Jim

Couldn't let these shaky numbers pass. Budgets at all time highs? Are you nuts? Maybe if you don't adjust for inflation. When you do public schools are dragging budgets lower than the 70's with increasing demands to get technology into classes. As far as getting more money per student if less kids go to public school - this one is way off. Budgets are razor thin. Talk to your kids school teachers. I assume you have none in pubic school, or you're not connected to them, otherwise you might show some knowledge on the subject. Schools need a high number of students/teacher to make the budget work, these days around 25-30. If students left for private school because of vouchers then the cost per student would rise because of the loss of state supplied income, loss of federal contribution, and the fixed costs of facilities, heating, lights, janitors, etc. In addition, public schools have to take all comers. That means a variety of skills, language issues, income levels, etc. Private schools are dealing with a much smaller piece of the pie, usually white, middle to upper class, with a supportive homelife. It takes more money in public school to address these special needs with language teachers and special education teachers that private schools don't have to worry about. These two previous posts are simply not true. I have no problem with private schools mind you. Just don't come asking for a government handout to go. If you want to go, have at it.

For such a rich country we spend quite a large proportion on military and not so much on social issues, health, education, etc. compared to other industrialized countries. While our GDP and average income is high, this is because our rich are much richer than other countries. Our average and lower income levels are much less off than those of most industralized conutries. Our life expectancy is about the same of Costa Rica for crying out loud. Productivity is higher in countries such as Canada, Sweden, and France (really!) and they have more time (vacation), better health (life expectancy & infant mortality), education, and other social indicators. So where the heck are all our tax dollars going? It's not hard to figure out the priorities.

Bill, Maybe it just those manky bar chords your working with.

Yaya, No, I'm just a slow typer and my comment was a tag on to my previous comment. The welfare thing got intermixed.

I would also say they are getting something out of - not nothing - but a more meaningful life, less stress, more time with their families, better health, etc. It's not all about money.

Wrong Rick. When you look at the hours worked vs output the US is not at the top and drops to about 5th. We have high productivity because we work more. When compared to Sweden, France, Germany and others their productivity per hours worked is higher. They choose to put some energy in to other portions of their lives, we put it into our military.

Sounds familiar. I had (continue to have) bouts of this, diagnosed as tendinitis. The one suggestion that seemed to help is to do curls with a varying wrist angle, wrist down instead of up (reverse curls), and to the side (inside) instead of up. It was explained to me as an over use and muscle balance thing. Avoiding pullups in the gym and saving it for the real thing also helps. I also found that adding swimming once a week has help the muscle balance thing.

Hard to beat the opening scene of Scream of Stone.

Well I guess you can argure govenrment intrusion but it seems unfair to me that Enron paid on taxes on millions of profits the past few years of it's existence. And they are not alone. And not because they were dishonest, they were just following the tax code. Same goes for wealthy individuals. It's just not fair. I know, fair to who? Right? Generally the middle and lower earners are getting fleeced.

Forget taxes. How does Ian get that squirrel up there so fast?

No. What I mean is that the upper income levels have been getting such a break over the last 30 years in comparison to the middle and lower incomes. Marginal tax rates are the highest rates the government charges. They are usually to the "marginal" or way upper incomes. These have seen a steep and steady decline. Capital gains taxes have also decreased. Now - while the widely stated statistic is that almost 50% of households own stock and get some capital gains. True enough. But 90% of those gains are gotten by less than 5% of households. The benefits to most folks are chump change, the wealthy are raking in the benefits of these tax reductions. The proportion of income in taxes (all payroll taxes) the lower and middle income folks pay is way higher compared to what upper income folks pay. I guess my bottom line is fairness. I see fairness as an equity issue. You should be paying in some proportion as your ability to pay. What I see is increasing pressure to reduce upper end taxes while removing benefits for the lower social classes. I don't know your personal situation. But a lower limit for $2 million for an estate tax seems like quite a bit of money to me. And there are options to reduce this tax exposure with long-term planning. It does not seem unfair to me.

But you're exempt if you have less than $2 million! It's only collected from 1.4% of tax payers, those that have quite a lot, and enough money to avoid as much tax as possible. The marginal tax rates are now at their lowest in 65 years. They have been declining steadily the past 10 years. While the upper (and I mean upper) class have been clicking their heels the middle (what's left of it) and the bottom tax brackets are losing ground. That doesn't seem fair to me.

PP- I would say it depends. If they are getting old and have a large estate they have the choice of down sizing and gifting that wealth over the years to others gradually, or setting up living trusts that avoid the tax. If you're talking about unusual events where a couple barely qualifies for the tax and has children then I might be tempted to agree it's a problem. There are accommodations as the upper limit of the tax application is always rising. The problem is there is no sliding scale. If some croaks and leaves behind a $2 billion estate and his or her relatives get "only" 65% of that, I'm not crying over that one. And generally if you have that much wealth you hire the planners to lower you exposure to that as much as possible.

