Heartless,evil post

[Mr. WEO]

A few points:

 

I'm not a "conservative" (only voted for one ever). I do have reservations concerning wealth redistribution to a degree more significant than already exists. Labelling an opposing view or the person espousing it only exposes you as having not much of depth to say about your own position.

 

The discussion of the merits or faults of a huge inheritence tax has morphed into a "soak the rich" discussion. OK. As someone already pointed out, the top income earners pay the vast amount of the sum the government charges its citizens. The top 25% pay 83% of the Fed tax bill. The top 1% pay almost 35% of all income taxes. Those Forbes 400 paid 1.6% of federal income tax in 2000. 400 people in a country of 300 million. The bottom 50% percent of wage earners pay 4% of the federal tab. That doesn't include, obviously, the number of people who earn nothing. So about half the country pays almost nothing in taxes yet has the same (or more) benefits than those in the top half of earners. With Obama's tax increase to pay for his heatlh care plan, individuals making over 250,000 living in NYC will be paying 60% of their income to (all) taxes.

 

The country is going broke--mainly because of out of control expansion of government entitlement programs and, under GW Bush and now Obama, a massive increase in federal employees. History has shown that simply taking more from those earning a lot of money does not necessarily raise federal income. Obama has committed to vast increases in federal entitlements that cannot be paid for. "soaking the rich" will not make up the difference.

 

States like California and NY, who have the highest concentration of "the rich", are nearly bankrupt due mainly to the cost of public employee benefits--particularly retirement benefits. When those of us who don't work for the government lost half or more of the value of our retirement funds, the public employees lost not a penny. Why do you want to pay for that if you are not a government employee?

 

Its quite magnanimous of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to argue for a "death tax". When your net worth is 30-50 billion, you're not going to miss giving all but 1 or 2 billion away. But the inheritence tax begins at a $3.5 million for dad's estate. So count his house, his small business that he built from scratch over years and you really wanted to take over for him, and his life insurance policy....well, you better have a few million laying around or you're going to have to sell the family business.

 

Maybe some of the posters here are envious of the European Union, where margianl tax rates are high to fund a very generous entitlement state. No class warfare there. In fact the only rioting takes place when "austerity measures" (cutbacks on entitlements) are annouced. Witness the counry of Greece, which just went bankrupt, where people were in the streets lighting cops on fire when told that government largess would be less available to them.

 

Perhaps that fiscal model appeals to some here. Not me.

[Rob's House]

yea, i'm confident he was for capital punishment (given his experience with it), gun (or sword) rights and survival of the fittest (that whole evolution question is so troublesome)... and while there may be conservatives who favor private religion, there is that whole "moral majority" thing....

 

That was deep.

 

I love the way you cherry pick a couple of issues, take them out of context, and then tear down a straw man to tie it all together.

 

Actually, Jesus was for sword rights. He told his disciples to use the sword to defend their homes. I don't recall any catagorical opposition to capital punishment.

 

And because there are a hand full of right-wingers who want more church involvement in government, it hardly follows that Jesus must therefore be a bleeding heart liberal.

 

But thanks for playing.

[Steely Dan]

Which might well be why our economy is larger than the next 3 largest in the world combined.

 

One thing that really bothers me about estate tax on top of the double taxation aspect (and yes I'm familiar with the capital gains argument) is the fact that a lot of non-rich people get lumped into that. If you have 4 kids and have a million $ estate, that's not rich.

 

It's a great way to leave your earnings to your children in hopes that they can have a boost to help them when you're not around. The idea that the state can confiscate a significant portion of that to grease politicians palms, bribe the electorate with hand-outs, and bloat government pork projects sickens me.

