The Death Tax

for the debt unless the law required that any such money be specifically targeted for such and untouchable for any other purpose. As well, haven't you seen what happens when people pay down their debt and see their credit limit go up? What do you think the debt ceiling is all about? It's about raising the credit limit...plain and simple. I can't favor giving the government inherited money directly. Since government wants a piece of the action anytime money changes hands, they can get theirs when the inheritor spends it.

I'm sure you're familiar with the expression, or the truism, or the saying: that "behind every great fortune is a great crime."
In the understanding under Eisenhower, there were to be no war profiteers. We were going to start over fresh. Those who gained the most, those who grew rich beyond the wettest of wet dreams of Mitas, because of the immediate threat and becuse of the unequalness of sacrofice that the war needed, would give back. In other words, the debt would be paid. The debt should have been paid. No excuse why it wasn't.
But,,, came Raygun. Now the story was to be that the poor should be ashamed. If they only hung a ton of sheetrock in a day, then it's their own damn fault for not doing more. It's their own damn lazyness and inability to fathom the tax forms.
So we come to the crux of our story. Our tax forms are just the tiniest bit intimidating, and only just so complicted as to cause fear and dread in the hearts of the absolute lessor of us. Even though they carry the load. Even though they mow our lawns and diaper our babies. They fear the government.
Fear is the name of the game.

creates Republicans.

I'm to my eye balls in Republicans. Fear is everywhere and there are those will not give up their fear untill government is absoluty and forever drowned in the bathtub. What is the likellyhood of that? What good would come of that?

just leads you to some blame to place on a particular political party and maybe a few named individuals?...and that anyone who is wealthy is open to suspicion and worthy of being reviled? That's where you've been going with this this?

I think it's a shame when folks give up on any further thinking process once they've reached their predetermined objective...that being to find satisfaction with themselves or hatred of another.

Here's an exercise for you;

Given that a very rich individual might have a published wealth of several billion dollars that you think is under-taxed, where is that money and how do you extract it from him? Your task it to write down all the components of the person's wealth, what it would take to turn each component into something spendable, and both the positive and negative affects that would or could result from the transactions.

If you can keep yourself open and honest, be objective in your thinking, and put aside all hatreds and prejudice, you might be surprised to find that it's not easy or even possible to do this...but you might find some interesting things about yourself.

Except the tellers of lies. And I'm WAY less than satisfied with myself. or with the completing of the deals we made among ourselvesin the past.

>>>Here's an exercise for you;<<<

You are describing the dificulties of enforcing a wealth tax. No tax is 100% enforcable. We CAN, though, hope to make the tax system understandable and fair on it's face. And hope for the best.

'When Lies Fail" I put in today and do you really think these people are HAPPY? It seems the more one has the more they have to worry about, the more a target they become from all sides. If you got nothing, nobody wants you and it's not worth anybody's time to mess with you about it. A lot of people who have little to nothing are still happy.

that money should serve and not rule. I won't say where it came from as the guy isn't universally liked but I understand and agree with what he said. I also believe in the concept of stewardship versus ownership. That concept does put the onus on a person for the proper use and disposition of money and property he/she oversees. As for a wealth tax, I'm not describing the difficulties of enforcing it at all. I'm challenging the reasoning behind implementing one.

the more you have, the more the government takes/wants, and the more it encourages 'discouragement' to reach beyond poverty or the middle class.

There are many companies that are family built......just because a company is in a parent's name and is taxed already on the profits made over each year, and that parent dies leaving the company to the next generation, does that mean the government has a 'right' to tax on the estate when the son/daughter inherits it? That child has probably also worked most of their adult life to add to the company's success, so basically they have already been paying the profit taxes......and now the government steps in and tells the child, you can't have what you have contributed to unless you pay 35-55% of its worth to us.

You can talk all you want about how Bush 43 'put us into debt' by using a 'credit card' for two wars, but you neglect to continue that debt into BO's term where he has literally doubled that total national debt in less than five years, also on that non-existent credit card.....and for far more nefarious agendas that have failed repeatedly and continued to double down on them rather than admit defeat. He has already stated numerous times that the money 'saved' by shutting down the two wars will continue to be spent by 'investing' it in his own agenda items rather than pay down that debt.

Where is BO and the Dems not at fault in your blathering? Is he still so high on your 'pedestal' that he is excused for all of his wasteful (and continued wasteful) spending when none of it was necessary is a bad economy from the start of his reign? You forget entirely that Dems had a vote in how money was spent during the first five years of Bush's time (including those wars) and they all went along with it......and went ballistic with their spending during his last 3 years and now BO's first 5. Are they blameless?

What happened to BO's campaign promises to cut the deficit in half? All he has cut in half is his OWN deficit, NOT Bush's. And he has DOUBLED the National Debt. Isn't he even more unpatriotic and unAmerican than he accused Bush of being for the debt? Why is he still being let off that hook? When do liberals hold HIM accountable?

is the equivalent of reducing the risk of calamity. If you fall from a plane at 30k feet, you will accelerate to a speed that will remain constant until you hit the ground. That speed is called "terminal velocity". The term couldn't be more appropriate. You're still gonna' die.

