kelpdiver 2 #201 May 24, 2011 Quote YOU made the claim that heirs to fortunes somehow earned the money. no, I did not. This is a failure to comprehend on your part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #202 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Yep, that's me. I don't whine about paying my taxes, though. ROTFLOL, right. John your way to smart to tell anyone at dz.com your real thoughts on much of anything. Quote My kids worked for me and I paid them a fair wage at the time. All three of my kids have worked here. (One is here now) All three started at min. wage, the most they got paid above min. wage was .50 AND being the bastard I am I took - yes took - HALF of there earnings and put it in saving which they recieved at 18. Quote Any inheritance they get is therefore a gift, NOT the result of their work, which has already been paid for. So forgive me my OLD friend if you have answered this...it the inheritance tax started at dollar one would you be ok with it being 40%? So I stand corrected you actually just a OLD BASTARD Love fr As long as you pay them a fair wage when they work for you, then they have no claim to earn any inheritance they receive when you croak. The Constitution give the govt. the right to raise revenues through taxes. A smart govt. raises enough revenues by setting the tax rates at a level which maximizes the (revenues/whining) quotient. it is impossible to balance the budget by raising the taxes of homeless indigents. Like Willy Sutton, the govt. has to go where the money is, not where it isn't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #203 May 24, 2011 QuoteJack my taxes up and I won't hire a new employee. We will just make do with the ones we have and force them to be more productive. If they can't be, then we will let them go and hire someone else. What we won't do is expand the workforce. i don't see how increasing inheritance tax is going to affect you, or your employees, at all.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #204 May 24, 2011 Quote Quote YOU made the claim that heirs to fortunes somehow earned the money. no, I did not. This is a failure to comprehend on your part. dreamdancer: you forget that those who inherit the money haven't earned it kelpdiver: another one of your absolute statements that is easily disproved. To use your own logic from yesterday, he didn't say "ALL" did he?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #205 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteJack my taxes up and I won't hire a new employee. We will just make do with the ones we have and force them to be more productive. If they can't be, then we will let them go and hire someone else. What we won't do is expand the workforce. i don't see how increasing inheritance tax is going to affect you, or your employees, at all. That's because the title of this thread isn't Taxing Inheritance. It's taxing the rich, which by current government standards is someone making over $250,000 per year. You would probably be making that much or more if you dedicated as much time to building a business as you do trolling on DZ.Com. Right Ian? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #206 May 24, 2011 QuoteMy kids worked for me and I paid them a fair wage at the time. Any inheritance they get is therefore a gift, NOT the result of their work, which has already been paid for. Then put your money where your mouth is. Give us PROOF that your will states everything goes to the US Treasury - no strings attached, nothing to your kids. Or 90%. Or whatever you and DreamDancer decide is "fair". Let someone like Obama or Bush take whatever you estate will be and just gift it to some middle east country just to make a decent sound bit in a speech. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #207 May 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Jack my taxes up and I won't hire a new employee. We will just make do with the ones we have and force them to be more productive. If they can't be, then we will let them go and hire someone else. What we won't do is expand the workforce. i don't see how increasing inheritance tax is going to affect you, or your employees, at all. That's because the title of this thread isn't Taxing Inheritance. It's taxing the rich, which by current government standards is someone making over $250,000 per year. You would probably be making that much or more if you dedicated as much time to building a business as you do trolling on DZ.Com. Right Ian? fair enough - it's not my thread. just to say that i've been a self employed skydiver now for 25 years and the name is kevin. at the moment i'm in the uk trying to finish off my novel wot i've written (dz.com keeps distracting me) and then it's off to thailand for a winter of skydiving. if things go well i'll be bringing the wife and kids over at xmas time. so i consider myself rich stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #208 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteMy kids worked for me and I paid them a fair wage at the time. Any inheritance they get is therefore a gift, NOT the result of their work, which has already been paid for. Then put your money where your mouth is. Give us PROOF that your will states everything goes to the US Treasury - no strings attached, nothing to your kids. Or 90%. Or whatever you and DreamDancer decide is "fair". Serious non sequitur on your part. Stating that the inheritance isn't earned is unrelated to whether taxing it is legitimate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #209 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteJack my taxes up and I won't hire a new employee. We will just make do with the ones we have and force them to be more productive. If they can't be, then we will let them go and hire someone else. What we won't do is expand the workforce. i don't see how increasing inheritance tax is going to affect you, or your employees, at all. That's because the title of this thread isn't Taxing Inheritance. It's taxing the rich, which by current government standards is someone making over $250,000 per year. You would probably be making that much or more if you dedicated as much time to building a business as you do trolling on DZ.Com. Right Ian? This is interesting: www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf I continue to submit that being 6 standard deviations above the median constitutes being "rich" and automatically accounts for inflation. 