"Fair Share"?

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by WTF

Give us your solution....one that will not effect unemployment nor cause a second recession.

I have not been holding my breath, waiting for an honest answer.

Can I put you down, as a "no"?
I can only assume so, since otherwise, you would've answered "yes", quite eagerly.

You know better... but you are unwilling to give up the notion that Personal Responsibility and Self Reliance as a means to attain success "is not fair"!!

Not that it would save enough to make much of a difference... But I could easily do without the entire Departments of Energy & Education.... two worthless money pits! Would their absence create more unemployment? YES? It would shrink the size of Federal Government!
So be it! That's just a start!!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You proffer a "straw man" argument, ExNYer. The Preamble explicitly states the Constitution was established to "provide for the common defence" of the people. Not "providing for the common defence" of the people is not an option, ExNYer.

Actually, it is an option.

The Preamble is nice flowery language, but it is not enforceable. It does not mandate anything.

But, I'll tell you what, let's hear your solution to what happens if they don't provide for the common defence. Let's assume a bunch of Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders types win a large majority in Congress. What happens if the bleading-heart pacifist Congress cuts DoD spending to nothing or almost nothing?

What is your solution? Who do you turn to force them to perform that "mandated" spending?

Walk us down that path of insanity.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

You know better... but you are unwilling to give up the notion that Personal Responsibility and Self Reliance as a means to attain success "is not fair"!!

!!

Is an inheritance a '''means to attain success''? How about we tax the shit out of one's death. Is that fair?

[CuteOldGuy]

WPF is the master of deflecting and tearing down his own strawmen. You're wasting your time.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Is an inheritance a '''means to attain success''? How about we tax the shit out of one's death. Is that fair?

Yes. Once they are dead, issues of fairness cease to apply to them. And their families have no expectation of inheriting anything, since the deceased could have left his or her estate to charity in the first place. So it is not unfair to them either.

So jack up estate tax rates.

[CuteOldGuy]

What if I think it is unfair? I don't think that death should be a taxable event. A person's estate at death has already been taxed. The decedent should decide where his money goes, not the state. S/he earned it.

Hell, no! It's not fair to take a person's wealth just because they died. Where do you think you are? Feudal England?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes. Once they are dead, issues of fairness cease to apply to them. And their families have no expectation of inheriting anything, since the deceased could have left his or her estate to charity in the first place. So it is not unfair to them either.

So jack up estate tax rates.

I agree, it should be taxed as income to the person it was left to. They did nothing to earn that money. No different than winning the Lotto, they take taxes out of that too.

Now on to another fairness question related to the current fairness question.




http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What if I think it is unfair? I don't think that death should be a taxable event. A person's estate at death has already been taxed. The decedent should decide where his money goes, not the state. S/he earned it.

?

The decedent can decide where it goes you old fool. But then it should be taxed to the person it is going to just like they do the lottery. Those tax dollars have been taxed you know. Fuck all dollars have been taxed, they get taxed again when they change hands you old fool. Do you think you can go buy gas with your paycheck and cry about paying the tax on gas just because you have already paid taxes on your net paycheck?

[CuteOldGuy]

You're an idiot, WPF. I knew better than to comment on something you posted. Just twist, turn and deflect, like you always do. Or post something from another website and claim it as your own. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What if I think it is unfair? I don't think that death should be a taxable event. A person's estate at death has already been taxed. The decedent should decide where his money goes, not the state. S/he earned it.

Hell, no! It's not fair to take a person's wealth just because they died.

The guy is dead. He doesn't have wealth any more. Or a pulse.

All that is left is property. And that property is now income to somebody else - his heirs.

And your argument - that his estate should not be taxed because it has already been taxed is wrong on 2 levels. First, if you take it to its logical conclusion, then even a 1% tax is impermissible - because the money has already been taxed, right? It can't be wrong at 60%, but right at 5%. If the tax is impermissible, it is impermissible at both 60% and 0.1%. If the tax is permissible, then we are only arguing over the rate.

Second, money gets taxed twice all the time. It just has to change hands. The $100 in your wallet has already been taxed by the IRS. But if you buy something in the store, the store owner pays income tax on the $100 again. You don't get to decide where that money goes just because you earned it.

The estate tax is really a misnomer - or is at least not properly understood.

It is an income tax on other folks, the beneficiaries. And they did NOT work or invest to earn it. So why not tax it at 60%?

The alternative is me being taxed at a higher rate while I am living and working. I'd rather raise the estate tax than increase the marginal rates.

The time to provide for your family is while you are living, not after you are dead.

[CuteOldGuy]

The real answer is to abolish the income tax and estate tax.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're an idiot, WPF. I knew better than to comment on something you posted. Just twist, turn and deflect, like you always do. Or post something from another website and claim it as your own. It wouldn't be the first time.

Then STFU and move on, I didn't ask for your comment(s).

Though it sounds to me like you do not have a decent answer for taxing lotto winnings just like you tax inheritance. No different. Just like winning in Vegas, all that money had been taxed, yet you have to pay tax on the winnings, that is what a inheritance is, a winning lotto number.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Now on to another fairness question related to the current fairness question.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America

You already posted that. And I already responded to it above. And what is the "question"? All I see are statements.

To the extent wealth disparity is a "problem", high estate taxes will largely take care of it.

What else do YOU have in mind? Make it illegal for rich people to invest any more money because they already have enough?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

%?

The alternative is me being taxed at a higher rate while I am living and working. I'd rather raise the estate tax than increase the marginal rates.

The time to provide for your family is while you are living, not after you are dead.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You already posted that. And I already responded to it above. And what is the "question"? All I see are statements.

To the extent wealth disparity is a "problem", high estate taxes will largely take care of it.

What else do YOU have in mind? Make it illegal for rich people to invest any more money because they already have enough?

LOL no they can keep investing, I do think that higher marginal tax rates will not reduce the pie but create more opportunity for others. Is it better for the country to have one billionaire or a thousand millionaires?

Do you need one Wal Mart for the area or many more mom and pop business? Our tax structure makes a huge difference in that happening.