“Enough Money"

[TurtleDude]

and should this result, where the rich were in retrograde, i would be inclined to agree with you, at that point the wealthy might very likely be paying a disproportionate share of the taxes

but what we do see is the opposite. the middle class is in decline, indicating that a disproportionately large portion of the tax burden is being imposed on that segment of our society

so you think its ok that next year most of those in the top 1% will be paying more than half of every next dollar they earn in federal and state income taxes and many could well be paying more than half of their total income in taxes

I think that is disgusting.

I also think it is disgusting that if someone dies with an estate of 2 million and his child dies within a few years, that estate is double taxed to the point it will never recover.

the theory of the death tax was that the heir would be able to build the estate back to-at the time of his death-to a bit more than what he was left. That is true with really big estates but if the estate is small and consists of non-income generating assets that are valued highly (art collection, gun collection, or non-farmed land) the estate tax is crippling-especially if the first generation of heirs die prematurely. Its like that example I know personally where the remaining grandparent of a girl I grew up with died, the estate tax took a ton and then her parents were killed by a suicidal driver shortly thereafter meaning what was a ten million dollar estate was hit with a huge tax and the 6 or so that was left was again hit. Sure we can claim they should have planned better but anyone who thinks that is fair is someone I surely do not want in any position of power in this country.

 

[TurtleDude]

Is a diproportionately large portion of the tax burdon being placed on the middle class, or is it that somehow the rich are able to extract a disproportionately large income from the production of the middle class?

I suggest that it may be the latter case, someone else posted a link that indicated that historically (just 30-40 years ago) top CEO's were compentated at the rate of 20-30 times their employees average salary, but now they are compensated at a rate of 300-600 times average salary. Seems to me that somehow salaries have become very disproportinate to the actual value of their productivity.

At any given point in time, a company only has a certain amount of money that they budget to salaries. If the CEO makes more, then there is no option other than for the workers to make less. It's a zero sum game. There is little correlation between the salary of the CEO and the profitability of the company.

The last CEO of GM recieved a pay raise far larger in terms of dollars or percent than did the workers of GM for 11 consecutive years. However during that 11 year time span GM lost billions of dollars almost every year. If the CEO's salary was linked to the the companies productivity which was measured by corporate profitability, then the CEO's salary would have been reduced every year.

Top executive salaries are established by the Board of Directors who's own salaries are directly linked to the executives. The Board of Directors can only raise their own salaries by providing large raises to the executives (whether these raises are warrented or not). The entire executive compensation system is corrupt. Similar situation within the large banks and investment houses.

I have no direct solutions for this problem, but if the rich are going to continue to enrich themselves in a corrupt manner, the least they can do is to pay their taxes without whining about it.

assuming corruption is pathetic. And I would be the first to agree that many CEO's are vastly overcompensated. its an ego with some boards that they can brag that their CEO makes more than the other company's CEO. But most of the wealthy are not CEOs. and many like you assume that its luck or governmental favoritism that causes the rich to be rich which is complete and utter nonsense.

the left either believes or claims that the more is GIVEN to the wealthy. Is more GIVEN to Roger Federer than say the 100th ranked player on the tour? of course not, both have the same opportunity but Federer is better, more skilled etc.

its like my example with a public school

one guy busts his butt, is supported by his parents and makes top grades and gets a full ride scholarship to Princeton. The other guy, at the same school, smokes dope, screws around and fails to pass the state proficiency test and doesn't get a diploma

now assuming the two students should pay a tax for their education it is my position both should pay the same. The valedictorian does not owe the school system more than the screw up who couldn't make the grade. Both were "given" the same thing and the top student was not given an A average-he earned it and should not be punished for it by having to pay more for his education than the slacker

 

[imagep]

so you think its ok that next year most of those in the top 1% will be paying more than half of every next dollar they earn in federal and state income taxes and many could well be paying more than half of their total income in taxes

I think that is disgusting.

I think that it is disgusting that the top 1% have incomes so disproportionately high that they will have to pay more than half their income in taxes.

