich and they will-----Well they buy stock which keeps the stock market up so things look good. At the same time the wages of the poor don't move but once in 26 years. Two incomes become mandatory. But "on average" things are great.

Traditionally taxes were paid out of the excess. You didn't tax the money needed for food, clothing, shelter and other basics. It was recognized that the rich need more for these things but still had excess money. That was the idea of "progressive". At each level people paid from their excess not of their necessity.

The estate tax also had another function. At the time of the Revolution the founders recognized the waste in the English system with inherited wealth. Money and people sat around doing nothing for the society. A middle ages system of lords and serfs. The serfs could never put together the money to start business and the wealthy had no reason to take risk to start business. So the wealth remained tied up in "conservative" (read that no risk, no gain) investments. The whole idea of the estate tax is to return some of that money to the larger economic system. Thereby benefiting the greater economy. In todays system it also serves to enourage the rich to give to charity. The normal charity distribution is the poor give a lot, those in the middle give little, the rich wait until they are old then pour money into charity to the point where they balance the poor's giving. If charted it becomes a big U Without the estate tax it would become a big L

Yes, they are. Those are items of additional spending that are not included in the budget. They are passed seperately by Congress, and the numbers the Bush administration released NEVER include them.


Yes, you are right. They are like other emergency events such as tsunamis and hurricanes. Hoever, adding these annual expenses still does not affect the order of spending allocation.

Let's get this straight. You want high quality govenment services but only those you can immediately see? Or you want high quality government services but you don't want people with money to pay for them? Or you want every tax dollar to be designated so Congress has no decision on how to spend it?
No - he did not say higher quality tgovernment services. Lord knows there is too much government services as it is. He said, quote specifically, 'more efficient'. There is a world of difference.


The "progressive" tax system has reached a point where it is virtually a flat tax.
Umm, no, it is not. Where do you get that from. The wealthy now pay a greater proportion of the overall federal budget now than they did before 2000.
"In 1980 the poorest 60% paid 15.1% of all income taxes, compared with 17.1% paid by the (most hyper-evil of them all) richest 1%. By 2003 the bottom 60% paid a mere 0.6% of all income taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit, a kind of negative income tax that has been expanded several times in the past 20 years, means that the poorest Americans receive money from the federal tax system. Mr. Bush's refundable child credit enhanced the trend. The poorest 20% of Americans had an average income tax rate of -6% in 2003; -10% for households with children. Of the 136 million Americans who filed federal tax returns, 43.4 million or 32% have zero or negative tax liabilities. Twenty years ago, that share was below 20%."-pages 34-35 of the 15 April 2006 edition of The Economist


Warren Buffet has said that his secretary pays at the same rate he does.

Umm, no - I can assure you he did not and she does not. That is an untruth which someone fed you and which you have now regurgitated on the rest of us. What WB DID say was - if the dividend tax is eliminated then he would pay a tax rate of about 3% while his secretary pays about 30%, since the vast majority of his income is dividends and not salary. What Warren has done however is to compare apples to oranges since income and dividends are not the same. Dividends are business income which has already been taxed - so charging tax on it a second time is double-dipping. If you really want to discuss the difference between dividend and income and what double taxation is - be my guest. Just be prepared - you have not demonstrated a significant level of knowledge on the issue to have a valid opinion.


This has been sold to the populus as the "fairest" tax. And one that will bring prosperity. Yet as we look at history the most prosperous time in the history of the nation was the 1950-60 era when the top tax rate was 90%. Families could live rather well on one income.
Yet the affluent and corporations paid a MUCH smaller share of the overall tax pie then. Can you hazard a guess why?? (Hint - it's in the tax brackets)


A second income was designated for luxuries. The idea was then you put water at the bottom and the whole ship rises.
No - that was welfare - and it worked so poorly that it had to be reformed in 1996. Meanwhile - the lowest income people pay zero taxes - as you can see from the above info from the Economist. So really - short of mailing the lowest income earners EVEN MORE money - there really isn't much more to be added to 'raise the ship'.


The poor spend everything. The people they spend money with spend it. And those they spend it with spend it.
So does everyone else. What isn't spend is invested. (short of a jelly-jar anything could be an investment) Invested capital is just as good for the economy - if not better - than spending. So really you have no point.... again.


Eventually the rich end up with it but it has prospered all levels on the way.

..and then what... it disappears as they roll their marijuana joints with it? WTF do you think the top earners do with it? Spend and invest. Both of which are fantastic for the economy.


The theory today is you give money to the rich and they will-----Well they buy stock which keeps the stock market up so things look good.
WHAT?? OMG! You have no CLUE what the stock market is, how it works, or why people buy or sell (or borrow) stocks!


At the same time the wages of the poor don't move but once in 26 years. Two incomes become mandatory. But "on average" things are great.
Goddam you have lots of 'facts' but no sources. How easy your belief system is when unchallenged...

Traditionally taxes were paid out of the excess. You didn't tax the money needed for food, clothing, shelter and other basics. It was recognized that the rich need more for these things but still had excess money. That was the idea of "progressive". At each level people paid from their excess not of their necessity.
No - actually the idea of the progressive tax is for everyone to pay their share - which 32% of filers do not do. Not even $1. Yet these same people can vote for HUGE spending bills into existence and elect huge spending politicians. Talk about excesses! How nice it must be to spend other people's money!

The estate tax also had another function. At the time of the Revolution the founders recognized the waste in the English system with inherited wealth.
Even more made up facts. How convenient.

Money and people sat around doing nothing for the society. A middle ages system of lords and serfs. The serfs could never put together the money to start business and the wealthy had no reason to take risk to start business. So the wealth remained tied up in "conservative" (read that no risk, no gain) investments.
You are only off by a few centuries... Please though - don't let details like facts get in the way... do go on... I'm in a jolly good mood for a story...


The whole idea of the estate tax is to return some of that money to the larger economic system. Thereby benefiting the greater economy.
You don't even know the difference between a tax and an economy?? OMG!


In todays system it also serves to enourage the rich to give to charity.
Because God knows, those bastards would never do it of their own volition.... (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5650&sequence=1)


The normal charity distribution is the poor give a lot, those in the middle give little, the rich wait until they are old then pour money into charity to the point where they balance the poor's giving. If charted it becomes a big U Without the estate tax it would become a big L

Nearly 90 percent of such giving occurs during donors' lives; those gifts are termed charitable contributions. The balance of those gifts, made from donors' estates, are charitable bequests.

In general, as might be expected, wealthier families are more likely to contribute than less wealthy families, and their average contributions are larger (see Box 1). Families with a net worth greater than $675,000 (the amount exempted from the estate tax in 2000) made about two-thirds of the total contributions.(3) Families with assets greater than $3.5 million made about 45 percent of contributions; and families with assets greater than $7 million, about one-third. Families with assets greater than $20 million made about one-sixth of all contributions.

