The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: SMS on 20 Sep 2009 16:28 Ray Fischer wrote: > That's more rightard stupidity. In fact a lot of inheritence has had > no taxes paid whatever. Example: Stock bought at $1/share, appreciated > to $100, and then transferred upon death. Taxes paid on that $99 of > gain? ZERO. And rightards so love the wealthy that they would rather > pay more of their own taxes than see children who didn't even work for > the money get all the benefits and not even pay any taxes. That's what's so amazing, the same people that don't understand how inheritance taxes work are the ones that will be paying the price for their elimination either through their own higher taxes or through the devaluation of the dollar caused by higher deficits. Unrealized capital gains form the vast majority of the value of large estates, and these gains were never taxed, and if the estate tax is repealed they will never be taxed. This is very unfair to those who pay capital gains taxes during their lifetime. There is no "death tax" for 98% of Americans. For the 2% with estates large enough to be subect to taxation, the average tax rate is 17%. If the handlers of the neo-cons can be praised for one thing it's their cleverness in convincing many millions of dumb people to actively campaign against their own self-interest.
From: SMS on 20 Sep 2009 16:40 Bill Graham wrote: > What business of the government is it whether I eat my food hot or cold, > and/or inside their building or outside in my car? I agree. If there's a sales tax then all prepared food should be subject to sales tax without exception. In California, since proposition 13 holds down property taxes, for both commercial and residential property owners, and income taxes are already at high levels, they need a high sales tax. I'd much prefer a system like in Oregon with no sales tax and higher property tax, which is at least deductible from state and federal income tax, but that's not going to happen because proposition 13 is sacred. What's really unfair in California, and were just seeing the tip of the iceberg of the problem, is parents and grandparents passing on their proposition 13 valuations to their children and grand-children. No longer is proposition 13 protecting seniors from losing their homes, it's allowing their high-income children to pay $1000 a year in property tax and send their kids to the same schools as their neighbor paying $15,000 a year in property tax. No one in their right mind would sell their house in a desirable neighborhood with good schools and lose their artificially low property tax rate. Either they rent it out once their kids are done with school, let their kids live in the house while the parents are still alive, and pass it to the kids when the parents are gone. That lost property tax revenue is going to have to be replaced. In my town we do it by passing parcel taxes which are flat rate, not based on the value of the property. We have to pass more and more of these as the regular property tax fails to keep pace with expenses.
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 16:40 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab69032$0$1660$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Ray Fischer wrote: > >> That's more rightard stupidity. In fact a lot of inheritence has had >> no taxes paid whatever. Example: Stock bought at $1/share, appreciated >> to $100, and then transferred upon death. Taxes paid on that $99 of >> gain? ZERO. And rightards so love the wealthy that they would rather >> pay more of their own taxes than see children who didn't even work for >> the money get all the benefits and not even pay any taxes. > > That's what's so amazing, the same people that don't understand how > inheritance taxes work are the ones that will be paying the price for > their elimination either through their own higher taxes or through the > devaluation of the dollar caused by higher deficits. > > Unrealized capital gains form the vast majority of the value of large > estates, and these gains were never taxed, and if the estate tax is > repealed they will never be taxed. This is very unfair to those who pay > capital gains taxes during their lifetime. > > There is no "death tax" for 98% of Americans. For the 2% with estates > large enough to be subect to taxation, the average tax rate is 17%. > > If the handlers of the neo-cons can be praised for one thing it's their > cleverness in convincing many millions of dumb people to actively campaign > against their own self-interest. If the object of taxation is to, "steal equally from everyone" then you would be right. but it is to pay for the cost of government. And, in this light, everyone should pay equally, unless they use up more of the government's goods and services than their normal share. I don't think that the guy who saves for his children uses up more of the government's goods and services than the guy who blows his whole paycheck on junk, so why does the government think they should steal part of his money when he dies? It's his money. He earned it. He paid taxes on it. Now, he should be able to do what he wants with it without it being any of the government's business.....
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 16:47 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab69032$0$1660$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Ray Fischer wrote: > >> That's more rightard stupidity. In fact a lot of inheritence has had >> no taxes paid whatever. Example: Stock bought at $1/share, appreciated >> to $100, and then transferred upon death. Taxes paid on that $99 of >> gain? ZERO. And rightards so love the wealthy that they would rather >> pay more of their own taxes than see children who didn't even work for >> the money get all the benefits and not even pay any taxes. Capitol gains taxes discourage people from investing their money, and encourage them to just spend it all and not save for their retirement. I would eliminate capitol gains taxes permanently. Once you have taxed someone's income, at a rate that is commensurate with his/her use of government goods and services, then why don't you just leave him/her alone and let them do what they want with their money? If they can figure out a way to make it grow for their own retirement, then more power to them. It is not the governments business....They have already paid for all the goods and services they are going to use.
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 16:54
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab69032$0$1660$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net.. .. > If the handlers of the neo-cons can be praised for one thing it's their > cleverness in convincing many millions of dumb people to actively campaign > against their own self-interest. Yes, if you define, "own self interest" to be stealing as much money as you can from anyone simply because they happen to have it. I define it to mean taxing everyone according to the government goods and services they are using up. If the US Army fights harder for mr rich guy, then he should have to pay more in taxes. If the fire department or police department responds faster to mr. rich guy, then he should have to pay more. but if not, then if is stealing to ask him to pay any more. That's my position, and I am sticking to it. |