U.S. House passes estate tax repeal despite veto threat

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
I think you see the word "welfare" out of context. That's why I brought it up. Fed 12 describes how to not direct tax. To use import duties, and how to deal with the black market.

The founders were unlikely to emulate much of what the British did, or we'd have a king, land grants, taxation to fund crusades, quartering of troops in our homes, a state religion forced upon us, and on and on.
Click to expand...
yet they understood , Hamilton seemed to, that when the wealth of the nation became such, and, the vigor of the government became such, like
Britain's, that wealth taxation becomes more tolerable and, practical. the indirect taxation kind.
 
lawai'a said:
yet they understood , Hamilton seemed to, that when the wealth of the nation became such, and, the vigor of the government became such, like
Britain's, that wealth taxation becomes more tolerable and, practical. the indirect taxation kind.
Click to expand...

No. They absolutely wanted to tax commerce. The whole fed 12 is about this. The idea is to tax transactions to raise a % of GDP. That's exactly what is described.

The constitution forbade direct taxation by the Feds. Very specifically, they went out of they way to record it that way.

If you randomly select a word here, a word there, you can bend it to your will.

It simply is disingenuous to ignore 99% of the text that does not at all say what you want.
 
Denny Crane said:
No. They absolutely wanted to tax commerce. The whole fed 12 is about this. The idea is to tax transactions to raise a % of GDP. That's exactly what is described.

The constitution forbade direct taxation by the Feds. Very specifically, they went out of they way to record it that way.

If you randomly select a word here, a word there, you can bend it to your will.

It simply is disingenuous to ignore 99% of the text that does not at all say what you want.
Click to expand...
I have never said and even stated that they didn't preferred to tax commerce, yet I am not picking a word here and there but quoting nearly an entire paragraph of the document that you seem to deny is even a part of it. they left it their for future flexability in my opinion. do you deny the literal quotation as presented?
 
The federalist papers were written to encourage the ratification of the constitution, not to shoot it down via debate.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._12

In Federalist 12, Hamilton argues that the formation of the union will lead to greater wealth for the states. The government, by establishing currency, would encourage industry and all Americans would enjoy the benefits. Hamilton continues by arguing that there is no rivalry between commerce and agriculture - rather each benefits when the other prospers. Taxes should be levied on commerce and the union will be much more efficient than the states at collecting revenue. In fact, the article predicts that revenue will triple with the new federal government administering tax collection. The states have been unable to establish an adequate way to collect taxes. Hamilton claims that direct taxation is not a reality for the new government. Instead, taxes should be levied on imports and exports, mainly on imports. Hamilton also points out that if the federal government administers tax collection instead of leaving the task to states, it will reduce the amount of resources needed to ensure that the tax is not being evaded. It will be much easier for the federal government to protect one border - the Atlantic coast - than it would be for each state to protect its borders. A few ships stationed outside of Americas ports would ensure the collection of duties. Hamilton concludes that funding the government is essential and if Americans fail to do so then the Revolution itself will have been in vain.
 
yet the practical needs of a more vigorous and opulent nation in the future is also adressed
 
lawai'a said:
yet the practical needs of a more vigorous and opulent nation in the future is also adressed
Click to expand...

No, it is dismissed. In England, the king granted and took away lands by edict, and taxed the lords who were given the lands. That's not at all what was envisioned here.

The idea was for the Feds to tax the states proportional to their population. The states had to come up with the money however they saw fit, including an income tax if they so chose. The Feds' taxation was to be import duties, which encourages people to buy domestic goods.

To this day, the income tax is a serious breach of our Liberty (privacy) and contrary to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. The government can raise revenue without spying on my income, sources of income, or what I spend. States do it via sales tax and gas tax, etc.
 
It seems, in reading this thread, that:

Giving your (already multiply-taxed) inheritance to your kids without tax => kids are freeloading, get-a-job, whiners.
Giving your (already multiply-taxed) inheritance to Lockheed, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or to a health insurance company = ...

:dunno:
 
Lockheed is by definition a product of big government.
 
maxiep said:
Why didn't you write a check to the Federal Government for the entire inheritance? Why are you so greedy?

It always amazes me that liberals only think the way the government will accept money from them at the point of a gun. Our government will be happy to cash an unsolicited check?

You pay what you want, I'll pay what I want.
Click to expand...

No government has ever survived such an honor system, as it seems very few wealthy people have any honor at all.
 
Denny Crane said:
Only 5400? Let's go after 5400 realtors instead.

And barfo.
Click to expand...

The Capital Gains Tax applies equally to all races, sexes, and occupations, except religious ones which of course always get a free ride on the taxpayer backs of atheists.

Why do you want to protect a tiny special interest group?
 
MARIS61 said:
The Capital Gains Tax applies equally to all races, sexes, and occupations, except religious ones which of course always get a free ride on the taxpayer backs of atheists.

Why do you want to protect a tiny special interest group?
Click to expand...

I don't want to protect any group, but treat them exactly the same. You're the one in favor of targeting 5400 families a year.
 
Denny's motive is that he thinks he's one of the 5400 families per year who pay the very top rate of inheritance tax. This means that Denny is worth at least $50 million.

I don't believe the number 5400, anyway. The top rate is easy to beat. You just diversify your investments into a shell game. The very rich hire accountants and lawyers to do this.

Anyway, realize that anyone arguing for the very rich is either very rich, a paid representative (e.g. a Republican legislator), or a religious moron who is unable to coherently think out issues.
 