 

First, after all of the tax credits if somebody has a worth of over a million dollars they are pretty well off. Second if you want to raise the first rate to begin at two million I think that would be fair given inflation and such. Third the conservative mantra is that if you work hard you can make it. Why don't these people want their kids have to earn their keep? Fourth, taxes don't go to greasing palms of politicians. That's done by private enterprise. Fifth, if you believe in meritocracy and not aristocracy it's a necessary evil. JMO

[JohnC]

To wit, the ads several years ago talking about people "losing the family farm" or some other small business, which rarely if ever happens at current or even prior estate tax levels (one survey I read said that no one has ever lost the family farm over the estate tax, for ex.). Turns out, those ads were financed by an organization supported by the super-wealthy (many of which were multigenerational wealth beneficiaries it also turned out) who were embarrassed when this was made public.

 

The same type of wealthy shysters you alluded to are the type of people who incorporate their companies offshore (via bogus post office addresses) to avoid paying taxes. Not only are these frauds unpatriotic they are despicable criminals. What is so astonishing is how gullible a majority of people are to by such blatant foolishness.

[Steely Dan]

Right. Because only people who agree with you think first.

 

I have never agreed with the government money grab on account of someone's death. Death Tax. Inheritance Tax. Transfer Tax. Call it whatever makes you feel comfortable.

 

Only 50% of people even pay Federal income tax anymore, so don't talk to me about how this or that isn't fair. People who earn more subsidize a lot of this country. And that, in my mind, is antithetical to what this country was founded on.

 

I think you need to address your obvious class envy issues. It's clouding your judgment.

 

No, people who don't have the facts don't think first. Have you read the multiple posts on all of the things that the estate tax is taxing for the FIRST time?

 

 

um....sarcasm. read it again

 

 

Oops! Sarcasm detector not working well today.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

Fifth, if you believe in meritocracy and not aristocracy it's a necessary evil. JMO

 

WOW. That's a new one. Big government taking a boatload from the wealthy is a necessary evil of a meritocracy? Oooo Kay then...

[birdog1960]

That was deep.

 

I love the way you cherry pick a couple of issues, take them out of context, and then tear down a straw man to tie it all together.

 

Actually, Jesus was for sword rights. He told his disciples to use the sword to defend their homes. I don't recall any catagorical opposition to capital punishment.

 

And because there are a hand full of right-wingers who want more church involvement in government, it hardly follows that Jesus must therefore be a bleeding heart liberal.

 

But thanks for playing.

thou shalt not kill...turn the other cheek...that handful now dominates the "big tent" of the republican party

[Steely Dan]

The same type of wealthy shysters you alluded to are the type of people who incorporate their companies offshore (via bogus post office addresses) to avoid paying taxes. Not only are these frauds unpatriotic they are despicable criminals. What is so astonishing is how gullible a majority of people are to by such blatant foolishness.

 

I've always found that funny. The Republicans lay claim to the "true patriot" title but don't practice what they preach. Money is far more important than country.

[K Gun Special]

A few points:

 

I'm not a "conservative" (only voted for one ever). I do have reservations concerning wealth redistribution to a degree more significant than already exists. Labelling an opposing view or the person espousing it only exposes you as having not much of depth to say about your own position.

 

The discussion of the merits or faults of a huge inheritence tax has morphed into a "soak the rich" discussion. OK. As someone already pointed out, the top income earners pay the vast amount of the sum the government charges its citizens. The top 25% pay 83% of the Fed tax bill. The top 1% pay almost 35% of all income taxes. Those Forbes 400 paid 1.6% of federal income tax in 2000. 400 people in a country of 300 million. The bottom 50% percent of wage earners pay 4% of the federal tab. That doesn't include, obviously, the number of people who earn nothing. So about half the country pays almost nothing in taxes yet has the same (or more) benefits than those in the top half of earners. With Obama's tax increase to pay for his heatlh care plan, individuals making over 250,000 living in NYC will be paying 60% of their income to (all) taxes.

 

The country is going broke--mainly because of out of control expansion of government entitlement programs and, under GW Bush and now Obama, a massive increase in federal employees. History has shown that simply taking more from those earning a lot of money does not necessarily raise federal income. Obama has committed to vast increases in federal entitlements that cannot be paid for. "soaking the rich" will not make up the difference.

