I still have never heard a compelling argument in favor of the death tax. It's been debated for a very long time and I've heard or read every argument in favor of it. The truth is that the government uses the populist rhetoric to find another way to take our property.
That's it...... and it's wrong.
And while I'm at it so it a progressive tax rate. A flat tax is the ONLY fair tax.
21 comments:
A case can be made against the estate tax. The case for it is that it is income. If a long-lost uncle leaves me money in his will, then that is income, and people pay tax on income.
A flat tax is not fair. What tax rate would you suggest? Let's say the government adopted a flat tax rate of 20%. At the lower level of income 20% takes a big bite out of money needed for basic living expenses such as shelter and food. At the upper income level a tax payer could pay 30% or 40% and still not be in danger of either homelessness or starvation.
Once again you appear to believe that poor people have too much money and rich people not enough.
When does it end?
With a constant death tax, the state will eventually over time take 99.5% of every dollar earned.
That sounds reasonable to you?
Actually it's not income it's inheritance. It was income to your uncle and it was already taxed.
20% sounds good to me. Right now 50% of the country doesn't pay federal income tax but they get all the benefits that the tax payers get and in fact use more of them.That's not fair.
There is no argument that can make it fair for me to pay your way in life against my will.
Someone making minimum wage and paying 20% would likely starve. Bill Gates paying 20% is still rich.
Someone making minimum wage is making how much per year? 16-20k They're probably already on some sort of public assistance. It seems fair to me that if they're going to get food stamps they should pay at least some of the bill.
However, I remember in Steve Forbes tax plan the poor or working poor still didn't pay anything.
I also don't believe the politicians in Washington DC will ever have the balls to do away with the unfair progressive tax system but I really like the idea of a constitutional ammendment that limits the amount of money the federal government can take at a specific % of GDP. That would force them to be more efficient.
If fairness is the issue, would you propose people that pay less receive less services. I mean thats fair.
As it is now, those that contribute the least benefit the most.
I mean why should I be stuck in traffic on roads my tax dollars pay to pay with people that are riding the bus for free.
Someone making minimum wage is making 15-16K. They are not eligible for food stamps if they are single, not sure if they have kids. Riding the bus is not free. The thought of rich people and their apologists whining that their taxes aren't "fair" sickens me. Rich people have every advantage in our society. First, if life were "fair" children would not be born into poverty. Second, you seem to think it's unfair that some poor people are eligible for food stamps or other minimal benefits. How many rich people benefited from the bail-outs? Which economic group receives more "services?" Rich people control the country and the political system.
The top tax rate has gone down from 91% during Eisenhower to about 36%. And you want it down to 20. That would result in even more massive deficits or massive spending cuts.
Rich people deserve representation and they certainly have it. They control one party in its entirety and part of the other and its still not enough for you. I would say to the tea partiers, most of whom are no where near rich, wake up you morons! You are being used.
Losers who want me to feed their children and pay their rent sicken me...but be that as it may..i'm not rich and yet I pay the top tax rate in the country.
Life isn't fair...that is the loser excuse. Donkey and I were both born into poverty and we didn't whine about it we worked our way out of it.
To come from where I came from and be where I am is proof that life is indeed fair.
Finally, you shouldn't speak about the tea party like you know anything about it. You should go to some meetings and see for yourself first.
It is you who were whining about how unfair our country is toward rich people, which is laughable in the extreme. I'm sure they are grateful for your support, or would be if they had a clue you existed. I am, I suppose, poor and yet I have worked hard all my life and never asked you or anyone to support me, apart from unemployment insurance during the few periods of unemployment in my life, due to down turns in the econonomy where I was layed off and couldn't find another job promptly.
Support or oppose raising the top tax rate a few percent, back to where it was during the Clinton administration, but do not claim that the RICH are victims of injustice, lest you be laughed off the stage.
1. i'm not on stage
2. i never said anyone is a victim
3. if you worked hard and are still poor then be grateful you're not even poorer and at least you can have pride in the fact that i'm not feeding your family against my will.
I don't know where you come up with your arguments but you're agruing something other than what i said.
Here it is in a nutshell.
If the government can't afford to pay for everything they want without raising taxes they should stop spending. If they can't or won't stop spending then they should expand the tax base not take more from the most productive in society. When you tax production you get less of it.FACT.