Acording to the CBO's analysis of the 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances (sponsored by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), which records income and contributions in 2000, more than 60 percent of contributions in 2000 came from families whose adjusted gross income was in the top quintile (the top 20 percent). Families with adjusted gross income in the top 10 percent made about half of all contributions, and those in the top 5 percent gave about 45 percent of all contributions. (from above link)
Damn those facts - they just keep getting in the way of your story telling....

*cordial golfclap for B0zzy*

Do you have numbers that reflect other countries' spending on those other aspects of spending?
It does not matter what other countries spend and it is a shitty way to base our own spending - be it education, health or military.

For example in China the cost of military is low because the soldiers are paid less, the materials are made by something just short of forced labor as well as the food. In Jaban military spending is moot because they are not allowed to have the ability to project power overseas as a result of WW2. In Mexico social spending is low because they just ship all of their poor to America... (hehe - kidding)

But you get the point.

Wikipedia currently has a very good outline of this issue here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_in_the_United_States
look under the section titled "Military spending relative to other countries" and it will clear much up. If you have difficulty understanding it ask away and I'll be glad to help.


My overall point is that spending in this country is broken. We're horribly inefficient at spending tax dollars.
Halleliliaj and AMEN brotha!


We have to fix that before we do anything else. IF we lower taxes without first fixing how inefficiently our government spends money, then all we have are fewer dollars being spent unwisely...
THAT is a good thing. (I added italics to help the point)



It does no good to say "well, government is just inefficient." if that's the case then you'd be for privatrizing the military and police as well as schools and utilities. Barely anyone is for such sweeping privitization.
A considerable number of utilities ARE private. THere are a considerable number of public schools and MANY people who want the entire Public Education system to include an option to include private schools. The military uses a considerable number of private contractors. Many gated communities have their own private security (police).


Government CAN be more efficient. It's like any other endeavor. We as a people have to demand it, though.

I agree - we don't need to eliminate government nor all government services. (though many do deserve to go.) The key to efficiency though is not just a better engine - it is a smaller car. Same for government.

Not really; taxes provide the military might to protect the nation and money for infrastructure that the private sector can't provide. You can't have prosperity without stable borders, stable government, and infrastructure...the economy simply won't be able to allocate resources. Judicious taxation is as necessary to prosperity and a high living standard as capitalism and private property.

You made my point again. Taxation is not the key to prosperity.

You made my point again. Taxation is not the key to prosperity.

Well, yes. Taxation as the key to prosperity is no different than the failed central planning of the former USSR because it removes the real engine of prosperity, the market, from the equation and that simply does not work. Taxation only makes achieving prosperity easier, but the actual key to prosperity is the market.

I think it's a confusion of terms...

I'm pissed about it. The fact that the government can take almost half of the ALREADY TAXED money from my family's estate is atrocious. It's double jeopardy in the taxation world. The government didn't work for that money and has already taken its share--it doesn't need to take any more at all.

Well, yes. Taxation as the key to prosperity is no different than the failed central planning of the former USSR because it removes the real engine of prosperity, the market, from the equation and that simply does not work. Taxation only makes achieving prosperity easier, but the actual key to prosperity is the market.

I think it's a confusion of terms...


Close - taxation funds a government which MAY promote an environemt friendly to the creation of prosperity.

Close - taxation funds a government which MAY promote an environemt friendly to the creation of prosperity.

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, that is often not the case...

Support for the estate tax relies on the dogma that somehow all wealth is accumulated through inheritance or exploitation of the proletariat. It's sad...believing that people have some extra endowment of righteousness until they reach a certain level of income to which the fruits of their labor suddenly revert from legitimate to ill-gotten gains.

We do need to repeal the estate tax. Let's not be stupid here, we're not talking about the property of dead people, we're talking about the property of their kids. Just because they are rich is not reason to restrict their right to give their kids whatever they want upon death.

Of course, there are ways of bypassing it.

The vote was 57-41, three short of the 60 it needed.

I'm very glad, I'm soooo tired of hearing this BS about a "death tax" when it would only affect the top .25%. It's just the obscenely rich trying to get over on us as usual.

Edit: Oops, forgot the link (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-08T160546Z_01_WAT005774_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-TAX-VOTE.xml&archived=False)

Nice try, but your wrong. My father-in-law passed away a few years back, and his estate was taxed at 68%, everything he saved and worked for all his life was almost all taken away by the fed and state. The money that was taxed as part of his estate was taxed many times before the final, it was taxed when he made it, when he spent it, when he saved it and on and on, the it was taxed once again after he died, and then I had to pay taxes on the portion that me and my wife got. By my count the same dollar was taxed at least 5 times.

In general, as might be expected, wealthier families are more likely to contribute than less wealthy families, and their average contributions are larger (see Box 1). Families with a net worth greater than $675,000 (the amount exempted from the estate tax in 2000) made about two-thirds of the total contributions.(3) Families with assets greater than $3.5 million made about 45 percent of contributions; and families with assets greater than $7 million, about one-third. Families with assets greater than $20 million made about one-sixth of all contributions.

Acording to the CBO's analysis of the 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances (sponsored by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), which records income and contributions in 2000, more than 60 percent of contributions in 2000 came from families whose adjusted gross income was in the top quintile (the top 20 percent). Families with adjusted gross income in the top 10 percent made about half of all contributions, and those in the top 5 percent gave about 45 percent of all contributions. [/I] (from above link)
Damn those facts - they just keep getting in the way of your story telling....


"The poorest and richest households give the most as a percentage of income." http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/10-36789.html

ie a U

Umm, no - I can assure you he did not and she does not. That is an untruth which someone fed you and which you have now regurgitated on the rest of us. What WB DID say was - if the dividend tax is eliminated then he would pay a tax rate of about 3% while his secretary pays about 30%, since the vast majority of his income is dividends and not salary. What Warren has done however is to compare apples to oranges since income and dividends are not the same. Dividends are business income which has already been taxed - so charging tax on it a second time is double-dipping. If you really want to discuss the difference between dividend and income and what double taxation is - be my guest. Just be prepared - you have not demonstrated a significant level of knowledge on the issue to have a valid opinion.


Quoted from Warren Buffet on "Charlie Rose" PBS

His secretary is in the same tax rate. Mr. Buffet finds that unfair.

Support for the estate tax relies on the dogma that somehow all wealth is accumulated through inheritance or exploitation of the proletariat. It's sad...believing that people have some extra endowment of righteousness until they reach a certain level of income to which the fruits of their labor suddenly revert from legitimate to ill-gotten gains.

No, that's not the argument at all. Oversimplimplifying the opposing argument is a weak and childlike technique that is used all too often.

It's a simple fact that wealth begets wealth. It's a simple fact that most wealthy people come from wealthy families. Hard work and hard thought do have their place in creating one's fortune. NO ONE is saying they don't. But when you have a society where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, that means something is broken, and it has to be fixed before there are so many desperate people that civil unrest breaks out.