 

States like California and NY, who have the highest concentration of "the rich", are nearly bankrupt due mainly to the cost of public employee benefits--particularly retirement benefits. When those of us who don't work for the government lost half or more of the value of our retirement funds, the public employees lost not a penny. Why do you want to pay for that if you are not a government employee?

 

Its quite magnanimous of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to argue for a "death tax". When your net worth is 30-50 billion, you're not going to miss giving all but 1 or 2 billion away. But the inheritence tax begins at a $3.5 million for dad's estate. So count his house, his small business that he built from scratch over years and you really wanted to take over for him, and his life insurance policy....well, you better have a few million laying around or you're going to have to sell the family business.

 

Maybe some of the posters here are envious of the European Union, where margianl tax rates are high to fund a very generous entitlement state. No class warfare there. In fact the only rioting takes place when "austerity measures" (cutbacks on entitlements) are annouced. Witness the counry of Greece, which just went bankrupt, where people were in the streets lighting cops on fire when told that government largess would be less available to them.

 

Perhaps that fiscal model appeals to some here. Not me.

 

Its hard to read your post on not think you are a conservative, at least a hard economic conservative.

 

and income tax makes up only 1/3 of tax revenue, those who do not pay income tax because they are dirt poor still have to pay 2.3 of other federal taxes.

 

say nothing of the corporations who almost nothing, or the wealthy accumulating untaxed capital wealth (until its sold i know)

 

but its funny that when conservative's have the economic principles in place, think reagan and bush years, the average worker's salary becomes stagnant or declines and everyone not in the upper classes sees their net worth go down. thats redistribution of wealth to "entitled" rich folk.

[JohnC]

The idiology that goverment , or society in general ( for all the religious brotherhood crowd)can take care of even the basic needs of all the worlds needy billions is crazy. Sorry but as with all life on earth survival goes to the most fit, most lucky, most prepared ect. Not those getting or giving the biggest handout.

 

Wants some more.. lets open our borders to everyone , that way we can all live in a third world country.

 

What militia do you belong to? How many camouflage outfits do you have? Do you have your uzi ready when the government storm troopers try to take over your bunker?

[stuckincincy]

What militia do you belong to? How many camouflage outfits do you have? Do you have your uzi ready when the government storm troopers try to take over your bunker?

 

That's "mean-spirited." It's "a rush to judgement."

[JohnC]

That's "mean-spirited." It's "a rush to judgement."

 

Some judgments don't take too long to make. I'm sure this very hard-nosed fellow can handle the comments.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

A few points:

 

I'm not a "conservative" (only voted for one ever). I do have reservations concerning wealth redistribution to a degree more significant than already exists. Labelling an opposing view or the person espousing it only exposes you as having not much of depth to say about your own position.

 

The discussion of the merits or faults of a huge inheritence tax has morphed into a "soak the rich" discussion. OK. As someone already pointed out, the top income earners pay the vast amount of the sum the government charges its citizens. The top 25% pay 83% of the Fed tax bill. The top 1% pay almost 35% of all income taxes. Those Forbes 400 paid 1.6% of federal income tax in 2000. 400 people in a country of 300 million. The bottom 50% percent of wage earners pay 4% of the federal tab. That doesn't include, obviously, the number of people who earn nothing. So about half the country pays almost nothing in taxes yet has the same (or more) benefits than those in the top half of earners. With Obama's tax increase to pay for his heatlh care plan, individuals making over 250,000 living in NYC will be paying 60% of their income to (all) taxes.

 

The country is going broke--mainly because of out of control expansion of government entitlement programs and, under GW Bush and now Obama, a massive increase in federal employees. History has shown that simply taking more from those earning a lot of money does not necessarily raise federal income. Obama has committed to vast increases in federal entitlements that cannot be paid for. "soaking the rich" will not make up the difference.

