The worst government theft...

unsung wrote:

I'd be good with some type of consumption tax, but any tax based on income I'll never go for. Also I will not accept taxes or fees on Constitutionally protected rights.

I'm also against property and inheritance taxes.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm assuming you are asking how much income tax we should pay.

0

No. I mean overall, individual tax burden. Feel free to break it down: state, local, federal.

Why turn this into a discussion about what Unsung believes is the right amount of tax he should pay...the fact is the death tax is obnoxious. It taxes money that has already been taxed when it was earned. If I make money today, and save it for 50 years it should not be taxed again simply because I die.

RW81233 wrote:

Actually, if everyone is only supposed to get what they get based on how much effort and hard work they put into life then shouldn't the death tax technically be 100%? I mean after your funeral fees and paying off debts why should your children or spouse get that money? They didn't "earn" it did they? Or is this just another logical flaw in the meritocratic myth...

This has nothing to do with paying taxes at a reasonable rate when people are alive...that is obfuscating what this is. This has nothing to do with what the surviving members are given, and everything to do with what the person who dies with stuff wants. They want to give it to charity or give it away they are more than welcome to do so. Most want to know that they are able to provide for their family after they pass. Earning a living and keeping the fruits of your labor should never be viewed as a privilege the gov't grants you. That is silly.

they take in plenty of money....they don't need this tax.

RW81233 wrote:

so you are for free handouts when it comes from a family member? i mean what did the gandolfini family do to "earn" that money? sit there in the theater or watch daddy and hubby on tv? this is why i don't get the philosophy of radical individualism. it's fair when the people in power decide it's fair (like not having any forms of welfare), but when it's their money that is going it's patently unfair (i.e. the death tax). i mean what is the logical conclusion of reducing taxes and not having a death tax? rich people get to keep more of their rich money and poor people get less meaning that social class in this country will calcify more than it already has.

RW81233 wrote:

I don't disagree that the government is wasteful or that Obama is any less of a warmonger than Bush as a President. Nor are the policies perfect when it comes to welfare laws. However, in the late 60s and 70s the tax burden on individuals and companies was enormous compared to today, unions were actually revered, and the CEO of a company made about 8-10 times what his (in those days almost certainly his) workers made. While I certainly prefer that model to the one we have today, it wasn't perfect. In fact in the 70s it sparked a huge period of stagflation, as other countries were able to compete with the US in terms of production, wages, etc. In short, that exact way of running things is not sustainable in a 2013 world. However, the response to cut taxes, and take the government out of our lives has led to an equally unsustainable way of life. Today we live in a world of casino capitalism.

At my University for example we just put $68 million into a Basketball arena that costs $6,000 everytime they open and close the movable seats. At the current rate of repayment it is going to take Towson about 700 years to pay it off - yes 700 not 70. The reason we did it was because our administration thought a winning basketball team could bring in more students and donations (it doesn't or at least doesn't last). They and other Universities have been reduced to doing this because our funding from taxes has slowed to a trickle and I live in super Blue Maryland.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a raise in my 5 years despite winning 2 international awards for my research, teaching reviews that are through the roof, and service to the University that is pretty top notch. In fact, for three years I had to give back via furloughs, then when we got a one time $500 refund (not even 1/5th the amount I lost) conservative and libertarian talk radio complained about our government handouts. Additionally, if/when I get tenure next year people will complain that I will no longer work a day in my life and that being a professor is sooooooo easy. We have a union with no power, and are relatively powerless to any changes the administrators make. This was part of the deliberate destruction of the University in America from the late 60s on, because poor people were getting too smart and realizing that they were being sold out.

More broadly, what this means is that unions like mine have been eradicated, or lost their power, and are generally looked down upon by the American public as some sort of socialist collective. CEO's make between 400-600 times more than their workers, corporate cronyism is the rule of the day, sweatshop labor and tax free zones for them exist everywhere around the world, and somehow the American public that is far worse off than it was back in the 70s has been convinced that this is a good thing. Yes it sucks to get taxed, and yes many times the government is wasteful, but there has to be a middle way that does involve more taxes because individuals have very measurably demonstrated over the last 40 years that they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

mikepegg44 wrote:

People shouldn't be taxed for saving money.