6 standard deviations is around $200,000/year... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #210 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteMy kids worked for me and I paid them a fair wage at the time. Any inheritance they get is therefore a gift, NOT the result of their work, which has already been paid for. Then put your money where your mouth is. Give us PROOF that your will states everything goes to the US Treasury - no strings attached, nothing to your kids. Or 90%. Or whatever you and DreamDancer decide is "fair". Serious non sequitur on your part. Stating that the inheritance isn't earned is unrelated to whether taxing it is legitimate. nonsense - the whole premise from you and DD is that, since it's not really 'earned', then it should go to the government to spend on bug research, the perverted arts, missiles, roads, and random social programs designed to garner votes. Your kids got paid a fair wage by you - they don't deserve your estate, so why wait for the tax code to change to "do the right thing". Give it to the treasury when you pass unless you hate the poor, children and sick people. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #211 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMy kids worked for me and I paid them a fair wage at the time. Any inheritance they get is therefore a gift, NOT the result of their work, which has already been paid for. Then put your money where your mouth is. Give us PROOF that your will states everything goes to the US Treasury - no strings attached, nothing to your kids. Or 90%. Or whatever you and DreamDancer decide is "fair". Serious non sequitur on your part. Stating that the inheritance isn't earned is unrelated to whether taxing it is legitimate. nonsense - the whole premise from you and DD is that, since it's not really 'earned', it's obviously the 'best' tax there is...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #212 May 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote YOU made the claim that heirs to fortunes somehow earned the money. no, I did not. This is a failure to comprehend on your part. dreamdancer: you forget that those who inherit the money haven't earned it kelpdiver: another one of your absolute statements that is easily disproved. To use your own logic from yesterday, he didn't say "ALL" did he? DD has been quite clear, even when prompted to elaborate. Post 148. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #213 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMy kids worked for me and I paid them a fair wage at the time. Any inheritance they get is therefore a gift, NOT the result of their work, which has already been paid for. Then put your money where your mouth is. Give us PROOF that your will states everything goes to the US Treasury - no strings attached, nothing to your kids. Or 90%. Or whatever you and DreamDancer decide is "fair". Serious non sequitur on your part. Stating that the inheritance isn't earned is unrelated to whether taxing it is legitimate. nonsense - the whole premise from you and DD is that, since it's not really 'earned', then it should go to the government to spend on bug research, the perverted arts, missiles, roads, and random social programs designed to garner votes. . No, I have not taken that position. I claim simply that an estate tax is legitimate and does not constitute theft.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #214 May 24, 2011 Quote Like Willy Sutton, the govt. has to go where the money is, not where it isn't. That is correct sir...and you are smart enough to do simple math and capable of understanding that human nature being what it is you have to get it from the mass....and that is middle class. We spend to much, we owe to much. The "rich" of which you are part of...are going to pay more (I know that you don't care) BUT the middle class is going to take it up the ass to and some D.A.'s here are just to fucking stupid to see or do simple math. You of course are not stupid your just a R.O.B.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #215 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Like Willy Sutton, the govt. has to go where the money is, not where it isn't. That is correct sir...and you are smart enough to do simple math and capable of understanding that human nature being what it is you have to get it from the mass....and that is middle class. If the top 1% owns 40% of the nation's wealth, that's where the govt should get money most easily. The middle class, however, IS taking it up the ass, because the super wealthy have bought the govt. lock stock and barrel, the super wealthy control the media and the message they put out, and the super wealthy have more opportunity to hide their assets.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #216 May 24, 2011 >If the top 1% owns 40% of the nation's wealth, that's where the govt >should get money most easily. And, in fact, they do. >The middle class, however, IS taking it up the ass . . . The tax burden of the middle class as a percentage of all taxes paid has been declining since the year 2000. So at least they're taking it up the ass less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #217 May 24, 2011 Quote If the top 1% owns 40% of the nation's wealth John would you mind telling me the source for this stat? I'd like to study it.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #218 May 25, 2011 QuoteThe richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution. The report also finds that those in financial services and the internet sectors predominate among the super rich. Europe, the US and some Asia Pacific nations account for most of the extremely wealthy. More than a third live in the US. Japan accounts for 27% of the total, the UK for 6% and France for 5%. The UK is also third in terms of per capita wealth. UK residents are found to have on average $127,000 (£64,000) each in assets, with Japanese and American citizens having, respectively, $181,000 and $144,000. All data relate to the year 2000. The global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations - is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income, for which more comprehensive date is available. It included all the most significant components of household wealth, including financial assets and debts, land, buildings and other tangible property. Together these total $125 trillion globally. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnewsstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #219 May 25, 2011 QuoteIn terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America. Inheritance and estate taxes Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues (an estimated $1 trillion between 2012 and 2022) for the benefit of the heirs of the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever (Citizens for Tax Justice, 2010b). It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservative and libertarian activists behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way. However, a study (Kenny et al., 2006) of the financial support for eliminating inheritance taxes discovered that 18 super-rich families (mostly Republican financial donors, but a few who support Democrats) provide the anti-government activists with most of the money for this effort. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #220 May 25, 2011 QuoteAmericans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the "ideal" wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution. They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20% owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own. They also said that the bottom 40% -- that's 120 million Americans -- should have between 25% and 30%, not the mere 8% to 10% they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3% they actually had. In fact, there's no country in the world that has a wealth distribution close to what Americans think is ideal when it comes to fairness. So maybe Americans are much more egalitarian than most of them realize about each other, at least in principle and before the rat race begins. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #221 May 25, 2011 QuoteHere are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007). http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #222 May 25, 2011 QuoteIt is widely believed that taxes are highly progressive and, furthermore, that the top several percent of income earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal government. Both ideas are wrong because they focus on official, rather than "effective" tax rates and ignore payroll taxes, which are mostly paid by those with incomes below $100,000 per year. But what matters in terms of a power analysis is what percentage of their income people at different income levels pay to all levels of government (federal, state, and local) in taxes. If the less-well-off majority is somehow able to wield power, we would expect that the high earners would pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes, because the majority figures the well-to-do would still have plenty left after taxes to make new investments and lead the good life. If the high earners have the most power, we'd expect them to pay about the same as everybody else, or less. Citizens for Tax Justice, a research group that's been studying tax issues from its offices in Washington since 1979, provides the information we need. When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid 20.5% in taxes. So if we only examine these first two steps, the tax system looks like it is going to be progressive. And it keeps looking progressive as we move further up the ladder: the middle 20% (about $33,400/year) give 25.3% of their income to various forms of taxation, and the next 20% (about $66,000/year) pay 28.5%. So taxes are progressive for the bottom 80%. But if we break the top 20% down into smaller chunks, we find that progressivity starts to slow down, then it stops, and then it slips backwards for the top 1%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #223 May 25, 2011 You know that nobody reads your links, don't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #224 May 25, 2011 that's why i pick out the relevant bits - now toddle along stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #225 May 25, 2011 Most of us don't read them either. Additionally, I don't listen to the guy in the subway station talking to himself. So don't feel as if you are being singled out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
