Federal Tax Reform is SEXY

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

DAMN YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN! TO HELL, EVEN!

 

[ 11-14-2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

[Peter_Puget]

The problem with the tax is simple - unintended consequences. The goal should be to reduce them to as close to zero as possible. As such economic analysis can only go so far. At some point human behavior comes into play as crass politics. In general I imagine the best system would be simple and predictable.

 

Unbelievably from this thread I can only conclude that I am one of those selfish rich fucks stealing from the poor and contributing nothing. Oddly I seem to live modestly and have to pay attention to my bills. My parent's estate if they were to die today would be subject to the death tax and yet they worry about affording to care for my father as his health and mental acuity decline. As a result when ever I hear people spewing shit about rich and poor and taxes I tend to shut down.

 

Just a quick question why doesn't everyone state their ages.

 

45

 

PP

[Fence_Sitter]

damn kid's on a roll! sheesh...

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Dr. Flash Amazing is 76 years old, and a proud member of the AARP, and holder of the coveted Golden Eagle parks pass. Just zip right on in at Red Rocks, and ol' DFA is clippin' bolts by the time you youngsters get done dicking around buying your parking permit. Suckaz!

 

[ 11-14-2002, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

[Fence_Sitter]

21

[Fence_Sitter]

c'mon flashy baby...spill the beans... or are you erally an AARP member?

[MtnGoat]

"The stability of a society is related to the income disparity between the wealthy and the poor."

 

I contend it's related not to the gap, but the reasons the gap exists. The reason problems exist in Brazil is not the gap, but the reasons *for* the gap.

 

It's very difficult to enforce contract law, it's nearly impossible for anyone to get clear title to land which makes poor folks unable to capitalize on earnings they do make. This problem with stabilizing usable capital exists in many third world nations around the world.

 

"A larger taxable rate for wealthy individuals is justified by the increased earning advantage such social stability affords them."

 

I disagree. I could point out again that that larger earning advantage has it's counterpart in all the wealth of goods and services being transferred to those who buy them, who also benefit in direct proportion to how much they spend. I won't participate in refusing to look at only *one* side of economic transactions.

 

"Reliable margins and predictability is worth more than gold to any sensible business professional. That's why we have things like hog and corn "futures.""

 

Which are all driven by private property, and support of title and contract enforcement.

[Jim]

47

 

PP - there currently is no inheritance tax.

[vegetablebelay]

I'm 34 and here's my picture:

 

[MtnGoat]

"The guy who works at my local deli and my garbage man both make less, but contribute significantly more, than most of the middle management at a ton of companies."

 

Wether they do or not, they have the same ability to make decisions what they intend to do with their lives and choices.

 

It is not my place to judge who got where and who deserves how much related to someone else via numerous zillion assumptions, and then enforce social adjusments on others because of my views of what they are worth. They are worth whatever they have managed to convince someone else who will pay them they are worth.

 

My external judgement of same may in fact exist, but is not a reason for me to tell either party what they may or may not value because they are *both* free individuals and I am neither's boss.

[Jim]

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)

[Fence_Sitter]

veggie-

that is the grossest thing i have ever seen...i saw a progression of his surgery from the 80's till now and it was appalling! FREAKSHOW!!!

[chucK]

MAN!!! Time to hit the "delete temporary internet files" button.

 

I'm 40.

[rbw1966]

36

[cj001f]

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/fct.html

 

Yes that's the link to the budget. Look at it. See where the money goes. Now look at our $100-200 Billion war with Iraq. Look at how much you'd have to cut to afford it without raising taxes.

[sk]

DAMN IT!!!! mntgoat bored me to sleep again what did I miss?????

 

sales tax, sure okay but can my kids go to school nekid?? cause I can't realy aford to cloth them now and it that becomes more expensive well we as a family will have to forgo clothing... on a serious note, do you have to pay sales tax when you shop at goodwill???

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Alright, Dr. Flash Amazing is old enough to legally drink an alcoholic beverage, yet not old enough to run for president. Interpolate.

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

 

(insert random quibbles over semantics followed by pontification about some other stuff)

---

…so right now we should just brush those less fortunate under the carpet. It is remarkable (and incredibly tiresome) that you could somehow, someway rationalize targeting people who see suffering in their community (and would like to figure out how to help those in need) as selfish and lazy. Am I lazy because I don’t volunteer at the soup kitchen all the time, that I am willing to consider paying someone else to deal with the problem? Maybe, but I am aware of the problem and want to do something about it realistically. You (or simply others here) are saying it’s not your problem. Where do you think the criminals you feel the need to fend off with guns come from? (and now I will have to endure challenges to point to references, etc, etc, ad nauseum).

[Peter_Puget]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

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)

---

Was it repealed for three year scompletely or phased out? If the former I am wrong for three years.

[Fence_Sitter]

so your between 21 and 36...that doesn't narrow it down very well...

[Jim]

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

[Jim]

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

[MtnGoat]

curious you refuse to engage me on specifics, but I shall do so with you...

 

"so right now we should just brush those less fortunate under the carpet."

 

never said so. that I disagree with your use of others does not indicate I do not support aid, and the contention that the two are intrinsically bound together is part of the problem. it appears you simply cannot conceive of the idea that someone can oppose your use of others labor but still support donating their own. This blind spot is common.

 

"It is remarkable (and incredibly tiresome) that you could somehow, someway rationalize targeting people who see suffering in their community (and would like to figure out how to help those in need) as selfish and lazy."

 

if I target you as selfish because you demand others support what you believe, my targeting has been dead on. as for lazy, I am not sure where i have done that.

 

"Am I lazy because I don’t volunteer at the soup kitchen all the time, that I am willing to consider paying someone else to deal with the problem?"

 

nope, not at all, your cash represents your labor and that's as it should be.

 

"You (or simply others here) are saying it’s not your problem."

 

No, I say I am perfectly willing to accept it as a problem to be solved, but I don't see coercion as the answer. Your contention i see no problems is entirely baseless and again rooted in the assumption that if I resist your coercion, I don't care and I see no problems, which is completely false.

 

All I am doing is resisting your rationalization that caring equals being willing to take my neighbors labor.

[Fence_Sitter]

damnit!

 

[ 11-14-2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Fence Sitter ]

[gregm]