• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to say what is the proper use of an estate established whatever the purpose. It could be charity or it could be to provide a better life for ones children.

I know a bunch of people who have continued to work to save enough so their children would be fine. In one instance the person has a child is autistic. He and his wife have been thinking about the well being of their child for much of their adult life, sad. He can stop working when he has enough money not only for his savings but also to insure his child will have somewhere to libe and pay for whomever will take care of him.

You should also know that what this does is create a sort of full employment deal for tax accountants and lawyers. People who have saved any real money will find ways to legally skip generations through trusts etc.

The people who usually really get screwed by this type of tax is someone who has most of his/her assets in a profitable small business. Oftentimes those businesses have to be sold off because of the tax.

It would be great if people thought through real issues versus spewing slanted dogma when talking about things that impact people's lives.

You do bring up a good point about a successful small to medium size business. If/when the government is entitled to 30-40% at the death of the owner, that business would be challenged to survive. On a similar note, a large family farm would face having to be parsed out to accommodate a large estate tax bill.

Never read the details of how the proposed estate tax legislation is written. Would hope they have a lot of exceptions to account for those type situations....:thinking


.
 
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....


.
Mobidly pathetic you say ?? Maybe ? But let's not be Silly Now !!!
Somebody has got to pay for all the Social Services we receive... For example: The building of Hospitals, Schools and Universities, ect. The USA Military, Air Force, Marines, Polices and Firemans ect. Bridges, Roads and Infrastructure of all sort ect. Research and Development in Medicines and Resources ect. ect.... Need I say more ??

Connect the Dots and Think about the Consequences... The Americas is only One Step ahead of a Third World Status as of Today!!!
 
It voting on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Essentially it is a vote to prevent taxes from rising. It's not a tax cut, it's a prevention of increasing taxes.
 
It depends on the state of the economy, and how wide the tax brackets are. If I was in charge of setting income tax brackets, they'd probably look something like this:

For a family of 4:
Under $20K: -40%
$20K to $250K: 25%
Over $250K: 40%

Those are just back-of-the-envelope estimates that seem about right to me; I didn't actually calculate how they'd affect the budget.
And after the economy recovered a bit, I'd probably raise the top bracket to around 45%.



That's a pretty silly reason for opposing a policy.

a 15% jump then nothing after 250K

I would reject that completely
 
It voting on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Essentially it is a vote to prevent taxes from rising. It's not a tax cut, it's a prevention of increasing taxes.

that makes no sense
 
Last edited:
How? Please explain to me. Is it not voting to extend the Bush tax cuts for another 2 years?

your grammar reeked but I got your point-you are correct. its a vote to extend the Bush tax rates (which got rid of the Clinton tax HIKES) for another two years.
 
your grammar reeked but I got your point-you are correct. its a vote to extend the Bush tax rates (which got rid of the Clinton tax HIKES) for another two years.

Forgive me for leaving out the word "is." I've taken 2 final exams today.
 
Forgive me for leaving out the word "is." I've taken 2 final exams today.

That which does not kill you makes you stronger
 
Oh I get it... if taxes expire... it's a tax hike... if they are maintained it's not a tax cut even though we are continuing a tax cut...

If you don't get a raise next year, was did you get a salary cut? Or, did you salary just not go up?
 
Oh I get it... if taxes expire... it's a tax hike... if they are maintained it's not a tax cut even though we are continuing a tax cut...




taxes have already been cut. If they "expire" taxes will be raised. If it is extended. no one is getting a "cut", they will be paying the same. Wordplay is fun! :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom