I was astonished at this clinton quote the other day regarding the estate tax. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/oct/12/101210281.html I think this sums up my problems with people who always think taxes should be raised. Let's say the death (estate) tax is repealed. Nothing would stop Clinton from giving any or all of his estate over to the government. Nothing. But, because he feels the need to be charitable, he thinks everyone should be forced to do it? Anyone else could do the same. Want to give over everything when you die to Uncle Sam. Just write it in your will. Done. Your need to give more money to the government is fulfilled. The same as people who think their taxes are too low. Nothing stops them from writing a bigger check to the government and paying twice, three times, four times their tax due. Nothing. If they feel their taxes are too low. Go ahead and do it. More power to you. But I do not understand the need to force your wishes for higher taxes on other people.
Making low taxes into some type of Republican battle cry and creating the inverse description that Democrats want to raise taxes is one of the great BS political lies that permeate American society. For all you guys who love the war in Iraq, want to build bigger defense systems, etc. just explain how America is to pay for this. Steal it? Borrow endlessly? How do we pay for services? Who pays for police, schools, etc. You like all those republicans in government? Who pays for their salaries? You like roads built by governments? Who pays for them? Somehow in order to have a government there have to be taxes. Our tax system is incredibly complicated. Blame it on both parties and special interests; income taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, taxes on business earnings, taxes on investment income, etc. etc etc. Its very complicated. It certainly adds up. Actually the people who probably most favor the complex system of taxes are accountants and tax accountants. To get to Lorien's point about giving many times what they owe....some people do that.....though they do it through charities. That way they direct their monies into entities they feel better need and deserve their funds. And w/complex tax strategies, giving to various charities serves as a deduction on your taxes. (another complication). Democrats don't want higher taxes. They don't necessarily want to tell you how to spend your money. Nothing is further from the truth. They want to establish a tax system that covers government costs. Its that simple. Now where and how should that money come from? In a complex multi faceted taxing system with federal, state, and local taxes and different types of taxes hitting different types of people in different ways people like Clinton have identified the estate tax as one which primarily impacts the super wealthy and dramatically less so people of lesser means You are very well off and worth up to but not more than $10 million and want to pass it off to your kids...the estate tax will have an impact. But if you are super wealthy it will have a dramatic impact on your ability to pass it down to worthy heirs. Paris Hilton is a great example of a worthy heir. I am sure that if and when she inherits big sums of money she will find worthwhile places to invest and spend her well deserved funds!!! There is an amazing study that looks into the lobbying effort to repeal the estate tax. The lobbying effort and special interests. That is where this issue gets started and moves into the public arena. There is no enormous cry and shout from a mass of Americans who give diddly about this topic!!!!! Who has lobbied hard to have this tax changed dramatically? 18 Super rich families; Check out the study from this site: http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2182 It reports that 18 families worth a combined $185 billion would save $71 billion by repeal of the estate tax. Nice haul! This year, using badly understated reports of government debt (badly understated in that they admittedly don't count all debt) the US is running about $250 billion in debt. Who pays for that? Taxpayers. Everyone. Debt payments make an alarmingly fast growing part of the total expenditures of the US government. Who will pay for it? You in later years and your kids and grand kids. Personally I'd rather see Paris Hilton and the families of the Waltons pay bigger chunks. Cripes the families didn't create WalMart. They are and will be living off the fat of the land. Spread the costs around. So Clinton and others are looking for ways to pay for government expenditures. They are not looking to tell you how to spend your money. Bush is telling you and your kids how to spend your money. he is running up huge debts that he isn't paying off. he is telling you and your kids to spend less money on everything and expect to get less in government services because he is running up big debts. I guess Lorien wants Paris Hilton to have more limos, more pet teeny dogs and more drugs and alcohol!!!!!! while my family and heirs will have crappier roads to drive on!!!!
