100% Estate Tax

69 posts / 0 new

I have read several post calling for 100% Estate Tax. Why would a smart person save and invest just to have the goverment take it all? What about taking care of yourself and family? If a parent is able to work and save and by doing so can provide assets to allow a child to choose a life path free from want and focus on helping other. You know, like the Kennedys.

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:04 am

Comments

First time I ever heard anyone even mention such a thing. GET REAL.

J DAILEY's picture
J DAILEY
Joined:
Feb. 23, 2012 7:43 am

If this were real practically all the farmers would go bankrupt then millions of people would end up starving to death.

WhiteShoePrincess's picture
WhiteShoePrincess
Joined:
May. 23, 2012 9:05 pm

Uh Hum... The inheritance tax does not apply to estates under $5,000,000, and there is an additional $1,000,000 deduction for family farms. If you're bigger than that Monsanto bankrupted you twenty years ago.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am

First, I've never heard of a 100% estate tax proposed by anyone.

2nd, No farmer would go bankrupt. The farmer would die, and then his assets would get auctioned and the proceeds would go the govt. The value of the land would revert to what the land can produce in 4 years, give or take. But no one would go bankrupt. Dead people cannot go bankrupt.

And

Thomas Jefferson said: “There is...an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents.... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy.”

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

no but the family would because you would be taking their income generator from them.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

No farmer would go bankrupt. The farmer would die, and then his assets would get auctioned and the proceeds would go the govt.

However the son who worked his whole life on the farm and knows everything about it, is now kicked off and replaced with whomever is in the politically favored class at the time. This explains perfectly why top down all powerful government socialism just doesn't work.

It tries to remove a basic human instinct and motivation. The desire to create a better life for oneself and ones family. I would love to know where people think the government has the moral right to this money anyway. The man's money is just the meagre amount he has left AFTER being taxed for his use of the commons.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

But once again, no one is proposing 100% estate taxes.

And if the son is wise, wouldn't he be in a position to buy the farm while the father is alive, or buy his own farm? Is the only way in the conservative world to gain wealth through inheritance?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

The hundred 100 percent estate tax would be perfect for the left thst way the government would control all the land And all the people. The outcome is left wing utopia

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

I've posted several times that I advocate an estate tax of 100%.

If a farmer has a farm he wants to leave to his son, then he can gift it to him before he dies. Hence, no estate tax.

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

"Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

I've posted several times that I advocate an estate tax of 100%.

If a farmer has a farm he wants to leave to his son, then he can gift it to him before he dies. Hence, no estate tax.

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

"Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance."

So does welfare.... Inheretence should be left alone the parents paid taxes on the money as they earned it.. They should be able to do with it as they please.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

First of all an inheritance tax shouldn't be added to anything less than 10 million dollars or so. Second of all there shouldn't be an inheritance tax on anything that is productive. If you have a productive family farm that actually produces something for the country then why would you tax it just because it changes hands? The inheritance of stagnant money is where there needs to be a tax if for no other reason to try to eliminate stagnant money. If you have someone like Paris Hilton who inherits 500 million dollars that was just sitting in a money market then why not tax that money back into the economy. Instead she will take that money and put her name on it in exchange for a life of luxury spending only the interest it makes. The principle on that money is dead money. It can just sit in a hole for centuries and never really circulate in the economy. I don't care of she wants to live like a queen but at least put that money to work somehow.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:

I've posted several times that I advocate an estate tax of 100%.

If a farmer has a farm he wants to leave to his son, then he can gift it to him before he dies. Hence, no estate tax.

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

"Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance."

So does welfare.... Inheretence should be left alone the parents paid taxes on the money as they earned it.. They should be able to do with it as they please.

I also advocate eliminating taxes on income, so that addresses that argument.

Don't understand the remark "so does welfare..."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:

I've posted several times that I advocate an estate tax of 100%.

If a farmer has a farm he wants to leave to his son, then he can gift it to him before he dies. Hence, no estate tax.

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

"Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance."

So does welfare.... Inheretence should be left alone the parents paid taxes on the money as they earned it.. They should be able to do with it as they please.

I also advocate eliminating taxes on income, so that addresses that argument.