Denny Crane said:
No, I'm not wrong. Brainiac kept saying the family would get to "retire on $5M," The difference between $7.8M and $5M is $2M. My points all still stand. Even at $500K in tax, you are forcing people who can't come up with that money to sell the property to evil corporations or someone in the 1%.
Click to expand...

Posts immediately following your Post #14 are written as if you stated "$2 millions," not "$millions." You have the power to edit without it showing, right? I think you did. Anyway, my point still stands. A 7% inheritance tax on realized windfall business property is a small price, easily paid by a going concern.

honkicracker said:
I will be extremely sad when my grandparents pass away, even more so if we as a family can't afford to keep the farm in the family...5 million isn't near enough to lose that. No dollar amount is.
Click to expand...

I showed that the tax is at most half a million, not $2M, on a $7M farm. Check with your siblings whether they agree with your idealism. If even one wants the farm sold, it will be, unless you pay him his share. So if you have one sibling, you'll have to instantly find half of $7M to pay him, if you want to own the farm. Finding the small inheritance tax of at most a half-million will be the least of your concerns.

--signed, someone who lost his parents' large isolated family home on a lake, with 1 acre, well, dock, and 40 years of memories, because the evil government forced a sale, then to boot, transferred $700,000 from the siblings who had delayed sale, to the one who wanted the sale, due to the home's sale price temporarily dropping in the 2007 depression, with the government refusing to postpone sale until house prices went back up.
 
I expect to pass $0 on to anyone but my wife. I hope to spend everything I've made and enjoy it before the end.

Unlike you, I didn't quibble. $5M isn't enough, as honkicracker said.
 
That's all you got?

(as a comeback answer, not as in net worth)
 
Well, what's to answer but your uneducated guess?
 
jlprk said:
Anyway, realize that anyone arguing for the very rich is either very rich, a paid representative (e.g. a Republican legislator), or a religious moron who is unable to coherently think out issues.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be religious to be a moron.
 
Only a moron loses his family estate and is happy about it.
 
jlprk said:
You seem to think you have a clever piece of logic, posting it twice. Back at'cha:

Do you like the Iraq War? Then why don't you contribute all your money to it? Do you like Israel? Then why don't you contribute all your money to it? Do you like chocolate?...
Click to expand...

You're adorable. I'm for limited government. You're for limitless government. You think just paying more taxes solves all problems. I think starving the beast is the way to go. Therefore, if you wish to promote your position, then your money should follow. Obviously, you happily wrote a $250K check; you're the evil 1%.

And the cutest thing is your implicit assumption that all money should flow through the government. My money does follow my ideals. I not only pay my taxes, but I also write checks for private charities and organizations in whose mission I believe.
 
honkicracker said:
I'm not 50, and my grandparents aren't dead.
But I have a job at their farm that I perform and work hard at every day.
I will be extremely sad when my grandparents pass away, even more so if we as a family can't afford to keep the farm in the family.
Personally 5 million isn't enough for me to not miss working there every day.
I grew up there, my childhood was there, both my cousins got married there, I remember at 6 years old catching and butchering a chicken there for a holiday...
5 million isn't near enough to lose that.
No dollar amount is.
Click to expand...

And don't you think it's right for you and your grandparents to have that choice? Whether or not they want their family farm sold and for you to have the money or if you just get the land to decide to do with it what you wish? After all, taxes have already been paid on the monies to acquire the farm, for property taxes on the farm, from income from the farm. It's the double taxation that is so galling to me. That death is a taxable event.

I think people should be able to do what they wish with their assets, both when they're living and on the event of their death. And when it comes to these farms, what most hilarious is that those who promote the idea of the death tax are the first scream about mega-agribusiness and the death of the family farm. :smh:
 
Denny Crane said:
They lost their source of revenue for the family forever. The $5M can't replace that.
Click to expand...

They didn't, unless it was already failing. As you point out they can sell it and buy another business for $640,000 less which should be easy, maybe even a better deal. Or if it's a thriving business they can easily get a loan and pay it off from profits.

Inheritance is a liberal dream for Phish fans who want nothing more than to be trust-fund babies and follow Phish through their entire tour , not something a true conservative would go near.

Anyone with a bit of grit would rather earn their success starting with nothing but his or her wits and determination, and most people have made their mark and are nearing retirement age by the time they inherit anyway.
 
Last edited:
3RA1N1AC said:
I mean Jeesh, like I said, its really sad. The poor kids only inherit 5 million dollars. I'll say a prayer for them.
Click to expand...

Actually, they keep $5.4mil tax-free and pay 40% only on the $1.6mil for a tax of $640k.

This means they keep $6,360,000 of the $7mil, or a little over 90% of the total inheritance.
 
MARIS61 said:
Actually, they keep $5.4mil tax-free and pay 40% only on the $1.6mil for a tax of $640k.

This means they keep $6,360,000 of the $7mil, or a little over 90% of the total inheritance.
Click to expand...

$640K is chump change.

How moronic.
 
Denny Crane said:
$640K is chump change.

How moronic.
Click to expand...

It is less than 10% of the "family's source of income" as you call it.

I, and most Real Americans, pay close to 30% tax on our "family's source of income".
 
MARIS61 said:
It is less than 10% of the "family's source of income" as you call it.

I, and most Real Americans, pay close to 30% tax on our "family's source of income".
Click to expand...

You don't pay tax on the equity in your house. Not until you sell.

It's akin to 10% of the equity in the business. No it IS 10% of the equity.

The government can tax the sale, if or when the family decides to sell.

It's outrageous to tax unrealized equity.
 
Denny Crane said:
You don't pay tax on the equity in your house. Not until you sell.
Click to expand...

Property tax may not be precisely a tax on equity, but it's pretty similar.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top