PDA

View Full Version : Amazing



depittydawg
06-09-2010, 02:31 AM
Ok, I think it might be time for me to go back to being a Libertarian. Insanity, that is the only term that seems to apply to the Government anymore. Political Party affiliation doesn't matter. They're all incompetent boobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/09estate.html?ref=business

Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.
The one-year lapse in the estate tax was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001, an accounting quirk in his package of tax cuts. Although Democrats pledged to close that gap and reinstate a tax for 2010 when they took control of Congress, they failed to reach an agreement last December.

duckheads
06-09-2010, 09:40 AM
you pay taxes on the money you earn your whole life then when you die you think the government should get another 45 or 55 percent of it? why should the goverment get any taxes just because you die? that it complete bull crap! I do not beleive Libertarians who i thought are for limited government would be for the death tax but that is just an assumption.

ducknwork
06-09-2010, 10:42 AM
you pay taxes on the money you earn your whole life then when you die you think the government should get another 45 or 55 percent of it?

Good point. That doesn't make a bit of sense. BTW, wouldn't that be double taxation?:confused:

huntinman
06-09-2010, 10:45 AM
Good point. That doesn't make a bit of sense. BTW, wouldn't that be double taxation?:confused:

Absolutely. The money is already taxed (probably several times) when you earn it. They turn around and tax it again when you keel over.

subroc
06-09-2010, 11:00 AM
the thing I find "amazing" is your entire post!

depittydawg
06-09-2010, 11:32 AM
you pay taxes on the money you earn your whole life then when you die you think the government should get another 45 or 55 percent of it? why should the goverment get any taxes just because you die? that it complete bull crap! I do not beleive Libertarians who i thought are for limited government would be for the death tax but that is just an assumption.

I phrase the question another way. Why should anyone get 7 billion dollars because they were born?

dixidawg
06-09-2010, 11:36 AM
Why should the government get it because someone died?

aandw
06-09-2010, 12:13 PM
I phrase the question another way. Why should anyone get 7 billion dollars because they were born?

i can relate on a much smaller scale. my grandfather owns about 1200 acres, he is not rich at all. his income consists of SS and crop lease. no one in my family has much money, we wouldn't be able to pay a death tax on it. he could have sold it at anytime, but he knows how much his grand kids and great grand kids enjoy it. and would rather us have it to use and enjoy than have the money. i think a lot of people want to leave their kids or a charity something as a gift. i really don't see how anyone but a thief would think this is a fair tax.

aandw
06-09-2010, 12:14 PM
Why should the government get it because someone died?

i would love to hear the answer to this one. great question
i'm sure yardley will dig up the history on this to defend the liberal stance.

david gibson
06-09-2010, 12:18 PM
I phrase the question another way. Why should anyone get 7 billion dollars because they were born?

typical liberal. take take take and spread the wealth!

so you are saying a family has no right to bequeath its descendants the wealth they attained? you cant be serious - but as a liberal i know you are.

government should have no right to tax the net gains of an individual upon their death.

duckheads
06-09-2010, 01:48 PM
I phrase the question another way. Why should anyone get 7 billion dollars because they were born?

beacuse their father was either brillant or lucky or both and earned it. It is "amazing" that someone could actually think this way!

savage has it nailed "liberalism is a mental disorder"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YardleyLabs
06-09-2010, 01:53 PM
the thing I find "amazing" is your entire post!
In fact, most of the value of large estates has never been taxed and never will be. Most large estates are made up of unrealized capital gains, which means that the profits have yet to be taxed. Under tax law, the tax basis in the property is equal to the fair market value of the property at the time of the decedent's death. Thus, if you owned and sold shares in a company worth $9 billion, but only paid $1 at the time of issuance, you would be subject to capital gains taxes on the $9 billion profit. However, if you die and leave that $9 billion in stock to your children, and they, in turn, sell it for $9 billion, they are not liable for any taxes, since they were deemed to have "paid" $9 billion for the shares at the time of inheritance. (See, for example, http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126098.html) In fact, if they sell the shares, but only realize $8 billion, they will retain a tax loss of $1 billion that can be applied to offset future taxes on income from their new wealth. The $9 billion in profits, in this case, has never been and will never be taxed. This is the scenario that is most typical for large estates.

depittydawg
06-09-2010, 03:14 PM
beacuse their father was either brillant or lucky or both and earned it. It is "amazing" that someone could actually think this way!

savage has it nailed "liberalism is a mental disorder"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's called Aristocracy, and sorry, it ain't ever gonna be a part of America. Estate taxes are here, they've always been here, and they ain't going away. How many billionaires do you know?
I've always marveled at the effectiveness of the Conservative Propaganda machine. How they get middle class and even poor people to rally to the protection of the wealthiest .1 % of the population, even to the detriment of their own needs goes way beyond the test of reason. That's called lunacy!
You guys won't be satisfied until America looks like Mexico...

kb27_99
06-09-2010, 03:26 PM
I phrase the question another way. Why should anyone get 7 billion dollars because they were born?

Because the person who worked for it said they want them to have it after he/she has perished. Simple as that.

We need to take this country back,
Kevin

kb27_99
06-09-2010, 03:28 PM
I phrase the question another way. Why should anyone get 7 billion dollars because they were born?


Why should we support all the lazy people who are capable but refuse to work.