Don't understand the remark "so does welfare..."

Welfare is the government playing favorites And giving some one an unfair advantage. By taking money from people who have earned it, so they can give it to some one else.

Great eleminate the income tax, i still earned the money why can't i keep it? Why can't I give it to my family so they Will be better off? What makes you think the government Will be better at using the money?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

workingman, you keep confusing yourself with very rich people. YOU should be able to keep every penny you EARN. YOU should be able to give it to your family so they will be better off.

When are you guys going to realize that the money you work so hard for is a different animal than the money that the very rich accumulate. You use your body and mind, sweat and tears, blood and guts to earn what is given you. THEY use somebody else's blood, sweat and tears to "accumulate" money and assets. THEY have enough money and assets to accumulate even more money and assets from simply investing it somewhere and never having to lift a finger.

If you ever hear me trouncing on wealth, it's the super wealthy that I'm addressing. If you make a million dollars a year actually working hard and earning it yourself then that's fantastic. If you make a million dollars a year through simple accumulation then that's a different person than the worker. You should honor a hard working man with a good income and benefits to go with it. If you are that kind of person then you should be standing up for others like you and not standing up for those who take advantage of honest labor.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote chilidog:

I've posted several times that I advocate an estate tax of 100%.

If a farmer has a farm he wants to leave to his son, then he can gift it to him before he dies. Hence, no estate tax.

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

"Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance."

So you oppose the gift taxes? What happens if the farmer dies unexpectedly?

One thing that many on the left seem to miss is that large estates generally do not consist of liquid assets. If you inherit a decent sized company that is worth 20 million or so how do you pay the estate tax without selling the company?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

There are two important things to remember about this argument - 1. It is a distraction. It is banks and ag companies, not government that have destroyed privately owned farms. and 2. It is a theoretical issue only. No family farm has ever been bankrupted by the estate tax. It has never happened.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am
Quote doh1304:No family farm has ever been bankrupted by the estate tax. It has never happened.

No, they would have to sell the farm to pay the tax before that would happen. If you have a high percentage tax on a producing asset like a farm you must either make crippling annualized payments or sell. What other way would they have the means to pay the tax?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

workingman, you keep confusing yourself with very rich people. YOU should be able to keep every penny you EARN. YOU should be able to give it to your family so they will be better off.

When are you guys going to realize that the money you work so hard for is a different animal than the money that the very rich accumulate. You use your body and mind, sweat and tears, blood and guts to earn what is given you. THEY use somebody else's blood, sweat and tears to "accumulate" money and assets. THEY have enough money and assets to accumulate even more money and assets from simply investing it somewhere and never having to lift a finger.

If you ever hear me trouncing on wealth, it's the super wealthy that I'm addressing. If you make a million dollars a year actually working hard and earning it yourself then that's fantastic. If you make a million dollars a year through simple accumulation then that's a different person than the worker. You should honor a hard working man with a good income and benefits to go with it. If you are that kind of person then you should be standing up for others like you and not standing up for those who take advantage of honest labor.

So you don't have a retirement account because what you are descibing is the exact goal of a retirement account. Take what you make invest it so it makes more money until you can live in comfort off the interest and dividends.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:So you don't have a retirement account because what you are descibing is the exact goal of a retirement account. Take what you make invest it so it makes more money until you can live in comfort off the interest and dividends.

I don't follow your analogy. The tax is due when someone passes so are you saying that an aging business owner needs to save millions of dollars up to avoid the family losing control of the family business? Wouln't that savings also be subject to the tax?

So to sumarize; the busines owner would pay income tax on the money he pulls out so his kid can pay the estate tax and the savings he pulled out to pay the estate tax would also be subject to the estate tax.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

workingman, you keep confusing yourself with very rich people. YOU should be able to keep every penny you EARN. YOU should be able to give it to your family so they will be better off.

When are you guys going to realize that the money you work so hard for is a different animal than the money that the very rich accumulate. You use your body and mind, sweat and tears, blood and guts to earn what is given you. THEY use somebody else's blood, sweat and tears to "accumulate" money and assets. THEY have enough money and assets to accumulate even more money and assets from simply investing it somewhere and never having to lift a finger.

