Here's an allegory for you link, if you really think you are making sense: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp what's a necessity?
There is no moral argument here--and certainly its not about taxing dead people. The reason it is being debated is because it will cause a LARGE and Significant drain on government financial stability during a period when we are running huge debts and they are being forecast to grow at alarming rates and NOTHING is being done about it. In fact putting all of Bush's tax reductions to effect essentially makes it dramatically worse. The overall impact of the Bush plan will take money out of your pockets, your parents pockets in their old age, and more dramatically your kids and grand kids. But to the arguments. The impact of repeal of the estate tax has been calculated to reduce government revenues by $369 billion between 2007 and 2016. These are revenues during periods when increasing government debt is scheduled to dramatically increase (even with the current estate tax in existance) Not chicken feed! Take it over a longer period and add back the increased impact of higher debt and government interest payments on that debt and the impact is over $1 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Much worse than chicken feed!!!!!! There have been arguments from politicians about the impact on the small farmer. These arguments were factually disproven. There is currently a $2 million lower limit on estates that already effectively reduced limits on the estate tax. There are effective tax planning and spousal recoveries that further reduce the impact. But do real farmers think this is a big deal? No. The American Farm Bureau, arguing on behalf of eliminating this tax, couldn't turn up a single farmer who was affected by it when questioned in 2001. Amazing!!!! A political argument without any BEEF!!!! Furthermore when actual farmers were polled on biggest financial concerns this estate tax issue was so far down the list of issues it just doesn't resonate. The political arguments are essentially BS. They are put in place to get a big tax GIFT to super rich who are great contributors to the Republican party and have specifically lobbied big time for the repeal of this tax. But look at it financially. The 18 wealthy families that have quietly lobbied big time for years for repeal of this tax stand to be impacted to the tune of $71 billion. That is a big chunk of anticipated revenue protection that can be used for other reasons. Here is a good moral argument for you Lorien. One of the most effective and largest impacts on Charity giving is to use charitable deductions as a reduction on the impact of the estate tax. Its a great way to reduce the impact of the estate tax. I suspect Buffet (2nd wealthiest person in the US) is using this to some extent as some of his kids are the heads of charitable foundations he has already established. Of course he has already pledged billions to the Gates foundation and will be giving away the bulk of his funds to charities rather than the bulk to his kids. Now Buffet, Gates father (who I guess isn't a billionaire (unless he has a big chunk of Microsoft (hmmm--maybe he is tons) and many others in the rich and super rich are for eliminating this tax. They recognize that it is a responsable way to maintain government revenues, fight debt growth, and hits the population most able to afford it. I suppose those that want to maintain this tax will receive an autographed picture of Paris Hilton thanking them for maintaining her life style!!!!! There are already many taxes that are imposed more than once.
Can you get me back the portion of my taxes that is going for Bush created debt, the war in Iraq, the money Ashcroft spent on personal jets after he found out about the potential Al queda danger and other related monies. It was taken by legal force!
I detect the strong wiff of envy in your argument, earlpearl. Someone earned that money, has previously been taxed on it (more than once, by your own definition). If the taxes were not sufficient previously, then raise those taxes. Don't go graverobbing and stealing money from people who are dead, already. I find it hard to believe that you actually find this tax as a good thing. Government needs the money? Is this the best argument you can come up with? Everyone agrees that there is billions upon billions of government dollars wasted every year. Instead of actually fixing their own house, I know its a lot easier to dig up dead people and bend them over, but its a short term solution. And Will is right. There has to be a moral argument here. I can see taxing enough to keep the government functioning, I can even rationalize the income tax to a certain degree and other taxes as well. Robbing dead people? I know people hate to see spoiled rich kids living off of daddy's trust fund; but taxing them to death isn't a solution. It really isn't. So you are in favor of using the tax code to force a behavior out of people, then? Is this your point? Goodie. I think we should tax fat people. They are a drain on the economy. Plus (you'll love this) - we hate seeing fat guys in bikinis at the beachers - dammit. they need to be taxed! Let's make it punitive too, tax people $1,000 for every pound they are over the national average. Force them to lose weight, thru the tax code. I really think you should read up on the morality of taxing Anything else you'd like to tack on here? You are in favor of all these taxes, so are rich liberals. But what do they do when they are about to be taxed? They throw their money into overseas corporations that are tax exempt. Bono does it, Rolling Stones do it, tons of them do it. People who favor high taxes, favor giving money away to people in other countries who can't pay (Bono specificially), hiding their money away in tax free shelters. Hypocrisy at its worst. Here's a good read for you: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1712802/posts
Estate tax can be avoided by putting your property in irrevocable trust. It's a tax on legally challenged.
What does she care. She uses campaign money to buy $1500 hair cuts. I wonder if she buys her residence staff Christmas gifts with campaign money like Reid.
That is brilliant. Some little facts: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27% 83.88% of ALL Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. I don't think I'm coming to the table anymore.
I would not consider $300 a year a lot of money. Thats what the averge person saved from this supposed tax cut which benefits only the rich.
So, how much is a big tax increase to you? $500? $1000? $2000? You, as an american citizen, are more than welcome to send as big a tax check to the government as you want. No one stops you. But, just because you feel the need to be generous with your money, doesn't give you the right to be generous with mine.
$300 for some is the difference between eating and not. For me, I saved about $2500/year under Bush. Also, thanx to the child tax credit, a grand a kid. That money has been going in my son's account. An apple seed, so it is TAX free for him. Now if we can just get Doyle out of Wisconsin. He cost me about $31,500 in property tax increases... The entire state gets bled and we have nothing to show for it in return. Highest Gas tax and gas prices, highest property taxes, and of course one of the highest income taxes. Overall, WI is the worst blue state, from a tax perspective to live in at the moment. $300 bucks to some, if it was a tax increase, it would hurt. $300 back? To some, it helps. Something is better than nothing. I think we have already proven that you do not tax America to prosperity. The tax cuts are what have spurred our economy in the last 5 years. There is certainly no denying that reality, unless you are a, ah... MoonBat or something.
Couple of things about the estate tax: First the arguments supporting it...the arguments made by politicians to get the public to buy into this are almost entirely bogus. The arguments are that the estate tax will destroy family farms and small to medium family businesses...as the estate holders will be forced to sell off assets to pay off the estate tax. Research has found this to be very bogus. But why promote this politically? Imagine you are a politician from any state and claiming that it is important to cut estate taxes for the super rich. Would that ever pass in any kind of setting in this or any past political environment? Of course not. Current laws about the estate tax provide a $2 million dollar exemption against the estate tax. Lorien, Will, etc. Do you guys have less than $2 million in assets? Just think if you die you can write in your will that you will leave Yo-Yo, me and some others the money....and we will get all of it. That is a pretty big exemption. Are you married? If, god forbid you and your spouse both died in an accident and the total estate was less than $4 million then Yo-Yo, me and others you choose will get all of it. Pretty big exemptions. The exemptions increase between now and 2010. So that leaves lots of room for most family businesses to not be impacted. But some would. The Congressional Budget office studied this back in 2000. It found a total of 123 farms that would have been impacted. Of those it found that only 15 did not have sufficient funds to cover estate taxes. Oh yeah that argument about saving family farms and small businesses carrries lots of weight in reality. Have an estate worth more than $2 million in assets? Lots of ways to get around huge impact from the estate tax. Buy insurance to cover the costs. Pass funds on while living. Do estate planning that is what families with significant income do. Just how much do estate taxes reflect double taxation. Sometimes yes but sometimes no. I referenced my experience with wealthy real estate owners. Many of us are familiar with the growth in value with homes. Buy a house a while ago for $100,000 and now it might be worth $300,000. You haven't been taxed on that capital gain. You'll be paying property taxes...but you haven't paid taxes on the capital gain. Sell the house...and you have to pay taxes on the capital gain. What about estate taxes. My experience in real estate is that many fortunes are made off of untaxed captal gains. You might have paid income taxes on rental income but that is different from the capital gains increase. Anyone here buy google stock around the time that it first came out? Anyone still hold the original stock? You haven't paid taxes on the capital gain. So if you died with the stock you'd get hit w/ a potential capital gains tax in lieu of capital gains. Many times the estate tax is not a double taxation. So why the big to do? Why keep the tax? It was set up to be a deterrant against enormous aggregation of the super wealthy back in the early 1900's. Many have found that to be a problem for an effective democracy. But beyond that our government is running enormous extraordinary debts. The debt is getting paid no matter what we spend money on...either guns or butter. The bigger the debt the less the government has for guns and butter. Its simple. So you can buy into the fake arguments that its a tax about small businesses and family farms....when in fact the evidence points to the fact that was a MADE UP ARGUMENT.....or you can repeal the tax and support the incredibly wealthy families that stand to retain billions of dollars...and aggressively support the administration with huge contributions and have funded this years long lobbying effort with BS stories. You can call it a death tax....you can cry about businesses and families that virtually don't exist...you can buy into the political bs...... or you can increase the debt and put the burden on yourselves in later years, your parents in their older lives and your kids and grandkids. Once most people look at this they see it as a Paris Hilton government give away program. Sweet!
If you are soo concerned about the burden you are placing on your kids and grandkids, no one stops you from writing a huge check (above and beyond your normal tax check) to the government each year. Do you do that, earlpearl? I'm curious.
So. You are unwilling to pay more than you are told to. But you have no problem with voting people into office who will make people pay more and more taxes; as long as its not on you. That's typical. Put another way. If you needed to get a hospital bill; you probably wouldn't knock on all your neighbors' doors and demand they pay for it. But people are perfectly willing to elect politicians who will do that for them.
Call me crazy. But I don't think people should live their lives by trying to hide their money away in shelters to avoid taxes. They should spend their time, on, oh I dunno, actually living. Not finding ways to avoid taxes. A more sensible tax approach would be in order.
I'll easily pay what I gotta pay. If I can reduce my taxes w/ deductions I'll do it to the max. If the rates go up or down I'll pay what's required. I got no problems doing that. Do I want to see Politicians tell me that small businesses and farmers are being hurt by this tax...so it needs to be reduced....when that is not the case....and all the tax is ...is a gift to super rich supporters of the administration. Of course not. Do I want to be stuck on paying higher taxes in the future and paying off more debt because this administration and supporting members of congress decided to give a gift to super rich supporters of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress that is pushing the tax. Of course. Put the tax out for what it is; a gift to the super wealthy. See how much support it gets.
I fail to see how letting people keep what's theirs is a gift? Can you explain that one to me? That's the way democrats look at it, I know, and too many people see it that way too, but its totally ass-backwards. Letting me keep what's mine. Oh thank you, wonderful masters. It seems, your overall belief is that the country is in debt because we are not taxed enough. Is that the gist of your line of thinking? As a nation, we give about 30% of our money to the government. Is that not enough? I know you are into the class warfare gig, which is fine, but this envious (and your apparent desire to punish people) line of thought doesn't lead to anywhere healthy. Do you have actual evidence that only "supporters of the administration" pay this tax and that's the basis of the repeal desire or is that just personal opinion? We already have found out that the adjustments to the AMT by democrats is purely based on desire to their own (northern and overtaxed) voters a tax cut, so I think you are just grasping at straws there.