Greenspan: Budget deficits pose a threat.

[imported_redlotus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

With all of the taxes that we are subjected to, why is the estate tax the one that people scream about the most? There's sales tax (a re-tax that affects everyone), luxury taxes (re-tax for the rich), property taxes (re-tax for homeowners), registration fees (re-tax on car owners), etc., etc. What makes the estate tax so special? Doesn't it make more sense to give tax breaks to people who are able to spend the money that they worked for, rather than give them a tax break after they've died?

because there are many people who build up nest eggs and estates to pass onto their children so their children can have a chance at a better life. If somebody works for 80 years and gathers a few million dollars. What right does a beauracrat in washington have to take 50% of it just because the person died?

Let's be realistic here. A majority of the estates are going to adult children. Don't give me any of this 'provide a chance at a better life' garbage. It's not like most of the people dying haven't had 18+ years to make sure their kids have a chance at a better life. Incidently, I do favor exemptions for minors and I'm against taxing a surviving spouse, btw (in case you didn't check the post that I linked to above).

The other thing is that if you lower taxes while a person is living, that person will be able to make enough so that the estate tax becomes irrelevant. Or are you trying to tell me that it's now impossible to make money with money and that the power of compound interest no longer applies?

Regardless of these, you aren't answering my question. I didn't ask why you are protesting against estate taxes. I asked why you are protesting estate taxes more than any other tax.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
Took Greenspan this long to realize this? 😕

No, he was talking about deficit spending being a problem at least 2 years ago. Not sure why this is big news now however.

Well, he obviously felt a need to reiterate.

At this point it is all he can do.

Because we have a legislature and an executive office who haven't seen a spending bill they didn't like.

 

[Nonsequitur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
because there are many people who build up nest eggs and estates to pass onto their children so their children can have a chance at a better life.

if people really felt that way, they'd pass more along to the kids before they died.

 

[StageLeft]

LESS DAMN SPENDING.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
LESS DAMN SPENDING.

Unfortunately you have two parties in power that won't allow the other to cut funding on their pet projects.

 

[Genx87]

Let's be realistic here. A majority of the estates are going to adult children. Don't give me any of this 'provide a chance at a better life' garbage. It's not like most of the people dying haven't had 18+ years to make sure their kids have a chance at a better life. Incidently, I do favor exemptions for minors and I'm against taxing a surviving spouse, btw (in case you didn't check the post that I linked to above).

Who said any different? The simple fact is people build up an estate and want to pass it onto their children. It doesnt matter if their children are 18 or 58 what right does some leech in washington have to tax it at a tune of 50%?

The other thing is that if you lower taxes while a person is living, that person will be able to make enough so that the estate tax becomes irrelevant. Or are you trying to tell me that it's now impossible to make money with money and that the power of compound interest no longer applies?

They wont lower taxes, how the hell will they get anywhere close to their budget? Dont bother with the hypotheticals it is worthless to debate.

Regardless of these, you aren't answering my question. I didn't ask why you are protesting against estate taxes. I asked why you are protesting estate taxes more than any other tax.

Because my income isnt taxed at 50% in one lump sum. And people save their money and assets to pass onto their children. It is wrong to tax somebody for doing something natural like dying.

Because we have a legislature and an executive office who haven't seen a spending bill they didn't like.

News flash, all politicains like to spend your money. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

if people really felt that way, they'd pass more along to the kids before they died.

How do you do such a thing? The feds lmit the amount you can gift to your family to about 12000 a year. Anything over is taxed heavily. And many assets in the estate can be things like land. Not very liquid.




[/quote]

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Because we have a legislature and an executive office who haven't seen a spending bill they didn't like.

News flash, all politicains like to spend your money. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

I seem to recall some pretty healthy budgets in the last few fiscal years under Clinton with a mixed gov't. GOP gets in control and then they go out of control with the checkbook.

 

[rainepar]

But Bush is smart! He will figure it out. Bush is President, are YOOOOOOOUUUUUUU President? GUH-HUCK!

