Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Nice try, but that's not what I'm talking about. Reps would like lower estate taxes, Dems would like a higher minimum wage. That is the back scratching. You may dislike it, and feel free to argue against it, but don't mischaracterize it. That helps no one.
    How is that not what you're talking about? Because you think you're right, and they couldn't possibly act in such a way? As NRG stated, this is a poison pill tactic, in case you haven't heard:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    A poison pill may also be used in politics, such as attaching an amendment so distasteful to a bill that even the bill's supporters are forced to vote against it. This manipulative tactic may be intended to simply kill the bill, or to create a no-win situation for the bill's supporters, so that the bill's opponents can accuse them of voting for something bad no matter what.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree as a whole......but speaking on a personal note rather than a legal or accounting note.....I hate the thought that up to 55% of what I leave to my children which has already been taxed via my employer's corp tax, my federal income tax, my state income tax, all the taxes associated with my investments, retirement withdrawn taxes, etc....then to think that I have saved a significant amount to pass onto my children knowing that up to half of my hard earned work to give my own money to my own children will go to the gov just winds me up personally. In the state of WA, we have one of the most greedy estate (death) taxes on top of any federal estate taxes.
    That's not really true to my understanding.....you can give ya house to ya children with a life estate.....you can give them each IIRC $10k a year w/o tax penalty. So if I start at 50 and live to be 75, I can give each of my 3 kids $250k before I croak and so can my wife......that's 1.5 million ....I don't think I gonna have any problem there....and that's without any fancy smancy tax accountant strategies.
  3. #43  
    Should tie the minimum wage to their salaries so that every % increase the politicians get,m the min wage goes up the same amount.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    Should tie the minimum wage to their salaries so that every % increase the politicians get,m the min wage goes up the same amount.
    I agree, and a large part of why this is such a gross act. Ted Kennedy sums it up best:

    “It’s political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. Members of Congress raised their own pay — no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect.”
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    How is that not what you're talking about? Because you think you're right, and they couldn't possibly act in such a way? As NRG stated, this is a poison pill tactic, in case you haven't heard:
    You can say it's a "poison pill" but from the right, the minimum wage issue looks like a poison pill. Same coin, different sides.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    Should tie the minimum wage to their salaries so that every % increase the politicians get,m the min wage goes up the same amount.
    I think congressional pay raises should be enacted only via a 5 year lag by a two thirds majority of the governors. To have them vote on their own pay and have it effective within 2 years is crazy. And the president is never going to veto it (again?) because he is dependent on congress to get anything done. Perhaps the governors are far enough removed?
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    You can say it's a "poison pill" but from the right, the minimum wage issue looks like a poison pill. Same coin, different sides.
    You are now misinterpreting the meaning of 'poison pill', Again:

    "..such as attaching an amendment so distasteful to a bill that even the bill's supporters are forced to vote against it"

    Knowing what you do about this, how can you say this about something that 86% of Americans are in favor of? Now, you could say a minimum wage increase is poison to Republican politicians because it will interfere with the wheel greasing they require from corporations, but it does not apply in this context.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Gasmeister
    Going to Venezuela for a little American policy appreciation? Perhaps to Iran for a lesson in democracy? I'm sorry you hate the rich so much, but it really doesn't take a lot to be affected by the estate tax. Buy a $300,000 home, save a few bucks, inherit a few from YOUR parents, and you've soon got a million dollar estate. Now try dying and see what happens to your heirs' portion. Oh, but I forgot, you think the government is entitled to it all.
    What they really need to do is increase the threshhold with cost of living increases. (First move the exemption to $5 million and then annually adjust it for inflation)

    I agree that tax sucks, but we really abolished the estate tax too early. We were well on our way to paying off the national debt, and actually had budget surpluses. Now, 600 tax cuts later our economy is tetering upon collapse. As is the US dollar. The double threats of inflation and resession are looming. China is getting ready to take over the world. And all we can do is cut taxes, yet again.

