ESTATE TAX should it be repealed? with poll

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Tominator

I don't have respect for anyone leeching off my taxes.

And what percentage of the tax burden do you pay?

You, are done!:|

I pay 40% of my salary in state, local and federal taxes. You are finished amigo! Stop b!tching and take it like a man.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

. If you don't like it, move to West Virginia and marry your kids.

How does this add to the discussion?

I apologize. If you don't like W. Va, move to Kentucky 😀

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Tominator

so it would be irresponsible to cut the estate tax at this time with the deficit mounting. Either the government will have to raise other taxes to cover the shortfall, or we will get into even more debt and will have to pay threefold with interest later.

It is economic activity that will decrease the deficit, not taxes! In other words...BULLSHEET!

We heard that before and we have $7000000000000 deficit. Count those 0's 😀

I believe you need to learn the difference between "deficit" and "debt" before you try and comment on such things.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Tominator

so it would be irresponsible to cut the estate tax at this time with the deficit mounting. Either the government will have to raise other taxes to cover the shortfall, or we will get into even more debt and will have to pay threefold with interest later.

It is economic activity that will decrease the deficit, not taxes! In other words...BULLSHEET!

We heard that before and we have $7000000000000 deficit. Count those 0's 😀

I believe you need to learn the difference between "deficit" and "debt" before you try and comment on such things.

That's a good point. I stand corrected we have a $7000000000000 debt. The point I was making is that these supply side promises have reduced neither debt nor the deficit.

 

[Vic]

Most people don't know what the federal debt is, they just think of it like their credit card debt or car loan. Actually the federal debt manifests itself as a common financial commodity, known as the federal treasury bills and bonds. And who does the fed government owe all those trillions to? Those people who own those bills and bonds, which is most everyone.
So, in effect, the fed debt is not money that we owe, but that the fed owes us.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Tominator

so it would be irresponsible to cut the estate tax at this time with the deficit mounting. Either the government will have to raise other taxes to cover the shortfall, or we will get into even more debt and will have to pay threefold with interest later.

It is economic activity that will decrease the deficit, not taxes! In other words...BULLSHEET!

We heard that before and we have $7000000000000 deficit. Count those 0's 😀

I believe you need to learn the difference between "deficit" and "debt" before you try and comment on such things.

That's a good point. I stand corrected we have a $7000000000000 debt. The point I was making is that these supply side promises have reduced neither debt nor the deficit.

Well, the supply side plan DID increase revenue, even with a massive tax cut. The problem is, spending was increased dramatically in the same period.

So, to claim supply side does not work is fallacious, because it has been proven to INCREASE revenue. Had spending not been increased to ridiculous levels, we wouldn't have had this debt in the first place. Yes, I know a great deal of that new spending was defense, and therefore the fault of the Republicans. This is irrelevant to the point in contention, though... and bashing Republicans wont score any points against me; I tend to dislike them almost as much as you do.

 

[Amused]

BTW, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this...

Bill Gates has vowed to give away every last dime he's earned before he dies.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I don't have respect for anyone leeching off my taxes. Farmers are the first in the pork line, and want to be the last in the tax line.

If you have such a problem with "some redneck" farmer then quit being a hyocrite and stop eating. We wouldn't want you to comsume something that might have been grown by a pork-barreling leech of a farmer.

 

[Ferocious]

We should definately keep it.

It encourages the wealthy to donate when they often would not otherwise. Many foundations have been set up so the person could keep the government from spending it in ways they don't like. They spend it on charitable entities while they are living instead.

Also aristocracies are minimized a bit.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
We should definately keep it.

It encourages the wealthy to donate when they often would not otherwise. Many foundations have been set up so the person could keep the government from spending it in ways they don't like. They spend it on charitable entities while they are living instead.

Also aristocracies are minimized a bit.

I ask again, where in the Constitution is the government given the power to tax for this reason?

 

[CPA]

ahhhh, looks like we have 16 Socialists that have taken this poll.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ferocious
We should definately keep it.

It encourages the wealthy to donate when they often would not otherwise. Many foundations have been set up so the person could keep the government from spending it in ways they don't like. They spend it on charitable entities while they are living instead.

Also aristocracies are minimized a bit.

I ask again, where in the Constitution is the government given the power to tax for this reason?

Where does the Constitution prohibit the government from taxing for that reason?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ferocious
We should definately keep it.

