Social Security is now in the red

• BGFalcons82

  

  Paladin;470455 wrote:Interesting, but not likely. It is an inheritance tax. Period. Its based on a progressive system, just like the income tax system. Its possible to pass on a sizeable chunk of money and not be taxed at all. Its the greedy bastards that want to keep it all ( in the family) when larger amounts are involved. And as all know, a progressive system is fairer to those with far less while only taking more from those who can easily afford more. They also have been granted rights that make capital grow easier to achieve with tax write-offs & breaks and enjoy ther protection ( military) that govt affords them to grow their businesses, give them "special" consideration in legislation for benefit of their situation and even provide them govt money to assist with their business. But, the greedy bastards don't want share one dime........................................... unless its for their benefit. Thus , call it a death tax, raise hell that you can't give all $50 million to the kids and starve that damn govt who gave you all the special treatment & protection you got to make those millions .

  
  Tell us...who is being greedy? Is it the guy that has paid taxes and given all his life and wants to keep what he earned for his family?
  
  Or....could it be the government, which has already taxed the person at the legal rates for their entire lives who now wants EVEN MORE for its largesse? Could it be that the government needs to learn to not steal wealth from those that create it? Nah....it could never be that, could it?
• believer

  

  Paladin;470455 wrote:Interesting, but not likely. It is an inheritance tax. Period. Its based on a progressive system, just like the income tax system. Its possible to pass on a sizeable chunk of money and not be taxed at all. Its the greedy bastards that want to keep it all ( in the family) when larger amounts are involved. And as all know, a progressive system is fairer to those with far less while only taking more from those who can easily afford more. They also have been granted rights that make capital grow easier to achieve with tax write-offs & breaks and enjoy ther protection ( military) that govt affords them to grow their businesses, give them "special" consideration in legislation for benefit of their situation and even provide them govt money to assist with their business. But, the greedy bastards don't want share one dime........................................... unless its for their benefit. Thus , call it a death tax, raise hell that you can't give all $50 million to the kids and starve that damn govt who gave you all the special treatment & protection you got to make those millions .
  
  
  Let them eat cake.

  ".....the greedy bastards want to keep it all"? Seriously?
  
  It's their (and I have never used this word on Chatter) FUCKING money.
• FatHobbit

  

  believer;470497 wrote:".....the greedy bastards want to keep it all"? Seriously?
  
  It's their (and I have never used this word on Chatter) FUCKING money.

  
  this
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;469973 wrote:I care deeply about the debt. Why not come up with a system that deals with it as well? Maybe the "Fair Tax" or a "Flat Tax". Hell, I'd be OK with a VAT if all other taxes were eliminated. Not gonna happen, is it?

  
  
  Originally Posted by Footwedge View Post
  What exactly does "tax and spend" have to do with this debate? What about borrow and spend?
  
  
  
  I went to Google, the bastion of definitions to see what you're getting at. Aristocracy has to do with nobles and elitists that run a governmment. Here:
  •Aristocracy is a form of government in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule. The term is derived from the Greek aristokratia, meaning "rule of the best". See Aristocracy for the historical roots of the term. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy
  
  •The aristocracy are people considered to be in the highest social class in a society which once had a political system of Aristocracy. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy_(class)
  
  •The nobility, or the hereditary ruling class; Government by such a class, or a state with such a government; A class of people considered (not normally universally) superior to others
  
  In other words, your term has nothing to do with the people passing their wealth, be it a million bucks or a hundred million, to their spouse or heirs. I am not wishing for an autocratic ruler. We have one now.
  
  
  It has everything to do with people not passing on their wealth. In case you didn't know, the extremely wealthy do in fact control the government....no different than a monarchy here.
  
  
  As a financial conservative, I would want my kids to succeed on their own. Work for your own damn money. Free lunches....are free lunches. Paris Hilton ring a bell?
  
  Ummm...the 13 trillion dollar national debt thingy....again. You don't seem to care about that. More and more conservatives don't really.
• BoatShoes

  believer;470335 wrote:.
  
  This business of "recognizing realization events" is epic bullshit created by statists who think government owns or at least should control all privately created wealth.

  No. In fact, the realization requirement actually allows for tax on appreciation to be deferred. In theory, for us to have a true income tax, appreciation would be taxed immediately as it is earned and because of the time value of money...the realization requirement actually lowers actual tax due.
  
  Everything about the realization principle fits with the modern conservative narrative and overall reduces the tax burden for the majority of Americans....but alas...Sarah Palin and the like call the estate tax the death tax so who cares about internal consistency?
  
  I'm not out to get the steinbrenner's wealth....but if we're going to have an income tax....the income tax should be neutral to the various different kinds of windfall gains that persons get and not arbitrarily allow certain windfall gains to go untaxed...not because of sound tax policy....but by the nationalization of a phrase (death tax) that embodies a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the IRC.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;474455 wrote:Everything about the realization principle fits with the modern conservative narrative and overall reduces the tax burden for the majority of Americans.....

  Perhaps but it doesn't negate the fact that the Feds have devised a mechanism for taxing already-created wealth a second time simply because that wealth is passed on by the wealth creator's free choice at the time of his or her death.
  
  Again by all means tax any newly created wealth my posterity earns from my already-created wealth but re-taxing my already created wealth is not only double-taxation, it's flat out wrong of not immoral no matter how much that creative double-taxation lowers every one else's tax burden.
• BoatShoes

  believer;474459 wrote:Perhaps but it doesn't negate the fact that the Feds have devised a mechanism for taxing already-created wealth a second time simply because that wealth is passed on by the wealth creator's free choice at the time of his or her death.
  
  Again by all means tax any newly created wealth my posterity earns from my already-created wealth but re-taxing my already created wealth is not only double-taxation, it's flat out wrong of not immoral no matter how much that creative double-taxation lowers every one else's tax burden.

  
  
  If you have IBM stock and it appreciates in value $300 and you croak before you're able to sell it and "realize" that gain...this is "newly created wealth" using your terminology and is not taxed to heir under your world without a "death tax"
  
  This is not "already created wealth." Even if it was a pile of cash sitting in your closet that you already paid income tax on....it's "new wealth" to your heir....you're separate individual people.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;474461 wrote:If you have IBM stock and it appreciates in value $300 and you croak before you're able to sell it and "realize" that gain...this is "newly created wealth" using your terminology and is not taxed to heir under your world without a "death tax"
  
  This is not "already created wealth." Even if it was a pile of cash sitting in your closet that you already paid income tax on....it's "new wealth" to your heir....you're separate individual people.

  
  And likewise, if IBM loses value (like many stocks today) one's heirs don't get the loss. In the Obamaconomy I'd be careful to make analogies with money and wealth.
• BGFalcons82

  

  "Realization requirement", "Windfall gains", "Inheritance tax", and "Progressive system" are neat words used to lubricate the rectums of those being screwed. They sound so technically correct and full of class war envy...such as - who on earth could be against an "Inheritance tax"? Doesn't it make it sound like the bastard that got the cash didn't deserve it to begin with and now he must be taxed accordingly?
  
  Now that these words have been replaced with the highly accurate, "Death Tax", the lubricant has dried up and people see the truth about what is going on. For a significant portion of small businesses, especially in my construction industry, when the owner of the business dies, many times the business occurs a death due to the tax as well due to the punitive effects of the Death Tax.
  
  Here's a real life example that I have seen more than once: Think about a small excavation business with 5 or 6 pieces of equipment, trucks, trailers, a yard to keep them in and an office. If the owner of this small business dies, the value of the business can easily surpass $1 million or even $3 milliion. Guess what the spouse does when they have to sell some of the business assets (i.e. equipment), just to pay the Death Tax? They don't pay it out of their pockets and many times they liquidate it all just to raise enough money to pay dear old Uncle Sam. And the dozen or so employees? Adios to them.
  
