• 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!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

Right and if the tax burdens and regulations are too high, it makes it harder for entrepreneurs to do what they do best; especially rookie entrepreneurs who aren't as liquid.

People that start businesses do not pay income tax..... In fact, the higher the marginal rate, the more the benefit to the entrepreneur in starting the business, as the tax breaks associated with starting a business are worth more, but that is an esoteric sidebar.

About the last thing an entrepreneur is concerned about is income taxes. You start a business because you see a demand for your product/service. You expand that business because you see continued demand or demand for tangential services or in tangential markets. Taxes are about as far on the horizon of entrepreneurial decision-making as a cruise ship.
 
Last edited:
Please explain why that's anything other than a semantic difference. What's consequential in your distinction?

Because he and a few others don't want it called 'death tax', that's all.
 
Not all people are cut out for running a business or starting from scratch. Even DeLorean couldn't make it work because he bit off more than he could chew.

I think 'more than he could snort' might have played a bit more into that one.
 
That $800 was over a decade - $80B per year - not NOW as you asserted. The Dems tried to get the Repos to even agree to that much and they wouldn't. As the article said, "Boehner refused to embrace that figure" in November.


Like I said, your claim is bull.

You obviously did not understand.

The one asking for spending increases... Democrats. They got $800B now.

The one asking for spending cuts... Republicans. They got $800B over 10 years.

I would refuse to embrace that reficulous figure also.
 
You're not required to accept the bequest. You're confused, the beneficiary doesn't pay the Death Tax. The estate pays the Death Tax.
I knew the "estate" paid the estate tax, I guess it was the options I had forgotten. Dad died in 1987 so it's been awhile.
 
Last edited:
You obviously did not understand.

The one asking for spending increases... Democrats. They got $800B now.

The one asking for spending cuts... Republicans. They got $800B over 10 years.

I would refuse to embrace that reficulous figure also.
What? No one was asking for spending increases. It was a matter of tax increases and spending cuts. Are you drunk or something?
 
People that start businesses do not pay income tax..... In fact, the higher the marginal rate, the more the benefit to the entrepreneur in starting the business, as the tax breaks associated with starting a business are worth more, but that is an esoteric sidebar.

About the last thing an entrepreneur is concerned about is income taxes. You start a business because you see a demand for your product/service. You expand that business because you see continued demand or demand for tangential services or in tangential markets. Taxes are about as far on the horizon of entrepreneurial decision-making as a cruise ship.

Dude! Seriously! What fantasy world do you live in?
 
Dude! Seriously! What fantasy world do you live in?

I am a serial entrepreneur. I have started several businesses, some successful and others not so much. I was part of a team that started one in 1999 that we sold to a private equity firm in 2008. I then started one on my own 2009. I know employ over 50 people. As with any start-up, you lose money during the first 12-24 months of operation (so you pay no income taxes) and then you get recover those losses, applying them against future profits so that you pay no income taxes until your start-up losses are fully recovered. So, I get to operate for a considerable period of time before income taxes are even the most remote of concerns.

As to the side bar, since I do not pay taxes and will not pay them at the highest rate for some time, the marginal rate is meaningless... and once the marginal rate has meaning, the higher it is, the more I am incented to invest in the business rather than take money out of the business. Even for a passive investor, a higher marginal tax rate means less of his/her money is really at risk as many of the investment costs, if structured correctly, can be written off with greater benefit to the investor when the rates are higher.

Actually having experience doing what we are talking about is the is the fantasy world I live in. What are your credentials for this discussion? Created any jobs lately? .
 
Last edited:
wrong as usual-its just to show that the term estate tax is as or more inaccurate as death tax. the best name for it is "a surcharge on the wealthy"

Faris & Luntz would pat you on the head and give you a biscuit.
 
Faris & Luntz would pat you on the head and give you a biscuit.

the Parasite support team will give you a medal of merit for your constant spewing of propaganda designed to convince the weak minded that the government really does NEED more of our (or in your case) other peoples' money.

Its funny how the collectivist left assumes everyone who despises their parasitic schemes must get marching orders from two people-because they, the extreme left-tend to be parrots of DNC/Soros talking points
 
do you seriously believe all of that? If you do, you would have to explain to me how that would even remotely be a viable political or economic strategy. I think you have bought into an absurd carricature of your political opposition that has no real relationship to reality.

If you dont believe all that...you live in lalaland and its not viable because the teaparty has fallen to new lows in favorability...the new far right house has the lowest approval of any house in history and with this economy and MEGA MILLION donors romney has and hes still behind obama...
 
the Parasite support team will give you a medal of merit for your constant spewing of propaganda designed to convince the weak minded that the government really does NEED more of our (or in your case) other peoples' money.

Its funny how the collectivist left assumes everyone who despises their parasitic schemes must get marching orders from two people-because they, the extreme left-tend to be parrots of DNC/Soros talking points

You may be jumping up and down in sheer glee that we have a growing national debt which will be passed on to our children and future generations to pay. I imagine in some sick way, that is your right. Many of us are not happy about saddling our children and grand-children with massive debt and feel it is profoundly unfair to them.

And yet again I mention Luntz & Faris and that little rubber hammer swings and hits home producing the expected knee jerk response s you have to dig down and counter with Soros. That is sad.

And yet again, for a time beyond calculation, you pervert my position on tax increases. I am not advocating that YOUR taxes be raised. I am advocating that OUR taxes - as in ALL Americans who earn dollar one - be raised.

That is the responsible adult position for someone who believes we should hand our children a better nation that the one we were handed on the day we became Americans. Paying our bills is a major part of that.
 
why do you set standards that no one else is using. no one said the act of death was taxed-everyone said that death is what causes the tax to "vest"

NO it does not. It is the transfer of money from one owner to new owners that triggers the tax. One could have their wealth destroyed at the time of death and there would be nothing to tax. The death would still occur.

