Buffet/Gates

RainDog wrote:

And if you're preparing estate tax returns where the tax is in excess of $100 million, congratulations. A person would have to inherit approximately $300 million to have to pay that much. You must be making a killing in fees.

I think there are a whopping 7500 estates in the entire country that are effected by this tax...

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I think there are a whopping 7500 estates in the entire country that are effected by this tax...

Then there's no reason to have it.

know1 wrote:

Even if that's true, is it fair to tax them? Why should they be singled out?

Transfer of wealth is usually taxed. So having an estate tax fits in with that ideaology. The problem is that an estate's wealth is often tied up in assets that aren't easily exchangebale for cash to pay a tax bill.
I'm okay with an estate tax as long as it is brought in slowly over a five or ten year period, allowing time for estate planning.

Did the government introduce an easy to operate system for navigating on a computer?

The irony here is that you're slamming a guy who invented the operating system that you are using now and you're begrudging his success while his invention is making your life easier in a multitude of ways, simply because he had a dream and a vision and an invention and put his blood sweat and tears in it, then convinced others to dot he same and it revolutionized business and made him a very very very rich man. Should he give all that to the goverment to piss away like they do with every other program or try and set up charities that actually do have a positive impact on peoples lives?

Sure I have problems with Microsoft and their business practices, but you're hating a guy for simply being wealthy as if his decisions, efforts, and hard work did not put him in that position and he won some lottery.

Of course we must have some government. Of course we must have taxes to protect commerce, property, the public good etc. But this current system is ridiculous. Why do we punish success, effort, and inititive?

RainDog wrote:

I'm still curious as to how a society can function without taxes.

I'm still curious as to how a society can function with a sanctioned system of theft backed by professional brutes. Apparently we have different standards of "function".

We can tax the poor instead of the rich, sure.

That would still be a tax.

Or we can tax the rich instead of the poor.

Or? As if you have two options? How about taxing no one?

We can tax both at a progressive rate (kinda like here). Or we could implement some sort of "fair tax" or "sales tax" in lieu of an income tax (which is really shifting the tax burden to the middle class and poor, but we could do it). But what we can't do is not have taxes. Very few Bill Gateses in the world, you see - in that there are few that ever reach his level (actually never happened before) and far far fewer are as charitable.

Dude, you can pay whatever taxes you'd like. I really don't care. If you want to pay the government to do something, who am I to question why or how you should do it?

farfromglorified wrote:

And do you hold Democrats to that standard when they harp on issues that affect small minorities?

Issues such as... ?

RainDog wrote:

Me, I can think of a few billion reasons to have it, but hey, you know?

I'm still curious as to how a society can function without taxes. We can tax the poor instead of the rich, sure. Or we can tax the rich instead of the poor. We can tax both at a progressive rate (kinda like here). Or we could implement some sort of "fair tax" or "sales tax" in lieu of an income tax (which is really shifting the tax burden to the middle class and poor, but we could do it). But what we can't do is not have taxes. Very few Bill Gateses in the world, you see - in that there are few that ever reach his level (actually never happened before) and far far fewer are as charitable.

How is the Fair Tax shifting the Tax burden to the middle class and poor?

Everyone recieves thier entire paycheck and decides when and where to pay taxes and the tax is embedded so you can't cheat. The prebate takes care of any form of regression. Poor people still don't pay taxes in fact they are even better off than they are now because prices aren't higher than they are now. They actually have more money in thier pockets, now what they need is a mentor to teach them how to invest and or save safely and gradually and break that poverty cycle. The fair tax is actually a solution that would allow even encourage people to save and invest money and it gives taxpayers a lot more control over how they choose to spend thier tax burden. Not to mention taxing visitors and criminals when they buy goods as well. I could go on and on or you could just read the book or check out www. fairtax.org.

PonderingMyMaker wrote:

And while we're on the subject of Bill Gates, an apology from the oft-revered Chomsky is way past due. Mr. Chomsky has said some ridiculous, borderline slanderous things about Gates, perhaps Mr. Chomsky should muster the courage to admit he was wrong.

Or at the time he was right and now Bill Gates has changed his ways and thus a statement that was previously true no longer holds any merit. Where's the necessary apology there? Oh right, there is none.

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The minimum wage affects a lot more than 7500 families.

What is the cut-off number for when people should start caring?

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The minimum wage affects a lot more than 7500 families.

0.5% of the people who die pay the estate tax.

0.2% of the people who work make exactly the minimum wage.

0.7% of the people who work make exactly the minimum wage or less than the minimum wage.

Yep...that's a huge difference.