gmanpilot 0 #176 January 20, 2004 Quote> Why should someone in a higher income bracket pay a higher >percentage of taxes than someone in a lower income bracket? Because they can afford to, and it helps the economy. Just because someone can afford more in taxes, does not necessitate IMO, the gov imposing an increased onus on him to do so. A progressive tax is not a morally superior one. It is in fact, unfair. Toll roads do not discriminate between a Mercedes and a Dodge....that is fair. QuoteThe next fairest way is a flat percentage. I agree, this seems like the fairest income tax model. QuoteThe guy making $20K a year, on the other hand, is a lot more likely to put new brakes on the family beater or fix his leaky roof if he gets some extra money. That's money that goes directly into the pocket of a roofer or a garage owner, and thus is a more direct stimulus of the economy. Yea, but that is a one time gig. The surgeon you cited, is going to invest, and that, while not as direct, has more value, long-term. He may invest in an outpatient diagnostic center that will create real, sustainable jobs._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #177 January 20, 2004 This is all very intangible. Can't work with it. And it is all stuff you pay for, not given to you by the government at the expense of the 'poor'. Not a very good try at all. What formal programs are out there that you 'get' from the government that someone not as financially fortunate as you isn't allowed to participate in? Edit: I admire/respect your logical approach to things, but this topic is disappointing and you are very non-fact/emotionally based. I really thought you would have several concrete examples. That's why I'm picking. sorry. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #178 January 20, 2004 >Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? Yes. I do not do the "tricks" that my accountant suggests, because I don't consider them honest. They're not illegal though. Question for you - do you support the war? If so, why are you attempting to avoid paying for it? >You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did > you return you tax rebate last year? I had to pay last year. >I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. > What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. > Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying > like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. It all goes to the same place. Cut one tax and another will increase. The only way to cut taxes is to cut expenditures. >I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you > income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you > actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase > prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. Or you could get rid of the business taxes and increase personal taxes. I get a little tired of people who cry "cut taxes and increase spending!" as if yelling long enough will suspend basic realities of economics. You want to pay less taxes? Let's see a list of what you will cut. >I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a > flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions >including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA > contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of > taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. Sounds good, but it would seriously dent the economy and end up forcing everyone who's _not_ in prison to pay for the (many) people who are in prison due to tax dereliction. If you're OK with that - then go for it. I'd be all for the second part though (elimination of mortgage, business and IRA deductions) as long as _you_ are willing to pay for care of people who now retire with nothing. (Note that means more taxes.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #179 January 20, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estate taxes at any level are evil, pure evil. They are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Stealing is wrong, no matter the circumstances. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even Jesus didn't equate taxes with stealing. A tax is a tax, I don't see how one is any more "evil" than another. They all redistribute wealth. How would you propose to pay government employees without taxes? Estate taxes are evil because that money, those farms, and those businesses have already been taxed from payroll taxes, to taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. I think that is beyond fair, and it should stop there. A man/woman works his whole life, pays the man at every crossroad, and still finds a way to leave something to his children, only to have the gov take half of it when he dies. Yes, I think it is nothing short of stealing. I have no problem paying my fair share while I am here. But to steal half of my assets when I die.......it's the ultimate succer punch._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #180 January 20, 2004 Quote I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. So when you lefties harp about how we need to raise tax on businesses or on the wealthy, all you are advocating is paying more for a product or service or destroying the amount of a raise you might have recieved. So basically what you're saying is that you don't mind paying for it as long as you're using it... Which is understandable and typical for a greedy republican , however, you know that as someone who is rich enough to employ others, you are already paying a lesser percentage of you income in social security taxes even though you will get just as much benefit from them (are you gonna turn it down when you get old enough and those checks start coming in?). And as for gasoline taxes, gimme a break, excise taxes are probably one of the "fairest" taxes around. And most gasoline taxes go directly to the upkeep of roads. And yes, the more you use the roads, or the bigger gas-guzzler you drive, the more maintenance you cause the roads to need. So, if you really have a problem with those gas taxes, buy yourself a prius (gas-electric hybrid), I'm sure you can afford it and hey, some states even offer a tax incentive for it. Note: not Tennessee, we give tax incentives for driving bigger less fuel efficient vehicles here. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #181 January 20, 2004 So you also disagree with Kallend on the car example. If you can afford the Hummer you do pay more taxes in terms of more gas usage. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #182 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuote Note: not Tennessee, we give tax incentives for driving bigger less fuel efficient vehicles here. Well, I've never seen so many people with enormous butts as I have in Tennessee, so maybe they need the huge vehicles to haul their huge asses around in.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #183 January 20, 2004 Quote Estate taxes are evil because that money, those farms, and those businesses have already been taxed from payroll taxes, to taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. I think that is beyond fair, and it should stop there. A man/woman works his whole life, pays the man at every crossroad, and still finds a way to leave something to his children, only to have the gov take half of it when he dies. Yes, I think it is nothing short of stealing. I have no problem paying my fair share while I am here. But to steal half of my assets when I die.......it's the ultimate succer punch. I must have missed Jesus' Sermon entitled "Give unto Caesar what Caesar is due unless he comes knocking twice..." The only reason Republicans want to end estate taxes is to ensure that there will never be any social mobility in this country and that the children of the rich will indeed be this nation's permanent "noble class". I mean, come on, 1 million isn't enough of an exemption?? You really think that just because someone happened to be born to someone filthy stinking rich they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it when that money is handed to them? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #184 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Note: not Tennessee, we give tax incentives for driving bigger less fuel efficient vehicles here. Well, I've never seen so many people with enormous butts as I have in Tennessee, so maybe they need the huge vehicles to haul their huge asses around in. ROFLMAO I don't think anyone was expecting that. People are swinging by to see what's wrong. Blindside humor always catches me off guard. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #185 January 20, 2004 QuoteThis is all very intangible. Can't work with it. And it is all stuff you pay for, not given to you by the government at the expense of the 'poor'. Not a very good try at all. What formal programs are out there that you 'get' from the government that someone not as financially fortunate as you isn't allowed to participate in? Edit: I admire/respect your logical approach to things, but this topic is disappointing and you are very non-fact/emotionally based. I really thought you would have several concrete examples. That's why I'm picking. sorry. Just because it's intangible it doesn't mean it's unreal. Everything I described is a real advantage for the rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #186 January 20, 2004 QuoteSo you also disagree with Kallend on the car example. If you can afford the Hummer you do pay more taxes in terms of more gas usage. I might disagree with his use of that analogy... But what he was getting at is that the rich get a much larger benefit from the policies and practices of the government, and therefore, rightfully, should pay more. Excise (like gasoline) taxes are based on actual consumption of a good, the more you use it, the more tax you pay. I guarantee you a hummer causes more wear and tear to the highways than my little suzuki. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #187 January 20, 2004 Dude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. And I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. You are so guilty. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #188 January 20, 2004 QuoteJust because it's intangible it doesn't mean it's unreal. Quote of the Day ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #189 January 20, 2004 QuoteDude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. You are so guilty. OK, how bout 10 million? Anything for the "little" guy ya know... But, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, just on the principle "it's been taxed before". Yeah Yeah, everything's been taxed before. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #190 January 20, 2004 QuoteAnd I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. Hmm, police, fire departments, national defense. If they happen to drive those Hummers they're using much more of our clean air. As Kallend pointed out, access to the government. Public Utilities, the air waves. Goodness the list goes on and on... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #191 January 20, 2004 Death tax note - The higher you set the exemption, the bigger the businesses you are supporting. If it's $1M, then the small business owner goes out of business (farmers, shopkeepers). If it's $10M then the medium sized guy goes out of business. Apparently, you only want large multi-billion dollar corporations to do business in this country? (But if you make it too small, then everyone is hurt - so only solution is do away with it). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #192 January 20, 2004 QuoteHmm, police, fire departments, national defense. If they happen to drive those Hummers they're using much more of our clean air. As Kallend pointed out, access to the government. Public Utilities, the air waves. Goodness the list goes on and on... What policies exempt the little guy in favor of the big guy? It's simple. All this is paid for, Public utilities are paid for from property taxes, airwaves are paid for with advertising budgets. Paid for, not given. You can state we see it differently if you want, but you guys are ignoring my question and answering what you want. I gave a single example and it was a stretch, do you have anything else that's policy/law rather than just market driven through the fair exchange of funds? Edit: the poor don't benefit from national defense? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #193 January 20, 2004 Actually, in any situation where there is a partnership or corporation, nobody goes out of business. So since this really only applies to personal assets.... Personal i.e., all the shit bill gates owns, not Microsoft itself. Or all the shit Dick Cheney owns, not halliburton itself. Or all the shit the Bushes own not Arbusto (oops, sorry, they're gone). So, people have a very simple way to keep there business from going under when they croak, form a partnership with your kids. However, if you want to give your kids a large sum of liquid assets, yeah, uncle Sam's gonna take a chunk. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #194 January 20, 2004 Why was it that Bush was able to land that cushie patrolling the skies of Texas gig during 'nam? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #195 January 20, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estate taxes are evil because that money, those farms, and those businesses have already been taxed from payroll taxes, to taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. I think that is beyond fair, and it should stop there. A man/woman works his whole life, pays the man at every crossroad, and still finds a way to leave something to his children, only to have the gov take half of it when he dies. Yes, I think it is nothing short of stealing. I have no problem paying my fair share while I am here. But to steal half of my assets when I die.......it's the ultimate succer punch. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I must have missed Jesus' Sermon entitled "Give unto Caesar what Caesar is due unless he comes knocking twice..." The only reason Republicans want to end estate taxes is to ensure that there will never be any social mobility in this country and that the children of the rich will indeed be this nation's permanent "noble class". I mean, come on, 1 million isn't enough of an exemption?? You really think that just because someone happened to be born to someone filthy stinking rich they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it when that money is handed to them? That is precisely what I think. Those assets have already been taxed numerous times. This is not a rich/poor issue, or even the lame nobility/peasant issue. It is an issue of fairness. It is unjust to steal half of someone's life savings, I don't care if it's 1 buck, 1 Million, 1 Billion, or 100 Billion bucks. It does not belong to Caesar, period. Oh, and by the way.....I'm not a Republican, let's not go there._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #196 January 20, 2004 QuoteBut, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, Yes, it is fair....it's his money._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #197 January 20, 2004 QuoteActually, in any situation where there is a partnership or corporation, nobody goes out of business. So since this really only applies to personal assets.... Personal i.e., all the shit bill gates owns, not Microsoft itself. Or all the shit Dick Cheney owns, not halliburton itself. Or all the shit the Bushes own not Arbusto (oops, sorry, they're gone). So, people have a very simple way to keep there business from going under when they croak, form a partnership with your kids. However, if you want to give your kids a large sum of liquid assets, yeah, uncle Sam's gonna take a chunk. Yes, so there is a loophole. If there is a loophole, then the code has something wrong with it that necessitates the loophole. You hate liquid assets. But it's not any of your business what people do with their property. We started this strand by discussion of wanting a simpler tax code with fewer loopholes for everyone. Same rules for all discussed by one side, different rules promoted by the other side. Right now, we are living in the 'different rules' model which we all agree isn't fair. But that's the position you are arguing. It's rather unsettling. I'm not going to trade anymore posts with you until you clean yours up. They aren't profane or anything, but you seem to be getting spun up. So no fun since I really want to discuss rather than push buttons (I do like pushing buttons but not here or now). It was going good, now you just sound angry and bitter. Sorry if I'm wrong, but the written word can be interpreted many ways.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #198 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, Yes, it is fair....it's his money. Under that ideology, no taxes should ever exist. That may be fair to you, but I think most would agree it's simply ludicrous. Take a course or two in public finance, then come talk to me. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #199 January 20, 2004 I was really just pointing out that your arguments about putting people out of business by having an estate tax were erroneous. You're absolutely right, it's none of my business what people do with their dough and vice versa. Now Uncle Sam on the other hand. I think what it generally comes down to is you (not you specifically) either recognize that taxation is a "necessary evil" or you think it's "just plain evil". Those of you in the latter, buy yourself an Island and make do for yourselves there. Sorry if I get spun up Rehm, still hoping to buy you a beer someday. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #200 January 20, 2004 QuoteDude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. And I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. You are so guilty. $1M in assets isn't rich any more, it's small potatoes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 8 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
benny 0 #183 January 20, 2004 Quote Estate taxes are evil because that money, those farms, and those businesses have already been taxed from payroll taxes, to taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. I think that is beyond fair, and it should stop there. A man/woman works his whole life, pays the man at every crossroad, and still finds a way to leave something to his children, only to have the gov take half of it when he dies. Yes, I think it is nothing short of stealing. I have no problem paying my fair share while I am here. But to steal half of my assets when I die.......it's the ultimate succer punch. I must have missed Jesus' Sermon entitled "Give unto Caesar what Caesar is due unless he comes knocking twice..." The only reason Republicans want to end estate taxes is to ensure that there will never be any social mobility in this country and that the children of the rich will indeed be this nation's permanent "noble class". I mean, come on, 1 million isn't enough of an exemption?? You really think that just because someone happened to be born to someone filthy stinking rich they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it when that money is handed to them? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #184 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Note: not Tennessee, we give tax incentives for driving bigger less fuel efficient vehicles here. Well, I've never seen so many people with enormous butts as I have in Tennessee, so maybe they need the huge vehicles to haul their huge asses around in. ROFLMAO I don't think anyone was expecting that. People are swinging by to see what's wrong. Blindside humor always catches me off guard. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #185 January 20, 2004 QuoteThis is all very intangible. Can't work with it. And it is all stuff you pay for, not given to you by the government at the expense of the 'poor'. Not a very good try at all. What formal programs are out there that you 'get' from the government that someone not as financially fortunate as you isn't allowed to participate in? Edit: I admire/respect your logical approach to things, but this topic is disappointing and you are very non-fact/emotionally based. I really thought you would have several concrete examples. That's why I'm picking. sorry. Just because it's intangible it doesn't mean it's unreal. Everything I described is a real advantage for the rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #186 January 20, 2004 QuoteSo you also disagree with Kallend on the car example. If you can afford the Hummer you do pay more taxes in terms of more gas usage. I might disagree with his use of that analogy... But what he was getting at is that the rich get a much larger benefit from the policies and practices of the government, and therefore, rightfully, should pay more. Excise (like gasoline) taxes are based on actual consumption of a good, the more you use it, the more tax you pay. I guarantee you a hummer causes more wear and tear to the highways than my little suzuki. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #187 January 20, 2004 Dude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. And I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. You are so guilty. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #188 January 20, 2004 QuoteJust because it's intangible it doesn't mean it's unreal. Quote of the Day ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #189 January 20, 2004 QuoteDude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. You are so guilty. OK, how bout 10 million? Anything for the "little" guy ya know... But, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, just on the principle "it's been taxed before". Yeah Yeah, everything's been taxed before. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #190 January 20, 2004 QuoteAnd I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. Hmm, police, fire departments, national defense. If they happen to drive those Hummers they're using much more of our clean air. As Kallend pointed out, access to the government. Public Utilities, the air waves. Goodness the list goes on and on... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #191 January 20, 2004 Death tax note - The higher you set the exemption, the bigger the businesses you are supporting. If it's $1M, then the small business owner goes out of business (farmers, shopkeepers). If it's $10M then the medium sized guy goes out of business. Apparently, you only want large multi-billion dollar corporations to do business in this country? (But if you make it too small, then everyone is hurt - so only solution is do away with it). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #192 January 20, 2004 QuoteHmm, police, fire departments, national defense. If they happen to drive those Hummers they're using much more of our clean air. As Kallend pointed out, access to the government. Public Utilities, the air waves. Goodness the list goes on and on... What policies exempt the little guy in favor of the big guy? It's simple. All this is paid for, Public utilities are paid for from property taxes, airwaves are paid for with advertising budgets. Paid for, not given. You can state we see it differently if you want, but you guys are ignoring my question and answering what you want. I gave a single example and it was a stretch, do you have anything else that's policy/law rather than just market driven through the fair exchange of funds? Edit: the poor don't benefit from national defense? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #193 January 20, 2004 Actually, in any situation where there is a partnership or corporation, nobody goes out of business. So since this really only applies to personal assets.... Personal i.e., all the shit bill gates owns, not Microsoft itself. Or all the shit Dick Cheney owns, not halliburton itself. Or all the shit the Bushes own not Arbusto (oops, sorry, they're gone). So, people have a very simple way to keep there business from going under when they croak, form a partnership with your kids. However, if you want to give your kids a large sum of liquid assets, yeah, uncle Sam's gonna take a chunk. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #194 January 20, 2004 Why was it that Bush was able to land that cushie patrolling the skies of Texas gig during 'nam? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #195 January 20, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estate taxes are evil because that money, those farms, and those businesses have already been taxed from payroll taxes, to taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. I think that is beyond fair, and it should stop there. A man/woman works his whole life, pays the man at every crossroad, and still finds a way to leave something to his children, only to have the gov take half of it when he dies. Yes, I think it is nothing short of stealing. I have no problem paying my fair share while I am here. But to steal half of my assets when I die.......it's the ultimate succer punch. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I must have missed Jesus' Sermon entitled "Give unto Caesar what Caesar is due unless he comes knocking twice..." The only reason Republicans want to end estate taxes is to ensure that there will never be any social mobility in this country and that the children of the rich will indeed be this nation's permanent "noble class". I mean, come on, 1 million isn't enough of an exemption?? You really think that just because someone happened to be born to someone filthy stinking rich they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it when that money is handed to them? That is precisely what I think. Those assets have already been taxed numerous times. This is not a rich/poor issue, or even the lame nobility/peasant issue. It is an issue of fairness. It is unjust to steal half of someone's life savings, I don't care if it's 1 buck, 1 Million, 1 Billion, or 100 Billion bucks. It does not belong to Caesar, period. Oh, and by the way.....I'm not a Republican, let's not go there._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #196 January 20, 2004 QuoteBut, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, Yes, it is fair....it's his money._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #197 January 20, 2004 QuoteActually, in any situation where there is a partnership or corporation, nobody goes out of business. So since this really only applies to personal assets.... Personal i.e., all the shit bill gates owns, not Microsoft itself. Or all the shit Dick Cheney owns, not halliburton itself. Or all the shit the Bushes own not Arbusto (oops, sorry, they're gone). So, people have a very simple way to keep there business from going under when they croak, form a partnership with your kids. However, if you want to give your kids a large sum of liquid assets, yeah, uncle Sam's gonna take a chunk. Yes, so there is a loophole. If there is a loophole, then the code has something wrong with it that necessitates the loophole. You hate liquid assets. But it's not any of your business what people do with their property. We started this strand by discussion of wanting a simpler tax code with fewer loopholes for everyone. Same rules for all discussed by one side, different rules promoted by the other side. Right now, we are living in the 'different rules' model which we all agree isn't fair. But that's the position you are arguing. It's rather unsettling. I'm not going to trade anymore posts with you until you clean yours up. They aren't profane or anything, but you seem to be getting spun up. So no fun since I really want to discuss rather than push buttons (I do like pushing buttons but not here or now). It was going good, now you just sound angry and bitter. Sorry if I'm wrong, but the written word can be interpreted many ways.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #198 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, Yes, it is fair....it's his money. Under that ideology, no taxes should ever exist. That may be fair to you, but I think most would agree it's simply ludicrous. Take a course or two in public finance, then come talk to me. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #199 January 20, 2004 I was really just pointing out that your arguments about putting people out of business by having an estate tax were erroneous. You're absolutely right, it's none of my business what people do with their dough and vice versa. Now Uncle Sam on the other hand. I think what it generally comes down to is you (not you specifically) either recognize that taxation is a "necessary evil" or you think it's "just plain evil". Those of you in the latter, buy yourself an Island and make do for yourselves there. Sorry if I get spun up Rehm, still hoping to buy you a beer someday. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #200 January 20, 2004 QuoteDude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. And I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. You are so guilty. $1M in assets isn't rich any more, it's small potatoes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 8 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,027 #185 January 20, 2004 QuoteThis is all very intangible. Can't work with it. And it is all stuff you pay for, not given to you by the government at the expense of the 'poor'. Not a very good try at all. What formal programs are out there that you 'get' from the government that someone not as financially fortunate as you isn't allowed to participate in? Edit: I admire/respect your logical approach to things, but this topic is disappointing and you are very non-fact/emotionally based. I really thought you would have several concrete examples. That's why I'm picking. sorry. Just because it's intangible it doesn't mean it's unreal. Everything I described is a real advantage for the rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #186 January 20, 2004 QuoteSo you also disagree with Kallend on the car example. If you can afford the Hummer you do pay more taxes in terms of more gas usage. I might disagree with his use of that analogy... But what he was getting at is that the rich get a much larger benefit from the policies and practices of the government, and therefore, rightfully, should pay more. Excise (like gasoline) taxes are based on actual consumption of a good, the more you use it, the more tax you pay. I guarantee you a hummer causes more wear and tear to the highways than my little suzuki. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #187 January 20, 2004 Dude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. And I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. You are so guilty. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #188 January 20, 2004 QuoteJust because it's intangible it doesn't mean it's unreal. Quote of the Day ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #189 January 20, 2004 QuoteDude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. You are so guilty. OK, how bout 10 million? Anything for the "little" guy ya know... But, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, just on the principle "it's been taxed before". Yeah Yeah, everything's been taxed before. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #190 January 20, 2004 QuoteAnd I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. Hmm, police, fire departments, national defense. If they happen to drive those Hummers they're using much more of our clean air. As Kallend pointed out, access to the government. Public Utilities, the air waves. Goodness the list goes on and on... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #191 January 20, 2004 Death tax note - The higher you set the exemption, the bigger the businesses you are supporting. If it's $1M, then the small business owner goes out of business (farmers, shopkeepers). If it's $10M then the medium sized guy goes out of business. Apparently, you only want large multi-billion dollar corporations to do business in this country? (But if you make it too small, then everyone is hurt - so only solution is do away with it). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #192 January 20, 2004 QuoteHmm, police, fire departments, national defense. If they happen to drive those Hummers they're using much more of our clean air. As Kallend pointed out, access to the government. Public Utilities, the air waves. Goodness the list goes on and on... What policies exempt the little guy in favor of the big guy? It's simple. All this is paid for, Public utilities are paid for from property taxes, airwaves are paid for with advertising budgets. Paid for, not given. You can state we see it differently if you want, but you guys are ignoring my question and answering what you want. I gave a single example and it was a stretch, do you have anything else that's policy/law rather than just market driven through the fair exchange of funds? Edit: the poor don't benefit from national defense? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #193 January 20, 2004 Actually, in any situation where there is a partnership or corporation, nobody goes out of business. So since this really only applies to personal assets.... Personal i.e., all the shit bill gates owns, not Microsoft itself. Or all the shit Dick Cheney owns, not halliburton itself. Or all the shit the Bushes own not Arbusto (oops, sorry, they're gone). So, people have a very simple way to keep there business from going under when they croak, form a partnership with your kids. However, if you want to give your kids a large sum of liquid assets, yeah, uncle Sam's gonna take a chunk. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #194 January 20, 2004 Why was it that Bush was able to land that cushie patrolling the skies of Texas gig during 'nam? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #195 January 20, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estate taxes are evil because that money, those farms, and those businesses have already been taxed from payroll taxes, to taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains. I think that is beyond fair, and it should stop there. A man/woman works his whole life, pays the man at every crossroad, and still finds a way to leave something to his children, only to have the gov take half of it when he dies. Yes, I think it is nothing short of stealing. I have no problem paying my fair share while I am here. But to steal half of my assets when I die.......it's the ultimate succer punch. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I must have missed Jesus' Sermon entitled "Give unto Caesar what Caesar is due unless he comes knocking twice..." The only reason Republicans want to end estate taxes is to ensure that there will never be any social mobility in this country and that the children of the rich will indeed be this nation's permanent "noble class". I mean, come on, 1 million isn't enough of an exemption?? You really think that just because someone happened to be born to someone filthy stinking rich they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it when that money is handed to them? That is precisely what I think. Those assets have already been taxed numerous times. This is not a rich/poor issue, or even the lame nobility/peasant issue. It is an issue of fairness. It is unjust to steal half of someone's life savings, I don't care if it's 1 buck, 1 Million, 1 Billion, or 100 Billion bucks. It does not belong to Caesar, period. Oh, and by the way.....I'm not a Republican, let's not go there._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #196 January 20, 2004 QuoteBut, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, Yes, it is fair....it's his money._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #197 January 20, 2004 QuoteActually, in any situation where there is a partnership or corporation, nobody goes out of business. So since this really only applies to personal assets.... Personal i.e., all the shit bill gates owns, not Microsoft itself. Or all the shit Dick Cheney owns, not halliburton itself. Or all the shit the Bushes own not Arbusto (oops, sorry, they're gone). So, people have a very simple way to keep there business from going under when they croak, form a partnership with your kids. However, if you want to give your kids a large sum of liquid assets, yeah, uncle Sam's gonna take a chunk. Yes, so there is a loophole. If there is a loophole, then the code has something wrong with it that necessitates the loophole. You hate liquid assets. But it's not any of your business what people do with their property. We started this strand by discussion of wanting a simpler tax code with fewer loopholes for everyone. Same rules for all discussed by one side, different rules promoted by the other side. Right now, we are living in the 'different rules' model which we all agree isn't fair. But that's the position you are arguing. It's rather unsettling. I'm not going to trade anymore posts with you until you clean yours up. They aren't profane or anything, but you seem to be getting spun up. So no fun since I really want to discuss rather than push buttons (I do like pushing buttons but not here or now). It was going good, now you just sound angry and bitter. Sorry if I'm wrong, but the written word can be interpreted many ways.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #198 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, Yes, it is fair....it's his money. Under that ideology, no taxes should ever exist. That may be fair to you, but I think most would agree it's simply ludicrous. Take a course or two in public finance, then come talk to me. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #199 January 20, 2004 I was really just pointing out that your arguments about putting people out of business by having an estate tax were erroneous. You're absolutely right, it's none of my business what people do with their dough and vice versa. Now Uncle Sam on the other hand. I think what it generally comes down to is you (not you specifically) either recognize that taxation is a "necessary evil" or you think it's "just plain evil". Those of you in the latter, buy yourself an Island and make do for yourselves there. Sorry if I get spun up Rehm, still hoping to buy you a beer someday. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #200 January 20, 2004 QuoteDude, farmers can still barely scrape by and have assets over a million. You think some shopkeeper with a little shop in NYC might have that much in assets also? They might just scrape by? Why keep taxing that money over and over again? It only puts the small timer out of business. And I still don't see that the rich use more of anything that isn't directly paid for. No good examples yet. You are so guilty. $1M in assets isn't rich any more, it's small potatoes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
