Republican Tax Nonsense

[Smoke]

For example, a farm in Colorado which had been in a family for generations had to be sold 16 years ago (back when there was a death tax), because the government assessed the property's worth at over 50 million...but the family had built it back when there was no civilization there, and had in fact helped build the town. There were streets named after the family, etc. But no, the property was assessed at 50 million (or something) and they just didnt have the money for it, so they had to sell it JUST to pay the taxes on it.

Isn't that insane? Is that was this country was supposed to be about?...No.

Yes, that's insane! That's not what America is about! America is about hereditary wealth and privilege; everybody knows that.

Those poor, poor, people. What a world, what a country, where the scions of wealthy families can't enjoy a $50 million windfall tax-free! The House of Lords should address this situation immediately!

 

[Smoke]

Nicely played, because everyone knows if you object to a $4 trillion dollar federal government, then you must be for no government. Bifurcation fallacy anyone? You are smarter than that.

Yes, I am. I'm smart enough to know that anybody who describes taxation as "wanting what is not yours" isn't just talking about numbers.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Yes, I am. I'm smart enough to know that anybody who describes taxation as "wanting what is not yours" isn't just talking about numbers.

What claim does the government have on that money (with regards to the Estate tax)?

 

[Smoke]

What claim does the government have on that money (with regards to the Estate tax)?

The government has a right, and even a duty, to impose taxes. Those who benefit most from our country and system have the greatest obligation to our country and system.

The right of the government to collect taxes is a right recognized by Jesus, in fact. As a Catholic, you may have heard of him.

 

[Engyo]

Hi Smoke,



What claim does the government have on that money (with regards to the Estate tax)?

Uhhhh, Congress passed a law?

What claim does the Government have on any money? What claim do YOU have on the Government? Congress passed a law...................

And if you believe that these laws are unconstitutional, why then you have the right to challenge them in court.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Engyo,

Uhhhh, Congress passed a law?

What claim does the Government have on any money? What claim do YOU have on the Government? Congress passed a law...................

And if you believe that these laws are unconstitutional, why then you have the right to challenge them in court.

My point is, the money goes from party A to party B. Why does the government (party C) believe it should take some of that money?

I am not arguing that it is unconstitutional, only I was getting the feeling that Smoke was arguing that of course those participants in the transaction don't have the sole claim to that money.

The income already has been taxed when party A had it, why must it be taxed again when it is freely given to party B?

Like I said before, I thought liberals believed in privacy, isn't this an infringement on that privacy? If the transaction occurred in a bedroom would the privacy claim hold up?

 

[Smoke]

Uhhhh, Congress passed a law?

What claim does the Government have on any money? What claim do YOU have on the Government? Congress passed a law...................

And if you believe that these laws are unconstitutional, why then you have the right to challenge them in court.

Anybody who believes that estate taxes are unconstitutional has probably never read the Constitution.

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. [Emphasis added.]​

 

[Smoke]

The income already has been taxed when party A had it, why must it be taxed again when it is freely given to party B?

Most employers pay income taxes, too, but that money is "taxed again" when it goes to employees, because it's income for the employee. When that money goes to the heirs of the employee, it's income for the heirs, whether freely given or not. (Though how a dead person can "freely give" that which he doesn't have and cannot control is a bit of a puzzler.)

 

[Smoke]

I thought liberals believed in privacy, isn't this an infringement on that privacy? If the transaction occurred in a bedroom would the privacy claim hold up?

Not all estates are subject to taxation. Not all gifts are subject to taxation, either. But yes, if you hand somebody $50 million in cash in the privacy of your bedroom, that gift is still subject to taxation, and in that case it would be the giver, not the receiver, who had to pay the tax on it.

The right to privacy does not include a right to avoid paying your taxes.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Not all estates are subject to taxation. Not all gifts are subject to taxation, either. But yes, if you hand somebody $50 million in cash in the privacy of your bedroom, that gift is still subject to taxation, and in that case it would be the giver, not the receiver, who had to pay the tax on it.

The right to privacy does not include a right to avoid paying your taxes.

And why does the government get another bite out of this money? Why has the heir lost a huge chunk of this money? Just because the government (the greediest institution on the planet) wants it, is that how it works?

Oh and don't mention your sorry Somalia argument, that won't fly.

 

[Smoke]

And why does the government get another bite out of this money? Why has the heir lost a huge chunk of this money?

The heir hasn't lost anything. He didn't have it before. It's income, and unearned income at that. Why would you imagine he has a right to avoid paying taxes on that income?

 

[Panda]

You may be giving Dubya some undeserved credit that really belongs to Darth Cheney.

This might sound stupid but who is Dubya? Sounds Arab to me :help:

 

[Revoltingest]

And why does the government get another bite out of this money? Why has the heir lost a huge chunk of this money? Just because the government (the greediest institution on the planet) wants it, is that how it works?

Oh and don't mention your sorry Somalia argument, that won't fly.

Don't let the statists suck you into a straw argument that complete elimination of taxes is a real issue here. We know they're going to get
some money from us. The questions are: How much? In what fashion? How are those balanced for some optimum result. The one before us
at the moment is the "what fashion", but it's complicated. The more ways they have to take it, the more they'll take because voters will
notice it less. But presuming the death tax would offset other taxes, It looks good for the economy for it to be in the mix. Yeah, I'm sure
the ultra-rich (eg, Kennedys, Kerry, Soros) will have a work-around, that's a separate problem to fix.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

The heir hasn't lost anything. He didn't have it before. It's income, and unearned income at that. Why would you imagine he has a right to avoid paying taxes on that income?

Well, if its a family business (or money to be put toward a buisness), then that is a hell of a lot money he is losing. But hey, what's a little more unemployment. As long as the government gets more and more money.

How is this not pure greed?

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

So, what is the evidence that lowering taxes (for the rich) leads to lower standards of living for the average working Joe?

The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the richest Americans (The evidence is extant - I used a NY Times article - I can't post URL's yet)

The median household income in 1999 was $52,748 in adjusted dollars. The median household income in 2008 was $50,303.

The unemployment rate at the beginning of the Bush presidency was 4.7%

The unemployment rate at the end of the Bush presidency was 7.6%

Trickle down economics does not work. For a good explanation of how Republican economic policy has destroyed the middle class in America, read "The Conscience of a Liberal" by Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in economics.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Revolt,

Don't let the statists suck you into a straw argument that complete elimination of taxes is a real issue here. We know they're going to get
some money from us. The questions are: How much? In what fashion? How are those balanced for some optimum result. The one before us
at the moment is the "what fashion", but it's complicated. The more ways they have to take it, the more they'll take because voters will
notice it less. But presuming the death tax would offset other taxes, It looks good for the economy for it to be in the mix. Yeah, I'm sure
the ultra-rich (eg, Kennedys, Kerry, Soros) will have a work-around, that's a separate problem to fix.

I don't know about you, but over $4 trillion is too much for me. And we don't need the Estate tax in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know about you, but over $4 trillion is too much for me. And we don't need the Estate tax in my opinion.

No argument from me on that.

 

[Sunstone]

This might sound stupid but who is Dubya? Sounds Arab to me :help:

Dubya is George W. Bush's nickname.

 

[Panda]

Dubya is George W. Bush's nickname.

Really? How odd. Why is that?

 

[Smoke]

Really? How odd. Why is that?

George W. Bush = George Dubya Bush.

Now thank your parents for your Scottish accent.

When I was a kid we had a neighbor named Dub. His name was William; Dub was short for Double-U, which was short for William.