Why would they want their families to live on welfare, instead of earning their way in the world?:dubious:
Why don’t you attempt a contribution for change and attempt to answer the questions THAT YOU QUOTED?
:eek: That was me?!!! :rolleyes:
Ah, that explains the war on Christmas. Nice job with the back to back contributions, though. You have talent.
Considering how Blanche Lincoln fucked over the health care bill, good riddance.
And yet you still get this wrong!
Revenue is not taxed, profit is. This means that half your examples are wrong, because the income is being spent on business expenses, and thus is not taxed. The money is taxed once when it gets to the worker, once when it gets to the pony’s owner, and a third time when the son gets it. This means it has only been taxed 2-3 times (with and without estate tax), not the 4-5 times you claim.
At what point do you guys take responsibility for your poor stewardship of the economy, your ill-advised war, and your utter disregard for facts and logic?
Really, if you are this stupid just stop talking. You mean REVENUE, not income. Taxes are paid on income. I told you guys that cutting education would come back to haunt you.
This actually raises a good point. That is, to what degree does someone have a right to do what they want to with the fruits of their labor? There seems to be no (less) disagreement that what a person does with his money after he pays taxes (at whatever rate you choose) is his business. He can buy a vacation home, buy a sports car, a boat, put in a swimming pool, etc. But what if what is important to him is taking care of the family he leaves behind when he dies? As I said, I think people have less of a claim to an inheritance, morally speaking, than they do to money they’ve earned through their own sweat or smarts. But I do see that someone should be allowed to pass their monty on without a tax that takes 55% of it—any part of it. Why should the state benefit more from someone’s death than the family who suffered the loss?
The good point is “To what degree do offspring have the right to live on money that was earned by someone else, and how does that make them different from welfare queens/kings?”
Not “What property rights does someone have after they’re dead?”
It’s no surprise that you either really don’t get it, or pretend not to. Can we now take it as read that you really don’t observe a distinction between earned and unearned income?
Because the state allows people to amass that money in the first place. Without the state, there is no wealth.
Also, what Elvis said. The Estate Tax does not tax the “fruits” of anyone’s “labor.” It taxes unearned windfalls.
Income can refer to assessable income or taxable income. That’s the whole reason why I went out of my way to use the words “revenue” and “profit”, so that even a complete moron could follow along at home.
Lobohan only looked at half of each transaction - he counted the taxes payable on income, but not the tax deductions accrued for expenses. That’s why he got the wrong result.
No. The tax is on the estate, not the beneficiaries of the estate. The estate pays its own taxes or, if it doesn’t, it is forfeit.
Let me say I don’t particularly care very much whether the estate tax on estates over $1 million is 0%, 55%, or 100%. What I do care about though is that this was a bill that had bipartisan support, could have passed easily, and the Democrats a legislative accomplishment that both the President and the Democrats in Congress need right now.
This could have been a great news story. The newspapers and CNN could be reporting that the Senate has broken free from its legislative paralysis and passed a jobs bill. Robert Gibbs could stand up there and say,“This bill is an example of the bipartisanship that the President has been calling for, and he’s glad to sign a bill that will help provide jobs to millions of Americans out of work.” Instead, they’re reporting that yet another bill has been stalled, this time by Majority Leader Reid’s unwillingness to compromise, and the story is yet again about how the Democrats control Congress but can’t get anything done.
I stand corrected.
Send that to The Onion, it’s goood stuff.
Since you’ve acknowledged that the second part of this is incorrect (kudos), I’ll just refer to the first. I agree with you to some extent. That is why I am not opposed to taxes in general, nor the estate tax in particular. The question goes to who has the greater claim to the estate? I think the heirs deserve the money simply because the person who made it, and paid all his taxes in the process, wished it to go to them. In practicality, our disagreement is one of degree. In assessing the moral components we seem to have more of a gulf.
Can you not read? I’ve stated that I am not opposed to the estate tax—several times. I’ve even stated—at least twice—that I don’t think that a claim to an inheritance is as strong to a claim the fruits of someone’s own labor. Read my last response to Dio.
He said no such thing. He said taxes are paid on the income, no where did he say that it was paid on the entire $100. But beyond that, even if we deduct the expenses from revenue, the point is still 100% accurate. Let’s say each transaction resulted in a 10% profit. After 10 transactions there is still tax being paid on more than the initial $100.
To make it worse, this is what you said initially:
But he never used the word revenue. You made it up. He said income. I am not sure why you conservatives need to lie every time you open your mouth. If the true facts don’t support your position, rethink it.
Do you understand the concept of a “poison pill” when it comes to business? That’s what the Republicans did to the bill.
magellan01: Then you shouldn’t have a problem with a 100% tax on estates, should you? Unless you’re claiming that offspring really do have some right of parasitism. And it seems you are.
If you’re not addressing the rest of my posts, I’ll have to assume you have no answer that can stand up in public.