bills_fan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Do you believe people should work hard for the things they have or have them handed to them on a silver platter? I believe that if I work hard, I should be able to give my children things rather than the government taking the fruits of my labor and giving it to others.
Rob's House Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 thou shalt not kill...turn the other cheek...that handful now dominates the "big tent" of the republican party OK, let's try this again, 1. "Thou shalt not kill" was from the old testament, and if correctly translated means "thou shalt not murder". Note the suble difference. 2. The turn the other cheek bit is taken grossly out of context. It was in reference to a specific situation, it was not a blanket statement to cover all slights against one's self. As mentioned earlier he also said to get a sword and defend your family. 3. Just because something isn't part of the Republican party platform doesn't necessarily make it exclusive rights of the "bleeding heart liberal". Sorry, better luck next time.
Rob's House Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Do you believe people should work hard for the things they have or have them handed to them on a silver platter? No offense, but it's really none of your business how "hard" anyone worked for what they have. P.S. I normally reject talking politics on a sports board, but with it isolated in it's own thread this has been a lot of fun, and although I disagree with your position, I appreciate you for keeping the discussion going.
erynthered Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/show/187.html I liked this part. Consider a $1 million charitable gift made to reduce estate tax liability. If the charity invests the gift and earns 8 percent annually, then it will earn $80,000 annually, tax free. Suppose there were no estate tax, and the donor, who pays income tax at the 36 percent rate, had held onto the asset. He would have paid $28,800 in tax the next year. Suppose all the after-tax income would have been reinvested, and suppose he would have lived for ten years at which time the asset would have passed on to his heirs who pay a 15 percent income tax rate. In the following 20 years, this $1 million would have generated over $650,000 in income tax revenue. This is revenue foregone to the Treasury because the estate tax motivated the donor to make a gift of the asset. Suppose, instead, the $1 million gift was distributed from the estate to avoid estate tax. If the assets had remained in the family, they would have generated $12,000 in income tax in the first year. If the after-tax income from these assets had been saved, then over 20 years the assets would have produced over a half million dollars in income tax revenue. That’s $500,000 in income tax revenue foregone over 20 years because the estate tax drove the estate to make a charitable contribution instead.
Steely Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I believe that if I work hard, I should be able to give my children things rather than the government taking the fruits of my labor and giving it to others. So you believe they should be handed things on a silver platter. Taxes are a part of living in almost any country, deal with it. If your net worth, after deductions, is more than a million then your kids are gonna have to deal with the fact that they'll have to make due with a half mil or more. If you want to coddle your kids into a life of leisure half of your worth will still be more than enough to do it.
Steely Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 No offense, but it's really none of your business how "hard" anyone worked for what they have. P.S. I normally reject talking politics on a sports board, but with it isolated in it's own thread this has been a lot of fun, and although I disagree with your position, I appreciate you for keeping the discussion going. Thank you, back atcha. The Republicans repeatedly make an issue of how hard people work for their money. I'm just throwing it back in their faces and they don't seem to like it. They rail against entitlements and yet expect entitlements themselves. Obviously hard work scares a lot of them, they are terrified that they might actually have to work for something rather than have it handed to them. I think "Family Guy" put it best when they said the Republicans help those with the means to help themselves.
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 As far as I know WB doesn't have any kids. Buffet has made NUMEROUS comments over the years regarding his kids and his wealth. Shows you how much you know. As for the subject of those comments, you'll just have to dig those up yourself on a fact finding mission of your own.
Steely Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Buffet has made NUMEROUS comments over the years regarding his kids and his wealth. Shows you how much you know. As for the subject of those comments, you'll just have to dig those up yourself on a fact finding mission of your own. My mistake, you ever make any?
Malazan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 This is not PPP. It has to do with the Bills staying in Buffalo. No, it doesn't. Wilson is not leaving the team to his family regardless.
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 OK, let's try this again, 1. "Thou shalt not kill" was from the old testament, and if correctly translated means "thou shalt not murder". Note the suble difference. 2. The turn the other cheek bit is taken grossly out of context. It was in reference to a specific situation, it was not a blanket statement to cover all slights against one's self. As mentioned earlier he also said to get a sword and defend your family. 3. Just because something isn't part of the Republican party platform doesn't necessarily make it exclusive rights of the "bleeding heart liberal". Sorry, better luck next time. the point is that the bible contains many apparently conflicting, allegorical, poetic and sometimes downright nebulous passages that can and are interpreted in diverse and conflicting ways by different experts with differing agendas. my interpretation of the new testament (and no where in the new testament are the 10 commandments discredited or contradicted) is that its basic tenets are much more in line with what in american politics is termed liberal than conservative. I concede that thoughtful people could disagree on this point
K Gun Special Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 the point is that the bible contains many apparently conflicting, allegorical, poetic and sometimes downright nebulous passages that can and are interpreted in diverse and conflicting ways by different experts with differing agendas. my interpretation of the new testament (and no where in the new testament are the 10 commandments discredited or contradicted) is that its basic tenets are much more in line with what in american politics is termed liberal than conservative. I concede that thoughtful people could disagree on this point Indeed this is true. THe bible often makes no sense in terms of keeping its story straight. There is probably a passage to support many many differing viewpoints. But when you boil it down to just the specific teachings of JC, i think it becomes more narrow in scope and applicability to current political discourse.