I also think it is disgusting that if someone dies with an estate of 2 million and his child dies within a few years, that estate is double taxed to the point it will never recover.

the theory of the death tax was that the heir would be able to build the estate back to-at the time of his death-to a bit more than what he was left. That is true with really big estates but if the estate is small and consists of non-income generating assets that are valued highly (art collection, gun collection, or non-farmed land) the estate tax is crippling-especially if the first generation of heirs die prematurely. Its like that example I know personally where the remaining grandparent of a girl I grew up with died, the estate tax took a ton and then her parents were killed by a suicidal driver shortly thereafter meaning what was a ten million dollar estate was hit with a huge tax and the 6 or so that was left was again hit. Sure we can claim they should have planned better but anyone who thinks that is fair is someone I surely do not want in any position of power in this country.

I think that it is disgusting that people expect to get money without working for it. It doesn't matter if it is a welfare reciepient or if it is a heir. Its exactly the same thing, someone getting something that they didnt earn. We have to end the entitlement attitude of the poor and the rich.

Every penny of inheritance that is not taxed away is a penny of additional taxes that someone who actually works for a living has to pay. Because of the inheritance tax, the child and grandchild of the person who died and had a good chunk of their wealthy taxed will actually benefit by not having to pay as much in taxes. Inheritance tax is simply a delayed income tax - a tax that you get to avoid while you are alive and don't have to pay until you have passed away.

Why would any intellegent person prefer to pay a tax on work rather than to pay a tax after they have passed away. Oh yea, I remember, its because they are trying to justify getting money that they didnt earn.

 

[imagep]

...But most of the wealthy are not CEOs.

OK, so what are they, heirs?

...

one guy busts his butt, is supported by his parents and makes top grades and gets a full ride scholarship to Princeton. The other guy, at the same school, smokes dope, screws around and fails to pass the state proficiency test and doesn't get a diploma

now assuming the two students should pay a tax for their education it is my position both should pay the same. The valedictorian does not owe the school system more than the screw up who couldn't make the grade. Both were "given" the same thing and the top student was not given an A average-he earned it and should not be punished for it by having to pay more for his education than the slacker

I agree. Thats why the valedictorian is likely to get a scholarship and the slacker isnt.

I wonder if the slacker is a slacker because he/she is expecting a big inheritance he/she they didn't work for. Or perhaps the slacker expects to recieve freebes from the government. Either way the slacker is a slacker and deserves nothing that he didnt earn.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I think that it is disgusting that the top 1% have incomes so disproportionately high that they will have to pay more than half their income in taxes.


I think that it is disgusting that people expect to get money without working for it. It doesn't matter if it is a welfare reciepient or if it is a heir. Its exactly the same thing, someone getting something that they didnt earn. We have to end the entitlement attitude of the poor and the rich.

Every penny of inheritance that is not taxed away is a penny of additional taxes that someone who actually works for a living has to pay. Because of the inheritance tax, the child and grandchild of the person who died and had a good chunk of their wealthy taxed will actually benefit by not having to pay as much in taxes. Inheritance tax is simply a delayed income tax - a tax that you get to avoid while you are alive and don't have to pay until you have passed away.

Why would any intellegent person prefer to pay a tax on work rather than to pay a tax after they have passed away. Oh yea, I remember, its because they are trying to justify getting money that they didnt earn.

I dont think it is disgusting, I think it is socially unstable for such things to occur. That should the above patterns occur for too long society will erupt into violence and lead to the collapse of the economy in general

 

[BmanMcfly]

You are implying that the rich live paycheck to paycheck. Of course they dont live paycheck to paycheck - they have vastly more money and income than they consume - otherwise they wouldn't be rich!

If you're still mainly signing the back of the cheques, you're not all that rich first of all.

Yes, I guess if:
1) the rich suddenly became poor
and
2) We increased all income taxes to over 100% of income
that
3) the economy would collapse

I agree with your proposed result(#3), even though your scenario leading up to the collapse is preposterous. I'm just glad that there are no idiots on this forum suggesting such a chain of events.

