which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

haymarket said:

I never met LENIN but I know what useful fools are. Right libertarians who would so castrate the power of the federal government that we end up with a fascist corporatocracy where even those useful fools eventually end up in the camps. Maybe out of consideration for their service they will be able to ride their in a limo?

Click to expand...

there is a conspiracy thread section where that sentiment might fit better. lets do a body count

governments pretending to force equality have killed? I will take ONE HUNDRED MILLION OR MORE FOR two thousand Alex

corporations in the USA have killed how many american citizens?

haymarket said:

Playing the all purpose ENVY CARD again I see. The last refuge of someone who cannot make any other argument.

You are getting preferential treatment by virtue OF YOUR OWN ADMISSION that you only pay 15% on much of your money.

Confession is a good first step on the road to redemption.

Click to expand...

I pay over 45% on those dividends. and you forget that I pay far more actual tax dollars than 99% of America

quit whining. My overall effective federal tax rate is much higher than most of America

and my family has paid millions in death taxes-again quit whining

TurtleDude said:

there is a conspiracy thread section where that sentiment might fit better. lets do a body count

governments pretending to force equality have killed? I will take ONE HUNDRED MILLION OR MORE FOR two thousand Alex

corporations in the USA have killed how many american citizens?

Click to expand...

Do you not know the difference between the past and what could yet come?

teamosil said:

Everyone does not agree on the cuts. The Republicans don't agree to the military cuts. The Republicans want to put the weight of the deficit exclusively on the middle class through domestic spending cuts. The Democrats want to split it up between the middle class (domestic spending) the military, and the rich (revenues). Sounds like you're just asking "why don't the Democrats just give in and let the Republicans put it all on the middle class"... Well, the answer is obvious- because that is abjectly immoral and economically damaging and ultimately won't be sufficient to close the deficit anyways.

Click to expand...

Well that is where compromise should occur

neither party wants to give up on the spending that benefits their constituents.

Tax hikes should not be part of this. since everyone agrees on spending cuts stick to that

and your beloved tax hikes on the rich won't do squat

the only tax hikes that could work are politically impossible-ones that make most of america seething mad at big spending politicians-ie jacking up everyone's taxes equally to cover the debt

Hold it, if the correct answer is not there, can't we make up our own?

5 Mil exempt,

tax up to 10mil at 35%

over 10 Mil, 90%.

Also, raise the gift tax to 35%.

MaggieD said:

Over what period of time? And don't talk to me about revenues. Talk to me about spending cuts. $3 trillion over how long? Dems proposed cutting $2 trillion...over how long? Our national debt stands at $48,000 for every man, woman and child in the USA. It's been increasing at a rate of $3.94 billion per day since 9/07.

Click to expand...

We can't talk about deficit reduction without talking about revenues. We have to fight the deficit on all three fronts- revenues, domestic spending and military spending. It isn't realistically possible to make up $1.4 trillion/year out of any one of those three buckets. We need to spread it across all three.

The hangup right now that is preventing us from reducing the deficit is the Republicans. The Democrats have compromised. They've agreed to do domestic spending cuts they don't want to make. The Democrats are consistently proposing larger deficit reduction packages than the Republicans these days. But the Republicans are refusing to cut military spending or increase revenues. The are unwilling to address 2/3 of the problem and the Democrats aren't willing to just let them try to take it all out of the middle class.

The $4 trillion in deficit reduction Obama proposed and the $3 trillion the super committee Democrats proposed were both over 10 years.

TurtleDude said:

I pay over 45% on those dividends. and you forget that I pay far more actual tax dollars than 99% of America

quit whining. My overall effective federal tax rate is much higher than most of America

and my family has paid millions in death taxes-again quit whining

Click to expand...

Here is what you said

I pay 15% on investment income-the HIGHEST RATE

Click to expand...

So now its suddenly tripled!?!?!?!?

And I have not forgotten what you claim to pay. I simply do not care about its irrelevancy to any discussion of a national tax policy for 311 million Americans.

haymarket said:

Do you not know the difference between the past and what could yet come?