You are only off by a few centuries... Please though - don't let details like facts get in the way... do go on... I'm in a jolly good mood for a story...


The "Lords" set up continued at the time of the Revolution and still does today. Wealthy families tie up wealth in no risk investments. Good for them not good for the overall economy. Business is built from the bottom not the top. Most new jobs are created by risk investments not old money.

Nice try, but your wrong. My father-in-law passed away a few years back, and his estate was taxed at 68%, everything he saved and worked for all his life was almost all taken away by the fed and state. The money that was taxed as part of his estate was taxed many times before the final, it was taxed when he made it, when he spent it, when he saved it and on and on, the it was taxed once again after he died, and then I had to pay taxes on the portion that me and my wife got. By my count the same dollar was taxed at least 5 times.

You should have gotten a better accountant. Probably would have saved you a bundle.

You don't even know the difference between a tax and an economy?? OMG!


A good conservative should understand the link between tax and economy. By taxing the dead spots in the economy and removing tax from the small business inovative areas of the economy, the economy prospers.

No - actually the idea of the progressive tax is for everyone to pay their share - which 32% of filers do not do. Not even $1. Yet these same people can vote for HUGE spending bills into existence and elect huge spending politicians. Talk about excesses! How nice it must be to spend other people's money!

Actually if you go back and look at the history of the progressive income tax you will find that in the beginning only the wealthy paid any tax. The idea was they had excess funds that they didn't need to survive. The middle and poor didn't pay because they needed their income, The tax was only to be on excess wealth. Due to inflation it worked it's way down the income ladder.

...Dividends are business income which has already been taxed...

What a silly argument. Everything has been taxed before. Almost any time money changes hands, it's taxed. You spend your taxed income on groceries that have sales tax added. The owner of the grocery store gets taxed on his income from the store. The grocer hands some of that income over to his landlord, who is in turn taxed.

Everything is taxed multiple times, because money keeps circulating. SO why should dividends be any different? It's income.

Goddam you have lots of 'facts' but no sources. How easy your belief system is when unchallenged...
The minimum wage did not raise between the election of Reagan until the Clinton administration. It was raised once. It has not been raised since. From 1980-2006 is 26 years with one raise. Look it up. I'm old enough to remember it.

WHAT?? OMG! You have no CLUE what the stock market is, how it works, or why people buy or sell (or borrow) stocks!


The stock market works on supply and demand. If there is a demand for a stock it goes up. Except for retirement accounts (another way to create supply of dollars to chase a limited supply of stock--but that's another subject) The poor and middle put very little in the stock market.

The way to get the market to go up is to have more dollars chasing stock, ie a larger supply of dollars buying a more limited supply of stock. In other words give those who buy stock more money and since they are already spending all they want to spend they won't spend more they will buy stock. Bigger supply of money limited supply of stock---The market goes up.

The other way is to increase the value of the company by creating a demand for their product. Will giving to the top create demand? No because if you give $1000 to the top 10% they already have everything $1000 will buy. Give it to the bottom and what happens? They spend it. And it ripples through the economy adding value to all of the companies and people it passes through. The stock goes up more slowly. But it goes up while at the same time creating a wake of wealth.

So our choice is do we want the stock market to go up fast with no underlieing value. Or do we want the stock market to go up based on product sales.

I have not read all the posts but a flat tax was being debated earlier. The funny thing about people being against a flat tax that say it will target the poor and benefit the rich dont realize that a flat tax would be an increase in the amount of taxes payed for most rich people. i refer to you the public discloseres of John Kerry, and George Bush when they ran for office, then compare their percentage to your. (odds are you pay a higher percentage)

I have not read all the posts but a flat tax was being debated earlier. The funny thing about people being against a flat tax that say it will target the poor and benefit the rich dont realize that a flat tax would be an increase in the amount of taxes payed for most rich people. i refer to you the public discloseres of John Kerry, and George Bush when they ran for office, then compare their percentage to your. (odds are you pay a higher percentage)

And repealing the estate tax would mean the richest would pay even less of their share.

No, that's not the argument at all. Oversimplimplifying the opposing argument is a weak and childlike technique that is used all too often.

It's a simple fact that wealth begets wealth. It's a simple fact that most wealthy people come from wealthy families. Hard work and hard thought do have their place in creating one's fortune. NO ONE is saying they don't. But when you have a society where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, that means something is broken, and it has to be fixed before there are so many desperate people that civil unrest breaks out.

That's exactly what the argument is about. Rich people aren't all Scrooge McDucks who swim in a vault of money every night. There are other means of wealth distribution to the poor other than government taxes. The "rich getting richer, while the poor getting poorer" analogy is flawed. The rich will always accrue wealth faster than the poor in ANY society except one with complete wealth distribution. The poor are only "getting poorer" in comparison to wealthy people. Tough shit, I'm poor as hell myself, I don't have cable or hot water and my A/C is the fan sitting next to me. I'd rather go out and make some money than sit on my ass all day and bitch about how there are people richer than me.

That's exactly what the argument is about. Rich people aren't all Scrooge McDucks who swim in a vault of money every night. There are other means of wealth distribution to the poor other than government taxes. The "rich getting richer, while the poor getting poorer" analogy is flawed. The rich will always accrue wealth faster than the poor in ANY society except one with complete wealth distribution. The poor are only "getting poorer" in comparison to wealthy people. Tough shit, I'm poor as hell myself, I don't have cable or hot water and my A/C is the fan sitting next to me. I'd rather go out and make some money than sit on my ass all day and bitch about how there are people richer than me.

Same here. I stay in the ghetto to get cheap rent, but you'll never hear me bitch that rich people have it better.

I have not read all the posts but a flat tax was being debated earlier. The funny thing about people being against a flat tax that say it will target the poor and benefit the rich dont realize that a flat tax would be an increase in the amount of taxes payed for most rich people. i refer to you the public discloseres of John Kerry, and George Bush when they ran for office, then compare their percentage to your. (odds are you pay a higher percentage)

Not to mention a reduction and costs of tax agency calculation and tax evasion. Tax on consumption is already a "progressive" tax" on those who consume more (the rich).

Let's get this straight. You want high quality govenment services but only those you can immediately see? Or you want high quality government services but you don't want people with money to pay for them? Or you want every tax dollar to be designated so Congress has no decision on how to spend it?

Actually, I want to see fewer services provided. Those services that are provided should relatively transparent in their funding. I would like to see the tax code used strictly for generation of revenue, not as an incentive system. On the federal level I would like to see funds raised through a simplified income tax system with fewer write-offs. On a local level I would like to see services provided through a combination of sales and usage taxes.


