For those of you who think the tax cut was only for the rich.

Batman, I was a delegate to for Jerry Brown to the senatorial convention that year. Didn't make it to state.

I really like Jerry Brown.

I sure miss the program WE The PEOPLE he had on the radio on KPFT a few years ago. Do you remember it?

 

Only 2 percent of the estates of people who die each year are subject to the estate tax. Of those estates that are subject to tax, very few include family-owned farms or businesses. In 1998, family-owned businesses or farms formed the majority of the estate in just 1,418 estates out of the approximately 2.3 million people who died in that year. This means that the debate about estate tax relief for family farms or businesses involves a question that arises only for six out of every 10,000 people who die.

Taken together, all farms and family businesses account for less than four percent of the assets in taxable estates valued at less than $5 million.

Family farms and businesses are already eligible for special treatment under existing law. A couple can exempt up to $2.6 million of an estate that involves such a business or farm, nearly twice the normal exemption. Moreover, special rules allow these farms and businesses to be valued as much as $800,000 below their market value for estate tax purposes, and the payment of any estate taxes can be deferred, with interest charged at below-market rates.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-01estateshort.htm



Mayberry Machiavellis indeed.

 

Regarding the canard of the family farm as an excuse to not tax the 47,000 wealthiest estates per year.

Before falling for the propaganda about a "death tax," Congress should take a close look at the numbers. In 1998, 2.3 million persons died, but only 47,482 left estates subject to any federal estate tax. Only 1,418 of the estates that were taxable represented estates where the majority of the assets were family owned businesses or farms. These estates paid less than one percent of all estate taxes.

Lobbyists for wealthy clients, nevertheless, are using the family farm and small business issue as a smokescreen to promote the wipe out of the inheritance tax across the board at a cost of $27 billion annually to the Treasury. Obviously, the family owned farms and businesses could be exempted from the tax without seriously reducing Treasury receipts and without giving the wealthy another loophole through which to avoid taxes.

It is a nice rhetorical trick.

Refman, why are you so concerned about lowering the taxes on those 47,000 odd folks? So do you want to cut food stamps or early childhood education, or immunizations? Perhaps you want to recoup the income by taxing middle and lower income folks some more?

Family farm bs

 

Batman,
What crawled up your arse and died? I made one point that a flat tax is fair and you come down on me like a ton of bricks. Now I know we have had our arguments in the past, I tried to look past them but obviously you are not a big enough man to do that.

Also about adding to the debate, all of your arguments are rehash liberal propaganda that has become tiresome to the american public, look at the elections if you want proof. I bet all you do all day is listen to NPR or read the NYTimes and then say to yourself that you came up with a original talking point. Now I could sit here and belittle you and your points but that is not constructive. I just made a point that seems to shifted the debate alittle which no one had already stated. There have been very few times with most of your rambling, combative posts that I have rarely seen you make a point that was based in fact or well thought out. There are liberals on this board I do respect and actually have some admiration for, but your r****ded post are not in that category. You need to learn to forgive and forget and try become less of an arsehole. But I guess being an arsehole works for you so maybe some people can't change.

As for Jerry "MoonBeam" Brown, boy you talk about a true thinker of American politics.
He was soooo bad even the Dead Kennedys wrote a song about his communist arse.

 

glynch: That's cool. We probably crossed paths. Do you remember which Senatorial District? I was in 17. I gave up my national delegate spot so someone else could go, but I was there with credentials anyway working advance and troubleshooting (and driving Jerry to Joan Didion's apartment -- that was fun).

As for you phi, you clown... Put me on ignore if you don't want to read my posts. You didn't make "one point" that a flat tax was fair. You made two points: that a flat tax was the ONLY fair system and that Democrats would never go for something fair. Typical. I responded, after wasting time complaining about your ridiculous posting style, by citing a Democrat who not only DID propose a flat tax and argue its fairness, but for whom I spent a year working full time pro bono -- BECAUSE he stood for fairness. That was my most recent meaningful contribution to our political process. What was yours? My contributions to this board are well known by and to people on both sides of the aisle. Ask around. If you have contributed something substantive to this forum, say, EVER -- and I don't mean another whiney Democrats are evil post -- kindly post a link and I'll apologize for saying you'd never done so and repeat my condemnation of 99% of your divisive, boneheaded posts.

