- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,535
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And you certainly did not use all that supposed wealth to buy a sense of humor either.
you seem to be fixated on caviar. and I don't have a swimming pool. but your envy is obvious. Your constant idiotic cracks about the rich is rather strong proof. you think that the rich should have the income they would "waste" on frivolous things taxed away. as I noted, its not your money and your constant rants about what they do with it is really rather creepy
I call that demonizing success when they scream that the rich don't "pay their fair share" or that tax cuts to the rich are "giveaways"
Ok, you've had this explained to you SEVERAL times by SEVERAL people and you persist to repeat the same thing over and over without saying ANYTHING new.who cares? its not YOUR MONEY and obviously someone who EARNED it wanted her to have it. case close.
Ok, you've had this explained to you SEVERAL times by SEVERAL people and you persist to repeat the same thing over and over without saying ANYTHING new.
Please stop trolling
Obviously, why are they doing that? The great disparity between individuals could be a possibility? Based on my previous statements and your story this seems a perfectly rational reason for envy to exist.
How about the efficiency and simplicity of the funding? Above is NCIYou win because something is your bias?
Also, you seem to be missing the point of my questions. I am asking for a metric we can compare. Is it # of discoveries? # of cancers cured? # of treatments developed? something else? Cancer is a pretty complex topic. Also, are we to assume that comparing one agency against another is creates some sort of measurable trend?
I think we need to frame this debate before we go much further.
using your logic you could justify the lazy, the untalented or the unlucky stealing from the productive the lucky or the industrious. and I would hope if that happened the victims would kill or prosecute the perpetrators even though I suppose i could "understand" it.
There are two questions about resurrecting the 'death tax': the economic question and the moral question...
The economic question is simple: Does the estate tax help create jobs, grow the economy or improve our country. In every case, the answer is no.
First of all, it is unfair to retax money that has already been taxed, at least once, as income, capital gains or dividends. Washington already got its cut when the money was earned or invested. Congress has no outstanding claim on what is left over...
Nor does it help the economy.
Let's say an entrepreneur's business is worth $15 million. Under the proposed estate tax in the bipartisan deal, the day he dies, the businessman's kids would owe Uncle Sam $3.5 million. If they don't have that kind of cash lying around — and no small businessmen do — they have to sell the family business to pay the taxes. The company that buys the business sells off its assets and lets the employees go. A successful business disappears, and experienced employers no longer create jobs. In fact, hundreds of people lose their jobs. All so Congress can increase revenue by a thousandth of a percent?...
The economic argument holds up even if the heir to a vast fortune is a total embarrassment. Even if he never gets a real job and wastes his life away buying sports cars, comic books and expensive booze, the money he pumps into his local economy — via the car dealerships, book shops and liquor stores — will create more jobs than anything Congress would do with it.
Which brings us to the moral argument, which is what this is really all about. Does the money you earn over the course of your life belong to you, or does it really belong to the government, which generously allows you to keep some of it for a while?
How about the efficiency and simplicity of the funding? Above is NCI
Here is Huntsman. Granted there are no numbers but it's got to be less complicated than dealing with government redtape and regulations.
Of course Huntsmans grants would come from the govt I imagine. Still, here's where the money comes from.
On October 2, 1995, the Huntsman family joined in an unparalleled scientific quest to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer at its source by donating $100 million to establish the Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) at the University of Utah.
On April 26, 2000, Jon Huntsman pledged an additional $125 million to fund ongoing research and to construct a Clinical Research Hospital adjacent to the Institute. These donations, along with subsequent gifts and grants, have helped HCI build a team of world-renowned specialists and to provide treatment services unparalleled in the region.
First, its an estate tax. People remain entitled to die without owing the IRS one penny. If you happen to be amongst the 1% of Americans with a $5M estate, then you pay something. But you must have an estate to play.
Second, substantially all the people that pay this tax do so from the liquid assets that are taxed. The tear jerk scenario you paint is a nice populist story, but it is the exception, not the rule. Moreover, if a business is worth $15M, raising $3.5 million to pay the tax is not a hardship (of course, that assume the poor tax planning of the individual in the first place, as most estate planning provides for this). It should be a relatively easy proposition.
Look, the government has to have a tax base. You can not cut and eliminate every tax. Assuming something has to be taxed, the estate tax is one of the least intrusive, and a 35% tax is certainly very reasonable. The economic benefit of the tax: It helps to close the budget deficit.
US taxes are among the lowest in the 1st world and income taxes on wealthy individuals are now at a 60 year low. Its time for all of these tax complainers to assume some personal responsibility and just pay their fair share of the cost of citizenship.
There are two questions about resurrecting the 'death tax': the economic question and the moral question...
The economic question is simple: Does the estate tax help create jobs, grow the economy or improve our country. In every case, the answer is no.
First of all, it is unfair to retax money that has already been taxed, at least once, as income, capital gains or dividends. Washington already got its cut when the money was earned or invested. Congress has no outstanding claim on what is left over...
Nor does it help the economy.
Let's say an entrepreneur's business is worth $15 million. Under the proposed estate tax in the bipartisan deal, the day he dies, the businessman's kids would owe Uncle Sam $3.5 million. If they don't have that kind of cash lying around — and no small businessmen do — they have to sell the family business to pay the taxes. The company that buys the business sells off its assets and lets the employees go. A successful business disappears, and experienced employers no longer create jobs. In fact, hundreds of people lose their jobs. All so Congress can increase revenue by a thousandth of a percent?...