If you ever hear me trouncing on wealth, it's the super wealthy that I'm addressing. If you make a million dollars a year actually working hard and earning it yourself then that's fantastic. If you make a million dollars a year through simple accumulation then that's a different person than the worker. You should honor a hard working man with a good income and benefits to go with it. If you are that kind of person then you should be standing up for others like you and not standing up for those who take advantage of honest labor.

So you don't have a retirement account because what you are descibing is the exact goal of a retirement account. Take what you make invest it so it makes more money until you can live in comfort off the interest and dividends.

You are confusing US with THEM again. If you are a workingman then you should be able to do what you want with your money. Invest it, give it to the kids, whatever without any penalty. When you are a non working man and you make your money from other working folk and then that money is invested to make even more money without doing anything then yeah, it's a different story all together. You can work hard all of your life and accumulate a lot of money. That is money that you have really earned and it should be treated differently. You should be able to invest in an IRA or stocks or anything else that helps to set up your retirement.

These very rich people who make money from money from labor of others are not setting up a well earned retirement account. They are accumulating as much wealth as possible whether they need it or not. There is a huge difference in how they gain wealth versus how I gain wealth. I must earn every penny of what I hope to invest. They don't. They use other people's labor and other people's money and other people's connections. I don't have the power to do that on a working mans wages.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

workingman, you keep confusing yourself with very rich people. YOU should be able to keep every penny you EARN. YOU should be able to give it to your family so they will be better off.

When are you guys going to realize that the money you work so hard for is a different animal than the money that the very rich accumulate. You use your body and mind, sweat and tears, blood and guts to earn what is given you. THEY use somebody else's blood, sweat and tears to "accumulate" money and assets. THEY have enough money and assets to accumulate even more money and assets from simply investing it somewhere and never having to lift a finger.

If you ever hear me trouncing on wealth, it's the super wealthy that I'm addressing. If you make a million dollars a year actually working hard and earning it yourself then that's fantastic. If you make a million dollars a year through simple accumulation then that's a different person than the worker. You should honor a hard working man with a good income and benefits to go with it. If you are that kind of person then you should be standing up for others like you and not standing up for those who take advantage of honest labor.

So you don't have a retirement account because what you are descibing is the exact goal of a retirement account. Take what you make invest it so it makes more money until you can live in comfort off the interest and dividends.

You are confusing US with THEM again. If you are a workingman then you should be able to do what you want with your money. Invest it, give it to the kids, whatever without any penalty. When you are a non working man and you make your money from other working folk and then that money is invested to make even more money without doing anything then yeah, it's a different story all together. You can work hard all of your life and accumulate a lot of money. That is money that you have really earned and it should be treated differently. You should be able to invest in an IRA or stocks or anything else that helps to set up your retirement.

These very rich people who make money from money from labor of others are not setting up a well earned retirement account. They are accumulating as much wealth as possible whether they need it or not. There is a huge difference in how they gain wealth versus how I gain wealth. I must earn every penny of what I hope to invest. They don't. They use other people's labor and other people's money and other people's connections. I don't have the power to do that on a working mans wages.

Every nickel you invest according to you is money that makes money from other peoples labor so by having a retirement account you are doing tve exact same thing as they are accumulating all the money you can with limited effort on your part. even the interest from a bank account is from other peoples labor.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You are confusing US with THEM again.

There is no such thing as "US" and "THEM". The entire concept is anathema to the very basis that our country was founded. "ALL men are created equal". There is no classes, no US, no THEM, just the "RULE OF LAW". No man is above the law and laws are created for all men.

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

You are falling for Obamas class warfare tactic of pitting citizen against citizen in an attempt to divide the country in the hope that it falls.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

workingman, you keep confusing yourself with very rich people. YOU should be able to keep every penny you EARN. YOU should be able to give it to your family so they will be better off.

When are you guys going to realize that the money you work so hard for is a different animal than the money that the very rich accumulate. You use your body and mind, sweat and tears, blood and guts to earn what is given you. THEY use somebody else's blood, sweat and tears to "accumulate" money and assets. THEY have enough money and assets to accumulate even more money and assets from simply investing it somewhere and never having to lift a finger.