You might as well have said:
1) if pigs flew
and
2) if monkeys flew out my rear
then
3) the economy would collaps

That would have made just as much sense.

As for the economy collapsing... I can list probably close to ten renowned economists who will tell you that the economy not only CAN collapse, but it is in the PROCESS of collapsing.

Gerald Celente said, in an interview : "If you're viewing this 'dip' in the markets as a buying opportunity, you deserve what you get." and "They say you gotta be in it for the long haul... what's the long haul, a couple generations? The markets aren't just at a low, they are at a 1997 low."


Lord Tammerlain - If you're like me and you can see the writing on the wall, you should be doing the sensible things to prepare, get a sense of community going so that you can have some trust and some backup as the crime starts to increase the more things get worse. Stock up on food, water filters, possibly generators, fuel and firearms to protect it all. Any extra funds would be well spent in barter items. Even though there's historical precedence that sometimes collapses can remain relatively peaceful... then you won't have lost out, but if it ends up in a road warrior level of collapse of society... well.. better to be prepared the best ways possible. Frankly, if it gets that bad, the sides that will have to be chosen will likely be police, street gangs, or military affiliations.

 

[Ahlevah]

Thus - I still stand firm and always will in my belief that the employees which keep a company going, make all the money and magic happen, should be respected and given the highest reward and appreciation from their employers - without employees working hard - there would be no company, there would be no profit in stocks.

I recently saw a CNBC documentary on Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. That was essentially the argument Walton's wife, Helen, made in urging him to make Wal-Mart's profit-sharing plan open to all employees, down the greeters and cart retrievers.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If you're still mainly signing the back of the cheques, you're not all that rich first of all.



As for the economy collapsing... I can list probably close to ten renowned economists who will tell you that the economy not only CAN collapse, but it is in the PROCESS of collapsing.

Gerald Celente said, in an interview : "If you're viewing this 'dip' in the markets as a buying opportunity, you deserve what you get." and "They say you gotta be in it for the long haul... what's the long haul, a couple generations? The markets aren't just at a low, they are at a 1997 low."


Lord Tammerlain - If you're like me and you can see the writing on the wall, you should be doing the sensible things to prepare, get a sense of community going so that you can have some trust and some backup as the crime starts to increase the more things get worse. Stock up on food, water filters, possibly generators, fuel and firearms to protect it all. Any extra funds would be well spent in barter items. Even though there's historical precedence that sometimes collapses can remain relatively peaceful... then you won't have lost out, but if it ends up in a road warrior level of collapse of society... well.. better to be prepared the best ways possible. Frankly, if it gets that bad, the sides that will have to be chosen will likely be police, street gangs, or military affiliations.

I do think thing can get very bad and fairly quickly. My realistic expectation though for the US is the Fed will start printing money inflation will go to about 10-20% a year for about 10 years, and the standard of living in the US will drop by about 20% on average. Crime of course will increase, quality of education will go down and the US will have less overall freedom then previous. I can see pockets of extremists popping up in the US as they did in the mid 80s forming "terrorist traing camps" like the Ayran Nations did in the Pac north west and parts of western Canada


For me however, being in Canada, Calgary Alberta where overall debt levels are lower, I dont think we will see thing get as bad. Of course that will depend on how well Asia does (China, India etc) as they are the drivers for raw material prices


iven the location where I live (a condo) stocking up is not really an option.

 

[Donc]

If you're still mainly signing the back of the cheques, you're not all that rich first of all.



As for the economy collapsing... I can list probably close to ten renowned economists who will tell you that the economy not only CAN collapse, but it is in the PROCESS of collapsing.

Gerald Celente said, in an interview : "If you're viewing this 'dip' in the markets as a buying opportunity, you deserve what you get." and "They say you gotta be in it for the long haul... what's the long haul, a couple generations? The markets aren't just at a low, they are at a 1997 low."


