It's really a tax on the transfer of money. Some of those taxes (income taxes, for example) are charged to the recipient. Others (sales) are charged to the originator. In the case of sales tax, it's technically paid by the recipient for simplicity, but it is collected from the originator. Import taxes function the same way - the importer pays the tax rather than the seller. In the case of the estate tax - like the sales tax - it's probably easier to charge the tax once rather than distribute all the money and make a bunch of different entities pay the tax.
It may be easier to tax it once, but it would be more fair to tax the recipients in their particular tax bracket. To me it is hard to see the fairness in the tax. Assume I have 11 million, the 'threshold' is 1 million and the tax is 50%. In essence I can give 1 million away and be taxed at 50% on 10 million, so I then have 5 more million to give away. On Monday, I set aside 769 piles of $13,000 to give away, to 769 different people tax free. Monday night I get hit by a bus and die. The government now comes in and takes half those piles away. Why is that fair?
But you're treating it as an income tax to get your various tax brackets. Its a different type of transfer of money so it's taxed differently. For example, sales tax isn't charged based on people's tax brackets. Each type of tax we have uses different standards - some are flat (sales), some are progressive (income), some are regressive (social security). The estate tax is simply a different type of tax charged in a different way, as is the gift tax. Certainly true. It's a quirk of having a bunch of different taxes, all of which were created at different times with different rules and then adjusted at different times for different reasons. The whole tax system is filled with these kinds of quirks.
So Kerry was acting like a rich guy. You know, no real sense of responsibility to the world around him - that sort of thing. This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing ... it's a rich-person thing.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
You don't find it somewhat amusing at least that a man who advocates MORE taxes on the wealthy tries to avoid paying as much as he can?
Not really. Is that really unusual? There's a difference between advocating something as policy - which makes a real structural difference - and voluntarily throwing money away, which has virtually zero impact on the goal trying to be achieved with the policy goal. It would be different if Kerry had advocated that people voluntarily pay higher taxes, but to my knowledge, he never has. He accepts that people will use every loophole available, which is why he advocates closing loopholes. Warren Buffett and others constantly talk about how the taxcode favors the rich and should be changed, but that doesn't mean they just pay more taxes for the hell of it.
Since we elected a democratic president and a democratic Congress? I was under the impression that meant we wanted the elite paying more taxes. Maybe I was wrong? It seems silly to raise taxes but leave loopholes for rich people to get out of it.
Kerry advocates closing loopholes yet exploits them? How honorable. Why doesn't he use himself as example of a dirty elite rich man who will avoid paying what he is supposed to when he campaigns for closing loopholes?
Amusing? No. Surprising? No. Hypocritical? Maybe. Kerry is not a state senator. He did not orchestrate or fight for this tax. He did not manipulate the bill to leave this loophole, nor is there anyway one could reasonably avoid this loophole existing at all (as far as I can tell - IANAL). That being said, it does beg the obvious question as to the unintended effects of what larger taxes (letting the Bush cuts expire) on the rich. I'd argue it's not terribly feasible for everyone making over 250k to leave the USA post tax hike and accordingly the argument is basically moot, but it does reveal that most folks will consider all options and gravitate towards the "bottom line" to keep more of their money. Kerry certainly did in this case. Is it hypocritical of Kerry to advocate higher taxes while actively seeking to avoid them himself? No, provided he is not intentionally manipulating the tax such that he has an advantage in that regard.
With 50% of the people in the US not paying income taxes I hardly think the burden is uniform throughout...and I am pretty certain the founders didn't intend on congress becoming a spend thrift and starting a whole line of social engineering programs to influence voters... Plus it says nothing regarding income tax and the conspiracy surrounding the ratification of the of the 16th amendment and the fact that this same congress passed the federal reserve act in the same year is quite distrubing to say the least...
I just disagree. This reeks of "everyone should take the bus to reduce carbon emissions but me!" This is the ultimate "liberal with someone else's money" cliche. It doesn't surprise me that he tries to avoid paying taxes where he can, but it amuses me that he thinks others should be paying MORE while he strives to pay less.
No, because he did not cause or trigger this loophole. Every other person with a yacht in Mass. can do this too. It's an easily avoidable tax, perhaps to the point of it being just generically a dumb law. I would wager John Kerry is in favor of the wealthy paying more and the wealthy striving to pay less. That's the essence of public policy vs private interest. Both are rational and worthy goals.
Yes, it is. Every single person in every single state is subject to exactly the same tax code. The Constitution did not say the "burden" had to be uniform, merely the tax. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote... "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. So, based on that quote, I could easily justify applying payroll tax only to the wealthy instead of having payroll tax capped at $100K. I'm positive that this is a moot point as our Republic has evolved past where the founders could have envisioned. You're right, it just says "tax," which left it open to interpretation. Income tax qualifies as a tax levied by the federal government, therefore it is within the powers of the Congress to implement. I don't concern myself with conspiracy theories.
Paraphrasing an earlier post: The difference between those who constantly trumpet the virtues of the 'free market' and those who criticize the 'free market' : those who criticize the 'free market' refuse to kiss the boot that stomps on their face all day and, occasionally, look around and ask, "hey ... how do we get this boot to stop stomping on us?" Those who trumpet the virtues of the 'free market' believe that if they keep kissing the boot they will one day be allowed to have boots of their own.
Because he doesn't advocate voluntary tax payments. He wants a system that works. He's never said people shouldn't use the tax code to their advantage. Do you think anyone that wants the Bush tax cuts revoked should just choose to voluntarily pay those rates? If they don't, they are hypocritical?
