which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

Henrin said:

So the 2009 report by the CBO that said some small businesses even under the new rules at the time are affected is what? While I admit the number is small considering it proves just fine its not just the 1% paying.



Lol, I get my idea based on how it functions, not by Luntz and Faris and I could care less what part they played in some sort of movement I care little about.

Click to expand...

You have this deliberate style you employ in posting ---- very short, almost cryptic responses that are designed to give as little as possible to comment upon. Like here you mention some report but fail to include the report or a link to it. Why?

As to Luntz & Faris - regardless if you remember hearing about them, you certainly are following their matching orders just the same.

haymarket said:

You have this deliberate style you employ in posting ---- very short, almost cryptic responses that are designed to give as little as possible to comment upon. Like here you mention some report but fail to include the report or a link to it. Why?

Click to expand...

No reason for it. The tax as of 2011 includes anyone with assets of over $1 million being taxed at 55 percent and such information can be found in the 2009 and 2010 report by the CBO on the issue. This obviously includes many small businesses. Its pretty common knowledge if I'm not mistaken.

As to Luntz & Faris - regardless if you remember hearing about them, you certainly are following their matching orders just the same.

Click to expand...

Lol, I don't care.

haymarket said:

I give you the law as evidence of reality- you give me pompous pontifications and your beliefs.

Nothing has changed

Click to expand...

wow you fell for it-what I quoted was that article you and catawba were slobbering about

Henrin said:

No reason for it. The tax as of 2011 includes anyone with assets of over $1 million being taxed at 55 percent and such information can be found in the 2009 and 2010 report by the CBO on the issue. This obviously includes many small businesses. Its pretty common knowledge if I'm not mistaken.



Lol, I don't care.

Click to expand...

What tax of 2011 are you talking about? I have never heard of rates like that today.

Provide a link to what you are referring to.

As to Luntz & Faris - they would be proud of you.

TurtleDude said:

wow you fell for it-what I quoted was that article you and catawba were slobbering about

Click to expand...

what are you blathering about? This nonsense you pull once in a while about you think you are some trickster when you have no way to crawl out of your corner is really getting lame.

The post I was using from catawaba is the one in which he stated the statistics about how few people - less than one percent - now have to pay an estate tax. I have no idea what you were talking about or what you were using.

iacardsfan said:

why do people need so much money to be happy? My family barely gets by but everything is fine and we are ok with that. I don't need millions of dollars to be happy.

Click to expand...

Well, who is going to define the relative threshold of "so much money"?

StillBallin75 said:

Who said anything about need? This is more about what is appropriate for the government to take.

Click to expand...

In the end, taxation without due purpose is never justifiable. Again, where does this threshold exist? Even if it is simply a nominal amount, it is still a harm to the person to have their income reduced by taxation, and harms their investments and expenditures.

haymarket said:

what are you blathering about? This nonsense you pull once in a while about you think you are some trickster when you have no way to crawl out of your corner is really getting lame.

The post I was using from catawaba is the one in which he stated the statistics about how few people - less than one percent - now have to pay an estate tax. I have no idea what you were talking about or what you were using.

Click to expand...

What we do know is that day in day out you constantly try to justify the government taking more money from other people. and rather than come up with a rational justification for such looting, you constantly bray that its what the masses want from their pimps in office.

we who pay these taxes tire of those who don't telling us we need to pay more

Henrin said:

Lol, the government and its agencies, the EPA in this case, puts in place its solution after a harm has occurred and deals with future harms of people with punishments and in between that time punishes people that did nothing wrong with regulation. Are you unaware?

Its also idiotic to say that harms would be greater in terms of environmental damage with an accessible court system that didn't excessively harm business in the system in an equal and much more fair fashion to only punish the guilty parties.

But you can believe whatever you want honestly.

Click to expand...

You obviously believe all laws damage people, what a twisted worldview.

I'm aware of PAC money and it's impact on politics, yes. Maybe you're too young to know what life was like without the EPA. In many cases people just won't accept science as "good enough" for business regulation. As such dead, dying, or damaged humans are often the proof that politicians require to act. Luckily, once there is a tragic incident, politicians seldom continue to deny the facts and substances which should have been banned or controlled finally make that status. Business, of course, continues to deny and often opposes the facts hoping to avoid or lessen litigation.

The funny thing about policing, patrolling, and oversight is there no way to actually prove it does any good. In that light maybe we should stop all police activity except investigation. The only other job police do is bring in suspects but any gorilla can be hired for that. Current bounty hunters are a good place to start.