And p.s. The Dead Kennedys thought all politicians were Nazis. They sang the same song about Reagan.

 

p.p.s. phi. It might surprise you to know I've never listened to NPR for more than five minutes. I find it boring. And I never read the NYT unless it's linked from the Drudge Report. In fact, I don't read any particular media source on a regular basis or watch the talk shows. Since 94, at least. If my ideas are retreads, it's a coincidence. Everything I post here either comes from my fat liberal head or my black liberal heart.

 

Batman,
We could go back and forth all night...

Personally, your attacks are tiresome and old. There have been times I have even agreed with you and you decide to be the arsehole and switch sides (Smokers argument?). You have a bad problem not arguing the issues but instead calling names and trying to belittle the other side.

I agree with you that Moonbeam Brown brought up the Flat Tax during the '92 election, hell that was his only good idea. I glad you have some conviction and actually paticipated in the election process, even if it was for a loser.

You would be suprised, but I worked for Perot in '92 here in Texas. So I feel your pain when you work for something and it turns our to be a loss.

We can look in this thread and find different examples of you being an arsehole. I have better things to do with my time than try to find were other posters thought you actually had something constructive to say to a debate.

I have started many a thread that didn't deal with politics and were constructive. Hopefully you are smart enough to use the BBS search feature and look them up.

 

Refman, I think the most fair thing would be that we would never be taxed. Even once. On anything. We earned the money, it's ours, we deserve it. But if we want a car, say, or a maid, or a butler, it's fair too that we'd pay for those goods or services. Same goes for highways, parks, cops, military, schools, aid to poor people and to corporations in this country, aid to poor people and rich people in other countries, even a B-2 Bomber that'll never be used. We've agreed as a people that we will have taxes and we've agreed that we will spend those taxes on goods and services our representatives and elected officials decide would benefit us most. I'd so prefer we argued about which things we'd fund rather than arguing for/against taxing/spending. That argument's over. Your side lost. And won. Cause I'm pretty sure you're glad you're not paying directly out of pocket for cops or the military (which I know you support) or for medical care for poor people (which I'm pretty sure you support as well).

I don't think it's particularly, fundamentally fair to tax people twice. But I also don't concede it's taxing them twice. Once someone is taxed on a "farm" (although, let's be honest, we're more likely talking a mansion or private plane), then someone inherits it and is taxed on it too. The second time it's taxed seems actually more fair to me. The person being taxed in that case didn't even work for the item. They got it for free. And sorry. I just don't feel sorry for them.

But the thing that got me here was the tearjerky losing the family farm thing, when I just know you know that's not the case. I respect not only your right to your opinion on this, I'm even sympathetic to your argument -- but let's call a Mercedes a Mercedes.

And let's really hear from the tax cut crowd exactly which essential services they're willing to cut? The NEA? Already did it and it didn't matter -- it's insignificant. Catsup as a vegetable in school lunches? That didn't fly and it wouldn't have saved a significant amount of money anyway. And please, please, please don't be like every single politician and say you're for cutting pork and wasteful spending. Because until the entire campaign finance system is overhauled (and I don't mean the tiny changes that took SO long to pass), pork and wasteful spending will be a necessary sin of incumbency and the protection thereof til the end of time. For both sides equally.

Everyone -- even the most strident Libertarian -- favors some government spending. And everyone recognizes that requires some taxation. And everyone can point to programs the government pays for they like and ones they don't. But we're doing this tax thing. And somebody's gonna pay for it. It seems weird to me to be so concerned about the burden on our richest citizens, since they can most easily bear it. But it seems REALLY weird to pretend they're poor farmers and the estate tax is gonna turn them out on the street. Cause you know it's not.

