The Birth Tax

[editec]

the "rich" create jobs for the middle class. taxing them eliminates more middle class people.

The middle class create wealth for the rich, so allowing the rich to skate on taxes, thus leaving it to the middle class to pick up the difference, makes no sense, either.

this in turn creates more poor people.

That in turn breaks down society, thus creating poor people out of rich ones.

the real answer to inequity would be to make the rich more wealthy in turn creating more middle class workers and eliminating poverty.

An alternative approach (and wone which insures us that our national and state govermentmests don't go broke) is to see to it that the employers pay livable wages, and a fair share of their taxes, given how much of those taxes go into making the nation a place where they can conduct business.

it's a realistic solution. It's called wealth creation. The growth of the over all economy benefitting all involved.

Mine is a more viable solution...it's call creating just society -- the growth of which once made America's wealthy the wealthiest of all the wealthy in the world.

If you look at which nations have the richest people, what you find generally speaking is that nations with a viable economically stable MIDDLE CLASS, also generate the most wealthy over all, and the most and wealthiest people, too.

Where the income distribution is most lopsided?

Those nations are generally the poorer nations, and their wealthy class is much, much smaller, and their monied clases less wealthy (in aggregate) than in nations which has a more equitable system of income distribution and taxation.

Unions made America's middle class, and the American middle class made America's wealthy the wealthiest people on earth.

 

[Care4all]

How do you know the middle class hasn't benefitted-----maybe they would all be in worse shape than they are now ?

CBO figures shows that they haven't benefitted, lost ground....when the wealthy became wealthier....via lower taxes.

it is not trickling down and we are 5-7 years past the tax cuts that benefitted them, you would think it would have trickled DOWN by now...but it hasn't done anything but concentrate America's wealth in to the hands of the few that benefited from the lower taxes...they are hording their wealth instead of investing it to where the middle man would benefit....it's called greed....imho.

 

[dilloduck]

The middle class create wealth for the rich, so allowing the rich to skate on taxes, thus leaving it to the middle class to pick up the difference, makes no sense, either.



That in turn breaks down society, thus creating poor people out of rich ones.



An alternative approach (and wone which insures us that our national and state govermentmests don't go broke) is to see to it that the employers pay livable wages, and a fair share of their taxes, given how much of those taxes go into making the nation a place where they can conduct business.



Mine is a more viable solution...it's call creating just society -- the growth of which once made America's wealthy the wealthiest of all the wealthy in the world.

If you look at which nations have the richest people, what you find generally speaking is that nations with a viable economically stable MIDDLE CLASS, also generate the most wealthy over all, and the most and wealthiest people, too.

Where the income distribution is most lopsided?

Those nations are generally the poorer nations, and their wealthy class is much, much smaller, and their monied clases less wealthy (in aggregate) than in nations which has a more equitable system of income distribution and taxation.

Unions made America's middle class, and the American middle class made America's wealthy the wealthiest people on earth.

And how many businesses did unions ruin or send overseas ?

 

[editec]

Tickely down economics is the polite way of saying Piss on the working class, Care.

That's not obvious?

 

[dilloduck]

CBO figures shows that they haven't benefitted, lost ground....when the wealthy became wealthier....via lower taxes.

it is not trickling down and we are 5-7 years past the tax cuts that benefitted them, you would think it would have trickled DOWN by now...but it hasn't done anything but concentrate America's wealth in to the hands of the few that benefited from the lower taxes...they are hording their wealth instead of investing it to where the middle man would benefit....it's called greed....imho.

again----if it wasn't for what HAS trickled down the middle class could be in even WORSE shape. Implying that voodoo economics killed the middle class assumes that one knows all the OTHER variables involved.

 

[Care4all]

again----if it wasn't for what HAS trickled down the middle class could be in even WORSE shape. Implying that voodoo economics killed the middle class assumes that one knows all the OTHER variables involved.

nothing has trickled down.....it has trickled upwards...the proof is in the pudding, the figures....not speculation, but the figures.

 

[Care4all]

They USED our SS SURPLUS funds, to give the tax break to the wealthiest for the most part...and now they don't want to pay the SS funds back that they TOOK from the working class...

 

[dilloduck]

nothing has trickled down.....it has trickled upwards...the proof is in the pudding, the figures....not speculation, but the figures.

figures lie, can be twisted and don't take into consideration WHY the figures are the way they are. Tax cuts cannot be proven to be the direct nor only cause of a poorer middle class.

 

[Ravi]

I don't care what the hell you call me ! I wanna know why you think the government should be able to grab a chunk of money everytime it moves form one person to the next ? You got something against personal ownership ?

Yes, as long as our taxation method is to tax income tax, then income should be taxed, no matter where it comes from.

And again, once you give your property away, it is no longer your property.

 

[Gunny]

That might make sense if THEY were getting a percentage of my gift. Why do they insist that a percentage of my gift go to the IRS ? Because they consider that to be theirs too ?

