0
dreamdancer

United for a Fair Economy and Allies Back New Estate Tax Bill

Recommended Posts

makes sense...

Quote

Proposal Raises Revenue from Top 1%, Protects Programs that Benefit 99%

United for a Fair Economy and Responsible Wealth applaud the introduction of the Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2011 by Congressman Jim McDermott, a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill is the only comprehensive estate tax reform plan that does not repeal or continue the existing estate tax law.

The Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2011 brings the estate tax rates back to pre-Bush era levels, with a maximum marginal rate of 55% and a $1 million exemption, both indexed to inflation beginning in 2000.

Representative McDermott stated, “This legislation will take us back to an estate tax that worked and provided the kind of certainty that practitioners and taxpayers have been calling for since the Bush tax cuts took effect. Never in our history has an exemption increased over 500% in less than a decade, and known loopholes been left open for abuse. The estate tax is broken, and it’s time we fix it.”



http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/11/17-9
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

makes sense...



Makes NO sense. So I've worked hard, made good money, and paid a combined federal and state tax of about 35% of my income. I have an estate of $4 million dollars. I choose to leave it to my friends when I die. So $3 million that I'VE ALREADY BEEN TAXED ON will be taxed AGAIN at rates of up to 55%.

So it would be better for me to spend all of my money on hookers (where legal, of course) and "medical" pot, and end up on welfare for my last 10 years.

The money has already been taxed. It should be mine to do whatever I'd like with it. Just because I've saved more than a million dollars is no reason to punish me (or the friends I give my money to).
There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You you're concerned about the money being "taxed twice," then your logic is flawed because if you spend it (legally) it's already subject to sales tax.

As for any amount left over for your "friends" after you die, why are they somehow special and should be the only ones to benefit from your death?

Why shouldn't the country that enabled you to amass such a fortune also benefit after you're gone?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's retarded!!!! It's his freaking money he earned it not yours or mine! Yea when he spends it he is gonna be taxed at 9-10% not a criminal ass raping 55%.

My mom got in a terrible car accident 10 years ago and was awarded an annuity from it due to the other drivers gross negligence. Her and my dad got a divorce after he cheated on her a few years back and she had to cash it in to pay off her house in order to have an budget she can work with. By the time she cashed it in half of it was gone to uncle Sam! It's CRIMINAL I say!

By your logic you owe me half of your skydiving gear because I don't have as much and you have more to spare. Pm me your address I will send a box to you to ship it in:S


Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

we all hear a lot of whining on behalf of the rich...



:D:D:D

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHINING HERE!!!!


Green is NOT your color:D
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You you're concerned about the money being "taxed twice," then your logic is flawed because if you spend it (legally) it's already subject to sales tax.

As for any amount left over for your "friends" after you die, why are they somehow special and should be the only ones to benefit from your death?

Why shouldn't the country that enabled you to amass such a fortune also benefit after you're gone?



It's not taxed by the Feds twice, and certainly nowhere near 55%.

What most people don't understand is stupid laws like this one remove the incentive to be successful. They penalize the very people we need to be entrpreneurs.

United for a Fair Economy ...Fuckin' amazing . Talk about dumb and proud of it. Whenever I hear someone start talking about what's fair in life I throw up alittle in my mouth. Winners and losers kids. You can be one or the other but everyone can't be a winner. Here's your trophy for showing up.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Why shouldn't the country that enabled you to amass such a fortune also benefit after you're gone?



1) Because the country did not work hard for it.

2) Because it is his money, he was taxed all along the way.

3) BECAUSE THE RICHEST normally give the most to charities and benefit the most people without government help. Small and Big time examples: Rockefeller, Getty, Ahmanson, Kent Logan, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak. Look to most college campuses for buildings named after people who gave their estate. How about cancer funding? We don't need the government to tax the rich for their fortune because their fortune will help us all.

4) Because the rich make jobs for everyone else. If everyone was an employee, and there were no entrepreneurs, our society would crash.

5) 4 above expanded - because anyone can be rich if they want to. A lot of the richest people earned all of it, just as anyone else can.

6) Because family owned businesses often are trampled by estate taxes. The estate value often includes equipment, cash flow, accounts receivable, and other things, such as "blue sky" and "business value" the business owns that is not cash in the bank. To pay the taxes, money has to be found. Jobs can be lost... When it is handed from generation to generation, the next generation has to take out loans, or sell the business, to pay the estate taxes. Businesses that are publicly traded don't have this problem. Estate taxes unfairly punish small business. Small businesses employ about 50% of all workers and have generated 65% of the net new jobs over the last 17 years.


Should I go on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relation Between Hauser's Law and the Laffer Curve

Recently, I published a short article on Hauser’s law on Caveman. This law is an empirical observation, not a theory. In other words, people can observe that since WWII, tax receipts have varied within a narrow band of 15% to 20% of GDP, even though top tax rates have varied from 28% to over 90%. People might have an intuition as to why this has happened but they don’t have a theory to predict the results.

