quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange nope. eliminating inheritance would encourage gift-giving (a non-taxable event) and might motivate some people to earn a living and not wait for their next of kin to die.

What is it is an accidental death, there is no more income bearer in the family (the wife is stay-at-home, and the kids very young)?

You are now forcing the mom to go out and fend for herself with no job skills, in an attempt to raise children who yesterday had everything and today have nothing.

you really have to think these type of laws through you know.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What is it is an accidental death, there is no more income bearer in the family (the wife is stay-at-home, and the kids very young)? You are now forcing the mom to go out and fend for herself with no job skills, in an attempt to raise children who yesterday had everything and today have nothing. you really have to think these type of laws through you know.

Kinda like if we did away with Social Security – there would be no more safety net to the widowed and his/her children, right? I digress.

But for some reason, I tend to think that those who earn 1.5 million or more tend to have a bit of a safety net of their own – Social Security, stocks, dividends, life insurance policy, etc. Purely hypothetical, of course, but how often does the affluent NOT have a bit of a “nest egg” of their own to survive on outside of inheritance in your given hypothetical scenario of the income bearer suddenly passing away?

Added in Edit: Eh, I can't really say I agree with eliminating enheritance altogether - that's a little too drastic a step, although I do understand the point Spacey was making.

So, uh, just disregard this post if you wanna.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-19-2005 at 15:09

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Something like 75 percent of all small businesses don't survive the second generation because of estate tax. This one I am sure on percentage, 86 percent dont survive the 3rd generation(C-Span).

I don't dispute this.

quote:

The companies that are always hit are small businesses, because of the estate tax small businesses never can grow enough to become national companies to compete with corporations. The estate tax prevents investment from small business owners into their own companies more than any other single catalyst(C-Span). The estate tax is a job killer and morally wrong.

I do, however, dispute this. I have given you specific statistics that directly contradicts this claim. You made the fallacious leap from the premise that small businesses have a difficult time surviving the 2nd and 3rd generations, which I certainly agree with, to stating the root cause being the estate tax. You have given no evidence that supports this cause. Please do so now.

quote:

In the debate over the estate tax even the liberals, admitted that their constituant farmer and small business owners were yelling at them about the estate tax.

Who? What "liberals"? And honestly, why do I care what a handful of dissenting liberals say about it? In no way does it negate my argument that:

1. By and large this does NOT hurt small businesses (5.6% of total estate revenue - not 1 single case cited as the cause)

2. With our current red ink and deficit growing, now is not the time to cut taxes even further, ESPECIALLY for those who need it the least.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

The evidence was sighted in a House debate over the estate tax on C-Span. It pointed to the estate tax as the biggest reason why those small businesses fail after those generations. **"The Liberals", in the House taking part in the debate** they quoted figures that showed that small businesses and farms were going under because of the estate tax.

Your arguments don't prove this fallacious. Your first has to do with revenue receiving from small business estates as compared to wealthy and has really very little to do with this argument. The 2nd only shows that the Farm Bureau can't PROVE that any of the farms have gone under because of the estate tax.

If you don't believe the above, use your fucking common sense. The estate tax taxes all assets after death at roughly 45 percent not money, not anything like that, all assets. There is basically like no small business that can keep on taking hits like that generation after generation. No business has 45 percent of all their assets on hand at death, even if they did it shouldn't be on hand it should be invested in their business in expanding and getting more workers. 45 percent of assets you fucking kidding me. Its obvious that every time a death occurs they have to liquidate at least a good portion if not all of the business to pay that tax off.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby The evidence was sighted in a House debate over the estate tax on C-Span. It pointed to the estate tax as the biggest reason why those small businesses fail after those generations. **"The Liberals", in the House taking part in the debate** they quoted figures that showed that small businesses and farms were going under because of the estate tax.

Who said this? What time, day, etc.? CSPAN is on the internet, is it not? Could you not give a reference of this speech? Can you please give evidence of any kind, for a change? And whoever said this, what did they use to support their claims? What is their source? You honestly think I’m going to believe what a politician states as a fact every time they make a statement, regardless of which aisle they sit on?

Please support your assertions with evidence.

quote:

Your arguments don't prove this fallacious. Your first has to do with revenue receiving from small business estates as compared to wealthy and has really very little to do with this argument. The 2nd only shows that the Farm Bureau can't PROVE that any of the farms have gone under because of the estate tax.

Incorrect – my first argument clearly demonstrates WITH EVIDENCE that the argument stating that the estate tax hurts small businesses is fallacious. Not only is the revenue generated by the estate tax extremely slight from small businesses (only 5.6%), but one of the biggest advocates for the appeal of the estate taxes could not cite ONE SPECIFIC CASE in which the estate tax caused a farm to be lost. So if an advocate can’t prove any case to verify his or any other advocate’s point about estate taxes being the cause of a business lost, they have no verifiability.

And neither do you, of course.

quote:

If you don't believe the above, use your fucking common sense. The estate tax taxes all assets after death at roughly 45 percent not money, not anything like that, all assets. There is basically like no small business that can keep on taking hits like that generation after generation. No business has 45 percent of all their assets on hand at death, even if they did it shouldn't be on hand it should be invested in their business in expanding and getting more workers. 45 percent of assets you fucking kidding me. Its obvious that every time a death occurs they have to liquidate at least a good portion if not all of the business to pay that tax off.

I have used my “fucking common sense”. I use it quite often – it’s called verifiability. It seems this concept is a bit absent in your arguments that you continue to post. Why don’t you try it for once? Your fallacious appeal to “fucking common sense” doesn’t hold very good veracity with me or anyone here, so please try again.

Now let’s look at some other things that have gone on with this tax repeal. The House Democrats have asked to raise the estate tax to $3.5 million instead of $1.5 million, which would seriously cut the number of those some 440 small businesses being affected down significantly. Well gee, what do you think the Republicans did? Yep, they shot it down hard. Now why do you think these Republicans would shoot such an idea down and keep the one they have when the estate tax only affects some 2% of America’s families, while affectively furthering our country into the red-ink deficit?:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/03/pf/taxes/q_taxchanges/

And why do they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about taxes like the Alternative Minimum Tax that is collecting more and more money from MIDDLE CLASS folks, while at the same time eeeease that darn burden on the 2% of Americans? Is it because, perhaps, he wants his tax laws overhaul to be “revenue-neutral”?:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=91662

Well who gets to pay for that fucking neutrality? You think that burden just might go to the middle class, once again?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

C-Span on tv like a week ago about 3 o clock i think. House debates over estate tax. The assertion of the republicans the only name that I specifically remember stating that fact out of like the 20 or so republicans was Florida's Harris. The democrats then admitted that the estate tax was killing jobs for small businesses and thats why they came up with their bs proposal. The problem with that proposal was that the businesses that would now survive and start to expand would then be hit with the estate tax just at a later time, they still would never grow to compete with large corporations because of that tax. I don't remember specifically on the democrat side who agreed that the estate tax was a job killer, I'm pretty sure there was a democrat congressman from Tennessee and a congressman from Florida.

What in the hell does revenue raised by small businesses have to do with estate tax killing a small business? All you are proving is that small businesses don't have much assets to tax(and that includes not much money to pay an estate tax on so few assets). Now you use evidence of one of our side saying they can't find a specific example of estate tax ruining small farms, well I am using evidence(it was on C-Span I saw it, if you have such a problem you go dig up the fucking transcripts I'm not wasting my time) that has your side admitting that the estate tax is killing jobs. Don't give me this shit that because you fucking somehow put a link there that your evidence is better than mine. I watched mine on TV. You fucking read yours, and is easy to redig up. If you have an untrusting problem you fucking dig it up.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby C-Span on tv like a week ago about 3 o clock i think. House debates over estate tax. The assertion of the republicans the only name that I specifically remember stating that fact out of like the 20 or so republicans was Florida's Harris. The democrats then admitted that the estate tax was killing jobs for small businesses and thats why they came up with their bs proposal. The problem with that proposal was that the businesses that would now survive and start to expand would then be hit with the estate tax just at a later time, they still would never grow to compete with large corporations because of that tax. I don't remember specifically on the democrat side who agreed that the estate tax was a job killer, I'm pretty sure there was a democrat congressman from Tennessee and a congressman from Florida.

Anytime you're ready to finally cite a source via a link,

I’ll be happy as a fucking clam.

quote:

What in the hell does revenue raised by small businesses have to do with estate tax killing a small business? All you are proving is that small businesses don't have much assets to tax(and that includes not much money to pay an estate tax on so few assets).