  See....the defenders of taxing dead people twice all assume they got their money like Steinbrenner and no child should be allowed to keep Steinbrenner's money, because it doesn't really belong to them, it belongs to society...or the collective...or the commune.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;474632 wrote:And likewise, if IBM loses value (like many stocks today) one's heirs don't get the loss. In the Obamaconomy I'd be careful to make analogies with money and wealth.

  
  There are limits on the recognition of losses all throughout the code where gains are recognized and there have been long before the unholy trinity of socialists came to power.
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;474746 wrote:"Realization requirement", "Windfall gains", "Inheritance tax", and "Progressive system" are neat words used to lubricate the rectums of those being screwed. They sound so technically correct and full of class war envy...such as - who on earth could be against an "Inheritance tax"? Doesn't it make it sound like the bastard that got the cash didn't deserve it to begin with and now he must be taxed accordingly?/

  Most of the "bastards that got the cash" didn't earn it...they inherited it. Do the Kennedy and Bush plutocrats ring a bell?
  

  Now that these words have been replaced with the highly accurate, "Death Tax", the lubricant has dried up and people see the truth about what is going on. For a significant portion of small businesses, especially in my construction industry, when the owner of the business dies, many times the business occurs a death due to the tax as well due to the punitive effects of the Death Tax.

  
  
  So the heirs need to downsize their company to pay for their tax liability. So what? The beneficiaries are just that...beneficiaries of being gifted an asset....so now their gift isn't worth quite as much. again...so what...and too bad.
  

  Here's a real life example that I have seen more than once: Think about a small excavation business with 5 or 6 pieces of equipment, trucks, trailers, a yard to keep them in and an office. If the owner of this small business dies, the value of the business can easily surpass $1 million or even $3 milliion. Guess what the spouse does when they have to sell some of the business assets (i.e. equipment), just to pay the Death Tax? They don't pay it out of their pockets and many times they liquidate it all just to raise enough money to pay dear old Uncle Sam. And the dozen or so employees? Adios to them.

  
  
  Your example makes a point, but your math stinks in this example Again..downsize the company and move on. And if the business appraised worth is 3 million, then they wouldn't have to pay a penny in federal death taxes...if Obama's plan gets passed into law.
  

  See....the defenders of taxing dead people twice all assume they got their money like Steinbrenner and no child should be allowed to keep Steinbrenner's money, because it doesn't really belong to them, it belongs to society...or the collective...or the commune.

  Again....you are a conservative without espousing conservative traits. True conservatives believe that one should work for their own success...not have it passed along to them on a silver platter. And secondly, old schooled conservatives don't take too kindly to the 13 trillion dollar national debt.
  
  Neoconservatives don't care about the national debt.
  
  You are pro plutocracy...read "Bad Money" by Kevin Phillips...the author....an old schooled conservative that is sick and tired of plutocrats like the Kennedys and the Bushes...and how they have controlled the political climate for half of a century.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Footwedge - your class warfare is beholden to everyone. After reading your attempt at a response, it is clear to me that you have no idea how a business works. My math stinks, huh? Do you have any clue at all how much construction equipment and machinery costs? Clearly...you don't. If a business has to sell a piece of equipment it deperately needs in order to run a business, then they can't stay in business. Got it yet? No? Think about the Cleveland Plain Dealer selling half of its printing presses on Monday and they still need to produce a paper on Tuesday. Think they can do it? Think again....come on...I know you can.
  
  You also seem pleased to have a business liquidate through no fault of their own...just the fault of the US government...then it's perfectly legit. People lose jobs not because their business went South, or they made blunders...it went South because Uncle F*cking Sam took their assets away to pay for the owner's Death. You make me sad, not just for your ignorance, but for the fact that millions of Americans think exactly like you.
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;475270 wrote:Footwedge - your class warfare is beholden to everyone. After reading your attempt at a response, it is clear to me that you have no idea how a business works

  .
  
