Governor Kasich

• Writerbuckeye

  

  You should stop while you're behind, doggie.
  
  
• Abe Vigoda

  

  This one goes to the dogg. He is playing you.
  
  
• LJ

  

  Abe Vigoda;778534 wrote:This one goes to the dogg. He is playing you.
  
  

  
  Eh nevermind, go ahead and have your fun....
• QuakerOats

  Nice marlin ............... did it hit a dogg bait?
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;778290 wrote:Your head is up your own ass. Here is your quote:
  
  
  
  Showing a bank account on a internet discussion board dosn't prove anything. Only a fool would beleive anything someone would post on here like that. It is almost as dumb as someone posting their real address or anything that would identify themself. I am not sure what any of this has to do with Kasich being the idiot he is other then you are just now learning his true colors.
  
  My paycheck is everything I could hope for. I am not going to post it. The one thing I know for sure that you have that is bigger then mine is your ego.
  
  Fish,
  I thought people who live in your neighborhood don't need loans? If times are tough for you and the Mrs, then maybe you should spend less time on here and strive to make LJ's paycheck. He says it is rather large

  Yeah, I'll get right on that. :rolleyes:
• BoatShoes

  LJ, you are relatively young I believe and it is likely in your lifetime that you will have a large enough gross estate (currently >$5 million) to be subject to the estate tax. As a consequence, it would be in your interest to try to get property out of your gross estate throughout your life to avoid that tax. One way you could do this is to deposit $13,000 into BoatShoes' bank account every year ($26,000 if your wife gives me $13,000 as well) as you're allowed to give away up to $13,000 to me and not be subject to the gift tax. We wouldn't want those socialists in Congress to get their hands on it now would we? Since no one likes paying the death tax it is clear that it is in your very best interest to engage in this transaction in exchange for my being the greatest poster on the politics forum. I will pm you my checking account information.
  
  
  
  And as an aside; as much as some of the more conservative fellows on here frustrate me at times, I think it's safe to say that the liberal wing of this board now has the two most outrageous posters in Gibby and Bigdogg (3 if I am the third???).
  
  Bigdogg you have been made a fool on this thread. If you are to assert that a pay stub posted on the internet means nothing than your own accusations for someone to post it show your own incoherence. He simply said that "he makes more than you could hope for." If it is true, as you say it is, that you can't tell if anything someone says in a message board is true, why cajole him to provide proof which you will not accept? That is largely what is great about an anonymous message board is we can debate the merits of issues rather than attack the interlocutor because we don't know the person making the argument. Sure we find out information about each other as time goes by but the point remains.
  
  If I earned my income as a transvestite prostitute through craigslist ads and Manhattan Buckeye knew that he would never bother with my opinion on the efficacy of the IRC's taxation of foreign source income. Now he at least bothers with scoffing at my posts because he knows little about who I am other than that I might have an affection for Sperry topsiders. So, why bother with trying to get LJ to prove a personal statement he made about himself?
  
  Also, do you not see that your obsession with the mace thing and Kasich's job at Lehman Brothers is as irrelevant and pointless as all the crap that many conservatives are bringing up about Obama? I mean goddamn.
  
  I was raised by a GOP family but The GOP as it stands today repudiates text book economics, arithmetic and empiricism while adhering to political conceptions of justice that completely contradict many of their own card carrying member's personal moral philosophies and values. The debate over the character of our State and our Nation will not be won by wondering if John Kasich had a hand in creating toxic debt instruments. Despite what we may see from time to time, most people are reasonable (at least to a degree). Many teachers, cops and firefighters have conservative values and yet have come out against Kasich because of at least one of his policy moves. If you stick to reason and argument about policy and you engage people, I believe (perhaps naively) that you can make progress.
  
  No one is going to come out against Kasich because you allege he brought down Ohio's economy at Lehman. But, if you talk to an average guy who has a family and a life but tends to be conservative about why outlawing collective bargaining might actually undermine the cause of liberty as it infringes one our ability to freely contract; about why a fetal heartbeat bill is bad policy because a heart is merely a pump and isn't sufficient for tissue being alive any more than a Shop Vac; and on and on and on....you can get a reasonable person to see your point at least.
  
