Thanatos340 1 #126 October 15, 2007 QuoteHowever, if any one of these is reduced, others have to pick up the slack because the government is NOT going to stop spending. And there is the real problem. The more money our Government has, the more ineffective they become. They don’t even bother to stop spending more than they know they well have. Our Government should live by the same rules as the rest of us. If you only have X dollars coming in, You can only spend X dollars. This would FORCE congress to actually make rational decisions on where the money should be spent. (Yes, I know I am REALLY dreaming on that one) Yes, We must pay taxes, Yes the Government needs money to run but they need to keep wasteful spending under control. Not just give them More money so they can waste that too. QuoteON THE WHOLE I'd favor those folks that did something for their money (whether working for it or by being shrewd investors) over those who have it handed to them on a plate. On that I agree. But what happens in reality is that that the government takes money from those that work for it and gives it people that do not. I am not just referring to welfare programs which are such a small part of the over all picture. There are MANY cases where the people inheriting the money just squander it away and/or just never contribute anything back to society. Our government will get their Cut as they do that. But many people that inherit significant fortunes do actually grow the fortune and in cases like the Family Farm or Small Business (That can easily exceed the $2 Million “Value”) many times the person inheriting the Farm or Business has worked on or with that business for many years. They are paying their Taxes, they are paying their Dues in the Family Business and then someone dies and they have to sell everything to pay the Taxes on what was already taxed many times over. That is the problem with the inheritance tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #127 October 15, 2007 Quoteyou had better look into the details lest you credibilty go south.... huh? I don't even know how to respond to what you said because I have no idea what you just tried to spell out on the computer----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #128 October 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy should you pay anything at all just because of your parent's business? Why should you pay anything at all? Just borrow the money the government needs to run the country, it's the Reagan/Bush way. That wasn't my question.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #129 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote The rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/irs_income_dc By the way, you should do a little more research before posting slanted views like this. Example, see what dollar ranges are in the studies they use to print this crap is. Find out what the definition of poor is in the perspective they use. This is class warfare crap make to get people (I assume like you) have an emotional responce. Looks like it worked Oh I am sorry, I should post more research just like YOU always DON'T. And your posts always make so much sence. Man this liberal thing is really fucking with my head.And if I last remember, emotional responses is what always pushed for changes in this country in the first place. Everything is an emtional response. But man, I really hope you don't get emotional from this.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #130 October 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy should you pay anything at all just because of your parent's business? Why should you pay anything at all? Just borrow the money the government needs to run the country, it's the Reagan/Bush way. That wasn't my question. Consider it commentary on your question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #131 October 15, 2007 Quote But many people that inherit significant fortunes do actually grow the fortune and in cases like the Family Farm or Small Business (That can easily exceed the $2 Million “Value”) many times the person inheriting the Farm or Business has worked on or with that business for many years. They are paying their Taxes, they are paying their Dues in the Family Business and then someone dies and they have to sell everything to pay the Taxes on what was already taxed many times over. That is the problem with the inheritance tax. What this begs for is a means to defer. People are still in the living can sell commercial property and defer the capital gains by doing a 1031 exchange. This encourages more investment, which is a positive for the country. As I said, and wealth hating types here have failed to respond to, is it's not good for the country for these smaller farms to get sold to the megafarms. It's not ideal to break up family ownership of a company where the family ran it. (the other side that Kallend would assert is the norm would be the family that owns the Wall Street Journal in an absentee manner) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #132 October 15, 2007 QuoteQuote But many people that inherit significant fortunes do actually grow the fortune and in cases like the Family Farm or Small Business (That can easily exceed the $2 Million “Value”) many times the person inheriting the Farm or Business has worked on or with that business for many years. They are paying their Taxes, they are paying their Dues in the Family Business and then someone dies and they have to sell everything to pay the Taxes on what was already taxed many times over. That is the problem with the inheritance tax. What this begs for is a means to defer. People are still in the living can sell commercial property and defer the capital gains by doing a 1031 exchange. This encourages more investment, which is a positive for the country. Indeed. There are other options too that would allow the farm to be kept in the family and still pay your fair share of the costs of running the country like other inheritors of wealth have to. Farmers already benefit from all kinds of breaks, subsidies, etc., that the rest of us don't get - just read your 1040 form. One farmer I know is paid by the feds to grow NOTHING on his farm, unless it is for his own consumption. Quote As I said, and wealth hating types here have failed to respond to, is it's not good for the country for these smaller farms to get sold to the megafarms. It's not ideal to break up family ownership of a company where the family ran it. (the other side that Kallend would assert is the norm would be the family that owns the Wall Street Journal in an absentee manner) I am actually well into the top x% for wealth in the USA (where X is a fairly small number) so I'm far from wealth hating.