Steely Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 No, it doesn't. Wilson is not leaving the team to his family regardless. Thank you!! Somebody else gets it too! the point is that the bible contains many apparently conflicting, allegorical, poetic and sometimes downright nebulous passages that can and are interpreted in diverse and conflicting ways by different experts with differing agendas. my interpretation of the new testament (and no where in the new testament are the 10 commandments discredited or contradicted) is that its basic tenets are much more in line with what in american politics is termed liberal than conservative. I concede that thoughtful people could disagree on this point I'd put it this way; that thoughtless cold hearted people could disagree on this point. How about this one from JC himself. Matthew 19:24 (New International Version) 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." So if you're a Christian Conservative who believes that we'd be better off if we practiced Christianity in government (I don't know if you are or not, it's more of a comment for those reading this who are.) then you should support taxing the rich into poverty in order to save their mortal souls. It's funny how I have yet to meet a Christian conservative with that viewpoint. I've met many who think gays are going to hell but not rich people.
Steely Dan Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Indeed this is true. THe bible often makes no sense in terms of keeping its story straight. There is probably a passage to support many many differing viewpoints. But when you boil it down to just the specific teachings of JC, i think it becomes more narrow in scope and applicability to current political discourse. IMO, the New Testament can be boiled down to this; Be the best person you can be. Always remember that people are more important than money and try very hard to understand the plight of the needy and assist them in any way you can. JMO
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Pay less??????? average income and above earners are already payin for everything that the government doesn't put on it's open ended charge card. Get half a brain, this is not sustainable, the system as we know it will collapse under it's own bureaucratic weight. When the tipping point comes and the "world" is in chaos .....told ya so..... 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. Speaking of ignorant statements, The middle and lower classes are making up more than that in so-called flat taxes... sales tax or consumption taxes. Folks who control the money, while their tax rate may be higher, with all the exemptions and loopholes their effective tax rate is a whole lot lower than the middle and lower classes. An addition most people with the exemptions on estate tax will never pay a dime. It is only the super wealthy with huge tangible assets not hidden overseas or through family trusts, that end up paying any of this tax. It is a hedge against the Robber Barons of the 1800s so quite the exaggerating and complaining about something you will probably never be required to pay. If think you might, get a better accountant and be grateful that you have the kind of cash to be subject to this tax.
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 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). Yeah that way the rich dudes descendants can't create jobs for people like you and me. Great theory. Give it to the Government since they obviously know how to manage money.
K Gun Special Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Yeah that way the rich dudes descendants can't create jobs for people like you and me. Great theory. Give it to the Government since they obviously know how to manage money. Create jobs or go buy a villa and a yacht? The govt may suck at $ mgt but they are the largest employer in the country. Rich kids creating jobs. nice.
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 How much the tax is has nothing to do with whether or not the Bills stay in Buffalo. That decision will be made by the new owners. Ralph's family is selling the team when he dies and nothing will change that. As for the inheritance tax, Ralph bought the Bills for $25,000 and they are now worth almost a billion. He hasn't paid any tax on that gain. When he dies the family will be expected to pay taxes owed. By getting rid of the inheritance tax the country would be losing all of the tax revenue it would get at all. There is nothing wrong with that tax. (I don't really believe that all of somebodies goods should be taken away when they die I'm illustrating a hypocrisy.) I find it laughable how some people cry about the inheritance tax in one breath and then proclaim that only people who work hard make it. Well then, I say take it all away from their kids and let their kids work hard to make it. They'd be starting at a much higher level than the vast majority of people by having private school educations, expensive college degrees and a social networking tree that the vast majority of Americans could only wish for. Oddly though nobody seems to be for that idea. I guess working hard to get it all isn't that an attractive idea to the richest who espouse it. BTW, I think this thread belongs in PPP. JMO Yes, force rich people to dissipate their money before they die. That should help the middle class. I guess you're one of those guys who think poor people create jobs. And yes, working hard shouldn't benefit your kids, just you while you're alive. People like you certainly have the right to punish my parents if they so choose to leave anything for me and my siblings. Screw the house we grew up in, people like you should take it from us if my parents don't sell it before they die.
Mr. WEO Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I thought this was the best part of your post, so I hope you dont mind I cut the other part out. I thought the first sentence was the best part!
DrFishfinder Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I believe that if I work hard, I should be able to give my children things rather than the government taking the fruits of my labor and giving it to others. Hear, hear! Or any other damn person unto which I want to bestow my worldly stuff. Not that I have a lotta worldly stuff to bestow, mindya...... If I want to leave someone a car, does the gummint take one of the tires? A cylinder or two? A window? Couple of floormats? If I want to leave someone my guitar, does the gummint get to take some strings? Chop off the headstock? Couple of tuners? Pickguard?
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 because the concentration of wealth in this country is patently unfair and unsustainable. at a golf outing yesterday, 19 people payed $100000 each to play 1 hole with nicklaus, palmer and player(it was $1000 to watch). don't you find it obscene that a few can afford to blow what many people use to provide all essentials for 3-4 years in 15 minutes? yes, there needs to be incentive for hard work but it doesn't have to be (nor should it be) multiples of 100's or 1000's in compensation. also, wealth growth is often exponential, not linear and the exponential phase is often aided by bought and paid for public policy..why not have some payback for that at death. the inheritance tax is a moderate move in the direction of financial fairness and the avoidance of class revolt. Link? Sounds like some wealthy people donating to a charity to me. Those rotten, greedy rich people!
Recommended Posts