 

States like California and NY, who have the highest concentration of "the rich", are nearly bankrupt due mainly to the cost of public employee benefits--particularly retirement benefits. When those of us who don't work for the government lost half or more of the value of our retirement funds, the public employees lost not a penny. Why do you want to pay for that if you are not a government employee?

 

Its quite magnanimous of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to argue for a "death tax". When your net worth is 30-50 billion, you're not going to miss giving all but 1 or 2 billion away. But the inheritence tax begins at a $3.5 million for dad's estate. So count his house, his small business that he built from scratch over years and you really wanted to take over for him, and his life insurance policy....well, you better have a few million laying around or you're going to have to sell the family business.

 

Maybe some of the posters here are envious of the European Union, where margianl tax rates are high to fund a very generous entitlement state. No class warfare there. In fact the only rioting takes place when "austerity measures" (cutbacks on entitlements) are annouced. Witness the counry of Greece, which just went bankrupt, where people were in the streets lighting cops on fire when told that government largess would be less available to them.

 

Perhaps that fiscal model appeals to some here. Not me.

 

 

Mr. Weo--this is absoultely the best non-football post I have ever read on this website. It's succinct, brilliant, and goes directly to the heart of the issue.

 

The fact is that our value system as it relates to taxation is based on the old world theory of Master/Servant. In our system, the king is repalced with the government, and the government rigs the game to it's benefit. see your standard 401k. the government allows it's citizens to save their money for their future needs, giving them the most gracious and benevolent gift of tax deferral on the relatively small amount they save. in return, the goverment has the right to tax the entire value of the asset at the time when you use it. in fact, just to play it safe, the government maintains that regardless of your personal situation, come age 70 or so, you must begin to get their share. so, in theory anyways, the government creates millions of little annuity accounts for itself along the way. the king simply must get his share.

 

the estate tax issue is fundamentally the same. i won't argue the merits of it, i believe the citizens of a nation must pay for it's infrastructure through a moral and just tax code, but the citation of Messrs Gates and Buffet as super-rich proponents of the estate tax is laughable. tell you what---show me Warren Buffet's kids living on their own pennies when dear old dad heads to his heavenly reward and i'll be impressed. show me that bill gates has not used every legal corporate and personal tax dodge known to man to do his part for the greater good while he's alive, and has his kids set up with just a couple hundred thousand sheckles to survive and i'll be the first in line to shake his hand. the truth is the very wealthy go to great lengths to plan for the eventualities of life, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure naivete. And you know what? I respect the hell out of both of these people for their obvious intellect and business accumen. i just happe to think theya r e bit full o' crap in this regard.

 

The root of the problem is this theory of one's "fair share". Tom Golisano left NYS not long ago because his fair share in NY was different than his fair share in Florida. How is one's share "fair" when dealing with a corrupt and bloated infrastructure like that we live with in NY? We all complain about it---why should he be forced to bail out ANYTHING related to NY when the general populace is apparently 100% comfortable with the status quo?

 

as to the rest, class envy is great if you want to vent. rhetoric sells well to the simple-minded.

[Alphadawg7]

Not to mention that it's not a "death tax". It's an "Inheritance Tax" or "Estate Tax". "Death Tax" is a term cooked up by a right-wing pollster/marketer to create anger over inheritance taxes among the middle class in order to assure passage in Congress. Inheritance taxes are normally - well, no, almost exclusively - a concern among the super-wealthy.

 

I am not super-wealthy, I'm not even close. I have no problem taxing the living daylights out of some very rich dude who, frankly, can't take it with him (or her).

 

You are only saying that because it doesnt affect you...you would be singing a completely different tune if it did.

 

Not to mention, this is double taxation and is complete BS, especially at a rate that high. The money has already been taxed when it was earned and at death they tax it again as it is being passed to their heirs. The government has no right to this money, it was earned by these people to be left to their heirs and they already payed their taxes.

 

And death tax and inheritance tax mean the same thing...a persons estate gets taxed when they die and pass everything on to the heirs...so arguing what to call it is pointless.

[erynthered]

rhetoric sells well to the simple-minded.

 

 

I thought this was the best part of your post, so I hope you dont mind I cut the other part out.

[Steely Dan]

Mr. Weo--this is absoultely the best non-football post I have ever read on this website. It's succinct, brilliant, and goes directly to the heart of the issue.

 

The fact is that our value system as it relates to taxation is based on the old world theory of Master/Servant. In our system, the king is repalced with the government, and the government rigs the game to it's benefit. see your standard 401k. the government allows it's citizens to save their money for their future needs, giving them the most gracious and benevolent gift of tax deferral on the relatively small amount they save. in return, the goverment has the right to tax the entire value of the asset at the time when you use it. in fact, just to play it safe, the government maintains that regardless of your personal situation, come age 70 or so, you must begin to get their share. so, in theory anyways, the government creates millions of little annuity accounts for itself along the way. the king simply must get his share.

 

the estate tax issue is fundamentally the same. i won't argue the merits of it, i believe the citizens of a nation must pay for it's infrastructure through a moral and just tax code, but the citation of Messrs Gates and Buffet as super-rich proponents of the estate tax is laughable. tell you what---show me Warren Buffet's kids living on their own pennies when dear old dad heads to his heavenly reward and i'll be impressed. show me that bill gates has not used every legal corporate and personal tax dodge known to man to do his part for the greater good while he's alive, and has his kids set up with just a couple hundred thousand sheckles to survive and i'll be the first in line to shake his hand. the truth is the very wealthy go to great lengths to plan for the eventualities of life, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure naivete. And you know what? I respect the hell out of both of these people for their obvious intellect and business accumen. i just happe to think theya r e bit full o' crap in this regard.

 

The root of the problem is this theory of one's "fair share". Tom Golisano left NYS not long ago because his fair share in NY was different than his fair share in Florida. How is one's share "fair" when dealing with a corrupt and bloated infrastructure like that we live with in NY? We all complain about it---why should he be forced to bail out ANYTHING related to NY when the general populace is apparently 100% comfortable with the status quo?

 

as to the rest, class envy is great if you want to vent. rhetoric sells well to the simple-minded.

 

As far as I know WB doesn't have any kids. BG isn't saying to tax it all away he's saying that a tax is necessary. Your argument about his kids not suffering after he dies just makes the argument for estate taxes stronger. You're right they won't suffer even if half of his wealth is taxed.

 

An ultra conservative friend of my brothers recently moved back to NY after living in SC. He's more than happy to pay the taxes now in exchange for the much better schools in this state. If Golisano wants to cry and pout about how he was being screwed by NY down in Florida let him. He is more about money than country anyway.

[MattM]

Mr. Weo--this is absoultely the best non-football post I have ever read on this website. It's succinct, brilliant, and goes directly to the heart of the issue.

 

The fact is that our value system as it relates to taxation is based on the old world theory of Master/Servant. In our system, the king is repalced with the government, and the government rigs the game to it's benefit. see your standard 401k. the government allows it's citizens to save their money for their future needs, giving them the most gracious and benevolent gift of tax deferral on the relatively small amount they save. in return, the goverment has the right to tax the entire value of the asset at the time when you use it. in fact, just to play it safe, the government maintains that regardless of your personal situation, come age 70 or so, you must begin to get their share. so, in theory anyways, the government creates millions of little annuity accounts for itself along the way. the king simply must get his share.