Directly, the argument of revenue raised does not specifically address that argument that the tax hurts small businesses. It demonstrates that the total amount of revenue generated does not come from small businesses and farms, and directly addresses any argument that by and large the estate tax “typically devastates” those small businesses. 5.6% is not “typical devastation”.

quote:

Now you use evidence of one of our side saying they can't find a specific example of estate tax ruining small farms, well I am using evidence(it was on C-Span I saw it, if you have such a problem you go dig up the fucking transcripts I'm not wasting my time)

Actually you’re wasting my fucking time and everyone else’s here – YOU brought up the argument. YOU continue to cite this as your source, therefore the onus of proof is on YOU, not me, to find and cite the source.

I am questioning your source because I want to see exactly who said what and what exactly they used as their reference. If you cannot give this information, you have no argument, period.

quote:

that has your side admitting that the estate tax is killing jobs.

Who’s side am I on, exactly? Who said these things? Source, please.

quote:

Don't give me this shit that because you fucking somehow put a link there that your evidence is better than mine. I watched mine on TV. You fucking read yours, and is easy to redig up. If you have an untrusting problem you fucking dig it up.

Well my fucking link came from the fucking Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,capital,00.html

Which happens to be pretty darn credible when it comes to economic sources. Sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you sir, but you’re countering with fucking CSPAN and something some unnamed politicians are saying, without demonstrating where they cite their own sources?

You’re not doing very well here, sir, as with most of your posts elsewhere.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Fine I'll go fucking dig it up, but just to show you that I'm not bullshitting. I'm not going to do this every fucking time, alright? There I have already spent like half hour trying to dig it up heres the congressional record, enjoy. Good luck finding everything. The arguments were made on a constant basis by both parties. Many liberals admitted that the current estate tax is a job killer, but that they just wanted to raise the ceiling on it. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...01&position=all

Goddamn I'm not going to spend my time looking for congressional records to make you happy.

The fact that the government revenue from small businesses is only 5.6% still doesn't prove your argument at all. All that it proves is that small business owners don't have many assets to tax. But your such a fucking retard you don't understand that. Goddamn some people are fucking dumb

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Fine I'll go fucking dig it up, but just to show you that I'm not bullshitting. I'm not going to do this every fucking time, alright? There I have already spent like half hour trying to dig it up heres the congressional record, enjoy. Good luck finding everything. The arguments were made on a constant basis by both parties. Many liberals admitted that the current estate tax is a job killer, but that they just wanted to raise the ceiling on it. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...01&position=all

Well gee, thanks for giving me a quote from my Republican Congressman Ryun of Kansas, whom I know personally to be a fucking douchebag in his own right.

And what did he say exactly? That it hurts small farms without any evidence to support his notion.

Great citation. Any more?

quote:

Goddamn I'm not going to spend my time looking for congressional records to make you happy.

Then your argument holds no merit.

quote:

The fact that the government revenue from small businesses is only 5.6% still doesn't prove your argument at all. All that it proves is that small business owners don't have many assets to tax.

Again I state:

quote:

Directly, the argument of revenue raised does not specifically address that argument that the tax hurts small businesses. It demonstrates that the total amount of revenue generated does not come from small businesses and farms, and directly addresses any argument that by and large the estate tax “typically devastates” those small businesses. 5.6% is not “typical devastation”.

Now I did notice that you evaded my second point - that not one case could be cited where this estate tax has effectively put small businesses and farms out of business. Have you found anything yet?

quote:

But your such a fucking retard you don't understand that. Goddamn some people are fucking dumb

And some people unfortunately resort to ad hominems and fail to address any refutations made, but hey who's counting?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka The positive consequences of turning over an inordinately large amount of assets to the government? Just give them massive amounts of propery upon a person's death? Aside from removing any and every motivation for a person to work hard so his/her family will be taken care of after he/she dies, let alone the implications that could happen in the event that a corrupt government could just kill a person if they wanted to seize his/her property, let alone the fact that you have just shit all over imminent domain, a huge tenant of our constitution... Private property rights are part of the foundation of American society. To say that the government should have its mighty hand in the pot before a person's heirs see anything is truly disturbing. Sorry, I just don't think I could ever stomach that. Your idea sounds rather communistic and authoritative. I fail to see any positive implications other than those dirty, rotten evil "rich" people are your most likely target. I doubt it would ever be adopted either.

