TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Death Tax
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ha! Socialist my arse! Liberalism does NOT equal socialism!

I believe I said socialist leaning, George. And I would argue that there is plenty of overlap with "Liberalism" and "Socialism" in the context of many of today's liberals (especially the "bleeding heart" variety). No, they are not the same thing, but there are common themes that even someone as blind as you cannot overlook.

quote:

Anyway, you are right, it is irrelevant and as usual, you are completely wrong in trying to determine the reasoning behind people's opinions (again reeling out the tired "you're jealous" falso argument)

mmkay.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 it has everything to do with it. without the infrastructure put into place by the government, private citizens don't have the ability to deliver products, services, etc.... the government fosters the environment that enables people to make money. if the government had no role (or an insignificant one) in fostering this ability then the people of north korea, mali, cameroon, libya, ecuador, etc.... should on the same playing field. clearly, that is not the case. the main difference is that those governments have not created an infrastructure (roads, trains, ports, telephone services, universities, etc...) that fosters the creation of wealth.

Government is not the only entity that provides infrastructure. You cannot argue that government is responsible for individuals' successes and failures.

quote:

That's kind of the point. To ensure that we have these things to foster economic prosperity, we need a well funded government (funded by all the people) that can ensure that the proper infrasture is in place.

Well it is not funded by all of the people, in fact there are many who not only do not contribute to funding the government, but actually get credits from the government far greater than anything they have contributed monetarily.

quote:

And rich people should rightly bear a greater percentage of the economic burden of the cost of the government because they utilize government resources (for the creation of their wealth) more than poor/middle class people. If you don't believe that comment just think about a the owner of a trucking company. The owner of that company gets to use the interstate highway system for his business, largely for free, at the expense of taxpayer dollars (to repair the road, etc...).

I'm sorry but one example (and a poor one at that, no offense) does not make your point compelling in the least.

EDIT: Also, be careful to distinguish between personal income taxes and corporate income taxes.


Fun Fact: Did you know that the interstate highway system was actually created for the military? I could just as easily argue that the poor are using more government resources than the rich because they tend to congregate in areas with higher crime rates and thus require greater government resources to preserve the peace.

quote:

the point is that without that function, people would just steal your shit.

Wow--you really don't hold a very high opinion of people, do you? Do you believe that, by default, people are all simply so immoral as to achieve any sort of wealth by stealing it? Come on, man!

quote:

the only thing that stops people is the police force and the judicial system.

quote:

It would be disingenuous to say that the police force and judicial system (and therefore the government) don't play a role in wealth preservation of every individual by conducting their principal function, and wealth preservation is just as important as wealth creation.

Hmmm...This is a bit of a stretch. Preservation of the peace seems more accurate to me than preservation of wealth. Courts primarily exist to resolve disputes peacefully, not to ensure that someone's wealth is preserved.

quote:

you can twist your logic any way you want, but without the police force and the threat of jail (again - and therefore the government), you would be much more concerned about the preservation of your own wealth.

I still don't see where you're trying to go with this. Are you somehow trying to rationalize paying more and more in taxes and increasing the size of the government because it will somehow increase everyone's wealth? It is widely acknowledged in just about all schools of economic thought that greater government spending crowds out private investment, which ultimately is likely to do more harm than good to an economy (or at least the benefits of greater government spending are far less than the benefits of greater private investment in new businesses and whatnot).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I believe I said socialist leaning, George. And I would argue that there is plenty of overlap with "Liberalism" and "Socialism" in the context of many of today's liberals (especially the "bleeding heart" variety). No, they are not the same thing, but there are common themes that even someone as blind as you cannot overlook.

If you think that then you either have no concept of the word "liberalism" or you have no concept of the word "socialism"

They are two completely opposite ends of the political spectrum

You are an ardent follower of liberalism, but you wouldn't describe yourself anything like socialist would you?

I think you need to differentiate between what Americans call "liberal" and the ideology, "liberalism" because liberalism is extreme right-wing economics (as you support), which, as you can imagine, shares NO similarities with "socialism", which are a range of left-wing economic ideologies.