 

the estate tax issue is fundamentally the same. i won't argue the merits of it, i believe the citizens of a nation must pay for it's infrastructure through a moral and just tax code, but the citation of Messrs Gates and Buffet as super-rich proponents of the estate tax is laughable. tell you what---show me Warren Buffet's kids living on their own pennies when dear old dad heads to his heavenly reward and i'll be impressed. show me that bill gates has not used every legal corporate and personal tax dodge known to man to do his part for the greater good while he's alive, and has his kids set up with just a couple hundred thousand sheckles to survive and i'll be the first in line to shake his hand. the truth is the very wealthy go to great lengths to plan for the eventualities of life, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure naivete. And you know what? I respect the hell out of both of these people for their obvious intellect and business accumen. i just happe to think theya r e bit full o' crap in this regard.

 

The root of the problem is this theory of one's "fair share". Tom Golisano left NYS not long ago because his fair share in NY was different than his fair share in Florida. How is one's share "fair" when dealing with a corrupt and bloated infrastructure like that we live with in NY? We all complain about it---why should he be forced to bail out ANYTHING related to NY when the general populace is apparently 100% comfortable with the status quo?

 

as to the rest, class envy is great if you want to vent. rhetoric sells well to the simple-minded.

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/...arity1.fortune/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colyrmn/yrmn081.htm

 

As you'll see from the articles above, both Gates and Buffet are indeed passing their children over to a large extent and donating their estates to charity. Gates is planning (or was planning, as it's an old article admittedly, although I don't ever recall reading that he's changed his mind) to give away almost all of his money to charity, leaving his kids $10m each. A whopping sum to the average person, but an infinitessimal fraction of what he's worth. Ten million is more than a few thousand sheckles, but comparatively to what he's giving away, not by much. These guys are practicing what they're preaching. From what I've read, Gates fears that the kind of wealth he has would destroy his kids' drive and make them less likely to be worthy contributing members of society (having known the kids of some of the wealthy, I'd tend to agree in many, but certainly not all, cases.) You may not agree with them, but you may want to check your facts before making statements such as those bolded above.

[Steely Dan]

You are only saying that because it doesnt affect you...you would be singing a completely different tune if it did.

Not to mention, this is double taxation and is complete BS, especially at a rate that high. The money has already been taxed when it was earned and at death they tax it again as it is being passed to their heirs. The government has no right to this money, it was earned by these people to be left to their heirs and they already payed their taxes.

 

And death tax and inheritance tax mean the same thing...a persons estate gets taxed when they die and pass everything on to the heirs...so arguing what to call it is pointless.

 

If he was a whiny little biotch who didn't realize how uber lucky he was to be born into the family he was he might, if he felt that the world owed him something for being born rich he might, if he knew how hard it is to succeed when you have little to start with he might, if he was a lazy son of a B word he might. So I guess he'd have to be a complete ahole first. He doesn't seem like a complete ahole to me. JMO

 

Do you believe people should work hard for the things they have or have them handed to them on a silver platter?

[birdog1960]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/...arity1.fortune/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colyrmn/yrmn081.htm

 

As you'll see from the articles above, both Gates and Buffet are indeed passing their children over to a large extent and donating their estates to charity. Gates is planning (or was planning, as it's an old article admittedly, although I don't ever recall reading that he's changed his mind) to give away almost all of his money to charity, leaving his kids $10m each. A whopping sum to the average person, but an infinitessimal fraction of what he's worth. Ten million is more than a few thousand sheckles, but comparatively to what he's giving away, not by much. These guys are practicing what they're preaching. From what I've read, Gates fears that the kind of wealth he has would destroy his kids' drive and make them less likely to be worthy contributing members of society (having known the kids of some of the wealthy, I'd tend to agree in many, but certainly not all, cases.) You may not agree with them, but you may want to check your facts before making statements such as those bolded above.

peter buffett has a new book out about values. he was fairly conservatively supported ($90000 in stock when he left for Stanford) as his father believes that a silver spoon is actually a "silver dagger in your back". I believe he inherited more on the death of his mother but him becoming rich from inheritance is not his father's wish.

[bills_fan]

how is that?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/show/187.html