Highlights of the Tax Package Before the Senate

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,420
2
81
Cleared the Senate
Est cost $858B

From the article:

"President Barack Obama swiftly urged the House to pass the $858 billion bill without changes, a slap at Democratic liberals eager to toughen a part of the measure that permits up to $10 million to pass to heirs estate tax-free."

Wow, I can finally say that he's moved in the right direction on something. I still believe that the estate tax needs to go away. It's nothing more than double taxation and a liberal's money grab attempt.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Could someone answer (besides the political reason that they can pass it in the Senate as there is more opposition in the House by House Democrats) how this bill is Constitutional?
Doesn't article one of the Constitution dictate that all revenue/tax bills must originate in the House? There is probably some loopholes but it's in the Constitution!
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
Just out of curiosity - for those that think there should be no inheritance allowed - what happens if your parents die when you are 17 years old? You don't get anything? Are you thrown out onto the street? I mean you can't get welfare because you didn't earn it. You can't get a life insurance pay out because you didn't earn it

Your parents are, at times, legally bound to provide for you so why can they not continue to do so after death?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Reading this thread, it's funny how conservatives SAY they're for a meritocracy, but they really aren't. With the dwindling middle class and the exponentially growing wealth of the oligarchs, we're going to reach a point where the oligarchs will just keep accumulating passing wealth onto their descendants, untaxed, while the underclass becomes serfs to their kingdoms. Those who horde the capital will rule those who don't.

As long as we still have the 2nd amendment I am not all that worried.
 

simpletron

Member
Oct 31, 2008
189
14
81
Could someone answer (besides the political reason that they can pass it in the Senate as there is more opposition in the House by House Democrats) how this bill is Constitutional?
Doesn't article one of the Constitution dictate that all revenue/tax bills must originate in the House? There is probably some loopholes but it's in the Constitution!
Article 1, section 7:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

My guess is since it is decreasing revenue and not raising revenue; It is fine for the senate to originate the bill, but I really don't know.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
See how this affects you and every tax payer. Most all of it is good news. The Social Security break is especially good for the economy. I won't quote them all here but these are the others not talked about. Great to see some AMT help.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12396619

I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere later in this thread, but you seem to have neglected the small matter of the extension/increase of the inheritance tax exemption from $7 million to $10 million, and the decrease in the rate on non-exempt amounts from 55% to 35%.

Those changes will help approximately 660 needy multi-millionaire families a year completely avoid inheritance tax. And in total, it will save the ultra-wealthy $25 billion. And of course that $25 billion is going to get pumped right back into the economy, because we all know that the ultra-wealthy spend all of their windfalls just as soon as they receive them.

Ya just gotta believe.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
So there's no middle ground with you? You can't be against some government spending and for other government spending? You're not so different from those you hate.

I just specified that I was talking about extreme elements, of which anyone would rightly agree spidey is a member.

All things in moderation. Did you not catch that?
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,420
2
81
I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere later in this thread, but you seem to have neglected the small matter of the extension/increase of the inheritance tax exemption from $7 million to $10 million, and the decrease in the rate on non-exempt amounts from 55% to 35%.

Those changes will help approximately 660 needy multi-millionaire families a year completely avoid inheritance tax. And in total, it will save the ultra-wealthy $25 billion. And of course that $25 billion is going to get pumped right back into the economy, because we all know that the ultra-wealthy spend all of their windfalls just as soon as they receive them.

Ya just gotta believe.

Cry more.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Just out of curiosity - for those that think there should be no inheritance allowed - what happens if your parents die when you are 17 years old? You don't get anything? Are you thrown out onto the street? I mean you can't get welfare because you didn't earn it. You can't get a life insurance pay out because you didn't earn it

Your parents are, at times, legally bound to provide for you so why can they not continue to do so after death?

People are discussing taxing money people receive after a death, not eliminating inheritance.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Cry more.

What do you think of this quote?

