Straight-Talk Express embraces Voodoo Economics

[snoopy369]

You have to be careful with the laws relating to foundations, because it's fairly easy to get around rules unless the foundations are carefully managed... but in general, you have the right idea.

For the record, I certainly support the spousal exemption with a minimum year marriage (say, 5? 10?). Small business ownership as stated should be passed on through the business itself, as stated earlier as well; if it's a publicly traded company, they can pay their own taxes as far as I'm concerned.

[Ramo]

I fairly certain I read something about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation hiring Buffetts kids, but even if that is false, these guys support this tax, why wont they pay it? Can't the government put that money to better use than they ever could?

Hiring the Buffett kids cannot possibly be a back door way of getting out of the estate tax. Even if the Foundation paid them several hundred million dollars a year (which is pretty unlikely), they'd pay income taxes on over a third of it.

Can't the government put that money to better use than they ever could?

Do you believe in taxation and donate to a charity? Same reason.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
I fairly certain I read something about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation hiring Buffets kids,

And their income would be taxed....

but even if that is false, these guys support this tax, why wont they pay it?

Because I doubt that Melinda and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and his wife plan to commit suicide right now, after changing their wills to leave all their assets to their kids and families only, thereby having the beneficiaries have to pay the estate tax

Can't the government put that money to better use than they ever could?

Except that their assets are now part of charitable foundations, funding social programs, much like the government would do (though of course a large chunk of that would be going to pay for defense and war spending.)

[snoopy369]

As to the communist element of redistributing wealth; there is a sound, capitalist, economic argument against overly concentrating wealth. It is simply that concentrated wealth hurts the economy; consumption per dollar drops dramatically as wealth increases (not income, but held wealth). Once you have $50m or so, are you really going to buy more things just because you have a few extra million dollars? You're going to save it, or put it in some sort of fund or investment account. Certainly the investment itself is beneficial; but it is not nearly as beneficial as consumption would be, ie buying something with that money.

As I'm not a communist, I don't argue for taking everyone's money and sharing it alike. I do, however, believe that the government has a sound economic grounding in pushing forth policies that discourage the consolidation of wealth, within the general economic logic of capitalism; and a high estate tax is one such policy (that does not harm the economy substantially, while giving the benefit of reduced concentrations of wealth).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369
As I'm not a communist, I don't argue for taking everyone's money and sharing it alike.

Dude, when you have a billion dollars it isn't really your money. If you thought so you were silly.

[Kidlicious]

Re: The OP we do need a stimulus package, or we need a whole different kind of economy. With a free market economy like we have we need a stimulus package or it's just a matter of chance if the economy recovers, and the chances aren't good. That said, the rich shouldn't get another dime.

Also, privatising social security is stupid, and it will cost money, not make money. But McCains proposal is to privatize it for young tax-payers with won't do much in the way of anything in the short run.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sales taxes hurt the rich far more because they have more to spend. The poor would actually benefit the most from a sales tax, because they consume less, and what they take home would not be touched.

AWESOME.

Epic.

Ben is the new Ann Coulter.

[Kidlicious]

In fairness to BK, he doesn't believe in wage controls so the poor would only be paid a dollar a day in his world. So their tax burden would be quite small.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Re: The OP we do need a stimulus package, or we need a whole different kind of economy. With a free market economy like we have we need a stimulus package or it's just a matter of chance if the economy recovers, and the chances aren't good. That said, the rich shouldn't get another dime.

Given that a stimulus package is basically just short-term communism, I suppose i'd expect you to think that

I wonder what Obama would say if I asked him why he supported communism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Given that a stimulus package is basically just short-term communism, I suppose i'd expect you to think that

It's not communism. You don't need stimulus packages in a communist economy. Read my post.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ramo


Hiring the Buffett kids cannot possibly be a back door way of getting out of the estate tax. Even if the Foundation paid them several hundred million dollars a year (which is pretty unlikely), they'd pay income taxes on over a third of it.

Having them in the foundation be able to control their money means that they can't get out of the estate tax? and even if they couldn't work that out, 1/3rd is less than 55%.

By the way, they'd pay capital gains taxes on stock dividends,property taxes on estates, and the Spanish-American war tax on telephones in any event.

Except that their assets are now part of charitable foundations, funding social programs, much like the government would do (though of course a large chunk of that would be going to pay for defense and war spending.)

Some 20-30% of it would go to defense spending, regardless, doesn't the government have advantages of scale to make more efficient use of the rest of the money to go to infrastructure,social programs and the like?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's not communism. You don't need stimulus packages in a communist economy. Read my post.

The stimulus simply takes $X million in tax revenue and splits it evenly across everyone (except the upper middle class or rich). Sounds like redistribution of wealth to me

[Ben Kenobi]

No, what he and everyone who still has a graps on reality KNOW is that consumption as a PERCENTAGE of income is generally lower for the wealthy than the poor.

Ahh, ok. So it's obviously fairer because people only pay on what they spend, and it's more egalitarian because everyone pays the same.

I'm glad to see you admit that the rich pay the bulk of the consumption tax.

Therefore, unless heavily skewed, consumption taxes would be impact the poor more (as in, claim a greater percentage of their wealth).

That's not really the question that was being asked. Are consumption taxes more of an impact on the poor then income tax? If it has less of an impact, then yes, consumption taxes are better for the poor then income taxes.

I certainly don't see any sales taxes that take away a third of your income, which is what I used to have withheld from my cheques every month.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's not really the question that was being asked. Are consumption taxes more of an impact on the poor then income tax? If it has less of an impact, then yes, consumption taxes are better for the poor then income taxes.

The poor spend virtually everything they earn, and so almost all of their income is consumed every month.

The rich spend some on consumption and the rest goes into investments, tax shelters, savings and large tubs to be swum naked in. Ow ow ow, paper cut! Paper cut!!

[Ramo]

I certainly don't see any sales taxes that take away a third of your income, which is what I used to have withheld from my cheques every month.

I don't think that you're capable of arithmetic.