No, someone has convinced them it's going to float one of their handout social programs, not disappear into some politicians pocket or get spent floating the bureaucracy.

I don't understand the mindset at all. If I go out and earn something or buy it or otherwise acquire it, and you walk in and take all or part of it, that's called theft, by law, in this Nation. Unless you're the US government. Then it's mislabelled as "tax" and justified by rewriting law to support the theft.

The actual ruling that allows for federal income tax is a ruling by Chief Justice John Marshall that the Constitution implies the Fed Government can do it. In actuality, the Fed can tax states, not people, that power falling to the state via the Tenth Amendment since personal income tax is NOT a power specifically delegated to the Fed by the Constitution.

 

[Red Dawn]

Why does the government tax the results of MY work over and over and then have the balls to tax me for giving it to someone ?

This appears to be another talking point Rush Limbaugh has implanted into the brains of conservatives.

Usually, the vast majority of the value of an estate is in property.

Property has never been taxed at the federal level. Property taxes are at the local level. So when you inherit a house or property, it has not been taxed over and over by the Federal government.


I don't know why you guys keep saying that the federal government is going to tax "you" when your estate in inherited. Your children aren't going to pay a dime of inheritance tax.

We already showed you that there is a huge and generous tax exemption that protects middle class families, and even the modestly affluent. Unless this board has a legion of people who's net worth is in the range of 2 to 4 million dollars (I doubt it), I have no idea why conservatives keep crying that the estate tax is going to affect them.

Income is income. It should all be taxed. The super affluent and wealthy don't generally earn wage income. Wages are for working schmucks like us. The super affluent mostly make their wealth from investment income or inheritance income. Investment income is already taxed a a lower rate, than wage income. In fact, some investment income isn't taxed at all - like interest on bond earnings. Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does. He wrote an article about it. Because his income is investment income, whereas his secretary's income is wage income.

No one is talking about taxing the rich into extinction. The issue is tax fairness. The super wealthy should, at least, be paying a similar rate to us working schmucks.

 

[Anguille]

I don't understand the mindset at all. If I go out and earn something or buy it or otherwise acquire it, and you walk in and take all or part of it, that's called theft, by law, in this Nation. Unless you're the US government. Then it's mislabelled as "tax" and justified by rewriting law to support the theft.

If you don't like it, vote out the 'thieves"or move to another country where the system is more to your liking. True thieves can not be voted out nor do they redistribute their booty amongst their victims.

 

[dilloduck]

This appears to be another talking point Rush Limbaugh has implanted into the brains of conservatives.

Usually, the vast majority of the value of an estate is in property.

Property has never been taxed at the federal level. Property taxes are at the local level. So when you inherit a house or property, it has not been taxed over and over by the Federal government.


I don't know why you guys keep saying that the federal government is going to tax "you" when your estate in inherited. Your children aren't going to pay a dime of inheritance tax.

We already showed you that there is a huge and generous tax exemption that protects middle class families, and even the modestly affluent. Unless this board has a legion of people who's net worth is in the range of 2 to 4 million dollars (I doubt it), I have no idea why conservatives keep crying that the estate tax is going to affect them.

Income is income. It should all be taxed. The super affluent and wealthy don't generally earn wage income. Wages are for working schmucks like us. The super affluent mostly make their wealth from investment income or inheritance income. Investment income is already taxed a a lower rate, than wage income. In fact, some investment income isn't taxed at all - like interest on bond earnings. Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does. He wrote an article about it. Because his income is investment income, whereas his secretary's income is wage income.

No one is talking about taxing the rich into extinction. The issue is tax fairness. The super wealthy should, at least, be paying a similar rate to us working schmucks.

I understand that when a lot of people partake in a discussion things are confusing but I am NOT referring to estate or property taxes. It's a simple question. I work one day---I get paid--it is taxed. Now I have money that that belongs to me do I not ? Remember--it HAS been taxed. If I give it ( more than 12,000) to someone else, what is the reasoning behind IRS taking take ANOTHER percentage out of this same money ? Does it cost the government anything for me to give it away ? No. Does it cost the government anything for the recipient to take it. No. All I can see is that you a charged a fee by the government when you work for money or when you accept money.
Apparently the reason for the government wanting wealth to be distributed is so they can get a potion of it every time it happens.

 

[Red Dawn]

-Warren Buffett: "I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you'll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kinds of soil."

-Bill Gates (Senate testimony, March 16, 2001): "I believe, with Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, Herbert Hoover and scores of other wise observers in the early 1900s that it is not in the interest of this country to have large fortunes passed from generation to generation forming ever larger pools of money and accretion of power."

-Thomas Jefferson: "I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

-Theodore Roosevelt: "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."...."I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly with the size of the estate

-John McCain, in 2006 (before he flip flopped on the inheritance tax): “In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a federal inheritance tax . Roosevelt explained: ‘The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.’ Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: ‘Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.’ He noted, however, that such taxation should ‘be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.’ “I agree with President Roosevelt, and I remain opposed to full repeal of the estate tax.”