Lots of spin here Earlpearl. Do I have to go thru it all? Let's start with the government cutting back on non-necessary spending. Earmarks, pork, mis-use of money. Then come to me asking for a little more cash. If that was taken care, we probably wouldn't even have a deficit. Politicians poking their hands in the till is probably the main cause of government waste and over spending. Did I advocate no taxes? http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061012-115954-8678r.htm Don't want higher taxes? Come on. This is the whole concept behind the democrat party. More taxes to washington. More power to washington. At least you freely admit you want to punish people who have money. That's pretty honest of you. This tax will never affect me, but the concept is repugnant. You freely walk into the concept of "we are going to take things away from you, for the common good". That's a good place to come from
By not addressing the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) the republican majority has effectively raised taxes on the middle class. Who here is more affected by the AMT or the Estate Tax? Want to abolish or lower the estate tax and potentially get a date with Paris Hilton--Lorien!!!! Want to keep the estate tax and unlikely to get a date with Paris Hilton--EarlPearl!! BTW: Charles Rangel doesn't speak for me! BTW: I agree with you about pork and earmarks. That is a great example of a corrupt system with no controls. But as ugly as it is....it isn't the meat of fed government expenditures. The meat is in Medicare, Medicaid and similar payments. Very huge part of government expenditures and will grow at alarming rates. There is no doubt no politicians of any stripe are prepared to deal with this in a realistic equitable way at this time. Regardless......... Who is telling you, your kids, and grandkids how you will be able to spend money in the future...by running up huge debts during full employment and high taxes?-- George W Bush Who is effectively raising taxes on the middle class and somewhat wealthier by not dealing with the AMT? The Republican Majority!!!! Respectfully yours,
Maybe not now. But he might in the future. Like it or not. You say this a lot too. This guy doesn't speak for you, that guy doesn't either. Well, as a party, that is what they are. Whether you like it or not. But saying that the democrats aren't the party of higher taxes is out and out dishonest. Remember Clinton? He promised a middle class tax cut in 92. What'd everyone get? Biggest tax increase in history. Are you sure about this? (confessing that I don't know much about AMT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax#Politics_and_the_AMT Seems that this goes 100% opposite to your point, doesnt it? Based on what I read here, Democrats want this tax cut, because where they live (democrat controlled areas) have taxes that are too high. LOL
EDIT: This is true, but I think a lot has to do with mismanagement. On the welfare system, I think 22% of the money actually makes it to the people; 78% is tied in the beuocracry. That is not the model of efficiency. Again, when they fix their problems; then I can be approached for more taxes. On another side, we pay for medical care for illegal immigrants and others. This comes from medicaid, I think. why are we paying for this? There are lots of ways to cut expenses, even in the forced outlays.
This guy doesn't speak for me.......I believe I've now said it twice; with regard to Rangel, and previously a democratic house member from Virginia (where I live) Moran. Good thing I'm not too familiar with the other 435 members of congress If the Democrats capture one or two houses in November (still a big if) it is highly highly unlikely they would espouse anything close to what Rangel said. First and foremost the political danger of taxes is so imprinted within the voting population that Rangel's comments wouldn't get close to being a significant or majority perspective. The "he raised taxes" issue is played out in virtually every election across the country, federal, state, and local. But I do believe it is a political bugaboo issue. And we have addressed it earlier. During the Clinton years when taxes were higher....the American economy boomed and wealth spread very well amongst all classes in America. ( I acknowledge the boom was not due to Clinton policies--it was independent of Presidential policies--as I believe most booms and busts are) Higher taxes may have been a potent political quote....but the net effects were that more Americans had more money in their pockets. The real impact of taxes was not the worse thing going. Cripes I've had boom and bust years as a business person...and I hate paying taxes. I prefer boom years. One impact of the AMT is that in states with higher state taxes (ie New York) middle class--and above middle class incomes must choose alternative tax calculations--and in those states-- you can lose the deduction for state income taxes. That is one reason for the political comments on the AMT. Like many complex tax policies the AMT was set up years ago (in the 70's) and its indexing processes now spread its negative impact over a wider population (and more middle class population) and one which it was not intended for initially. Readjusting it in some way so folks like me can pay less along with taking more money from the Paris Hilton's of the world is okay by me.
At least the 244 or whatever democrat members. You're salvageable and I know it That's part of the point. You are okay with lower taxes on you, as long as taxes go up on someone else. Their position in life doesn't matter. I'm for lower taxes across the board. Wish you'd quit bringing up Paris; that chick is nasty. The government spending is out of control, wasted management, wasted money, pork projects. When they clean that us, as I said, then they can come to me for taxes...but if they did, I don't think that'd need to happen. I'm also in favor of killing all the current taxes, replacing it with a commerce tax (tax on the exchange of money, buying stuff, investing, etc). At an extremely low rate, it'd fund the government more than adequately, simplify the process and eliminate this class warfare that people use as a battering ram every election cycle.
Earl, Pelosi has already said that IF the dem regain control, that she is going to repeal every tax cut that Bush has enacted. So doesnt that mean that your taxes are going to go up. The stock market is soaring and obviously the dems want to put a stop that and take alot of money out of our pockets.
I'm not for indiscriminately raising taxes. Far be it. I am for responsably covering current and future costs with some form of taxing system that doesn't put us in debt....and pays for government costs of some level that responsibly cover the needs of the country. Very broad statements! I don't care about a taxing system...so long as it shapes taxing in some form that spreads the burden around and covers costs. It is clear that spreading the burden around puts a bigger burden on wealthier individuals and corporations. There is no way around that. Lessoning the estate tax is the grossest form of spreading the burden around. The real beneficiaries of reducing the estate tax are ultra wealthy families such as the Walton family (heirs to the Walmart fortune). Aggregate the family's net worth--and it is greater than that of Bill Gates. The Walton's and other wealthy families have spent a lot to lobby to reduce this tax. Reportedly it would reduce their tax burden by over $70 billion. That aint chickenfeed. Whose gonna make up the $70 billion during periods of federal government debt? Webmasters? The middle class. Of all arguments about taxes that is the one argument that has less to do with the talent and skill of people who build businesses and create value. It's most grotesque....but somewhat accurate description is that it is a government benefit to enhance the lifestyle of Paris Hilton and people like her. That is who will benefit!!! Want a commerce tax? Okay by me if it works to raise adequate funds and hits various parties across the population in a way that doesn't kill the worse off and/or leave the middle class with an unfair tax burden. Want to cut pork? I like that idea also. Unfortunately the tax impact of stuff like medicare, medicade, etc will still put a huge burden on American taxpayers. That last one is an incredibly tough political and real struggle. Could pit the young against the old in the future. We will see if current politicians of any stripe are willing to deal with it. Dave
Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them to you. All taxes are paid by consumer. Think about it, when you are buying a slice of pizza there is about 40 hidden taxes in it, and the pizzeria is not paying any of them
Estate taxes are murderous on family businesses, such as farms. The estate tax has put more farmers out of business than any other tax. Farmers have a lot of assets (land and equipment), but they don't have a large ROI and they are almost always fighting cashflow issues. The estate tax means that when a farmer dies, his family must often must sell the family farm (and the family house which sits on it) to pay the death tax.