 

Batman,
We could go back and forth all night...

Personally, your attacks are tiresome and old. There have been times I have even agreed with you and you decide to be the arsehole and switch sides (Smokers argument?). You have a bad problem not arguing the issues but instead calling names and trying to belittle the other side.

The smoking thing was a joke. I don't use emoticons. I think they're nerdy. Sorry. It's funny. You accuse me of being combative, but I never posted in the same thread as you until you repeated (several times) such outrageously partisan, hateful stuff towards Democrats that I just couldn't keep my mouth shut. You can do a search and confirm that. I'm not interested in attacking you. I'm interested in telling you to shut up. You know, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.

I agree with you that Moonbeam Brown brought up the Flat Tax during the '92 election, hell that was his only good idea. I glad you have some conviction and actually paticipated in the election process, even if it was for a loser.

That's really funny, cause it wasn't the only idea of his that Perot adopted. Funnier still that you congratulate me on working for a loser, who was the popular governor of California for two terms before choosing not to run again in an easy reelection and never took more than $100 in his 92 campaign and you worked for a guy who spent millions of his own money and was never elected to any office at all.

You would be suprised, but I worked for Perot in '92 here in Texas. So I feel your pain when you work for something and it turns our to be a loss.

It must have been very painful for you if it turned you into a Republican. Did you share Perot's views on Iraq or April Glaspie? I did.

We can look in this thread and find different examples of you being an arsehole. I have better things to do with my time than try to find were other posters thought you actually had something constructive to say to a debate.

I'm not an "arsehole" cause I'm not a freaking Englishman. I'm an "*******." Because I say what I mean and I mean what I say. But I rarely attack unprovoked. And I do consider relentless, baseless, nanny nanny boo boo attacks on my ideologies to be attacks. Even so, a search will reveal it took several by you for me to respond. And even then, I did it in a jokey manner. I don't hate you, you know. You're funny to me.

I have started many a thread that didn't deal with politics and were constructive. Hopefully you are smart enough to use the BBS search feature and look them up.

I'll take your word for it, give you benefit of the doubt and props in advance. I've only read your political takes and they suck.

 

I like to simplify issues and get at the heart of what is driving the debate. In this debate the issue becomes the following: Should wealthy individuals be allowed to keep the money that they earn or do poor individuals or the government deserve that money?

I offer quotes from my favorite author, Ayn Rand:

Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose... the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money." No other language or nation had ever used these words before... Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence... The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

They proclaim that every man is entitled to exist without labor and, the laws of reality to the contrary notwithstanding, is entitled to receive his "minimum sustenance" his food, his clothes, his shelter, with no effort on his part, as his due and his birthright. To receive it, from whom?

The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt.

Money is the barometer of a society's virtue.

 

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everyone Happy Holidays! One and all!

 

My oh my, I just *can't believe* that your favourite author is Ayn Rand. Now there's an old switcheroo...

 

Let's face it dimsie, you are just madly in love with me and this is your way of venting your sexual tension. Don't deny it.

 

I don't have any sexual tension to spare, being a constantly sated newlywed. Besides, I could never f*ck a Republican.

 

Shouldn't you, as a lawyer, know better? There are loopholes. I know of one particlar case, as an example, where a man's huge estate was taxed 6% upon his death due to the maneuverings of his lawyers.



Lol, Ayn Rand and "author" in the same sentence. Wouldn't it be better to call her a political writer or something...but author? Is it Atlas Shrugged where Galt goes off on a ~70 page soliloquey about individualism, capitalism, etc. (you know, the same stuff in all of her books, fiction or non-fiction)? Yeah, great narrative. Man, people are stupid.

 

There are very, very few liberals on this board. Of course, if you define liberal as someone who disagress with you (or the John Birch Society) ...