So those of y'all who think the estate tax ("death tax")

[BigDave]

You are not crazy. We progressives agree with you there. But when you start moving from goals to implementation... we prefer that you do not begin by negatively impacting the middle class and the poorest among us first. Some of us learned that in church

Taxes don't really affect the poor - they're already getting back more than they paid in.

It's the middle class and those who are trying to rise out of the middle class who are affected by taxes.

Besides, my plan of getting rid of the estate tax AND eliminating the cost basis step up loophole would probably be a net positive for revenue so long as we have a capital gains tax. And it would certainly be a net positive in terms of spurring financial activity because no longer would you be incentivizing rich people to hold onto their assets to avoid the double taxation. They're going to be paying capital gains taxes on it whether it's sold today, sold when they die, or sold 100 years from now.

[cwtcr hokie]

50% of us do fund it well....it is unfortunate that so many have zero skin in the game

The government lays the underlying foundation for which we can "own" any property. Whether it be an automobile or 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

So in other words, it all really belongs to the government to begin with and it's only by the grace of a merciful government that some portion of it is granted unto you?

This sounds like a religion. "Glory to Government in the highest, and on earth peace to those on whom Its favor rests."

Sounds like reality to me. I can only tell you to find a Libertarian paradise somewhere. Hope nothing catches on fire.

sounds like someone missed the lecture on "rights"

You guys can jerk each other off on natural law or what have you, but at the end of the day we do need to fund our government.

[VoiceOfReason]

What a ridiculous article.

So the author's complaint is that it's possible that he won't be double-taxed?

Why the hell should he be double-taxed on it?

And to your point, if conservatives get their way and the death tax is eliminated, then the whole thing with cost basis step up would presumably be done away with too. The whole purpose of that is so that you don't get double-taxed when someone dies - if the death tax goes away, then presumably this provision will be allowed to sunset.

?? It was an objective assessment of his likely tax burden on his 2billion dollar sale. Based on his assessment, it's a good chance the only tax he will have to pay on the sale will be via the estate tax, it at all.

and re the stepped up basis point, the end result would hurt the middle class because they don't pay estate taxes anyway.

Huh?

If the middle class pays no estate tax, than how are they "hurt" by this?

Nonsense ip. Pure nonsense.

I don't feel like explaining it to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will do it. If you eliminate the estate tax, you reduce the amount of taxes paid by the most wealthy and reduce the total revenue taken in by the government... which increases annual budget deficits and thus, the national debt.

Who will eventually be called upon to pay this debt? Well... the solutions proposed on this board all propose elimination of services for the poor and/or tax deductions for the middle class.

So I guess the answer is that you can eliminate the estate tax and not hurt the middle class only if Republicans are never in charge of balancing the budget

[VoiceOfReason]

You are not crazy. We progressives agree with you there. But when you start moving from goals to implementation... we prefer that you do not begin by negatively impacting the middle class and the poorest among us first. Some of us learned that in church

Taxes don't really affect the poor - they're already getting back more than they paid in.

It's the middle class and those who are trying to rise out of the middle class who are affected by taxes.

Besides, my plan of getting rid of the estate tax AND eliminating the cost basis step up loophole would probably be a net positive for revenue so long as we have a capital gains tax. And it would certainly be a net positive in terms of spurring financial activity because no longer would you be incentivizing rich people to hold onto their assets to avoid the double taxation. They're going to be paying capital gains taxes on it whether it's sold today, sold when they die, or sold 100 years from now.

True, taxes do not effect the poor. But government services do. And part of what I meant by "we prefer that you do not begin by negatively impacting the middle class and the poorest among us first" was that we prefer you not begin your budget balancing by reducing or eliminating needed services.

[VoiceOfReason]

50% of us do fund it well....it is unfortunate that so many have zero skin in the game

Why do you say that 50% of the country has no skin in the game? The working poor should have no say since they may get more in assistance than they pay in taxes?

[Hokie5150]

What a ridiculous article.

So the author's complaint is that it's possible that he won't be double-taxed?