If you ever hear me trouncing on wealth, it's the super wealthy that I'm addressing. If you make a million dollars a year actually working hard and earning it yourself then that's fantastic. If you make a million dollars a year through simple accumulation then that's a different person than the worker. You should honor a hard working man with a good income and benefits to go with it. If you are that kind of person then you should be standing up for others like you and not standing up for those who take advantage of honest labor.

So you don't have a retirement account because what you are descibing is the exact goal of a retirement account. Take what you make invest it so it makes more money until you can live in comfort off the interest and dividends.

You are confusing US with THEM again. If you are a workingman then you should be able to do what you want with your money. Invest it, give it to the kids, whatever without any penalty. When you are a non working man and you make your money from other working folk and then that money is invested to make even more money without doing anything then yeah, it's a different story all together. You can work hard all of your life and accumulate a lot of money. That is money that you have really earned and it should be treated differently. You should be able to invest in an IRA or stocks or anything else that helps to set up your retirement.

These very rich people who make money from money from labor of others are not setting up a well earned retirement account. They are accumulating as much wealth as possible whether they need it or not. There is a huge difference in how they gain wealth versus how I gain wealth. I must earn every penny of what I hope to invest. They don't. They use other people's labor and other people's money and other people's connections. I don't have the power to do that on a working mans wages.

Every nickel you invest according to you is money that makes money from other peoples labor so by having a retirement account you are doing tve exact same thing as they are accumulating all the money you can with limited effort on your part. even the interest from a bank account is from other peoples labor.

I give up. You haven't understood a word I've said.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Calperson:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You are confusing US with THEM again.

There is no such thing as "US" and "THEM". The entire concept is anathema to the very basis that our country was founded. "ALL men are created equal". There is no classes, no US, no THEM, just the "RULE OF LAW". No man is above the law and laws are created for all men.

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

You are falling for Obamas class warfare tactic of pitting citizen against citizen in an attempt to divide the country in the hope that it falls.

So you are saying that I too can pay less than 15% in income taxes just like one of "them" no matter how much income I make?

All men are created equal but not all income is treated equal. You are comparing apples to peanuts again.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

workingman, you keep confusing yourself with very rich people. YOU should be able to keep every penny you EARN. YOU should be able to give it to your family so they will be better off.

When are you guys going to realize that the money you work so hard for is a different animal than the money that the very rich accumulate. You use your body and mind, sweat and tears, blood and guts to earn what is given you. THEY use somebody else's blood, sweat and tears to "accumulate" money and assets. THEY have enough money and assets to accumulate even more money and assets from simply investing it somewhere and never having to lift a finger.

If you ever hear me trouncing on wealth, it's the super wealthy that I'm addressing. If you make a million dollars a year actually working hard and earning it yourself then that's fantastic. If you make a million dollars a year through simple accumulation then that's a different person than the worker. You should honor a hard working man with a good income and benefits to go with it. If you are that kind of person then you should be standing up for others like you and not standing up for those who take advantage of honest labor.

So you don't have a retirement account because what you are descibing is the exact goal of a retirement account. Take what you make invest it so it makes more money until you can live in comfort off the interest and dividends.

You are confusing US with THEM again. If you are a workingman then you should be able to do what you want with your money. Invest it, give it to the kids, whatever without any penalty. When you are a non working man and you make your money from other working folk and then that money is invested to make even more money without doing anything then yeah, it's a different story all together. You can work hard all of your life and accumulate a lot of money. That is money that you have really earned and it should be treated differently. You should be able to invest in an IRA or stocks or anything else that helps to set up your retirement.

These very rich people who make money from money from labor of others are not setting up a well earned retirement account. They are accumulating as much wealth as possible whether they need it or not. There is a huge difference in how they gain wealth versus how I gain wealth. I must earn every penny of what I hope to invest. They don't. They use other people's labor and other people's money and other people's connections. I don't have the power to do that on a working mans wages.