Click to expand...

As I said, your rants about corporate power suggests you watched Roller Ball or Soylent Green a few too many times but we know what happens with big government. perhaps those on the conspiracy thread can help you speculate

later I have to work tomorrow to feed a bunch of dem voters:mrgreen:

TurtleDude said:

given the massive income taxes which did not really exist when the "reason" for the death tax was created already tax the rich plenty this abomination should be abolished. Any politician who would try to impose a 100% tax hopefully would lose his office-or worse-immediately

the inheritance tax is designed to appeal to envy and is a most inefficient tax-more money is spent trying to avoid it than it raises. the people who most support it are those who benefit from it-democrat politicians, tax lawyers, insurance salesman and some charities who think if it goes away so will donations

btw it was never designed to raise revenue but to engage in social engineering which is really not a proper role of the federal tax system

Click to expand...

Why do you care?

It doesn't effect your life in the least.

haymarket said:

Here is what you said



So now its suddenly tripled!?!?!?!?

Click to expand...

15% is the highest rate on investment income (not counting short term capital gains)

TurtleDude said:

Well that is where compromise should occur

neither party wants to give up on the spending that benefits their constituents.

Tax hikes should not be part of this. since everyone agrees on spending cuts stick to that

and your beloved tax hikes on the rich won't do squat

the only tax hikes that could work are politically impossible-ones that make most of america seething mad at big spending politicians-ie jacking up everyone's taxes equally to cover the debt

Click to expand...

So you're saying that the Democrats should just do exactly what the Republicans want- take it all out of the middle class. Right? And you're calling that "compromise"?

hazlnut said:

Why do you care?

It doesn't effect your life in the least.

Click to expand...

Is this another one of your rants that I am not an attorney? I do care because I do pay the top rates and my current wealth is way beyond what the dems consider an estate worthy to plunder with the death tax

TurtleDude said:

Well that is where compromise should occur

neither party wants to give up on the spending that benefits their constituents.

Tax hikes should not be part of this. since everyone agrees on spending cuts stick to that

and your beloved tax hikes on the rich won't do squat

the only tax hikes that could work are politically impossible-ones that make most of america seething mad at big spending politicians-ie jacking up everyone's taxes equally to cover the debt

Click to expand...

FALSE.

Many take the position that BOTH SIDES OF THE LEDGER MUST BE DEALT WITH AT THE SAME TIME.

TurtleDude said:

As I said, your rants about corporate power suggests you watched Roller Ball or Soylent Green a few too many times but we know what happens with big government. perhaps those on the conspiracy thread can help you speculate

Click to expand...

Actually it is from being an educated person with several degrees and over thirty years of teaching government and history as well as other extensive study. But why burst your bubble?

TurtleDude said:

15% is the highest rate on investment income (not counting short term capital gains)

Click to expand...

then why did you claim this

I pay over 45% on those dividends.

Click to expand...

teamosil said:

We can't talk about deficit reduction without talking about revenues. We have to fight the deficit on all three fronts- revenues, domestic spending and military spending. It isn't realistically possible to make up $1.4 trillion/year out of any one of those three buckets. We need to spread it across all three.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. If wasteful spending was limited to a tolerable threshold, agencies with overlapping authority were downsized, and social spending along with unnecessary military items were reduced the country could pay the principle plus on the debt and have a more than sufficient operating budget. Revenues need to be weened so that the government is FORCED into spending responsibly. More tax money is not going to solve anything.

The hangup right now that is preventing us from reducing the deficit is the Republicans. The Democrats have compromised. They've agreed to do domestic spending cuts they don't want to make. The Democrats are consistently proposing larger deficit reduction packages than the Republicans these days. But the Republicans are refusing to cut military spending or increase revenues. The are unwilling to address 2/3 of the problem and the Democrats aren't willing to just let them try to take it all out of the middle class.

Click to expand...

This is just being partisan. The Democrat party had 2 years of complete control in Congress and the Executive, spending increased at the highest rate in American history. It is laughable that you would even go here as a basis for argument.

