%&*# Global Warming!

Want to explain what the Chinese government cracking down on speculation in the Shanghai index has to do with global warming?

This is a worldwide correction. Ho hum. Good time for bargain-hunting.

OUGwave Wrote:Want to explain what the Chinese government cracking down on speculation in the Shanghai index has to do with global warming?

It was a joke...laugh...It seems that every bad thing that happens these days is either the fault of Bush or Global Warming. Also, didn't retired old Greenspan say that we were heading into a recession?

GrayBeard Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Want to explain what the Chinese government cracking down on speculation in the Shanghai index has to do with global warming?

It was a joke...laugh...It seems that every bad thing that happens these days is either the fault of Bush or Global Warming. Also, didn't retired old Greenspan say that we were heading into a recession?

Yeah, he did. We certainly could be -- there's evidence that there's been some overheating in the economy, and that industry is starting to roll back its investment, and that should lead to slowed growth. I don't think there's any reason to believe any recession would be anything other than cyclical.

I do think, however, that over the long term we could have some structural problems if we don't start increasing our investment in infrastructure -- including education, transportation, and power. I think we need to consider these things as we move forward, and not pass the estate tax elimination that Bush is proposing -- where the Wal-mart family alone would be benefitting to the tune of over 30 billion dollars.

I saw where we could exempt 5 million of inheritance. We shouldn't abolish the inheritance tax but the exemption should keep up with inflation.

Machiavelli Wrote:I saw where we could exempt 5 million of inheritance. We shouldn't abolish the inheritance tax but the exemption should keep up with inflation.

If we abolish the inheritance tax, something I agree with by the way, where's the need for the exemption?

I don't remeber where I read it at Reb, but the main point of the article was we could exempt 5 million and it really doesn't have that much of an effect on the bottom line. It might have been on a talk show. If we abolish it all together though it does cut into the country's bottom line. The Berkshire Hathaway guy, many others have come out and said we shouldn't do away with the inheritance tax. Just my humble opinion.

Problem with doing away with the estate tax completely is that we simply can't afford it, and the extremely wealthy will still be extremely wealthy anyway, just a bit less so. The inheritors are not doing anything productive for the money anyway, so it isn't like taxing earned income.

Instead, in almost all cases they are taking advantage of government largesse -- they use the roads, they benefit from the military, they benefit from their company's (which they enjoy stock in) employees' education and the other investments we make in human resources. If the Bush administration takes away the capital gains tax, and the estate tax, these people will be paying basically nothing in federal taxes (as most inheritees of multi-million dollar fortunes don't work and therefore don't pay payroll taxes).

Considering that they benefit from the federal government, is that fair?

OU,

When has life ever been fair?

Machiavelli Wrote:OU,

When has life ever been fair?

Well, thats an axiom of course, but it shouldn't stop public policy makers from trying to be fair -- moreover, I'm merely pre-empting the argument that it "isn't fair for the government to tax the same money twice" (the erroneous complaint about the estate tax) or to tax a family members death (also erroneous).

OUGwave Wrote:Problem with doing away with the estate tax completely is that we simply can't afford it, and the extremely wealthy will still be extremely wealthy anyway, just a bit less so. The inheritors are not doing anything productive for the money anyway, so it isn't like taxing earned income.

Interesting comment. And what exactly qualifies the government to determine what criteria must be met for someone to pass on the money they've earned to their family. It is their money, not the governments. They worked for it, not the government. Therefore what they do with it is entirely up to them. And taxing someone again on assets they've already paid taxes on is wrong. Dying isn't an excuse to take more from them.

Double taxation is not an erroneous argument OU, it's a very valid one. One that those that think like you can't get around, so you label it such to try and invalidate it.

The estate tax is, in fact, double taxation. The estate tax is, in point of fact, taxing someone for dying. There's nothing erroneous about stating as such. People like to label the argument as erroneous because they can't paint themselves into the corner of admitting that yes, they have no problem with double taxation as long as it's not them.

Quote:Instead, in almost all cases they are taking advantage of government largesse -- they use the roads, they benefit from the military, they benefit from their company's (which they enjoy stock in) employees' education and the other investments we make in human resources.

You speak as though they haven't already paid taxes on those things. They have, probably 10's of millions more dollars than you or I have put into the system.

Quote:If the Bush administration takes away the capital gains tax, and the estate tax, these people will be paying basically nothing in federal taxes (as most inheritees of multi-million dollar fortunes don't work and therefore don't pay payroll taxes).

This is a fallicous statement to be sure. Not all inheritees are Paris Hilton OU. Many work. Many seek to better this country. And they pay their taxes, more in one year than you or I will probably pay in a life time.

The resentment and hatred of the well off in this country is amazing to me. Especially seeing as the top 1% of this country pay for almost 35% of this country.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Problem with doing away with the estate tax completely is that we simply can't afford it, and the extremely wealthy will still be extremely wealthy anyway, just a bit less so. The inheritors are not doing anything productive for the money anyway, so it isn't like taxing earned income.

Interesting comment. And what exactly qualifies the government to determine what criteria must be met for someone to pass on the money they've earned to their family. It is their money, not the governments. They worked for it, not the government. Therefore what they do with it is entirely up to them. And taxing someone again on assets they've already paid taxes on is wrong. Dying isn't an excuse to take more from them.

Double taxation is not an erroneous argument OU, it's a very valid one. One that those that think like you can't get around, so you label it such to try and invalidate it.

The estate tax is, in fact, double taxation. The estate tax is, in point of fact, taxing someone for dying. There's nothing erroneous about stating as such. People like to label the argument as erroneous because they can't paint themselves into the corner of admitting that yes, they have no problem with double taxation as long as it's not them.

Quote:Instead, in almost all cases they are taking advantage of government largesse -- they use the roads, they benefit from the military, they benefit from their company's (which they enjoy stock in) employees' education and the other investments we make in human resources.

You speak as though they haven't already paid taxes on those things. They have, probably 10's of millions more dollars than you or I have put into the system.

Quote:If the Bush administration takes away the capital gains tax, and the estate tax, these people will be paying basically nothing in federal taxes (as most inheritees of multi-million dollar fortunes don't work and therefore don't pay payroll taxes).

This is a fallicous statement to be sure. Not all inheritees are Paris Hilton OU. Many work. Many seek to better this country. And they pay their taxes, more in one year than you or I will probably pay in a life time.

The resentment and hatred of the well off in this country is amazing to me. Especially seeing as the top 1% of this country pay for almost 35% of this country.

http://www.cbpp.org/6-17-05tax.htm

As far as whether or not they pay their taxes --- yes, they do right now. BUT I'm saying that IF you eliminate the cap gains tax, and the estate tax, then they won't be paying ANY FEDERAL taxes.

Secondly... there is currently a massive federal estate tax exemption... and beyond that is the fact that many of those assets are cap gains that have never been taxed.... so yes, if Bush and the GOP has their way, it IS the Paris Hilton's of the world that we are talking about.

You are right that it is not the government's money to tax, in theory. But that is an argument against any taxation -- an effective red herring, but the government has to raise money somehow, particularly if we want to be paying ONE TRILLION dollars to invade and occupy a country halfway around the world that did not pose any threat to us.

Do you believe that the government can simply operate in deficits forever? Do you believe that the government should simply not invest in the nation's future in terms of infrastucture and human capital? If not, then the money has to come from somewhere. There will always be tradeoffs and none of them will be fair for everyone. The conservatives in power today seem to be acting as if there is a free lunch, that they can spend trillions of dollars on foreign wars that aren't winnable, that they can run massive deficits, and then they can continue cutting all sources of government revenue that come from the top 1% of wealthy Americans.

In a world with no estate tax, and no capital gains tax, what will the super-idle rich be paying in federal taxes? Do they not benefit from having these carrier groups in the Gulf to protect oil supply routes? Should they not fund them?

OU-

I can get you up to speed here real quick. This current crop of Republican's (the cut tax and spenders) put the tax and spend Democrats to shame. Your going to get the "we should stop spending" post tommorrow. They'll show you a chart of where they would cut spending first. You'll get a Cheney quote where deficits no longer matter. It's just the current mindset. Ray - Gun Ronny ran up huge deficits and this set the conditions for the Clinton economy. Without Reagan we don't have the Clinton years. Did I miss anything guys????????

OUGwave Wrote:As far as whether or not they pay their taxes --- yes, they do right now. BUT I'm saying that IF you eliminate the cap gains tax, and the estate tax, then they won't be paying ANY FEDERAL taxes.

I'm not for eliminating the cap gains tax. I'm for keeping it low, but not eliminating it.

As far as the estate tax you yourself acknowledge the exemption, and there are so many loopholes the "super" rich don't pay it anyway. The ones that are hurt most are the ones that can't/don't plan for it. The small business owner or the farmer. So in effect it's a punative tax on those who don't have the ability to protect themselves.

Quote:You are right that it is not the government's money to tax, in theory. But that is an argument against any taxation -- an effective red herring, but the government has to raise money somehow, particularly if we want to be paying ONE TRILLION dollars to invade and occupy a country halfway around the world that did not pose any threat to us.

No, it's not a red herring. There is a price to be paid for living in this country and that is paid in taxes throughout your life. However government cannot tax on a whim and should not tax in a punitive fashion. The estate tax is a punitive tax, and it is flatly unfair. It doesn't effect the majority of Americans so it's much easier to let it by under the guise of "well they can afford it anyway", or "how much money do they really need?" That is not up to government to decide, and the moment they do it is a violation of the basic freedoms this country was founded on.

Quote:Do you believe that the government can simply operate in deficits forever? Do you believe that the government should simply not invest in the nation's future in terms of infrastucture and human capital? If not, then the money has to come from somewhere.

No I don't. However I also don't believe the government has the right to take as much from one person as they can squeeze based on the premise that, in their divine knowledge, they are a better judge of how much someone should be able to pass on to their family than that person is.

And also as you pointed out, we're not collecting enough in the estate tax to make a difference anyway. And any idea that if we were able to collect all of it the government wouldn't operate in a deficit is ridiculous. Your argument "might" hold a little more weight if there was one shred of evidence that the government would spend as it should if they had that money. All evidence is to the contrary though.

Government can't count on that money, they have no idea when they will get it. So like everything else they will spend and spend based on what they believe will come. And guess what, when they get it, shockingly, it won't be enough. Well then we just need to adjust the amount of the estate we tax. Say down to 500k? Alot more people die with that than with billions.

Quote:There will always be tradeoffs and none of them will be fair for everyone. The conservatives in power today seem to be acting as if there is a free lunch, that they can spend trillions of dollars on foreign wars that aren't winnable, that they can run massive deficits, and then they can continue cutting all sources of government revenue that come from the top 1% of wealthy Americans.

The top 1% still pay for 35% of this country. I presume you feel they should pay 50? 60?

As far a free lunch goes, there are millions of americans that benefit from all the government services, and then some, as the rich yet don't pay one single dime in taxes.

The argument is a principled one OU. It's clear you have no problem with taxing someone for dying (and it's not the uber rich that suffer b/c of it) based on the idea that government should be allowed to set the bar as to what an inheritee "deserves." And it's easy to hold that view until government decides that your children only deserve 50% of what you wish to leave them.

OU and Niner both raise some valid points here. This raises the level of discourse and decorum of the spin room. I want to take back the Ray Gun Ronny above...................... after reading both of your posts.

I won't answer you point for point because its going to get too messy. I would simply submit that most of the super-estate money, the stuff that is on estates over $10 million, has never been taxed. Not even once. The link I gave above shows the evidence for that. Rather than eliminating the estate tax entirely, it makes perfect sense to close these loopholes.

This wealth was not created in a vacuum. It was created in the context of the investments the federal government makes in our economy every year. The idea that some of this money has never been taxed, not even once, is absurd. To widen this amount of money by doing away with ALL estate taxes is preposterous to me.

And we're not talking about chump change here. For the duration of the next decade:

The Walton family alone would save 32 billion.

The Mars family would save almost 12 billion.

The Cox family would save almost 10 billion.

And on down the line... thats why I use the word idle rich here. I'm not talking about the family farm or the family business here. I'm talking about massive quantities of wealth that have NEVER been taxed because they are capital gains-based and thus fall under the estate-cap gains loophole discussed in the CBPP link I posted above.

The Bush administration is cutting over 3 billion dollars from the Veterans Affairs budget over the next ten years. Now, we know where that money is going. Its going to save America's richest families -- the top 0.1% from having to pay ANY taxes on what amounts to the VAST majority of their fortunes.

You are right in suggesting it is a matter of principle. The Waltons have benefitted from our military, our public education system (where there employees get the foundation of their training), etc. But the majority portion of their incomes have never been subject to any tax -- and we are proposing to make that portion WIDER by eliminating the estate tax. All while we are cutting the VA budget? Or Education? Or playing hardball with states over the funding of the widely acclaimed Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which Wal-mart no doubt benefits from by not having to pay its employees children's healthcare? It IS a matter of principle. You're right. We are talking about the most fundamental concept of economic justice. It isn't a case of robbing the rich to give to the poor -- what is happening here is THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

since RFK is the new Sig, do you think the Kennedy Clan should pay the Estate Tax? or be exempt since they are the Kennedy's?

GGniner Wrote:since RFK is the new Sig, do you think the Kennedy Clan should pay the Estate Tax? or be exempt since they are the Kennedy's?

They should, of course. And they think they should.

So, forgive me, but I don't see your point.

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:since RFK is the new Sig, do you think the Kennedy Clan should pay the Estate Tax? or be exempt since they are the Kennedy's?

They should, of course. And they think they should.

So, forgive me, but I don't see your point.

The Kennedy's have moved over $500 Million of the family fortune into off shore accounts and sophisticated Trust and private "foundations" specifically to avoid the estate tax and "keep the money in the family", while Ted Kennedy is publicly a "supporter" of this very tax. They are "Do as I say, not as I do" liberals, is my point. The kennedy's have only paid a total of 34K in estate taxes by their own records, their biggest asset is a tax shelter in Fiji called : Merchandise Mart real estate company

Its more than just a principled argument as NinerFan1 points out, its also not wise to basically encourage the Rich to funnel their money into countries like the Caymans or Swiss, I think the new hotspot is the Netherlands who changed their laws to attract this.......I'm going to go out on a limb and state that the US would be better off if these people are allowed to keep their money in US bank accounts and investments.

The money these families keep in the US will simply go into "tax exempt" bonds to be transferred before death. The Walton's will not save 30 Billion dollars if the tax is repelled, because they will not pay it to begin with unless their accountants and lawyers are asleep at the wheel.

This gets back to a flat tax. No exemptions for anybody except people at or near the federal poverty rate. Hell you could even index it by region. I suggest making it a sales tax. A national sales tax.

Get rid of the IRS and the cottage industry of tax preperations.