Liberals are not necessarily left wing just because they believe in equal rights or oppose wars. Those concepts are politically nuetral and can be shared by those on the left or the right. You can favour the free-market yet also support equal rights etc. This is what you have in the Democrat Party - they aren't socialists and I don't think you can describe Hollywood actors as socialist either when their way of thinking is more in line with the Democrat Party

Anyway, like you said when you first mentioned it, its irrelevant to the debate and an argument created by yourself to make it easier fro you to argue your own point

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Government is not the only entity that provides infrastructure. You cannot argue that government is responsible for individuals' successes and failures. Well it is not funded by all of the people, in fact there are many who not only do not contribute to funding the government, but actually get credits from the government far greater than anything they have contributed monetarily. I'm sorry but one example (and a poor one at that, no offense) does not make your point compelling in the least. Fun Fact: Did you know that the interstate highway system was actually created for the military? I could just as easily argue that the poor are using more government resources than the rich because they tend to congregate in areas with higher crime rates and thus require greater government resources to preserve the peace. Wow--you really don't hold a very high opinion of people, do you? Do you believe that, by default, people are all simply so immoral as to achieve any sort of wealth by stealing it? Come on, man! Hmmm...This is a bit of a stretch. Preservation of the peace seems more accurate to me than preservation of wealth. Courts primarily exist to resolve disputes peacefully, not to ensure that someone's wealth is preserved. I still don't see where you're trying to go with this. Are you somehow trying to rationalize paying more and more in taxes and increasing the size of the government because it will somehow increase everyone's wealth? It is widely acknowledged in just about all schools of economic thought that greater government spending crowds out private investment, which ultimately is likely to do more harm than good to an economy (or at least the benefits of greater government spending are far less than the benefits of greater private investment in new businesses and whatnot).

i would love to respond to all of your comments but i already know it will become a waste of time because you will have a counter that doesn't really disprove anything, it just will just add gloss to your argument.

i will say, however, that i wrote something incorrectly. i didn't mean to say that the primary function of police and the judicial system is to preserve wealth. i see how you could think that from what i wrote. i just meant that their primary function, which you accurately stated, also protects people's wealth.

also, i wouldn't advocate increasing taxes, nor do i think that increasing taxes will somehow increase everyone's wealth. my only point was that the government has the right to tax people because the government fosters an environment that is beneficial for the creation of wealth. you can't deny that fact!!! this comment was in direct response to your initial statement that government did not create that wealth, which simply isn't true. the government plays an important role in every persons ability to become wealthy. my previous comment about there being little wealth in countries with weak government is a strong display of that (the comment about ecuador, mali, etc... which didn't say as much, but was implicit).

EDIT: about personal and corporate income taxes. personal income taxes make up a much greater percentage of the tax base. there are so many corporations that take tax losses while having an economic profit because of generous deductions for amortization, depreciation, etc..... However, not many people have tax loses on an individual level, and when individuals do have a tax lose it is because they have a business with tax loses. therefore, individuals pay a much greater percentage of any government project.

we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i would love to respond to your comments but i already know it will become a waste of time because you will have a counter that doesn't really disprove anything, it just will just add gloss to your argument. therefore, we will have to agree to disagree. my point boiled down to its simplist form is that government fosters wealth and therefore the government has a right to tax people. the comment is in response to your initial comment that government did not create that wealth, which simply isn't true. the government plays an important role in every persons ability to become wealthy. my previous comment about there being little wealth in countries with weak government is a strong display of that (the comment about ecuador, mali, etc...).

Don't give up so easily--this is a debate forum!

Did government play a direct hand in producing, marketing or distributing and ultimately selling anything? Furthermore, would that somehow give them the "right" to tax? And even furthermore, does that somehow give them the right to tax some far greater than others (on both an absolute and percentage basis?) Where exactly does the "right to tax" come from? It sounds like a very friendly way of saying they're justified in taking as much of your money as they see fit.

I have never argued that the government should not collect taxes for services they provide. There are basic functions of government that obviously have to be funded. If I have somehow given the impression that governments don't need tax revenues to function then I have been grossly misinterpreted. However, I don't think I ever made that statement.

Edit: I see your above edit.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Don't give up so easily--this is a debate forum! Did government play a direct hand in producing, marketing or distributing and ultimately selling anything? Furthermore, would that somehow give them the "right" to tax? And even furthermore, does that somehow give them the right to tax some far greater than others (on both an absolute and percentage basis?) Where exactly does the "right to tax" come from? It sounds like a very friendly way of saying they're justified in taking as much of your money as they see fit. I have never argued that the government should not collect taxes for services they provide. There are basic functions of government that obviously have to be funded. If I have somehow given the impression that governments don't need tax revenues to function then I have been grossly misinterpreted. However, I don't think I ever made that statement. Edit: I see your above edit.