 

[dilloduck]

In other words some people believe that the government is owed because it provided the environment for me to make money ? Fine--I paid them once.
Did the government provide a different environment for those whose income is higher than mine therefore they should pay more ?

 

[jreeves]

Nonsense.

First as others have pointed out the first $2,000,000 of the estate is untaxed. For the next couple years the first $3,500,000 is UNTAXED.

Secondly it isn't "someone's" life savings, because that someone is dead.

FYI, $2,000,000 equates to 42.5 years GROSS salary for the MEDIAN American family. (meaning the average American family nets less than that, since they will be paying a minimum of 14% of that amount in SSI and Medicade taxes)

And some of you future scions are whining about only inheriting $2,000,000, TAX-FREE?

What a bunch of freaking crybabies.

If you can't make it STARTING OUT WITH 42.5 years median family income TAX-FREE, maybe you ought to study harder in school or something, because you surely aren't worthy of having that much disposable income if that's not enough for you to start out with.

So you support taxing dead people? Damn I thought you democrats had stooped as low as you can go, then this? Hey you know what, you could always go to the cemetery, I heard this lady was buried with a beautiful gold watch on her wrist.....

 

[CA95380]

Since this has turned into a "tax" discussion .... anyone remember "Luxury Tax"?
Luxury tax. (Federal Taxation)


Ron Paul, Introducing the Tax Free Tips Act | Ron Paul Library
Lets ask a hypothetical question here. What about the single and/or married Mom, working as a waitress that is forced to pay taxes on her "tips"? The money that Joe Blow leaves on the table for her ... was earned by him, he paid taxes on it, now the poor struggling waitress is paying tax on it AGAIN? (Been there done that. I was a waitress for several years, before finally becoming a manager at a restaurant.) What about the mininimum wage pizza delivery guy, the paper boy, anyone that receives a "tip" according to the federal government is suppose to include that money as "income". Take from the poor, and allow the rich to get richer? hmmmmmn


On the other hand .... I say let's make Prostitution legal nationwide .... and start charging THEM taxes! They are providing a "service", right? They should be taxed too! Then we have the dope dealer - should we start taxing them? Hell yeah!!!! Tax the shit out of them!!!

So ..... should taxes be paid on money "after someone dies"? The simple answer is yes. When Mom and/or Dad were alive they paid taxes on that money, (if it was sitting in a savings account) - they paid taxes on it, unless they kept it in a coffee can buried in the back yard. Or .....

IRAs are a great way to save for retirement and take advantage of tax-deferred or tax-free grow of your investments.

IRAs Offer Tax Advantaged Investing for Retirement

Mom and Dad may have been smarter than you give them credit for .... but somebody ... somewhere along the line is going to pay taxes on this money. And Junior ... since you have inherited it ... it's you! Since junior is getting this money after they are DEAD ... why not? The one that will benefit from the use of the money (-Junior or Junior'ette) - pay the taxes. As someone else in this thread mentioned ... either pay the tax on it or go to jail. Right or wrong .... it is the law. It is your choice.

 

[dilloduck]

So you support taxing dead people? Damn I thought you democrats had stooped as low as you can go, then this? Hey you know what you could always go to the cemetery, I heard this lady was buried with a beautiful gold watch on her wrist.....

It seems that the theory is that once you are dead your assests immdeiately are the property of no one. Who ever claims it is accused of having accrued income and has to pay the price.

 

[Red Dawn]

It seems that the theory is that once you are dead your assests immdeiately are the property of no one. Who ever claims it is accused of having accrued income and has to pay the price.

This is total hyperbole, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Of course property can be passed on. Your family is never going to pay an estate tax. I'm pretty sure no one on this board is ever going to pay an estate tax, since only 0.8% of americans ever do. I don't know why you conservatives get your panties in such a bunch over it.

Warren Buffet is right. His wealth is mostly due to our society - our government, our laws, our civil servants, our workers. If you parachuted him into Bangladesh, he probably never would have become rich, no matter how much talent he has. There's nothing wrong with an estate tax on huge fortunes and wealthy properties. Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Paine, and even John McCain (until he flip flopped) supported it.

 

[jreeves]

This is total hyperbole, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Of course property can be passed on. Your family is never going to pay an estate tax. I'm pretty sure no one on this board is ever going to pay an estate tax, since only 0.8% of americans ever do. I don't know why you conservatives get your panties in such a bunch over it.

Warren Buffet is right. His wealth is mostly due to our society - our government, our laws, our civil servants, our workers. If you parachuted him into Bangladesh, he probably never would have become rich, no matter how much talent he has. There's nothing wrong with an estate tax on huge fortunes and wealthy properties. Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Paine, and even John McCain (until he flip flopped) supported it.

Do you need the name of that cemetery, you know the one with the lady with the beautiful gold watch?