Hate it when I yak before checking my memory. I think I need to go to the climbinb gym to get this tax cobweb stuff outt my head.

Peter, my bad. Here's the details: Last year's tax-cut legislation lowers the top estate tax rate to 45 percent by 2007, increases the estate tax exemption to $3.5 million — $7 million for a couple — by 2009 and then repeals the estate tax altogether in 2010. The repeal expires at the end of 2010, however, as part of the general expiration of all provisions of the tax bill at that time. Following the 2010 sunset, the estate tax reverts to prior law, with an exemption of $1 million and a top rate of 55 percent

Repealed. But to be honest I don't know what year it starts, this or next year.

old inheritance tax info, now repealed for 3 years, which may go permanant under this Congress. Draw your own conclusions: Estates $1 million – and effectively double that amount for spouses – are exempt from the tax. The tax is collected only from the richest 1.4 percent – and two thirds of the inheritance tax revenues comes from the wealthiest .2 percent. And there are options for gifting if you do it over an extended period (IRS 2002)(I'm summarizing)

47 PP - there currently is no inheritance tax.

sorry veggie but you're uninformed. Using the normal gifting exmption your statement is true. But a recent wrinkle is that the lawyers are now using tax codes origninally set up for nonprofit organization expmptions to set up dummy corporations to slide in the profits. It's very interesting to go into the Congressional record and look at the arguments for the exemption, and it was not the non profits who lobbied for it. Think they have any clout. I apologize for not having the tax code number to allow you to look it up on the web, but I'm at work and the info is at home. I can pass it on if the thread continues tomorrow.

Chuck, Here's the scoop. While there are some minor tax benefits for some one earning 100k a year they are minor compared to the upper levels. Think about this .1% of the people have 16% of the wealth. Besides the avoidance of the luxury tax they can take advantage of some complexities of the tax code. One instance now allows wealthy folk to avoid limits on how much they can gift to family members. It's complicated but with a knowledgable tax lawyer you can slide hunderds of thousands per year in capital gains to family. So the result is lower taxes for the upper class, and that bulk of taxes is paid by the less fortuante (by birth) who can't afford the fancy tax lawyers.

Veggie, I know the argument- the top 10% of the population pays about 30% of the taxes, which is true. But it the top 1% earn about 10% of the income, shouldn't they be paying that proportion. If you look at what each income interval actually pays in taxes vs what that interval is taxed it is way in favor of the upper income level. Why? There are many more ways to dodge it at the upper levels. You need to do some more research if you doubt that.

I'd rather my taxes go to child care than more smart bombs.

You're missing the point. We are paying other people's bill - the weatlthy's. Wealth is not just measured in cash, and yes it's not the government's job to distribute wealth, but that is what is going on now, and it's all going uphill. I think what is at issue is what is one's fair share of taxes. I don't want to get into minutia, but the weatlth have a number of loop holes big enough drive a SUV through, and very lenient tax policies of late that are placing more of a burden on the lower rungs of earners. There is no doubt about this. We have a democracy, of sorts, but what we are building is a pluracracy of elites. And these are the folks using asking for hands off government policy; unless when it comes to business bailouts (name any big corporation), tax reductions that benefit an extreme minority (wealthy individuals and corporations), of yea and of course protecting "our" oil.

Federal Tax policy over the past 10-20 has made a major redistribution of wealth to the extreme upper ends of our society. Not since the 1920's has the inequities been so large. The argument ususally goes something like - Well, we don't want to peanilize success. And talk of how tax policy affects wealth is met with cries of "class warfare". Well, it is, and there's no doubt about who is winning. With now 16% of the nation's wealth in the hands of about 0.1% of the populace, a small number of people have an inordinate effect on politics, government policy, etc. My favorite line about politics and money is from Trent Lott - he said if people can't get access to the system using money they will have to find other ways to get access. Isn't that a hoot? A good example is the inheritance tax. Despite that 99.5% of people are unaffected by this tax the people who would benefit made a successful play in Congress about the loss of family farms, small business, etc. Note that there was no evidence of this and farmers and family businesses rarely qualify for the tax, and with some small planning have options to avoid it. Despite the small number of affected folks, and the hit to the tax role, it passed in Congress. Now why was this? They're not voting for the benefit of the working stiff, just who shoves cash in thier pockets. And with wealth so more concentrated it's unlikely to change soon. Thought the Republicans are more blatant about it, this trend has contined from the Regan onward, even with a Democratically controlled Congress.

Good question but not overly optimistic. I don't know but it's a toll-free call to find out.