The $4 trillion in deficit reduction Obama proposed and the $3 trillion the super committee Democrats proposed were both over 10 years.

Click to expand...

Obama has the highest rate of spending in U.S. History. He has literally outspent all presidents combined and the 4T$ reduction would only negate the debt increase since he has taken office.

TurtleDude said:

Is this another one of your rants that I am not an attorney? I do care because I do pay the top rates and my current wealth is way beyond what the dems consider an estate worthy to plunder with the death tax

Click to expand...

Let's get specific, shall we?

5.12 Mil is exempt this year, 2012. Last year was 5 mil even, and the year before there was 0 Death Tax.

Like I said, nothing to do with you.

So, again I ask, why do you care so much?

Like the social cons who what to ban gays from marrying, you're overzealously passionate about an issue that does not directly effect you.

teamosil said:

We can't talk about deficit reduction without talking about revenues. We have to fight the deficit on all three fronts- revenues, domestic spending and military spending. It isn't realistically possible to make up $1.4 trillion/year out of any one of those three buckets. We need to spread it across all three.

The hangup right now that is preventing us from reducing the deficit is the Republicans. The Democrats have compromised. They've agreed to do domestic spending cuts they don't want to make. The Democrats are consistently proposing larger deficit reduction packages than the Republicans these days. But the Republicans are refusing to cut military spending or increase revenues. The are unwilling to address 2/3 of the problem and the Democrats aren't willing to just let them try to take it all out of the middle class.

The $4 trillion in deficit reduction Obama proposed and the $3 trillion the super committee Democrats proposed were both over 10 years.

Click to expand...

$300 billion a year doesn't even make a dent in our spending. This is the fault of both parties. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is a little game being played for the benefit of their electorate. Your perception on Republicans is incorrect:

House Republicans plan to propose Tuesday historic changes to Medicare, Medicaid and other popular programs that pour federal money into Americans’ lives, arguing that a sacrifice now will keep those programs solvent for the future.

The proposal also includes broad changes to the tax system and $6.2 trillion in federal spending cuts from President Obama’s budget over the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

GOP 2012: overhauls on entitlements and taxes, $6.2 trillion in cuts over decade - The Washington Post

LaMidRighter said:

Incorrect. If wasteful spending was limited to a tolerable threshold, agencies with overlapping authority were downsized, and social spending along with unnecessary military items were reduced the country could pay the principle plus on the debt and have a more than sufficient operating budget.

Click to expand...

Theoretically if we just slashed the hell out of both the military and domestic budgets we could possibly get down to a balanced budget even at these ultra low tax rates. But the impact would be devastating. The middle class, which is already on the ropes, would by and large collapse into poverty. Ultimately the damage done to the country would cost the rich far more in lost profits than just paying taxes would. It doesn't make any sense to go that direction.

LaMidRighter said:

Revenues need to be weened so that the government is FORCED into spending responsibly. More tax money is not going to solve anything.

Click to expand...

Revenues have no relationship to spending. That's why we have $1.4 trillion deficit. The federal government could easily borrow $100 Trillion more before it's assets- roughly 1/4 of the land in the US- were even close to tapped out. "Starve the beast" is just a euphemism for "lets just buy it on credit instead of paying for it".

LaMidRighter said:

This is just being partisan. The Democrat party had 2 years of complete control in Congress and the Executive, spending increased at the highest rate in American history. It is laughable that you would even go here as a basis for argument.

Click to expand...

You aren't paying attention. I'm saying that the Democrats are currently proposing more deficit reduction. During the recession they were proposing increases to the deficit.

LaMidRighter said:

Obama has the highest rate of spending in U.S. History. He has literally outspent all presidents combined and the 4T$ reduction would only negate the debt increase since he has taken office.

Click to expand...

I honestly can't believe that you think that is true that Obama has outspent all previous presidents combined. That is just so obviously insane that it boggles the mind that you would have bought it. I know some Fox pundits and whatnot were saying that for a while, but of course the things they say are not real. Fox is only pretend. You need to get that firmly through your head.