Ouch, I think I lost a few IQ points there.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Because we have a legislature and an executive office who haven't seen a spending bill they didn't like.

News flash, all politicains like to spend your money. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

I seem to recall some pretty healthy budgets in the last few fiscal years under Clinton with a mixed gov't. GOP gets in control and then they go out of control with the checkbook.

More like dumb luck for the gov't that the economy had a real nice run (in part due to wild speculation) there for a while which resulted in revenues exceeding expectations (and spending) by a good bit. Neither party deserves to brag about that, and don't expect to see it (a balanced budget) again any time soon.

 

[imported_redlotus]

Let's be realistic here. A majority of the estates are going to adult children. Don't give me any of this 'provide a chance at a better life' garbage. It's not like most of the people dying haven't had 18+ years to make sure their kids have a chance at a better life. Incidently, I do favor exemptions for minors and I'm against taxing a surviving spouse, btw (in case you didn't check the post that I linked to above).

Who said any different?

This guy right here:

pass onto their children so their children can have a chance at a better life

That sounds a lot like you are referring to minors.

The simple fact is people build up an estate and want to pass it onto their children. It doesnt matter if their children are 18 or 58 what right does some leech in washington have to tax it at a tune of 50%?

The same right that the leech has to tax your income with a progressive tax rate. The same right that the leech has to levy luxury taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (I realize that these are state-controlled taxes, but the premise is the same). If you think that the 50% is too high, why not work to lower that rate rather than insisting that the whole tax be scrapped?

The other thing is that if you lower taxes while a person is living, that person will be able to make enough so that the estate tax becomes irrelevant. Or are you trying to tell me that it's now impossible to make money with money and that the power of compound interest no longer applies?

They wont lower taxes, how the hell will they get anywhere close to their budget? Dont bother with the hypotheticals it is worthless to debate.

Fine. Hypotheticals------>out. The point was that if the revenues that the gov is losing from repeal of the estate tax were instead used to lower another tax elsewhere, wouldn't that make more sense?

Regardless of these, you aren't answering my question. I didn't ask why you are protesting against estate taxes. I asked why you are protesting estate taxes more than any other tax.

Because my income isnt taxed at 50% in one lump sum.

So if the government taxed the estate at 5% a year for ten years, you wouldn't have a problem? :disgust: Again, why don't you fight for a lower tax instead of insisting on a complete repeal?

And people save their money and assets to pass onto their children. It is wrong to tax somebody for doing something natural like dying.

And this is exactly why I feel that the estate tax should be imposed on the heir instead of the estate. Then you wouldn't be able to hide behind the 'taxing dead people' cloak. If I'm ever left anything by my parents, I would have no problem losing part of my inheritence to taxes, since it wouldn't be money I'm counting on anyway.

if people really felt that way, they'd pass more along to the kids before they died.

How do you do such a thing? The feds lmit the amount you can gift to your family to about 12000 a year. Anything over is taxed heavily. And many assets in the estate can be things like land. Not very liquid.

Repeal the gift tax. Repeal the gift tax. <----Why are we not hearing this rather than shouts to repeal the estate tax?

 

[MCWAR]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Because we have a legislature and an executive office who haven't seen a spending bill they didn't like.

News flash, all politicains like to spend your money. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

I seem to recall some pretty healthy budgets in the last few fiscal years under Clinton with a mixed gov't. GOP gets in control and then they go out of control with the checkbook.

----------------------------------------------------------
I seem to remember it was a Republican congress who passed a balanced budget.
In spite of Clinton.

 

[SuperTool]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if budget deficits are a threat to this country, than the republicans who brought about these deficits are also a threat to this country.
As far as who deserves credit for the fiscal responsibility during the 90's it's pretty obvious that it's not the Republican congress. They are still in power, and the budget has gone to crap. It's the change in the White house that brought about this change in our country's fiscal fortune, and the only reasonable conclusion is that it's the president, and not the congress that is responsible for either the strong fiscal condition in the 90's and the weak fiscal position under the current administration, because the congress hasn't changed, but our fiscal position has.