i think you have a point about the government having an incentive to kill people to get property, but i believe that some states already have laws whereby property of deceased passes onto the state if no will is written and the deceased has no one inheritors by law. in other words, this possibly exists already.

i think that the rule should be that no one over 18 (or other prescribed age) can inherit. this would solve the problem about leaving children uncared for.

i don't think this policy infringes on the private property rights of anyone. after all, a dead man has no rights or should have no rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What is it is an accidental death, there is no more income bearer in the family (the wife is stay-at-home, and the kids very young)? You are now forcing the mom to go out and fend for herself with no job skills, in an attempt to raise children who yesterday had everything and today have nothing. you really have to think these type of laws through you know.

as i stated, maybe an age limit would be in order.

oh, and what you find so offensive happens all the time except it happens to the poor. hmmms, sounds like your a proponent of welfare. say it ain't so.


but seriously, i think if adults knew they had to earn a living, this might motivate them to work harder and more productive. think about it. there are many ways of getting around this, such as trusts and gifts.

just musing about inheritance tho.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

So government should legislate how children are raised? You see it as a problem in our country that some people grow up in a different environment from you. Some people have such good fortune. Some don't. But is it really a matter that the government should be a party to? Your views sound not too far from communism!

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the estate tax was bad enough. Now you just want to give the government the whole damn thing? IMO, government is better served staying farther away from this issue.

Just ran across an editorial by that darn liberal media NYTimes, which seems to demonstrate just how little this estate tax effects folks and small businesses. Emphasis mine throughout:

quote:

Long Live the Estate Tax The New York Times | Editorial Friday 15 April 2005 For the fourth time in four years, the House of Representatives has passed a bill calling for the permanent repeal of the federal estate tax. The Senate should put a stop to this silliness. The only thing driving the push for repealing the estate tax is ideology. It sure isn't sound tax policy. The House proposal would cost the federal government a whopping $290 billion through 2015, according to estimates by Congress's own budget agency. And that's just the start; the costs after that would be explosive. And for what? Repeal would shield the estates of the very wealthiest Americans from the tax. That's the same group that already benefits the most from Mr. Bush's tax breaks for dividends and capital gains. Repeal of the estate tax was deemed too expensive in 2001, when the government was still enjoying the Clinton-era budget surplus. So it stands to reason that it's out of the question today, as America's enormous deficits weaken the domestic economy and the country's international economic leadership. But to its proponents, estate-tax repeal is the holy grail of the Republican anti-tax crusade.

Which bolsters my point about this certainly not being the right time to repeal such a tax. Moving on:

quote:

The most commonly heard argument against the estate tax - that it represents unfair double taxation - is specious. First, the estate tax does not even kick in until the assets left at death exceed $1.5 million, or $3 million per married couple - and those exemption amounts will more than double by 2009. So most Americans never even have to think about the estate tax, let alone worry about it coming on top of some other tax.

Not to mention that in 2010 it is completely off the books, though it does start up again in 2011. It really is a strange tax law, to be sure.

quote:

Second, much of the wealth transferred at death has never been taxed. That's because capital gains on assets like houses, stocks and bonds are not taxed until the asset is sold. Obviously, if you inherit, say, a house, its owner didn't sell it, so never paid any capital gains tax on it. Another popular argument against the estate tax - that the rate is so high the government is basically confiscating your property - is also a sham. Estate tax rates currently top out at 47 percent. But those rates don't even start to apply until an estate tops the multimillion-dollar exemption. As a result of the exemption and other deductions, the effective tax rate - the percentage that is actually handed over to the government - is much lower than the top stated rate. It was only 18.8 percent, on average, in 2003, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Wow - I didn't even know that!

quote:

The estate-tax foes' real beef is not with the estate tax per se. It's with the principle that the more you earn, the more taxes you should pay and, specifically, with the idea of taxing capital gains. Those debates are as old as the tax system itself. The Senate must stand firm for an estate tax that provides an ample exemption of up to $2 million per person, but with a top rate, 45 percent, that ensures that a reasonable amount is actually paid to the government. Anything less would impair fairness and could be fiscally crippling for decades to come. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15fri1.html

And the last paragraph, again, in principle I kinda agree with the argument. But now is certainly not the time to repeal this tax, nor is it worth arguing fallaciously just how many people it affects as well as attempt to argue that it effectively puts people out of business (if they sell off the property, wouldn't one assume that the living relatives are essentially selling off the business?).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...