Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 90

Thread: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

  1. #61
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I explained the practical justification for the estate tax. I'm not going to debate your morality because there's really nothing to debate; you've just decided that it's "unfair" and there's not much I can say to get you to change your opinion. If you want to discuss it from a practical/pragmatic/economic standpoint, let me know.
    Look, it's government theft okay? Just call it what it is.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #62
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Look, it's government theft okay? Just call it what it is.
    This is exactly what I'm talking about.
    You say it's "government theft," I say "nuh-uh." You say it's "unfair," I say "nuh-uh." That's why I generally avoid these childish moralistic debates about fiscal policy, as they ultimately just boil down to your opinion rather than any critical thinking about the policy in question. The economic debate is much more interesting: I show you why I think the estate tax is beneficial, you show me why you don't, and we discuss it.

    But I guess just stamping your feet and crying about government theft is easier than actually examining the policy in question, and whether or not the economic rationale for it makes sense.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 12-10-10 at 06:20 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #63
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    Last Seen
    06-20-11 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    107

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Hell to the yes.
    Hell Yes, But where are the Jobs, Are they planning to ship them back to America from Over Seas ???
    We all know by now that Jobs do not Fall from the Sky like Rain !!! And when a Job by chance falls an updated Robot Machine has a better chance of getting it then any Human Being !!!

  4. #64
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,072

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Looks like Obama brought on Bill Clinton to sell it for him, and Obama bails on it right in the middle of the press conference.

    LOL

    RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama Ditches Tax Cut Presser After Bill Clinton Takes Control

  5. #65
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    Last Seen
    06-20-11 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    107

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    A poll showed that a good number of people want to do just that. Doubt it'll happen though. We're too soft.
    Ah Yeah, we are too soft, but not in the right places, Too Soft on the Rich and Greedy. Too Hard on the Poor and Needy !!!

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,914

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Erod... and you see this as important?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #67
    pawn in the game of life
    pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,984

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is exactly what I'm talking about.
    You say it's "government theft," I say "nuh-uh." You say it's "unfair," I say "nuh-uh." That's why I generally avoid these childish moralistic debates about fiscal policy, as they ultimately just boil down to your opinion rather than any critical thinking about the policy in question. The economic debate is much more interesting: I show you why I think the estate tax is beneficial, you show me why you don't, and we discuss it.

    But I guess just stamping your feet and crying about government theft is easier than actually examining the policy in question, and whether or not the economic rationale for it makes sense.
    It does seem like "confiscation" would be a more appropriate word here than theft. They have a law wrapped around it so it is at least officially legal.

    One of the problems with the estate tax is that for the most part the taxes have already been paid on those assets. (property tax, income tax, capital gains tax). How many times is morally acceptable for the taxman to keep dipping in the same pot??

    On the other hand there is an element of the issue that this really isn't a "death tax". The tax is actually being absorbed by the heir (not the deceased), more in the realm of a "gift tax". A little different but still a tax to be exploited and abused by the insatiable government appetite for money.

    Anyway you look at it. Governments as a whole are tax crazy. They get their piece of every touchpoint of every payment/purchase/transaction/transfer/consumption we do anywhere/everywhere in our existance. Morbidly pathetic....


    .


    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

  8. #68
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    It does seem like "confiscation" would be a more appropriate word here than theft. They have a law wrapped around it so it is at least officially legal.

    One of the problems with the estate tax is that for the most part the taxes have already been paid on those assets. (property tax, income tax, capital gains tax). How many times is morally acceptable for the taxman to keep dipping in the same pot??

    On the other hand there is an element of the issue that this really isn't a "death tax". The tax is actually being absorbed by the heir (not the deceased), more in the realm of a "gift tax". A little different but still a tax to be exploited and abused by the insatiable government appetite for money.

    Anyway you look at it. Governments as a whole are tax crazy. They get their piece of every touchpoint of every payment/purchase/transaction/transfer/consumption we do anywhere/everywhere in our existance. Morbidly pathetic....
    I agree that the tax code should be simplified and there should be fewer different types of taxes. But the estate tax is not one of them that needs to be eliminated. I would support eliminating payroll taxes and increasing income taxes accordingly. I would support eliminating corporate taxes and treating capital gains as normal income. And I would support eliminating most income tax deductions and reducing income taxes accordingly.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 12-10-10 at 07:25 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #69
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is exactly what I'm talking about.
    You say it's "government theft," I say "nuh-uh." You say it's "unfair," I say "nuh-uh." That's why I generally avoid these childish moralistic debates about fiscal policy, as they ultimately just boil down to your opinion rather than any critical thinking about the policy in question. The economic debate is much more interesting: I show you why I think the estate tax is beneficial, you show me why you don't, and we discuss it.

    But I guess just stamping your feet and crying about government theft is easier than actually examining the policy in question, and whether or not the economic rationale for it makes sense.
    By what right does the government take 35% or the proposed 45% due to the death of a person? When you cite the law, I'll still call it theft. There's nothing that a person did in their life to justify the government coming in and for the sole reason the person died, to steal 35% or 45% or whatever percentage it turns out to be. It would be just as ludicrous for say a fart tax. Everyone dies everyone farts. So the government comes in and says, Mr. Ockham, were installing a sensor on your body such that it senses when you fart and you'll be charged $2 each time. "Why?" I ask. "Because we want to and because it's your duty to pay taxes - ANY tax we want, no matter how stupid or idiotic". That's how I see the death tax. I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with the government stealing ANY amount of money from anyone as long as it's not you. That's the way progressives are.

    So you cry and moan and pitch fits when money people earn is kept, instead of going into one big nice socialist slush fund where all the good big government boys and girls get to roll around and bask in the glory that is big government. What makes econonic sense is STOP ****ING SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T ****ING HAVE. But no, instead of that, you'd rather tax people because they died and for no other reason.

    That is theft - stealing - robbery. You call it crying, I call it the truth.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #70
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    By what right does the government take 35% or the proposed 45% due to the death of a person? When you cite the law, I'll still call it theft. There's nothing that a person did in their life to justify the government coming in and for the sole reason the person died, to steal 35% or 45% or whatever percentage it turns out to be. It would be just as ludicrous for say a fart tax. Everyone dies everyone farts. So the government comes in and says, Mr. Ockham, were installing a sensor on your body such that it senses when you fart and you'll be charged $2 each time. "Why?" I ask. "Because we want to and because it's your duty to pay taxes - ANY tax we want, no matter how stupid or idiotic". That's how I see the death tax. I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with the government stealing ANY amount of money from anyone as long as it's not you. That's the way progressives are.

    So you cry and moan and pitch fits when money people earn is kept, instead of going into one big nice socialist slush fund where all the good big government boys and girls get to roll around and bask in the glory that is big government. What makes econonic sense is STOP ****ING SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T ****ING HAVE. But no, instead of that, you'd rather tax people because they died and for no other reason.

    That is theft - stealing - robbery. You call it crying, I call it the truth.
    We don't pay taxes because the government wants us to. We pay taxes because the founders kept bitching about no taxation without representation. Maybe you should take it up with them. I doubt however you'll go on a long rant about Jefferson and Washington being theives.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •