jcd11235 0 #101 August 15, 2012 QuoteThe cost of services in a competitive market are set by the market. You're implying the government can charge what ever they want for the services they perceive themselves as providing. In some circles, that's called tyranny. It is a competitive market. You're free to move to another country that provide a cost/benefit ratio more to your liking. If you go to a grocery store in a reasonably large town, odds are they will have the best price on some items while other items are priced much higher than at their competitors. People will still fill their basket with both kinds of items, despite what you learned in your Intro to Macroeconomics class. To a point, the store can charge whatever they want, because they've already got you in the store, and they know that going to multiple grocery stores is too much trouble to bother with for most people.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #102 August 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteIOW, inheritance taxes are more likely to punish children of prudent frugally living middle-class parents than the wealthy. That's what the wealthy would of course say. Just like they say 'trickle down' works. And the greedy want their hands on the wealth of others. By any means necessary. Which makes you... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #103 August 15, 2012 QuotePreferably, our SCOTUS would exercise it's authority and limit the Federal Government's power, but they've shown they're not willing to do that. Apparently you don't understand the purpose of the judicial branch. Their job is to interpret law. Limits on the federal government are set by the Constitution, and its framers saw fit to give the federal government pretty broad powers. The primary problem they sought to fix when they drafted that document was, in fact, a small, powerless national government.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #104 August 15, 2012 Quote You're free to move to another country that provide a cost/benefit ratio more to your liking. Why do that when I live in a country whose constitution limits the power of the Federal Government?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #105 August 15, 2012 Quote Their job is to interpret law. SCOTUS's job is to strike down laws that exceed those powers granted in the Constitution.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #106 August 15, 2012 QuoteQuote Their job is to interpret law. SCOTUS's job is to strike down laws that exceed those powers granted in the Constitution. Excellent, so what are the limits the Constitution states for Taxation levels? And if there are none, why are you blaming the SCOTUS for not upholding it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #107 August 15, 2012 QuoteQuote Their job is to interpret law. SCOTUS's job is to strike down laws that exceed those powers granted in the Constitution. Yes. And the framers granted very broad powers to the federal government, so laws exceeding federal authority are not as common as many conservatives would like us to believe.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #108 August 15, 2012 Quote Excellent, so what are the limits the Constitution states for Taxation levels? Exactly. It's not unreasonable to view Robert's/SCOTUS's ruling on the ACA that there are effectively no limits on taxation. Whatever gets voted in. Considering the number of people in this country who do not pay Federal tax, it's tantamount to mob rule.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #109 August 15, 2012 Quote Quote Quote IOW, inheritance taxes are more likely to punish children of prudent frugally living middle-class parents than the wealthy. That's what the wealthy would of course say. Just like they say 'trickle down' works. And the greedy want their hands on the wealth of others. By any means necessary. Which makes you... He's just stirrin' the soup. First he's for it, then, he's against it. Maybe, he's a politician!? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #110 August 15, 2012 QuoteQuote Excellent, so what are the limits the Constitution states for Taxation levels? Exactly. It's not unreasonable to view Robert's/SCOTUS's ruling on the ACA that there are effectively no limits on taxation. Whatever gets voted in. Considering the number of people in this country who do not pay Federal tax, it's tantamount to mob rule. That doesn't answer my question. What limits does your Constitution put on Taxation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #111 August 15, 2012 QuoteQuote Excellent, so what are the limits the Constitution states for Taxation levels? Exactly. It's not unreasonable to view Robert's/SCOTUS's ruling on the ACA that there are effectively no limits on taxation. Whatever gets voted in. Considering the number of people in this country who do not pay Federal tax, it's tantamount to mob rule. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" It appears only that the taxes must be for the purpose of defense or providing for the general welfare of the country (plus a few other purposes subsequently enumerated in Article 1, Section 8). That's pretty broad taxation power.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #112 August 15, 2012 Quote What limits does your Constitution put on Taxation? None to my knowledge, other than what voters will stand.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #113 August 15, 2012 QuoteQuote What limits does your Constitution put on Taxation? None to my knowledge, other than what voters will stand. But you want SCOTUS to put those limits in place? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #114 August 15, 2012 Quote But you want SCOTUS to put those limits in place? That reference was to Robert's decision to call mandatory participation in ACA a tax.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #115 August 15, 2012 QuoteQuote But you want SCOTUS to put those limits in place? That reference was to Robert's decision to call mandatory participation in ACA a tax. That decision is justified by sound mathematical logic. Two functions f and g are equal if and only if they share the same domain, the same codomain, and f(x) = g(x) for every x in the domain. Congress could have written the individual mandate in the form of a tax and corresponding tax credit with identical results for each and every tax payer, which would have obviously been within their power under the taxation clause. Therefore, it doesn't matter what Congress called the incentive for the mandate; it is a tax.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #116 August 29, 2012 A minimal estate tax brings in another $100 billion. The 2009 estate tax, designed to impact only the tiny percentage of Americans with multi-million dollar estates that have never been taxed, returns about $100 billion per year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #117 August 29, 2012 QuoteA minimal estate tax brings in another $100 billion. The 2009 estate tax, designed to impact only the tiny percentage of Americans with multi-million dollar estates that have never been taxed, returns about $100 billion per year. A $100 billion here, a $100 billion there... Soon be discussing some real money.... 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
popsjumper 2 #118 August 31, 2012 Keep your hands out of my pie. We only have three options: 1. Spend it all before you die. 2. Take advantage of existing tax law and transfer as much as you can to go to whomever you wish. 3. Give it to our goobermint. There are those of you out there who would argue for either of those options, or all for that matter, and you know what? It's only opinion. Personally, I don't want anyone telling me what to do with the wealth I've accumulated. I earned it, I'll do whatever I please with it. I may elect any option I so desire and it's none of your business. I get a real kick out of those who are whining about the wealthy kids getting money they "didn't earn". That just reeks of greed....you are crying because they are getting what you want and can't have unless the goobermint reaches in and steals it for you. Sick puppies. If you want it, get off your dead ass and do the things that will generate your own wealth....then you'll be crying about the goobermint taking it away to give to somebody else. The 'haves' and the 'have nots'. The 'have nots' whining and crying because they are too lazy to get off their dead ass and trying to take what others have. I earned it, I'll do whatever I please with it....none of your screwball business.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #119 August 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote I'd like the estate go to those who earned it - And who might that be? Well, in standard Dreamdancer replyspeak: Those who earned it. He's proposed some garbage in the past that the owner or founder of a company didn't actually earn the money, the workers did. And they should get the money when the owner dies. .... If that was logical, then let the workers re-pay to the company all that the owner paid them to support their families and such. Or, as is really logical...they already got what they were due in the form of weekly paychecks. Paychecks that they agreed to take in compensation for their labor.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #120 September 24, 2012 Created 17 years ago to benefit Romney's five sons, the Ann and Mitt Romney 1995 Family Trust is worth "roughly $100 million," a Romney campaign official said a few months ago. The Romney campaign claims that its candidate did not pay gift taxes* on money in the trust, which, if true, would mean that Romney could have only funded it to the tune of $10.6 million, with the rest of its assets reflecting capital gains. Tax experts find that scenario unlikely, and argue that Romney might have made a low-interest loan to the trust, which the trust then used to make investments. Whatever the setup, Romney should have no trouble influencing how the money is allocated: The fund's sole trustee is R. Bradford Malt, Romney's financial adviser. It's also worth noting that Romney's affluent sons don't appear to need the money anymore. Theoretically, each son and his wife could gift up to $26,000 back to their father each year, tax free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #121 September 27, 2012 Digging It Romney’s vehicle is known as an “intentionally defective grantor trust” or by the acronym IDGT -- hence the nickname: “I Dig It.” Such trusts permit donors to give potentially unlimited amounts to children free of estate and gift taxes. Here’s how they work: the person setting up the trust, like Romney, contributes assets such as an interest in a fund or shares in a company. If he makes that contribution before those assets appreciate -- particularly when they are privately held and difficult to value -- he can claim the gift tax obligation is low or non-existent since the declared value is low or zero. If the trust generates any income -- such as by selling stock -- the eventual tax bill is the responsibility of Romney, not the trust. By paying the capital gains tax, which was 20 percent in the late 1990s and is now 15 percent, he can avoid depleting the funds in the trust -- in essence making an additional donation that’s free of gift taxes. That benefit in particular makes this type of trust “a more powerful driver of wealth transfer in estate planning than almost anything else,” said Breitstone, the wealth preservation attorney. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #122 September 27, 2012 QuoteDigging It Romney’s vehicle is known as an “intentionally defective grantor trust” or by the acronym IDGT -- hence the nickname: “I Dig It.” Such trusts permit donors to give potentially unlimited amounts to children free of estate and gift taxes. Here’s how they work: the person setting up the trust, like Romney, contributes assets such as an interest in a fund or shares in a company. If he makes that contribution before those assets appreciate -- particularly when they are privately held and difficult to value -- he can claim the gift tax obligation is low or non-existent since the declared value is low or zero. If the trust generates any income -- such as by selling stock -- the eventual tax bill is the responsibility of Romney, not the trust. By paying the capital gains tax, which was 20 percent in the late 1990s and is now 15 percent, he can avoid depleting the funds in the trust -- in essence making an additional donation that’s free of gift taxes. That benefit in particular makes this type of trust “a more powerful driver of wealth transfer in estate planning than almost anything else,” said Breitstone, the wealth preservation attorney. A great tool Better than the gov getting any"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #123 September 27, 2012 Gains in the trust for Romney’s heirs remain free of gift taxes and potential estate taxes. Public exposure of Romney’s various tax avoidance tactics may spur legislation cracking down on them, according to Breitstone. Romney “uses every trick in the book,” Breitstone said. “It’s going to be harder to do tax planning in the future. He’s bringing attention to things that weren’t getting attention.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #124 September 27, 2012 QuoteGains in the trust for Romney’s heirs remain free of gift taxes and potential estate taxes. Public exposure of Romney’s various tax avoidance tactics may spur legislation cracking down on them, according to Breitstone. Romney “uses every trick in the book,” Breitstone said. “It’s going to be harder to do tax planning in the future. He’s bringing attention to things that weren’t getting attention.” Anything that keeps exess funding away from a government type you support is good be me"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
