Originally posted by andymoon Nobody is talking about the joy your average senior gets from giving away the family home, farm, or small business. The inheritance tax doesn't even kick in until the estate is over $3 million and as such, only involves the super-rich. I noticed that you chose not to answer my question about Paris Hilton. Why should she inherit billions and not have to pay taxes on any of it? That is what will happen if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent. It appeared that you were advocating taxing away all inheritance. Even though it approaches double-taxation, inheritance is admittedly a gray area and I'm not against some taxation on large estates. I ignored the Paris Hilton comment because it's not clear to me why you mention her specifically. Do you have disdain for her? Should she then be taxed differently? Maybe you can elaborate. For me, it is about the breaks that the rich get that the rest of us don't. Why shouldn't an inheritance of $10 million be taxed for all the benefits that were given to the person amassing the wealth? Why shouldn't the heirs (of huge estates) have to pay taxes on money that they receive? The issue is whether it is double-taxation or not. Discussed above. I hear the republicans decry "welfare queens" with stories of abuse and people living out their lives being supported by the government, but they never seem to notice when the corporations are given welfare (bama is the exception, he is one sided when it comes to government handouts) and rich people are given money and influence that the rest of us probably couldn't even imagine. These 'breaks' should not be excessive, but sometimes they make sense. For instance, if you were mayor of Houston and could entice an IBM manufacturing plant to relocate there, a huge net gain for all even with tax breaks, would you do it? The problem arises when the tax breaks are for political (power) reasons as opposed to the economy. Many would advocate 0 breaks for coporations. That's unrealistic. In the 75 years or so since the "Great Society" policies were enacted, the rich have seen their effective tax rate cut over and over again while the middle and lower classes have not seen ANY effective reduction in their taxation rate. The rich, as a result of their access to and influence on politicians, have paid to shift the burden to the rest of us and I find that execreble. What was so bad in the 50s and 60s that required us to reduce the tax burden on the rich to less than half what it was? New issue. I'm advocating against ridiculous extremes like the Finnish example. Not reasonable ones like equitable taxation.
Who is most? My girlfriend made a whopping $27,000 last year (working her ass off, and I'll tell anyone who says differently to **** off, thank you very much) and she paid $2200 or so in federal income taxes. That's not including the social security and medicare. She's getting a whopping $55 in return. She paid income tax. Who do you consider "most people"? Infants?
Wouldn't it be simpler and fairer if Finland just said every speeder would do 10 hours of community service or one night in jail. Equally deterrant for rich and poor.
She had hardly any tax taken out, which is good. I'm only getting 900 of my illegally confiscated dollars from the greedy hands of the imperial Federal govt. Only getting back 55 bucks is good, because that is more money she had to save and invest during the year rather than going to the Federal govt. where it would do nothing. Are you complaining that she has to pay taxes? link 25 percent of all Americans who filed a form is a bunch of folks. Infants my ass.
But 25% ain't "most people", buddy. And I'm not complaining about her paying taxes, which she did. Which "most people" did.
Curious, is it possible that any of the 25% who did not pay taxes are not impoverished? Is the AMT now effective enough to assure that all of the wealthy will pay taxes?
That's 1 in 4 folks. That IS most people. So you think that she is paying too much, while the rich aren't "paying their fair share?" Well, I've got sad news for you, the top 50% of all wage earners, including your g/f near the bottom of that top 50, pay 96% of the taxes! 50% of all workers in this country pay nearly all of the tax. That is nearly everybody! The top 1% liberals hate so much pay 33.89% of all taxes.
Didn't Ariana Huffington get criticized during the Califronia campaign for not having to pay any federal income tax? I don't believe she's impoverished....
Wow. If that's most, what do you call Al Gore's getting over half the votes in the 2000 election? An overwhelming mandate?
If it rains 91 days out of the year in Georgia and it's sunny 274 days out of the year, do you tell people it rains most of the time in Georgia?
Unanimity! Anyway, why is this thread 4 pages long? Why not let the Finns figure this sh-t out for themselves? I really don't think any of them give a damn what we think, and they ain't hurtin nobody.
I don't understand the logic of this thread (I haven't read the whole thing, though).. First, when did 25% become most? It seems like 75% would be more than most. Would that make it moster, or mostest? Second, I don't see how this whole socialism thing came about and whether its "fair" or not? The penalty is known beforehand - it's not like people are being forced to randomly pay a fine based on their income. If you don't want a $216,000 ticket, don't break the damn law!
I didn't say the most, but I said most people. It is a reference to the fact that one out of every four people you see pay no tax. I think this thread quickly morphed into a pro-socialism/ anti-socialism catfight. Sad thing about it is, that only two were on the anti-socialistic side.
Dude, if you think getting a couple of hundred bucks back at the end of the year after having all sorts of federal, social security (and possibly) state and local taxes witheld, not to mention your employer's payroll tax, which, make no mistake about it, is taken out of your pocket, constitutes 'paying no taxes,' then you seriously need to find another accountant. I mean, right away.
The SOME burden is in America now. You live here. And no matter how much you try, you will never achieve pure capitalism. As far as "It's my money, get your own", it wasn't a direct quote....it was about how you come across as being a money grubber. So, although, you didn't say it, you come across like you are saying: Mine! Mine! Mine!!!!! It's all mine!!!