So you don't think governments should have the right to tax but you do think that governments should collect taxes?!

Brilliant!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So you don't think governments should have the right to tax but you do think that governments should collect taxes?! Brilliant!

Lol George--who's putting words in whose mouth? I merely recognized that a government obviously needs to collect revenues to provide basic functions. However the term "right to tax" strikes me as rather curious--particularly since it sounds open-ended insofar as where the government's so called "right to tax" starts to infringe on my right to pursue my own happiness by whatever ethical and moral methods I choose. Care to elaborate? Where does this "right" come from? Who grants it? Taxes are a necessary evil, but not a right.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Lol George--who's putting words in whose mouth? I merely recognized that a government obviously needs to collect revenues to provide basic functions. However the term "right to tax" strikes me as rather curious--particularly since it sounds open-ended insofar as where the government's so called "right to tax" starts to infringe on my right to pursue my own happiness by whatever ethical and moral methods I choose. Care to elaborate?

So what exactly are you saying!? That it should be up to individuals to decide how much tax they pay?!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Don't give up so easily--this is a debate forum!

haha.....yes, but work is calling

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Did government play a direct hand in producing, marketing or distributing and ultimately selling anything?

no, but they played a very important indirect role.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Furthermore, would that somehow give them the "right" to tax? And even furthermore, does that somehow give them the right to tax some far greater than others (on both an absolute and percentage basis?) Where exactly does the "right to tax" come from? It sounds like a very friendly way of saying they're justified in taking as much of your money as they see fit.

the 16th amendment. not sure if that was rhetorical. i belive it does because rich people make full use of government resources. to give you different examples of how the rich people use the government (in more expensive ways than a $3000 earned income tax credit - or 50 more police officers in a bad neighborhood): cities subsidizing the cost of building a stadium, cities and states issues tax exempt bonds so that private developers can have a lower interest rate, the power of eminent domain used to take property so that a rich developer can develop that property, state research and development incentives for businesses to move to certain states, the domestic production tax deduction(this deduction is 2% of income which could be in the millions or billions - far more than ), and cities provide tax abatements for businesses to develop property. none of these benefits accrue to the poor. i could go on with some thought, but the point is that while you see the benefits that poor people get, the benefits to rich people aren't in your face, but they are still present. furthermore, the benefits to the rich can cost the government far more (building a stadium is a great example of a huge subsidy to a rich team owner - even if the team has to pay it back, the government is losing on interest and opportunity costs associated with issuing that debt). some of the above examples might not display that entirely, but i just listed what i could think of off the top of my head.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I have never argued that the government should not collect taxes for services they provide. There are basic functions of government that obviously have to be funded. If I have somehow given the impression that governments don't need tax revenues to function then I have been grossly misinterpreted. However, I don't think I ever made that statement. Edit: I see your above edit.

i don't think you directly said that, but i thought you implied that government shouldn't take from an estate because the government didn't create that wealth. i believe the government has the right because i believe wealthy people utilize government resources more so than poor people to create that wealth.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So what exactly are you saying!? That it should be up to individuals to decide how much tax they pay?!

I'm merely saying that collecting taxes is a function that government has granted to itself. It strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to call that a "right." Perhaps it would be somewhat akin to the Divine Right of Kings (if I may give an example that may be a bit closer to home for you). i.e. basically saying "It's my right because I say so." However, let's not stray too far off topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm merely saying that collecting taxes is a function that government has granted to itself. It strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to call that a "right." Perhaps it would be somewhat akin to the Divine Right of Kings (if I may give an example that may be a bit closer to home for you). i.e. basically saying "It's my right because I say so." However, let's not stray too far off topic.

that right is granted under the constitution, which was approved by the people of each state that was a part of the union at the time. so, the people gave the government the "right" to tax. while the government proposed this right for itself, ultimately, it was up to the people to approve the amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...es_Constitution

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm merely saying that collecting taxes is a function that government has granted to itself. It strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to call that a "right." Perhaps it would be somewhat akin to the Divine Right of Kings (if I may give an example that may be a bit closer to home for you). i.e. basically saying "It's my right because I say so." However, let's not stray too far off topic.

