OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

BTW, Jon, I am going to assume that your estate is worth *more* than a
million bucks. If it is and you must die, do it before Jan 1, 2011
(and no, I am not wishing you dead like some folks on this forum have
wished me). As of Jan 1, I believe the estate tax will go from 0 to
55% with up to the first million being untaxed. If you are worth,
let's say 2 mill, your survivors will pay $550k on you estate. Your
survivors owe the U.S. Government NOTHING, a tax such as what Obama has
in store for us is onerous.

Dave

On 9/30/2010 11:12 AM, D. LaCourse wrote:


Rainy morning here in the mountains. Fun watching the clouds and rain
come over the ridges from the west.

Dave



we are at flood stage here in eastern nc...been raining for 4 days.
some areas received about 5 inches of rain the first day. my backyard
is a lake. good thing i've got my boats nearby! g

jeff

On Sep 30, 3:45*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

BTW, Jon, I am going to assume that your estate is worth *more* than a
million bucks.

I come from a blue-collar family that can't even imagine anything like
a million dollars, and while I'm doing OK my "estate" is not even
close to that.

*As of Jan 1, I believe the estate tax will go from 0 to
55% with up to the first million being untaxed. *If you are worth,
let's say 2 mill, your survivors will pay $550k on you estate.

Sounds good to me, bring it on. I'd tax large estates (say, 7+
figures) _very_ heavily. Let the kids earn their own. I'd be all in
favor of exemptions for, say, "land-rich and cash-poor" family farmers
and ranchers, but our politicians can't do anything special like that
without selling out to their big donors...

*Your survivors owe the U.S. Government NOTHING,

And even under the above they still won't...

a tax such as what Obama has in store for us is onerous.

Don't include me in that, and FWIW I didn't see the rich give up being
rich when previous eras had inheritance taxes. If it bothers you so
much give your money all away until you fall back under the
cap...problem solved.

Jon.

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000) got
taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

On Sep 30, 3:25*pm, wrote:

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? *Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? *Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%?

Lot's of people have described the merits of progressive tax rates.
You can choose to reject those explanations but I accept them. "To
whom much is given, much will be expected."

*According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year

I didn't say I was the business owner, just that I have personal
experience with it. The business provided a living wage to its
proprietors and its employees, but the nature of the particular
business was that there never would be spectacular profits, and
conscious decisions were made to stay small. Money isn't everything in
life.

I work _hard_ to earn what I earn

I have no idea what you do or how much you make (and don't really care
to know), and I'm sure that you do work hard; so do 11-year-old
Pakistani brick-makers for their two dollars a day. Frankly I don't
think many of us in the first world _earn_ our pay; yes we get _paid_
it, but that doesn't mean we _earn_ it. Lot's of people around the
world work just as hard and get paid a lot less. That goes for my
salary (public domain if you care to find it), and exponentially so
for the overpaid corporate CEOs we read about in the papers (I'm not
at all implying that you fit that category; like I said I have no idea
what you make).

their "government-supplied" services (and even those things that really

I'm with you there; I'm all for less government services, but the
politicians aren't (on either side), and as long as we're going to
promise services, we (corporately) better pay for them...

Take care,

Jon.

On 2010-09-30 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton said:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000)
got taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

Tom, raising *anyone's* taxes during a recession is a very foolish
thing to do. It won't bring in that much revenue, probably make fed
revenue income go down. Tax cuts for *everyone* is necessary. But
your Muslim Hero doesn't want that; he wants to tax the "rich". He has
continueously talked about redistributing the wealth. Tax increases is
not the way to do it, nor can we spend our way into prosperity. Two
hundred fifty thousand/year is not rich is many areas of this country.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:02:16 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Cook
wrote:

On Sep 30, 3:25*pm, wrote:

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? *Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? *Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%?

Lot's of people have described the merits of progressive tax rates.
You can choose to reject those explanations but I accept them.

I don't agree with them, and certainly not to the point that the majority pay
little or no taxes. But even if the US must have progressive income taxes, why
shouldn't it require that everyone at least pony up _something_?

"To whom much is given, much will be expected."

Um, well, apparently not. Much is "given" by the US government, using tax
dollars, and _very_ little is expected of those who receive it (I'm speaking
individuals and "entitlements" - even with the bailouts, something was
expected). And while you may consider your salary as something "given" to you,
I consider what I earn as, well, not given, but rather, earned.

*According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year

I didn't say I was the business owner, just that I have personal
experience with it.

True enough, you didn't, but frankly, and I don't mean to start anything here,
if you didn't own it, then your "personal experience" was merely as an observer,
however keenly you observed, and at the end of the day, that's not anywhere
close to having both the responsibility and if any, the reward.

The business provided a living wage to its
proprietors and its employees, but the nature of the particular
business was that there never would be spectacular profits, and
conscious decisions were made to stay small. Money isn't everything in
life.

No, it isn't, but as you said, it was a conscious choice. That should not
exempt them from paying what a larger and/or more-profitable business owner
should pay.

I work _hard_ to earn what I earn

I have no idea what you do or how much you make (and don't really care
to know), and I'm sure that you do work hard; so do 11-year-old
Pakistani brick-makers for their two dollars a day. Frankly I don't
think many of us in the first world _earn_ our pay; yes we get _paid_
it, but that doesn't mean we _earn_ it. Lot's of people around the
world work just as hard and get paid a lot less. That goes for my
salary (public domain if you care to find it), and exponentially so
for the overpaid corporate CEOs we read about in the papers (I'm not
at all implying that you fit that category; like I said I have no idea
what you make).

Good points. To those who make 2 dollars a day, 25K a year is 30-plus times,
much more than your 10 times, what they make, so again, at what point does your
sympathy begin? At what income level should "business owners" by taxed 40% on
their personal income? And what about wage-earners? If someone earns 25K, why
shouldn't they be taxed just like someone who make earns 250K?

Let me ask you this: if I let you set my tax rate, would you let me set yours?
Would you let me set yours after you set mine? You know, sorta like the old
deal about sharing - one person cuts the sandwich, the other gets to pick their
portion first.

TC,
R

On 2010-09-30 18:39:55 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

On Sep 30, 3:45*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

BTW, Jon, I am going to assume that your estate is worth *more* than a
million bucks.

I come from a blue-collar family that can't even imagine anything like
a million dollars, and while I'm doing OK my "estate" is not even
close to that.

d;o) So did I. The *maximum* amount my father ever made was
$3000/year. He worked until he was 67 and died behind the wheel of his
trailor truck. When my mom died, she left the three of us $900 apiece.
So, I started from scratch

*As of Jan 1, I believe the estate tax will go from 0 to
55% with up to the first million being untaxed. *If you are worth,
let's say 2 mill, your survivors will pay $550k on you estate.

Sounds good to me, bring it on. I'd tax large estates (say, 7+
figures) _very_ heavily. Let the kids earn their own. I'd be all in
favor of exemptions for, say, "land-rich and cash-poor" family farmers
and ranchers, but our politicians can't do anything special like that
without selling out to their big donors...

Ah, but that's the rub, Jon. The land-rich and cash-poor farmers are
included. Chances are farm sales will abound.

*Your survivors owe the U.S. Government NOTHING,

And even under the above they still won't...

a tax such as what Obama has in store for us is onerous.

Don't include me in that, and FWIW I didn't see the rich give up being
rich when previous eras had inheritance taxes. If it bothers you so
much give your money all away until you fall back under the
cap...problem solved.

I think Obama's tax scheme is onerous. You *never* raise taxes during
a recession, but he is. I don't think the outcome is going to be like
he thinks it will be.

Jon.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton wrote:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000) got
taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom


While it is true that the "technical" top tax bracket was 91% (on "net taxable
income"), the loopholes were, well, more the rule than the exception, so very
few actually paid 91%.

And you might wish to consider what folks like Carnegie did with their money -
while they certainly gave a lot away, they sure didn't leave the kids,
grandkids, etc. eating out of dumpsters - do some quick research into Bessemer
Trust (the Phipps family), the various Rockefeller trusts, the Kennedy stuff,
etc.

Simply put, I'll happily pay 99.9% income (or whatever) tax...if you let me
write the tax code...

TC,
R

On 2010-09-30 18:27:53 -0400, jeff said:

On 9/30/2010 11:12 AM, D. LaCourse wrote:


Rainy morning here in the mountains. Fun watching the clouds and rain
come over the ridges from the west.

Dave



we are at flood stage here in eastern nc...been raining for 4 days.
some areas received about 5 inches of rain the first day. my backyard
is a lake. good thing i've got my boats nearby! g

jeff

Went out and checked a local stream this afternoon. It was runny
pretty high and a little dirty. I stopped by my local fly shop and
they claim fishing has been bad this year because of the very hot
summer and lots of rain for the past week or so.

My grandson who is living in our Mass house says the storm missed them
- just a little rain.

Off to Road Atlanta tomorrow and Saturday for the Petit leMans series.

Be well.

Dave