Kevin

huntinman
06-09-2010, 03:30 PM
That's called Aristocracy, and sorry, it ain't ever gonna be a part of America. Estate taxes are here, they've always been here, and they ain't going away. How many billionaires do you know?
I've always marveled at the effectiveness of the Conservative Propaganda machine. How they get middle class and even poor people to rally to the protection of the wealthiest .1 % of the population, even to the detriment of their own needs goes way beyond the test of reason. That's called lunacy!
You guys won't be satisfied until America looks like Mexico...

Ok, dippity make out a blank check and send it to me. I promise I'll only take what I need.

aandw
06-09-2010, 04:10 PM
In fact, most of the value of large estates has never been taxed and never will be. Most large estates are made up of unrealized capital gains, which means that the profits have yet to be taxed. Under tax law, the tax basis in the property is equal to the fair market value of the property at the time of the decedent's death. Thus, if you owned and sold shares in a company worth $9 billion, but only paid $1 at the time of issuance, you would be subject to capital gains taxes on the $9 billion profit. However, if you die and leave that $9 billion in stock to your children, and they, in turn, sell it for $9 billion, they are not liable for any taxes, since they were deemed to have "paid" $9 billion for the shares at the time of inheritance. (See, for example, http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126098.html) In fact, if they sell the shares, but only realize $8 billion, they will retain a tax loss of $1 billion that can be applied to offset future taxes on income from their new wealth. The $9 billion in profits, in this case, has never been and will never be taxed. This is the scenario that is most typical for large estates.

so your defense is the gov't has a right to the estate because someone died. and his family didn't earn it. shouldn't it be left to the person that earned the estate to decide what to do with it? how did the gov't earn that estate?
if the family sells the estate they should pay a capital gains tax, but not before.

YardleyLabs
06-09-2010, 04:23 PM
so your defense is the gov't has a right to the estate because someone died. and his family didn't earn it. shouldn't it be left to the person that earned the estate to decide what to do with it? how did the gov't earn that estate?
if the family sells the estate they should pay a capital gains tax, but not before.
Actually, I believe the entire estate should be taxed prior to disbursement based on individual taxes owed, if any, as income. Thus, if you have $9 billion in capital gains, pay taxes on that before anything is distributed. Of course, I also believe that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as any other form of income. Once those taxes have been paid, the balance should be distributed in accordance with the wishes of the decedent. The recipients should report the inheritance as income in accordance with IRS rules for gifts. I see no reason why a posthumous gift should be treated differently from a gift given while a person is alive. The whole estate tax debate misses the point that this is ultimately unearned income and should be taxed as such.

aandw
06-09-2010, 04:28 PM
Actually, I believe the entire estate should be taxed prior to disbursement based on individual taxes owed, if any, as income. Thus, if you have $9 billion in capital gains, pay taxes on that before anything is distributed. Of course, I also believe that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as any other form of income. Once those taxes have been paid, the balance should be distributed in accordance with the wishes of the decedent. The recipients should report the inheritance as income in accordance with IRS rules for gifts. I see no reason why a posthumous gift should be treated differently from a gift given while a person is alive. The whole estate tax debate misses the point that this is ultimately unearned income and should be taxed as such.

what did the gov't do to earn it? how do you think a farm should be handled? 1200 acres, that has an income about $25,000 per year, for an example. value is 2.5-3 million according to current market

YardleyLabs
06-09-2010, 04:49 PM
what did the gov't do to earn it? how do you think a farm should be handled? 1200 acres, that has an income about $25,000 per year, for an example. value is 2.5-3 million according to current market
Is your complaint against income taxes (or other taxes) in general, or simply about taxing income for a person who has died? The simple answer is that the government provides a range of services that have been added over time in response to the demands of the electorate. These must be paid for and to do that requires taxes. We have chosen, for a variety of reasons with which I agree, to raise much of our revenue through personal income taxes. For reasons I don't understand, we apply different tax rates to different types of income. The highest tax rates are reserved for those poor schleps who have nothing to sell but their own labor. The lowest tax rates are paid by those who receive their income as gifts, that they did nothing to earn, from dead people who also avoided paying income taxes on much of the wealth they accumulated before they died. That seems to me a pretty stark reminder of what we view as the value of hard labor in comparison with passive wealth. We may have had class warfare in this country at times. But the war is over and the wealthy won.

Marvin S
06-09-2010, 08:52 PM
If there is no inheritance tax this year - whose fault would that be? Who's in charge, at least who's supposed to be in charge?

I personally favor the approach advocated by Senator Jon Kyl, ranking R on some revenue committee. All gains are taxed at the rate in effect for capital gains at the time. Makes it very simple with little opportunity to sell tax breaks for campaign donations.

As I also favor a Flat Tax!

depittydawg
06-10-2010, 09:29 AM
If there is no inheritance tax this year - whose fault would that be? Who's in charge, at least who's supposed to be in charge?

I personally favor the approach advocated by Senator Jon Kyl, ranking R on some revenue committee. All gains are taxed at the rate in effect for capital gains at the time. Makes it very simple with little opportunity to sell tax breaks for campaign donations.

As I also favor a Flat Tax!

I am a strong supporter of the flat tax. One tax rate for everyone. No exemptions for anything other than poverty.

