TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Estate Tax and the Successful Republican Spin
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Why should we accept that a tax should remain in effect because we cannot afford to do away with it? Shouldn't we be debating the morality/effects of the tax on its own?

Liberals will always be very reluctant to do away with ANY tax, it�s in their nature. The reason they are liberals is that they follow in the progressive steps of Roosevelt and Wilson. Progressives believe that the government is the most effective means to advance mankind.

You will never hear a liberal say that we should do away with this program or that tax, they believe that men are not capable of living life unassisted, this is why there are laws regulating how far away from the wall a toilet in a new house can sit, laws regulating how many miles to the gallon your car can get, laws telling you what you can and cannot say to your coworker in a workplace environment and so forth.

This progressive concept of government takes the central authority, which has taking the place of the state of nature, and turns it away from its original purpose of adjudicating disputes and protecting its citizens from (outside) oppression. Instead it seeks to replace man�s independent will and independent action with a safe but mediocre existence. Would you like to cure your headache? Read the warning label first. Want to alter your state of consciousness? In the 1920's (not even 100 years) it was considered such a huge step for the government to place a prohibition on alcohol that it was though that a Constitutional amendment was required to accomplish it. Now, the FDA bans and un-bans things every day. Do we even notice or care? No. People have come to rely on the government to tell then what drugs are safe, who you cannot insult, and what types of people DESERVE help from the government.

I am sorry if this seems like a rant, the point that I am trying to make is that once one takes the government to be the solution one begins to rationalize government programs, establishments, and taxes. Hence you get the argument of, can the government afford this?

I think that this whole argument is sick; the government should not stand in a place where it profits off of the death of anyone. When you die who do you want the things that you have worked for to go to. The people you know and love? Or to the government for them to use to bomb other countries?

quote:

Originally posted by CyberneticAngel Why should we accept that a tax should remain in effect because we cannot afford to do away with it? Shouldn't we be debating the morality/effects of the tax on its own? Liberals will always be very reluctant to do away with ANY tax, it�s in their nature. The reason they are liberals is that they follow in the progressive steps of Roosevelt and Wilson. Progressives believe that the government is the most effective means to advance mankind.

Where did you get such a notion? And if you knew anything about Roosevelt, you certainly wouldn't come to such a conclusion.

The actions of Roosevelt were a direct result of what he and the rest of the country had witnessed to the out of control deregulation of the market and business world, as well as the direct hurt such irresponsibility was causing onto most of the population as a whole. Of course there were other influences, to be sure, such as WWII from which he did a magnificent job taking care of our veterans and their families (including mine), but his actions were to make sure, in essence, everyone had the chance at an opportunity to get by in this world as well as make sure you could get up if you accidentally fell down (aka social security safety net).

Now you tell me, and make sure you have your history straight - was this type of opportunity and safety net offered prior to the New Deal? Were private businesses able to offer such BASIC necessities to everyone?

Umm, no. And you know why? Because they didn't fucking care to, nor did they feel it was in their fiscal interest to do so.

Now that may be a point of contention now in today's world, but then again it may not. The point being, of course, is that if you've actually conversed with anyone during the Great Depression, they would tell you that times were fucking hard, and the vast majority of individuals needed a leg up and a safety net to make sure they would stay up. FDR thankfully provided that, and it DOES so happen to require a bit of participation from everyone (i.e. taxes). What�s more, certain aspects such as our safety net (Social Security) actually requires MORE from those who need it more (lower and lower-middle class), hence the rationale for a regressive payroll tax with a ceiling that�s currently capped at 90K.

Despite many anti-government sentiments, certain government programs do, in fact, work. Social Security has been the best safety net insurance program that keeps the vast majority of the elderly, the disabled, and the widowed with their children out of poverty. Sure it could be better, and sure there could be improvements, but it still remains what it is today as a result of EVERYONE�s contribution. Same with the highways, same with Medicare, same with public education, public libraries, public anything really.