"To whomever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked."

I don't understand, since I doubt that you're a member of the ever receding wealthiest 1% who have innumerable ways to sequester their wealth, why you think that progressive taxation, with the wealthiest paying a greater percentage than the poorest is such an iniquity.

Apparently you'll die on the barricades to defend those people who wouldn't speak to you in the street, unless they were campaigning for something.

You really do baffle me Toni.

Rob

doesn't necessarily equate into dollars to the GOVERNMENT, Rob.......most wealthy already give massive amounts to charities voluntarily (except for Biden, of course).....they don't OWE their charitable contributions to Democrats and Liberals and the President to spend as THEY deem it should be spent. And they most certainly should not be FORCED into being 'charitable' to the government when the government did NOTHING to make them wealthy in the first place. Oh wait...they didn't build it....I forgot.

It has to do with abilities and proper stewardship of that which which we are gifted. The concept is separate from generosity. If one was given the ability to do more work than his neighbor but only spent enough time to be equal in output, he wasn't fulfilling the expectation. A good steward takes good care of all he is given. He does not waste nor allow these gifts to fall into the hands of anyone who does no good with them.

one was socialist, and the latter was cursed for being so. So it will be on the Judgement Day.

darkness darkness

be my pillow

take my head

and let me sleep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ_x_BRezwc

has got to be the most disgusting and embarising:thing in the whole wide wide world. What else defines privledge and advantage more than resplendence? It's the core of story. It's the core of the shame poor folk feel.

resplendent (r -spl n d nt). adj. Splendid or dazzling in appearance; brilliant.

I must not have been clear enough. What I'm for here, is taking away the whole bs story about "the death tax". I'm saying that inheireted money shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate, or fgs exempt, as compaired to what labor pays. Do away with the death tax, and instead tax the inheirators on the money that comes in.

and why stop with inherited money? Why not tax a potential heir on the value of a business that's handed to them while alive? No...I don't think your idea is a good one. If the inherited money was from earned income, the tax has already been paid. If it was a tax deferred IRA, the inheritor will be paying the tax. It could be paid at a higher or lower rate depending on several factors but it still would be paid. But my question remains. Why is it a better idea to allow the government to decide how to spend a dead person's money than to allow the person who labored for that money to decide who gets to spend it?

a gift could be taxed but it would be the giver who would pay. Currently, a married couple can give a gift of 28K before needing to fill out the IRS gift tax form. As well, minor children can have accounts established by parents, grandparents, etc., that allow very low tax rates on investment income. As I also understand, there is a provision for tax deferred IRAs that allow a donor to transfer funds from it directly to a qualified charity and bypass the tax requirements.

I guess these would be considered in the category of "tax loopholes". Thus, there are seemingly limitless opportunities for the government to pick apart a person's savings just by tweaking the tax code.

I see no reason. according to the wonderful words that have marched uncounted Americans proudly off to war and to death, to give a lower tax rate to money that's inheirated, than what a working man pays. This is clearly just another form of royality.

Taxes, after all, is only taxes. They are in no way a punishment or putting any kind of upper limit on what one can make or hand down.

So my question remains. Why should the rich pay a lesser percent than labor? Why should labor pick up and pay the difference between what our bills are and what the rich have left on the table? It's a cinical, studied, and practiced attempt to put us all in a state of fear. The national debt does not need to exist at all. It's there only to promote shame. Shame and fear.

It's all story. The story of today is all thinktank reserched lies. I can not see it any other way. If inheiratance is in any way some kind of punishment to the rich... If it's some kind of limiting of how far one can go... Why then is the exact same tax rate on money that comes in to the poor, NOT the same? Punishment and limitations? I think differently.

It's only taxs. I LIKE highways, access to education and a strong national defence.

This starving of the beast has gone on far too far. Okay. We are afraid. We SHOULD be afraid. Maybe not for ourselves, but for those who come next.

Bottom line:
We are in debt.
There's no real reason for us to BE in debt.
Rich kids have already had PLENTY advantages.

But no!

STOP THE STORY!

Did we NEED the TARP (blame on both Bush and BO for that one), did we NEED the stimulus, did we NEED Cash for Clunkers, did we NEED green crap, did we NEED Obamacare's TRILLIONS instead of the BILLIONS he said it would cost?

I could go on........but we are further in debt (doubled) than we were five years ago, even WITH BO's tax increases he's gotten, because of the Democrats' spending craziness. It has NOTHING to do with this government not getting ENOUGH in taxes already.......this year has been the largest collection of taxes in HISTORY and yet NOTHING gets cut.....the spending just continues and gets worse every minute.

ago<<<


>>>we are further in debt (doubled) than we were five years ago<<<

What more proof of the power of stroy is there than that?

to tax more rather than stop the out of control spending on garbage that isn't needed?

"And your solution is..."

To kill the distorted stories and lies that permeate the whole atmosphere here. Such as the perversion so-called "the death tax".

Somebody has to pay for our millitary. Why labor more that free-bubble-up Reagonite babies?

"why is government the better choice to receive the money of a dead person rather than that person's choice?"