The "progressive" tax system has reached a point where it is virtually a flat tax. Warren Buffet has said that his secretary pays at the same rate he does. This has been sold to the populus as the "fairest" tax. And one that will bring prosperity. Yet as we look at history the most prosperous time in the history of the nation was the 1950-60 era when the top tax rate was 90%. Families could live rather well on one income. A second income was designated for luxuries. The idea was then you put water at the bottom and the whole ship rises. The poor spend everything. The people they spend money with spend it. And those they spend it with spend it. Eventually the rich end up with it but it has prospered all levels on the way. The theory today is you give money to the rich and they will-----Well they buy stock which keeps the stock market up so things look good. At the same time the wages of the poor don't move but once in 26 years. Two incomes become mandatory. But "on average" things are great.

I'm not sure how you're defining "prosperous." The 50s and 60s in America weren't a particularily bad time, but I would like to see the logic you use for considering them more prosperous than say, the 90s(or the 20s). We live in a country where people need two incomes because people demand more, they consume more, they spend more. Sure, people need two jobs. As a country we eat out more, we buy more of our entertainment and media, we have two cars, we spend on all the little luxury perks in our housing that we don't even think about(Central heat instead of radiators, air conditioning, dishwashers). We pay a primium for food of better quality or for food with more convenience. We have a debate about health insurance in this country precisely because incurance(which used to be viewed as an expensive luxury item) is now something that people demand. That computer you're on, did it cost a higher percentage of your yearly income than a radio or black and white TV would have? Do you only have one of those things or do you have all three? Maybe multiples of each? The middle class needs two incomes because of all the luxury goods it buys.


Traditionally taxes were paid out of the excess. You didn't tax the money needed for food, clothing, shelter and other basics. It was recognized that the rich need more for these things but still had excess money. That was the idea of "progressive". At each level people paid from their excess not of their necessity.

Traditionally as defined how? I'd be willing to wager that those in rural communities have far more luxuries today than 50 years ago. I know that those in urban areas do. The general standard of living has risen. Hell, even those in our country who live below the poverty line generally own a television and live in a home with electricity, cooking gas, hot and cold running water, and indoor plumbing, all improvements over 50 years ago.

Income tax has only existed on a federal level iin this country for a little over 90 years. Previous to the passage of the 16th amendment, the only other federal income tax to be levied was a war-time tax to finance the civil war.

When the income tax was first passed in the US the top marginal rate was 7% and that only applied to individuals making in excess of $500,000 in a fiscal year.

Top rates didn't rise again until money was needed to fund WWI, after the war ended, taxes dropped down to a top rate of 25%. Top rates increased again during the great depression, then a second time during WWII, when the top rate finally reached 91%. These rate increases were not means of redistributing excess wealth to the poor, they were all increases in order to fund wars or combat a global economic crisis. After the peak of 91% the top tax rate has seen a steady decline, significantly rising only once since 1964, hitting a low of 28%.

Do you argue that the country is, today, less prosperous than it was 50 years ago? Looking at incomes adjusted by inflation you don't see that trend, nor do you looking at GDP(a measure of the rising up effect you had referred to). I would suspect that if you had the time and numbers to look at mean and median net worth you'd see a general upward trend as well.

The estate tax also had another function. At the time of the Revolution the founders recognized the waste in the English system with inherited wealth. Money and people sat around doing nothing for the society. A middle ages system of lords and serfs. The serfs could never put together the money to start business and the wealthy had no reason to take risk to start business. So the wealth remained tied up in "conservative" (read that no risk, no gain) investments. The whole idea of the estate tax is to return some of that money to the larger economic system. Thereby benefiting the greater economy.

Are you familiar with US history? The founders you are talking about were wealthy buisnessmen and landowners. Many of them also owned slaves to work their huge farms and plantations. You do not honestly believe that these hardcore capitalists, who had fought a hopeless war against the most powerful nation in the world in order to free themselves of the burdens of taxation and government interferance, wanted the government to take from the rich and give to the poor? These men were not proto-Marxists with a Robin Hood fetish. These men were classical liberals who believed that the government was an inherantly oppressive and violent force, a necessary evil.

They were the lords, just take a tour of Monticello some day.

"The poorest and richest households give the most as a percentage of income." http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/10-36789.html

ie a U

I wonder how those numbers would look if you removed tithes from cheritable giving...

Actually, I wonder how the numbers look in general, seeing as how they were absent and all we were provided with were conclusions absent of context.

Oh, and BTW, the Heritage foundation? Really...

The "Lords" set up continued at the time of the Revolution and still does today. Wealthy families tie up wealth in no risk investments. Good for them not good for the overall economy. Business is built from the bottom not the top. Most new jobs are created by risk investments not old money.


Work in the non-profit or research sectors for awhile then come back and tell me how old money isn't good for society. $1,000,000 wisely invested returns $10,000 each month taxe free. I cannot begin to tell you how many social service, reasearch, mental or community helath, and other non-profits recieve the bulk of their funding from grants fed directly from these investments. A million dollars will pay a million dollars of an organization's operating costs. That same million invested with pay $120,000 of that organization's costs every year forever.

Sure, it isn't economic powerhouse jobs being created, just low-paying positions in socially beneficial foundations. Still, the network of non-profits and private charities that exist today couldn't continue to exist without high return/low risk investments.

I wonder how those numbers would look if you removed tithes from

cheritable giving... [/qoute]
The article discsusses it - regardless - you would have to argue that churches do not benefit their community in order to dismiss titheing which would not be a wise argument.
[QUOTE=JesusChristLooksLikeMe]
Actually, I wonder how the numbers look in general, seeing as how they were absent and all we were

provided with were conclusions absent of context.

Oh, and BTW, the Heritage foundation? Really...
Do you find their data to be innacurate? I doubt it. Dismissing fact because you don't like the source is a dangerous habit.


"The poorest and richest households give the most as a percentage of income." http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/10-36789.html
ie a U
What are you suggesting by this? I'm not following your loging - please explain.
Quoted from Warren Buffet on "Charlie Rose" PBS
His secretary is in the same tax rate. Mr. Buffet finds that unfair.
No - Warren's Secretary is NOT at the same tax bracket nor has he ever said she was. I made clear what it was he did say. You have chosen either to ignore it or not understand it.

The "Lords" set up continued at the time of the Revolution and still does today. Wealthy families tie up wealth in no risk investments. Good for them not good for the overall economy. Business is built from the bottom not the top. Most new jobs are created by risk investments not old money.
Since when is any investment 'no risk? Be caureful - you have already demonstrated you have little enough knowledge in this arena to have a valid opinion and risk (or volitility) is a complicated topic you are ill equipped to handle... Regardless of risk - since when does an investment NOT benefit an economy? What is the difference between a 'risk investment' and 'old money'? Your post is complete nonsense written by someone who hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

A good conservative should understand the link between tax and economy. By taxing the dead spots in the economy and removing tax from the small business inovative areas of the economy, the economy prospers.
Taxing the 'dead spots'? WTF is a 'dead spot' of an economy?? My paycheck is a dead spot? My property? My gas? My purchases? Dude - you are really really out of your league. I strongly encourage you to trash your obviously flawed misconceptions and educate yourself on the basics of an economy, taxation and securities. After that you will then be able to formulate an informed and educated opinion on the topic. Until then - "It is better to remain silent and risk looking like a fool than to open your mouth and proove it."