Don't give up so easily--this is a debate forum! (As some not-so-genius once said!)

You're opinions on inheritance tax seem to be linked to your overall opinion of taxes in general, so it is on topic...

If you recognise the need for the state to collect taxes, then what exactly is your problem with the state collecting taxes? If it's not a right of the state, then how would you describe their revenue collecting capacity?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 haha.....yes, but work is calling

True dat--I'm spending too much time on this as well!

quote:

no, but they played a very important indirect role.

I will grant that.

quote:

i belive it does because rich people make full use of government resources.

And being a progressive code or not, they still pay a far greater absolute amount of money, so do we really need to argue that they should still be paying even more?

quote:

cities subsidizing the cost of building a stadium, cities and states issues tax exempt bonds so that private developers can have a lower interest rate,

Okay, and this also generates more revenues for the municipality which they can spend on other programs. Also, I don't know about where you live, but where I live, stadiums and parks usually are closer to poorer areas than more wealthy areas, and as a result of their construction there is usually a benefit to everyone in the surrounding areas. We might be starting down a path of overly granular argument though, and I'm not really in disagreement with you here--rather just pointing out that everyone likely benefits in some way.

quote:

the power of eminent domain used to take property so that a rich developer can develop that property,

Don't even get me started on this. If there is one thing I could not be more against in most cases, it is the power of eminent domain. I think it is a travesty and a disregard for individual property rights.

quote:

state research and development incentives for businesses to move to certain states, the domestic production tax deduction(this deduction is 2% of income which could be in the millions or billions - far more than ), and cities provide tax abatements for businesses to develop property. none of these benefits accrue to the poor.

I don't totally agree. In the same way you say the government plays an indirect hand in creating a lot of wealth, I think you can also argue (as I mentioned above with the stadiums and such) that said construction also give an indirect benefit to surrounding areas (as well as directly benefiting the areas by increasing the value of the land). I'm sure some of those people would much prefer a straight cash handout, but that money would likely be wasted whereas the new stadium likely gives some of those people a new opportunity to sell various wares (haven't you ever noticed how many seemingly poor people hock t-shirts and such, provide parking lot services, etc. around ball parks?).

quote:

i could go on with some thought, but the point is that while you see the benefits that poor people get, the benefits to rich people aren't in your face, but they are still present. furthermore, the benefits to the rich can cost the government far more (building a stadium is a great example of a huge subsidy to a rich team owner - even if the team has to pay it back, the government is losing on interest and opportunity costs associated with issuing that debt). some of the above examples might not display that entirely, but i just listed what i could think of off the top of my head.

Thanks--I appreciate the thought and input.

quote:

i don't think you directly said that, but i thought you implied that government shouldn't take from an estate because the government didn't create that wealth.

And also because there is a very likely chance that the money they want to tax has already been taxed at least once already. (Not sure if I explicitly said that anywhere earlier or not.)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If you recognise the need for the state to collect taxes, then what exactly is your problem with the state collecting taxes? If it's not a right of the state, then how would you describe their revenue collecting capacity?

As it pertains to the death tax (the topic of this thread), I think I've clearly outlined my objections by now.

If I don't pay my taxes, they put me in jail. Despite my objection that it violates my personal rights to some extent, I am largely powerless against the Federal Government! They collect by force (but I willingly, yet begrudgingly, pay because there are benefits to me from being able to live and prosper in this great nation and having the best department of defense in the world--among many, many other reasons!)

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that right is granted under the constitution, which was approved by the people of each state that was a part of the union at the time. so, the people gave the government the "right" to tax. while the government proposed this right for itself, ultimately, it was up to the people to approve the amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...es_Constitution

OK. However, would you dispute that the "right" to collect taxes as envisioned in the 19th century has been bastardized and manipulated to give the government far more power to take than what the creators of that amendment envisioned? It's like the old saying--give a man an inch and he'll take a mile.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka As it pertains to the death tax (the topic of this thread), I think I've clearly outlined my objections by now. If I don't pay my taxes, they put me in jail. Despite my objection that it violates my personal rights to some extent, I am largely powerless against the Federal Government! They collect by force (but I willingly, yet begrudgingly, pay because there are benefits to me from being able to live and prosper in this great nation and having the best department of defense in the world--among many, many other reasons!)