"For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.

...

Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of the legislation to protect themselves. From 15 to 20 legislatures of our own, in action for 30 years past, have proved that no fears of an equalisation of property are to be apprehended from them.

I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the real good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society. "
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
I just specified that I was talking about extreme elements, of which anyone would rightly agree spidey is a member.

All things in moderation. Did you not catch that?

Then why did you say

HendrixFan said:
Why is it that conservatives are crawling all over federal, state and local jobs?

?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere later in this thread, but you seem to have neglected the small matter of the extension/increase of the inheritance tax exemption from $7 million to $10 million, and the decrease in the rate on non-exempt amounts from 55% to 35%.

Those changes will help approximately 660 needy multi-millionaire families a year completely avoid inheritance tax. And in total, it will save the ultra-wealthy $25 billion. And of course that $25 billion is going to get pumped right back into the economy, because we all know that the ultra-wealthy spend all of their windfalls just as soon as they receive them.

Ya just gotta believe.

oh boo hooo. you know what i dont care. its their money just like my money is mine and when we kick the bucket its none of the guberments fucking business what i or the billionaire does with it period.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,170
28,819
136
oh boo hooo. you know what i dont care. its their money just like my money is mine and when we kick the bucket its none of the guberments fucking business what i or the billionaire does with it period.
Once you're dead it ain't your money anymore.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
People are discussing taxing money people receive after a death, not eliminating inheritance.

:hmm: I could have sworn I saw a post or two saying it should be 100% tax. After re-reading the thread it seems I was mistaken
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,235
10,810
136
Estate taxes should be abolished. Estates are built with after-tax dollars. It should not be taxed again. stop being jealous of other people's wealth.

Handy-men are paid with after tax dollars, I guess their income shouldn't be taxed.

Residential contractors are paid with after tax dollars, guess we shouldn't tax them either.

Photographers, painters, crafters, etc, etc, all get paid with after tax dollars, show according to you none of them should be taxed.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Once you're dead it ain't your money anymore.

It is rightfully and morally my spouse's, my children's, heirs or trustees that I choose. Is it NOT property of the government or subject to a tax, it's already been taxed. That is now THEIR money, THEIR property and as such it is fruits of MY LABOR and belongs to MY family.

Otherwise why work to provide a good life for your family if the government is going to take a large chunk of it? The death tax is extremely wrong. I don't understand why liberals are so hung up on stealing other peoples money after they die, they get rabid about it as seen in this thread and insane ramblings by democrats in congress how not taking more is a travesty.

Of all the good things in this bill, the lower rates for everybody, up to 2000 per person in FICA reduction, their coveted unemployment, liberals/dems choose to harp on this one. It's class warfare and jealousy in perfect form and nothing more.
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
oh boo hooo. you know what i dont care. its their money just like my money is mine and when we kick the bucket its none of the guberments fucking business what i or the billionaire does with it period.

Why would you care? You would be dead :awe:

Seriously, this is why you guys cannot eat with the grown ups. Think.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,170
28,819
136
It is rightfully and morally my spouse's, my children's, heirs or trustees that I choose. Is it NOT property of the government or subject to a tax, it's already been taxed. That is now THEIR money, THEIR property and as such it is fruits of MY LABOR and belongs to MY family.

Otherwise why work to provide a good life for your family if the government is going to take a large chunk of it? The death tax is extremely wrong. I don't understand why liberals are so hung up on stealing other peoples money after they die, they get rabid about it as seen in this thread and insane ramblings by democrats in congress how not taking more is a travesty.

Of all the good things in this bill, the lower rates for everybody, up to 2000 per person in FICA reduction, their coveted unemployment, liberals/dems choose to harp on this one. It's class warfare and jealousy in perfect form and nothing more.

It's only called "class warfare" when the bottom 99% shoot back. We took a vote and the living won.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
LOL, a GOP senator put forth an amendment to pay for all of this with cuts to the budget of congress and it was voted down.