  I know exactly how a business works there chief. I've owned my own LLC since January of 89. And your citation always turns to "class warfare". If you're gonna play the class warfare card, then read up on what the term actually means. My argument has nothing to do with class warfare...and has everything to do with 2 things.
  
  1. I don't like plutocracies...people that want to be wealthy, need to work for it...as opposed to being handed tens of millions of dollars from parents with smart genes. And secondly, the national debt has exceeded 13 trillion dollars. You evidently, you are OK with that. Neoconservative and fellow Keynesians are like that. I don't agree with that. Apparently...you do.
  

  My math stinks, huh? Do you have any clue at all how much construction equipment and machinery costs? Clearly...you don't. If a business has to sell a piece of equipment it deperately needs in order to run a business, then they can't stay in business. Got it yet? No? Think about the Cleveland Plain Dealer selling half of its printing presses on Monday and they still need to produce a paper on Tuesday. Think they can do it? Think again....come on...I know you can.

  Yes...your example up above was quite rancid to tell you the truth. And I know quite a bit about equipment costs...thank you very much. Why should junior inherit a business worth 10 million dollars? Why? Should''t junior have to build his own business? Or are you pro "business" welfare for sons and daughters of the entrepreneurs? If a company has to liquidate a portion of their business, then fine. So be it.
  

  You also seem pleased to have a business liquidate through no fault of their own...just the fault of the US government...then it's perfectly legit. People lose jobs not because their business went South, or they made blunders...it went South because Uncle F*cking Sam took their assets away to pay for the owner's Death. You make me sad, not just for your ignorance, but for the fact that millions of Americans think exactly like you.

  Any company that has to liquidate because of your aforementioned scenario...had an absolute idiot for an owner. There are ways to gift ownership to his beneficiaries. Let me give you a modern day example that blows your ridiculous argument to smithereens.
  
  A few years ago, Art Rooney Sr. owned the Steelers. With proper estate planning, Art gifted a majority of his team to his sons. In a nutshell...that is how it's done.
  
  It sounds to me that you are pretty intent on getting your greedy little hands on someone's estate...an estate that was financed and built by someone other than you.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;475270 wrote:Footwedge - your class warfare is beholden to everyone. After reading your attempt at a response, it is clear to me that you have no idea how a business works. My math stinks, huh? Do you have any clue at all how much construction equipment and machinery costs? Clearly...you don't. If a business has to sell a piece of equipment it deperately needs in order to run a business, then they can't stay in business. Got it yet? No? Think about the Cleveland Plain Dealer selling half of its printing presses on Monday and they still need to produce a paper on Tuesday. Think they can do it? Think again....come on...I know you can.
  
  You also seem pleased to have a business liquidate through no fault of their own...just the fault of the US government...then it's perfectly legit. People lose jobs not because their business went South, or they made blunders...it went South because Uncle F*cking Sam took their assets away to pay for the owner's Death. You make me sad, not just for your ignorance, but for the fact that millions of Americans think exactly like you.

  
  If anything like you're describing happened to you or anyone you know perhaps some very basic business, estate and tax planning could have avoided it.....My guess is you're just spewing nonsense because I've discussed the economic underpinnings of the estate tax supported by both conservative and liberal economists for many decades and all you can do is call me a greedy socialist.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I've been a partial owner of 2 businesses myself. I know what I'm talking about because I've seen it happen to others, not to me. Clearly, everything belongs to the feds, not the individual. How ignorant of me. I'll learn this someday...but that day isn't today.
  
  Finally...to equate abhoring the Death Tax to wanting debt is a link that makes no sense whatsoever. The key to debt reduction is to reduce budgets. There is a proposal out today from the "Party of No" that essentially says to freeze tax rates for 2 more years and return to 2008 federal spending levels. Not a bad idea, but somehow....wait....I can hear it....it's louder now.....and there it is....."the evil scumbag rich aren't paying their fair share under this plan and they should be made to pay up for all their hoarding."
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BGFalcons82;475627 wrote:Finally...to equate abhoring the Death Tax to wanting debt is a link that makes no sense whatsoever. The key to debt reduction is to reduce budgets. There is a proposal out today from the "Party of No" that essentially says to freeze tax rates for 2 more years and return to 2008 federal spending levels. Not a bad idea, but somehow....wait....I can hear it....it's louder now.....and there it is....."the evil scumbag rich aren't paying their fair share under this plan and they should be made to pay up for all their hoarding so that the national debt can be paid off."

  
  Fixed. You're welcome
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;475627 wrote:I've been a partial owner of 2 businesses myself. I know what I'm talking about because I've seen it happen to others, not to me.

  
  If they let that happen to their business when any lawyer with her salt in estate or tax planning could have stopped it then they are terrible business men and I suppose that's just a market economy at work...weed the people who can't hack it out...
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;475627 wrote:I've been a partial owner of 2 businesses myself. .... Clearly, everything belongs to the feds, not the individual. How ignorant of me. I'll learn this someday...but that day isn't today.

  Your absolute ludicrous comment here amounts to a complete concession on this debate. Who in the fuck has claimed that private businesses are owned by the state? I'm done on this thread. See ya.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Footwedge;476252 wrote:Your absolute ludicrous comment here amounts to a complete concession on this debate. Who in the fuck has claimed that private businesses are owned by the state? I'm done on this thread. See ya.

  
  If you read any of my posts on this topic, you should have known you had 0% chance of changing my mind. Bye bye.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;476483 wrote:If you read any of my posts on this topic, you should have known you had 0% chance of changing my mind. Bye bye.

  
  Well then what is wrong with you? Even in the face of all the evidence that it may not in fact be a "death tax" but consistent with other income tax principles, you won't change your mind?
  
  What if you were proven emphatically wrong (not saying I have), but what if? You won't change your mind no matter what?
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;476546 wrote:Well then what is wrong with you? Even in the face of all the evidence that it may not in fact be a "death tax" but consistent with other income tax principles, you won't change your mind?
  
  What if you were proven emphatically wrong (not saying I have), but what if? You won't change your mind no matter what?

  
  What is wrong with me? Not a damn thing. You state, "Even in the face of all the evidence that it may not in fact be a "death tax".." What evidence? Is it the fancy words? Is it the class warfare against spouses and heirs who somehow don't deserve keeping money that has already been taxed once? Is it the fact that this theft always been there so why bitch about it now? Is it the evidence that people going out of business due to an inability to pay the Death Tax are really bad bad rotten businesspersons? Is your evidence that our debt is created by not taxing enough and spending money that doesn't even exist? In the end, there are no new arguments given and no new arguments heard.
  
  On this topic, you will never get me to change my mind. You can use all the fancy IRS jargon and class warfare lingo you've got. It's not going to sway me one bit because I've heard it all before. Maybe...if you found something new, I would listen, but that would take a complete re-write of the Death Tax as it stands. On other subjects...sure, I've got an open mind for the truth...not for talking points, propaganda, and kool-aid.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;477010 wrote:What is wrong with me? Not a damn thing. You state, "Even in the face of all the evidence that it may not in fact be a "death tax".." What evidence? Is it the fancy words? Is it the class warfare against spouses and heirs who somehow don't deserve keeping money that has already been taxed once? Is it the fact that this theft always been there so why bitch about it now? Is it the evidence that people going out of business due to an inability to pay the Death Tax are really bad bad rotten businesspersons? Is your evidence that our debt is created by not taxing enough and spending money that doesn't even exist? In the end, there are no new arguments given and no new arguments heard.
  
  On this topic, you will never get me to change my mind. You can use all the fancy IRS jargon and class warfare lingo you've got. It's not going to sway me one bit because I've heard it all before. Maybe...if you found something new, I would listen, but that would take a complete re-write of the Death Tax as it stands. On other subjects...sure, I've got an open mind for the truth...not for talking points, propaganda, and kool-aid.

  
  
  Ok. Let's start over.
  
  I'm sure you agree that we currently live under an income tax.
  
  If this is so, do you believe that a person who wins the Mega Millions ought to be taxed on this gain and have to include it in her taxable income?
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;477074 wrote:Ok. Let's start over.
  
  I'm sure you agree that we currently live under an income tax.
  
  If this is so, do you believe that a person who wins the Mega Millions ought to be taxed on this gain and have to include it in her taxable income?

  Let's see...we're going from the wrong-headed re-taxing of already-created wealth passed on at the free will of the deceased wealth creator to his posterity to should gambling winnings be taxed as income. Not sure how this ties together in an apples-to-apples fashion but it should prove interesting reading as the "you make too much money and it's owed to the people even if we have to devise creative tax code to confiscate your money" crowd continue - in vain - to convince us of the communal morality of the "progressive" tax code.
• IggyPride00

  

  Not sure how this ties together in an apples-to-apples fashion but it should prove interesting

  I am going to guess that the rational for it being an Apples to Apples comparison is that in either scenario, at the start of a given day the person receiving the lottery winnings or inheritance did not have that money and it wasn't theirs.
  
  Whether it came from the lottery commission, their parents, or the man on the moon, the argument is that regardless of the source of where it came from it is new income to the recipient of the windfall and is thus taxed accordingly.
  
  One could argue that lottery tickets were purchased with dollars that had previously been taxed, so the winner shouldn't be taxed on it either since (just like with inherited money) it was already taxed once.
  

  re-taxing of already-created wealth passed on at the free will of the deceased wealth creator

  Let me try and put on a liberal thinking cap here (or is that an oxymoron).
  
  A lib would argue that no one is impeding on the deceased's free will to leave the wealth to whoever they choose. They would instead argue that just like your paycheck, or lottery winnings, or work bonus that if the recipient wants to accept the money they have to pay the applicable taxes.
  
  Liberals don't distinguish between sources of where the windfall came from. Paycheck, drug money, inheritance, the policy is if you are receiving a dollar that you didn't previously have, it is taxable income.
  
  Just like the government doesn't care if you write down drug dealer as your occupation as long as you report your earnings, they don't care or see any difference between money given to you by your employer or a parent or the lottery commission.
  
  They don't care where it came from, they just want you to pay your taxes on any money earned.
• believer

  

  IggyPride00;477572 wrote:Whether it came from the lottery commission, their parents, or the man on the moon, the argument is that regardless of the source of where it came from it is new income to the recipient of the windfall and is thus taxed accordingly. Let me try and put on a liberal thinking cap here (or is that an oxymoron).
  
  A lib would argue that no one is impeding on the deceased's free will to leave the wealth to whoever they choose. They would instead argue that just like your paycheck, or lottery winnings, or work bonus that if the recipient wants to accept the money they have to pay the applicable taxes.

  If I choose to purchase a lottery ticket and I hit the lottery, then by all mean tax me. I never had that income before I bought the ticket so that makes good sense.
  
  If I bust my ass to leave my family (IE: my own flesh and blood) a good nest egg when I die - and assuming I paid all my taxes on that nest egg while I'm alive - then it is simply wrong and flat out immoral of you, the government, or anyone else to take a cut of that already taxed income from my family via a clever euphemism called "realization." I should have a right to insure that my family is cared for when I die without the Feds taxing my income while I'm alive and then re-taxing it because I had the audacity of dying.
  

  IggyPride00;477572 wrote:Liberals don't distinguish between sources of where the windfall came from. Paycheck, drug money, inheritance, the policy is if you are receiving a dollar that you didn't previously have, it is taxable income.
  
  Just like the government doesn't care if you write down drug dealer as your occupation as long as you report your earnings, they don't care or see any difference between money given to you by your employer or a parent or the lottery commission.
  
  They don't care where it came from, they just want you to pay your taxes on any money earned.

  They got it from me the FIRST time.