All you do is to loyally play the role of the right wing follower of orders from Luntz & Faris in pushing their favorite neologism. They would be proud of your servitude on their behalf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

The term "death tax"
The term "death tax" is a neologism used by policy makers and critics to describe the estate tax in a way that conveys additional meaning. The terms "death duties" and "inheritance taxes" are also sometimes used.

Political use of "death tax" as a synonym for "estate tax" was encouraged by Jack Faris of the National Federation of Independent Business[47] during the Speakership of Newt Gingrich. Well-known Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrote that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not".[48] Linguist George Lakoff states that the term "death tax" is a deliberate and carefully calculated neologism used as a propaganda tactic to aid in efforts to repeal estate taxes. The use of "death tax" rather than "estate tax" in the wording of questions in the 2002 National Election Survey increased support for estate tax repeal by only a few percentage points.[49]
 
Last edited:
My mother's death was taxed. I wrote the check.

Really? Perhaps you can give us some details. What was the tax and who was it paid to? Why was your mother singled out for her death when hundreds of millions of Americans have died and their death was never taxed?
 
Please explain why that's anything other than a semantic difference. What's consequential in your distinction?

You should know whose orders you are following when you loyally employ this fraud of a DEATH TAX

The term "death tax"
The term "death tax" is a neologism used by policy makers and critics to describe the estate tax in a way that conveys additional meaning. The terms "death duties" and "inheritance taxes" are also sometimes used.

Political use of "death tax" as a synonym for "estate tax" was encouraged by Jack Faris of the National Federation of Independent Business[47] during the Speakership of Newt Gingrich. Well-known Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrote that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not".[48] Linguist George Lakoff states that the term "death tax" is a deliberate and carefully calculated neologism used as a propaganda tactic to aid in efforts to repeal estate taxes. The use of "death tax" rather than "estate tax" in the wording of questions in the 2002 National Election Survey increased support for estate tax repeal by only a few percentage points.[49]
[edit]

that is from the wikipedia entry on estate taxes in the USA.
 
What? No one was asking for spending increases. It was a matter of tax increases and spending cuts. Are you drunk or something?

No one was asking for spending increases? What did we raise the debt ceiling for then? Oh rig, congress doesn't actually raise taxes and the debt ceiling to spend more. Oh no, never that.

Right, and I am drunk.
 
Last edited:
You should know whose orders you are following when you loyally employ this fraud of a DEATH TAX

that is from the wikipedia entry on estate taxes in the USA.

Are you guys talking about that tax on people's property that the government levies upon the death of a citizen?
 
No one was asking for spending increases? What did we raise the debt ceiling for then? Oh rig, congress doesn't actually raise taxes and the debt ceiling to spend more. Oh no, never that.

Right, and I am drunk.
Well there's the problem! Apparently you don't know the difference between spending and debt. I hope the Repos in DC are better educated. Sadly I think some of them are just as clueless.

If you spend $10k more than you made last year you can spend $5k more than you made this year and you'd still reduce spending even though it's deficit spending. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Are you guys talking about that tax on people's property that the government levies upon the death of a citizen?

I am talking about the tax on money or wealth that a person gets from another.
 
which is paid for by artificially inflating ER costs for folks who do have insurance, like you and I.

I don't have insurance but it hasn't mattered.
However, we have paid huge medical bills - in cash. Total medical of my lady ran over 1/2 million $$, but all that was donated either by the medical professionals themselves and individuals.

I've written about this before. Cash is discounted minimially 50% and often even more - meaning it can cost less than if there was insurance with deductable - and is less if the cost of what insurance would have been. It also is true that in with many specialists and independents, cash "talks" because there is no paperwork, delays, government or insurance challenging or any of that.

We also have far more flexibility in medical decisions when it is not tied to what insurance companies will and won't pay for. Nor does the doctor have to worry about it. It has happened when the doctor is starting to discuss options - then stop and ask if we have insurance because what he is recommending is costly. To our answer of "no, no insurance," the doctors (who don't know us) tend to shift to reduced poor-people alternatives - to our adding "we want what is absolute the best choices to pick from and can afford to pay for it in cash, now." Suddenly, the opinion of the doctor becomes the broadest of all - including the most alternative choices. But I do recognize most people can't do that.

ObamaCare will not eliminate indigent care nor is it universal coverage. It's primary effect will be shifting the tax burden of indigent care from business and residential property taxes to the working middle class.

That is the myth of ObamaCare. It is not indigent care. The poor still will not have insurance like they don't now, increasing numbers of companies are being exempted, increasing numbers of companies say that under the new law they will drop employee insurance and just pay the tax, and many individuals will opt to do the same, including us.

Imposing fines won't make any difference to working people living hand to mouth - like most do. Rather, it is just another way the government will condemn them and try to take more money from them.
 
No one was asking for spending increases? What did we raise the debt ceiling for then? Oh rig, congress doesn't actually raise taxes and the debt ceiling to spend more. Oh no, never that.

Right, and I am drunk.
It's a little early, but are you buying? :party
 
Well there's the problem! Apparently you don't know the difference between spending and debt. I hope the Repos in DC are better educated. Sadly I think some of them are just as clueless.

If you spend $10k more than you made last year you can spend $5k more than you made this year and you'd still reduce spending even though it's deficit spending. :roll:

Yawn. Yes apparently I don't know the difference. There is no rational way you could have come to that conclusion based on what I wrote, but yes. Obviously.

Just as you obviously don't know how you get into debt. It is obviously not through spending right?
 
Back
Top Bottom