 

[HombrePequeno]

If we repealed the tax cut, cut domestic spending like Bush wanted, and just kept defense spending up with inflation, the federal government budget would be pretty close to balanced.

But I guess you can't get the best of both worlds. 🙁

 

[FlyLice]

Why don't we cut welfare?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Crimson
Estate taxes are unfair.. the money has already been taxed.. why is it taxed again? If you don't think the 'rich' are paying enough in taxes, then INCREASE their tax rate they pay when they earn it.. don't back door it by screwing them after they are dead.

I don't think anyone would argue that an out of control debt is bad, however, some would argue that the debt is truly out of control or not.. and others would argue the way to control it is not by increasing taxes.

I think it's much better to be taxed when you are dead than to have higher taxes when you are alive. You can't take the money to the grave when you are dead, but you sure can spend it when you are alive.

When was the last time you looked at the cost of a funeral 🙁

Yeah, I can't afford to die.

 

[msparish]

Haven't read though the entire thread, but I think the estate tax is an excellent idea (and I am generally very conservative fiscally). The estate tax was set up to prevent an aristocracy from arising in the US. Whether it has worked as planned is debatable, but it has undoubtably had some effect. It was the deceased's money, not the children's. If they get it there should be a tax on it, just as if someone win's the lottery or receives a large gift there is a tax.

 

[soundforbjt]

Paris Hilton just heard about it (estate tax) and her reply was "That's Hot".

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Why don't we cut welfare?

You do realize that government subsidies are a form of welfare right. If there's to be no welfare for poor families, then there's no welfare for oil, food, transportation as well.

 

[Ozoned]

"Great time to cut estate taxes"

One must only contemplate where this money will do the greater good to decide if this is a good idea or not.

To do that you must first decide what the greater good is.

I am willing to bet that division would be along party lines....

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Why don't we cut welfare?

You do realize that government subsidies are a form of welfare right. If there's to be no welfare for poor families, then there's no welfare for oil, food, transportation as well.

Fine; the elimination of various such unwarranted subsidies is just more budget savings to me. I've never been an advocate for that sort of thing anyway.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Why don't we cut welfare?

You do realize that government subsidies are a form of welfare right. If there's to be no welfare for poor families, then there's no welfare for oil, food, transportation as well.

Fine; the elimination of various such unwarranted subsidies is just more budget savings to me. I've never been an advocate for that sort of thing anyway.

They'll be millions of jobs lost too, you know? Just wanted to make sure you're aware of that. If you are, that's fine.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Why don't we cut welfare?

You do realize that government subsidies are a form of welfare right. If there's to be no welfare for poor families, then there's no welfare for oil, food, transportation as well.

Fine; the elimination of various such unwarranted subsidies is just more budget savings to me. I've never been an advocate for that sort of thing anyway.

They'll be millions of jobs lost too, you know? Just wanted to make sure you're aware of that. If you are, that's fine.

At some point, there's going to be pain; the government is on an unsubstainable course of overspending (and has been for the last 30+ years; those last few years in the 1990's were just a lucky anomaly), so it's either pain now or pain later. Supposed solutions which are not painful are just the policy equivalent of an "eat-all-you-want" diet; based in fiction, not fact.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MCWAR

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Because we have a legislature and an executive office who haven't seen a spending bill they didn't like.

News flash, all politicains like to spend your money. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

I seem to recall some pretty healthy budgets in the last few fiscal years under Clinton with a mixed gov't. GOP gets in control and then they go out of control with the checkbook.

I seem to remember it was a Republican congress who passed a balanced budget.
In spite of Clinton.

So, we have a Republican President *and* a Republican House *and* a Republican Senate now. What's your excuse now?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems to me that if Greenspan says it's a threat to this country, Republicans have an obligation to address it, not make it worse by passing more tax cuts.

If they cared to address it, we wouldn't still have the FED, now would we?