So you recognise the need for governments to collect taxes and you support the collection of taxes by governments to pay for services to society. So your problem is...the amount of tax collected by government?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Okay, and this also generates more revenues for the municipality which they can spend on other programs. Also, I don't know about where you live, but where I live, stadiums and parks usually are closer to poorer areas than more wealthy areas, and as a result of their construction there is usually a benefit to everyone in the surrounding areas. We might be starting down a path of overly granular argument though, and I'm not really in disagreement with you here--rather just pointing out that everyone likely benefits in some way. I don't totally agree. In the same way you say the government plays an indirect hand in creating a lot of wealth, I think you can also argue (as I mentioned above with the stadiums and such) that said construction also give an indirect benefit to surrounding areas (as well as directly benefiting the areas by increasing the value of the land). I'm sure some of those people would much prefer a straight cash handout, but that money would likely be wasted whereas the new stadium likely gives some of those people a new opportunity to sell various wares (haven't you ever noticed how many seemingly poor people hock t-shirts and such, provide parking lot services, etc. around ball parks?).

in theory, but i'm not convinced it always turns out that way. but importantly, the government forgoes current benefit and transfers that to a private citizen, in hope that the private citizen can improve the situation for everyone. i'm not against that proposition, i'm just pointing out that the rich person involved takes the greater benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And also because there is a very likely chance that the money they want to tax has already been taxed at least once already. (Not sure if I explicitly said that anywhere earlier or not.)

our corporate tax system works that way also. i'm not opposed a double tax system because inheritances are a disincentive for the beneficiaries to work hard. i have no problem with people accumulating the wealth they worked hard to create. but the people who inherit wealth simply by being related to someone are not deserving of that wealth and they have a general disincentive to be productive members of society (im not saying that they are, just that the ability to inherit generally will play a role in how they conduct themselve - i.e., paris hilton). one of the main premises behind keeping taxes low is to provide incentives to foster creativity and ingenuity so that people can benefit from their own hard work. this just isn't an issue with inheritances.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK. However, would you dispute that the "right" to collect taxes as envisioned in the 19th century has been bastardized and manipulated to give the government far more power to take than what the creators of that amendment envisioned? It's like the old saying--give a man an inch and he'll take a mile.

yes, i would dispute that claim. the power that was given was very broad because the government wanted, and the people agreed to give, a broad taxing power. if the power was meant to be more limited it the provision could easily have been more limited.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 but the people who inherit wealth simply by being related to someone are not deserving of that wealth and they have a general disincentive to be productive members of society (im not saying that they are, just that the ability to inherit generally will play a role in how they conduct themselve - i.e., paris hilton).

I think this is what it all boils down to. My primary objection here is that I don't think a proper role of government is to somehow artificially level the playing field in this manner. Since you (or whoever else is a proponent of the death tax) views the heir has somehow undeserving, it is therefore just in your opinion for the government to swoop in and take that money in the name of the common good. And who's to say that, left to their own devices, the inheritors won't find a better, more productive use for their (very fortunate) inheritance down the road?

Ask yourself this: Is a person who spends $1 and wins a $100M lottery any more or less deserving than the person who inherits a few million? Do you just view that $1 as some spectacular investment or them being incredibly lucky? Who are we to determine what other people deserve? If we have our governments dictating what is "fair" or "deserving" I think we start to go down a terribly dark and slippery slope.

quote:

one of the main premises behind keeping taxes low is to provide incentives to foster creativity and ingenuity so that people can benefit from their own hard work. this just isn't an issue with inheritances.

I agree. But I question where it becomes the role of government to regulate these things. There are going to be things that everybody likes and dislikes about their government, tax code, etc., but should we always call in the government to "fix" things like this? Again, I just don't think the inheritance tax as we're discussing it is necessarily any of the government's business.