Why the hell should he be double-taxed on it?

And to your point, if conservatives get their way and the death tax is eliminated, then the whole thing with cost basis step up would presumably be done away with too. The whole purpose of that is so that you don't get double-taxed when someone dies - if the death tax goes away, then presumably this provision will be allowed to sunset.

?? It was an objective assessment of his likely tax burden on his 2billion dollar sale. Based on his assessment, it's a good chance the only tax he will have to pay on the sale will be via the estate tax, it at all.

and re the stepped up basis point, the end result would hurt the middle class because they don't pay estate taxes anyway.

Huh?

If the middle class pays no estate tax, than how are they "hurt" by this?

Nonsense ip. Pure nonsense.

I don't feel like explaining it to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will do it. If you eliminate the estate tax, you reduce the amount of taxes paid by the most wealthy and reduce the total revenue taken in by the government... which increases annual budget deficits and thus, the national debt.

Who will eventually be called upon to pay this debt? Well... the solutions proposed on this board all propose elimination of services for the poor and/or tax deductions for the middle class.

So I guess the answer is that you can eliminate the estate tax and not hurt the middle class only if Republicans are never in charge of balancing the budget

It comes to a simple question: what is the purpose of taxation. If the purpose of taxes is to manipulate behavior, then the current system works fine. If the purpose is (as it should be) to raise revenue, then the current system is an unmitigated mess. As for solutions, the proposed sale tax plans that have been discussed many times on this board do not propose elimination of services for the poor (although such should not be a function of government. The government has no means by which to provide charity...but that's another debate) and improves the financial situation for the middle class.

[Hokie5150]

50% of us do fund it well....it is unfortunate that so many have zero skin in the game

Why do you say that 50% of the country has no skin in the game? The working poor should have no say since they may get more in assistance than they pay in taxes?

Where did he say they should have no say? He simply said, correctly, that they have no skin in the game.

[VoiceOfReason]

50% of us do fund it well....it is unfortunate that so many have zero skin in the game

Why do you say that 50% of the country has no skin in the game? The working poor should have no say since they may get more in assistance than they pay in taxes?

Where did he say they should have no say? He simply said, correctly, that they have no skin in the game.

True... I failed to wait for the next step in his philosophy. My bad... I will wait for it next time

[VoiceOfReason]

It comes to a simple question: what is the purpose of taxation. If the purpose of taxes is to manipulate behavior, then the current system works fine. If the purpose is (as it should be) to raise revenue, then the current system is an unmitigated mess. As for solutions, the proposed sale tax plans that have been discussed many times on this board do not propose elimination of services for the poor (although such should not be a function of government. The government has no means by which to provide charity...but that's another debate) and improves the financial situation for the middle class.

Tax reform, for all of it's grand visions, has one aspect that cannot be denied. Compared to the current system, any new system - regardless of what it is - will create winners and losers. Some people will pay more tax under the new system and some will play less. Simple math - unless the new system lowers EVERYONES taxes and sends our economy into default.

So... the money and lobbying behind all of this debate is... who should pay more taxes than they do today? And who should pay less? Any system you propose that has ME paying more tax, I will consider to be unfair. So how can anyone win this argument?

[Hokie5150]

It comes to a simple question: what is the purpose of taxation. If the purpose of taxes is to manipulate behavior, then the current system works fine. If the purpose is (as it should be) to raise revenue, then the current system is an unmitigated mess. As for solutions, the proposed sale tax plans that have been discussed many times on this board do not propose elimination of services for the poor (although such should not be a function of government. The government has no means by which to provide charity...but that's another debate) and improves the financial situation for the middle class.

Tax reform, for all of it's grand visions, has one aspect that cannot be denied. Compared to the current system, any new system - regardless of what it is - will create winners and losers. Some people will pay more tax under the new system and some will play less. Simple math - unless the new system lowers EVERYONES taxes and sends our economy into default.

So... the money and lobbying behind all of this debate is... who should pay more taxes than they do today? And who should pay less? Any system you propose that has ME paying more tax, I will consider to be unfair. So how can anyone win this argument?