The estate tax is the worst example of the Republican administration and Congress playing to a super wealthy special interest group to pass legislation on behalf of the interest group. At the same time they have exaggerated the impacts on families that would be considered middle class + or -. There is no great political cry in the public to pass this tax reduction. The efforts have simply been to play to a small group of super wealthy and then exagerate the impact across the board to try and placate this interest group. This link describes the lobby effort by the super wealthy to abolish this tax. It is scary to think how complex republican politics playing to a tiny minority of super wealthy people would have major and dread impact on already bad national debt. http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2182 This is debt that will be picked up by everyone. The tax deserves the name of the Paris Hilton tax. Give money to her and take from yourselves your kids, your grand kids. I can't speak directly about the so-called well advertised farm issue. I'm not a farmer. I can specifically speak to it from the commercial real estate industry in that I worked in the field for over 20 years. Typical situation: Some smart, lucky, risk taking tough guy builds a real estate fortune. It is worth millions more than when he started it. He's got multiple kids. Through smart tax management and corporate structuring the kids have equal shares to divide upon his death while he still maintains significant ownership. Typically one of them might be the 2nd generation running it. Nine times out of ten the 2nd generation isn't as sharp as the guy who started the business. They aren't expanding its value. The original guy dies and there is some kind of inheritance tax that hits them. They are forced to sell the real estate for an enormous gain. they still have tons of money after the inheritance tax that none of them earned on their own. Most of them never had the cohones to do a good job of running the real estate in the first place. They end up with more money than 99% of Americans, all due to their enterprising father. The report from the link goes on to say that the American Farm Bureau was unable to turn up examples of its negative impact on farm families. While republicans advertise this as a way to strengthen farmers and keep jobs they were willing to negotiate away one of their other tried and true beliefs and advertising campaigns about strengthening small businesses--the minimum wage. They were willing to increase the minimum wage during this past session of congress to get the estate tax reduced. Explain that please. They are willing to throw away one of their basic arguments about protecting small businesses to push through something else that they proclaim protects small businesses. BS. They are playing to a small ultra wealthy group of people who give them money and spent HUNDREDS of MILLIONS to reduce their tax liability by BILLIONS. There are no small farm groups attached to those lobbying efforts. This is an egregious hypocritical piece of tax legislation that would dramatically impact overall debt for the benefit of a few wealthy families. Of interest many wealthy see this as the ultimate piece of political cr@p. Warren Buffet is the prime example. He is a guy who has made an incredible fortune and sees this legislation as pure political hocus pocus. But for those who favor it ....I suppose you want to reward Paris Hilton as much as possible. I would suggest you directly send her funds.
Corporations actually paid 95% of the taxes back-in-the-days, but the welfare state erupted, and tax law started to really go against them. I know this doesn't sound right, but we're probably one of the very few nations that taxes american registered corporations for being inside the country and outside of the country. Barely anyone does that. It's made corporation eager to avoid American taxation (mostly the new ones), and placed more of the burden on the middle class. But neither the left or right wants to indentify this. Wonder why?
Rick: The estate tax hits lots of folks. It hit my late dad...and I can tell you there no millions there. But some huge money people have extensively lobbied for its reduction in that it would save them billions. As to corporate taxes I don't know about the foreign/US deal. My sister used to be a corporate tax person and that big company had a big staff...so I guess corporate taxes are complex and probably multi- faceted. Can't speak to them.
I have yet to see a moral argument for the government taking money from dead people. I see earlpearl complaining about paris hilton, but this is a singular example. There are examples (Will's farmers) that are actually hurt and put out of business by this tax. And the reason? Cuz government needs the money? Is this the reasoning behind it? The tax only raises a couple of billion dollars a year? Also, doesn't it concern you that this is unconstitutional? the money that is being taxed has already been taxed, at least once. Either in capital gains, employment taxes But as long as Paris doesn't get a full inheritance, I guess some people are content to look at this on a very basic level
Im liberal, I think taxes should be increased and reformed at the same time. A luxury tax should be put in place on anything but necessities and the income tax removed. Bush's last tax cut gave the richest 1% of the population 2 times as much as the bottom 60%.