No, I’m not. But, I believe, I am taxed if you give me 4 million dollars. Or if I earn ten thousand dollars from you.
I’d like to seem em let the full panoply of Bush tax cuts expire, rather than continue the giveaway to the wealthy.
Dems lack the balls for that though. 
Right. Brain-melt on my part, I was thinking of a payment for a service.
The person making the gift pays the tax on it. Sort of like an inheritance tax. So I do believe the point stands.
According to the latest poll, “Fifty-three percent say income tax cuts that soon will expire should be renewed for all — including the highest earners.”
Of course, in such a poll, it would be a real challenge to craft the questions so that the responders get some factual background, or indeed hear anything at all beyond the phrase “tax cut.”
The same poll says only 39% back the GOP’s effort to repeal the HCR bill.
Nope. You do not get to define terms to fit the bleeding heart agenda. A tax triggered at death = Death Tax. DEATH TAX. ** DEATH TAX**. Those that favor such a ridiculous tax want to punish the people that have actually accomplished something, and redistribute hard earned wealth to those that have done nothing. Horrible idea.
You realize that inheritance is redistributing hard earned wealth to those who have done nothing, right? 
In any case, you are taxed on payday. There is no reason that Junior shouldn’t get taxed on payday either. It’s the same thing.
Also, the inheritance tax ignores the first 3.5 million. As I recall, you can structure it per parent, so you can ignore the first 7 million. Why is that unfair?
Again, your boss pays you and you are taxed. Why is it bad when Junior gets paid by his dad’s estate to be taxed on the first dollar after 7 million? Please explain your answer in detail.
No, an inheritance allows a parent to give his children a better life than the parent enjoyed, and allows a family to establish itself over generations. Why should the government get to come in and hit the reset button, effectively making each generation start over?
Please answer my question. Why do you have to get taxed on your income, but Junior, who only is taxed after the first seven million dollars of his inheritance, mean Junior’s getting a bad deal?
Please explain it, in simple terms, so I can follow. Because from what you’re saying, it seems like you don’t understand the issue.
A second question, why is Junior, who gets seven million tax free, being reset? Can you explain that in detail? It seems like Junior has a pretty good start in life from dear old dead-dad. Also, he gets the rest of the estate, he just has to pay taxes on it.
Again, why is it just for you to be taxed on money you earn. And unjust for Junior to be taxed on money he’s bequeathed?
Yes indeed Paris Hilton deserves the wealth of the Hilton hotel chain at 100 percent.
Except the bill would not tax low value estates. It would not harm small businesses. That is just how the rich sell it on Fox. It is not true. It would not confiscate the fortune and leave it flat. that is silly.
Or as Al Franken says, the inheritance tax imposes a burden on the most productive members of society - the children of the extremely wealthy.
It’s Senior that’s getting the raw deal. Saves up something for future generations, only to have the government take it in some misguided dippy hippy redistribution of wealth scheme to punish success.
If Senior paid an accountant an equal amount of money the accountant would be taxed on it.
So you’re saying that specifically, the children of the wealthiest Americans, those that have more than 7 million coming to them deserve special rules and shouldn’t have to be taxed like everything else.
The reason for an inheritance tax / death tax is simple.
The dead pay no capital-gains tax, and death hides many sins - it’s easy to pass along illegitimate income in a will.
If the decedent had sold all his investments to convert it to cash the day before kicking the bucket, capital-gains tax on it would have to be paid on the next tax return.
Now, to explain the high rate and high lower cutoff - calculating the total wealth of an estate and distributing it according to a will is complicated enough already without tax complications. This is an expensive tax to collect, and it has to be worth it for the IRS and not overly onerous on modest estates.
Nothing is taken away from the dead person. It’s an obscene windfall income tax on the parasitic heirs.
I see a big push to have token investigations of the criminal activities of certain members of Congress-people like Rep. Rangel (D-NY), and Maxine Waters (D-CA). These two have been involved some some highly illegal activities…so the Democrats would like to quash these investigations, before the new Republican majority can give these two the scrutiny they deserve.
I also think that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) seeks to have his role in the mortgage meltdown covered up.
These three ought to be facing some serious jail time.
The Dems should immediately extend the Bush Tax cuts for the middle and lower class while shitcanning the tax break to the wealthy. They actually should kill the whole stupid thing, it is only a 300 dollar tax break a year for the middle class. Start to work of the deficits, you know the Repubs wont.
I would love to see the Repubs filibuster to get the tax breaks for the rich back in the bill.
And I’m sure that, you being such a conscientious citizen, will be willing to offer us cites for all that, right?
EDIT: That was to ralph124c, not to gonzomax.
Since you are so sure of it, can you specifically explain the exact laws and evidence against them?
Please be complete. Because you have zero doubt that they’re guilty, so you must have compelling and damningly complete evidence, right?
Gladly.
Rep. Rangel owns two properties in the Dominican Republic, from which he derives rental income. He admitted that he DID NOT report the income on his 2002-2008 Federal Income Tax returns.
That is, he he neither reported income, nor paid taxes on this income.
That is called “income tax evasion”, and (the last time I checked) was a Federal crime.
I notice you only attempted one out of the three claims you made.
I’ll just assume that you retract the other two, since you didn’t bother trying to support them, okay?
As for Rangel, he’s a rich dude. I certainly see a possibility he just fucked up and didn’t do it on purpose. The tax code is pretty complex.
I don’t see your evidence that it isn’t an oversight. Care to provide this evidence? Doesn’t that suggest that a hearing is the right thing to do?
I don’t know if he’s guilty or innocent. And for that matter, neither do you.