  Plenty of people who read the other boards but don't post over here lurk here. Many of them at least probably lean conservative being that this site originally grew out of a sports messageboard. It is tougher to sway Believer, etc. than others but when these less emotionally invested posters read a post by you hammering Kasich for unimportant things, they get turned off and say "goddamn libtards." If you make a reasoned point, they have to at least evaluate the point in their mind and can't merely dismiss it.
  
  Now, I'm not saying I'm mister fair poster or blah blah and I don't mean to be rude or sound like I'm lecturing. As if I'm even in a position to lecture anyone. God knows there's plenty about me that sucks. But damn, you got pwned in this thread. Now we've all been pwned before. You're one of the few liberal allies on this board and therefore I'd like to call you friend. But personally, I would like for one day to have BGfalcons pm me and say;
  
  "Wow, I guess you're right Boatshoes, the estate tax prevents the consolidation of political power and prevents a perpetual ruling class the type of which our Founders left England to avoid and although I still have traditional, conservative values and prefer the missionary position with lights off over that wacky wild sex you liberals have, I can see why no conservative being true to those values would support the Estate Tax's repeal. Though I still think taxes generally aren't good I can see now the useful purpose this one serves in maximizing overall individual liberty."
  
  Now, I think you'd like that too. But, every time you bash Kasich about things that don't matter like they bash Obama it makes that a little harder as they get into a groupthink circle jerk about how stupid liberals are and their hearts harden.
• stlouiedipalma

  Wow!
  
  Any way I can get in on that scheme to have LJ support you? That was classic!
  
  
  The rest of it was spot on as well. Well put.
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;779731 wrote:LJ, you are relatively young I believe and it is likely in your lifetime that you will have a large enough gross estate (currently >$5 million) to be subject to the estate tax. As a consequence, it would be in your interest to try to get property out of your gross estate throughout your life to avoid that tax. One way you could do this is to deposit $13,000 into BoatShoes' bank account every year ($26,000 if your wife gives me $13,000 as well) as you're allowed to give away up to $13,000 to me and not be subject to the gift tax. We wouldn't want those socialists in Congress to get their hands on it now would we? Since no one likes paying the death tax it is clear that it is in your very best interest to engage in this transaction in exchange for my being the greatest poster on the politics forum. I will pm you my checking account information.QUOTE]
  
  Hmmm, let me get back to you on that. I barely even spend that much on myself per year lol

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Boat, you sold all that very nicely. But isn't Ohio getting rid of its estate tax? Not sure where the US government is on this at this point in time, but I'd imagine the estate would have to be considerable to kick in taxes on that side of things.
  
  Hopefully, they'll make the ceiling for this fairly high, since many family farms and smaller businesses will otherwise fall under the parameters of such a tax, and we'll end up destroying the very wealth this country should be protecting.
  
  By the way, I don't like estate taxes as a general rule. I'm not concerned about whether they might create ruling classes (I think that's kind of a silly argument, actually). I'm more concerned about whether it's FAIR to place yet another tax on money that has been taxed several times over already.
  
  At what point do you simply tell the government it is not entitled to one more bite of the apple?
  
  I believe we've passed that point.
• wkfan

  Writerbuckeye;779972 wrote:At what point do you simply tell the government it is not entitled to one more bite of the apple?
  
  I believe we've passed that point.

  Anytime they tax the same dollar twice....and that is the case with the estate tax.
• BoatShoes

  wkfan;779985 wrote:Anytime they tax the same dollar twice....and that is the case with the estate tax.

  
  No. It is a tax on the transfer that necessarily occurs at the realization event of death just like when you tax any other realized gain such as the appreciation in a stocks value when it is sold. It is not taxed to the same person twice as the X person is dead and her estate, a legal person, pays the tax.
• queencitybuckeye

  wkfan;779985 wrote:Anytime they tax the same dollar twice....and that is the case with the estate tax.

  
  I'll respectfully disagree. Money tends to be taxed whenever it changes hands. The estate tax is just another such tax.
  
  What I find disgusting beyond belief is the rate of this tax. Private sector examples of such abuses would result in people being called in front of congressional committees.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;779972 wrote:Boat, you sold all that very nicely. But isn't Ohio getting rid of its estate tax? Not sure where the US government is on this at this point in time, but I'd imagine the estate would have to be considerable to kick in taxes on that side of things.
  