Some have concluded that taxing the rich is futile because the GDP (and tax revenues) goes down as the tax rates go up. The purported reason is that the rich quit working so hard or they find ways to shelter their income. These reasons seem plausible. But there are many caveats to any conclusion one might draw from this data. First, the data doesn’t hold for years prior to WWII. Also, we can’t conclude what might happen if top tax rates were less than 28%, because we have no data. The tax revenues in the data include things besides income tax; strictly income tax data is not quite as stable as looking at all tax revenues.

That said, the data is amazingly consistent. It cannot be ignored.

Somehow this observation must be related to the Laffer curve which has been discussed previously on these pages. Simply stated, the Laffer curve is a conclusion that though tax revenues must be zero when tax rates are zero, tax revenues increase proportionately as tax rates are increased, to a point. But as taxes become significant in people’s and companies’ decision making, strategies are developed to reduce the impact of taxes. Therefore the curve of tax revenues begin to slow down, and in fact peak, as tax rates keep increasing. Taking the other extreme, one would have to admit that tax rates could be imagined that are so high that the economy slows to a halt, resulting in zero tax receipts, again. Thus we have a curve starting at zero at zero tax rates and peaks before heading back to zero at some exorbitant tax rate.

Most politicians cannot understand this simple analysis. They keep thinking that if they keep increasing tax rates, revenues will come along wagging their little tails. Not so.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Whenever I hear someone start talking about what's fair in life I throw up alittle in my mouth. Winners and losers kids.



and now the 1% are going to lose - and are they and their mouthpieces going to whine. live with it...
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You you're concerned about the money being "taxed twice," then your logic is flawed because if you spend it (legally) it's already subject to sales tax.

As for any amount left over for your "friends" after you die, why are they somehow special and should be the only ones to benefit from your death?

Why shouldn't the country that enabled you to amass such a fortune also benefit after you're gone?



your post normally seem pretty moderate to me but this one is a bit more extreem. IMO, his friends ARE special because they are HIS friends. he should have the right to choose who benifits from his wealth. also, the country does benefit because he already payed taxes.

with that said i dont feel taxes are ever fair but life isnt fair so people need to get use to it. what i want is an estate tax that prevents families from being rich indefinitely. i dont want to live in Victorian England. on the other hand i dont want to see people have to sell the family business to cover the taxes, which i've sadly witnessed in my own family. Whats the magic number? i dont pretend to know but its not 0 nor is it 90.

I cannot in anyway relate to most of you, so sure its has to be one extreme or the other. i dont find problems that easy to solve.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

People choose to spend or not spend their money and can choose whether or not the product or service they are about to consume is worth spending the extra taxes on. People can not choose not to die.



The dead aren't taxed. The heirs are. It's not double taxation.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Relation Between Hauser's Law and the Laffer Curve

...

Most politicians cannot understand this simple analysis. They keep thinking that if they keep increasing tax rates, revenues will come along wagging their little tails. Not so.



So where is the analysis that shows exactly where the maximum on the Laffer curve is located?

The simplistic nature of the Laffer analysis is described by: Malcomson, J.M. 1986. Some analytics of the Laffer curve. Journal of Public Economics 29, 263–79., who shows among other things that zero return at a 100% marginal tax rate is just not correct, although it is always quoted.

Every analysis I've seen suggests that the USA right now is NOT over the maximum on the curve. That includes a very thorough CBO analysis.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

United for a Fair Economy


Quote

makes sense...



Actually not. The concept of a "Fair Economy" can never be objective. Fair to whom? In the history of industrialized civilization, no economy has ever been "fair." What you're talking about is placating a majority, who have squandered their own affluence, by collectively stealing wealth from others through power of the majority. Asserting that such a system is sustainable is nothing more than another one of your attempts to predict the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

United for a Fair Economy


Quote

makes sense...



Actually not. The concept of a "Fair Economy" can never be objective. Fair to whom? In the history of industrialized civilization, no economy has ever been "fair."



Exactly why the "Fair Tax" movement is stupid.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So $3 million that I'VE ALREADY BEEN TAXED ON will be taxed AGAIN at rates of up to 55%.

....




The money has already been taxed.



Factually incorrect. Money isn't taxed, people (and "virtual people" or "artificial people" like corporations) are taxed.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Money isn't taxed, people (and "virtual people" or "artificial people" like corporations) are taxed.



but this is still idiotic - it's just another income transaction - there's no reason for recipients to be taxed on those dollars at a rate different from any other dollars

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Money isn't taxed, people (and "virtual people" or "artificial people" like corporations) are taxed.



but this is still idiotic - it's just income - there's no reason for recipients to be taxed on those dollars at a rate different from any other dollars



By that reasoning, capital gains are just income too.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My point wasn't that we were over. Studies suggest 34-37% given trade is the average max the us could handle.



But our average is only around 19% after all deductions etc. are accounted for.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So. Just because you could possibly rape more taxes from those who work should it be your first option? Get the troops home, stop funding other countries, force those who owe you to settle their bills, cut absurd wasteful spending.

How can you hold your hand out for money while still wearing a rolex watch on your wrist....

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Money isn't taxed, people (and "virtual people" or "artificial people" like corporations) are taxed.



but this is still idiotic - it's just income - there's no reason for recipients to be taxed on those dollars at a rate different from any other dollars



By that reasoning, capital gains are just income too.



I have no problems with that

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0