Why do you make the assumption that lowering everyone's taxes would send the economy into default? For example, a national sales tax could lower taxes while stimulating the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to employers. More production, more workers, more revenue due to an improved economy.

[Hokie5150]

So... the money and lobbying behind all of this debate is... who should pay more taxes than they do today? And who should pay less? Any system you propose that has ME paying more tax, I will consider to be unfair. So how can anyone win this argument?

Fair would be every tax payer paying the same dollar figure for their government. One person, one vote, one tax bill. The thing is, though, people really aren't interested in what is "fair"...most simply want someone else to foot the bill.

[VoiceOfReason]

Why do you make the assumption that lowering everyone's taxes would send the economy into default? For example, a national sales tax could lower taxes while stimulating the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to employers. More production, more workers, more revenue due to an improved economy.

Because I am talking about ACTUAL TAX PAID... not tax rates. I don't care if you lower my income tax rate to 1%, if my total tax bill goes up... I am paying more taxes and therefore do not favor such a change. Or if you lower top income tax rate to 25% and eliminate all deductions... I will pay MORE in taxes even though you LOWER my rate. I can do math... I am not fooled by pixie dust

If you eliminate my income taxes (YAY!) and the death tax (don't care 'cuz I have no assets), but institute a sales tax that makes the cost of everything I buy go up (BOO!!!)... then you have not guaranteed my taxes to go down have you?

[VoiceOfReason]

So... the money and lobbying behind all of this debate is... who should pay more taxes than they do today? And who should pay less? Any system you propose that has ME paying more tax, I will consider to be unfair. So how can anyone win this argument?

Fair would be every tax payer paying the same dollar figure for their government. One person, one vote, one tax bill. The thing is, though, people really aren't interested in what is "fair"...most simply want someone else to foot the bill.

Is that really fair? Should a college student be expected to pay the same as Bill Gates? Should a line worker be expected to pay the same as his boss?

You know what would really be fair... if every worker got paid the same money! Then the same tax would be fair. Has anyone tried this before? I think you are onto something...

[Hokie5150]

Why do you make the assumption that lowering everyone's taxes would send the economy into default? For example, a national sales tax could lower taxes while stimulating the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to employers. More production, more workers, more revenue due to an improved economy.

Because I am talking about ACTUAL TAX PAID... not tax rates. I don't care if you lower my income tax rate to 1%, if my total tax bill goes up... I am paying more taxes and therefore do not favor such a change. Or if you lower top income tax rate to 25% and eliminate all deductions... I will pay MORE in taxes even though you LOWER my rate. I can do math... I am not fooled by pixie dust

If you eliminate my income taxes (YAY!) and the death tax (don't care 'cuz I have no assets), but institute a sales tax that makes the cost of everything I buy go up (BOO!!!)... then you have not guaranteed my taxes to go down have you?

I'm talking about actual tax paid as well. If you create jobs in this country (stimulus of eliminating corporate taxes and compliance costs) you have more people working and paying taxes (37.2% of working age adults in this country currently are not working or looking for work) and if more people are actually paying taxes, everyone can pay less individually without reducing overall revenue levels....

[Hokie5150]

Is that really fair? Should a college student be expected to pay the same as Bill Gates? Should a line worker be expected to pay the same as his boss?

why wouldn't it be fair. You don't consider it unfair that the college student, Bill Gates, the line worker and his boss all pay the same for ever other good or service purchased...why should government services be any different? In theory (and as it should be in actuality) all citizen get the same government, so why wouldn't it be fair to actually pay the same for it?

[VoiceOfReason]

Is that really fair? Should a college student be expected to pay the same as Bill Gates? Should a line worker be expected to pay the same as his boss?

why wouldn't it be fair. You don't consider it unfair that the college student, Bill Gates, the line worker and his boss all pay the same for ever other good or service purchased...why should government services be any different? In theory (and as it should be in actuality) all citizen get the same government, so why wouldn't it be fair to actually pay the same for it?