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #133 October 15, 2007 Quote >Who is the arbiter of what is fair.. The government we elected. >Now, he cant sell it because he would have capital gains on it. Of course he can sell it if he so chooses; he would just make a 640% profit instead of a 750% profit. >It is set up to take money away from someone who has worked very >hard for it and let the gov decide where it is to go. That's what taxes are. If you don't like them, spend less money. I mean, you clearly support the war, which is our biggest optional expense nowadays. Who should pay for that, if not you? You and kallend are reading from the same page. I did not realize you like socialist policies too. In any event, what is the percent of all militay spending on the budget? Once you find that come whining back about the war costs"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #134 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Ok you dont want to pay ANY taxes....yet I bet you EXPECT services that the government provides.. I am glad I don’t get all the government I pay for.We pay Income Tax, We pay Capitol Gains Tax, We Pay property Tax, We pay sales Tax. At some point, enough is enough. . Yup, we pay, the Capitol gains. However, if any one of these is reduced, others have to pick up the slack because the government is NOT going to stop spending. Right now the burden is distributed among those that earn money, those that make it by shrewd investing, and those that inherit money or property. ON THE WHOLE I'd favor those folks that did something for their money (whether working for it or by being shrewd investors) over those who have it handed to them on a plate. But that's just me. There it is. Staight from kallens fingers. We cant spend less. So, all programs must be pure and needed so, by default we must all pay more so the government can take care of us all."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #135 October 15, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Ok you dont want to pay ANY taxes....yet I bet you EXPECT services that the government provides.. I am glad I don’t get all the government I pay for.We pay Income Tax, We pay Capitol Gains Tax, We Pay property Tax, We pay sales Tax. At some point, enough is enough. . Yup, we pay, the Capitol gains. However, if any one of these is reduced, others have to pick up the slack because the government is NOT going to stop spending. Right now the burden is distributed among those that earn money, those that make it by shrewd investing, and those that inherit money or property. ON THE WHOLE I'd favor those folks that did something for their money (whether working for it or by being shrewd investors) over those who have it handed to them on a plate. But that's just me. There it is. Staight from kallens fingers. We cant spend less. So, all programs must be pure and needed so, by default we must all pay more so the government can take care of us all. I don't want the government to take care of you. I simply want it to pay its way, and I want the taxpayers to pay their share. YOU should not get a free ride just because your father is a farmer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #136 October 15, 2007 >I did not realize you like socialist policies too. So do you! I bet you use the socialist agencies known as Air Traffic Control and the National Highway System with great regularity. >In any event, what is the percent of all militay spending on the budget? 51%* estimated for 2008. How much extra have you sent in to cover your support of the war? (* - ignoring trust fund outlays. See here for details.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #137 October 15, 2007 Quote The two billionaires that I know both inherited their wealth. As a scientist you should know the perils of extrapolating from a sample set of two. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/the_forbes_400_as_a_lesson_in.html Quote While there are 74 Forbes 400 members who inherited their entire fortune, 270 members are entirely self-made. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #138 October 15, 2007 QuoteYOU should not get a free ride just because your father is a farmer. I am curious if you really think this way or just put words in peoples mouths (Figurative speaking) for the sake of argument.. You have done that atleast 3 times in this thread already. Noone ever said anything about a free ride. Simply that ONE of many taxes should be minimized. Not just for Farmers but for everyone. We have plenty of Taxes, The Government does NOT need more, they get plenty from Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes and Capitol Gains. Then they waste what they have. Cutting spending on pork barrel projects, inefficient government organization, non-essential social programs, and other government waste would be much better for everyone. This argument started when someone suggested a 95% Inheritance tax, which is ridiculous in my opinion. The Government will get more than their fair share of that money without having to Tax the estate and/or Inheritance. They taxed the money when it was earned, Thay taxed the money as it Grew (Capitol gains), They will get to tax it again as it gains interest, they will get to tax it again when it is spent, They will get to tax it again as income when someone else earn that money and the cycle will continue. At some point, enough is enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #139 October 15, 2007 > Simply that ONE of many taxes should be minimized. No problem. Cut spending FIRST, THEN cut taxes. Sorta like not spending so much with your credit card before you decide to not pay your credit card bills. >We have plenty of Taxes . . . Yes, and we spend even more than that. Once again, cut spending first, pay less later. Very simple. Republicans always forget the "cut spending" part; democrats often then forget the "pay less" part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #140 October 15, 2007 QuoteVery simple. Republicans always forget the "cut spending" part; democrats often then forget the "pay less" part. Absolutely. The current Administration has actually been worse than the dems when it comes to this. But this also means You dont FIRST raise taxes. Keep them the same, mandate a balanced budget and schedule future tax reductions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #141 October 15, 2007 >But this also means You dont FIRST raise taxes. In my plan it's very simple. Pay the taxes required to pay for what government spends. If you spend less, you pay less. If you spend more, you pay more. In other words, have the same fiscal responsibility that most people/companies/organizations in the US already do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #142 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteVery simple. Republicans always forget the "cut spending" part; democrats often then forget the "pay less" part. Absolutely. The current Administration has actually been worse than the dems when it comes to this. But this also means You dont FIRST raise taxes. Keep them the same, mandate a balanced budget and schedule future tax reductions. Well, our wonderful President Bush and his cohorts CUT taxes and RAISED spending. Pretty cool fiscal policy, eh? Do you know that a pile of dollar bills equal in value to the cumulative Bush deficits would reach nearly as far as the Moon?