Is it comforting at all that Warren Buffet wrote his granddaughter out of his will? He's donating almost his entire estate to the Gates Foundation when he dies. I have no problem with that because he made the choice voluntarily, and he gets to direct where he wants the money to go. I'm much more comfortable with that than having the government strong-arm its way into his wallet. Yeah, maybe he's more of an exception than the rule, but it shows that you don't necessarily need the government to get involved to have a favorable outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I think this is what it all boils down to. My primary objection here is that I don't think a proper role of government is to somehow artificially level the playing field in this manner. Since you (or whoever else is a proponent of the death tax) views the heir has somehow undeserving, it is therefore just in your opinion for the government to swoop in and take that money in the name of the common good. And who's to say that, left to their own devices, the inheritors won't find a better, more productive use for their (very fortunate) inheritance down the road? Ask yourself this: Is a person who spends $1 and wins a $100M lottery any more or less deserving than the person who inherits a few million? Do you just view that $1 as some spectacular investment or them being incredibly lucky? Who are we to determine what other people deserve? If we have our governments dictating what is "fair" or "deserving" I think we start to go down a terribly dark and slippery slope. I agree. But I question where it becomes the role of government to regulate these things. There are going to be things that everybody likes and dislikes about their government, tax code, etc., but should we always call in the government to "fix" things like this? Again, I just don't think the inheritance tax as we're discussing it is necessarily any of the government's business.

there's really nothing left to say after that. we just have differing opinions on redistribution of undeserved wealth.

don't get me started on lottery. the winners are usually the most undeserving. but you have to play the game to win, and i don't play, so i guess they are more deserving than i am. aside from that, i don't really see how it relates to our discussion because the lottery is essentially a tax on people who play and don't win. but if i had to take a stance based on your reps, i would say that the lottery is more like an investment - and a truly lucky outcome. more like an investment in a junk bond. you are actually putting your own money to use as compared to sitting back and waiting for someone to die. an inheritance is really neither luck (outside of the fact that you are lucky you know someone who is rich) nor an investment. you have to do absolutely nothing, aside from being a normal human being to the person who is writing you in his will.

Cool. The only last thing I'll add (going back to my above post about government determining who "deserves" what). Matters like that are often issues for juries to decide, not some all-powerful government. If you want to advocate having some sort of "inheritance court" where the beneficiaries must make their argument to a jury as to why they deserve all of that money, that might be a different argument. I can't say that it strikes a happy tone with me to think about it (but I haven't given it much thought), but it's just a thought. It would probably make for great TV (and an offensive waste of government resources!).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, you just have a funny way of choosing to interpret what people say, because you are just THAT one-sided. what i was saying is that the majority of money made by any corporation is made by the workers, the CEOs etc dictate the structure and direction of the company, but the goods and/or services provided by any company are generated by those at the bottom, not at the top of the corporate ladder.

Yah, so?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't know the rules in America (I'm sure you can look it up) but in the UK here's one exception to inheritance tax:

I know what the laws are, I just don't think this guy does, so I'm waiting for his answer.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 first of all, you don't pay taxes on your inheritance; the estate of the person who died pays the estate tax. when you understand the basic underpinnings of estate tax then come talk to me about it.

I'm MUCH more aware of the laws than you are, believe me. YOU are the one who said that people can get out of paying estate taxes if they "really want to". So give me a better example of HOW exactly, as opposed to your lame "give it to your spouse" argument, because you and I know that we're talking about the vast majority of other estates here, the one's where that can't be done.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 with an emphatic yes, i am saying that if you give your wealth to a spouse it is not taxed under the estate tax.

As you pointed out, the estate is what gets taxed, not the individual who is inheriting it per se'. Therefor, I can't "give it to my spouse" until AFTER it has been taxed. So you're wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 there are other techniques to limit estate tax exposure by taking giving away your wealth to your beneficiaries before you die.

Yah, again, I know. It's $11,000.00 per year, non-taxable. The problem is; You're not dead yet! Why should you be forced to give up some of your money before you're dead, just to avoid the death tax??!! And maybe your recipients aren't old enough to handle that kind of money with responsibility yet?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 there are tons of techniques; you would be amazed at how little rich people can pay with the right legal advice. i see it all the time because this is what i do to earn my living.

You must get paid for shit if you think being "rich" means having an estate valued at over $2million

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 More importantly, you saying that you will reply to my 'sophmoric post' after I answer that question shows you truly don't have a full understanding of the impact of a repeal. the loss of the 'stepped up' basis in property received from a decedent is far more damaging to the average person. now, most people who don't have to pay tax after selling property received from a decedent will have to pay tax after the repeal. furthermore, if the property was purchased at a really low price by the decedent and the price has appreciated significantly, that sale will result in a huge gain to the beneficiary. under the current system if you immediately sell property you receive from a decedent you owe no tax on the sale. the repeal is actually supposed to create a revenue increase because of this little known feature. for all you republicans, that amounts to, yes, a tax increase.

You are not explaining this "aspect" of the tax code very well, IMHO. I have my doubts about your claims as to how and why it is being implemented and used because you conveniently leave out the down-sides to some of your "loop-holes", and some of your other claims are just flat out wrong. Couple that with your bias against "rich people" and everything you say about tax law has to be taken with a grain of salt.

You should know (if you really are a CPA) that there are upsides and downsides to every tax option. From what I can garner of your "stepped up" claim, the upside is that while you may pay some property tax on the inheritance, at least you won't get killed with some huge 55% tax on anything over $675,000.00 anymore

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ...And rich people should rightly bear a greater percentage of the economic burden of the cost of the government because they utilize government resources (for the creation of their wealth) more than poor/middle class people. If you don't believe that comment just think about a the owner of a trucking company. The owner of that company gets to use the interstate highway system for his business, largely for free, at the expense of taxpayer dollars (to repair the road, etc...).

lol...your logic is AMAZING!

Never-mind that this "rich" trucking company owner pays all appropriate state and fed taxes to license and operate the trucks. Never-mind the excessively high diesel fuel tax, imposed specifically on the trucking industry as yet another way to tax. Never-mind the corporate taxes he pays, the government business taxes (like workman's comp. insurance), accidental injury or death insurance he pays for his employees, etc., etc...

Again, YOU of all people should know that business owners, large and small, are taxed to DEATH compared to the average employee. Any tax incentives they get are there to encourage them to put money back in to their business, which in turn is good for the business, the economy, the employees, etc...

Jesus dude, you are f-ing bitter as fuck about this myth you have built up in your mind of the "rich man" just fucking everyone over.

Lame.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ...to give you different examples of how the rich people use the government (in more expensive ways than a $3000 earned income tax credit - or 50 more police officers in a bad neighborhood): cities subsidizing the cost of building a stadium...

WTF??

First off, any city that subsidizes the building of a stadium will have any number of ways of doing that (float bonds that people are free to buy or not! etc.) and motives for doing it (stadium brings a team to your city, which brings fans and their money, etc.)

So now it's a "rich man's sin" to create jobs and bring money to the city? "how the rich people use the government..." How do you think ANYTHING gets built in this country? Are people expected to show up with all of their money in hand all the time when they want to build businesses, homes, buy cars, etc.? You make it sound like a crime that their are loans and incentives given to builders and manufacturers. You know incredibly LITTLE about finance.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the power of eminent domain used to take property so that a rich developer can develop that property...

WHOA!! Bullshit! That is NOT what eminent domain is about! It's almost always because of a local, state or federal government works or transportation development. The government doesn't just show up and grab land that it then turns over to "rich developers" so they can build resorts or condos. That is such a load of crap! COULD NOT be done, nor would it even be attempted.

Stop making shit up!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 state research and development incentives for businesses to move to certain states...

So what?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the domestic production tax deduction(this deduction is 2% of income which could be in the millions or billions - far more than ), and cities provide tax abatements for businesses to develop property. none of these benefits accrue to the poor. i could go on with some thought, but the point is that while you see the benefits that poor people get, the benefits to rich people aren't in your face, but they are still present. furthermore, the benefits to the rich can cost the government far more (building a stadium is a great example of a huge subsidy to a rich team owner - even if the team has to pay it back, the government is losing on interest and opportunity costs associated with issuing that debt). some of the above examples might not display that entirely, but i just listed what i could think of off the top of my head.

Well think harder, because your examples suck.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ... i'm not opposed a double tax system because inheritances are a disincentive for the beneficiaries to work hard. i have no problem with people accumulating the wealth they worked hard to create. but the people who inherit wealth simply by being related to someone are not deserving of that wealth and they have a general disincentive to be productive members of society (im not saying that they are, just that the ability to inherit generally will play a role in how they conduct themselve - i.e., paris hilton). one of the main premises behind keeping taxes low is to provide incentives to foster creativity and ingenuity so that people can benefit from their own hard work. this just isn't an issue with inheritances.