So much for the Democrats being on board with lowering the deficit/national debt when they can continue line their own pockets.

Oh, not to mention the amendment would have defunded unemployment benefits for millionaires.

The "progressives" are so laughable.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Then why did you say



?

It was in response to the well constructed and overdue response to spidey. I guess I should have explicitly stated "hardcore" or "extremist" conservatives, though I assumed it was transparent that it was meant for spidey and his ilk.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It is rightfully and morally my spouse's, my children's, heirs or trustees that I choose. Is it NOT property of the government or subject to a tax, it's already been taxed. That is now THEIR money, THEIR property and as such it is fruits of MY LABOR and belongs to MY family.

Otherwise why work to provide a good life for your family if the government is going to take a large chunk of it? The death tax is extremely wrong. I don't understand why liberals are so hung up on stealing other peoples money after they die, they get rabid about it as seen in this thread and insane ramblings by democrats in congress how not taking more is a travesty.

Of all the good things in this bill, the lower rates for everybody, up to 2000 per person in FICA reduction, their coveted unemployment, liberals/dems choose to harp on this one. It's class warfare and jealousy in perfect form and nothing more.

You have a remarkable way of ignoring the truth.

Let's say that I sell an asset that I've held for many years and give the money to my son. I'd pay capital gains taxes and he'd pay income taxes on it. Under your no estate tax scenario, no taxes of any kind would be paid if the asset were transferred to my son after my death. He'd pay no taxes on the sale. It'd be free money for him, either way, just more if he collects it as an inheritance.

Which is actually the situation as it exists today- no estate taxes for estates of people who die in 2010, so there's still a few weeks left for true anti-tax zealots to off themselves so as to benefit their inheritors.

A once in a lifetime opportunity for America's wealthiest citizens, but I doubt there will be any takers...
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
You have a remarkable way of ignoring the truth.

Let's say that I sell an asset that I've held for many years and give the money to my son. I'd pay capital gains taxes and he'd pay income taxes on it. Under your no estate tax scenario, no taxes of any kind would be paid if the asset were transferred to my son after my death. He'd pay no taxes on the sale. It'd be free money for him, either way, just more if he collects it as an inheritance.

Which is actually the situation as it exists today- no estate taxes for estates of people who die in 2010, so there's still a few weeks left for true anti-tax zealots to off themselves so as to benefit their inheritors.

A once in a lifetime opportunity for America's wealthiest citizens, but I doubt there will be any takers...

Just as no progressives will ever pay more in taxes than they owe even though they can do that EVERY year. Hell, we're lucky if most democrats even pay the taxes they owe.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Just as no progressives will ever pay more in taxes than they owe even though they can do that EVERY year. Hell, we're lucky if most democrats even pay the taxes they owe.

This is why the red states get more in federal dollars than they pay out every year.


Oh wait...

Do you guys realize just how dumb spidey is? I mean seriously, he's barely at a middle school reading level.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Just as no progressives will ever pay more in taxes than they owe even though they can do that EVERY year. Hell, we're lucky if most democrats even pay the taxes they owe.

Lashing out in Denial? Why am I not surprised?

It's one thing to play by the rules, another entirely to hold the welfare of millions of Americans hostage to rule making in your own favor, which is what Repubs and their financial backers are doing.

They're destroying the productive capacity of the country, the middle class, and the fiscal integrity of the govt in the process, something Righties can't, won't, and basically refuse to see...

It's all about "Freedom!"- the freedom for billionaires to loot the economy, and for families at the bottom of the economic foodchain to starve, if those billionaires have it all their own way.

It's the political equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
It's all about "Freedom!"- the freedom for billionaires to loot the economy, and for families at the bottom of the economic foodchain to starve, if those billionaires have it all their own way.

Can you please link us to a source indicating that billionaires want the poor to starve? Can you please link us to a source indicating how these billionaires are "stealing" their food?