Gerry Clinchy
06-10-2010, 12:43 PM
Is your complaint against income taxes (or other taxes) in general, or simply about taxing income for a person who has died? The simple answer is that the government provides a range of services that have been added over time in response to the demands of the electorate. These must be paid for and to do that requires taxes. We have chosen, for a variety of reasons with which I agree, to raise much of our revenue through personal income taxes. For reasons I don't understand, we apply different tax rates to different types of income. The highest tax rates are reserved for those poor schleps who have nothing to sell but their own labor. The lowest tax rates are paid by those who receive their income as gifts, that they did nothing to earn, from dead people who also avoided paying income taxes on much of the wealth they accumulated before they died. That seems to me a pretty stark reminder of what we view as the value of hard labor in comparison with passive wealth. We may have had class warfare in this country at times. But the war is over and the wealthy won.

While I haven't had a large estate to inherit, nor will have such to leave behind :-) ... if the estate is taxed on the capital gains for the $9 billion (let's say it's stock) & then the heir pays a gift tax, how is the original amount NOT taxed twice?

If a child is living at home and going to college or med school, and dad is paying for that, child is not taxed on the cost of med school that is being paid for by dad. So, if dad dies then child IS taxed on the $ that dad may have set aside in a savings account or stock for child's med school. I understand that there are tax-protected education savings accounts, but it still makes no sense to me to argue that the assets are not being taxed two times ... once as capital gains & once as a "gift" to an heir.

Matt McKenzie
06-10-2010, 12:56 PM
I am a strong supporter of the flat tax. One tax rate for everyone. No exemptions for anything other than poverty.

And who decides the definition of "poverty"? There's the big opportunity for the politicians to manipulate the tax code for political gain, same as they do now.

As far as estate taxes go, I know too many people who've been screwed because they inherited either land or businesses with little cash flow and were forced to liquidate assets to pay the taxes. If you don't see something wrong with that, I'm sorry for you.
If you believe that because you made choices that prevented you from becoming "rich" that you should be able to force those who did to shell out more of their property to support you, there are plenty of countries who specialize in that form of economy. Some of the more extreme cases can be found in North Korea and Cuba. Closer to us on that scale is Greece. Maybe instead of transforming the U.S. into them, you should just become rich yourself so you can take on some of the burden yourself. If you are tired of riding in the wagon, why not get out and help push?
It disgusts me that in this land of opportunity, so many people vilify the successful and glorify the "poor, poor, pitiful poor". We can't even call them poor anymore. We lie and call them "less fortunate". As if those of us who have worked hard to establish a life for ourselves and our families are simply lucky and those who made choices that prevented them from being a part of the American dream just caught a bad break and we are obligated to carry them on our backs. Anyone that is neither physically or mentally handicapped has opportunity in this country. Anyone can get an education. Anyone can become rich if that's what they chose. Most of us (myself included) are either unable or unwilling to make the choices that it takes to become rich. That doesn't mean we should punish those who do make those choices. That also doesn't mean that we should punish the people who are actually "fortunate" in that they inherit wealth that someone chose to bequeath to them. The wealth belongs to the individual. Not to us.

ducknwork
06-10-2010, 01:03 PM
Hookset,

BRAVO!

Henry V
06-10-2010, 01:13 PM
Thanks for this discussion. I now understand the system perfectly.

If you are alive, cash in your assets, and then give them all to people of your choosing it is legal and fair to tax this as income.

On the other hand, if you die and direct the exact same proceeds from your estate to people of your choosing it is an immoral, unethical, double taxation "death tax" by the government.

road kill
06-10-2010, 01:15 PM
Thanks for this discussion. I now understand the system perfectly.

If you are alive, cash in your assets, and then give them all to people of your choosing it is legal and fair to tax this as income.

On the other hand, if you die and direct the exact same proceeds from your estate to people of your choosing it is an immoral, unethical, double taxation "death tax" by the government.

I agree comrade, we should give everything to the Government and let them give it out as they see fit!!

Anyone have an air sickness bag??:barf:



rk

YardleyLabs
06-10-2010, 02:28 PM
While I haven't had a large estate to inherit, nor will have such to leave behind :-) ... if the estate is taxed on the capital gains for the $9 billion (let's say it's stock) & then the heir pays a gift tax, how is the original amount NOT taxed twice?

If a child is living at home and going to college or med school, and dad is paying for that, child is not taxed on the cost of med school that is being paid for by dad. So, if dad dies then child IS taxed on the $ that dad may have set aside in a savings account or stock for child's med school. I understand that there are tax-protected education savings accounts, but it still makes no sense to me to argue that the assets are not being taxed two times ... once as capital gains & once as a "gift" to an heir.
If I earn an income and use part of it to hire you to take care of my dogs, I will be paying income tax on my earnings and the employer's share of social security on the amount I pay you. You will be paying income tax and social security on the money I pay you. Each of us is paying taxes only once on our own income, but the money is being taxed each time it changes hands. Why should inheritance receive preferential treatment as compared with pay for work?

aandw
06-10-2010, 02:59 PM
Thanks for this discussion. I now understand the system perfectly.

If you are alive, cash in your assets, and then give them all to people of your choosing it is legal and fair to tax this as income.