Oh, and so taking that wealth away from them at the end of their lives, that's "incentive" to work harder how? And what makes you think the government should be involved in showing people how they should live anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'm MUCH more aware of the laws than you are, believe me.

so you are also a tax lawyer who graduated from NYU law school? or was it harvard, yale, columbia, or stanford? what exactly makes you more qualified than me?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco As you pointed out, the estate is what gets taxed, not the individual who is inheriting it per se'. Therefor, I can't "give it to my spouse" until AFTER it has been taxed. So you're wrong.

the gift to the spouse comes out of the estate prior to the calculation of the tax.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yah, again, I know. It's $11,000.00 per year, non-taxable. The problem is; You're not dead yet! Why should you be forced to give up some of your money before you're dead, just to avoid the death tax??!! And maybe your recipients aren't old enough to handle that kind of money with responsibility yet?

12,000 adjusted annual for inflation. there are ways to get around that by using trusts.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You are not explaining this "aspect" of the tax code very well, IMHO. I have my doubts about your claims as to how and why it is being implemented and used because you conveniently leave out the down-sides to some of your "loop-holes", and some of your other claims are just flat out wrong. Couple that with your bias against "rich people" and everything you say about tax law has to be taken with a grain of salt.

i'm not going to write a memo for someone on TA so you can fully understand it. understand though, that when the repeal happens, little people will pay more in taxes. read this, it explains the process in plain english.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6061201568.html

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You should know (if you really are a CPA) that there are upsides and downsides to every tax option. From what I can garner of your "stepped up" claim, the upside is that while you may pay some property tax on the inheritance, at least you won't get killed with some huge 55% tax on anything over $675,000.00 anymore

i'm not a CPA, i'm far more qualified than a CPA to discuss the impact of laws. which makes it even more unbelievable that i persist with you because you clearly haven no idea what i'm talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco lol...your logic is AMAZING! Never-mind that this "rich" trucking company owner pays all appropriate state and fed taxes to license and operate the trucks. Never-mind the excessively high diesel fuel tax, imposed specifically on the trucking industry as yet another way to tax. Never-mind the corporate taxes he pays, the government business taxes (like workman's comp. insurance), accidental injury or death insurance he pays for his employees, etc., etc...

i said it before, individual taxes make up more of the treasury revenue than corporate taxes. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8116&type=0
additionally, i was talking about the cost of maintaining and repairing the highways. but that doesn't matter because it's irrelevant to your idiotic tirade.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Again, YOU of all people should know that business owners, large and small, are taxed to DEATH compared to the average employee. Any tax incentives they get are there to encourage them to put money back in to their business, which in turn is good for the business, the economy, the employees, etc...

business owners also get to deduct almost all of their expenses. furthermore, businesses can have tax loses with economic profits. deductions such as amortization and depreciation can create huge tax adjustments that don't reflect true economics, and could result in tax losses with economic profits: great for owners!!! tell me, when did you ever have a positive economic profit and a tax loss? these tax adjustments are what make the real estate market turn. there was an entire industry in the 70s and 80s that took advantage of this kind of loss manufacturing.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Jesus dude, you are f-ing bitter as fuck about this myth you have built up in your mind of the "rich man" just fucking everyone over.

i never said the rich were fucking anyone over. rich people pay my bills.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 so you are a tax lawyer who also that graduated from NYU law school? or was it harvard, yale, columbia, or stanford?

Apparently I know more than you. So assuming you are who you claim, I'd go get your money back from the Holly-Hobby Law School, if I were you.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the gift to the spouse comes out of the estate prior to the calculation of the tax.

Yah, I know. You mis-read my question and answered incorrectly. Go back and re-read the original question.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 12,000 adjusted annual for inflation. there are ways to get around that by using trusts.

Glad to hear it went up.

And trusts don't solve all of one's problems either, they're not that simple.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i'm not a CPA, i'm a tax lawyer. which makes it even more unbelievable that i persist with you because you clearly haven no idea what i'm talking about.

God help your clients.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i was talking about the cost of maintaining and repairing the highways. but that doesn't matter because it's irrelevant to your idiotic tirade.

...and as I pointed out, those costs are covered by the specific transportation-related taxes that the companies pay to the government. Your examples BLOW!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 business owners also get to deduct almost all of their expenses. furthermore, businesses frequently have tax loses with economic profits. deductions such as amortization and depreciation can create huge tax loses while the owner recognizes no actual lose, and the owner could pay no taxes.

If they had some depreciation that year, which they then used to off-set their taxable income, it counts as a loss still!

I doubt you're a lawyer, I really do. No one can possibly be this thick and have an education.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i never said the rich were fucking anyone over...

Your posts say otherwise.

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