TPS Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 taxing taxes Gotta love the conservative party mandate. They want to eliminate the federal deduction of state and local taxes. In other words, they want those of us who pay state and local taxes to pay taxes on the taxes we pay.... Uhh...let's see, we need to cut taxes on dividends because of the double taxation. I'm sure someone here can explain why double taxation of taxes is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 taxing taxes Gotta love the conservative party mandate. They want to eliminate the federal deduction of state and local taxes. In other words, they want those of us who pay state and local taxes to pay taxes on the taxes we pay.... Uhh...let's see, we need to cut taxes on dividends because of the double taxation. I'm sure someone here can explain why double taxation of taxes is a good thing? 149637[/snapback] Old news. Just about every president since federal taxes started has tried to do this. In fact unless you itemize you won't even notice this. Move on, it will never pass, and is just grandstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 taxing taxes Gotta love the conservative party mandate. They want to eliminate the federal deduction of state and local taxes. In other words, they want those of us who pay state and local taxes to pay taxes on the taxes we pay.... Uhh...let's see, we need to cut taxes on dividends because of the double taxation. I'm sure someone here can explain why double taxation of taxes is a good thing? 149637[/snapback] Well, isn't it interesting that the piece doesn't mention the AMT disaster, which is already eliminating the state tax deduction for many taxpayers? For the correct comparison, the tax increase would have to be relative to the deductions that people are actually taking now, not a hypothetical maximum. If the state tax deductions are eliminated, people in blue states will probably take it on the chin in the interim. But it should balance out in the future, as more tax revenue should flow to the blue states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Another dirty little secret is, they want to eliminate businesses' deductions of health care plan costs. So the scenarios are either the companies take it up the wazoo, stop offering health coverage to all employees, or lay off employees so they can offer coverage to those remaining. ....What was that middle one again? Yeah. That one. You asked for it, you got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Old news. Just about every president since federal taxes started has tried to do this. In fact unless you itemize you won't even notice this. Move on, it will never pass, and is just grandstanding. 149643[/snapback] Please remind us when this "grandstanding" by a republican president leading a republican Senate and House has occurred before. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local...iness-headlines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Another dirty little secret is, they want to eliminate businesses' deductions of health care plan costs. So the scenarios are either the companies take it up the wazoo, stop offering health coverage to all employees, or lay off employees so they can offer coverage to those remaining. ....What was that middle one again? Yeah. That one. You asked for it, you got it. 149913[/snapback] I still have yet to hear a good reason why employers can deduct this expense but people that buy their own (me) can't deduct ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 If you really want to talk about taxes on taxes, look at your monthly phone bill. All of those extras are actually taxes (including the Al Gore internet tax), and at the end of the bill, everything is totaled up and then you are hit with state and local taxes on the total amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 If you really want to talk about taxes on taxes, look at your monthly phone bill. All of those extras are actually taxes (including the Al Gore internet tax), and at the end of the bill, everything is totaled up and then you are hit with state and local taxes on the total amount. 150099[/snapback] You also have estate taxes, which is a tax on money that has already been taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Another dirty little secret is, they want to eliminate businesses' deductions of health care plan costs. So the scenarios are either the companies take it up the wazoo, stop offering health coverage to all employees, or lay off employees so they can offer coverage to those remaining. ....What was that middle one again? Yeah. That one. You asked for it, you got it. 149913[/snapback] Because the best long term alternative is to have people be responsible for their own health insurance. Right now the system favors large employer provided healthcare. But this system is untenable and it totally screws small companies and the self employed. By placing healthcare coverage responsibility on the public, you remove the disparity in coverage and greatly increase the insured pool. Does your employer pay for your car/home insurance? Why should he pay for medical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 You also have estate taxes, which is a tax on money that has already been taxed. 150108[/snapback] That is not anymore true for estates than it is for anyother income. When my neighbor gets his paycheck, he pays taxes on that income. If he then takes some of what is left and pays me to cut his lawn and I declare the income, I pay taxes again on that money. Is that double taxation? If that same neighbor dies, his income, his life's paycheck if you will, gets redistributed in the same way that money changes hands when a service is paid for or a good purchased. The only difference is that the person who receives it did nothing to earn it, they didn't render a service and they didn't market a commodity. Why is taxing money when it changes hands double taxation when it comes to transfers by estates to live people but not when it is between two live people? As I am sure you know, there is no estate tax on estates valued at less than $1,500,000. Add in to that the gift tax exemption which is now $1,000,000. By 2009 the exemption will be $3.5 Million per person, $7 million per couple. Quite literally, this is a tax only on the heirs of multi-millionaires. I certainly don't begrudge them their wealth but since the hard earned income of wage earners is not tax exempt, I don't see why inherited wealth should be. Besides, in the first decade of there being no estate tax, tax revenues would be about $4 Trillion dollars less. Given the already stultifying deficits we have, how in the world would we make up for the loss of $4 Trillion dollars of revenues? Any thought that you could some how cut that much money from the already mired in deficit budget is delusional. I am not sure that this is the kind of wild tax scheme we need to indulge inorder to come to the rescue of besieged multi-millionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Besides, in the first decade of there being no estate tax, tax revenues would be about $4 Trillion dollars less. Given the already stultifying deficits we have, how in the world would we make up for the loss of $4 Trillion dollars of revenues? Any thought that you could some how cut that much money from the already mired in deficit budget is delusional. I am not sure that this is the kind of wild tax scheme we need to indulge inorder to come to the rescue of besieged multi-millionaires. 150625[/snapback] By eliminating the step up in basis. That will effect everyone, not just heirs of multi-millionaires. And with the run up in real estate values over that past several years this could be a huge windfall for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Why is taxing money when it changes hands double taxation when it comes to transfers by estates to live people but not when it is between two live people? For the exact reason you mentioned, which is that estate taxes are a tax on dying while the other taxes are on goods or services provided. As I am sure you know, there is no estate tax on estates valued at less than $1,500,000. Add in to that the gift tax exemption which is now $1,000,000. By 2009 the exemption will be $3.5 Million per person, $7 million per couple. Quite literally, this is a tax only on the heirs of multi-millionaires. I certainly don't begrudge them their wealth but since the hard earned income of wage earners is not tax exempt, I don't see why inherited wealth should be. Besides, in the first decade of there being no estate tax, tax revenues would be about $4 Trillion dollars less. Given the already stultifying deficits we have, how in the world would we make up for the loss of $4 Trillion dollars of revenues? Any thought that you could some how cut that much money from the already mired in deficit budget is delusional. I am not sure that this is the kind of wild tax scheme we need to indulge inorder to come to the rescue of besieged multi-millionaires. 150625[/snapback] Yup, punish people for the rampant spending of Congress. Smart move. Instead of actually going to the root cause of the problem for a solution (Congressional spending), let's just continue down that path but make up for it by punishing the "rich." Class warfare is always a good solution to problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 For the exact reason you mentioned, which is that estate taxes are a tax on dying while the other taxes are on goods or services provided.Yup, punish people for the rampant spending of Congress. Smart move. Instead of actually going to the root cause of the problem for a solution (Congressional spending), let's just continue down that path but make up for it by punishing the "rich." Class warfare is always a good solution to problems. 150664[/snapback] Come on Ken, you know we need to spend more for education and pay for everyone's fight against new diseases like obesity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Come on Ken, you know we need to spend more for education and pay for everyone's fight against new diseases like obesity. 150677[/snapback] Don't forget government involvement in steriods and sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Come on Ken, you know we need to spend more for education and pay for everyone's fight against new diseases like obesity. 150677[/snapback] To be fair, it would probably cost less in the long run to fight obesity than it does now to ignore it and fight diabetes, heart disease, and every other obesity-related illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 To be fair, it would probably cost less in the long run to fight obesity than it does now to ignore it and fight diabetes, heart disease, and every other obesity-related illness. 150711[/snapback] Let's ration food. The North Korea diet plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Let's ration food. The North Korea diet plan. 150723[/snapback] Good idea. Force our farmers to grow opium instead of food, and we can pay for all of these new government programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 To be fair, it would probably cost less in the long run to fight obesity than it does now to ignore it and fight diabetes, heart disease, and every other obesity-related illness. 150711[/snapback] We agree again. Twice in one day. People should eat better. But you can't force this. Provide them with easily accessible info and when they ignore it, let them die of a heart attack at 30. I won't cry for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 taxing taxes Gotta love the conservative party mandate. They want to eliminate the federal deduction of state and local taxes. In other words, they want those of us who pay state and local taxes to pay taxes on the taxes we pay.... Uhh...let's see, we need to cut taxes on dividends because of the double taxation. I'm sure someone here can explain why double taxation of taxes is a good thing? 149637[/snapback] One way is to call it a tax simplification, another way is to call it a tax increase. If papa bush would have just spun his increases as tax simplification maybe he would have been reelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts