It's real simple; socialist countries build walls to keep people in, free countries build them to keep people out.
And the socialist ones have FORCED food rationing.
Is very uneasy
It's real simple; socialist countries build walls to keep people in, free countries build them to keep people out.
And the socialist ones have FORCED food rationing.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
I thought those "didn't count".Originally Posted by BoulderDawg
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
Rev,
As to the casino example: If you win at the poker table, you did not win the casino's money. You won other player's money.
Also, any winnings are taxed as income. If you won a jackpot over $1200+, you have to fill out a tax form then-and-there (not sure of the form's name, I've never cashed out that much). So the money is taxed when you win/EARN it. It should not be taxed again if you will to an heir. Again, imo NOTHING should be estate taxed. It's that simple.
Source on casino tax info:
http://robison.casinocitytimes.com/articles/427.html
Last edited by 1bad65; 03-18-2009 at 08:39 PM.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
吃全苦, 吃全甜.
Fair enough, overlooked that. We'll stick with the slot machine example then.
So it should be taxed when person A gets it as income, but not when person B gets it as income?Also, any winnings are taxed as income. If you won a jackpot over $1200+, you have to fill out a tax form then-and-there (not sure of the form's name, I've never cashed out that much). So the money is taxed when you win/EARN it. It should not be taxed again if you will to an heir. Again, imo NOTHING should be estate taxed. It's that simple.
I chose the casino example in particular because, really, it has nothing to do with "earning" the money. Especially with slots and the like, you don't "earn" anything, you win it in a game of chance. This is not unlike the FACT that the only way many heirs (not saying all, by any means) "earn" their inheritance is by chancing to be born into the right family.
Ultimately, though, it's not about whether or not the income is earned. Much income isn't, and that's fine. But it remains income, and no matter who gained that income before you did, when it comes to you it's your income, and should be taxed as such.
When you stop growing you start dying.
Is very uneasy
Rev,
If you win, earn, are given, etc money, it should be taxed as income. But anything willed to someone should not be taxed. I feel an inheritance is different than 'income'.
Keep in mind, not every dollar you bring in is taxed. For example, life insurance benefits and certain lawsuit awards are not taxed.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
吃全苦, 吃全甜.
What makes it different, though?
If my dad gave me a gift of $5,000 in the middle of his life, that's counted as income.
If my dad gave me a gift of $5,000 at the end of his life (which is exactly what inheritance is), why wouldn't that be counted as income?
It makes no sense to separate the two. He'd have paid taxes on the money when it was his income in both situations, so calling it "double-dipping" when it's inheritance is really not accurate. The one-and-only difference is that, in the second scenario, I get the gift upon his death, which changes nothing outside of the emotional aspect of it.
Gifted income is gifted income. If the government's in the business of taxing income, there is no logical reason to exempt inheritance.
When you stop growing you start dying.
Registered User
Forget logic when trying to argue with a Neo. The only logic they accept is whether or not it is accepted by Rush Limbaugh.
Of course your argument is sound. If it was the way Bad wants it to be then who would that benefit the most.....why the rich of course.
吃全苦, 吃全甜.
You're missing the point a bit. I've been arguing politics with people of all political persuasions practically since I learned to type. Only half the reason for doing it is to try and win in arguments. The other half is to actually learn from my "sparring partners," get a good handle on what their positions are, where they're actually coming from and what the logic is that takes them from premise to conclusion.
I've debated with people who do as you said and just parrot the latest Drudge or Limbaugh talking points with no thought behind them. 1bad hasn't been doing that, so I'm interested in knowing just where he's coming from on this.
When you stop growing you start dying.
Registered User
You give the guy more credit than I do. I haven't seen what I consider an original thought from this character in the whole time he has been here.
If you were to get him in a real life debate and hit them with something that was not in his neo blog reference material he would be totally lost.
Is very uneasy
Thank you.
As to the inheritance tax, I look at as taxing the dead. That's my opinion and how I feel about it.
Also, not every estate is taxed. If it's under a certain amount, there is no tax. So it is also unfair to larger estates. I feel taxes should apply to ALL people, not just "The Rich".
"For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, so if the sum of the taxable estate plus the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime equals $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion will increase to $3,500,000 in 2009, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, but then the act "sunsets" in 2011 and the estate tax reappears with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000 (unless Congress acts before then)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_..._United_States
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
So says the guy who parrots every excuse a plagiarizing poseur uses to try and justify his lying.
Didn't you just use a "Blog" as a source yourself?
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
Rev,
FYI, if I died today my estate is nowhere near valuable enough to be taxed. So I'm not trying to argue against something that will affect me. I am just against the death tax itself, for the reasons I mentioned above.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Registered User
Where is it written that life is fair?
You neos don't seem to care about being fair when it comes to medical care for the 50 to 60 million Americans without insurance. Nor to you seem to be fair when it comes helping out hard working Americans who are losing their homes. Finally you neos don't seem to mind about being fair when I complain about my tax dollars being spent in a war where we are now shooting children.
吃全苦, 吃全甜.
I see. Personally, I can't agree, as it appears to me simply to be taxing gift income. It is, after all, the heir's money/property at that point that is being taxed, unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the law.
Rather goofy timeline, but that's government for you.Also, not every estate is taxed. If it's under a certain amount, there is no tax. So it is also unfair to larger estates. I feel taxes should apply to ALL people, not just "The Rich".
"For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, so if the sum of the taxable estate plus the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime equals $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion will increase to $3,500,000 in 2009, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, but then the act "sunsets" in 2011 and the estate tax reappears with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000 (unless Congress acts before then)."
Personally, $2 mil seems awfully high an amount to be able to get as untaxed income. I don't have a problem with income tax exemption for people making very little (FYI, I'm currently living basically paycheck-to-paycheck and paying bills isn't easy, but still making enough to pay income tax), as reasonable exemptions need to be made so as not to literally tax people into poverty or homelessness. But $2m? All the cash and assets I've had in my life combined don't add up to that.
I'd be very comfortable with inheritance being simply lumped into the heir's overall income and taxed accordingly, using the exemptions already in place. Seems like the most equitable way of going about things, regardless of whether you inherit $10 or $10 million.
When you stop growing you start dying.
Registered User
Interesting Story coming from MSNBC tonight:
President Obama has nominated a gentleman by the name of Chris Hill to be the next Ambassador to Iraq. Hill has spent his entire career in diplomatic service with a stella record. He has been endorsed by the past two Iraqi ambassadors and a host of military people including General betray-us.
Sources tell The Cable that Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, top Iraq commander Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are frustrated by the delay in getting a U.S. ambassador confirmed and into place in Iraq, and support Hill's confirmation proceeding swiftly....
Yet with all of this experience the neos in congress will not vote for the man......The reason? He doesn't have enough experience!
Okay......you know, as far as I'm concerned, they can leave the post vacant!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