It will be interesting to watch China's mortality numbers and causes of death around newly industrialized areas in the coming decade or so.

MoSurveyor said:

You obviously believe all laws damage people, what a twisted worldview.

Click to expand...

Wow, I'm done with you. Forget the second part that is just unbelievable and you have shown you won't actually think about the actions of the state in this debate. Consider yourself ignored.

Romney Abandons Deficit Mania

"Romney’s new economic plan this week is highly significant. It signals that the era of Republican fiscal conservatism will come to an end if he is elected."

"Romney is proposing a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut, to be paid for by unspecified spending cuts, unspecified reductions in tax deductions, and — crucially — “economic growth.” Overjoyed conservatives, who until now had been flaying Romney for his insufficient commitment to the cause of supply-side economics, are now displaying the love they had been withholding. The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Washington Examiner bestow upon Romney the sacred appellation of Reaganism. Reagan, of course, was not what you would call a deficit-slayer. Neither was George W. Bush, who also pursued a Reagan-esque budget vision. Romney is likewise signaling that, should he take office, the emphasis will turn away from deficits and toward “growth,” defined as minimizing tax rates for the rich."

"Supply-side economics is a theology immune from real-world revision. The significance of Romney’s announcement is that he is allying himself wholesale with the supply-side worldview. He is embracing the Republican governing doctrine of regressive debt-financed tax cuts. Spending cuts would be nice, but tax cuts for the rich are essential. If Romney wins, the agenda will increasingly come to focus on “growth,” and his party’s monomania with debt will be increasingly quaint."

Romney Abandons Deficit Mania -- Daily Intel

TurtleDude said:

What we do know is that day in day out you constantly try to justify the government taking more money from other people. and rather than come up with a rational justification for such looting, you constantly bray that its what the masses want from their pimps in office.

we who pay these taxes tire of those who don't telling us we need to pay more

Click to expand...

Justification? You asked many times before - I answered many times before. The deficit - the debt - your kids - my kids - grandkids - .... we need to pay our bills. I was led to believe you folks on the right were concerned about such things.

haymarket said:

Justification? You asked many times before - I answered many times before. The deficit - the debt - your kids - my kids - grandkids - .... we need to pay our bills. I was led to believe you folks on the right were concerned about such things.

Click to expand...

other people who pay too much need to pay even more to fund the stuff you want

got it

TurtleDude said:

we who pay these taxes tire of those who don't telling us we need to pay more

Click to expand...

You babble on and on for yourself alone. You have no license to speak for anyone else at all. I pay more in taxes than you do and find your antisocial commentary to be completely opprobrious. Of course, I also have not just years but decades worth of training and professional experience in relevant fields whereas you have none, so that might contribute as well to a general perception that your posts are just another aspect of the persistent, snot-nosed, ignorance that so permeates and corrupts the right-wing as represented on this board.

In 2007, the top 1% paid $115 billion less in federal income tax than they would have had the Clinton tax rates from a decade earlier still been in effect. That's $115 billion in a single year. Money that was imply handed to the already wealthy free of charge. It was plain old vote-buying Republican welfare-for-the-rich who -- thanks to Bush -- were able to cut in line to feed from the public trough and suck from the public teat. What a disgusting display.

Cardinal Fang said:

You babble on and on for yourself alone. You have no license to speak for anyone else at all. I pay more in taxes than you do and find your antisocial commentary to be completely opprobrious. Of course, I also have not just years but decades worth of training and professional experience in relevant fields whereas you have none, so that might contribute as well to a general perception that your posts are just another aspect of the persistent, snot-nosed, ignorance that so permeates and corrupts the right-wing as represented on this board.

In 2007, the top 1% paid $115 billion less in federal income tax than they would have had the Clinton tax rates from a decade earlier still been in effect. That's $115 billion in a single year. Money that was imply handed to the already wealthy free of charge. It was plain old vote-buying Republican welfare-for-the-rich who -- thanks to Bush -- were able to cut in line to feed from the public trough and suck from the public teat. What a disgusting display.

Click to expand...

sure you do. How do you pretend you made all that money? You claim to be some non-profit director. Sounds like a trust fund baby to me. What relevant fields? class warfare? whining about the rich to advance your far leftwing welfare socialist agenda

the rich paid way too much under clinton and they still pay too much now: only when the rich are paying the same amount of the income tax burden as their share of the income (now about 22%) will they be paying the proper amount and that still means they will be paying far more than what they use

your pathetic rants that those who pay 40% of the income tax are sucking from the public trough is nothing more than trustafarian Nonsense

TurtleDude said:

Yeah its an opinion piece that is based on the attitude that the government needs more money (to waste) and not parasitizing the rich enough will prevent the malignancy known as the federal government from wasting more and more money. That is an agenda that sane people oppose

Click to expand...