The minimum wage did not raise between the election of Reagan until the Clinton administration. It was raised once. It has not been raised since. From 1980-2006 is 26 years with one raise. Look it up. I'm old enough to remember it.
Well, first of all - not all poor people work for minimum wage. Second of all - in spite of being born into poverty more than 50% of people escape it - and without any help from minimum wage. Third of all - if a person does not have the skills to get anything better than a minimum wage job - who's fault is that? They are entitled to 13 years of free education and subsidized eduication beyond that. If they are too foolish to take advantage of theat why would they deserve no more than minimum. That said - minimum wage does serve a purpose and I would not argue the validity of it - I only dispute the arguments most uneducated put for for raising it and the results they expect as a result. Minimum wage does not create nor prevent poverty.

What a silly argument. Everything has been taxed before. Almost any time money changes hands, it's taxed. You spend your taxed income on groceries that have sales tax added. The owner of the grocery store gets taxed on his income from the store. The grocer hands some of that income over to his landlord, who is in turn taxed.

Everything is taxed multiple times, because money keeps circulating. SO why should dividends be any different? It's income.
Ahh, that is where you miss an important step - money is taxed when it changes hands - but when a person owns a business and takes the profits of their business it is not changing hands... Hence the double taxation - which is silly.

The stock market works on supply and demand. If there is a demand for a stock it goes up. Except for retirement accounts (another way to create supply of dollars to chase a limited supply of stock--but that's another subject) The poor and middle put very little in the stock market.

The way to get the market to go up is to have more dollars chasing stock, ie a larger supply of dollars buying a more limited supply of stock. In other words give those who buy stock more money and since they are already spending all they want to spend they won't spend more they will buy stock. Bigger supply of money limited supply of stock---The market goes up.

The other way is to increase the value of the company by creating a demand for their product. Will giving to the top create demand? No because if you give $1000 to the top 10% they already have everything $1000 will buy. Give it to the bottom and what happens? They spend it. And it ripples through the economy adding value to all of the companies and people it passes through. The stock goes up more slowly. But it goes up while at the same time creating a wake of wealth.

So our choice is do we want the stock market to go up fast with no underlieing value. Or do we want the stock market to go up based on product sales.


OMG you REALLLY REALLY don't have a clue - thanks for proving it.

Demand is not created from nothing.

Also - 50% of US households own stock. The reason why the poor and midle do not own as much stock as the affluent is because the accumulation of stock creates affleunce!! - ie they don't STAY poor or middle and it is directly as a result of their accumulation. DUH!

And repealing the estate tax would mean the richest would pay even less of their share.

Exactly what is a share, what is it a share of, and who determines how much of it one must bear?

The article discsusses it - regardless - you would have to argue that churches do not benefit their community in order to dismiss titheing which would not be a wise argument.

Well, I actually would make that argument, but thats really neither here nor there. I was mainly just interested in seeing how the numbders would change. I know that some churches engage in extensive humanitarian work, but I really don't feel that the money necessary for the upkeep of a huge cathedral should be counted as having the same social impact as, say, funding a soup kitchen.

I understand that getting that kind of specific data would prohibitively expensive, but if it were possible it would be interesting to look at.


Do you find their data to be innacurate? I doubt it. Dismissing fact because you don't like the source is a dangerous habit.

Well, I'm inherantly suspicious of any report that give conclusions but leaves out raw data. It raises all kinds of red flags for me, mostly because of my time as slave labor(erm, I mean, "research assistant'). I know that putting in lots of raw data is bad form for an article made for public consumption, but its the internet, it wouldn't be difficult to provide a link to the actual study. I like to look at data myself and draw my own conclusions.

More importantly, Heritage is on my list of organizations that need a certain amount of outside verification. They have a tendancy to play fast and loose with the facts and, like most political think tanks, are often more interested in advancing their point of view than uncovering truth. They are a highly biased source with a definate point of view, which means that they are simply not acceptable as a single source of evidence(especially in the absence of raw data), even if I do happen to agree with them sometimes.

Ahh, that is where you miss an important step - money is taxed when it changes hands - but when a person owns a business and takes the profits of their business it is not changing hands... Hence the double taxation - which is silly.

What? Where do those profits come from then? The spontaneously appear?

What? Where do those profits come from then? The spontaneously appear?

No - they come from the same profits your employer uses to pay you - except your employer does not have to pay tax on them before paying them to you. The taxes are paid by you - not the employer on that income.

Quit trying to be trite while you are learning this. Tax law is a complicated subject that I would not expect the average person to fully understand - but being trite does little to make me want to help you with it.

Exactly what is a share, what is it a share of, and who determines how much of it one must bear?

That's the question for the ages.

No - they come from the same profits your employer uses to pay you - except your employer does not have to pay tax on them before paying them to you. The taxes are paid by you - not the employer on that income.

Quit trying to be trite while you are learning this. Tax law is a complicated subject that I would not expect the average person to fully understand - but being trite does little to make me want to help you with it.

I'm not talking about tax law, and you know it. Quit trying to be condescending. and quit trying to change the subject. Profits are obtained through the exchange of monies, yes or no?

That's the question for the ages.

Thats the question for economists. And Politicians to take heed of their advice and then get elected. Or something like that.

Work in the non-profit or research sectors for awhile then come back and tell me how old money isn't good for society. $1,000,000 wisely invested returns $10,000 each month taxe free. I cannot begin to tell you how many social service, reasearch, mental or community helath, and other non-profits recieve the bulk of their funding from grants fed directly from these investments. A million dollars will pay a million dollars of an organization's operating costs. That same million invested with pay $120,000 of that organization's costs every year forever.

Sure, it isn't economic powerhouse jobs being created, just low-paying positions in socially beneficial foundations. Still, the network of non-profits and private charities that exist today couldn't continue to exist without high return/low risk investments.
And those donations are encouraged by the estate tax.

The article discsusses it - regardless - you would have to argue that churches do not benefit their community in order to dismiss titheing which would not be a wise argument.

Do you find their data to be innacurate? I doubt it. Dismissing fact because you don't like the source is a dangerous habit.



What are you suggesting by this? I'm not following your loging - please explain.

No - Warren's Secretary is NOT at the same tax bracket nor has he ever said she was. I made clear what it was he did say. You have chosen either to ignore it or not understand it.


Since when is any investment 'no risk? Be caureful - you have already demonstrated you have little enough knowledge in this arena to have a valid opinion and risk (or volitility) is a complicated topic you are ill equipped to handle... Regardless of risk - since when does an investment NOT benefit an economy? What is the difference between a 'risk investment' and 'old money'? Your post is complete nonsense written by someone who hasn't a clue what he is talking about.


Taxing the 'dead spots'? WTF is a 'dead spot' of an economy?? My paycheck is a dead spot? My property? My gas? My purchases? Dude - you are really really out of your league. I strongly encourage you to trash your obviously flawed misconceptions and educate yourself on the basics of an economy, taxation and securities. After that you will then be able to formulate an informed and educated opinion on the topic. Until then - "It is better to remain silent and risk looking like a fool than to open your mouth and proove it."



Well, first of all - not all poor people work for minimum wage. Second of all - in spite of being born into poverty more than 50% of people escape it - and without any help from minimum wage. Third of all - if a person does not have the skills to get anything better than a minimum wage job - who's fault is that? They are entitled to 13 years of free education and subsidized eduication beyond that. If they are too foolish to take advantage of theat why would they deserve no more than minimum. That said - minimum wage does serve a purpose and I would not argue the validity of it - I only dispute the arguments most uneducated put for for raising it and the results they expect as a result. Minimum wage does not create nor prevent poverty.
Do you ever make an attempt to explain your position, ideas? Do you ever make an attempt to make a debate, arguement? Or do you just dismiss those who do?

And those donations are encouraged by the estate tax.


Not really, the same schemes that allow you to set up trusts for private foundations allow you to set up trusts for passing on your wealth. A good accountant and a little bit of time can sidestep any law, even if you end up having to wait a few years. Remember, people who have enough money to think ahead and worry about estate taxes are people who have enough money to dodge.

Do you ever make an attempt to explain your position, ideas? Do you ever make an attempt to make a debate, arguement? Or do you just dismiss those who do?

In the vast majority of these things you've qouted I've asked you to clarify your own arguments in a way which leads to the obvious lullification of them. A good debate is not about point and counter point - it is about having good points to begin with. I have clearly demonstrated that nearly allof your points are baseless and irrelevant at worst - or in need of clarification at best.

You may consider it a dismissal when I ask you to clarify a point you have made rather than just accepting it as universal fact, I consider it just good sense. The same goes for asking for a source or proof. I have done so multiple times with nearly every factual statement I have made and certainly when asked to. You have not , in spite of my giving you clear opportunity to.

Now - are you able to clarify your unclear positions and acceed your incorrect ones? If not then YOU are the one who really does not know much about debate.

Not really, the same schemes that allow you to set up trusts for private foundations allow you to set up trusts for passing on your wealth. A good accountant and a little bit of time can sidestep any law, even if you end up having to wait a few years. Remember, people who have enough money to think ahead and worry about estate taxes are people who have enough money to dodge.


Not exactly.

Family foundations and charitable trusts do not sidestep the estate tax. (In fact - charitable trusts are better for avoiding capital gains tax), revocable living trusts do not sidestep estate tax - well, maybe just a little, but not enough to matter to the very affluent. Life insurance trusts do not sidestep estate tax law (any more than life insurance already does), Family limited partnerships have the ability to, but only with a select few types of assets an onerous and ambiguous rules. The various variations of all of these also do little to shelter assets from estate tax while keeping them in the estate.

It is arguable that tax code has much to do with charitable giving. SInce the estate tax exemption was increased in 1997 charitable giving has only increased... 90% of giving is done by live people anyway. (I got that from something called a 'source', Good Lifes, which I posted a link to earlier)

Thats the question for economists. And Politicians to take heed of their advice and then get elected. Or something like that.


Not even the economists can decide on that answer - hence my loaded question earlier. I think it is good fodder for philosophers... (which is why it is so fun to discuss here on NS)

I franky think that everyone who votes should bear part of the responsibility - in other words - everyone should pay tax. Certainly it should be progressive, but everyone should pay. Only then would it be fair for everyone to be able to vote on financial and economic issues. I also think payroll tax collection should be abolished. All people should have to write a check each quarter for their taxes - not just some.

Do just these two things and people will start paying alot more attention the the pork wasted in Washington. In spite of that I do think there needs to be alot more accountability for politicians spending. I dunno - maybe a 'bonus' to their compensation if they pass a balanced budget or something.

The vote was 57-41, three short of the 60 it needed.

I'm very glad, I'm soooo tired of hearing this BS about a "death tax" when it would only affect the top .25%. It's just the obscenely rich trying to get over on us as usual.

Edit: Oops, forgot the link (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-08T160546Z_01_WAT005774_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-TAX-VOTE.xml&archived=False)


Ummm, right. Unjust taxes that only affects a few people are so uninteresting and dreary. Who cares if we rob only the top 1/4% of people. Those obscene bastards deserve to be screwed. This is a democracy afterall - and if we vote to take your money then fuck you - it's ours! Nobody gives a shit about your rights - if you deserve rights we'll vote on it then tell you what they are!

Not even the economists can decide on that answer - hence my loaded question earlier. I think it is good fodder for philosophers... (which is why it is so fun to discuss here on NS)

I franky think that everyone who votes should bear part of the responsibility - in other words - everyone should pay tax. Certainly it should be progressive, but everyone should pay. Only then would it be fair for everyone to be able to vote on financial and economic issues. I also think payroll tax collection should be abolished. All people should have to write a check each quarter for their taxes - not just some.

Do just these two things and people will start paying alot more attention the the pork wasted in Washington. In spite of that I do think there needs to be alot more accountability for politicians spending. I dunno - maybe a 'bonus' to their compensation if they pass a balanced budget or something.


Well firstly I'd say economists are going to be more pragmatic and more accurate that philosophers (who often don't even look into reality). Keynes had some sense and it’s up to the economists to figure out when such measures like, tax cuts, investment in public services and other things will actually improve the economy and stimulate growth etc..

If it’s progressive tax than surely the unemployed or extremely poor would have nothing to give. Frankly I'd see it as far too much bureaucracy to attempt to tax the extremely poor (like the under 10,000 a year earners). Frankly with the paper work and tax collector follow up I dare to say the government might actually make a loss on this. In an attempt to make an unemployed man pay his £20 tax to give him a stake in the billions the government controls.

Your 3rd idea scares me significantly. There are occasions when budgets are stretched to control boom and bust and unforeseen circumstances. I think the qualified people in office should aim to have a balanced budget of course but we can't reward the people who have circumstances that allow for it and punish those who have no choice (who may actually do something not in the economies best interest to get bonus compensation)

The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.

The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.

Gee - did you get that from a fortune cookie? Nah - it's not good enough for afortune cookie. I've had better things stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

Instead of cheezy soundbites try posting something of substanse with a logical premise, assumption or summary backed with rational sources and justification.

Well firstly I'd say economists are going to be more pragmatic and more accurate that philosophers (who often don't even look into reality). Keynes had some sense and it’s up to the economists to figure out when such measures like, tax cuts, investment in public services and other things will actually improve the economy and stimulate growth etc..

If it’s progressive tax than surely the unemployed or extremely poor would have nothing to give. Frankly I'd see it as far too much bureaucracy to attempt to tax the extremely poor (like the under 10,000 a year earners). Frankly with the paper work and tax collector follow up I dare to say the government might actually make a loss on this. In an attempt to make an unemployed man pay his £20 tax to give him a stake in the billions the government controls.

Your 3rd idea scares me significantly. There are occasions when budgets are stretched to control boom and bust and unforeseen circumstances. I think the qualified people in office should aim to have a balanced budget of course but we can't reward the people who have circumstances that allow for it and punish those who have no choice (who may actually do something not in the economies best interest to get bonus compensation)
My first point was more of a figure of speech. Thoguth it does touch on the similarity between economists and philosophers... The 2nd point is also more philosophical. It addresses the fact that roughly 50% of taxpayors pay little to no income tax yet control half of the spending authority (votes). The fact that there are those with very low incomes does not negate anything. It is also not a discussion of 'netting' the most for the governmenet as it is seeing that everyone pays a fair share - with the first two words being most important.

The last one was just a stab in the dark - hence I said 'I dunno". I really have no strong feelings one way or another beyond the fact that accountability is currently far too low.

The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.

I don't like that particular justification. Surely the rich can fend for themselves and flourish on their own. Its the poorer/middle class that get the special advantages of education, healthcare, council houses etc.. that wouldn't be avalible to them without the help of the state.

Gee - did you get that from a fortune cookie? Nah - it's not good enough for afortune cookie. I've had better things stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

Instead of cheezy soundbites try posting something of substanse with a logical premise, assumption or summary backed with rational sources and justification.
From a president of the United States, no less. The rich have a greater debt to society because of the protection given to them by the country. Infrastructure and the military ain't free, and if not for these they wouldn't be able to make any money (when was the last time you saw a fantastically wealthy non-warlord in Somalia).

That and I see no real reason why Paris Hilton should be able to gain large amounts of money for doing nothing. Nothing is worse than the idle socialite.

From a president of the United States, no less.
Ooohoh. I am sooo corrected. Everyone knows that all president are fountains of sheer wisdom. Particularly the unnamed ones.


The rich have a greater debt to society because of the protection given to them by the country.
Their 'debt' is no more than anyone elses since all that is 'guarded' is rights and freedoms - which are constitutionally equal to everyone.

Infrastructure and the military ain't free, and if not for these they wouldn't be able to make any money (when was the last time you saw a fantastically wealthy non-warlord in Somalia).
So only the wealthy get to use these things? That's a pretty lame argument. Military and infrastructure do not create wealth - at least not in a free society. Nobody woke up one day and say "Hey, we're the military of the strongest nation in the world. We need a really really rich IT guy, Let's call my good buddy Bill Gates and make him rich". Bill did that using his own talents. He never had access to any other public services than the rest of us. Same for the vast majority of all other affluent.

That and I see no real reason why Paris Hilton should be able to gain large amounts of money for doing nothing. Nothing is worse than the idle socialite.Well now you're just being a jealous crybaby - that's more ugly than the HIlton lifestyle. Maybe she should be locked up with everyone else who has ever decended from someone who earned more money than your parents. Hell - lets lock up everyone who earns lots of money doing 'easy' jobs too while we're at it. We'll start with currency hedgers... or maybe anyone nemed Kennedy...


oh, and what bhbs said too.. 'ditto'.

Ooohoh. I am sooo corrected. Everyone knows that all president are fountains of sheer wisdom. Particularly the unnamed ones.

Teddy Roosevelt.


Their 'debt' is no more than anyone elses since all that is 'guarded' is rights and freedoms - which are constitutionally equal to everyone.

So only the wealthy get to use these things? That's a pretty lame argument. Military and infrastructure do not create wealth - at least not in a free society. Nobody woke up one day and say "Hey, we're the military of the strongest nation in the world. We need a really really rich IT guy, Let's call my good buddy Bill Gates and make him rich". Bill did that using his own talents. He never had access to any other public services than the rest of us. Same for the vast majority of all other affluent.
Well now you're just being a jealous crybaby - that's more ugly than the HIlton lifestyle. Maybe she should be locked up with everyone else who has ever decended from someone who earned more money than your parents. Hell - lets lock up everyone who earns lots of money doing 'easy' jobs too while we're at it. We'll start with currency hedgers... or maybe anyone nemed Kennedy...


oh, and what bhbs said too.. 'ditto'.
The wealthy gain the most. People are poor everywhere, but without a military or infrastructure, there would be no Gates, there would be no Hilton, there would be no Kennedy. That said, I have no particular qualms with making money, I just have one with giving it to those who are undeserving in the whole. Nothing is worse than the lazy rich. So tax them when they die, say 20% of the total estate, leaving them more then enough to 'live' off of (as if 8 million isn't enough to live off of) on estates worth more then 10 or so million.

I franky think that everyone who votes should bear part of the responsibility - in other words - everyone should pay tax. Certainly it should be progressive, but everyone should pay. Only then would it be fair for everyone to be able to vote on financial and economic issues.
Then let's make the tax progressive as it was in the preReagan years. Maybe not as high but the top bracket shouldn't be so low that a large proportion would pay it.

Maybe inheritence tax should also be progressive.

!% of the first million

10% of 1 mil to 20 mil

15 % of 20 mil to 50 mil

25% of 50 mil to 100 mil

30% of 100 mil to 500 mil

50 % of 500 mil to 750 mil

and 75% af anything over 750 mil.

Then let's make the tax progressive as it was in the preReagan years. Maybe not as high but the top bracket shouldn't be so low that a large proportion would pay it.

Maybe inheritence tax should also be progressive.

!% of the first million

10% of 1 mil to 20 mil

15 % of 20 mil to 50 mil

25% of 50 mil to 100 mil

30% of 100 mil to 500 mil

50 % of 500 mil to 750 mil

and 75% af anything over 750 mil.

Nope - estate taxes are the worst of all taxes. They are double taxation creating a federal penalty for dieing. I frankly think death is bad enough as it is.

A more progressive income tax, however, is justified. Eliminate the zero tax threshold and the standard deduction (and most others).

2% to 10,000
3% next 20,000
4% next 50,000
10% next 50,000
15% next 50,000
20% next 50,000
25% next 50,000
30% above.

Nope - estate taxes are the worst of all taxes. They are double taxation creating a federal penalty for dieing. I frankly think death is bad enough as it is.

A more progressive income tax, however, is justified. Eliminate the zero tax threshold and the standard deduction (and most others).

2% to 10,000
3% next 20,000
4% next 50,000
10% next 50,000
15% next 50,000
20% next 50,000
25% next 50,000
30% above.
First of all, every penny made in this country is taxed multiple times on its way through the system, so please bury the "double taxation" complaint. But secondly, how are estate taxes double taxation on the part of the person who made the money? That person is dead--he or she is not being taxed--the heirs are. But they didn't build the estate, did they? They're inheriting it. So why should they be exempt? Besides, if it's such a burden, there's an easy solution--transfer the assets to the heirs before the person dies.