In fact, Obama hasn't even outspent Bush yet. Obama has submitted three budgets:

$3.7T
$3.8T
$3.6T
Total: $11.1T

Bush submitted eight:
$3.1T
$2.9T
$2.8T
$2.7T
$2.4T
$2.3T
$2.2T
$2.0T
Total: $20.4T

And that's even before adjusting for inflation... How could you have possibly believed such a ridiculous statement was true?

MaggieD said:

$300 billion a year doesn't even make a dent in our spending. This is the fault of both parties. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is a little game being played for the benefit of their electorate. Your perception on Republicans is incorrect:

GOP 2012: overhauls on entitlements and taxes, $6.2 trillion in cuts over decade - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

$300 bil a year is More than 20% of the deficit. (!)
$6.2 Trillion over a decade you trumpet is $620 bil a year, only about Twice what you say is completely inconsequential.
I guess it Sounds huge if you don't divide by 10.

We need Large Cuts AND Rev increases.
I say take BOTH the Revs above in taxes, AND the cuts in entitlement and your about 2/3s of the way there.

MaggieD said:

$300 billion a year doesn't even make a dent in our spending.

Click to expand...

Obama proposed $400b/year in cuts. I agree we need to do more than that, but that would be a huge step in the right direction. Realistically we don't need to cut all $1.4t/year. As we continue to pull out of the recession spending will automatically drop because fewer people will be on food stamps and unemployment and whatnot, and revenues will automatically increase as more people work and companies make more profits and whatnot. From what I've been reading, it sounds like in order to balance the budget we need between $600b and $800b in spending cuts and revenue increases. So, Obama's proposal takes us between 1/2 and 2/3 of the way there.

MaggieD said:

Your perception on Republicans is incorrect:

Click to expand...

That's the Ryan budget. It was just a photo-op proposal, not a serious one. They knew for a fact it would never clear the senate. Americans opposed it by 2 to 1. It would have basically eliminated the middle class entirely. They just tossed it out there so they could talk about it in their re-election campaigns, nobody on either side of the aisle actually thought it was for real.

teamosil said:

Theoretically if we just slashed the hell out of both the military and domestic budgets we could possibly get down to a balanced budget even at these ultra low tax rates. But the impact would be devastating. The middle class, which is already on the ropes, would by and large collapse into poverty. Ultimately the damage done to the country would cost the rich far more in lost profits than just paying taxes would. It doesn't make any sense to go that direction.

Click to expand...

If the middle class needs assistance then that means other government interferences are hindering their earning power by increasing costs. You do understand that right? As well, it is harder to find jobs because there is a huge money bleed. Get rid of that and keep taxes at a productive rate and many problems are solved. You are basically taking a shotgun approach by advocating taking more and throwing money at the wrong problem, spending is the root rather than the amount owed.

Revenues have no relationship to spending. That's why we have $1.4 trillion deficit. The federal government could easily borrow $100 Trillion more before it's assets- roughly 1/4 of the land in the US- were even close to tapped out. "Starve the beast" is just a euphemism for "lets just buy it on credit instead of paying for it".

Click to expand...

Wrong. Spending and borrowing is justified using taxation, without the ability to tax more most Americans would NEVER allow this irresponsible spending.

You aren't paying attention. I'm saying that the Democrats are currently proposing more deficit reduction. During the recession they were proposing increases to the deficit.

Click to expand...

Then where were they for the last century or so? I guess the social spending and military spending was all republicans? Or is it that with complete control we weren't already in debt? Ohh, I know, Obama all of a sudden got responsible during the election cycle after adding over 4 trillion in new debt during the two years he had a majority in the house and Senate. Geez, it seems like you are just throwing anything out and hoping it sticks.

I honestly can't believe that you think that is true that Obama has outspend all previous presidents combined. That is just so obviously insane that it boggles the mind that you would have bought it. I know some Fox pundits and whatnot were saying that for a while, but of course the things they say are not real. Fox is only pretend. You need to get that firmly through your head.

Click to expand...

It's out there if you care to look. By the way, it isn't FOX that I saw the numbers on, nice deflection attempt though.

In fact, Obama hasn't even outspent Bush yet. Obama has submitted three budgets:

$3.7T
$3.8T
$3.6T
Total: $11.1T

Click to expand...

Bush submitted eight:
$3.1T
$2.9T
$2.8T
$2.7T
$2.4T
$2.3T
$2.2T
$2.0T
Total: $20.4T

And that's even before adjusting for inflation... How could you have possibly believed such a ridiculous statement was true?

Click to expand...

Nice try, but Obamacare alone is not included in those budgets and the projections are budget busters. Total cost expected to be around 10T, but please don't let facts get in the way.

LaMidRighter said:

If the middle class needs assistance then that means other government interferences are hindering their earning power by increasing costs. You do understand that right?

Click to expand...

No, that doesn't follow... There could be many reasons that the middle class would need help other than government... Obviously.

LaMidRighter said:

Wrong. Spending and borrowing is justified using taxation, without the ability to tax more most Americans would NEVER allow this irresponsible spending.

Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't notice but we currently have a deficit of $1.4 trillion. So I guess your theory is wrong.

LaMidRighter said:

Then where were they for the last century or so? I guess the social spending and military spending was all republicans? Or is it that with complete control we weren't already in debt? Ohh, I know, Obama all of a sudden got responsible during the election cycle after adding over 4 trillion in new debt during the two years he had a majority in the house and Senate. Geez, it seems like you are just throwing anything out and hoping it sticks.

Click to expand...

Not sure you understand what we're discussing. We're talking about the proposals they have on the table right now. Sometimes more spending makes sense, sometimes less. We're talking about what they are proposing now. And now they're proposing more deficit reduction than the Republicans.

LaMidRighter said:

Nice try, but Obamacare alone is not included in those budgets and the projections are budget busters. Total cost expected to be around 10T, but please don't let facts get in the way.

Click to expand...

Obamacare didn't even have any significant provisions that kicked in in any of those years, and those are the total outlays in the years they submitted the budgets for, so it includes everything.

Then where were they for the last century or so? I guess the social spending and military spending was all republicans? Or is it that with complete control we weren't already in debt? Ohh, I know, Obama all of a sudden got responsible during the election cycle after adding over 4 trillion in new debt during the two years he had a majority in the house and Senate. Geez, it seems like you are just throwing anything out and hoping it sticks.

Click to expand...

This is kind of pointless.

Both parties are complicit in both types of spending, with Republicans have more in with military spending and Democrats having more in with social spending.

The 4 trillion number has a lot of fine points over who was responsible for what, and such high increases were anticipated in all possible scenarios.

teamosil said:

No, that doesn't follow... There could be many reasons that the middle class would need help other than government... Obviously.

Click to expand...

What part are you not following on? If money is worth less and paychecks don't increase then it is a government caused issue. I'm not going through the whole process for you but what part specifically doesn't resonate with you?

Maybe you didn't notice but we currently have a deficit of $1.4 trillion. So I guess your theory is wrong.

Click to expand...

Deficit and debt are not the same thing. We are in a debt crisis, the deficit is a smaller part of the problem. Try to keep up.

Not sure you understand what we're discussing. We're talking about the proposals they have on the table right now. Sometimes more spending makes sense, sometimes less. We're talking about what they are proposing now. And now they're proposing more deficit reduction than the Republicans.

Click to expand...

No, we are talking about spending, not simple budgets. Spending in general is the problem and you want more taxes to cover the problem. THAT is what the discussion has involved.

Obamacare didn't even have any significant provisions that kicked in in any of those years, and those are the total outlays in the years they submitted the budgets for, so it includes everything.

Click to expand...

Dude, don't even try. Obamacare already has outlays being provided for and the total cost expectations first year are around 10 trillion, this is on top of current debt. There is no need for party apologism here, these are facts.