If you don't believe the facts and want to make up your own that's ok but it doesn't change them.
You've been making up your own "facts" for years. Nonetheless I think we might agree on one thing: we should pay for the government spending we have, whether that involves raising taxes or cutting spending. Cut spending? Sure, let's cut the defense budget by a third to start. We're already spending more on defense than every other country combined. I will never concede that this country is unfair to rich people, particulary when the rich have been getting richer for decades, while the poor and middle class have actually lost ground.,
It seems you are touching on 2 issues here. Government assistance and taxation. If taxes are progressive shouldnt government assistance be as well? The system is set up so that the poor must remain in thier income bracket to keep assistance.
So if my ex-brother in law who was disabled (actually disabled with spina bifida) received any extra help, like his wife getting a raise at the coffee shop she worked in, his benefits were cut. But the decrease in assistance was out of proportion to the increase in her salary. Then they went back to not making thier rent.
It seems that if as they progress positively toward the poverty line thier benefits should decrease in proportion and thier taxes should increase.
But if they were paying a flat percentage thier taxes would still increase with income. because 20% of 16k is more than 20% of 12k.
Shouldnt the focus be helping the people on assistance to get off asssistance instead of taking more from rich people just because they have more?
What kind of logic is that?
The rich get richer IN SPITE of the unfair rules, not because of them.
And I would be fine with cutting the defense budget. I'm sure there's just as much waste there as in any other government agency but that would be last on my list.
Plus saying we have a higher military budget than every other country combined is incorrect, but also a big part of the reason why ours is so high is BECAUSE of those other countries that are under our military umbrella.
"stop spending stop spending stop stending!" - Rick Santelli
The poor need most or all of their money for basic living expenses, the rich do not. The rich obviously get more benefits from society. Also they should pay a higher percentage because 1) they have the money and 2) they can afford it. The top rate was about 50% during the administration of your beloved Reagan. I would put it at 40%, today's Republicans want it at 36%. You want it at 20%.
What you fail to miss, is that the rich do pay more. ALOT more. But its never enough for you liberals because its not about whats fair or whats right or whats the boo fucking hoo poor need, its about control. Its about you believing that the govt is more deserving of the money I earn than I do. And if you cant see that, than there is no hope for you.
Luckily, your beloved Obama has seen the error of his ways and finally acknolwedged the will of the people by refusing to capitulate to liberal demands (and his own wavering principles) for a tax increase by once again copying Bush's homework by continuing his tax policy.
Obama must have got an early copy of Decision Points, a book I highly recommend.
Gary you can afford to pay more too....and yet you don't. Hmmmm...
No matter what you say to me, if you have a computer and internet access and a TV and a home then you are better off than someone and you can afford to pay more. Why are you so greedy when there's people out there starving? You don't need cable tv!
I will concede that the topp 5% pay 40% of taxes, or something like that, but they have 40% of the money too so you see it is fair. My numbers may not be exact because I am too lazy to look it up. The Congress was debating whether the top rate should be 36% or 39%, an important matter I'm sure, and one on which reasonable people can disagree (not that I put you in that category) but not a matter of theology as you seem to feel. Rich people won't stop working at 39, they didn't during the Clinton years, or during the Reagan years at 50. Stop whining about how the tax code is not fair to rich people. I have nothing against rich people but I will never feel sorry for them either.
Who is whining? I think it's the poor people who want everyone else to pay more!
Also your argument is extremely flawed. Rich people will never stop working, that's why they're rich. However they will leave or find another way to avoid paying the higher rate. Therefore the federal revenue will go down.
The Bush/Obama tax cuts did increase revenues and did create jobs etc. The problem is that the spending never stopped and in fact increased under Bush and has exploded under Obama.
Stop spending! That's the answer!
Stop spending. So simple. As Mencken said: "For every complex problem there's a simple solution, and it's wrong." I'm all in favor of reducing spending (why do we need 50,000 troops in Germany) but for a good look at how Reagan failed to cut spending, consult David Stockman's "The Triumph of Politics: Why The Reagan Revolution Failed" and he should know having been Reagan's Director of OMB.
Actually it's well known that spending continued to grow during the Reagan presidency however the President doesn't have the power of the purse.
And for a look at what a failure Clinton was you can read ANYTHING FROM DICK MORRIS and he would know wouldn't he?
Post a Comment