I think a better question to all of this is, what right do you have to my earnings? what percentage of my earnings is fair?

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

so you are for free handouts when it comes from a family member? i mean what did the gandolfini family do to "earn" that money? sit there in the theater or watch daddy and hubby on tv? this is why i don't get the philosophy of radical individualism. it's fair when the people in power decide it's fair (like not having any forms of welfare), but when it's their money that is going it's patently unfair (i.e. the death tax). i mean what is the logical conclusion of reducing taxes and not having a death tax? rich people get to keep more of their rich money and poor people get less meaning that social class in this country will calcify more than it already has.

this might get kind of boring for some, so if you don't like numbers skip the bold
that is the definite divide between my way of thinking and yours. I don't think me leaving something that I earned to my kids a free handout. Keep in mind that there is an inheritance tax as well. So if I have an estate of 10,000,000 approximately 3,500,000 of that will go to the feds, and some states as well. After that there is ~6,000,000 to be given to my heirs in Minnesota. Who, after receiving the money, pay the state inheritance tax if applicable. So 40% of my money, which had already been taxed mind you when it was earned (if not, like if it was in tax deferred accounts then that tax should absolutely be paid out according to the law) gets taken by the feds and the states simply because I died while have residency there. Seems excessive to me. Inheritance tax I understand much more than a death (estate tax).

But in the end, the money in my account when I died wasn't the gov'ts. It was mine. I should be able to give it to whomever I want. And since MY radical individualism also comes with the caveat that WE are responsible for our neighbors, most of what I end up with will be going to those who don't have. you see, I am all for taking care of the community, I just don't think the best way to do it is through bureaucratic forced giving. That breeds resentment not the feeling of ownership in a community that should come from giving.

The gov't doesn't always know best, and continuing to feed the beast that has shown no signs of ever changing seems strange and wrong to me. The divide between rich and poor is not in any better shape now and yet we give more to the gov't than we ever have before in total dollars. they take it, and put it into the machine, adding to the military budget, continuing to do things around the world that shouldn't be done, and you wonder why I wouldn't want to give them more?

We have a president who I think would tell you he is anti war, but look at what is being done militarily under his watch. It may not have started under his watch, but it sure has continued. I was promised a shut down of Guantanamo, and yet 6 years later, here we are, holding prisoners there. The funding needs to be cut, and the people(us) need to start paying a-fucking-ttention. When I see that, I will support giving the gov't more of my, and by proxy, others earned money.

RW, I understand your frustration with the divide. I just don't believe it is in the governments best interest to ever truly end it. It is in their best interest to increase gov't dependency. I look at the design of the programs through that lens. You think welfare programs are good for folks, and lots do benefit from them...but I ask you, how good can a system be that cuts off benefits based on making 1 dollar more than the cutoff...is someone really that much more self sufficient at 1862 dollars than they are at 1861? well here in MN for your benefits the state would say that you are.

That is why I would prefer my money be able to be given to those programs that can help end it, and the only way to do that is to not have damn near half of it go to the state that will turn around and build a god damn bomb with it and give the spare change to those who can use it most.

The 40% "death tax" rate makes for good sound bites but isn't based in reality. Yes, its on the books but no one pays 40% of the value of their estate to the feds when they die.

Peace.

Today, 99.86 percent of estates owe no estate
tax at all, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax
Policy Center (TPC).4 Among the 3,780 estates
that owe any tax, the “effective” tax rate — that is,
the percentage of the estate’s value that is paid in
taxes — is 16.6 percent, on average.5 That is far
below the top estate tax rate of 40 percent (see
Figure 1).
There are several reasons why the effective rate

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

Because its not "small." The impact, whether its adding to the deficit or funding current government programs, is quite large. What bothers me is that the folks against "taxes" or for smaller government, think like their wealth and, in fact, their existence, exists or happens in a vacuum. That the "public good" or "government" had absolutely no bearing on the outcome and if "government" just went away, everything would be so mush rosier, i.e. profitable, healthier, less constrained, what have you or however you define "better." I argue that taxes are a necessary component of ensuring a safer, saner, more civilized society. and those that earn the most, the 1%, should, as a result of the "government" ensuring their success, i.e. making it possible for them to create wealth, should pay more in taxes and give more back, as a percentage, than a working stiff like me (25% tax bracket on wages versus 14% on capital gains). Do you really think Mitt Romney's life style or family would suffer any ill effects when his estate has to pay 6.8% of its total value in an estate tax? We're not going back to the 1890's and William Jennings Bryan or even further back to the wild frontier days when it was every person for themselves.

Repealing the estate tax would
increase the deficit by at least $200 billion
over the next ten years.

TPC estimates that the estate tax will generate about $200 billion over 2013-2022 under current
law.7 This is roughly the same amount that the government will spend over this period on the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental
Protection Agency combined.
Although significant deficit reduction has been enacted since 2010, when the Simpson-Bowles
deficit-reduction plan was released, most budget experts agree that more is needed to address our
longer-term fiscal problems as the economy strengthens. Even without the loss of these estate tax
revenues, deficit reduction is difficult. Cuts enacted so far will affect funding for programs ranging
from education and medical research to law enforcement and environmental protection, as well as
for programs that alleviate hardship and expand opportunity for low- and moderate-income
Americans. It would be irresponsible for policymakers to add $200 billion to the task of deficit
reduction by cutting the taxes of a few wealthy estates while at the same time asking for further
sacrifices from other Americans.

Peace.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

Because its not "small." The impact, whether its adding to the deficit or funding current government programs, is quite large. What bothers me is that the folks against "taxes" or for smaller government, think like their wealth and, in fact, their existence, exists or happens in a vacuum. That the "public good" or "government" had absolutely no bearing on the outcome and if "government" just went away, everything would be so mush rosier, i.e. profitable, healthier, less constrained, what have you or however you define "better." I argue that taxes are a necessary component of ensuring a safer, saner, more civilized society. and those that earn the most, the 1%, should, as a result of the "government" ensuring their success, i.e. making it possible for them to create wealth, should pay more in taxes and give more back, as a percentage, than a working stiff like me (25% tax bracket on wages versus 14% on capital gains). Do you really think Mitt Romney's life style or family would suffer any ill effects when his estate has to pay 6.8% of its total value in an estate tax? We're not going back to the 1890's and William Jennings Bryan or even further back to the wild frontier days when it was every person for themselves.

Repealing the estate tax would
increase the deficit by at least $200 billion
over the next ten years.

TPC estimates that the estate tax will generate about $200 billion over 2013-2022 under current
law.7 This is roughly the same amount that the government will spend over this period on the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental
Protection Agency combined.
Although significant deficit reduction has been enacted since 2010, when the Simpson-Bowles
deficit-reduction plan was released, most budget experts agree that more is needed to address our
longer-term fiscal problems as the economy strengthens. Even without the loss of these estate tax
revenues, deficit reduction is difficult. Cuts enacted so far will affect funding for programs ranging
from education and medical research to law enforcement and environmental protection, as well as
for programs that alleviate hardship and expand opportunity for low- and moderate-income
Americans. It would be irresponsible for policymakers to add $200 billion to the task of deficit
reduction by cutting the taxes of a few wealthy estates while at the same time asking for further
sacrifices from other Americans.

Peace.

It would be irresponsible for policy makers to run a trillion dollar deficit yearly . yet they do it routinely. If the estate tax adds 20 million a year to the deficit that is already near 1,000,000,000,000. Meaning roughly .00002 percent of the deficit. Meaningless and miniscule. They could make that up by simply switching to cloud printing at all federal offices and one less trip by the president.


I don't think anyone's lifestyle would change drastically if they had 200 million and gave to the gov't 50 of that. even 10 of that...but it shouldn't be for dying. That is silly. Inheritance tax, sure it is like other income, Estate tax, no.