Is that to say that progressives don�t believe private companies can do better at some of these programs? Hell no, and it�s certainly debatable within each and every one of these federal and state-run programs where a private business could do better. A good-minded progressive should and does welcome this debate. What you do find, however, is that more often than not, progressives and liberals tend to believe the government does tend to run things better than private companies. And more often than not, the majority of the public tends to agree � hence Bush�s serious issue with majority opinion on Social Security, hence Boston�s public opinion on Bechtel handling Big Dig, hence the problems Bush faces with privatizing the Iraqi War and somehow can�t seem to find $9 billion or so, hence the problem with charter schools and why kids haven�t received better educations as opposed to public schools, and so on.

But I�ll readily concede a debate on a number of issues where privatization is and can run a given program better. But be prepared for a debate, and be prepared to ask how privatization is a realistic and fiscally more sound means of running that given program. And if it doesn�t do so after a trial run, be prepared to have it pulled.

quote:

You will never hear a liberal say that we should do away with this program or that tax, they believe that men are not capable of living life unassisted, this is why there are laws regulating how far away from the wall a toilet in a new house can sit, laws regulating how many miles to the gallon your car can get, laws telling you what you can and cannot say to your coworker in a workplace environment and so forth.

Oh that�s cute. By the way, where were you during the Presidential debates? You DO remember what Kerry said, right? He wanted to KEEP the tax cut for the middle class, while rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. Again, many progressives do readily concede tax cuts are an appropriate tool for stimulating the economy PROVIDED that it is a good time and fiscally responsible to do so. There were a number of economists even on the conservative end of the spectrum who thought that Bush�s 2nd tax cut during a time of war AND during a time of running up huge deficits were fiscally irresponsible. This is what I generally find as the contention of most progressives � that it was fiscal insanity, rather than some trumped up straw man principle that we LOOOOOOVE taxing the fuck out of everyone.

Oh, one other thing � if progressives loooove taxes so much, kindly explain to me the rationale for Reagan signing the largest tax increase in history in �82, as well as increase taxes again in �83 via the SS payroll tax.

quote:

This progressive concept of government takes the central authority, which has taking the place of the state of nature, and turns it away from its original purpose of adjudicating disputes and protecting its citizens from (outside) oppression. Instead it seeks to replace man�s independent will and independent action with a safe but mediocre existence. Would you like to cure your headache? Read the warning label first. Want to alter your state of consciousness? In the 1920's (not even 100 years) it was considered such a huge step for the government to place a prohibition on alcohol that it was though that a Constitutional amendment was required to accomplish it. Now, the FDA bans and un-bans things every day. Do we even notice or care? No. People have come to rely on the government to tell then what drugs are safe, who you cannot insult, and what types of people DESERVE help from the government.

I�m sorry, were you describing Bush�s neoconservative government, or a progressive government? Again I ask � why is it that Clinton�s government was smaller than any of the last 3 Republican president�s governments? You have just depicted Bush�s sentiments of watching and Big Fucking Brothering everything you do both inside your bedroom and out, so spare me your fucking rhetoric about progressives wanting this type of government WHEN WE SEE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING WITH THIS NEOCONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT in office.

Until you can decipher exactly the difference between what you describe above from this Administration and ANY current Democratic/progressive government, your words ring quite hollow, sir.

quote:

I am sorry if this seems like a rant, the point that I am trying to make is that once one takes the government to be the solution one begins to rationalize government programs, establishments, and taxes. Hence you get the argument of, can the government afford this?

I agree � so tell me why YOU are not asking the exact same question with whether or not we can continue cutting taxes and losing revenue at this current time of red ink. And then tell me why historically our economy does better with Democrats in office, and why Democrats tend to be able to take care of your money in a more responsible manner:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

http://www.americanprogressaction.o...WJcP7H&b=131769

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/mar...tion_demsvreps/

http://www.americanprogressaction.o...WJcP7H&b=130896

quote:

I think that this whole argument is sick; the government should not stand in a place where it profits off of the death of anyone. When you die who do you want the things that you have worked for to go to. The people you know and love? Or to the government for them to use to bomb other countries?

