Tax the rich!!!

[Berzerker]

It's hard to make a straight up comparison because you don't know what loopholes have been eliminated since.

Bingo! Over time more and more write-offs have been eliminated. The ~%90 of the 50's had all sorts of allowances, write-offs, etc... Repubs like to claim Reagan cut taxes from Carter's ~70 to ~28, but they ignore that not only were we hit with a bunch of other taxes, the closing of "loopholes" escalated during the 80's.

Like anything else, money DOES have diminishing marginal utility. A guy who's got a 3 million a year salary doesn't miss twenty bucks like you or I do if it comes up missing, and no matter how talented the individual, the guy with the three mil salary owes at least part of that affluence to the system in place that supports and celebrates the use of his skills....making his salary possible. So yeah, when I'm in that boat, I'll pony up and smile all the way to the bank.

You mean that guy owes you because you "support and celebrate" his skill to make alot of money? This line of reasoning is flawed, that guy can use that $20 to invest or consume and create more wealth, produce jobs, etc... Your argument is that politicians produce jobs and real wealth more efficiently than businesses, investors and consumers. Or that politicians know better how to "invest" in what does create jobs and real wealth than the actual owners of that money. Ain't true, no one or no relatively small group of people have the knowledge to match Adam Smith's "invisible hand". A complex economy like ours runs by millions of decisions consumers and producers make every day. I'm no economist but I do understand that "command" economies suffer from a lack of knowledge...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
For that matter so is capital gains (at least on dividends)as the corporations have paid (ususally) 36% corporate income tax on their profits.

Capital gains are viewed as additional revenue to an individual. If I invest money, and make a profit, I expect to be taxed on that profit. I have no problem with capital gains taxes...

[Berzerker]

Example of liberalism at work:

About a decade ago liberal politicians decided to "tax the rich". They dramatically increased the "luxury" tax, including yachts. The result? The yacht building industry, you know, the non-rich, in the NE was devastated as rich people either stopped buying yachts or bought them elsewhere. So then we were treated to the spectacle of liberal politicians from the NE asking for exemptions for their states from the tax they supported.

Another example:

The Sierra Club of California lobbied for an increase in the state's minimum wage (why an environmental group was doing that is another matter). But then the Sierra Club "discovered" they would have to lay people off if they had to pay the increased wages. So they lobbied for an exemption from the increase they lobbied for.

******* hypocrites!

They didn't care if businesses had to lay off people, screw the people who work for them... Then we hear from liberals that increasing the minimum wage doesn't destroy jobs Explain that to the Sierra Club!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ming


Capital gains are viewed as additional revenue to an individual. If I invest money, and make a profit, I expect to be taxed on that profit. I have no problem with capital gains taxes...

I take it you see inheritors of an estate as being party of a 'single' entity with the person who gave them the inheritance? That is, if you inherit an asset you are in effect making a capital gain that is offset by the capital loss incurred by the deceased.

On reflection that makes a far more equitable method of assessing tax due for later capital gains than assuming zero cost to the inheritor.

[Arrian]

As someone who would be effected by the inheritance (death) tax (since my parents assets will easily exceed $600k), I come down on the side of those who support it, although I'm not sure I'm entirely pleased with the current implementation.

I do think that it would make sense to allow extra time to pay the tax, so you don't end up in a situation where you inherit non-liquid assets and have a huge tax bill to pay, and are in the position of scrambling to raise the cash. That would suck. If my parents died tomorrow, YIKES The house alone is worth $600K. The rest of their money is tied up in 401(k)s, IRAs, and I think some stock. In terms of actual cash in the bank accounts, there isn't much. Hell, a few months ago my mom borrowed a couple of hundred bucks from me to cover a bill because they were cutting the cashflow real close. I'm not sure how easy it would be to liquify the 401(k)/IRA accounts. If it isn't a big deal, then I'd be fine. If it takes a while, I'd be screwed. Or rather my brother would be, since I think he'd be executor. Bah, this is depressing.

Perhaps it should be based on how much you receive, not the value of the total estate. Of course, I'd then lower the trigger amount from $600k. Call it $250-$300 per inheritor. After that, tax 'em.

At the end of the day, this is all arbitrary. As are the definitions of wealth and poverty. To some, I'm wealthy. To others, I'm middle class. I don't think anyone would call me poor, but there are a lot of idiots in this world...

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I take it you see inheritors of an estate as being party of a 'single' entity with the person who gave them the inheritance?

Yes... I call it a family

[Berzerker]

Arrian, if you think the death tax would give you a headache, think of all the family businesses/farms that are ruined or put in jeopardy by not having the ready cash to pay the tax because it's invested.

This is money that was already taxed and these left wingers want another cut. Double taxation, triple taxation, it's never enough... and then they have the audacity to accuse the people they are ripping off of being selfish for not enjoying the experience of hosting parasites because liberals are "entitled" to their money...

[Arrian]

Is there no exemption (or higher limit) for business assets? If so, that's a flaw.

Since I'm quite to the left of you, Berz, I am probably a "liberal" in your estimation. It's pretty easy to be left of a libertarian, though. Hell, I voted Lib in '96. That being said, I've shifted left a bit. I used to think the flat tax was a great idea. Maybe in a vaccuum it is. But there are lots of other taxes out there (property/fire/car/etc), and coupled with the diminishing usefulness of income, that makes a flat income tax regressive in reality. And, even if it's not perfectly "fair" or "moral" consider that you can consider the "extra" tax paid by the very rich as a bribe of sorts to the rest of us, to prevent the type of strife that was common in the dark days of the industrial revolution. Don't like it? It's a cost of doing business, so to speak.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ming


Yes... I call it a family

The corporation where I work is one big happy family.

[DinoDoc]

I don't really care to read the entire thread but could someone explain to me why anyone should pay 90% of thier income to the government as MRT wants?

[Berzerker]

Is there no exemption (or higher limit) for business assets? If so, that's a flaw.

There are attempts to alter the laws to protect businesses and farms but I'm not sure if they've been passed yet.

And, even if it's not perfectly "fair" or "moral" consider that you can consider the "extra" tax paid by the very rich as a bribe of sorts to the rest of us, to prevent the type of strife that was common in the dark days of the industrial revolution.

Sounds like, "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"
If I walked up to you and demanded half your money in exchange for not taking everything you have, would that be moral? I don't want to extort money from the rich, but I'm not given that moral option because my taxes are used to pay the people enforcing the extortion.

[Berzerker]

I don't really care to read the entire thread but could someone explain to me why anyone should pay 90% of thier income to the government as MRT wants?

Because MRT is entitled to it, you see, liberals have the moral authority to steal from others by virtue of their ideology.

"We legalised robbery...called it belief" - Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't really care to read the entire thread but could someone explain to me why anyone should pay 90% of thier income to the government as MRT wants?

Synopsis:

They shouldn't and never have.

[Arrian]

We can argue the morality of tax law until we're both blue in the face. Suffice it to say that I don't have a problem with the progressive tax system in this country. There is a part of me that is libertarian, and is therefore drawn to the simplicity of your position. It's cut 'n dried, and oh-so-moral. But, just like communism, it is something that can be made to look pretty on paper, but would fail spectacularly in real life.

Frankly, I think it would be cool if the Libs got themselves a state and set up their ideal society as an experiment. Right next door to the Commies. Hows about New Hampshire (Libs) and Vermont (Commies)? Wait, no, scratch that, I like those states and I like to go skiing there. Montana & Wyoming?

...

Seriously: I'm not really in the mood to debate the morality of taxation, communism vs. capitalism, libertarianism vs. liberalism.

-Arrian

[GePap]

First,

ESTATE Tax, NOT death tax, NOR inheritance tax. It is a tax on a type of estate.

Second, I seriously doubt you fit into the category Arrian that would pay the tax- I do not think transfering a house fits into that tax scheme.

Here is a link to a pro-estate tax group essentially:

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2128/1/212/