Meathead
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 474
- Location
- Prague, Czech Rep.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Isn't it a bit silly saying he is against the death tax so he can keep it for himself?:roll:This is interesting that you invoke the IRS - at least pretend to - while I gave you a link to the official IRS site AND the specific language from the same IRS which clearly states that the tax is an estate tax upon the transfer or property.
again from the official IRS site previously linked
This crusade of yours is simply part of a desire for you to enjoy a low tax rate and keep money for yourself. It has nothing to do with larger issues of economics or national policy. That is of course your right.
I have a question about this policy of cutting the Department of Education.
Who would insure that schools and states provide education to all and not discriminate based on race and religion?
Who would insure that schools and states provide actual education and not religious based fantasy learning?
Who would make the education standards?
Who would insure some sort of minimum standard of education that all have to live up too?
By education standards I mean uniform tests, minimum reading standards, and so on.
You can not have a country where the quality of education is based on where you were born. While I know that this happens regardless, I am the firm believer that it is the role of a government entity to make sure that this factor is as minimal as possible. Right now in most countries, you have schooling systems based on set of rules that applies to all school districts. Sure some are bad, some are good. Some are rich, some are poor, but the basic principles are the same. Now by not having the central control system of an Education department, you risk having local governments dictating wildly different priorities and that would skew education in a country and society it self.
For example, you could have one local government that is very religious make all schools small religious schools basing all their teachings on religious text. When these children leave the area, they would be seriously handicapped in the real world. We have seen this with some graduates from religious based universities in the US.
Or a local government that has certain political views, that teaches the children these views by indoctrination. Like all lefties are bad or homos are bad and such things.
Now I am not saying the current Department of Education in the US is good or bad, or worth its costs, but I am saying that something to make sure that there is a minimum education standard in the US is needed and no I do not trust the States themselves to do a good job... after all it was the states that fought against segregation and slavery...
Ive yet to see you or anyone on the left advocating social cuts and returning social spending to the states. You really advoating across the board mandated cuts? Then we have nothing to disagree on. But if you are doing more of the partisan twaddle, the "well yes...we have to cut all THOSE programs and raise taxes on THOSE people" then we not only arent arguing the same thing, we arent even speaking the same language.So if you agree with what I am proposing and support the proposals introduced by the Democrats over and over during the past 6 months, what are we arguing about?
Ive yet to see you or anyone on the left advocating social cuts and returning social spending to the states. You really advoating across the board mandated cuts? Then we have nothing to disagree on. But if you are doing more of the partisan twaddle, the "well yes...we have to cut all THOSE programs and raise taxes on THOSE people" then we not only arent arguing the same thing, we arent even speaking the same language.
And yet...if a republican were to suggest what you just suggested, they would have commercials run about them throwing granny over the cliff in a wheel chair and a president giving campaign speeches saying republicans want to force the mentally ill to fend for themselves. See...you and me? We dont agree on a TON of things...but I would bet we could at least agree to significant cuts, appropriate tax increases to pay down the debt, and a reasoned plan to ensure thigns are done as efficiently and smoothly as possible so that people werent devastated. Congress? They cant agree to insignificant deficit cuts even over a 10 year period.That's not partisan twaddle. We should cut most social programs and raise taxes on the middle and upper class. By middle, I mean over say, 75k.
Edit: and in honesty...if a democrat suggests cutting the military, many on the right will brand them socialists and say they are sacrificing the security of our country. It IS a partisan battle...and it is one everyone loses. The only people that win are the parties.
Your thoughts....
Seriously? Look how many people have lost their mind over a handful of 'Tea Party' elected officials? The message that is consistently sent by the voters is "we REALLY dont care as long as you keep giving us stuff...pander to us". Its hyard to blame politicians when people so readily send corrupt politicians back. Instead of uniting behind responsible government...well...all you have to look to is the last year to see how people REALLY feel about responsible government.I'm tracking...but, the problem is that massive change can only come from within the already ****ed-up system. How likely is it that America will suddenly elect a super majority of new, uncorrupted legislators that are all on the same page about reform????
Every now and then an honest man or woman gets elected to an office, but they are surrounded by those who have a vested interest in the status quo. Thus these new people either learn to play the game by the established rules, or leave after their first term.
Your thoughts....
Vote libertarian and try to get everyone else to!
I know, it wasn't directed at me, but I couldn't help it.
Seriously? Look how many people have lost their mind over a handful of 'Tea Party' elected officials? The message that is consistently sent by the voters is "we REALLY dont care as long as you keep giving us stuff...pander to us". Its hyard to blame politicians when people so readily send corrupt politicians back. Instead of uniting behind responsible government...well...all you have to look to is the last year to see how people REALLY feel about responsible government.
Isn't it a bit silly saying he is against the death tax so he can keep it for himself?:roll:
People want security over freedom and that is where we are getting hammered by socialist politicians and gov't expansion. Voters don't want to have the risk of failure or lose their way of life so they want the government to take the risk out of living. When problems come, turn to the feds.
What was really intended to 'correct' the government was interested and vigilant voters who would elect representatives that held the values of America. The biggest problem now is that people got discouraged and disinterested and now are so apathetic, ignorant, and self-interested that their view is no longer what is good for the country but what is good for me.
How to break that cycle?
If child labor is a concern, that is easily stopped on a federal level without getting rid of competition between states. Simply state that it has to do with a child's rights and then it becomes federal government concern.
The race to the bottom is awesome! The single largest mitigating factor? Efficient use of resources! Find a way to spend what you have to get get the most skilled work force (I use skilled instead of educated on purpose), provide a reasonable tax rate (it can even be progressive, but not crazy), have decent security, quality services, etc and the businesses will flock to you.
Government should always have competition! Competition is what makes the free market so great. My entire business model revolves around charging more and giving better service. Guess what! It works! I just have to be that much better than the competition.
The IRS calls state "estate" taxes Death taxes.
death tax advocates claim (without any evidence) that the Heirs did nothing to "earn" the wealth and then argue a government that already taxed the wealth when it was being created somehow deserve it moreIsn't it a bit silly saying he is against the death tax so he can keep it for himself?:roll:
Ive yet to see you or anyone on the left advocating social cuts and returning social spending to the states
Good point - his family then. I also think he is concerned about what he inherits as well so it is also a matter of what he can keep for himself.
No it doesn't....
Estate Tax
Estate and Gift Taxes
Frequently Asked Questions on Estate Taxes
Etc.
The "death tax" is just a phrase right wingers came up with in relatively recent history to try to make it sound mean to ask mega millionaires to pay taxes.
Obama, for example, proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. Approximately $1 trillion in revenues, $1 trillion in cuts to military spending and $2 trillion in cuts to domestic spending. The Democrats on the super committee proposed $3 trillion over 10 years with the same proportions.
so tell me Haymarket why does the government deserve even a penny given all that wealth was massively taxed (some at 90%) during its accumulation? and don't your arguments apply to any estates hit by the death tax
YOu are lying again. The 627 Estate Closing letter I received from the IRS referred to the amount of Ohio State DEATH TAXES
you are wrong again
The federal government did regulate it. There isn't a particular right that child labor interferes with though, so they had to frame it as being under the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. But that is an example of stopping destructive competition. States were competing for manufacturing jobs by having worse and worse child labor laws.
That's called the race to the TOPCompetition over doing something better or cheaper or more efficiently or whatever are examples where competition between states is a good thing. It's when the incentives get backwards and they end up having to compete to make the law worse and worse that it's a race to the bottom.
The previous owner of the money paid taxes on it. That's true of any money anybody gets. If I make $1,000 at work I pay income taxes on that and then if I hire somebody to build me a treehouse, they pay taxes on it too. The fact that some previous owner of the money paid taxes on it doesn't somehow magically excuse the next recipient of the money from paying their taxes. If it did then no money would be taxable.
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?