Well... I think you have simplified things too much in your example to be rationally discussed. We would have to get into the purposes of government... which is a whole separate issue.

In your world... let's say everyone's fair bill is $10K annually. What do you do with those who cannot or will not pay?

[VoiceOfReason]

Why do you make the assumption that lowering everyone's taxes would send the economy into default? For example, a national sales tax could lower taxes while stimulating the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to employers. More production, more workers, more revenue due to an improved economy.

Because I am talking about ACTUAL TAX PAID... not tax rates. I don't care if you lower my income tax rate to 1%, if my total tax bill goes up... I am paying more taxes and therefore do not favor such a change. Or if you lower top income tax rate to 25% and eliminate all deductions... I will pay MORE in taxes even though you LOWER my rate. I can do math... I am not fooled by pixie dust

If you eliminate my income taxes (YAY!) and the death tax (don't care 'cuz I have no assets), but institute a sales tax that makes the cost of everything I buy go up (BOO!!!)... then you have not guaranteed my taxes to go down have you?

I'm talking about actual tax paid as well. If you create jobs in this country (stimulus of eliminating corporate taxes and compliance costs) you have more people working and paying taxes (37.2% of working age adults in this country currently are not working or looking for work) and if more people are actually paying taxes, everyone can pay less individually without reducing overall revenue levels....

Well... a few things...

(1) Is the purpose of taxes to engineer social policy? Or fund the government? I think we have tried to influence job creation though tax policy... and you see the results.

(2) If there was such a proposal to lower everyone's taxes and increase tax revenue, even we progressive would be all for it. But I have yet to see such a proposal. And as an aside, i would prefer we eliminate the deficits and lower the debt before lowering individual taxes... but that's another issue.

[Hokie5150]

Why do you make the assumption that lowering everyone's taxes would send the economy into default? For example, a national sales tax could lower taxes while stimulating the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to employers. More production, more workers, more revenue due to an improved economy.

Because I am talking about ACTUAL TAX PAID... not tax rates. I don't care if you lower my income tax rate to 1%, if my total tax bill goes up... I am paying more taxes and therefore do not favor such a change. Or if you lower top income tax rate to 25% and eliminate all deductions... I will pay MORE in taxes even though you LOWER my rate. I can do math... I am not fooled by pixie dust

If you eliminate my income taxes (YAY!) and the death tax (don't care 'cuz I have no assets), but institute a sales tax that makes the cost of everything I buy go up (BOO!!!)... then you have not guaranteed my taxes to go down have you?

I'm talking about actual tax paid as well. If you create jobs in this country (stimulus of eliminating corporate taxes and compliance costs) you have more people working and paying taxes (37.2% of working age adults in this country currently are not working or looking for work) and if more people are actually paying taxes, everyone can pay less individually without reducing overall revenue levels....

Well... a few things...

(1) Is the purpose of taxes to engineer social policy? Or fund the government? I think we have tried to influence job creation though tax policy... and you see the results.

(2) If there was such a proposal to lower everyone's taxes and increase tax revenue, even we progressive would be all for it. But I have yet to see such a proposal. And as an aside, i would prefer we eliminate the deficits and lower the debt before lowering individual taxes... but that's another issue.

The proposals have been made (see the Fair Tax)..."progessives" simply shoot it down.

[Hokie5150]

Is that really fair? Should a college student be expected to pay the same as Bill Gates? Should a line worker be expected to pay the same as his boss?

why wouldn't it be fair. You don't consider it unfair that the college student, Bill Gates, the line worker and his boss all pay the same for ever other good or service purchased...why should government services be any different? In theory (and as it should be in actuality) all citizen get the same government, so why wouldn't it be fair to actually pay the same for it?

Well... I think you have simplified things too much in your example to be rationally discussed. We would have to get into the purposes of government... which is a whole separate issue.

In your world... let's say everyone's fair bill is $10K annually. What do you do with those who cannot or will not pay?

Any number of things. There's plenty of work to be done...put them to work doing it. After all, is it "fair" for able body citizens to get a "free ride"?

[RiverguyVT]

The government lays the underlying foundation for which we can "own" any property. Whether it be an automobile or 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

So in other words, it all really belongs to the government to begin with and it's only by the grace of a merciful government that some portion of it is granted unto you?

This sounds like a religion. "Glory to Government in the highest, and on earth peace to those on whom Its favor rests."

Sounds like reality to me. I can only tell you to find a Libertarian paradise somewhere. Hope nothing catches on fire.

sounds like someone missed the lecture on "rights"

You guys can jerk each other off on natural law or what have you, but at the end of the day we do need to fund our government.

Of course the government needs to be funded! Of course!
How to fund it is quite a different question than the statement:

The government lays the underlying foundation for which we can "own" any property. Whether it be an automobile or 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

Isn't it?

[ip_law-hokie]

The government lays the underlying foundation for which we can "own" any property. Whether it be an automobile or 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

So in other words, it all really belongs to the government to begin with and it's only by the grace of a merciful government that some portion of it is granted unto you?

This sounds like a religion. "Glory to Government in the highest, and on earth peace to those on whom Its favor rests."

Sounds like reality to me. I can only tell you to find a Libertarian paradise somewhere. Hope nothing catches on fire.

sounds like someone missed the lecture on "rights"

You guys can jerk each other off on natural law or what have you, but at the end of the day we do need to fund our government.

Of course the government needs to be funded! Of course!
How to fund it is quite a different question than the statement:

The government lays the underlying foundation for which we can "own" any property. Whether it be an automobile or 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

Isn't it?

Of course. If you go back and see the exchange with BD and 80, I'm sure you can ascertain the context of the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RiverguyVT]

That statement, in any context, is flawed.

[Hokie5150]

The government lays the underlying foundation for which we can "own" any property. Whether it be an automobile or 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

False. Natural rights of citizens lays the underlying foundations of our government which derives its power from those citizens. The government doesn't give rights or power to our citizens. Our citizens give power to our government.

[Hokie CPA]

The government lays the underlying foundation for which we can "own" any property. Whether it be an automobile or 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

False. Natural rights of citizens lays the underlying foundations of our government which derives its power from those citizens. The government doesn't give rights or power to our citizens. Our citizens give power to our government.

Right. People would still build, create, and own property in the absence of government. You don't need a government in order to barter goods and services. The purpose of government is to safeguard property and mediate disputes. Government allows us to own property without having to violently defend our property from thieves. It makes us civilized. But it does not lay the foundation for ownership... that's gonna happen with or without government.

[HokieJoe]

What a ridiculous article.

So the author's complaint is that it's possible that he won't be double-taxed?

Why the hell should he be double-taxed on it?

And to your point, if conservatives get their way and the death tax is eliminated, then the whole thing with cost basis step up would presumably be done away with too. The whole purpose of that is so that you don't get double-taxed when someone dies - if the death tax goes away, then presumably this provision will be allowed to sunset.

?? It was an objective assessment of his likely tax burden on his 2billion dollar sale. Based on his assessment, it's a good chance the only tax he will have to pay on the sale will be via the estate tax, it at all.

and re the stepped up basis point, the end result would hurt the middle class because they don't pay estate taxes anyway.

Huh?

If the middle class pays no estate tax, than how are they "hurt" by this?

Nonsense ip. Pure nonsense.

I don't feel like explaining it to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will do it. If you eliminate the estate tax, you reduce the amount of taxes paid by the most wealthy and reduce the total revenue taken in by the government... which increases annual budget deficits and thus, the national debt.

Who will eventually be called upon to pay this debt? Well... the solutions proposed on this board all propose elimination of services for the poor and/or tax deductions for the middle class.

So I guess the answer is that you can eliminate the estate tax and not hurt the middle class only if Republicans are never in charge of balancing the budget

Or we could reduce the size of government. Of course, that's something no self-respecting proggie would ever suggest because they LUVVVV them some big government. In short, progs love to control people's lives.