Well again, in principle I think it�s appropriate that everyone�s money should go to their families and loved ones accordingly. However, with our current President WILLFULLY putting us deeper and deeper into the red, now is not the time to decide it appropriate for this principle for a very very small minority and the most affluent to take hold.

But why don�t you answer this question for me � do you think this tax for the very, very small minority wealthy should be a higher priority to cut than the tax that�s taking in and affecting more and more of the middle class (i.e. the Alternative Minimum Tax)? Where exactly should our priorities be here when addressing cutting taxes and stimulating the economy � should it be with the middle class, or should it be for the very small minority of the affluent?

^^^ long detailed reply coming when I have a little time

two things till then,

1) I am a libertarian, not a republican. I agree completly that the Republicans in general and this administration specifically have become much to dependent on the power to buy votes using taxpayer money.

2) I do not believe that cutting this tax is any more important than cutting any other tax, it just that this thread is about this tax. I personally am a very strong believer in a national sales tax

quote:

Originally posted by CyberneticAngel ^^^ long detailed reply coming when I have a little time two things till then, 1) I am a libertarian, not a republican. I agree completly that the Republicans in general and this administration specifically have become much to dependent on the power to buy votes using taxpayer money. 2) I do not believe that cutting this tax is any more important than cutting any other tax, it just that this thread is about this tax. I personally am a very strong believer in a national sales tax

Both points clarify things a bit better, so I do appreciate you stating this. If I mischaracterized you and/or your position, I duly apologize.

I do think a separate thread on the national sales tax would be pretty worthy, however. I'm only aware of the bits and pieces of this proposal, so I cannot comment on it in full right now.

Well whadaya know, the Conservatives continue to be flat-fucking wrong, yet again:

quote:

July 10, 2005 Few Wealthy Farmers Owe Estate Taxes, Report Says By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON The number of farms on which estate tax is owed when the owners die has fallen by 82 percent since 2000, to just 300 farms, as Congress has more than doubled the threshold at which the tax applies, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released last week. All but 27 farmers left enough liquid assets to pay taxes owed, the budget office found, although it hinted that the actual number might be zero. The study examined how much in cash, stocks and bonds these farmers left to pay estate taxes, but the report noted that no data existed on how much life insurance the farmers had put into trusts. Virtually all wealthy farmers own life insurance in trusts, say estate tax lawyers who specialize in working with farmers. These findings come as the Senate is poised to vote this month on repeal of the estate tax. Advocates of repeal have begun showing commercials criticizing senators who oppose repeal, like Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. Many of the criticisms focus on a supposed threat to family farms. The estate tax raised an estimated $23.4 billion last year. Repeal would shift part of the burden of taxes off the fortunes left by the richest 1 percent of Americans, some of whose fortunes were never taxed, onto the general population. The lost revenue could be made up in three ways: through higher income taxes; reduced government services; or more borrowing, which would pass the burden of current government spending to future generations. President Bush, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association have asserted that the estate tax is destroying family farms. None, however, have cited a case of a farm lost to estate taxes, although in June 2001 Mr. Bush said he had talked to such farmers. The number of farms subject to the estate tax, always a minority, has fallen because Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to raise the threshold for estate taxes to $1.5 million, double that for married couples, for last year and this year. With simple planning, couples with children can shield several million more dollars from the tax. In 2000, when the threshold was $675,000, taxes were owed by 1,659 farm estates, the study found. Had the current threshold been in effect, only 300 farms would have owed any tax. Next year, when the threshold rises to $2 million per person, just 123 farms will be subject to the estate tax, the study found. And in 2009, when it rises to $3.5 million, only 65 of the nation's 2.2 million farms will be affected, the study said. The study examined who would have paid estate taxes had the current exemption levels been in effect in 2000. It noted that half of all estates left by farmers had a value of less than $987,000, well under the current threshold for owing estate tax. It found that 95 percent of estates left by farmers were worth $3.2 million or less, an amount that a married couple could easily shield from tax. The cattlemen's group, in materials distributed Friday, asserted that $125,000 of tax was owed on farm estates valued at $1 million even though estates of that amount were exempt from tax. Jay Truitt, vice president for government affairs at the cattlemen's group, said on Friday that the Congressional study was "a fairly comprehensive piece of information." He did not dispute the estimates of the shrinking number of farms affected by the estate tax or the small number lacking enough liquid assets to pay taxes. But, Mr. Truitt said, the study did not examine the effect of using liquid assets to pay estate taxes. When such liquid assets are diminished, he said, a cattle operation is starved for capital and can "go years not making a profit," which means fewer jobs. Neil E. Harl, an economics professor at Iowa State University whose expertise in estate tax planning for farmers has made him a household name in the grain belt, said many Americans had a false impression that the estate tax was destroying family farming. He said the Congressional study "adds to the weight of the evidence that this is a myth that has been well spun." "Farms, in particular," Mr. Harl said, "are not in jeopardy because of estate taxes." Michael J. Graetz, a professor at Yale Law School who was a tax policy official in the administration of President George Bush, said repeal was primarily a benefit to people with large estates held in stocks and other securities, not to farmers. Professor Graetz is a co-author of "Death by a Thousand Cuts," a study of how estate tax repeal became a political issue. He said that rather than repeal the tax, Congress should raise the threshold to as much as $5 million, double that for married couples, and keep rates at or near current levels. Because of details in the repeal bill, it would also force a large majority of farms and small businesses to pay larger tax bills in the future, said John Buckley, the chief tax lawyer for Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Buckley criticized farm and small-business groups as not explaining to their members that the repeal as written would cost them money while primarily benefiting those with vast fortunes. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/p...agewanted=print