It encourages the wealthy to donate when they often would not otherwise. Many foundations have been set up so the person could keep the government from spending it in ways they don't like. They spend it on charitable entities while they are living instead.

Also aristocracies are minimized a bit.

I ask again, where in the Constitution is the government given the power to tax for this reason?

Where does the Constitution prohibit the government from taxing for that reason?

The Constitution is a limiting document; meaning the government has no power to do anything not listed in the Constitution, unless they amend it.

Hence an amendment was required to institute an income tax. Get it?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
We should definately keep it.

It encourages the wealthy to donate when they often would not otherwise. Many foundations have been set up so the person could keep the government from spending it in ways they don't like. They spend it on charitable entities while they are living instead.

Also aristocracies are minimized a bit.

This just about makes me gag.

Funny how you say the wealthy don't donate otherwise, then in the same paragraph nonetheless, you state that they spend it on charitable entities while they are living. Make up your mind, or make your point clearer.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Cyberian

. If you don't like it, move to West Virginia and marry your kids.

How does this add to the discussion?

I apologize. If you don't like W. Va, move to Kentucky 😀

Ass.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ferocious
We should definately keep it.

It encourages the wealthy to donate when they often would not otherwise. Many foundations have been set up so the person could keep the government from spending it in ways they don't like. They spend it on charitable entities while they are living instead.

Also aristocracies are minimized a bit.

I ask again, where in the Constitution is the government given the power to tax for this reason?

Where does the Constitution prohibit the government from taxing for that reason?

You obviously do not understand the intent of the Constitution. It does not list what the Federal Government can't do, it lists what the Federal Government CAN do. Everything else is reserved for the states.

Your reasoning is why we have shifted from a Republic which the State was dependent on the states to a Socialist Democracy where the states are dependent on the State.

 

[SuperTool]

Well, the supply side plan DID increase revenue, even with a massive tax cut. The problem is, spending was increased dramatically in the same period. So, to claim supply side does not work is fallacious, because it has been proven to INCREASE revenue. Had spending not been increased to ridiculous levels, we wouldn't have had this debt in the first place. Yes, I know a great deal of that new spending was defense, and therefore the fault of the Republicans.

How is this different than what we are facing today? We have huge defense spending needs. We have congress on a spending frenzy (both parties) and a president who has yet to veto anything and take a stand on spending. We have a similar scenario to 1980's, and you want to try same policies as in the 80's expecting a different result. Someone explain to me why it will work now if it hasn't worked in the 80's.
In theory, practice is same as theory, but in practice, it's not.

This is irrelevant to the point in contention, though... and bashing Republicans wont score any points against me; I tend to dislike them almost as much as you do.

I am not bashing Republican party principles. I am all for small government. I am bashing the hypocricy of parading for small government and helping grow the government with pork and programs.

 

[Vic]

Constutition of the United States, Article I, Section 8

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officer, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, an the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; - And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

From my interpretation, as long as it's uniform, it's legal. I see MUCH in there that is violated on a daily basis that no one raises a stink about.
Anyway, it seems a lot of you are planning on large inheritences soon...

I'll confess I'm not. My parents have made it clear to me that they are going to spend it all before they die, and if there is any left over then it goes to the grandkids.
So like I said, the estate tax is hardly the most important one out there to cut. I would much, much rather see a cut in income taxes (a tax that is unconstitutional, because it is not uniform, which is why they, ultra-conservative republican Taft before any fool says FDR, passed the 16th Amendment to allow it).
And CPA, you'd be hard-freakin'-pressed to call me a "Socialist." :|

 

[mskalak]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Tominator

so it would be irresponsible to cut the estate tax at this time with the deficit mounting. Either the government will have to raise other taxes to cover the shortfall, or we will get into even more debt and will have to pay threefold with interest later.

It is economic activity that will decrease the deficit, not taxes! In other words...BULLSHEET!

We heard that before and we have $7000000000000 deficit. Count those 0's 😀

I believe you need to learn the difference between "deficit" and "debt" before you try and comment on such things.

That's a good point. I stand corrected we have a $7000000000000 debt. The point I was making is that these supply side promises have reduced neither debt nor the deficit.

Well, the supply side plan DID increase revenue, even with a massive tax cut. The problem is, spending was increased dramatically in the same period.

So, to claim supply side does not work is fallacious, because it has been proven to INCREASE revenue. Had spending not been increased to ridiculous levels, we wouldn't have had this debt in the first place. Yes, I know a great deal of that new spending was defense, and therefore the fault of the Republicans. This is irrelevant to the point in contention, though... and bashing Republicans wont score any points against me; I tend to dislike them almost as much as you do.

What went on during the Reaghan administration was not true supply-side economics. To claim that it was supply-side economics with government spending increases is false. True supply-side economics has never been proven to work or not to work in the real world.

 

[SuperTool]

You obviously do not understand the intent of the Constitution. It does not list what the Federal Government can't do, it lists what the Federal Government CAN do. Everything else is reserved for the states.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...

Congress has laid the estate tax, and they will collect it. If you think it's unconstitutional, take it to court.
/edit
Damn, PSYWVic, you beat me to it. 🙂

 

[bsobel]

Or tell me how much gates plans on giving his kids?

Actually Bill and Melinda have stated that the vast majority of their wealth will be given away and not passed down...
Bill

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mskalak

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Tominator

so it would be irresponsible to cut the estate tax at this time with the deficit mounting. Either the government will have to raise other taxes to cover the shortfall, or we will get into even more debt and will have to pay threefold with interest later.

It is economic activity that will decrease the deficit, not taxes! In other words...BULLSHEET!

We heard that before and we have $7000000000000 deficit. Count those 0's 😀

I believe you need to learn the difference between "deficit" and "debt" before you try and comment on such things.

That's a good point. I stand corrected we have a $7000000000000 debt. The point I was making is that these supply side promises have reduced neither debt nor the deficit.

Well, the supply side plan DID increase revenue, even with a massive tax cut. The problem is, spending was increased dramatically in the same period.

So, to claim supply side does not work is fallacious, because it has been proven to INCREASE revenue. Had spending not been increased to ridiculous levels, we wouldn't have had this debt in the first place. Yes, I know a great deal of that new spending was defense, and therefore the fault of the Republicans. This is irrelevant to the point in contention, though... and bashing Republicans wont score any points against me; I tend to dislike them almost as much as you do.

What went on during the Reaghan administration was not true supply-side economics. To claim that it was supply-side economics with government spending increases is false. True supply-side economics has never been proven to work or not to work in the real world.

It was a step TOWARDS supply side economics, and that's the point.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

You obviously do not understand the intent of the Constitution. It does not list what the Federal Government can't do, it lists what the Federal Government CAN do. Everything else is reserved for the states.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...

Congress has laid the estate tax, and they will collect it. If you think it's unconstitutional, take it to court.
/edit
Damn, PSYWVic, you beat me to it. 🙂

Yes, but it does not state that congress has the right to reduce wealth handed down among generations, so to use that as the reason behind the tax is Unconstitutional.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SuperTool

You obviously do not understand the intent of the Constitution. It does not list what the Federal Government can't do, it lists what the Federal Government CAN do. Everything else is reserved for the states.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...

Congress has laid the estate tax, and they will collect it. If you think it's unconstitutional, take it to court.
/edit
Damn, PSYWVic, you beat me to it. 🙂

Yes, but it does not state that congress has the right to reduce wealth handed down among generations, so to use that as the reason behind the tax is Unconstitutional.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Which part of "from whatever source derived" do you not understand? It doesn't say from "whatever source except your parents"

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Well, the supply side plan DID increase revenue, even with a massive tax cut. The problem is, spending was increased dramatically in the same period. So, to claim supply side does not work is fallacious, because it has been proven to INCREASE revenue. Had spending not been increased to ridiculous levels, we wouldn't have had this debt in the first place. Yes, I know a great deal of that new spending was defense, and therefore the fault of the Republicans.

How is this different than what we are facing today? We have huge defense spending needs. We have congress on a spending frenzy (both parties) and a president who has yet to veto anything and take a stand on spending. We have a similar scenario to 1980's, and you want to try same policies as in the 80's expecting a different result. Someone explain to me why it will work now if it hasn't worked in the 80's.
In theory, practice is same as theory, but in practice, it's not.

So, cut spending. Stop electing people who wish to spend massive amounts of money. Stop supporting new socialist programs. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was speaking to... As if you'd stop begging the government for more programs... what was I thinking?

This is irrelevant to the point in contention, though... and bashing Republicans wont score any points against me; I tend to dislike them almost as much as you do.

I am not bashing Republican party principles. I am all for small government. I am bashing the hypocricy of parading for small government and helping grow the government with pork and programs.

I have NEVER seen you advocate small govenment.