• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never said that there is no wealth that should not be passed on to the next generation. I said it should be taxed..... much like we tax income.

You have the right to think what you want about peoples motivations - however, I do not think the thought of someone having to pay a tax on a fortune of amassing tens of millions of dollars is going to stop them from amassing that fortune.

When I die and pass on my corvette, and my house, on to my kids, I don't want them to have to pay a tax on something that is to be their "start" in life, so to speak. Gifts should not be taxable. it's wrong.
 
When I die and pass on my corvette, and my house, on to my kids, I don't want them to have to pay a tax on something that is to be their "start" in life, so to speak. Gifts should not be taxable. it's wrong.

If it is under a couple million you have nothing to worry about
 
While I feel bad for the situation you and the folks you write about are in, what did anyone think they could do with a English lit degree?

The English Lit degree was one of the persons. Keep in mind...speaking of "35 years ago" like the person I was talking to...you could find a job with and English Lit Degree. Not everybody can be MBA's, Engineers or Scientist. I have no idea your age range but I'm sure if that was the case when you graduated there would be a lot of people in dire straits!

This economy stinks, but it has been bottoming out for the last 30 years, propped up by personal and government debt until that could not rise any more. Why aren't people protesting about free trade. Obama promised us fair trade where is it. Without fair trade we send our manufacturing jobs overseas and instead wind up with service sector jobs like the kind you find yourself in.

The whole corrption thing fits into that. As of right now, with no protesting, who do you vote for protecting American workers? The only thing our Congress can do with true bi-partisanship right now is shove through Free trade agreements. That' corporate money, not voters. Shipping job overseas is the one thing that pretty much unites both parties but apparently contributions trump voter concerns.

When will the public stop being led like sheep by one party or the other. This new rally is just the Democratic response of the tea party.

The Democratic party is not anti-Wall Street. I disagree with this.
 
I agree. And unemployment isn't the issue with my age group and younger, college grad crowd. The issue is the fact that, with my last job I had, I ran a crappy little restaurant, my dishwasher had a 4 year degree in english lit, or something like that, one of my servers had a 4 year in psychology, and is now working on her masters, so she continue to be a sever, one of my cashiers had 4 year in business managment, and I myslef have a 4 year degree. NOT in restaurant management. I hire these people because, of all the applications I get (which are a LOT, consistently), if I had to choose, I'll choose the folks that had the brains and determination to finish out their degrees in college, over people largely untested and unverifiable until AFTER hiring. You know? And now I'm outa work, because that place went under, and I've been looking for work for the past 3 months and a week. I have a part time job, at BJ's wholesale club, in the meat dept. But that only supliments unemployment. I need at least 43,000 a year, give or take, in order to really be ok. I need at LEAST 37,000 a year just to keep me and my family in the black. The extra is for college for the kids, retirement, and god forbid I ever want to be able to afford a car should one of mine breaks down. And personally, I consider myself much more fortunate than most.

Amen dude, I had the GI Bill so got through with virtually no student loan debt (don't know your case) but that adds a whole other dynamic to leaving school and not being able to find a job.
 
You still fail to respond to respond to what I said to YOU. I understand you are old and feeble so I will respectfully repeat my assertion. That is that for generations we have had as aspirational society that as a basis meant that one generation strove in order that their children would be in a better place.

You seem to indicate that there is no level of wealth that should be passed along from generation to generation. I say that doing this would make it less likely for middle that have made it to the middle class or a bit beyond will be motivated to work a few more years to build a nest egg that will eventually go to the government.

Now you can either respond or keep the nonsense and have mindless knuckleheads "like" another non response.

AFAIK no one is proposing that we should have a 100% estate tax for all bequests. In 2009, fewer than 15,000 estates in the whole country paid any tax at all.

We are in a situation where, for the first time, the next generation, and perhaps the next generation after that, will do less well than the preceding generation. And it has nothing to do with estate taxes. It has to do with putting personal greed above the public welfare.
 
That is the subject, raising taxes on the rich when the rich pay most of the taxes now and 47% of income earners pay nothing in FIT. You are the one running so either answer the question or just admit that you are a troll

You are the one always accusing others of citing trite talking points. Now, sir, you are the guilty party. This 47% paying no income tax is a favorite of Hannity. Its an effective sound bite, but its so easy for someone with a little intelligence to peel back the veneer.

Lets start with the misstatement that 47% of income earners pay no taxes. Its not income earners, but households. Income earners are a subset of households. Households include the unemployed, retired persons, the disabled and even entrepreneurs (those that are starting small businesses that have no income... of which, BTW, I am one)

Let's go to step two, which requires some understanding of income taxes, which unfortunately very few people understand (including most people currently in this debate). In the 30+ years that I have been somewhat knowledgeable about income taxation (since earning my CPA), income taxes have been focused on discretionary income, not wage income. This is why we have exemptions, standard deductions and credits... so that individuals and families have the income needed for their basic necessities exempt from taxation. The fact that 47% of households have no income liability means that 47% of American households have no discretionary income.

Sorry, but the lower income group has been disproportionately hit by this recession. You want them to pay more taxes, then fix the economy... not just the recession, but the economy that has increasingly favored the very wealthy over the working class in the distribution of the nation's wealth. This Mexicifaction of America trend, if not corrected, will lead to the collapse of our system.





I'm not certain of your point in all this. Do you think this group of people actually is actually stockpiling money? Do you think raising their taxes will move that money from their large bank accounts to fix our deficit issue? Have you ever tried raising a family on $50,000 per year (today's money)? Don't you realize they already pay a much, much higher percentage of their income in sales, payroll tax and use tax then those that have actually done well in this economy? Sorry, but your "let's get blood from a stone" rant is somewhere between ignorant to immoral.Wealth disparity in US.jpg
 
Last edited:
Like practicing free speech? I'm sure glad the founders found the time from their busy schedules (lawyers, doctors, shop owners) for political action.

employed professionals aren't the ones out there smelling like something out of the swamp
 
AFAIK no one is proposing that we should have a 100% estate tax for all bequests. In 2009, fewer than 15,000 estates in the whole country paid any tax at all.

We are in a situation where, for the first time, the next generation, and perhaps the next generation after that, will do less well than the preceding generation. And it has nothing to do with estate taxes. It has to do with putting personal greed above the public welfare.

the estate tax is pure greed
 
If it is under a couple million you have nothing to worry about

Yet. The problem is, you give a mouse a cookie, it's gonna ask for a glass of milk. Our income didn't used to get taxed in this country. Then it was, but only temporarily. Until, of course, it wasn't temporary. But they only took 2%, and that from income $4,000 or over. Until they decided they needed more. Then they took more.

The death tax only applies to holdings that are worth in excess of 1 million. But here's the rub. An average house, 45 years ago, only cost, what, 10 grand? My house, two years ago, after the bubble burst, cost me 145,000. Wanna guess what THAT will be in 45 years? And, in 45 years, I'll wager my house that they'll be after more than just "in excess of 1 million".
 
And exception doesn't invalidate the rule. I'de say it's 50/50, though. With new money and old money. And the absolute, balls out richest people...were BORN that way.

Well sorry that fact gets in the way of a nice narrative but lets look at the richest people, Bill Gates, warren Buffet the guy from facebook even a lot of the hedge fund guys did not come from very rich families. Oh, Steve Jobs. Of course there are the people like Senator Kerry who married into the ketchup family and the Waltons from Wal-Mart.

We have a bad few years, but people should not give up on the opportunities afforded in this great nation.
 
I never said that there is no wealth that should not be passed on to the next generation. I said it should be taxed..... much like we tax income.

You have the right to think what you want about peoples motivations - however, I do not think the thought of someone having to pay a tax on a fortune of amassing tens of millions of dollars is going to stop them from amassing that fortune.

This is probably going to amaze you but I agree that at a certain level there should be taxes on estates. From what I took out of your prior postings was that you wanted to confiscate all of whatever is left of my estate.
 
... said the trust fund baby.

Ah poor Adam-still mad that your parents weren't productive? parasitic envy is pathetic
 
When I die and pass on my corvette, and my house, on to my kids, I don't want them to have to pay a tax on something that is to be their "start" in life, so to speak. Gifts should not be taxable. it's wrong.

the value of those gifts would normally not qualify for an estate tax.
 
Yet YOU have time to post here all day....

stop your bloodclot lying

I post early in the morning-maybe a couple posts per week during lunch and at night

usually after 7 though I took a couple hours of leave today and started earlier
 
This is probably going to amaze you but I agree that at a certain level there should be taxes on estates. From what I took out of your prior postings was that you wanted to confiscate all of whatever is left of my estate.

I am glad we understand each other and have some common ground.
 
No, its one of the most effective forms of taxation. Why concentrate capital with those that have not earned it? That seems so un-free enterprise...

another moronic lie. the compliance and avoidance costs are higher than the revenues. its a most inefficient tax that was never designed to really raise revenue but was a progressive wet dream in the days before really progressive income taxes

WTF did the government do to earn it and the people most affected by this parasitic tax are those who ALREADY PAY FAR MORE TAXES THAN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

I also note that the parasite mentality does not want to apply this tax to everyone even though the moronic argument of "not earning it" is even more applicable to people who don't pay much or any income tax
 
Well sorry that fact gets in the way of a nice narrative but lets look at the richest people, Bill Gates, warren Buffet the guy from facebook even a lot of the hedge fund guys did not come from very rich families. Oh, Steve Jobs. Of course there are the people like Senator Kerry who married into the ketchup family and the Waltons from Wal-Mart.

We have a bad few years, but people should not give up on the opportunities afforded in this great nation.

There was an exhaustive article written about this very thing some time ago, in the NY Times, maybe I'll be able to find it tomorow. Anyway, it dealt with the fact that these people on the Forbes richest list ALLOWED themselves to be on this list. To put it another way, they are only legally the public's "richest" list. There is something to the tune of 2 trillion in value of holdings not reported, not in the US. For instance, the reporter found that there was a drug kingpin who would have actually made it into the top 30, or something like that, and then there were those who simply don't allow their holdings and net worth to be recorded for public record, as is their right to do so. And from the article, it was believed that these richest people come from old families. People who have ties back to europe, but moved here after the revolution. It was actually a good read. I'll see if I can dig it up.
 
another moronic lie. the compliance and avoidance costs are higher than the revenues. its a most inefficient tax that was never designed to really raise revenue but was a progressive wet dream in the days before really progressive income taxes

WTF did the government do to earn it and the people most affected by this parasitic tax are those who ALREADY PAY FAR MORE TAXES THAN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

I also note that the parasite mentality does not want to apply this tax to everyone even though the moronic argument of "not earning it" is even more applicable to people who don't pay much or any income tax

It was progressive the purpose wasn't to raise capital. It was the fact you basically had a US aristocracy forming and that was considered anti-Democratic. Drive through Rhode Island and check out the row of mansions that belonged to the moneyed class of the robber baron period. Most of these mansions were built by heir and heriess of mega fortunes that were passed down generations.

I'm sorry, but when you have lots of capital it's realitively easy to gain more capital at a quick rate. Just the law of compound interests can prove that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom