Explain this to me Re: 2007 Budget

[Chadman]

I can understand the tax rate argument regarding wealthier folks paying more than their "fair share". I don't agree with it, but I understand it and can allow that it might be unfair, depending on how you look at it. In many respects, I consider myself fiscally conservative for a "liberal leaner".

But to make the main catagories to attack to try to "work on the deficit" consist of Medicare cuts, student loans (not grants, not freebies), child support enforcement and the like at the same time that you are advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy and making them mandatory - at a time of war - just infuriates me. All that when preparing to come back to the legislature to ask for $120 billion more early this year that is off the books to fund the "wars".

ZERO credibility, is what it amounts to. Or less than zero, if you aren't using fuzzy math.

 

[Mjolnir]

The estate tax is bs. How many times can a dollar be taxed? Christ!

couldn't agree more.

 

[Heyward]

I'm not sure about this one. Would I rather people who work for their income face higher taxes, or people who get money from inheritances?

It doesn't seem like the government, no matter what party is in control, can control its spending, so the money has to come from somewhere. If I had to choose, I think I would tax people who get the money for free, rather than people who work for it (rich or poor).

 

[smurphy]

The tax doesn't even kick in until estate assets are over $1.5 million. Even then, the way it breaks down it certainly doesn't put anyone in the poorhouse. Here's how it has broken down over the years:

Estate value Number of returns Average tax (inthousands) Effective tax rate

< $1 million
0
$0
0.0%
$1 - $2 million
190
$26
1.6%
$2 - $3.5 million
60
$190
7.5%
$3.5 - $5 million
40
$449
12.0%
$5 - $10 million
80
$1,322
19.3%
$10 - $20 million
50
$2,832
22.9%
> $20 million
30
$23,442
22.2%
All
440
$2,238
19.9%

OK, that doesn't show up too well. Anyway - I'll just ask - why is this only now an issue? After all these years, why now? It's not like we haven't had this in place for a very long time already. And it's not like anybody less than very wealthy are asked to pay a damn thing. What's the problem with it?

Anyway, it's not a double-tax for the most part. When you factor appreciation of asset values, it starts to make more sense.

 

[smurphy]

I'm sure Bush will get what he wants, because yet again what appears on the surface is not the guts of the thing. Sure, nobody wants to be taxed for dying or get double taxed. But well over 90% of this thing doesn't do that anyway.

I don't care - let's just change all of our rules currently in place to accomodate the extremely wealthy. Why not? It's fun to watch the gap between rich and poor grow and grow and grow. Great entertainment value.

 

[escarzamd]

Just a thought, but its a hot button issue now b/c more people have a million dollars now. Those that don't believe they might in their American Dreams.

I think you might be surprised how many folks in the middle are in favor of getting rid of the "Death Tax" for that exact reason........"I MIGHT have a couple million in 15 yrs if it bounces my way.."

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Originally Posted by kosar
The estate tax is bs. How many times can a dollar be taxed? Christ!

Ditto here Matt. You put it in a nutshell.

Some expect you to be tax when you earn it--then if you are competent enough to save some--tax you on the savings--then if you are really competent tax it again before giving it to heirs--can't believe they don't want to tax the heirs once again when they receive it--however if they save it rather than being a spendthrift and blowing it they will tax them on the savings--and if they keep enough to give to their heir--once again---
---there is NO END on how many times they can tax same income.

 

[smurphy]

When you look at the numbers, barely anything gets doubled up on and very few people are actually taxed. I know the rhetoric is more fun to get caught up in, so I'll step aside and let you guys once again help out Bush's insanely wealthy buddies. Much easier to buy into what he says than dig any deeper into the issue at hand.

The death tax has been a great injustice that has gone on too long in this country. It's ruining the nation and holding the top 1% way down from achieving their dreams. We are way overdue to correct this miserable situation and liberate the top 1%.

Balanced budget be damned!

 

[pug]

I need to chime in here on the estate tax.....I refuse to call it the death tax because 99 dead people out of 100 aren't subject to it. First of all, the first 2 Million you die with is tax free. That is per person, so a couple can die with 4 million before there is any tax. There are also many loopholes and planning opportunities that allow your heirs to keep a much larger amount than this. Do your kids really need that much money to start out with in life? Don't be ridiculous. They will all turn out like Paris Hilton. All this crap about the money being taxed again and again is bs. The really wealthy (that is who we are talking about here), hold their assets for generations. How long do you think the Bush Ranch will be in his family? Two hundred years or more would be my guess. With each death the basis of the property is reset at fair market value, so if it is sold, there won't be any income tax or capital gains tax due on the sale. How fair is it that the property can be held for generations without being taxed? The same concept applies to securities. If you don't sell them there is no tax due. Do you think rich people like King George feel a need to sell their securities? I don't think so. Maybe they will after the next death in the family resets the basis at fair market value. Of course they wouldn't pay any tax then. How fair is it that they hold these assets for generations without paying any tax? Wake up people. Do you really care if an asset was taxed during the Civil War when it was worth 5 cents? Those of you against this tax are simply part of King George's brainwashing of the American people. Trust me, with thinking like this you will never be subject to this tax. Any reduction in this tax will have to be made up for with other taxes. Guess whose pocket those will come out of. It won't come 100% out of the wealthiest 1% of Americans like this tax does. The problem with this tax is that it is extremely complicated and works in conjunction with the income tax laws. Very few people understand this tax thoroughly and that is why they are against it. Any single person with a net worth of under 3 or 4 million (double if your a couple) should be for this tax. I am an estate planning attorney with a master's degree in tax law so please don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Can't wait to hear more comments on why this tax should be reprealed.......

 

[smurphy]

Thank you Pug. You just weakened a nation with your factual nonsense. I want more easy rhetoric.

....and you came close to implying that rich heirs are spoiled. I hope Dawgball caught that.

 

[djv]

Back to budget since Pug nail the tax question. Our wars with Afgan and Iraq are not in budget. Neither I heard to day is Home Land Security. Is that correct? No need the say just put it in part of deficit. So make sure your kids some of you older guys get good jobs. There going to pay this bill. Of course we will to with higher taxes even if the say they wont raise them. They just won't tell you. In fact so it does not make Bush look bad. They are putting off start of pay back to 2009. At least that's what Warner a Reb said. Some of these Reb's must be ending the honey moon. Lets hope it'snot to late.

 

[Chadman]

Per djv's suggestion regarding your kids getting a good job - I hope you don't have to rely too heavily on student loans to help them go to college. I'm sure you won't mind ponying up the out of pocket costs due to fewer loans or lesser amounts being available and/or increased interest rates on those loans that are - thanks to "balancing the budget."

 

[Chadman]

--then if you are competent enough to save some--tax you on the savings--

DTB, what do you mean with this part of your analysis? What kind of savings? Meaning in a retirement account or something? Or just a savings account? I just don't know what you mean by this added step of taxation before being competent and getting taxed again (which I assume you mean investing in securities or funds).
------------------------
Pug, if you catch this, what is your assessment of a Flat Tax system? Just a basic percentage that all income earners pay? This is an idea that is floated and at face value might have some merit. I don't know enough about it, just intrigued.

 

[smurphy]

Per djv's suggestion regarding your kids getting a good job - I hope you don't have to rely too heavily on student loans to help them go to college. I'm sure you won't mind ponying up the out of pocket costs due to fewer loans or lesser amounts being available and/or increased interest rates on those loans that are - thanks to "balancing the budget."

I think I figured this one out. Bush didn't like being shown up as a dumbass 'C' student (on his best days) by the middle class kids getting A's and B's at Harvard who had to take out loans to get there.

Solution: Eliminate any chances of middle class kids going to Harvard.

 

[kosar]

I saw where the 3 biggest cuts percentage-wise are education, army corps of engineers (the exact group who is needed to rebuild the levies in NO) and Housing and Urban Development. It wasn't even close either.

 

[smurphy]

How can anyone outside the top .01% (and only those top folks void of a conscious) possibly defend Bush on anything related to the budget at this point? ....This is just becoming so ridiculous. He's shltting on everyone and not even disguising it at all. Turn on your calculator, find your abacus - something. How much more damage to all that is holy and fair can he do in the next 3 years?

I'm still having trouble grasping the concept that $4 billion of our public money went to the oil industry - in the same year that Exxon broke all profit records for an American company.

Seriously - moderate folks on the right - How can you stand for this? What are the excuses?

I know that some people on the bottom sometimes get money for nothing. Does it bother you to this extent? The top .01% sure the f*k waste a lot more. And now our budget is so out of whack, I doubt we'll ever see it balanced again.

 

[Chadman]

I don't get the cuts to the Child Support Enforcement area, either. I have paid child support for a long time. I know how overworked those people are, dealing with hundreds of cases and in the most unpleasant sets of circumstances. The stories they must hear, the crap they put up with, and for some reason this is an area deemed worthy of budget cuts. There are plenty of problems with both mothers and fathers in the US, no doubt. The only real way to protect the well-being of the children would seem to be a fully-funded protection mechanism. There simply HAS to be more sensible areas to start with in balancing a budget - if you were doing that at all.

I understand needing to cut things to balance things. And of course I probably look like a lefty who favors big government. But the current situation is so ridiculously out of whack at this point, the places where they push cuts just really aggravate me.