  Hopefully, they'll make the ceiling for this fairly high, since many family farms and smaller businesses will otherwise fall under the parameters of such a tax, and we'll end up destroying the very wealth this country should be protecting.
  
  By the way, I don't like estate taxes as a general rule. I'm not concerned about whether they might create ruling classes (I think that's kind of a silly argument, actually). I'm more concerned about whether it's FAIR to place yet another tax on money that has been taxed several times over already.
  
  At what point do you simply tell the government it is not entitled to one more bite of the apple?
  
  I believe we've passed that point.

  
  As it stands now, with the Republicans controlling the government in Ohio it looks like Ohio will be doing away with their estate tax. As for the feds, after the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the exemption is now up to $5,000,000 for individuals and $10,000,000 for married couples. Therefore if you have a wife you're not going to pay any estate taxes unless your gross estate is >$10,000,000. Furthermore, family farms and small businesses (Congress' two favorite constituencies) get to reduce the value of the gross estate to be taxed by up to 70% so long as the heirs receiving them keep them in them in the family as they are for 10 years.
  
  As far as it being a device to prevent the concentration of wealth, that was it's original justification and it has been around since the very first revenue acts and is the only good justification as it's a very poor revenue raiser.
  
  Additionally, most estates are made up of stocks, bonds and real estate that has appreciated in value over the lifetime of the decedent and that appreciation has not been taxed. It is inconsistent if you were to allow a decedent to pass on stock at his death without his estate realizing the gain on that transfer while, if he had transferred that stock in his lifetime, he would have had to pay tax on the realization of that gain.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;780023 wrote:I'll respectfully disagree. Money tends to be taxed whenever it changes hands. The estate tax is just another such tax.
  
  What I find disgusting beyond belief is the rate of this tax. Private sector examples of such abuses would result in people being called in front of congressional committees.

  
  The rate is 35% now in the wake of Congress' action last year. It's higher than 0 that's for sure but much lower than the rate has been historically.
• Bigdogg

  First off, I never asked for LJ's pay check. I have no clue why he made the comment about how much money he made. I don't care then and don't care now. It's not really relevant to any of the discussion on here about Kasich. I had fun goading him to the point he broke his own rules about calling names. I thought it was funny to get him worked up and don't care if anyone thought who got the best of the conversation nor do I feel foolish. I had fun and my friends had fun reading it. Why would I care what anyone else thinks about that?
  
  As for my political leanings, I am actually a registered Republican who votes independently. Voted 50 50 in the last election. On here being called a left wing liberal is a very accurate assessment. If you believe the political test I am somewhere in the middle. I hate Kasich and his policies from the beginning. Most of the people that voted for him were not hearing what he was saying during the campaign. They voted for change because of the economy. Kasich is pushing his extreme left wing policies right now and that's his choice. Ohio is a moderate state in a lot of ways. If he continues down this path, the right wing Republicans will be swept out of office just as fast. I will continue to question the outrageous shit coming out of Columbus as long as it continues. If you don't like it, then feel free to not read or respond to it.
• wkfan

  BoatShoes;780012 wrote:No. It is a tax on the transfer that necessarily occurs at the realization event of death just like when you tax any other realized gain such as the appreciation in a stocks value when it is sold. It is not taxed to the same person twice as the X person is dead and her estate, a legal person, pays the tax.

  Nope....the guy built up the estate through working, etc...all of which was taxed and he kept what was left over. He dies. THEN his estate (it is still his, has not yet been probated or divided up to hiers) is taxed again....
  
  Taxed twice.
• wkfan

  BoatShoes;780045 wrote:The rate is 35% now in the wake of Congress' action last year. It's higher than 0 that's for sure but much lower than the rate has been historically.

  ....and it should remain zero.
• wkfan

  queencitybuckeye;780023 wrote:I'll respectfully disagree. Money tends to be taxed whenever it changes hands. The estate tax is just another such tax.
  
  What I find disgusting beyond belief is the rate of this tax. Private sector examples of such abuses would result in people being called in front of congressional committees.

  The money is taxed BEFORE it changes hands.....so dead guy pays tax ont he money earned or accumulated twice.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;780045 wrote:The rate is 35% now in the wake of Congress' action last year. It's higher than 0 that's for sure but much lower than the rate has been historically.

  
  Not low enough to make what I said incorrect, IMO.
• queencitybuckeye

  wkfan;780054 wrote:The money is taxed BEFORE it changes hands.....so dead guy pays tax ont he money earned or accumulated twice.

  
  You're picking nits.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  wkfan;780052 wrote:....and it should remain zero.

  
  This.
• BoatShoes

  wkfan;780051 wrote:Nope....the guy built up the estate through working, etc...all of which was taxed and he kept what was left over. He dies. THEN his estate (it is still his, has not yet been probated or divided up to hiers) is taxed again....
  
  Taxed twice.

  
  Ok follow me.
  
  Suppose you earn $2,000,000 in cash when you're 29 and you pay 50% of that in Ordinary Income taxes. You have $1,000,000 left over when you're 30 and you buy stock worth $1,000,000 with that $1,000,000 cash.
  
  So, you have $1,000,000 in Stock at age 30
  
  Scenario 1: You hold the stock until you are 89 and it has appreciated in value to $50,000,000 and you sell/transfer it for $50,000,000 Cash. You would pay taxes on the realized gain of $49,000,000. The realized gain was only taxed once.
  
  Scenario 2: You hold the stock until you die at age 90 and that $50,000,000 worth of appreciation, from which you economically benefited from in your lifetime (it increases your ability to borrow, etc.) was never taxed to you. 'The gain has not been taxed and by saying that it should not be taxed on the unavoidable realization event of death....you are suggesting a dire inconsistency in the taxation of wealth transfers.
  
  Now, Queencitybuckeye may be right in that the current rate is too high...but there nevertheless should be some tax on the transfer that takes place at death just as there is a tax on every single other wealth transfer.
  
  The appreciation has not been taxed. I repeat, the appreciation has not been taxed as it would be in any other wealth transfer, voluntary or involuntary.
• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;780047 wrote:First off, I never asked for LJ's pay check. I have no clue why he made the comment about how much money he made. I don't care then and don't care now. It's not really relevant to any of the discussion on here about Kasich. I had fun goading him to the point he broke his own rules about calling names. I thought it was funny to get him worked up and don't care if anyone thought who got the best of the conversation nor do I feel foolish. I had fun and my friends had fun reading it. Why would I care what anyone else thinks about that?
  
  .

  
  I find your backpeddling extremely hilarious.
  
  You DID ask for the paycheck, twice even.
  
  Also, how is it "worked up" to repost 2 pictures that had been posted a while ago?
  
  You trying to explain your way out of being made to look foolish is making it even worse on yourself. Not only does everyone already shake their head at some of your posts and your short temper, but now they know that you can't even accept facts and eat crow when you are proven a fool.
  
  Also,

  I have no clue why he made the comment about how much money he made

  
  Seriously? Criticizing someone saying "do you work" has nothing to do with proving that not only do they work, but are quite successful is ridculous. I think sometimes you just post things either without realizing what you are saying or you just don't remember what you post. This is not the first time you have done something like this
• BoatShoes

  wkfan;780052 wrote:....and it should remain zero.

  
  It is at zero for nearly every single american (including nearly all small businesses and farmers) except the very wealthiest. And, I started a thread a couple weeks back asking if political power should be inheritable and everyone emphatically said no. Yet, you're arguing that economic power should be totally and entirely inheritable without even the slightest tax to prevent the consolidation of economic power. There is a direct correlation between economic power and political power. Just look at Congress. A large majority of them are impressively rich and many of them got to where they are with a hefty help from nepotism. By saying that massive economic transfers should not be taxed so that economic power may be inherited and necessarily consolidated...you might as well be saying you have no problem with people inheriting political power.
  
  Furthermore, the existence of the estate tax encourages charity and social solidarity.
• LJ

  

  I'm not fully versed on the estate tax, but is the tax on the full estate or on each inheritance? Like, if each inheritance is under the threshold, the whole estate is taxed as 1 right? I think 1 good fix is to treat each inheritance seperately. There is no reason to tax the estate as a whole, because in that cause it IS a double tax. You are not taxing the people who are inheriting, you are taxing the estate before it is even broken up.