Taxachusetts wrongly named? - Tax burden per US state

[Imran Siddiqui]

all speculative on your part.

Um... since we are talking about IF Roosevelt hadn't acted, everything is speculation. Though you'd be insane if you thought that 25% unemployment with no action by the government would have been tolerated without revolution.

It's called common sense, even if it is speculation.

What was the socialist election percentages in the previous election?

In 1932, the Socialist Candidate got 2.2% of the Popular Vote (The Communist candidate got 0.3%). That is even with Roosevelt promising socialist reform.

And of course we were going to have a world war regardless, so no, no cance of a revolution.

*cough* Russia 1917.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by JohnT

They eliminate a t tax which only effects the wealthest 1% of Americans.

Oddly enough, it affected me too a couple of years ago and I'm not even in the wealthiest 1% of Americans!

How'd that happen?

I'm one of the recipients who got screwed out of 50+% of their inheritance!

Wait. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that, even under the old laws, there was no inheritant tax on any estate under $1,000,000. Are you saying you inherited over $500,000??

It doesn't effect the dead, it only effects the living. Oerdin. Think about it.

Well, it's a tax on the dead person's estate so, sure, there's going to be less to leave to the heirs.

I always thought it was wise for politicians to tax dead people rather than live ones because the dead people can't vote against yor in future elections. At most, the dead can merely climb out of their graves and bite your throat.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'd even say corporations are more for the common man these days . . .

SEC filings show that Safeway's CEO Burd received an 129% increase in compensation last year -- most of it coming from his performance bonus. Burd led the company into a strike which was disasterous for both sides, in order to reduce employees' salaries and deprive Safeway's employees of their health benefits.

[Sandman]

the Republicans in the US House of Representatives today voted to abolish the Federal Estate Tax.

Why tax unearned windfalls when you can tax income from employment?

[Dinner]

There goal is to help the extremely wealthy people who donate to their party and screw everyone else. This is once again proved when the Republicans forced through their new bankruptcy "reform" law which drastically reduces a person's right to declear bankruptcy and get a new start in life. Che created a wonderfully educational thread on this a while back which showed something like 75% of all bankruptcies were caused by either severe medical illness or divorce.

Republicans claimed that there were people gaming the system who were taking out massive debts for the sole purpose of declaring bankruptcy shortly there after. As the article Che posted showed that the Banks & Lenders own satistics shouwed that was a tiny, tiny, tiny (1%-2%) of total bankruptcies but that didn't stop Republicans from striping away everyone's rights.

Banks and Lenders paid the Republicans money and they got a special bill which helped them and screws consumers. What ever happened to personal responsibility for companies as well as consumers? Lenders rountinely mail credit cards to dead people, unemployed 16 year olds, people who already declared bankruptcy, and other high risk people because they think the government will rewrite the rules to protect them.

Those companies made bad business choices and as usual Republicans want to help the wealthy but when the poor make bad choices they want to screw them.

[Drake Tungsten]

This is once again proved when the Republicans forced through their new bankruptcy "reform" law which drastically reduces a person's right to declear bankruptcy and get a new start in life.

Forced through?

However, since then, some Democrats have become receptive to tightening the current framework. Indeed, 18 Democratic and the chamber's only Independent senator joined all 55 Republicans in voting to approve the bankruptcy bill. Similar cross-party support is expected when the House votes on the legislation.

http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/2005/03/11/cz_0311oxan_bankruptcy.html

[JohnT]

Wait. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that, even under the old laws, there was no inheritant tax on any estate under $1,000,000. Are you saying you inherited over $500,000??

I'll be glad to correct you.

The tax is valued on the value of the entire estate, not upon what each individual beneficiary received. The first ~$600,000 is deducted, then the tax is levied on the remainder. The estate was large enough to pay $3,000,000 in Fed taxes and $2,500,000 in Florida taxes (FL doesn't get all its income from tourists, Che), a percentage that came to (iir) 50% of the estate) Regardless of whether I inherited $5.5 million or $20,000, the amount of potential income for me, my wife, and my daughter was slashed by 50%.

All to make people like you feel good and morally superior. Happy now?

[JohnT]

There goal is to help the extremely wealthy people who donate to their party and screw everyone else. This is once again proved when the Republicans forced through their new bankruptcy "reform" law which drastically reduces a person's right to declear bankruptcy and get a new start in life. Che created a wonderfully educational thread on this a while back which showed something like 75% of all bankruptcies were caused by either severe medical illness or divorce.

Of course YOU PEOPLE PURPOSELY IGNORE the fact that this law applies only to those people whose household incomes are ABOVE THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES MEDIANS.

So, please stop whining about the "poor" in regards to the bankruptcy law. Such a position is, well, morally bankrupt.

Oerdin, here's the thing. I have corrected you factually time and again, on this thread or others, over the past week. If I, John-freakin'-T, am correcting you you might want to hush up and learn more about the subject matter.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by JohnT


I'll be glad to correct you.

The tax is valued on the value of the entire estate, not upon what each individual beneficiary received. The first ~$600,000 is deducted, then the tax is levied on the remainder. The estate was large enough to pay $3,000,000 in Fed taxes and $2,500,000 in Florida taxes (FL doesn't get all its income from tourists, Che), a percentage that came to (iir) 50% of the estate) Regardless of whether I inherited $5.5 million or $20,000, the amount of potential income for me, my wife, and my daughter was slashed by 50%.

All to make people like you feel good and morally superior. Happy now?

You'd only have spent the money buying part of a small Third World country, enslaving its populace and forcing them to manufacture useless consumer items for sale to gullible Americans.

Really, you know you're better off without it- you can only turn on so many gold plated bathroom taps on your luxury yacht at once, you know.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by molly bloom



You'd only have spent the money buying part of a small Third World country, enslaving its populace and forcing them to manufacture useless consumer items for sale to gullible Americans.

Really, you know you're better off without it- you can only turn on so many gold plated bathroom taps on your luxury yacht at once, you know.

Well...

[Patroklos]

Oerdin, the lefts most elite political shock trooper

Um... since we are talking about IF Roosevelt hadn't acted, everything is speculation. Though you'd be insane if you thought that 25% unemployment with no action by the government would have been tolerated without revolution.

You might think that, but you were proven wrong by history. Coincidently Roosevelts reforms hardly even touched that number, and again before any really had an effect the ramp up for the war started.

I know this "revolution" think and having hammers in sickles in your dorm room was cool in college, but you need to let your fantacies go.

In 1932, the Socialist Candidate got 2.2% of the Popular Vote (The Communist candidate got 0.3%). That is even with Roosevelt promising socialist reform.

Wow, it sure looks like the populous was about to storm the white house and set up guilitines. That of course is after three years of depression, NO government action taken whatsoever. 2%. Numbers speak for themselves. Which cities did the rebels take over again?

*cough* Russia 1917.

Yeah, because we were definetly living in an archaic fuedal society with an absolute monarch at its head

Go ahead though, state your case as to why 1917 Russia and 1932 America are the same

[Imran Siddiqui]

You might think that, but you were proven wrong by history. Coincidently Roosevelts reforms hardly even touched that number, and again before any really had an effect the ramp up for the war started.

Hardly even touched the number? By 1937, the unemployment rate was down to 14.3%!!

Take a look at the "recession" that occured when Roosevelt tried to cut some of his New Deal policies in 1937 because the economy was doing better at the time. It failed and unemployment shot back up to 19%. He reinstated some of the cut programs again to get the economy back to where it was.

Do you actually think Roosevelt was unpopular before WW2? Where do you think his popularity stemed from seeing as he won a 3rd term in 1940, before the US even entered the war?

I know this "revolution" think and having hammers in sickles in your dorm room was cool in college, but you need to let your fantacies go.

Hey I've been called a commie again! Newsmax move over!

Wow, it sure looks like the populous was about to storm the white house and set up guilitines. That of course is after three years of depression, NO government action taken whatsoever. 2%. Numbers speak for themselves. Which cities did the rebels take over again?

When you have a quasi-socalist on the ballot of one of the two major parties, how much do you think the radicals are going to get? In contract, in the 1924 election, Progressive candidate Robert La Follette got about 17% of the popular vote and won 1 state.

If Roosevelt was akin to say, John William Davis or Al Smith, we would have seen a great deal more from the progressive and socialist voters out there. FDR, however, turned to the left.

And don't forget, there was a HUGE threat to FDR from Governor Huey Long. An assasins bullet may have saved the country from a full on socialist becoming President (if he could have found a way to beat FDR in the Dem primaries in 1936).

because we were definetly living in an archaic fuedal society with an absolute monarch at its head

Do you know ANYTHING about the October revolution in 1917? Back in February of 1917, a bourgeois revolution led by Prince Lvov and Alexander Karenksy took control of Russia. From May until October, Russia was led by a republic.

As for 'archaic fuedal society', you do realize the feudalism was abolished in 1863 by Tsar Alexander, right? And the reason WW1 happened in 1914 was because if they waited, even 5 years more, the German consensus was that Russia would have been too powerful for Germany too take. Look at the production of the Russian state during the early 1900s.

Go ahead though, state your case as to why 1917 Russia and 1932 America are the same

Massive unrest. Large segments of the population tired by their government's refusal to listen to them.

It was ripe for revolution... or at least a coup led by someone like the Kingfish, Huey Long.