On the other hand, if you die and direct the exact same proceeds from your estate to people of your choosing it is an immoral, unethical, double taxation "death tax" by the government.

if you cash in while you are alive then you pay a capital gains tax.
if it is land, business or stocks, inherited, and not cashed in you still have to pay the estate tax. it forces a lot of families, like mine to sell just to pay the taxes.
i have been hunting and fishing our farm since i was 7, you can't put a price tag on the memories i have shared with family and friends. i have a 9 and 11 year old i hope to make memories with. my dad, brother and i have spent countless hours following bird dogs through the fields. i can't tell you how many birds we have killed but i remembered a lot of misses, laughs, and tears. we are a lot closer than most brothers because of that farm.
we are having a birthday party for my grandfather saturday it is his 88th, his mind isn't very sharp anymore and will probably be his last. he was drafted to play pro baseball shortly before going into the army. he served during WWII and was on a beach shaving when the attack on pearl harbor began. he spent the rest of service there burying soldiers and cleaning up. after that he came home to farm. doesn't seem right to me for the gov't just to take something like that away. some of you will understand, some of you won't.

Buzz
06-10-2010, 03:15 PM
if you cash in while you are alive then you pay a capital gains tax.
if it is land, business or stocks, inherited, and not cashed in you still have to pay the estate tax. it forces a lot of families, like mine to sell just to pay the taxes.
i have been hunting and fishing our farm since i was 7, you can't put a price tag on the memories i have shared with family and friends. i have a 9 and 11 year old i hope to make memories with. my dad, brother and i have spent countless hours following bird dogs through the fields. i can't tell you how many birds we have killed but i remembered a lot of misses, laughs, and tears. we are a lot closer than most brothers because of that farm.
we are having a birthday party for my grandfather saturday it is his 88th, his mind isn't very sharp anymore and will probably be his last. he was drafted to play pro baseball shortly before going into the army. he served during WWII and was on a beach shaving when the attack on pearl harbor began. he spent the rest of service there burying soldiers and cleaning up. after that he came home to farm. doesn't seem right to me for the gov't just to take something like that away. some of you will understand, some of you won't.

You sure you're going to have to pay estate tax?

Here is a link to the table of exemptions by year:

http://www.legalzoom.com/taxes/estate-taxes/estate-tax-is-it

Henry V
06-10-2010, 03:16 PM
I agree comrade, we should give everything to the Government and let them give it out as they see fit!!

Anyone have an air sickness bag??:barf:

rk
Yes, RK, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I'll play your game. We should give everything to the super rich and large corporations and let them give it out as they see fit.
Jump to conclusions much?

aandw
06-10-2010, 03:37 PM
You sure you're going to have to pay estate tax?

Here is a link to the table of exemptions by year:

http://www.legalzoom.com/taxes/estate-taxes/estate-tax-is-it

thanks for the link. if he died this year, i guess not. but i would like to have him around a while longer. his property would be valued at about $3 million (1200 acres). it is a rural area, not much to do but farm and hunt. i doubt you could actually sell it for that. some will only see the dollar amount and not understand.

Buzz
06-10-2010, 03:59 PM
thanks for the link. if he died this year, i guess not. but i would like to have him around a while longer. his property would be valued at about $3 million (1200 acres). it is a rural area, not much to do but farm and hunt. i doubt you could actually sell it for that. some will only see the dollar amount and not understand.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Democrats (or whoever is in power...) will leave it at $1 million for 2011. My guess is that the exemption well be set back to $3.5 million. We'll see.

Leaving it to reset back to $1 million will effect too many farmers and family businesses. Lots of family farms around me here in SD own and farm several sections of land. But I imagine many of them also use family trusts to help shelter the operation from taxes.

depittydawg
06-10-2010, 04:10 PM
And who decides the definition of "poverty"? There's the big opportunity for the politicians to manipulate the tax code for political gain, same as they do now.

As far as estate taxes go, I know too many people who've been screwed because they inherited either land or businesses with little cash flow and were forced to liquidate assets to pay the taxes. If you don't see something wrong with that, I'm sorry for you.
If you believe that because you made choices that prevented you from becoming "rich" that you should be able to force those who did to shell out more of their property to support you, there are plenty of countries who specialize in that form of economy. Some of the more extreme cases can be found in North Korea and Cuba. Closer to us on that scale is Greece. Maybe instead of transforming the U.S. into them, you should just become rich yourself so you can take on some of the burden yourself. If you are tired of riding in the wagon, why not get out and help push?
It disgusts me that in this land of opportunity, so many people vilify the successful and glorify the "poor, poor, pitiful poor". We can't even call them poor anymore. We lie and call them "less fortunate". As if those of us who have worked hard to establish a life for ourselves and our families are simply lucky and those who made choices that prevented them from being a part of the American dream just caught a bad break and we are obligated to carry them on our backs. Anyone that is neither physically or mentally handicapped has opportunity in this country. Anyone can get an education. Anyone can become rich if that's what they chose. Most of us (myself included) are either unable or unwilling to make the choices that it takes to become rich. That doesn't mean we should punish those who do make those choices. That also doesn't mean that we should punish the people who are actually "fortunate" in that they inherit wealth that someone chose to bequeath to them. The wealth belongs to the individual. Not to us.

Your train of logic is ..... well quite illogical. How does supporting a flat tax lead to any of the scenarios you outlined? Oh, it doesn't. Try again my friend.

Buzz
06-10-2010, 04:12 PM
Your train of logic is ..... well quite illogical. How does supporting a flat tax lead to any of the scenarios you outlined? Oh, it doesn't. Try again my friend.


He doesn't like you're letting those in poverty off the hook from paying theirs.


I am a strong supporter of the flat tax. One tax rate for everyone. No exemptions for anything other than poverty.

depittydawg
06-10-2010, 04:21 PM
He doesn't like you're letting those in poverty off the hook from paying theirs.

Fact is you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. What value is it in collecting tax from someone who is also receiving food stamps for their children, free medical support (medicaid) or other government assistance programs? The thing most rightwing ideologues like to ignore is that the primary benefactors of government assistance are children, disabled, and handicapped.

huntinman
06-10-2010, 04:37 PM
[QUOTE=depittydawg;627779]Fact is you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. QUOTE]

That's what the current Administration needs to learn. They keep saying tax the rich. To them anyone with a pulse and ajob is rich. Taxed enough already! What incentive is there to produce if the gov't takes more and more?

Matt McKenzie
06-11-2010, 03:30 AM
Your train of logic is ..... well quite illogical. How does supporting a flat tax lead to any of the scenarios you outlined? Oh, it doesn't. Try again my friend.

I'm sorry I confused you by making two points in one post. If I ever make the mistake of engaging you in discourse again, I'll make sure I dumb it down for you. My first point is that someone has to decide what constitutes poverty. That's where things will go astray. Your definition of poverty may differ quite a bit from mine.

My second point (that's the cue, so pay attention) was in regards to estate taxes. That's why I started the second paragraph with, "as far as estate taxes go,". That was a clue that we were shifting back to the original topic.

It would have been somewhat interesting if we could have all had an intelligent and civil conversation about estate taxes, but unfortunately you changed the tone with this post, "friend". Since I find myself unable to take the high road and not resort to responding in the same snippish tone, I'll remove myself from the conversation.

BonMallari
06-11-2010, 05:36 AM
Fact is you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. What value is it in collecting tax from someone who is also receiving food stamps for their children, free medical support (medicaid) or other government assistance programs? The thing most rightwing ideologues like to ignore is that the primary benefactors of government assistance are children, disabled, and handicapped.

I beg to differ on this, that is what govt would like you to believe. But I spent a considerable amount of time near and around hospitals(1 brother is an MD, 1 brother was a hospital CFO) the main recipient of medical care is people who know how to manipulate the system and make themselves eligible to receive medical care as they drive away in vehicles that would make you and I proud to drive to any FT in the country.

I also volunteered at a senior center where the govt distributed such items as cheese,bread , coffee, and other food staples...I saw many of my neighborhood elderly parents in line to claim these items (and I grew up in a mostly caucasian section in Orange County Calif) when I asked a couple of my classmates parents what they were doing there, they sheepishly responded that since it was there for the taking they were going to take advantage of the program...

when my son was born he was eligible for assistance from WIC because his mother's income fell below the low income line (elementary school teacher)
my ex and I argued about whether or not to "use the system" instead I worked two jobs for three years to make ends meet,sold all my expensive target shotguns including a tubed set Kreighoff O/U and I was making a high five figured wage as a waiter/captain at finer dining steakhouses around town...

Govt assistance is a scam...the people that really need it cant get it, while those that know how to scam the system reap the benefits that you and I pay for :-x

FCSpringer
06-11-2010, 05:43 AM
And to think we vote them in, if people vote.

Clint Watts
06-13-2010, 12:21 AM
Yes, RK, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I'll play your game. We should give everything to the super rich and large corporations and let them give it out as they see fit.
Jump to conclusions much?

That is an excellent idea. Ussually when the rich give out money it is called a paycheck, I have never received a paycheck from a poor person. Just think of the boost to the economy your idea will accomplish, unemployment would be back under 5%. If you could come up with another idea to stop the goverment from spending money we would have the greatest economic expansion ever. Keep them coming.

Blackstone
06-13-2010, 01:49 AM
That is an excellent idea. Ussually when the rich give out money it is called a paycheck, I have never received a paycheck from a poor person. Just think of the boost to the economy your idea will accomplish, unemployment would be back under 5%. If you could come up with another idea to stop the goverment from spending money we would have the greatest economic expansion ever. Keep them coming.

Sounds a lot like trickle-down economics. It sounds good in theory, and it has been tried, but it did not have the desired effect. Plenty of jobs were created, but they were in China, India, etc. U.S. job loss & unemployment increased.

BrianW
06-13-2010, 08:20 AM
Ok, I think it might be time for me to go back to being a Libertarian. :confused:

Just curious, what part of the LP platform do you think supports taking more money/read "personal property" from the people in the form of additional taxes?

The man worked for it and earned it, right? It's his.
Think you'd better find another party to support your point

http://www.lp.org/platform

From 2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would
phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private
voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts
of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and
civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

Matt McKenzie
06-13-2010, 10:00 AM
Sounds a lot like trickle-down economics. It sounds good in theory, and it has been tried, but it did not have the desired effect. Plenty of jobs were created, but they were in China, India, etc. U.S. job loss & unemployment increased.

So your position is that poor people DO provide jobs?

Gerry Clinchy
06-13-2010, 10:24 AM
Plenty of jobs were created, but they were in China, India, etc. U.S. job loss & unemployment increased.

Doesn't anyone else find it interesting that China is now having a problem because employees want to form unions to negotiate for better compensation. Unions are against the law in China (according to the media source I was reading).

It seems to follow the pattern of "aspiration" that occurs when individuals are given the opportunity to improve their situation in life.

dnf777
06-13-2010, 10:40 AM
Unions are against the law in China (according to the media source I was reading).


Hmmm...seems like the anti-union right wingers have more in common with communist China than I thought! ;)

Clint Watts
06-13-2010, 02:59 PM
Sounds a lot like trickle-down economics. It sounds good in theory, and it has been tried, but it did not have the desired effect. Plenty of jobs were created, but they were in China, India, etc. U.S. job loss & unemployment increased.

There were a lot of jobs created in the USA, trickle down economics does work. Get the government out of the way and watch what happens. Have you ever heard of the industrial revolution?

Blackstone
06-13-2010, 03:46 PM
So your position is that poor people DO provide jobs?

My position is that trickle-down economics doesn't work, at least not for the average citizen. When profit is the sole motivator, even if it comes at the expense of the rest of the country, we all lose.

depittydawg
06-13-2010, 03:55 PM
My position is that trickle-down economics doesn't work, at least not for the average citizen. When profit is the sole motivator, even if it comes at the expense of the rest of the country, we all lose.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been "trickled on" long enough

dnf777
06-13-2010, 04:42 PM
There were a lot of jobs created in the USA, trickle down economics does work. Get the government out of the way and watch what happens. Have you ever heard of the industrial revolution?

Yeah. Ever read "The Jungle"?
If trickle down works so well, why haven't Bush's tax cuts produced millions of jobs? We were just down that road, and look where we landed! I don't call our current state of the economy "success"!

Blackstone
06-13-2010, 08:40 PM
There were a lot of jobs created in the USA, trickle down economics does work. Get the government out of the way and watch what happens. Have you ever heard of the industrial revolution?

I’ve heard something about that Industrial Revolution thing. :rolleyes: The Industrial Revolution refers to a change from hand made goods and home production (cottage industry) to machines, factories, mass production and manufacturing? How much manufacturing is left in the U.S. today? Manufacturing of furniture, textiles, clothing, steel, electronics, etc. have all gone overseas in pursuit of cheap labor to maximize profit. How much of that trickled down to the average U.S. citizen? Were there jobs created? Sure there was some job creation, but most of them paid significantly less than the manufacturing jobs that were lost, which led to a lower standard of living for American workers. In addition, the number of jobs created did not offset the number of jobs lost. Just look at our current unemployment situation.

If you are talking about a true laissez-faire economy devoid of any government regulation of industries, we deregulated the financial system, and look what happen. The truth is, there has to be a middle ground where government regulations don’t stifle industry, but at the same time, industries are held accountable.

Cody Covey
06-13-2010, 09:11 PM
Yeah. Ever read "The Jungle"?
If trickle down works so well, why haven't Bush's tax cuts produced millions of jobs? We were just down that road, and look where we landed! I don't call our current state of the economy "success"!

Well job numbers were way up in the millions until the last year or two of his administration when the housing market and banking industry both collapsed. Both things Bush tried to regulate more but was told by Barney Frank and others that it didn't need to be. Could he have tried harder? yes of course but to say that the collapse was all because of Bush tax cuts when in reality it had little if anything to do with them at all is kind of far fetched.

Matt McKenzie
06-13-2010, 09:16 PM
Show me one respected economist that believes that high taxes, stringent regulation and high spending on social programs is a recipe for economic growth. I don't want to hear from politicians on either side. I want to hear it from an economist without a political agenda to support.

Henry V
06-13-2010, 09:18 PM
That is an excellent idea. Ussually when the rich give out money it is called a paycheck, I have never received a paycheck from a poor person. Just think of the boost to the economy your idea will accomplish, unemployment would be back under 5%. If you could come up with another idea to stop the goverment from spending money we would have the greatest economic expansion ever. Keep them coming.
Sorry to bust your bubble. You may want to check the facts from the past few years. Taxes on the rich are at an all time low. The financial markets were deregulated more than since the great depression. The net result----the Great Recession and highest unemployment in 20+ years. Where did that trickle go? Where are the jobs? There are more uber-rich than ever before in history and the gap between rich and poor is also at or near an all time high. Your theory has been disproven.

dnf777
06-13-2010, 09:23 PM
yes of course but to say that the collapse was all because of Bush tax cuts when in reality it had little if anything to do with them at all is kind of far fetched.

Didn't mean to imply that. There were many missteps taken over the past decade, starting with NAFTA (Bush I and Clinton share guilt) and ending with tax cuts during war time (first time that's ever happened).

Blackstone
06-13-2010, 10:37 PM
Show me one respected economist that believes that high taxes, stringent regulation and high spending on social programs is a recipe for economic growth. I don't want to hear from politicians on either side. I want to hear it from an economist without a political agenda to support.

I'm sure no economist would make that claim. But, like with most things, being extreme on one end or the other just doesn't work.

depittydawg
06-13-2010, 11:59 PM
Show me one respected economist that believes that high taxes, stringent regulation and high spending on social programs is a recipe for economic growth. I don't want to hear from politicians on either side. I want to hear it from an economist without a political agenda to support.

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

depittydawg
06-14-2010, 12:08 AM
That is an excellent idea. Ussually when the rich give out money it is called a paycheck, I have never received a paycheck from a poor person. Just think of the boost to the economy your idea will accomplish, unemployment would be back under 5%. If you could come up with another idea to stop the goverment from spending money we would have the greatest economic expansion ever. Keep them coming.

I think you've got it backwards. The "rich" do not give out money. A paycheck is the reward a worker gets for making a contribution, adding value, etc. The paycheck is usually is a return on the labor that produces something of value that another person is willing to pay for. Minus a generous portion to fill the pockets of the investor (i think this is who you refer to as "rich"). Here is how Abraham Lincoln sums it up.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.?

Cody Covey
06-14-2010, 10:16 AM
I think you've got it backwards. The "rich" do not give out money. A paycheck is the reward a worker gets for making a contribution, adding value, etc. The paycheck is usually is a return on the labor that produces something of value that another person is willing to pay for. Minus a generous portion to fill the pockets of the investor (i think this is who you refer to as "rich"). Here is how Abraham Lincoln sums it up.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.?

I think reports will find that rich people GIVE far more money than anyone else...on top of that reports will also show that conservatives give more than democrats.

dnf777
06-14-2010, 10:34 AM
I think reports will find that rich people GIVE far more money than anyone else...on top of that reports will also show that conservatives give more than democrats.

Gonna have to back that one up!
Sounds like hooey to me. (the second part)

As for the first, do you expect poor people eating out of dumpsters to purchase fine art at fundraisers and establish charitable trusts?

OF COURSE rich people give more charity than poor people! That's a profound observation! But check and see what the Bible says about charity and giving of one's self. You'll find that rich people aren't exactly wait-listed for entrance to Heaven! Something about camels and eyes of needles???

aandw
06-14-2010, 10:52 AM
Gonna have to back that one up!
Sounds like hooey to me. (the second part)

As for the first, do you expect poor people eating out of dumpsters to purchase fine art at fundraisers and establish charitable trusts?

OF COURSE rich people give more charity than poor people! That's a profound observation! But check and see what the Bible says about charity and giving of one's self. You'll find that rich people aren't exactly wait-listed for entrance to Heaven! Something about camels and eyes of needles???

the govt taking it and handing it out doesn't get you any closer to heaven either.
i thught only conservatives legislate morality.:rolleyes:

depittydawg
06-14-2010, 11:03 AM
I think reports will find that rich people GIVE far more money than anyone else...on top of that reports will also show that conservatives give more than democrats.

Your first statement is obvious. Your second statement is an opinion and as such is meaningless. Unless you can site a source on it.

david gibson
06-14-2010, 11:04 AM
Gonna have to back that one up!
Sounds like hooey to me. (the second part)

As for the first, do you expect poor people eating out of dumpsters to purchase fine art at fundraisers and establish charitable trusts?

OF COURSE rich people give more charity than poor people! That's a profound observation! But check and see what the Bible says about charity and giving of one's self. You'll find that rich people aren't exactly wait-listed for entrance to Heaven! Something about camels and eyes of needles???

actually, its pretty amazing but its true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

"But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income. "

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

"Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

tons more if you google it, Cody is correct.

depittydawg
06-14-2010, 11:27 AM
actually, its pretty amazing but its true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

"But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income. "

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

"Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

tons more if you google it, Cody is correct.

I stand corrected. But... (there's always a butt). All the information I found, and there is tons of it, site a single reference. A study (and book) done by Author Brooks. I'm not going to deny the study. I don't have any information contrary. It may or may not hold water. As in any study or compilation of statistical data, you have to know the details. Some aspects seem quite plausible. For example conservatives give more to churches. Why wouldn't they? Churches are full of conservatives and generally speaking are strong supporters of the conservative moral agenda, conservative political candidates, etc.

david gibson
06-14-2010, 11:34 AM
I stand corrected. But... (there's always a butt). All the information I found, and there is tons of it, site a single reference. A study (and book) done by Author Brooks. I'm not going to deny the study. I don't have any information contrary. It may or may not hold water. As in any study or compilation of statistical data, you have to know the details. Some aspects seem quite plausible. For example conservatives give more to churches. Why wouldn't they? Churches are full of conservatives and generally speaking are strong supporters of the conservative moral agenda, conservative political candidates, etc.

another interesting bit i heard was the low amount obama and biden gave - especially biden. sean hannity compared their contributions to his, maybe self serving and hardly scientific but it was interesting nonetheless...

Cody Covey
06-14-2010, 11:44 AM
I think you've got it backwards. The "rich" do not give out money.

And then go on to say duh of course the rich give out money...

depittydawg
06-14-2010, 12:51 PM
And then go on to say duh of course the rich give out money...

??? How could the rich not give more money? They have more! According to this study, the rich give less as a percentage of income. Kind of like taxes I guess.

Cody Covey
06-14-2010, 02:04 PM
You said they give No money...

depittydawg
06-14-2010, 02:11 PM
You said they give No money...

I never said anything close to that.

Cody Covey
06-14-2010, 02:17 PM
I think you've got it backwards. The "rich" do not give out money.

looks like to me you most certainly did.

huntinman
06-14-2010, 03:10 PM
actually, its pretty amazing but its true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."




Thats because libs mainly like to give away other people's money. That's why so many of them are drawn to government work.

dnf777
06-14-2010, 03:27 PM
actually, its pretty amazing but its true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

"But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income. "

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

"Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

tons more if you google it, Cody is correct.

Oh Jeez! You're making me laugh again with this prime example of proving anything you want with statistics! Which 24 red states? The ones that if you add up the populations of all 24, its less than the population of ONE blue state such as NY or CA? Try that line on someone who hasn't passes statistics 101!

huntinman
06-14-2010, 03:36 PM
Oh Jeez! You're making me laugh again with this prime example of proving anything you want with statistics! Which 24 red states? The ones that if you add up the populations of all 24, its less than the population of ONE blue state such as NY or CA? Try that line on someone who hasn't passes statistics 101!

You mean the ones who cling to religion and guns like those rednecks in Western PA? (to use one of your now deceased Senator's and our current Prez's opinions)

Cody Covey
06-14-2010, 03:46 PM
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

There that doesn't take states into account. Just a common conservative view point. 27% more likely to give and then take into account that most of the nation considers themselves to be conservatives...thats a lot more giving from the American population from those that are conservatives then democrats.

dnf777
06-14-2010, 04:03 PM
You mean the ones who cling to religion and guns like those rednecks in Western PA? (to use one of your now deceased Senator's and our current Prez's opinions)

If you're referring to John Murtha, former US Representative, US Combat Marine Corps veteran, Roman Catholic.......yes. He clung to guns and Bibles at various points in his life, I'd say.

But really, I was just pointing out how a statistical flim-flam man can prove anything he wants with graphs and charts....and that was a glaring example!

david gibson
06-14-2010, 05:02 PM
If you're referring to John Murtha, former US Representative, US Combat Marine Corps veteran, Roman Catholic.......yes. He clung to guns and Bibles at various points in his life, I'd say.

But really, I was just pointing out how a statistical flim-flam man can prove anything he wants with graphs and charts....and that was a glaring example!

no it wasnt, just because the stats show you are wrong doesnt mean its a flim flam job.

so far several MSM outlets as well as fox have cited Brook's study and gone on to make stories. not one has refuted his methods or results.

if you are so smart, why dont you be the first one??

please google and find one reputable story that shows liberal give more to charity that conservatives.

you really are a piece of work. do you ever recognize when you might be a bit remiss?

reminds me of this:

"i dont have all the facts, but its clear that the police acted stupidly"

huntinman
06-14-2010, 05:13 PM
If you're referring to John Murtha, former US Representative, US Combat Marine Corps veteran, Roman Catholic.......yes. He clung to guns and Bibles at various points in his life, I'd say

The same John Murtha who said our Marines were killing women and children in the dark of night? Yeah that's him...

dnf777
06-14-2010, 10:22 PM
please google and find one reputable story that shows liberal give more to charity that conservatives.



I bought cub scout uniforms for any kid in our pack who can't afford them. Also sponsored a kid to go to summer camp. A bunch of flag-waving Obama bashers didn't do squat except sneak beer into the camp for themselves. How's that? Didn't even need google. I love you guys.

Henry V
06-14-2010, 10:26 PM
Anyone else waiting for someone to post:
"Oh yeah, my Dad can beat up your Dad"

david gibson
06-15-2010, 07:52 AM
I bought cub scout uniforms for any kid in our pack who can't afford them. Also sponsored a kid to go to summer camp. A bunch of flag-waving Obama bashers didn't do squat except sneak beer into the camp for themselves. How's that? Didn't even need google. I love you guys.

oh well that little bit of scientific research data just proves it all for you, doesnt it?

so you are the one white man that can jump. whoopee

ducknwork
06-15-2010, 08:46 AM
oh well that little bit of scientific research data just proves it all for you, doesnt it?

so you are the one white man that can jump. whoopee

You did say one reputable story. He did give it to you...You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

david gibson
06-15-2010, 09:30 AM
You did say one reputable story. He did give it to you...You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

i beg to differ. i asked "please google and find one reputable story that shows liberals give more to charity that conservatives."

he gave one anecdote where ONE liberal gave more than ONE certain group of conservatives in his scout troop in ONE instance. not the same as liberals as a whole giving more than conservatives as a whole, thats what the debate has been about\ - whether the research has merit.

Clint Watts
06-16-2010, 07:16 PM
Thats because libs mainly like to give away other people's money. That's why so many of them are drawn to government work.

Lot of truth in this.

Marvin S
06-16-2010, 08:42 PM
Thats because libs mainly like to give away other people's money. That's why so many of them are drawn to government employment.

Fixed it for ya ;-).

huntinman
06-16-2010, 09:07 PM
Fixed it for ya ;-).

My mistake! Thanks... I think your word is more appropriate.

dnf777
06-16-2010, 09:24 PM
My mistake! Thanks... I think your word is more appropriate.


Are you also referring to our troops in that little description. I certainly hope not!

huntinman
06-16-2010, 09:43 PM
Are you also referring to our troops in that little description. I certainly hope not!

troops are not workers...they are soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors and coasties. been there done that, but cute try.