• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Larding up the tax extention bill

V

VF500

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
39
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Democrats just can't help themselves when it comes to pork barrel spending. They claim the country "just can't afford" the loss of revenue if taxes aren't raised on upper income earners. But, at the same time, they are piling on all kinds of wasteful pork spending to the agreement reached by Obama and the Republicans. As it stands, the tax bill will amount to an $800 billion stimulus package and Democrats still aren't satisfied. You could put shock collars on Democratic law makers so they would be zapped every time they got around pork and they would continue to shock themselves 'til they twitched like spastic frogs rather than give up pork spending. I hope they end up killing the tax extention bill so everyone's taxes go up, which actually will hit only about 50% of households. That will ensure a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. I told people when Obama first got elected that he would end up having more trouble with hisown party than he would with Republicans. I've been right and the fun is only starting. :lol:
 
Last edited:
The dem strategy is to buy votes using the wealth of others. The GOP has to hold firm and not allow a tax break extension only for the 98% because then the dems can engage in class warfare.
 
TurtleDude said:
The dem strategy is to buy votes using the wealth of others. The GOP has to hold firm and not allow a tax break extension only for the 98% because then the dems can engage in class warfare.
Click to expand...

You mean the GOP, and the leader of the GOP; Barrack Obama.
 
I think the GOP made a mistake insisting that the estate tax limit be raised to $5 million and the tax rate be set at 35%. $2 to $3 million and back to the old rate of 55% would have been better. There's just no way to defend the $5 million-35% in the middle of the largest mountain of debt this country's ever known.

I also think it's likely that it won't end up being $5 million-35%. I think that's going to be bargained down -- and think that was the plan all along. It's all such a silly game...
 
MaggieD said:
I think the GOP made a mistake insisting that the estate tax limit be raised to $5 million and the tax rate be set at 35%. $2 to $3 million and back to the old rate of 55% would have been better. There's just no way to defend the $5 million-35% in the middle of the largest mountain of debt this country's ever known.

I also think it's likely that it won't end up being $5 million-35%. I think that's going to be bargained down -- and think that was the plan all along. It's all such a silly game...
Click to expand...

there is no way to defend a tax that takes half an estate that was already taxed during its creation

if you are so interested in this why is it limited to only the top couple percent of estates.

why not take half of everyone's estate?

this tax was never designed to raise revenue but to "promote equality" in the pre heavily progressive income tax era.

It was social engineering that was able to be passed only by playing to class envy.

if this law applied to everyone it never would have passed.
 
MaggieD said:
I think the GOP made a mistake insisting that the estate tax limit be raised to $5 million and the tax rate be set at 35%. $2 to $3 million and back to the old rate of 55% would have been better. There's just no way to defend the $5 million-35% in the middle of the largest mountain of debt this country's ever known.

I also think it's likely that it won't end up being $5 million-35%. I think that's going to be bargained down -- and think that was the plan all along. It's all such a silly game...
Click to expand...

I think a death tax could hurt small and large businesses. We need all the jobs we can get.
jobs, jobs and more jobs should be the focus.

Small Business in the United States
 
Barbbtx said:
I think a death tax could hurt small and large businesses. We need all the jobs we can get.
jobs, jobs and more jobs should be the focus.

Small Business in the United States
Click to expand...

its nothing more than a vote buying scheme based on pandering to the envious.. It was originally designed in an era where there were not taxes on income to prevent the rich from getting too rich. THe progressive income tax makes this nonsense unneeded and it is contrary to what this country was founded on. it also helps the uber wealthy to maintain their position
 
VF500 said:
As it stands, the tax bill will amount to an $800 billion stimulus package and Democrats still aren't satisfied. You could put shock collars on Democratic law makers so they would be zapped every time they got around pork and they would continue to shock themselves 'til they twitched like spastic frogs rather than give up pork spending.
Click to expand...

Stimulus package? Not permitting a tax increase is a stimulus package? So what, if we as a people agree not to rob banks, we can call that a financial security package? :lol:

At any rate, both parties are happily addicted to the pork.

