It's a bit outside of the fray of this thread, but I'd like to point out that there has been plenty of criticism lobbed against CEOs that get paid millions yet I have not heard a single mention of anyone like the Hollywood elite or athletes who are both paid as much if not significantly more than the corporate brass that get so much criticism. Is that because most of Hollywood is extremely liberal and more supportive of socialist leaning viewpoints and therefore beyond reproach from some of the critics? I mean, what say you about Jennifer Lopez being paid $4M just for letting someone take "Exclusive first pictures" of her babies? That to me is a lot more offensive than a CEO getting paid a few million dollars for actually doing something to manage a company that produces goods and services that people actually use and/or need.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco PLEASE explain to me how ANYONE has EVER gotten out of paying estate tax on a taxable inheritance? You're pulling crap out of your ass and holding it up as fact, when it is nothing but bad gossip.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Are you saying that if I get an inheritance from a relative, and I don't want to pay tax on it, I can turn it over to my spouse and pay no tax?

with an emphatic yes, i am saying that if you give your wealth to a spouse it is not taxed under the estate tax. there are other techniques to limit estate tax exposure by taking giving away your wealth to your beneficiaries before you die. 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.

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.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Feb-25-2008 at 15:24

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It's a bit outside of the fray of this thread, but I'd like to point out that there has been plenty of criticism lobbed against CEOs that get paid millions yet I have not heard a single mention of anyone like the Hollywood elite or athletes who are both paid as much if not significantly more than the corporate brass that get so much criticism. Is that because most of Hollywood is extremely liberal and more supportive of socialist leaning viewpoints and therefore beyond reproach from some of the critics? I mean, what say you about Jennifer Lopez being paid $4M just for letting someone take "Exclusive first pictures" of her babies? That to me is a lot more offensive than a CEO getting paid a few million dollars for actually doing something to manage a company that produces goods and services that people actually use and/or need.

Ha! Socialist my arse!

Liberalism does NOT equal socialism!

And my views on tax payers in the highest wage bracket also include Hollywood stars and athletes.

But to answer your question, CEOs are a different kettle of fish because the wealth to pay for their wage/bonus/earnings has been created by workers at the bottom of the company, the other professions you mention are in effect their own company. Of course, their earnings are also created by workers at the bottom of other companies but those workers do not work directly for the actor/athlete/etc

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)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I fail to see how this is really relevant. These are all things that have been bought and paid for in the past with taxpayer funds.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka These are all things that have been bought and paid for in the past with taxpayer funds.

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. 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...).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well that is (or at least should be) a government's primary function (protecting the rights of its citizens). I'm not sure where you're trying to go with any of this.

the point is that without that function, people would just steal your shit. the only thing that stops people is the police force and the judicial system. 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. 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.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Feb-25-2008 at 15:21

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).

Last edited by Shakka on Feb-25-2008 at 16:02

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.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Feb-25-2008 at 16:13

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?!