Lord Tammerlain - If you're like me and you can see the writing on the wall, you should be doing the sensible things to prepare, get a sense of community going so that you can have some trust and some backup as the crime starts to increase the more things get worse. Stock up on food, water filters, possibly generators, fuel and firearms to protect it all. Any extra funds would be well spent in barter items. Even though there's historical precedence that sometimes collapses can remain relatively peaceful... then you won't have lost out, but if it ends up in a road warrior level of collapse of society... well.. better to be prepared the best ways possible. Frankly, if it gets that bad, the sides that will have to be chosen will likely be police, street gangs, or military affiliations.

We’ll talk this over next year at this time and see how your horde of rice and beans fared, or how my Ford stock is doing.OK?:2wave:

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

We’ll talk this over next year at this time and see how your horde of rice and beans fared, or how my Ford stock is doing.OK?:2wave:

Ask your self this question

Have the causes of the currrent economic troubles been fixed?

Has housing become affordable, has the number of foreclosed on homes gone back to normal or are they increasing. What is the unemployment rate? What will happen when unemployement benifits run out? What will happen when state governments start cutting back drastically. What is the overall debt level of the US today in comparison to historical levels.

We are not out of this yet, and it will take years for the issues that caused it to be worked through.

 

[Donc]

Ask your self this question

Have the causes of the currrent economic troubles been fixed?

Has housing become affordable, has the number of foreclosed on homes gone back to normal or are they increasing. What is the unemployment rate? What will happen when unemployement benifits run out? What will happen when state governments start cutting back drastically. What is the overall debt level of the US today in comparison to historical levels.

We are not out of this yet, and it will take years for the issues that caused it to be worked through.

While your asking hypotheticals ask your self what percent of gdp is our debt, also see what other countries are running…such as Japan did for the last eight years.

I’m not saying its going to be a rosy picture and good times are here again. I’m also not stockpiling beans and rice, nor fortifying my year 2 K bunker.:shock:

Like I said I will talk to you to you about this again next year and more than likely be saying how did you do with the new GM stock when they release it pretty soon. :thumbs:

 

[TurtleDude]

I think that it is disgusting that the top 1% have incomes so disproportionately high that they will have to pay more than half their income in taxes.


I think that it is disgusting that people expect to get money without working for it. It doesn't matter if it is a welfare reciepient or if it is a heir. Its exactly the same thing, someone getting something that they didnt earn. We have to end the entitlement attitude of the poor and the rich.

Every penny of inheritance that is not taxed away is a penny of additional taxes that someone who actually works for a living has to pay. Because of the inheritance tax, the child and grandchild of the person who died and had a good chunk of their wealthy taxed will actually benefit by not having to pay as much in taxes. Inheritance tax is simply a delayed income tax - a tax that you get to avoid while you are alive and don't have to pay until you have passed away.

Why would any intellegent person prefer to pay a tax on work rather than to pay a tax after they have passed away. Oh yea, I remember, its because they are trying to justify getting money that they didnt earn.

your first statement makes no sense at all. It is beyond silly. I think you ooze envy when you whine that heirs didn't work for what someone who DID CHOOSES TO GIVE THEM. ONCE AGAIN-the EARNER CHOOSES TO GIVE THEM. They certainly are more entitled to it that the government that already taxed the EARNER massively.

the rest of your stuff is complete BS that is full of class envy. YOu libs spend all kinds of time justifying more and more wealth being taken by the government-normally wealth you did not and cannot create

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm curious. I've been reading a lot about some folks claiming that those who inherit money didn't work for it. To some extent that may be true, but consider this. The person who left the inheritance DID work for it. And it was already taxed. Why should the same money be taxed again?

 

[lizzie]

I think that it is disgusting that the top 1% have incomes so disproportionately high that they will have to pay more than half their income in taxes.


I think that it is disgusting that people expect to get money without working for it. It doesn't matter if it is a welfare reciepient or if it is a heir. Its exactly the same thing, someone getting something that they didnt earn.

It does matter. If it's a wealthy person giving money to their children or whomever they wish to give it to, that money has already been earned. They have the right to give it to whomever they wish, and government should have no say in how they disperse their own wealth.

 

[justabubba]

It does matter. If it's a wealthy person giving money to their children or whomever they wish to give it to, that money has already been earned. They have the right to give it to whomever they wish, and government should have no say in how they disperse their own wealth.

let's use your "logic" that since the party who earned the money originally paid taxes on it then it should be able to be passed forward without any tax burden attached
your employer pays taxes on the income it realizes and then pays you with the residual monies
using your rationale, since the employer has already paid taxes on those monies, when you receive your salary from that income which has already beenj subjected to tax, then it deserves to be tax exempt

 

[lizzie]

let's use your "logic" that since the party who earned the money originally paid taxes on it then it should be able to be passed forward without any tax burden attached
your employer pays taxes on the income it realizes and then pays you with the residual monies
using your rationale, since the employer has already paid taxes on those monies, when you receive your salary from that income which has already beenj subjected to tax, then it deserves to be tax exempt

Ummm, no. That's not what the point was. I was responding to: It doesn't matter if it is a welfare reciepient or if it is a heir. Its exactly the same thing, someone getting something that they didnt earn.

It's not exactly the same thing.

 

[justabubba]

Ummm, no. That's not what the point was. I was responding to: It doesn't matter if it is a welfare reciepient or if it is a heir. Its exactly the same thing, someone getting something that they didnt earn.

It's not exactly the same thing.

then you do not understand your own posts. look again at what you said, prompting my rebuttal:

It does matter. If it's a wealthy person giving money to their children or whomever they wish to give it to, that money has already been earned. They have the right to give it to whomever they wish, and government should have no say in how they disperse their own wealth.

your argument was that the beneficiary should not have to pay taxes on the inherited estate because the deceased had already paid taxes when accumulating said estate

and i countered that an employer has paid taxes on its income, which income is then given over to the employees - subject to tax. just as the estate should be

in my view the estate carries a higher burden to be taxed. the recipient of the estate did nothing to earn those monies while someone who actually exerted labor for a wage pays tax on every dollar. my take is that the person who contributed no effort to realize the financial windfall should have at least as great a tax liability on each dollar inherited as the one who worked for his income

 

[imagep]

your first statement makes no sense at all. It is beyond silly. I think you ooze envy when you whine that heirs didn't work for what someone who DID CHOOSES TO GIVE THEM. ONCE AGAIN-the EARNER CHOOSES TO GIVE THEM. They certainly are more entitled to it that the government that already taxed the EARNER massively.

the rest of your stuff is complete BS that is full of class envy. YOu libs spend all kinds of time justifying more and more wealth being taken by the government-normally wealth you did not and cannot create

Wow, it's amazing how I get called a liberal, sometimes even a communist by far right radicals. Then I get called a far right radical by liberals when I suggest that we eleminate all entitlements and shring the government by 90%.

I guess that makes me a radical moderate, or am I a radical independant?

 

[The Uncola]

Obama doesn't have the right to redistribute income, but he can use the Executive power to do that. Progressives most of the time try to legitimize taking from the more affluent in the society and rewards those who haven’t earned, because according to them that is the moral thing to do. In reality what they are after is more power to control people lives.

Nice steaming pile of hoohaw. The richest have looted the public treasury and some don't think they'll have enough until they own everything and everybody. Sorry friend, I see right through you. Dynastic wealth is the problem, not the solution.

 

[imagep]

I'm curious. I've been reading a lot about some folks claiming that those who inherit money didn't work for it. To some extent that may be true...

That is 100% true.

but consider this. The person who left the inheritance DID work for it. And it was already taxed. Why should the same money be taxed again?

Why not? The government has to collect taxes from someone. Better a dead person who no longer has a need for money than someone who is alive and needs to keep what he makes.

You have to understand that taxation is a tradeoff. If we dont tax this or that, then we have to tax something else more.

I personally find the concept of taxing work (income tax) revolting. Why would our government want to penalize us for working? For every dollar that we dont collect from inheritance tax, we have to increase our tax on working by a dollar. Why would you prefer to pay more tax while you are working and building your estate, and then suddenly become tax exempt after you die? Thats just plain stupid.

People who expect to inherit a lot of course won't agree. they will try to justify their entitlement every way they can, just like welfare recipients do.

I'm not suggesting that we take away the family heirloom cookoo clock, I have no issue with a certain tax exempt base for inheritance, but the concept that someone who works for a living should have to pay a small fortune in taxes just because he works is far more revolting than the concept that someone who gets money for free should have to pay a tax.

As for the concept that the money has already been taxed once, that has no merrit in our society. All money gets taxed over and over again. When I get my paycheck, I have to pay multible taxes on it, then I use that money to pay taxes on my home, I pay taxes on my cars, I pay sales tax, etc. Then I purchase something at the store, the store makes a profit and has to pay taxes again on the same money that I already paid taxes. In reality, most of the time when taxable inheritances are left, although taxes may had been paid on the income that bought the stuff, no tax was paid on the profit. Like if granddaddy bought microsoft stock 38 years ago and held on to it. He never paid any tax on the profit made by that stock because stock profits are not taxible until the stock is sold.

The arguement that inheritance is somehow unique or special because it has already been tax has no merit.

 

[imagep]

It does matter. If it's a wealthy person giving money to their children or whomever they wish to give it to, that money has already been earned. They have the right to give it to whomever they wish, and government should have no say in how they disperse their own wealth.

You would be correct, if the government also had no right to tax my income, or tax my purchases, or tax my house or car. But the fact is our founding fathers and the heirs to their positions voted to allow the government the right to tax. So whatever taxes our government decides to levee they indeed have the right to do so.

Your inheritance is no more sacred that my income. My position is that money one earns is far more sacred than money one gets without having to earn it. Why should I have to pay higher taxes on money that I work for just so that you can get a tax free inheritance?

 

[imagep]

Ummm, no. That's not what the point was. I was responding to: It doesn't matter if it is a welfare reciepient or if it is a heir. Its exactly the same thing, someone getting something that they didnt earn.

It's not exactly the same thing.

It is the same thing. Both are handouts that were not earned by the reciepient. And if inheritance is without taxation, then it is money out of the pool of taxes, so indirectly inheritance is a government handout.

You are welcome to prove otherwise.

 

[deltabtry]

let's use your "logic" that since the party who earned the money originally paid taxes on it then it should be able to be passed forward without any tax burden attached
your employer pays taxes on the income it realizes and then pays you with the residual monies
using your rationale, since the employer has already paid taxes on those monies, when you receive your salary from that income which has already beenj subjected to tax, then it deserves to be tax exempt

No the employer is buying your services not gifting you a paycheck.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I'm curious. I've been reading a lot about some folks claiming that those who inherit money didn't work for it. To some extent that may be true, but consider this. The person who left the inheritance DID work for it. And it was already taxed. Why should the same money be taxed again?

I pay income taxes, so my money has been taxed once.
Then I pay sales taxes, so my money gets taxed again, I invest some of it, I get taxed on the dividend, the capital gains so that money is taxed as well.

There are plenty of taxes which see your money get taxed twice. Now as gifts are taxed in the US and inheritance is basically a gift, having it taxed is not outrageous, the amount it is taxed might be

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

While your asking hypotheticals ask your self what percent of gdp is our debt, also see what other countries are running…such as Japan did for the last eight years.

I’m not saying its going to be a rosy picture and good times are here again. I’m also not stockpiling beans and rice, nor fortifying my year 2 K bunker.:shock:

Like I said I will talk to you to you about this again next year and more than likely be saying how did you do with the new GM stock when they release it pretty soon. :thumbs:

US total debt levels 370% of GDP. Comparable, Japan at around 420%, UK at 380%, Germany aroune 300%, Canada about the same.

In 1990 the US total US debt was about 230%, in 1980 it was about 155%. This mean the US has a lot of debt to reduce to allow for another extended period of growth