The economic argument holds up even if the heir to a vast fortune is a total embarrassment. Even if he never gets a real job and wastes his life away buying sports cars, comic books and expensive booze, the money he pumps into his local economy — via the car dealerships, book shops and liquor stores — will create more jobs than anything Congress would do with it.
Which brings us to the moral argument, which is what this is really all about. Does the money you earn over the course of your life belong to you, or does it really belong to the government, which generously allows you to keep some of it for a while?
i think warren buffett has it right.........we are engaged in class warfare, and the rich are winning.
so how is it that the top 1% who are paying 40% of the income tax and all the death tax not paying their fair share of the cost of the same citizenship that the bottom 47% pay nothing for in terms of either federal income taxes or death taxes?
Seems to me that the people not paying for their Share are not the rich.
and tell me what do the rich get for paying almost half the federal income tax (and if you include people making 200K a year-more than half the tax bill, that those who Pay ZERO federal income taxes don't get in their citizenships?
What is this now? 100 times? 125 times? 150 times? A number beyond calcualtion?
You have been informed over and over and over again by many different people here that there is NO COST OF CITIZENSHIP paid in dollars and cents through the income tax or the death tax or any other tax. The 24th Amendment to the US Constitution says so.
But somehow, someway that fact of reality fails to sway you and you keep putting forward this ridiculous theory. Go and look at the thread in the poll section where your idea was voted down by a margin of 50 to 4 and one of those 4 said they made a mistake and voted the wrong way. Even conservatives voted against it.
You ask "what do the rich get"? They get to live in a society which is workable and sustainable. And they should get down on their knees and be thankful for that opportunity at a comparatively small cost to them compared to decades ago when it was much much higher.
"informed" means like minded liberals who think its just great that a bunch of noncontributors can vote up the taxes of the people who already pay far far more than they use continue to try to justify that political scam.
The poor get far more than the rich. and for the first 130 years there was no income redistribution and this country grew and prospered. And its the bottom 70-80% who are really getting a great society for paying almost NOTHING in terms of what they use.
You constantly piss and moan that I am repetitive but you run to my every post on this subject to spew the same nonsense over and over and over.
so how is it that the top 1% who are paying 40% of the income tax and all the death tax not paying their fair share of the cost of the same citizenship that the bottom 47% pay nothing for in terms of either federal income taxes or death taxes?
Seems to me that the people not paying for their Share are not the rich.
and tell me what do the rich get for paying almost half the federal income tax (and if you include people making 200K a year-more than half the tax bill, that those who Pay ZERO federal income taxes don't get in their citizenships?
NO. "Informed" of the reality of the 24th Amendment and the prohibition of any link between paying taxes and voting as a right of citizenship is a fact regardless of the political leanings of whoever tells you.
As long as you are spewing this nonsense which attempts to deny good and decent Americans of their basic rights I hope to God tht there are people like me and others here who will stand vigilant and always be ready to call you on it. If you were not so repetitive with the same talking point over and over and over again, nobody would have to correct you.
Lets test that theory shall we? For the next thirty days YOU DO NOT bring up the entire issue and lets see if I or anyone else calls you on it? Sounds acceptable to me.
Simple, the top 1% control 40% of the wealth, the bottom 40% "control" 1% of the wealth. It seems the taxes are just about right. Then again, though the bottom 40% pay little to no income taxes, they pay a much higher percentage of their income on other taxes than the upper incomes.
We have a progressive tax system. The idea of a progressive tax system is to target disposable income. So think of it as a flat tax on disposable income.
Again, stop whining and assume your share of personal responsibility. Pay your taxes!
There is a practical and an absolute version of my stance, you are going after the absolute version in an effort to make it seem absurd (and absolutes almost always are absurd). This makes your rebuttal dishonest and not worth responding to beyond pointing out the dishonesty.
The Huntsman family has lost a few of its members to cancer, that is one reason they are involved. The reason they are doing it in Utah is because most of the Mormons living there have pretty good records of their family trees. Those records that also contain an accurate cause of death makes for a good database. That makes the research a bit easier, especially if you are looking for inherited genes that cause people to be more susceptible to cancers.Efficiency and simplicity of funding have no measurable effect on how effective it is. I could take some efficient and simply funded money and waste it just as easily as I could any other funds. Also, it says nothing about the effect on cancer research.
Aren't there ways of avoiding estate taxes? Incorporate the business, perhaps? Give a lot of it away to family before the holder dies? I don't have enough to worry about it, but if I did, I would set up trusts for each child, grandchild, etc. that they can draw on for purposes related to education, and once that is achieved, for downpayment on a house or something sensible.
either you actually believe in the logic (children should have to create for themselves) or you believe in a subjective application, which seem suspiciously to center on "wealthier than me". any realistic application of the term 'wealthy' would include 80% of the US population, and certainly our middle class. so you aren't approaching this from any idealistic motive; you are doing so from one of tearing down the other. that may not be your intent, but it is your reality. claiming that pointing out the failure of your own logic is dishonest is a rather poor attempt at projection.
Stop whining and pay your share. I pay far more than I use, most americans do not.
from Turtle - for a time beyond calculation
Which is completely and totally irrelevant to any discussion about taxation since the income tax is NOT a use tax or a fee for service. You keep treating as if it is and it is NOT. You have this mentality that taxation is akin to loading up your basket at Costco and then you pay for what you have selected to purchase. It has been explained to you over and over and over again that this is NOT the way the income tax works - never has - and for you to continue to ignore that basic reality of taxation is intellectually dishonest and an outright fraud.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?