Teddy Roosevelt.
link


The wealthy gain the most. People are poor everywhere, but without a military or infrastructure, there would be no Gates, there would be no Hilton, there would be no Kennedy.

That is silly. You seem to not know the difference between creating wealth and defending the freedom to pursue it or encouraging an environment which is conduisive or can enable it.


That said, I have no particular qualms with making money, I just have one with giving it to those who are undeserving in the whole.
Like welfare bums? Social Security bums? Who, exactly, are you saying is receiving money and who is doing the giving?

Nothing is worse than the lazy rich.

There you go again being a jealous crybaby. It is quite unbecoming. You are free to be judgemental, but don't presume to use the government as a tool to punish indiscriminatly those who have more than you just because you are jealous.

So tax them when they die, say 20% of the total estate, leaving them more then enough to 'live' off of (as if 8 million isn't enough to live off of) on estates worth more then 10 or so million.

I see - you think theft is acceptable also? Go ahead and mug George Soros. AFterall - he'll have plenty left over afterwords. Heres a clue - regardless of how much someone may have left over afterwords does not make taking their property moral or ethical. Not even if you don't like their work ethic.

That and I see no real reason why Paris Hilton should be able to gain large amounts of money for doing nothing. Nothing is worse than the idle socialite.

I dunno, it keeps the con-men, giggalos, and luxury markets chugging along quite nicely. There will always be people who come along to bleed some money from the idle rich, I don't see why the spoils shouldn't come to the people smart(or charismatic) enough to claim it for themselves. Sure, you could take all the money and channel it into massive social programs, but in general I think its going to do more good in the hands of people earned it themselves rather than people who were just handed a grant.

So tax them when they die, say 20% of the total estate, leaving them more then enough to 'live' off of (as if 8 million isn't enough to live off of) on estates worth more then 10 or so million.

Thats the idea behind all tax plans. Meanwhile, time continues, inflation devalues real wealth, median wages increase, the general standard of living increases, and ten or fifteen years down the road the same argument breaks out with the same people over whether or not the cap should be raised. During that process, the upper-middle class who happen to die at an unwise time get squeezed. Further, the rates always climb as the government becomes used to the income.

Think about the income tax. When it was first passed only individuals earning the equivilent of $57,551.02($3000.00) a year if single or $76,734.70($4000.00) if married or more were taxed at all, and those people paid 1% of the amount over the cut off. The richest people paid 7%, but that bracket didn't start until you were earning the equivilent of $9,591,836.93. Most states have higher tax rates today. Face it, the people who get squeezed today are the middle class: the poor don't make enough to be taxed and the wealthy feel their tax burden, but not in the same way as a plumber who makes $50,000.00 a year.

What have we gotten in the way of government services since those raises? Quite a bit of regulation, sure, superhighways(though theres no reason those couldn't be upkept through usage taxes), more pork than you can shake a stick at, and the military. The major social programs(medicare/social security) are paid mainly by usages taxes. So you end up with all that money going to regulation(everything from blocking the OTC morning after pill to a war on drugs that makes ours the industrialised nation with the highest per-capita incarceration rate), pork, and a military so large that every president since WWII has had the urge to engage in interventionist policy. Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Grenada, both Iraqs, the Balkan conflicts, thats your tax dollars at work.

If you want to argue that the wealth should be penalized for being wealthy, fine, make that argument, but don't presume to say that somehow that wealth is being used to make the country a better place. Its being used as a toy for wealthy people popular enough to get elected to public office. You are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, you're stealing from the rich and giving to the rich hoping that some of it might be left over for the poor after all the pet projects are completed.

link

http://www.google.com/search?q=The+man+of+great+wealth+owes+a+peculiar+obligation+to+the+State%2C+because+he+derives+speci al+advantages+from+the+mere+existence+of+government.&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Have fun Boz.


That is silly. You seem to not know the difference between creating wealth and defending the freedom to pursue it or encouraging an environment which is conduisive or can enable it.

Defending that freedom costs large amounts of money. They gain the most from the environment, they should pay the most for it.

Like welfare bums? Social Security bums? Who, exactly, are you saying is receiving money and who is doing the giving?

The factory worker, management, hell, I'd even give it to another Gates or Buffet.

There you go again being a jealous crybaby. It is quite unbecoming. You are free to be judgemental, but don't presume to use the government as a tool to punish indiscriminatly those who have more than you just because you are jealous.

There you go defending the unbridled and quite disgusting consumption of the likes of Paris Hilton. You wish to use government to protect the rich at any cost, damn what is right or proper.

I see - you think theft is acceptable also? Go ahead and mug George Soros. AFterall - he'll have plenty left over afterwords. Heres a clue - regardless of how much someone may have left over afterwords does not make taking their property moral or ethical. Not even if you don't like their work ethic.
Taxation and making them pay for their privilage of living in our country is not theft.

Nope - estate taxes are the worst of all taxes. They are double taxation creating a federal penalty for dieing. I frankly think death is bad enough as it is.

A more progressive income tax, however, is justified. Eliminate the zero tax threshold and the standard deduction (and most others).

2% to 10,000
3% next 20,000
4% next 50,000
10% next 50,000
15% next 50,000
20% next 50,000
25% next 50,000
30% above.

What about 0% up to the first million, indexed to the CPI, then regular applicable income tax on the rest with up to two allowances made for land.

http://www.google.com/search?q=The+man+of+great+wealth+owes+a+peculiar+obligation+to+the+State%2C+because+he+derives+speci al+advantages+from+the+mere+existence+of+government.&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Have fun Boz.

Thanks - finally.

Defending that freedom costs large amounts of money. They gain the most from the environment, they should pay the most for it.
The environment does not create their wealth - their labor, risk taking and ideas did. The environment is no more responsible for their wealth than the water which they drink from the same well as everyone else.

first=That said, I have no particular qualms with making money, I just have one with giving it to those who are undeserving in the whole.

second=The factory worker, management, hell, I'd even give it to another Gates or Buffet.
I'm still not following you here...

There you go defending the unbridled and quite disgusting consumption of the likes of Paris Hilton. You wish to use government to protect the rich at any cost, damn what is right or proper.
Oh, I think I see - you feel the government should restrict the lifestiles which you do not think are wholesome and good - just like the crowd trying to ban gay marriage. Right?

Taxation and making them pay for their privilage of living in our country is not theft. " Making them pay for the priviledge of living in our country.." Similar to the illegal immigration debate, right? Treating one class of citizens differently from everyone else IS the American way afterall!

What about 0% up to the first million, indexed to the CPI, then regular applicable income tax on the rest with up to two allowances made for land.

I was discussing income tax, not estate tax - which is not only immoral - it is also pretty close to what you describe (starting in 2011). I frankly think Capital Gains tax is more fair and the stepped up cost basis is what should be abolished.