Let em expire!

[Mr. Boyce]

It is a rhetorical trick to call it a "death" tax.

 

Instead it is a tax on unearned windfalls.

[Stosh]

1) someone earned the money and paid income tax on it.

 

2) same dollar gets passed on to their children and it gets taxed a second time.

 

3) kids spend the money and it gets a sales tax slapped on it so it's taxed a third time.

 

Gotta love how much the government gets out of a single dollar the tax payer think he's getting through hard work and due diligence.

 

Tax rate for the low end of the spectrum is 25%. Okay go with a flat 15%-20% federal sales tax. Cut out the IRS (annual savings of billions of dollars), make businesses collect the taxes (like the states already are doing), and quit taxing everything two and three times. Maybe not tax the first $50 of any purchase so low income people don't get taxed at all unless they are buying a new car or big screen TV.

 

Sound too simplistic? Yeah, well it would be way cheaper than the convoluted system we have now.

 

Stosh

(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[JoeBob]

Business has a choice. They can leave:

 

"3M chief warns Obama over business regulation" 27 Feb 2011

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd9b4100-429b-11e0-8b34-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FHB4QSBr

 

Who you gonna tax when all the rich people are gone?

 

[bacchus]

JoeBob, I'm not a paid subscriber, so can't read your link.

 

Mr. Boyce, it is not a rhetorical trick. The death tax is the tax on those assets above a certain figure, from which the gift tax has not already taken. It's really a gift tax. I have always had a problem with the requirement to pay tax on something at the time I earn it, and then pay taxes again if I give more than a certain amount of that income to a relative.

 

I know this all stems from back when the Kennedy's family financial scheme became public, and they were obscenely rich, but still.

[JoeBob]

Apologies, Bacchus. I'm not a registered member, either. When I first hit the link, it was free and open. No longer.

 

Reckon there was a bit of traffic?

[sherminator505]

"Who you gonna tax when all the rich people are gone?"

 

The rich aren't going away. Just as Jesus pointed out that the poor would always be with us, so will the rich. How else would we know who the poor people are?

 

Even in Eisenhower's time, when the marginal tax rate was 91%, there were plenty of rich people. And the country prospered, because those rich people decided that rather than hand their money to the government, they would invest it in their businesses. This is called job creation. And it worked well until we decided to stop protecting our industries and allow job creation with American dollars to happen elsewhere.

 

Now we hear the rich talking about taxes somehow inhibiting their ability to create jobs. In reality, job creation has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with a very simple calculation as to whether a business can make more from hiring a person than it costs to hire them.

 

Taxes are paid on profits that are being sucked up and NOT being used to hire people or to grow the business unless the money is being offshored, in which case the business makes an obscene amount of money AND gets a big fat rebate check from the government. This is corporate citizenship at its finest!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[JoeBob]

Here you go Bacchus, same story different publication:

 

"3M CEO George Buckley called Obama's policies "Robin Hood-esque" and told the Financial Times that manufacturers like 3M may have to shift production to other countries in order to stay competitive."

 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/28/news/companies/3M_CEO_Obama/index.htm?hpt=T2(This message has been edited by joebob)

[bacchus]

Thanks Joe, That's about what I expected it to say. Theoretically it sounds like a true statement, but it would have come across a bit more powerful if he had included, "... and 3M is transitioning our leadership, management, and production to [insert country]."

[sherminator505]

Might I suggest that if we get ourselves out of these horrible trade deals and get Americans to start making stuff for other Americans to buy, then we wouldn't be fighting over crumbs?

[JoeBob]

You don't have to be rich to run from high taxes:

 

"New Yorkers under 30 plan to flee city, says new poll; cite high taxes, few jobs as reasons"

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/05/13/2011-05-13_new_yorkers_under_30_plan_to_flee_city_says_new_poll_cite_high_taxes_few_jobs_as.html#ixzz1MI24tWAv

[JoeBob]

IRS Figures.

The rich are leaving.

Tired of being demonized.

Afraid of what Obama plans to do to them.

It's cheaper to pay their taxes abroad.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/06/13/are-taxes-causing-the-rich-to-renounce-their-citizenship/?mod=WSJBlog

 

Effecively avoiding paying their share of the huge deficit.

 

Just Damn.

[Beavah]

Oh puhlease....

 

Da reason for expatriation is that da U.S. has become more aggressive about goin' after folks with offshore bank accounts who aren't payin' taxes. So rather than man up and pay their share like everyone else they want to move to the Caymans or one of da other banking havens.

 

It's just a sophisticated form of tax evasion, eh? Nuthin' but a criminal activity. I remember when folks I knew used to go to the Caymans once a month with $9,999.99 in cash, just below the reportin' requirement, to feed offshore bank accounts and avoid paying taxes.

 

Income taxes are the lowest they've been since before WW2. Before demographic changes. Before Medicare. Before da highway system. Before multiple simultaneous foreign wars. Before rural electrification. Before clean water and inspected food.

 

We're not taxing anybody to death, we're just bankrupting the country by not paying for the services we want.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

So if our congressmen really loved our republic, they would compromise by cutting spending and having an across the board tax increase. Clearly, they are more interested in their personal power than they are the republic. Sometimes I feel that we are doomed due to Washington.

[Papadaddy]

Disclosure: Conservative with libertarian leanings.

I would agree to a modest tax increase if they would a) pass a balanced budget amendment, b) freeze the debt ceiling, d) cut foreign aid, especially to middle east countries who are working for our destruction and China (or is that redundant?), and e) extract taxes from the 50% of citizens and corporations who pay nothing.

 

But then, if they did all that, we wouldn't have to raise taxes.

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Yep, time to call the bluff. None of the lame duck bills will go through at this point without major concessions in the way of riders. The lame duck measures that would pass, still will pass later on, possibly with fewer concessions later.

 

In as far as the Bush tax cuts they didnt benefit anyone who needed assistance, only the wealthy. Its time to recover that lost revenue, and retool tax relief to actually benefit those who need the break.