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #143 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteYOU should not get a free ride just because your father is a farmer. I am curious if you really think this way or just put words in peoples mouths (Figurative speaking) for the sake of argument.. You have done that atleast 3 times in this thread already. Noone ever said anything about a free ride. Simply that ONE of many taxes should be minimized. Not just for Farmers but for everyone. We have plenty of Taxes, The Government does NOT need more, they get plenty from Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes and Capitol Gains. Then they waste what they have. Cutting spending on pork barrel projects, inefficient government organization, non-essential social programs, and other government waste would be much better for everyone. This argument started when someone suggested a 95% Inheritance tax, which is ridiculous in my opinion. The Government will get more than their fair share of that money without having to Tax the estate and/or Inheritance. They taxed the money when it was earned, Thay taxed the money as it Grew (Capitol gains), They will get to tax it again as it gains interest, they will get to tax it again when it is spent, They will get to tax it again as income when someone else earn that money and the cycle will continue. At some point, enough is enough. CapitAl gains! (I thought my previous hint was enough). Our elected representatives and senators decided in their wisdom that an inheritance tax was appropriate. I do NOT see why they are wrong. Why should some poor working schmuck making $40k a year pay more to support the government than someone who inherits $5million without raising a finger to earn it? If the inheritance tax is eliminated, some worker or investor has to pay more.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #144 October 16, 2007 QuoteIf the inheritance tax is eliminated, some worker or investor has to pay more. NO. They Don’t. That is a fallacy. It just means the Government has less money to piss away so maybe they will make better decision on what to do with what they have. (I know I am still dreaming here) We have way too many taxes as it is and our "elected officials" continue to spend more than they have. Even if they had MORE money, they would still spend more than they have. Clearly they don’t really NEED all the money they currently collect, If they did they would use it more wisely. I understand that taxes must be paid. I have no problem paying my share, I just don’t like the idea that they want to take what was MINE (Earned, Taxes Paid) when I die. Whoever I leave it to will either grow that money or they will squander it away. Either way the government will still get tax it as it goes back into circulation. If someone inherits millions, It doesn’t effect you or I generally. I would much rather see that money go to someone that may do actually do something with it as opposed to going to a fiscally irresponsible government. Republican or democrat does really matter, They are all guilty of wasting Tax payer dollars and they spending more than they have. QuoteWhy should some poor working schmuck making $40k a year pay more to support the government than someone who inherits $5million without raising a finger to earn it? That would not happen. That does not happen even if you dont count the inheritance tax. Even at a lousy 5% annual return on that $5 Mil they are making $250K a year subject to CapitAl gains. They will be paying alot more in taxes. Another fallacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #145 October 16, 2007 Reagenomics finally comes through for area man. clicky Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #146 October 16, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Why should you pay anything at all just because of your parent's business? Why should you pay anything at all? Just borrow the money the government needs to run the country, it's the Reagan/Bush way. That wasn't my question. Consider it commentary on your question. Man, so this is what it feels like to get one of Kallend's haughty, dismissive, and dodgy one-liners. I feel like I've accomplished something .Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #147 October 16, 2007 You have to remember that in the liberal eyes once a program is started it can not be stopped.. In time it is labled an entitlement. Rule two, not INCREASING the budget dollars to one of these "entitlements" is called (by them) a cut. So, once started it has to stay AND the dollars budgeted each year have to increase (mostly at twice the rate of inflation) The current batch of Repubs are catching on to this sad state too I am afraid"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #148 October 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf the inheritance tax is eliminated, some worker or investor has to pay more. NO. They Don’t. That is a fallacy. It just means the Government has less money to piss away so maybe they will make better decision on what to do with what they have. (I know I am still dreaming here) You are indeed living in Wonderland! Since when has not having enough money made the government stop spending or make better decisions? Bush cut taxes AND raised spending, remember? Bush's answer - borrow borrow borrow, some $3Trillion so far.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #149 October 16, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Why should you pay anything at all just because of your parent's business? Why should you pay anything at all? Just borrow the money the government needs to run the country, it's the Reagan/Bush way. That wasn't my question. Consider it commentary on your question. Man, so this is what it feels like to get one of Kallend's haughty, dismissive, and dodgy one-liners. I feel like I've accomplished something . Glad to be of service. The fact is that any tax at all is just the government's idea of a handy way to raise money to pay for running the country. I assume that even you agree that the government needs money to operate and that money doesn't grow on trees. Apparently your opinion is that inheritance taxes are somehow a worse way to do it than income or capital gains taxes. My opinion is just the opposite - I think working for your money or investing shrewdly to get a capital return on it is rather more worthy than having money (or other assets) handed to you on a platter.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #150 October 16, 2007 don't want the government to take care of you. I simply want it to pay its way, and I want the taxpayers to pay their share. QuoteYOU should not get a free ride just because your father is a farmer. How about people in New Orleans? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