Next month will be interesting when this bill hits the floor again.....

The estate/death tax is immoral period. The money was taxed when it was earned, taxed when it was saved, and taxed when it was used to purchase the goods/services needed to run the business. If the farm/business is lucky enough to earn a profit, it was taxed again. In addition, all of the people employed at that farm/business are also taxed...repeatedly.

After all of this, WHY THE HELL should the entire thing be taxed AGAIN at 55% when the owner dies?

This is insane...oppressive...and contrary to everything the founders had in mind when they started this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The estate/death tax is immoral period. The money was taxed when it was earned, taxed when it was saved, and taxed when it was used to purchase the goods/services needed to run the business. If the farm/business is lucky enough to earn a profit, it is taxed again. In addition, all of the people employed at that farm/business are also taxed...repeatedly. After all of this, WHY THE HELL should the entire thing be taxed AGAIN at 55% when the owner dies? This is insane...oppressive...and contrary to everything the founders had in mind when they started this country.

Damn straight.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The estate/death tax is immoral period. The money was taxed when it was earned, taxed when it was saved, and taxed when it was used to purchase the goods/services needed to run the business. If the farm/business is lucky enough to earn a profit, it was taxed again. In addition, all of the people employed at that farm/business are also taxed...repeatedly. After all of this, WHY THE HELL should the entire thing be taxed AGAIN at 55% when the owner dies? This is insane...oppressive...and contrary to everything the founders had in mind when they started this country.

Insane? Oppressive? To whom? How many fucking people is this TRULY affecting? And then answer how many true farms has this actually put out of business? Give me a fucking break with "oppressive" talk.

Do I think this tax is a good one? No way, and I don't argue that point. In fact I fully agree with you that it's not a fair tax at all. HOWEVER, I do argue that there is a definite time and place for cutting taxes - and this ain't one of those times with our deficit and current trade debt. Furthermore, there are much more dangerous taxes out there that are in dire need of addressing, such as the Alternative Minimum Tax, that is affecting a great many more individuals, i.e. in the Middle Class, than the Estate Tax, which affects a very very select few.

So I do think our priorities need to be kept in check, along with our rhetoric.

This is what I love. To a degree, Opus, I agree that now is not a good time to cut taxes given the massive amount of debt that has been created by Republicans being fiscally irresponsible as politicians always are.

However, it is worth pointing out the irony that while you too agree that this tax should never have been created in the first place, you are afraid to repeal it because of what it would do to our already unstable budget deficit. HOW ABOUT SOME FUCKING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FROM ALL POLITICIANS!?! There is no need to make it a partisan issue. Politicians left and right will always spend everything they can and then some as it is the easiest way to buy votes and maintain power/control. What's to stop them from creating yet another "illegal" tax to bail themselves out of the pickles they create? Then for us to have the same debate down the road only to say that while the tax shouldn't exist in the first place, it certainly can't be repealed because it would be financially devastating to the government and national economy.

As long as our elected representatives continue to be fiscally irresponsible, I will not fight the Line Item Veto as a good way to strip out worthless pork from vital bills and projects that need to be implemented. It's an uncomfortable power shift, but Congress controls the purse-strings and they are clearly inept in their ability to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange all inheritance should be eliminated. any property of the deceased should pass to the state.

f@#* THAT noise...

That's down right communism / socialism?

How the hell does that encourage anybody to become better than they are, to leave a legacy to their kids, create businesses that CREATE JOBS only to have the f@#!ing government take it all?

Please blow it out your ass?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The estate/death tax is immoral period. The money was taxed when it was earned, taxed when it was saved, and taxed when it was used to purchase the goods/services needed to run the business. If the farm/business is lucky enough to earn a profit, it was taxed again. In addition, all of the people employed at that farm/business are also taxed...repeatedly. After all of this, WHY THE HELL should the entire thing be taxed AGAIN at 55% when the owner dies? This is insane...oppressive...and contrary to everything the founders had in mind when they started this country.

Great points!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka This is what I love. To a degree, Opus, I agree that now is not a good time to cut taxes given the massive amount of debt that has been created by Republicans being fiscally irresponsible as politicians always are.

I knew you'd agree with me here - that's what makes you a sane Conservative.

quote:

However, it is worth pointing out the irony that while you too agree that this tax should never have been created in the first place, you are afraid to repeal it because of what it would do to our already unstable budget deficit. HOW ABOUT SOME FUCKING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FROM ALL POLITICIANS!?! There is no need to make it a partisan issue. Politicians left and right will always spend everything they can and then some as it is the easiest way to buy votes and maintain power/control. What's to stop them from creating yet another "illegal" tax to bail themselves out of the pickles they create? Then for us to have the same debate down the road only to say that while the tax shouldn't exist in the first place, it certainly can't be repealed because it would be financially devastating to the government and national economy.

Hey, I can live with a little irony! More to be said below...

quote:

As long as our elected representatives continue to be fiscally irresponsible, I will not fight the Line Item Veto as a good way to strip out worthless pork from vital bills and projects that need to be implemented. It's an uncomfortable power shift, but Congress controls the purse-strings and they are clearly inept in their ability to do so.

Largely agree with you, but let's also keep in mind who exactly is controlling those purse-strings - who is running both Houses in Congress right now? Now of course, the Dems. running both Houses at one point had their shiny bright days chock full of corruption historicallly too - which is why I'm a major advocate of checks and balances (from which there really is none today, save the filibuster).

But the problem in tackling such questions on this issue of deficit is - whom is this affecting the most? Should we really be worried about the select few out there from which the Estate Tax affects to a certain degree, or should we be more concerned about a tax which is now taking in the Middle Class more and more every year, like the Alternative Minimum Tax? Granted, cutting or reducing either one merely adds to the deficit via lost gov't revenue, but if we're going to give money back to the people in hopes to boost our economy in any way, would it not make more sense to give it back to a much greater number of people (AMT) versus a select few (Estate)? I don't see how a Conservative like yourself wouldn't agree to this.

If we're going to cut taxes - let's give the money back to those we've seen historically put money back into our economy to give it a boost - the Middle Class.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.