No further debate is possible here...............or it takes one to argue with one.............

TurtleDude said:

other people who pay too much need to pay even more to fund the stuff you want

got it

Click to expand...

You are guilty of doing what you constantly whine about your enemies doing - wanting somebody else to pay the bill other than you.

We ALL need to pay more. Starting today.

Cardinal Fang said:

You babble on and on for yourself alone. You have no license to speak for anyone else at all. I pay more in taxes than you do and find your antisocial commentary to be completely opprobrious. Of course, I also have not just years but decades worth of training and professional experience in relevant fields whereas you have none, so that might contribute as well to a general perception that your posts are just another aspect of the persistent, snot-nosed, ignorance that so permeates and corrupts the right-wing as represented on this board.

In 2007, the top 1% paid $115 billion less in federal income tax than they would have had the Clinton tax rates from a decade earlier still been in effect. That's $115 billion in a single year. Money that was imply handed to the already wealthy free of charge. It was plain old vote-buying Republican welfare-for-the-rich who -- thanks to Bush -- were able to cut in line to feed from the public trough and suck from the public teat. What a disgusting display.

Click to expand...

Imagine the good that could have been done with that $115 billion just from that one year? We could have lowered the deficit, decreased the debt and passed less in bills onto our children.

MoSurveyor said:

a) Police slaughter innocent civilians pursuing suspect.
b) Car accident caused by high-speed police chase kills couple.

What does it matter?

Click to expand...

Oh, I see....
I was not aware that "death tax" was used in this context.
"Collateral damage" YES ! , but not "death tax"...as I have said, this is a colloquial term, which I prefer NOT to use.....and I wish to distance myself from our "turtledude"..........an attorney ????? this I cannot believe...
And, BTW, a) and b) are slowly becoming a thing of the past....thanks to Progressives.

We have a government, which is now self-will-run-riot and out of control. It has empowered itself to tax and appropriate with virtually no constraints. Our nation is burdened with a $15 trillion debt that demands an annual interest payment of $1/2 trillion.

When framing just how much a trillion is, we might think of it in the following way: 1 trillion seconds is equal to 32,000 years.

The debt/income ratio created by government is beyond our (We The People) capability to overcome such indebtedness.

If all Americans and businesses could surrender every penny we earn to government (about $7.5 trillion a year)...it would take two years to eradicate the national debt. We can't live two years without some means to gain the resources we each need to live.

Why would America allow government to be self-will-run-riot? Why does the government actually thrive off of inflation, when you and I suffer from it? The government created a form of welfare state because it helps justify its demands for taking money from everybody. It helps fuel inflationary conditions. It feeds the "Kingdom of Washington" while the serfs are left to exist with the scraps that government leaves us...and we allow them to do it.

We have a broken system of government that is not working in the best interest or general welfare of this nation.

We can't deny that there are people who are indeed victims of circumstance beyond their power to remedy and through no fault of their own need assistance. I think that assisting people through government is entirely possible, and with minimal exploitation of the system designed to provide such assistance. I think to believe other wise is either out of naiveness or self-centeredness about the realities of humanity's imperfections of merely existing.

But the problem is that government has turned assistance programs into a business used to increase its coffer ...rather than operate as an altruistic raison d'être. The solution is complex.

Under governments current mode of control over us all...if we can't find a way to force government to reconstruct itself to operate in a more efficient and proficient manner...it will take us all down. Parasites will kill its hosts.

Taxes are one thing, but being held hostage to a system that demands we pay it as it dictates...is insane. Our nation's historical crime families have never had it as good as our government.

Thanks for allowing me to share my "OPINION"....

MoSurveyor said:

You honestly think a system is doing good when a handful of Wall Street thieves can put tens of millions of people out of work and all but bring down the economy? Ever hear the term "Too big to fail"? Sorry, that's just dangerous any way you slice it.

Too big to fail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"good doSitting money" as opposed to "Running money".

Our economy is not in good shape if we have too much of one (imagine Scrooge McDuck with is vault full of trillions of dollars....
What es this do anyone , even Scrooge.
Our inheritance tax, IMO, is based too much on "sitting or idle money"; so, I think its better to continuously tax (sales and income) and spend to develop and improve our nation...
You seem to believe I want to dispose of all wealth and that's not true at all. You're using the common view of a predator instead of the biological view. Predators are required for a healthy system but with civilization comes the responsibility to keep the predators in check.

Click to expand...

I just now dreamed up this "sitting money " and "running or active money"...
Idle and active are better terms...
Also, I note that war has an horrific cost....and where does this money end up ?
And maybe we need a national sales tax to replace all the other taxes....or, at least the Turtle's pet ,the inheritance tax.

TurtleDude said:

sure you do. How do you pretend you made all that money? You claim to be some non-profit director. Sounds like a trust fund baby to me.

Click to expand...

Yet more evidence for your own non-wealthy status. I came to have such a surplus of wealth that I founded, funded, and continue to direct a 501(c)(3) public charity so as to have a way to give back to society for my own good fortune. Even in Ohio, you must have heard of star athletes for example setting up charities and foundations? Well, this is the same deal. And being involved in charity work at such a level puts one in touch with quite a number of similarly and even better situated individuals. These networks tend to result in higher levels of funding for the various charities involved, and, by gosh, also in higher levels of profit for the individuals involved as being in each others' address books can turn out to be a very handy and ultimatley lucrative thing. Still mystified, or does that clear things up for you?

TurtleDude said:

What relevant fields? class warfare? whining about the rich to advance your far leftwing welfare socialist agenda

Click to expand...

LOL! Economics and federal tax policy were the first two I had in mind.

TurtleDude said:

the rich paid way too much under clinton and they still pay too much now: only when the rich are paying the same amount of the income tax burden as their share of the income (now about 22%) will they be paying the proper amount and that still means they will be paying far more than what they use

Click to expand...

Ever hard of marginal utility? The law of diminishing marginal returns? It sure doesn't sound like it. Meanwhile, who do you suspect benefits more from society's basic police and defense efforts? Would it be the homeless guy who can pile all of his earthly possessions into a single shopping cart, or would it be someone like me who lives in a multi-million dollar home on a large and scenic lot in one of the more upscale neighborhoods of one of the more upscale suburbs of Washington, DC? Oh, did I mention my in-town home on Capitol Hill? Obviously, shopping-cart dude doesn't have one oif those either.

TurtleDude said:

your pathetic rants that those who pay 40% of the income tax are sucking from the public trough is nothing more than trustafarian Nonsense

Click to expand...

$115 billion in welfare-for-the-rich just to the top 1%, just in 2007. THAT'S some serious "sucking from the public trough". Don't even pretend to talk to me about how tough the wealthy have it. I know better.

Even in Ohio, you must have heard of star athletes for example setting up charities and foundations?

Click to expand...

This is debatable...all the star atheletes in that state seem to want to get the hell outta dodge.

Removable Mind said:

When framing just how much a trillion is, we might think of it in the following way: 1 trillion seconds is equal to 32,000 years.

Click to expand...

Or think of it this way: A trillion dollars would be less than 7% of our annual GDP.

Removable Mind said:

The debt/income ratio created by government is beyond our (We The People) capability to overcome such indebtedness.

Click to expand...

It was 20% higher at the end of WWII. What did We the People do about that?

Removable Mind said:

If all Americans and businesses could surrender every penny we earn to government (about $7.5 trillion a year)...

Click to expand...

What happened to the rest of National Income? You've barely accounted for half of it.

earthworm said:

Oh, I see....
I was not aware that "death tax" was used in this context.
"Collateral damage" YES ! , but not "death tax"...as I have said, this is a colloquial term, which I prefer NOT to use.....and I wish to distance myself from our "turtledude"..........an attorney ????? this I cannot believe...
And, BTW, a) and b) are slowly becoming a thing of the past....thanks to Progressives.

Click to expand...

Yeah - it's mostly a PR thing.

Capitol Hill Memo - In 2 Parties' War of Words, Shibboleths Emerge as Clear Winner - NYTimes.com


I agree high-speed chases are seldom justified as they tend to endanger the community as much or more than the suspects. I can understand it for certain very unique circumstances.

earthworm said:

I just now dreamed up this "sitting money " and "running or active money"...
Idle and active are better terms...
Also, I note that war has an horrific cost....and where does this money end up ?
And maybe we need a national sales tax to replace all the other taxes....or, at least the Turtle's pet ,the inheritance tax.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "idle money". Do you mean savings?

A national sales tax has it's own issues not even considering enforcement. How about paying $110k for a house that's only worth $100k? Or $22k for a $20k car? A new car has always de-valued when you drive it off the lot but by an extra 10%? What was a $20k to $18k is now $22k to $18k in the first mile. The same goes for a new house. In either case would your insurance company pick up the tab for the extra 10% if the car or house is totaled by accident or fire? I doubt it.