I don't understand this whole 'Super Rich vs everyone else' thing. I don't like high taxes, and I don't think they should pay high taxes either. There's no problem between the rich and I.
Lorien: Fair comments and questions: The tax is in existance. In fact the impact was reduced in 2001, by increasing the exemption level. In fact the exemption level continues to increase for the next several years. In that it is and has been in effect for about 90 years --then removing it is some sort of gift. Isn't it? What would you call elimination of a tax on some people and not others. Secondly--as far as letting people keep what is there's. We are taxed. The taxes are many and diverse and impact different people differently relative to their income levels. All I take from that suggestion is that there should be no taxes. What do you think? Should we eliminate all taxes? I seem to recall you suggested a simple tax on one thing--. If it worked to provide ample revenues for necessary and required services--and if it applied in a fair way (both necessary and required and fair--would probably generate huge debates--but lets leave that for another discussion I already said I agree. The existing tax system is very complex. In fact the complexity allows it to be legislated to provide different benefits to different parties.--(maybe that's why politicians don't simplify it). But my response to that question is you are either taxed or not taxed. That's all I understand from "letting people keep what is there's" My belief is not what you suggest. I believe we are spending significantly more than we are taking in--and because of that we are in debt. I definately do not put the emphasis on being taxed enough. If we were spending dramatically less than we could tax less. If we are spending through the roof we either match that w/tax revenues or live off of debt. I am not a total expert on the history of taxes and debt...but I know that some of the economic problems that hit in the late 70's and early 80's--very high inflation and very high interest rates arose out of the government "guns and butter' spending that occurred during Vietnam. It created huge deficits and serious debt. Larger amounts of fed debt cause an increase in private debt rates (bank loans, mortgage rates, etc.) as government debt competes for the money. Debt has a big negative. Very far from true. As a business person I have made good money and lost a ton. Had good years and terrible years. Some of the big losses occurred during an economic recession. I got killed. I made it all, though, I didn't inherit any substantial funds. It's far better to be rich than poor. You are misreading what I have said or implied. People with large estates (over $2 million currently for a single person/$4 million for a married couple - increasing to I believe $3.5 and $7 million) are impacted by the estate tax. That is all Americans with that estate value. The facts are, though, that a significant lobbying effort has been and is being made by some ultra wealthy people to push through abolition of the estate tax. These same wealthy families are also known contributors to the administration and lots of republican candidates. Among them are the Walton family (Walmart) the Mars family (Mars chocolates) and about 15-16 others who have spent several hundred million over a number of years to underwrite various lobbying efforts to remove this tax. Now all people with those asset bases and above will be equally impacted by the tax--subject to how they tax plan. Many very wealthy people who will be impacted by the estate tax have alternatively argued loudly that it should not be abolished. The wealthiest such person and one who has specifically written publicly about not abolishing the estate tax is Warren Buffett. Of course he stands to be the single American individual who would be hit the second most in the nation by the estate tax. We did not find that out. We discussed a point or two about the AMT. You admitted not knowing much or anything about it. You had to be quoting what you read elsewhere. I'm not an expert...and don't know much about it. The AMT was designed to prevent wealthy people from getting away with not paying taxes. It was designed years ago. There are some sort of numerical indexing formulas that have occurrred over time that some of the banned deductions now impact middle income people. Not all of the impacts occur in the North or (high state income tax states) That is only one point about it. I suggest you and I arguing about the technicalities of the AMT is sort of like the blind leading the blind. I suspect it takes a lot of study to learn about it.
I'll get to more of this later, but I'll do this point now since its the clearly the most incorrect part of the post that I just quickly scanned If you kill the estate tax, the tax is eliminated on everyone, just that since many people don't pay it, they do not feel the benefit of the relief. I understand what you MEANT to say, but the suggestion you make is removing this tax on some people, somehow keep's this taxes' (is that the possessive form? who knows) burden on other people, which is wrong. It's much like removing tolls on toll roads (I'm against tolls on public roadstoo, but thats another matter). If you remove all the tolls, everyone receives the "benefit" (no tolls), even people who do not take the toll roads. Simply because they do not take advantage (or have the means to take advantage, either way), is simply not relevant.
I don't mean what you said; What I mean is if you eliminate the tax revenues then the debt grows. Without the revenue source the debt grows. Interest on government debt grows. Growing debt payments restrict the use of government funds for any other purpose. Everyone pays for that.
Mia: I don't believe that is 100% true by any stretch of the truth. Most tax cuts and increases these days are sort of on the margin....cut a little bit here or add a little bit here. They aren't huge one way or the other. An interesting side note: Lorien sourced a site that references federal tax rates and other economic news from different countries around the world....the fed income tax rates were pretty similar. Raising tax revenues come from strong economies. I bet the tax revenues were up more in the latter nineties because the economy was strong. In the early 2000's tax revenues were down...cause the ecocomy was down...even as bush had already reduced some tax rates. In the more recent years the cyclical elelment of the economy has rebounded. There have been excellent years of corporate profits and big gains on capital gains from real estate. That has helped raise profits and tax revenues. Interest rates have stayed low for a long long time....since the early 1980's. That is an underlying enormous boon to the economy. Basically 20+ years. Live through a couple of years of high interest rates and see how it screws up the economy!!!!
Well he DID stand in that regard. Until he forked over a ton of money to Bill Gates' foundation, which would make him virtually exempt from the tax. I think it's kinda funny, that a person is both in favor of the estate tax (and fought to keep it alive), did a dodge to get out of paying it. Kinda peculiar, isn't it? Secondly, I don't think tax policy should be based upon the desires of Buffet, Gates and others like that. Remember the 2002 tax cut that Bush put thru. Dems trotted out Buffet and others who were super rich, saying "these guys don't want a tax cut" - well; that's mighty big of them, they don't NEED a tax cut. They are worth gillions of dollars. And you spend a lot of time focusing on the most outrageous examples (Hilton, Mars, et al), but seemingly ignore the people who just eek into the estate tax area who are actually damaged by this. I'm not overly interested how Hilton, Mars, or the Waltons make out in a tax discussion - it is not relevant at all. You have to look at the normal people who are subject to the tax and see how they are affected. Bill Gates also supports the death tax, but oddly, apparently he will not be subject to it either. http://noestatetax.org/gates.html So (assuming this site is correct of course), we have the wealthiest person in the country dodging the tax because he has the means to (and obviously no desire to actually pay it); but supports it anyways. If he's so supportive, why is he dodging it? Curious, isn't it? The argument that it only hits a few people (and thus that makes it okay) is equally offensive. Remember, some states wanted to make a law saying businesses that had over 40,000 employees in state had to provide medical care to their employees. Walmart was the only company that fell under the law. Did that make the law okay? Whether you agree with the concept that a company should or should not do so, is irrelevant, targetting them in such a narrow way is not right. You cannot legistlate morality thru the tax code and wield it as a weapon. More over, when you start making it okay to simply have a tax on the richest people (Hiltons, Mars, etc) you are starting a chain of events that can never be taken back. The income tax started as a 1% tax on the rich. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's that way today, is it? With regards to the AMT, I'm a quick study and here is my initial quote from Wiki: You viewed, something to the essence, of its a tax on the middle class people. http://personal.fidelity.com/planning/tax/content/amt_overview.shtml According to this, 78% of people who pay the AMT earn between 200,000 and 500,000. By your logic (and the estate tax), making a break in the AMT simply does not affect enough people, so why remove or alter it, right? I suggested that the AMT change was chosen by democrats because it affects their constituents (upper-middle class northerners) the most. Didn't take much to discover how accurate that was: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=1000778 Look at who pays? Primarily high-taxed democrat controlled states. Since the AMT does not let them deduct their high state taxes, their burden is higher, so instead of fixing their problem on the state level, they appeal for a change to the AMT. Go figure! (I could not find a similar map for distribution of the estate tax, unfortunately) This doesn't mean I like the AMT or anything; I'm simply noting how hypocritical it is that you favor altering the AMT (since you'd benefit - I assume) but do not want to change another tax beucase you are unaffected by it. In fact, the more I read about the AMT, the more disgusted I am by it, but thats my general opinion with dumbass tax policy. That page on heritage was interesting! I always thought the european countries much had higher tax rates, unless they do not account for some things; which is possible. That was pretty surprising to me, too.
I think the real problem is that you and I look at the debt from 2 different positions. You seek to correct the debt by taxing. More taxing = more revenue = pay off the debt. I seek to correct the debt by controlling spending. Less spending = less (or no) deficit = pay off the debt. Your method is a known failure (across the world, its a known failure, not only in this country). Every time taxes are raised, spending goes up, deficit either stays the same or goes down slightly. Don't bring up Clinton's "surplus" from the end of his term; we all know that was a farce. My method hasn't failed, it just never is tried LOL. When the republicans lose in November, it will be because of people like me who are tired of them spending like drunken sailors and not doing what they are there to do - shrink government (not grow it) and reduce govt spending (not grow it), and just sit at home that day.
You're right. It is probably more like 110% true. " This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on August 23, 2006. Many in the Washington establishment were shocked Aug. 17, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of "unanticipated tax receipts" that will sharply push down this year's deficit. Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment. It was tough being proved wrong again after having said the same thing when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the early 1980s." http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2685 Enjoy!
And for those of you in believe this tax should be repealed...for those that believe in its worth...here's a little news piece about its number 1 recipient! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15066203/
In one sense it is astonishing that you guys that support removing this tax have not made one substantial comment that can significantly move toward establishing long term fiscal control of the national debt. Not one substantial comment. (oh yeah--one comment made by Lorien that addresses the issue --but virtually all established economists that are not politically aligned recognise that is not nearly enough to compensate for huge incrases in spending with significant cuts in taxing. Who agrees with this concept I'm proposing--a well regarded study conducted in 2004 and again in 2006 by the National Journal polled 11 respected significant and most importantly non-aligned (not supporting one political party or the other) economists. The National Journal conducted a similar study in 2004 and the White House agreed with the analysis. So this is a study that objectively views politicians actions regarding various economic issues. The economists gave congress grades between B's and D's for various economic policies. Where did they get the worst grades-- You guys mirror this congress and this administration. Push all decisions on long term fiscal responsability to the future governments....and just don't deal with it. That is the 100% reversal of traditional republican fiscal philosophy that attempted to deal responsably with debt. It is a total reversal of traditional republican and conservative economic thought. It is astonishing. But it is typical of this environment and this administration. Back to Lorien's comment. I agree with it. Cut out unnecessary spending. Especially cut out all the congressional pork garbage....like bridges to nowhere that this congress favors. Actually both Republicans and Democrats practise this fiscally irresponsable practice. Yet all economists recognize that even if this was practised in its entirety it would not satisfy the long term impact of spending over tax revenues. So some taxes should be retained. Retain the estate tax in its current form. It has the least impact on the least numbers of people, often taxes monies that represent long term capital gains that weren't taxed, hits the people that can most afford it, has virtually no impact on family businesses, and retains a reasonable element of tax revenues for a government that shortly will be so suffocated with debt that there will.
I don't plan on having kids, I have no rich relatives, at least not ones who are going to leave anything to me, so feel free to tax that inheritance
I think we should raise taxes on buying a van. I don't plan on buying a van, so feel free to raise taxes on vans. Won't affect me. Why do I care?
yeah, I'm trying to get into the whole screw everyone else, only care about myself thing that so popular these days we should tax children too, while we are at it
There's a relief Make it "mini vans".. Those people can't drive worth a crap and derseve an extra burden as a result Democrats take the House, Senate and White House, your wish may come true!
they should tax midi music, and people who buy v8 trucks and don't ever tow anything or put anything in the beds should get an extra tax too, and fat chicks on cell phones driving erratically tax the hell out of them
Man, I am really starting to like you now... STOP IT!!! Add those silly monzo muffler honda civic and neon drivers to the lists... You know, the ones with silly wings on the back.
Yes! Raise taxes on fat chicks! Double tax fat chicks on cell phones! If they are driving an SUV triple tax! Mia has a good point. Tax people who have spoilers on their cars! Bastards! I'm envious. Tax it!