Bye, Bye Estate Tax!

[Dinner]

Reagon didn't increase taxes on anyone. I also get tired of this "tax cuts for the rich" BS which people keep throwing around. First off the poor and even most of thelower middle class (as long as their married & have kids) don't pay any federal taxes to speak of so of course a tax cut isn't going to help them. After all tax cuts will only help tax payers.

Since the rich pay the vast, vast majority of taxes guess who will recieve the vast, vast majority of a tax cut? It's not rocket science and it is entriely fair.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin -

90% is just plan theft. I'd vote for 50% though.

[Ming]

I guess most of the people who don't have children are the ones that want to tax the hell out of estates.

Wait until you have children to love and care about... wait until you want to take care of them after your death... and then we will see if your attitude changes.

I've been taxed already on the money I made, and at a very high rate. I have no problem with that. But to tax it again because I die is just pure crap. That money is family money... I didn't earn it for myself... I earned it for my family/children as well.

[Berzerker]

Odin -

Libertarianism is an excuse to make greed morally acceptable. To the Libertarians anything that is fair is theft, an excuse for greed.

No, just more morally acceptable than theft.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Reagon didn't increase taxes on anyone. I also get tired of this "tax cuts for the rich" BS which people keep throwing around. First off the poor and even most of thelower middle class (as long as their married & have kids) don't pay any federal taxes to speak of so of course a tax cut isn't going to help them. After all tax cuts will only help tax payers.

Since the rich pay the vast, vast majority of taxes guess who will recieve the vast, vast majority of a tax cut? It's not rocket science and it is entriely fair.

Hmmm.. I think I'm lower middle and I paid tax last year.

edit: What is the cut off?

[Berzerker]

Ming -

That money is family money... I didn't earn it for myself... I earned it for my family/children as well.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ming
I guess most of the people who don't have children are the ones that want to tax the hell out of estates.

Wait until you have children to love and care about... wait until you want to take care of them after your death... and then we will see if your attitude changes.

I've been taxed already on the money I made, and at a very high rate. I have no problem with that. But to tax it again because I die is just pure crap. That money is family money... I didn't earn it for myself... I earned it for my family/children as well.

Ming the money is changing hands so it is a taxable transaction. Also as I said before we should raise the cut off amount which triggers the estate tax but we should not eliminate the estate tax since it does provide such a large chunk of change to the federal budget. With Bush already running up record deficits (and more in sight since he wants still more tax cuts and speeding increases) we just can't afford to go cold turkey.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Hmmm.. I think I'm lower middle and I paid tax last year.

edit: What is the cut off?

Double check that. You should get all of your federal income tax back especially if you have any deductions like head of house hold, married, kids, or own your own home.

I suspect you're thinking of FICA or state income taxes.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

Sorry I thought this was a Democracy...

Nope, read the Constitution.

Yeah how many jobs did the 2001 tax cut create?

We'll know an estimate in a few years. Small changes in tax policy takes some time to show up. Hell, most of that tax cut wasn't even designed to show up for a few years.

or the Reagan cuts? oh yeah... those economic policies didn't create any jobs... in fact, the economy lost jobs...

Ahem, where in the article did you discover that jobs were lost under Reagan? I believe something like 20 million were created, not that I put alot of trust in stats like that given the complexities of an economy.

How many jobs did the 1993 Clinton budget create? What did Clinton's economic policy do?

Well, he certainly kept the growth going and 9/11 didn't happen in '93, a Republican controlled Congress did...

Giving rich people money DOES NOT CREATE JOBS.... it DOES NOT EXPAND THE ECONOMY...

Hmm...every job I ever had was given to me by a wealthy person. Let me know how your job hunt goes as you look among the poorest people in the country for employment.

Imran - I've noticed you sound more liberal in our debates, but here you sound like...well...God forbid...a libertarian.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin -

Ming the money is changing hands so it is a taxable transaction.

You mean we should tax Ming every time he gives his kids lunch money?

[Zkribbler]

Whoo hoo! A tax break for 0.3% of the richest Americans!! And now the rest of us get to make up the difference! Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Never in the history of humanity have so many people been so glad to have their taxes raised!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oerdin -

You mean we should tax Ming every time he gives his kids lunch money?

It's obviously a difference between kids you are obligated to sustain (until 20something I'd guess) and grown ups. If he gives it to grown up children it'd be completely legitimate to tax it IMO, though impracticable.

Beside that, I must really come to the conclusion that Americans get everytime more blind, when you think it can't get worse. Sure, American working class, fight for the "rights" of the super-rich in order to make your budget lower!

As it's been previously said, it's a money transaction between individuals (as family as persona iuridica doesn't exist), so it should be taxed.

[Az]

But Ming, what about self suffiency? Making it on their own? You know, the American Spirit?

[Dis]

screw it. Tax the rich, give that money to me.

I want more income redistribution dammit! In fact I don't think people like me who don't make a lot of money should have to pay taxes at all.

[Berzerker]

Wernazuma -

It's obviously a difference between kids you are obligated to sustain (until 20something I'd guess) and grown ups. If he gives it to grown up children it'd be completely legitimate to tax it IMO, though impracticable.

Why does it become legitimate based on age? Does it stop belonging to Ming and his family?

Beside that, I must really come to the conclusion that Americans get everytime more blind, when you think it can't get worse. Sure, American working class, fight for the "rights" of the super-rich in order to make your budget lower!

Trust me, most of us "blind" people want tax cuts for everyone, but we also know a tax cut for someone is a good thing even if we aren't the ones getting it.

As it's been previously said, it's a money transaction between individuals (as family as persona iuridica doesn't exist), so it should be taxed.

I think you're confusing the sales tax with giving money to a family member. But since money is exchanged when we pay taxes, maybe the IRS can stick us with another "legitimate" tax on the act of paying taxes...