    I guess it all depends on your generation. If you are a baby boomer tax cuts are great. If you are GenX or GenY, you are totally screwed by all these tax cuts.

    What we really need to do to increase American competitiveness is completely abolish corporate taxes.

    Keep personal income tax as high as necessary to service the debt and pay our expenses.

    By abolishing the corporate income tax, you are lowering the cost of doing business in the United States, it provides an incentive for corporations to invest in the US and what not.

    The only problem is, corporations do not vote. People do. So we are never going to see the corporate tax abolished.

    One thing I don't understand. Why is earned income taxed at a higher rate than unearned income? The more I read, the more I want a flat tax. No tiers, no deductions, just a flat percentage of all income, earned or unearned. (I know it's regressive, but there are so many loopholes in current law, that it will end up being fairer than our current system.)

    So by my numbers a flat tax on individual income of 17% should get us to a deficit neutral position. (Even with the war and the loss of corporate taxes). (If you think about it corporate taxes are just a sales tax, on consumption. Shareholders don't pay the tax, the tax is just passed on to the corporations customers.)

    Before you bash me, I am a moderate with libertarian leanings. This whole deficit thing is killing me.

    EDIT: One other thing, I am for a balanced budget ammendment. If you need to spend more, cut somewhere else or raise revenue. No more borrowing from the future to fund crazy pork barrel spending. (The Homeland Security act is the piggest piece of pork legislation in almost 20 years.)
    Last edited by Brandorr; 07/31/2006 at 05:53 PM.
  9. #49  
    Brandorr, that part you said about corps not paying taxes... I can't believe more people don't see this. I've never met a corp or company that's paid taxes, only people.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #50  
    Barney Frank's take.

  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter
    Brandorr, that part you said about corps not paying taxes... I can't believe more people don't see this. I've never met a corp or company that's paid taxes, only people.
    To be fair, you must assert that governments don't benefit from increased taxes, only people.
  12. #52  
    Whether an inheritance tax is just is irrelevant. There are plenty of bigger injustices that congress does not get involved in. How about passing a bill that permits company's from just discontinuing a person's pension or medical benefits after they've retired?!? How about Social Security? All the money I've put into it is going to be in bankruptcy by the time I can collect anything. Is that not more important than worrying about inheritance taxes?!?

    So don't tell us that these weasels have the moral high ground and are crusading for justice by passing inheritance reform law. They have only one motivation behind it and we all know it.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    That's not really true to my understanding.....you can give ya house to ya children with a life estate.....you can give them each IIRC $10k a year w/o tax penalty. So if I start at 50 and live to be 75, I can give each of my 3 kids $250k before I croak and so can my wife......that's 1.5 million ....I don't think I gonna have any problem there....and that's without any fancy smancy tax accountant strategies.
    Does the estate tax count the whole of your worth you are leaving or itemized according to each benificiary?.....I honestly don't know.

    But even if was figured by the individual, if you died and the $1.5 mil went to your wife...then you would be in danger of losing a massive chunk to estates taxes
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    To be fair, you must assert that governments don't benefit from increased taxes, only people.
    Not true. The government controls when and how that money is distributed. i will tell you right now as a resirent of NY, we get shafted. NYC sends more money to NY state te back. Effectivey, we are subsidizing the rest of the state. Likewise, The funds we are receiving the combat terrorism is a joke compared to the need. So there is definately power in distributing monet from the government and it clearly is given out in ways the benefit certain groups over other groups. And that in turns enhances the power of the governement, so it does indeed benefit from taxes. It feeds and grows on them. Sending the governement money is akin to losing socks in the wash. It deifies logic, but there is a black hole somewhere whre all the lost socks and missing funds are. Inefficieny eats up a lot of money that never gets backs to citizens in the form of services.
    Sprint Treo 700p, Sony UX/TX, u720,
    Edirol R-09, Mitsu PK 20, Mimio
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandorr
    The only problem is, corporations do not vote. People do. So we are never going to see the corporate tax abolished.
    They don't need to vote. They have lobbyists who either strongly influnce how a bill is written or basically sway the vote of "our" representatives to pass the bills the like. In America we vote for representatives who in turn vote for us. Lobbyists largely decide what is voted on and what gets passed. I would not bemoan the lack of power of corporations in the USA. They essentially run the show.
    Sprint Treo 700p, Sony UX/TX, u720,
    Edirol R-09, Mitsu PK 20, Mimio
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by southbound747
    Not true. The government controls when and how that money is distributed. i will tell you right now as a resirent of NY, we get shafted. NYC sends more money to NY state te back. Effectivey, we are subsidizing the rest of the state. Likewise, The funds we are receiving the combat terrorism is a joke compared to the need. So there is definately power in distributing monet from the government and it clearly is given out in ways the benefit certain groups over other groups. And that in turns enhances the power of the governement, so it does indeed benefit from taxes. It feeds and grows on them. Sending the governement money is akin to losing socks in the wash. It deifies logic, but there is a black hole somewhere whre all the lost socks and missing funds are. Inefficieny eats up a lot of money that never gets backs to citizens in the form of services.
    Where does it go? Unless you think there is a big scrooge mcduck style vault out there (and judging by the ongoing deficit, I doubt this) gov't is a redistributive force. As you point out, it can be (and in my opinion almost always is) unfair and unjust, but at the end of the day, someone receives your tax dollars as a handout, a wage, an interest coupon, something. You interpretted my statement as saying "government is good." That isn't what I said (and I don't usually believe it).
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #57  
    Interesting.


    Source: Think Progress

    Senate Millionaires Against Raising The Minimum Wage

    BILL FRIST (R-TN)



    POSITION: Senate Majority Leader

    TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $12,666,000 and $46,715,000

    HIGHLIGHTS: Frist has between $10,584,000 and $39,260,000 in blind trusts. He owns land in Memphis, Tennessee worth between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

    KEY QUOTE: “Today, in this fragile economy recovering from the recession, to raise the minimum wage would not create jobs but destroy jobs and increase the prices of goods and purchasing power of the people who you’d like to be helping, the disadvantaged.” [Frist, 10/16/94]


    MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY)



    POSITION: Senate Majority Whip

    TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $1,980,000 and $4,575,000

    HIGHLIGHTS: McConnell has property in Washington D.C. worth between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

    KEY QUOTE: Bush said in a 2004 presidential debate, “Actually, Mitch McConnell had a minimum wage plan that I supported that would have increased the minimum wage.” However, according to McConnell’s press secretary, the senator has not released any of the details his plan. McConnell voted against increasing the minimum wage in March 2005 and June 2006. [McConnell, 10/24/04]


    CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA)



    POSITION: Finance Committee Chairman

    TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $2,235,000 and $5,175,000

    HIGHLIGHTS: Grassley owns lands in Butler County worth between $1,700,000 and $3,500,000. He also has between $199,000 and $635,000 in various IRAs.

    KEY QUOTE: “Less than five percent of the people making minimum wage are completely relying on that income as their major source of income.” [Grassley, 7/7/06]

    -snip-

    GORDON SMITH (R-OR)



    POSITION: Finance Committee Member

    TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $13,208,000 and $62,795,000

    HIGHLIGHTS: Smith holds stock worth between $5,000,000 and $25,000,000 in Garrett Packing Co. He also has assets between $5,000,000 and $25,000,000 invested in Smith Frozen Foods, Inc.

    KEY QUOTE: “It’s important to raise the minimum wage across the country. Working families are facing increases in home heating costs and high gas prices, and their wages should reflect these circumstances.” However, in March 2005 and June 2006, Smith voted against increasing the minimum wage. [Smith, 10/19/05]
  18. #58  
    Heheh, they always where tuxes. Those rich bastards.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Heheh, they always where tuxes. Those rich bastards.
    You know what, I did not even notice that. All except one?
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You know what, I did not even notice that. All except one?
    Unfortunately such selective photography makes me not care one bit what that website has to say -- it's clear they aren't balanced.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions