Just curious, do you believe that everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican? Do you recognize political groups that are opposed to both?
Actually I did, but I kind of hoped that they were ABLE to read.
I said nothing at all about what the exemption was in 2000 - the CBO prepared their report assuming a level of 1.5 million, 2.0 million, and 3.5 million.
If, by “made up” you mean copying from LINE 2 of TABLE 8…
Then there’s that little matter of reading skills… If you go back and read a little more carefully, you’ll see that the 138 number was only for farms. If you include all estates (we were talking about small businesses AND farms), the number is much higher. In fact, a total of 2,972 estates had tax liabilities they couldn’t pay out of liquid assets.
Yes, and if you look at line 2 of table 8, and cast your angry eyes all the way over to the right, you’ll see that the number of estates with insufficient funds to pay their tax liability would be 740. Funny, I’ve heard that number before… Oh yeah. It’s the one I ‘made up’.
Aye, that it would. It would be a number somewhere between 740 and 2,972. Which is why I repeatedly said “hundreds to thousands”, and didn’t give a specific number. In fact, there’s a chance that it will be even higher than 2,971, because while the exemption would be higher, the marginal rate wouldbe even higher - 55% instead of 43-46%. Also, as the document makes plain, the distribution of estates is not normal, and even though the average size is about 2 million, that number is skewed by the very large estates. The median was just over 1 million. So lowering the exemption from the 1.5 million estimate to 1 million will cause a lot more estates to be subject to the tax.
I think we’ve established who was wrong here.
That’s great! Because I never mentioned widows once. Are you talking to some other Sam Stone? Perhaps you named one of the angry voices in your head after me? That’s sweet.
So what have we learned here? First, that you jumped in and once again said that I was wrong when it turns out that you were the one who was wrong. We also learned that not only did I want people to read my cite, I even help them with comprehension after they do! I’m just that kinda guy.
Nope. You want to hide behind being a libertarian or an anarcho-tea-pistol-reccessionist or whatever, you’re still supporting an obsession over getting a tax cut payoff in order to pass a JOBS bill.
That’s horrible, unamerican behavior. The country would be better off without you. I am sorry that’s true, but for it not to be true, you have to change your ways.
Hey, twit. You may think that earned income and unearned income are so QM-level concepts. They ain’t, except maybe for you. Like eating with a fork. You just peddle out this lie that people don’t understand it then just keep repeating it like the nitwit you are.
You’re like DeVito’s character, Martini, in Cukoo’s Nest. No matter what’s said you keep coming back with “I bet a nickel”.
Now I know you’re a profound dumb-dumb with no grasp of either the rules of debate or logic, but must you lie, and be viewed as an even more pathetic shithead? Sheeze, you got some powerful stupid in you, boy.
Thanks for confirming that you are not reading my post. I have never mentioned one that I support any tax cuts, or even insinuated I supporting said tax cuts. In fact, I think taxes should be raised.
BTW, it is my opinion that the JOBS bill was not more likely to create jobs than simply sprinkling money along main street.
Don’t bother to reply, your incoherent rants have destroyed any interest I have in discussing this topic. I think instead I will go back to work so that i can pay more taxes so that the bottom 50% don’t have to.
Don’t hold your breath. You see, an apology gets in the way of just spewing shit. You won’t get one. Sam Stone probably won’t get one from Dio or Hentor, and I won’t get one from that dumb, dishonest twit, ElvisL1ves.
I’m beginning to see a pattern…
magellan01, quiet please, the adults are having a “conversation”.
You don’t see patterns. That requires thinking and interpreting new data. You’re a brain-dead, unthinking sack of shit that simply regurgitates your bullshit opinions.
For instance, take your bullshit opinion on SSM as an example. 
No apology for repeatedly lying about me?
I’m shocked. :rolleyes:
Hey, Chucklehead is back with his usual nothing to offer.
You know, you and the lying idiot make a good team. Not a point between you but a fallacy in every post.
You da man!
The 2009 budget was Bush’s.
Excellent! Your minority opinion serves only to prop up the tax cut addiction of the conservatives. We’re better off if you just STFU and keep all that 90’s style Randian nonsense to yourself.
No, they prepared a report assuming it was $650K-$675K, bcause that’s what it actually WAS in the previous 2 years.
I mean reading from page 10 where they gave the actual number.
That’s all you were talking about too. That was the topic of discussion. All this other crap is you trying to shift the goal posts. You tried to post bullshit and got called on it. Now you’re trying to pretend you were posting about something else.
That’s the post you responded to. That was exactly what you quoted and then purported to rebut.
Next time make an effort to read your own cites. In this case in particular, read page ten. It says that an exemption of $1.5M woukld greatly reduce thje number of estates affected. You said (incorrectly) that $1.5M exemption would be lowering it when it fact it was raising.
Your numbers from 2000 no longer have any relevance. The exemption is no longer $675K and is highly unlikely to ever get near that again
Okay, be honest - you’re just making it up as you go along now, aren’t you?
In your haste, you left off the part where you prove it.
Oh, I don’t know why I bother, but here goes…
Read it again. The report is SPECIFICALLY written to answer the question regarding the effects of an estate tax at exemption levels of 1.5, 2, and 3.5 million.
Is there another page 10 on your planet? Because on mine, page 10 says nothing at all about the number of estates that would have taxes that exceed their liquid assets. Which is what we’re talking about.
You really have learn to read. I didn’t even mention farms. This is the totality of my message that kicked off Dan Blather’s and your little insane hissy fits:
That’s it. Notice: No farms. No widows. No alien spaceships. Just a question about how an estate tax might affect people who inherit small businesses or homes.
How you got from there to “Farms are all you were talking about” is beyond me. But then, I feel the same way about almost everything you say.
No, I didn’t. I didn’t ‘respond’ to anyone. I asked a question. Then Dan Blather, who has joined you on the road to paranoid schizophrenia, accused me of preparing to ‘blather on about widows’ and of ranting. Which is really kind of funny if you think about it.
Again, that’s an interesting planet you live on, because page 10 doesn’t say anything of the sort. The number 1.5 million doesn’t appear on it, nor does it make any estimate for how many people who pay more in tax than they have in liquid assets.
Then it’s a good thing I never even brought that number up - you did. And all my numbers are correct, and you apparently have no idea how to read a document that has big words and numbers in it.
This is the point where you would normally be told that if you’re in a hole, stop digging. But you’ve been digging your own hole deeper for so freaking long that I’m surprised you haven’t hit fortune cookies yet.
I got the page number wrong. It’s page 18. Or just click on “Affordability of the Estate Tax” on the front page. That’s the page that rebuts all your bullshit.
How is any of this any of your business anyway? You’re not even an American, so none of it affects you in the slightest. Instead of worrying about Estate Taxes in the US, maybe you should focus on trying to build a luge run that doesn’t kill people.
Oh, BTW culture, you do deserve sort of an honorable mention for actually giving an opinion on the JOBS bill. Every other conservative here* seems to be concerned with absolutely nothing beyond how far they can cut their own personal tax bill by holding the nation’s unemployed hostage to their greed.
They talk about how horrible the deficit is, but what actually gets their blood pumping is the prospect of further, deeper tax cuts. The consequent larger deficits seem unimportant to them.
*No doubt someone snuck in that I missed here, to that person: how does it feel to be so thin on the ground? Do you principles offer you comfort on these cold, lonely winter nights?