Every nickel you invest according to you is money that makes money from other peoples labor so by having a retirement account you are doing tve exact same thing as they are accumulating all the money you can with limited effort on your part. even the interest from a bank account is from other peoples labor.

I give up. You haven't understood a word I've said.

I understand you are saying the ultra Rich get richer by investing in companies And the proceedes are gained with no effort on their part other than investing the money. this according to you is bad.

people how work to earn their money can And should invest their money in companies to make their life better. Which is perfectly aceptable to you.

What you fail to see is they are both the same. The ultra Rich work to earn their money invest it to make more money. The rest of us work to earn the money, then invest it to make themselves more money.

Even if you are talking about ultra wealth kids like paris hilton. Their parents earned the money And left it to them, they have to manage it or run out of it.. They should not be taxed at any higher rate than anyone else.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote WorkerBee:
Quote doh1304:No family farm has ever been bankrupted by the estate tax. It has never happened.

No, they would have to sell the farm to pay the tax before that would happen. If you have a high percentage tax on a producing asset like a farm you must either make crippling annualized payments or sell. What other way would they have the means to pay the tax?

Life Insurance.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

Even if you are talking about ultra wealth kids like paris hilton. Their parents earned the money And left it to them, they have to manage it or run out of it.

You have no idea what a "Trust" is, do you?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:

Even if you are talking about ultra wealth kids like paris hilton. Their parents earned the money And left it to them, they have to manage it or run out of it.

You have no idea what a "Trust" is, do you?

Yes i do. you set them up to.leave the money to your kids you can also set them up so they continue to grow with some managment. The kennedys use them to skip generations to aviod taxes.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Chilidog all this jelousy And hatered for the Rich is killing you. Use that effort to improve your life not destroy theirs.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Inherited wealth is not a good thing. Never has been. Having a social foundation of security free from concerns about those things that belong to a birthright or citizenship is essential to the "equal opportunity" refresher that an economy and society requires. What has been our "inheritance tax" has been overly generous to the rich and too easy to evade. Unless the farmer has been operating on very bad financial advice, it should never be an issue for family farm title transfers in generations. A much bigger problem has been expanding suburban real estate and the factory farm monopolists. Progressives love family farms and businesses.

What I hear conservatives bemoan is the stark life facing the children denied these inheritances. It is as if the inheritance tax were going to impoverish the next generation and eliminate all social contacts, paid for educations and being raised by a family with options. All because they won't get more than a ton of cash under the inheritance tax cap. This is not about fairness, for them, it is about "the right" to keep all the money you can grab or that just falls upon you by magic. It is the giveness of "earned" for the money made by money. It is about sharing at all, other than by 'choice,' and it is not about how much is taken.

Having experienced the children of wealth and privilege, I judge it a mixed blessing at best. The presumption of being better than others is there. It includes being entitled to what one has rather than "lucky" and grateful. Few have the humility to see that their advantages are not equal enough to qualify as fair for others. We do not teach this perspective as a culture, so believing that they have earned their success and deserve the money that flows their way is "normal." It just isn't honest or the way to build a society.

Great wealth has shown itself to be more irresponsible than beneficial to succeeding generations. Those who complain that government will only spend more money if we raise taxes imply waste. If we measured the foundations and other established charity the rich have bequeathed to the future by social value, we would find far more "waste" and duplication than we would were the money being allocated by need and politics. Universities would not be hiring shills in paid faculty posts that pass as tax dodges--charity. Our airwaves would not be deluged by "tobacco science" flacks pushing the interests of established wealth.

Nothing close to levelling has been proposed. An end to dynastic wealth is not even close to what the inheritance tax reforms would approach. It should. Being rich enough to do something is better than being so rich you don't have to do anything. The Progressive agenda is not against the former and does help the latter not become a problem.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

The progressive agenda does not want rich enough to do something. What does that mean exactly you are comfortable but still have to work? If that is the case who sets comfortable? Every citizen should be trying to achieve enough wealth so they never have to work again.

If Rich enough to be confortable but still work. Does that mean your going to push for a pay cap on professional sports And actors?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:

Even if you are talking about ultra wealth kids like paris hilton. Their parents earned the money And left it to them, they have to manage it or run out of it.

You have no idea what a "Trust" is, do you?

Yes i do. you set them up to.leave the money to your kids you can also set them up so they continue to grow with some managment. The kennedys use them to skip generations to aviod taxes.

Then you understand that the kids, grandkids, great-grandkids and so on and so on forever and ever, do not "have to manage it" nor "run out of it."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Good for them that is the ultimate goal for all u.s. Citizens. As the kids spend the money it goes back into curculation.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:The progressive agenda does not want rich enough to do something.

I don't know if you're referring to my point of view, which is not the case. My idea is to have a fixed tax policy that does not tax income or behaviors. Just tax net assets. That's the Treasury. Then you, me, all of us decide how to spend the Treasury. As I posted before, if the Congress wants to send checks back to the 1%, go for it. With wise governance (which is anything but what we've had for several decades) we shouldn't experience extraordinary circumstances like wars and financial meltdowns. But if we do experience such circumstances then we revise the tax policies. Or we borrow.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

100% estate tax-nonsense as any 100% tax would be.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:The progressive agenda does not want rich enough to do something.

I don't know if you're referring to my point of view, which is not the case. My idea is to have a fixed tax policy that does not tax income or behaviors. Just tax net assets. That's the Treasury. Then you, me, all of us decide how to spend the Treasury. As I posted before, if the Congress wants to send checks back to the 1%, go for it. With wise governance (which is anything but what we've had for several decades) we shouldn't experience extraordinary circumstances like wars and financial meltdowns. But if we do experience such circumstances then we revise the tax policies. Or we borrow.

everything you purchase except for food is an assest. Are you going to tax net assests all the same? are you going to tax poor people assests at the same rate as Rich. How do you keep farmers, cobstruction, or other assest given workers from going under.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:Chilidog all this jelousy And hatered for the Rich is killing you. Use that effort to improve your life not destroy theirs.

I was going to write this off as your surrender that you lost the argument, but I have an idea that you might not object to: I might not oppose allowing proportionate voting based on a citizens's earned income. I don't earn as much as you do, I pay less than $30k federal income tax. But I think I earn more than 90% of the citizens of the red states. Why shouldn't I get 4 votes to their 1? I've worked hard, I paid for a valuable education and I have valuable skills and experience that allows me a comfortable, not luxurious, livelihood in Los Angeles. Doesn't that prove, by some analysis, by some degree probably YOUR analysis, that I am wiser than the poor bait shop entrepenuer? Likewise, the engineer who makes twice what I make should be entitled to twice as many "votes" as I get. IMO this is a step in a better direction than allowing Ben Franklin's nth generation descendants to spend millions in free speech.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Don't forget it takes a basic amount of money to survive. A family struggling on $30K/year will be crushed by a $5K additional tax. A person making $1M plus a year may not even notice an additional $5K tax and it won't change his lifestyle one bit. It makes a big difference if $30K is all you make versus $30K out of hundreds of thousands or millions in income.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

Net assets. NET. After debts.

Half Americans aren't worth a dollar. They would pay no tax.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have never had enough debt to whipe out all of my assests. By the time you retire all of your debts have been paid off for a couple of decades.

Assests include your car, House, everything in the House, all tools, stock, cash, And anything else you own you can sell. Do you carry enough debt to whipe that all out

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:Chilidog all this jelousy And hatered for the Rich is killing you. Use that effort to improve your life not destroy theirs.

I was going to write this off as your surrender that you lost the argument, but I have an idea that you might not object to: I might not oppose allowing proportionate voting based on a citizens's earned income. I don't earn as much as you do, I pay less than $30k federal income tax. But I think I earn more than 90% of the citizens of the red states. Why shouldn't I get 4 votes to their 1? I've worked hard, I paid for a valuable education and I have valuable skills and experience that allows me a comfortable, not luxurious, livelihood in Los Angeles. Doesn't that prove, by some analysis, by some degree probably YOUR analysis, that I am wiser than the poor bait shop entrepenuer? Likewise, the engineer who makes twice what I make should be entitled to twice as many "votes" as I get. IMO this is a step in a better direction than allowing Ben Franklin's nth generation descendants to spend millions in free speech.

One person one vote, the fact that unions are pouring millions into elections is just a distraction. You as the voter are required to do your own research And find the candidate you like regardless of commercials you hear.

If over your life time you can accumulate enough wealth so your family never has to work again ever good for you And them. That is the american way. Fortunes have been made And lost. Stop being jealous of the Rich And find your own fortune.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

One person one vote.

I knew you were deep down a liberal union pinko. That's only been the law of the land for 50 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

I heard someone on the radio once that referred to Earl Warren remarking in an interview that he felt this was the most important decision he participated in, out of all the decisions his court handed down.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:

One person one vote.

I knew you were deep down a liberal union pinko. That's only been the law of the land for 50 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

I heard someone on the radio once that referred to Earl Warren remarking in an interview that he felt this was the most important decision he participated in, out of all the decisions his court handed down.

That has been the law of the land since the consitution was written. The liberal commie pinkos have been breaking that law for ever.

In chicago the rule was vote early vote often even the dead can vote for ever.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Who's to say what is a productive asset and what's not? How is a farm more productive that a millionaire whis family isrunning investments and business. Look up Dan Duncan and his family.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Many people misunderstand that Estate Tax in these times is for the most part Tax Due at Death, or as W. dubbed it, "Death Tax," on special tax condition federal, municipal, and sometimes railroad securities which are taxable only at death.

How many of us actually are holding these securities in our investment portfolios?

Only the "old families" have any and it really doesn't concern the rest of us. And that is the Old World Way of keeping things closely held and united in power against the general world population..

100% Estate Tax is an excellent way of breaking the tyrannical chain store, energy, and mortgage lending grip around our throats and a fair way to force cheaters to put back in the Treasury what they have used as their own private funds, subverting our own Legal Code of the Unted States with the help of lawyers the less fortunate can't afford, naturally.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

They subvert nothing the only keep what is rightfully theirs not the governments!

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Who's to say what is a productive asset and what's not? How is a farm more productive that a millionaire whis family isrunning investments and business. Look up Dan Duncan and his family.

If you have to ask how a farm is more productive than a millionaire investing money then you truly are a brainwashed crony. That means that you can't be reasoned with no matter how many facts are presented to you. You aren't worth the time it takes to type this up. Zombies are real and I am surrounded by them. Feeding on other people's brains and gaining nothing from it.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:

One person one vote.

That's only been the law of the land for 50 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

That has been the law of the land since the consitution was written.

If you mean, one person being a full five-fifths person, and owning a person being a three-fifths person, and rockin a penis.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:Chilidog all this jelousy And hatered for the Rich is killing you. Use that effort to improve your life not destroy theirs.

I was going to write this off as your surrender that you lost the argument, but I have an idea that you might not object to: I might not oppose allowing proportionate voting based on a citizens's earned income. I don't earn as much as you do, I pay less than $30k federal income tax. But I think I earn more than 90% of the citizens of the red states. Why shouldn't I get 4 votes to their 1? I've worked hard, I paid for a valuable education and I have valuable skills and experience that allows me a comfortable, not luxurious, livelihood in Los Angeles. Doesn't that prove, by some analysis, by some degree probably YOUR analysis, that I am wiser than the poor bait shop entrepenuer? Likewise, the engineer who makes twice what I make should be entitled to twice as many "votes" as I get. IMO this is a step in a better direction than allowing Ben Franklin's nth generation descendants to spend millions in free speech.

If over your life time you can accumulate enough wealth so your family never has to work again ever good for you And them. That is the american way.

I presented a perfectly obnoxious antidemocratic path that would disenfranchise the have-nots in favor of the haves, and still you will not compromise. You will settle for nothing less than abolute monarchy.

Here's a good book you can read before the Fourth of July: Citizen Tom Paine, author Howard Fast. There's a used paperback on Amazon for 9 cents.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

Fortunes have been made And lost.

I thought we already covered this.

Yes, fortunes can be lost, by fools. Anyone with the brains enough to pay a lawyer $300 for a hour consultation (in the unlikely event he will have to pay for an initial visit) will discover how that fortune can be protected for eternity.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system