Kinda like "family values" politicians who are happily addicted to the ****.
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no way to defend a tax that takes half an estate that was already taxed during its creation -- if you are so interested in this why is it limited to only the top couple percent of estates. why not take half of everyone's estate? This tax was never designed to raise revenue but to "promote equality" in the pre heavily progressive income tax era. It was social engineering that was able to be passed only by playing to class envy. if this law applied to everyone it never would have passed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, Turtle. But I am about done banging my head against the wall about it. If you've noticed my posts on this topic, you'll know that I too argue that it's money that's already been taxed -- except, of course, that's not always true. Is it? ;-)

It's quite clear that our tax system takes this money as an easy source of revenue. And who's going to stand up and defend those with $5 million? Only others with $5 million and more, I venture. Further, you and I both know that people with estates of $5 million can well afford to establish trusts, yada yada yada, to virtually completely avoid any estate taxes. It just takes a sharp attorney and a deep pocket for the legal expenses.

So. In light of that, I'm grateful to see it at $5 million -- because it won't effect me. At $1 million, where it was before, it was effecting tens of thousands of middle-class people -- which shouldn't really be the intent. A person with $1.5 million, as an example, could have a hard time coming up with the $20-$50K it might take to protect his estate from a potential $250,000 tax bill. Even if it were lowered to $3 million, it's not going to effect middle-class people.

I know it's redistribution of wealth. I know it's social engineering. I know it's class envy. I know I can't make it all go away; so even $3 million is a good compromise, as I see it.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't disagree with you, Turtle. But I am about done banging my head against the wall about it. If you've noticed my posts on this topic, you'll know that I too argue that it's money that's already been taxed -- except, of course, that's not always true. Is it? ;-)

It's quite clear that our tax system takes this money as an easy source of revenue. And who's going to stand up and defend those with $5 million? Only others with $5 million and more, I venture. Further, you and I both know that people with estates of $5 million can well afford to establish trusts, yada yada yada, to virtually completely avoid any estate taxes. It just takes a sharp attorney and a deep pocket for the legal expenses.

So. In light of that, I'm grateful to see it at $5 million -- because it won't effect me. At $1 million, where it was before, it was effecting tens of thousands of middle-class people -- which shouldn't really be the intent. A person with $1.5 million, as an example, could have a hard time coming up with the $20-$50K it might take to protect his estate from a potential $250,000 tax bill. Even if it were lowered to $3 million, it's not going to effect middle-class people.

I know it's redistribution of wealth. I know it's social engineering. I know it's class envy. I know I can't make it all go away; so even $3 million is a good compromise, as I see it.
Click to expand...

it is an abomination and the people who fight the hardest for it are dem politicians and those who make their money helping people avoid it.
 
TurtleDude said:
it is an abomination and the people who fight the hardest for it are dem politicians and those who make their money helping people avoid it.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Why is it more fair to take what I have earned and give it to the government instead of who I wanted to provide for.
 
washunut said:
I have to agree. Why is it more fair to take what I have earned and give it to the government instead of who I wanted to provide for.
Click to expand...

Perfect argument in favor of 0% tax rates, across the board. I don't see how having the income tax rates at 35% instead of 39.5% is any less evil, given that taxes are theft. How is "slightly less theft" okay?
 
VF500 said:
TacticalEvilDan makes my point of why Democrat brains are worth several thousand dollars a pound, because it takes so many Democrats to get anywhere near a whole pound.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks.
 
SirPwn4lot said:
Perfect argument in favor of 0% tax rates, across the board. I don't see how having the income tax rates at 35% instead of 39.5% is any less evil, given that taxes are theft. How is "slightly less theft" okay?
Click to expand...

that's silly-what we are talking about is taking the wealth of those who already paid the most taxes during their lifetimes. its a surcharge on the most productive tax payers. If you want an estate tax why not tax 100% the estates of those who paid little during their lifetimes to make up for their failure to support the system?
 
TurtleDude said:
it is an abomination and the people who fight the hardest for it are dem politicians and those who make their money helping people avoid it.
Click to expand...

The majority of people that are most FOR the estate tax are pathetic little people who's mommies and daddies never earned enough to provide an inheritance for them, or never worked hard enough to provide one for their own children, and they are angry at those who did and dont think its FAIR that they should get to actually KEEP what their parents have actually EARNED and already been fairly and appropriately taxed. Just like the majority of whiners about the maintaining the tax rates at the current level are really whining because they want to recieve more of that free guv cheese with their whine.

ANYONE that thinks ANY increase in tax rates FOR anyone is a GOOD idea without controls and reductions in government spending probably doesnt have a whole lot of skin in the game. Raising tax rates will not put us deeper into debt...it will simply give politicians (BOTH parties...dont be foolish enough to believe republicans dont do it too) more money to spend.
 
VanceMack said:
The majority of people that are most FOR the estate tax are pathetic little people who's mommies and daddies never earned enough to provide an inheritance for them, or never worked hard enough to provide one for their own children, and they are angry at those who did and dont think its FAIR that they should get to actually KEEP what their parents have actually EARNED and already been fairly and appropriately taxed. Just like the majority of whiners about the maintaining the tax rates at the current level are really whining because they want to recieve more of that free guv cheese with their whine.

ANYONE that thinks ANY increase in tax rates FOR anyone is a GOOD idea without controls and reductions in government spending probably doesnt have a whole lot of skin in the game. Raising tax rates will not put us deeper into debt...it will simply give politicians (BOTH parties...dont be foolish enough to believe republicans dont do it too) more money to spend.
Click to expand...

many CPAs, tax lawyers and heads of charitable foundations are huge supporters of the tax though. Its like the brady bunch hoping that gun violence will never go away or some research centers praying that a cure for cancer is never found
 
TurtleDude said:
that's silly-what we are talking about is taking the wealth of those who already paid the most taxes during their lifetimes. its a surcharge on the most productive tax payers. If you want an estate tax why not tax 100% the estates of those who paid little during their lifetimes to make up for their failure to support the system?
Click to expand...

You still didn't address my point. If tax is theft then why is a little theft okay?

Because the wealthy have more than enough and I consider the level of income inequality currently experienced absolutely unacceptable. Real wages have stagnated/declined since the mid 1970s, while the cost of living has increased. People in the lower-middle class used to be able to support their family relatively easily with one job. But in recent times wealth has been accelerated upwards, and people cannot afford what they used to for the same work.

I consider the protection of a struggling overwhelming majority more important than the protection of a small minority that is doing just fine. Better than ever, in fact.

Also, are you saying that all those who are unemployed simply aren't looking and are just supremely lazy?

:peace
 
VF500 said:
TacticalEvilDan makes my point of why Democrat brains are worth several thousand dollars a pound, because it takes so many Democrats to get anywhere near a whole pound.
Click to expand...

1. I'm not a Democrat.
2. This attitude is a prime example of what is destroying America today.
 
SirPwn4lot said:
You still didn't address my point. If tax is theft then why is a little theft okay?

Because the wealthy have more than enough and I consider the level of income inequality currently experienced absolutely unacceptable. Real wages have stagnated/declined since the mid 1970s, while the cost of living has increased. People in the lower-middle class used to be able to support their family relatively easily with one job. But in recent times wealth has been accelerated upwards, and people cannot afford what they used to for the same work.

I consider the protection of a struggling overwhelming majority more important than the protection of a small minority that is doing just fine. Better than ever, in fact.

Also, are you saying that all those who are unemployed simply aren't looking and are just supremely lazy?

:peace
Click to expand...

I don't believe the proper purpose of the government is to engage in social engineering and creating a system that currently exists was a bad move because nothing will prevent the bottom 95% from voting away wealth of the 5% that exists above a certain level.

protection is not the issue-its the fact that your desire to protect the bottom has castrated their ability to sustain themselves.

we have created a nation of whiners and dependents
 
justabubba said:
ok, explain for us how the estate tax is harmful to small businesses and those employees of small enterprises
Click to expand...

explain to us how it is helpful. that is the burden of proof. you want an estate tax that doesn't exist for most people so the burden is on you to explain why it is helpful to those who have to pay it. a tax that is helpful to those not subject to it is inherently unfair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom