Dems first move to raise taxes.......

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Thank you dems for running on absolutely nothing because you knew running on what you want to do would destroy any hope of election.

 

House rules change clears way for tax increases

 

By Donald Lambro

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

January 7, 2007

 

One of the first key procedural votes in the Democrat-controlled House last week established legislative rules that Republicans say will make it easier to raise taxes by a simple majority vote.

The straight party-line vote received little attention Thursday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, was elected speaker of the House. But Republican leaders and conservative tax-cut advocates said it opened up a huge loophole in a Republican-imposed rule drawn from the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America, which requires a supermajority, or three-fifths vote, to raise taxes.

Democrats unanimously voted down a motion offered by Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio that would have prevented them from waiving the rule, a move that tax-cutters said signaled the Democrats' intention to raise taxes between now and the 2008 elections.

"American taxpayers need to hold on to their wallets because the new House rules concerning taxes are not worth the paper they're written on," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).

"After spending an entire year on the campaign trail claiming she will not raise taxes, the first vote Nancy Pelosi brings to the floor for a vote as speaker will open the door to billions and billions of dollars of tax increases over the next two years," Mr. Norquist said.

Many liberal Democrats vowed in the midterm election campaigns to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those in the top income-tax brackets, and party leaders already have scheduled a vote to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, which would effectively raise taxes on the nation's energy-producing corporations.

"The Democrats have a more established record of wanting to raise taxes than Republicans do. So to have them reject making the rule unwaivable indicates they want to preserve the option to raise taxes," said Jo Maney, spokeswoman for the Rules Committee, through which all legislation must pass.

"The Democrats were smart in crafting the new rules," said Dan Clifton, ATR's chief economist. "They did not change them but made additions to them. Now the three-fifths rule can be waived by a simple majority," or 218 votes.

"President Clinton got a bare majority 218 votes for his tax increases in 1993. So all the Democrats have to do is vote to waive the three-fifths rule, and they've got a tax increase," Mr. Clifton said.

Democratic officials saw Mr. Boehner's motion as a move to tie their hands on future tax policy, and the majority leadership effectively held all of its troops in line to oppose it, even though some of its members ran on pledges not to raise taxes.

"In the coming months, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee will be pressured to repeal or waive the Contract with America's barriers against unfair tax increases to make it easier for the Democrat majority in Congress to raise taxes," Mr. Boehner predicted.

The Democrats also approved the so-called "pay-as-you-go" rule as part of the House rules package. The rule says that when taxes are cut, lawmakers must offset any revenue loss with either new or higher taxes elsewhere, or reductions in spending.

But the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Friday that the pay-as-you-go rules "do not always work perfectly, and it may be useful to consider changes to improve the technical workings of [pay-as-you-go] to make it more effective."

 

 

 

Hold on to yur wallets fellas.

[gocolts 300]

Them sunsobiatches.

 

Liberalism is a focking mental disorder.

[GettnHuge 1]

let em

 

then in 2 years things will be back to normal

[What is the deal? 1]

let em

 

then in 2 years things will be back to normal

if you mean economy back in the toilet as 'normal' then I guess so...

 

raising taxes is idiotic. These people don't understand that and I have no idea why. Ignorance should be a crime

[Q.Lazzarus 0]

The way the current administration is spending, it's impossible not to raise taxes at some point. Talk about liberal, look no further than the Bush administration.

[De Novo 0]

if you mean economy back in the toilet as 'normal' then I guess so...

 

raising taxes is idiotic. These people don't understand that and I have no idea why. Ignorance should be a crime

 

Dems are cutting off a finger to save an arm. It's hardly idiotic. On top of Bush's Iraq war spending, fiscal responsibility is an impossibility because we don't politicies who push pork through because that pork benefits your district. Well, if every single district benefits from useless spending (like a focking bridge in Alaska to nearly uninhabited place) then nobody benefits. People don't get it. So, we're forced to raise taxes. You want fiscal responsibility and lower taxes? Stop voting for politicians based on your morals or religious beliefs.

[What is the deal? 1]

Dems are cutting off a finger to save an arm. It's hardly idiotic. On top of Bush's Iraq war spending, fiscal responsibility is an impossibility because we don't politicies who push pork through because that pork benefits your district. Well, if every single district benefits from useless spending (like a focking bridge in Alaska to nearly uninhabited place) then nobody benefits. People don't get it. So, we're forced to raise taxes. You want fiscal responsibility and lower taxes? Stop voting for politicians based on your morals or religious beliefs.

I think you are confused. I have already explained it to this board many times.

 

In the longterm, a higher tax rate does not mean that you will increase tax revenue anymore than a company raising prices guarantees that they'll increase their profits...

 

I can agree with you on the spending, but then again that has nothing to do with this conversation or my morals and religious beliefs or lack there of.

 

Taxes are one of the main reasons I lean towards the right...they understand it

 

to use your metaphor, dems are actually cutting off a finger to lose their arm

[De Novo 0]

I think you are confused. I have already explained it to this board many times.

 

In the longterm, a higher tax rate does not mean that you will increase tax revenue anymore than a company raising prices guarantees that they'll increase their profits...

 

I can agree with you on the spending, but then again that has nothing to do with this conversation or my morals and religious beliefs or lack there of.

 

Taxes are one of the main reasons I lean towards the right...they understand it

 

to use your metaphor, dems are actually cutting off a finger to lose their arm

I'm not confused. There's very little chance you understand more about economics or finance than I do. In theory, lower tax rates result in economic expansion and at some optimal rate, (which is likely lower than what it is right now) maximize tax revenue. Aside from the fact that it's only theory and impossible to implement over the long-term, that's not the issue. The most wealthy in the country pay an effective tax rate much lower than many in the (upper) middle class. The gap between the upper class and lower/middle class widens every day and it's reached unhealthy proportions. I'm all for capitalism and if the market will only bear $8 an hour then the market will only bear $8 an hour but mass poverty has all kinds of adverse social impacts. You're not going to increase the tax base by allowing someone earning $500k to pay $10k less in taxes. Most of it will be tied up in investments until they pass their wealth onto their kids so you're not getting any near-term benefit and will continue to increase the national debt. We're in a precarious position. If the Dollar loses international demand (e.g., China starts selling their hordes of dollars) then the dollar tanks and all of a sudden, we won't be able to renew the $7T+ in outstanding debt we have (unless we pay an unreasonable rate in which case we'll need to raise taxes to even more ridiculously high levels). Things will eventually spiral out of control. I'd prefer that not happen. Since fiscal responsibility won't occur until it's too late, let's cut off a finger to save an arm (or more) down the line.

 

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm not someone who is living paycheck-to-paycheck and is simply jealous of the wealthy. I'm 24 and make $100k. But I recognize that problems exist. Current wage and tax levels for those making under $500k are askew.

[GettnHuge 1]

The gap between the upper class and lower/middle class widens every day and it's reached unhealthy proportions.

 

jealous of the wealthy.

 

and the universe keeps expanding. so what? as long as the peasants have their televisions, cell phones and fast foods they will be happy.

 

jealous, no. afraid and misguided, yes. maybe you should go hide in a bunker if everything is so miserable to you.

[De Novo 0]

and the universe keeps expanding. so what? as long as the peasants have their televisions, cell phones and fast foods they will be happy.

 

jealous, no. afraid and misguided, yes. maybe you should go hide in a bunker if everything is so miserable to you.

Ah yes. Ignore the problem. Typical outspoken neocon response. Global warming's a farce. And the Iraq war is going swimmingly. And Bush is a great president. Yeah, I'll be sure to hide in a bunker. Why do you care if the wealthy pay higher taxes? It doesn't effect you. Oh, but the blogs you read tell you what to believe in.

 

Contempt for the lower and middle class too? You're nothing but class.

[GettnHuge 1]

It doesn't effect you.

 

it doesn't news to me

[De Novo 0]

it doesn't news to me

You make more than $500k?

[Chronic Husker 85]

as long as the peasants have their televisions, cell phones and fast foods they will be happy.

I've never seen a post that represents your attitude better than this one.

[GettnHuge 1]

You make more than $500k?

 

you said 'wealthy paying higher taxes doesn't affect you'

when it comes to income, I don't get hit too bad imho, there should be a flat tax though.

when it comes to cap gains, property and death tax, I get hit real hard.

 

 

I've never seen a post that represents your attitude better than this one.

 

uhh because it's the truth? has been for centuries? which is why I used the word peasants.

hth

[Chronic Husker 85]

If there's one thing I'll crusade for, it's GettnHuge's inheritance.

[GettnHuge 1]

If there's one thing I'll crusade for, it's GettnHuge's inheritance.

 

not my fault I've inherited a nice bit and will again someday. I've also made quite a lot over the years with my own savings through

smart buys and sells. Inheritance isn't why I'm where I am. Like many people, I want to retire in my 30s and that's looking good.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Dems are cutting off a finger to save an arm. It's hardly idiotic. On top of Bush's Iraq war spending, fiscal responsibility is an impossibility because we don't politicies who push pork through because that pork benefits your district. Well, if every single district benefits from useless spending (like a focking bridge in Alaska to nearly uninhabited place) then nobody benefits. People don't get it. So, we're forced to raise taxes. You want fiscal responsibility and lower taxes? Stop voting for politicians based on your morals or religious beliefs.

 

 

yeah yeah yeah, Highest Dow ever, lowest unemployment in the world, our poor have TV's and cell phones etc etc yet the 35% federal income tax + 8% state income tax + 6% sales tax for someone making over 175k is not enough? On top of capital gains on what you make in the market and 50% inheritance tax, property tax are you focking kidding me?!?!!?

 

You think the answer is raising taxes and giving people money rather than having to work for it. You give someone a crutch and they will use it, if you give em a hammer they will use that. You are a crutch guy, im a hammer guy.

 

So it fair for a family living in the outskirts of New York with an hour commute to work, taking care of a wife and two kids to pay half of his income in taxes? And thats before the little crap taxes mentioned above. Im talking about a guy pulling in 175k per year. That guy happens to be a very close friend of mine and they have nothing left at the end of each month and they do not live extravigantly, they both drive pre 2000 ford explorers and can barely make it.

 

So tax increase is the answer right?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Why do you care if the wealthy pay higher taxes? It doesn't effect you.

You do realize, I hope, the this tax thing gets trotted out simply as a political maneuver. After all who could possibly against the rich paying more taxes, right? Just like who could possibly be against English as the official language, right? Pure politics.

 

The middle class always loses in a tax rate hike because they are the ones who pay the highest percentage of their meaningful income. When the Dems produce a real tax initiative like a flat tax or a sales tax, then maybe you can get me behind it. Otherwise learn to spot politics in action.

[akaoni 0]

From NYT:

 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

 

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

 

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

 

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

[What is the deal? 1]

From Liberal Times:

[PackerAttacker 0]

It doesnt even matter. Its pure BS that the so called rich are charged with paying higher income taxes. The country got along just fine for 150 years without it. Income taxes are also arguably unconstitutional for the following reasons..

 

1. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was "fraudulently and illegally declared to be ratified" by Secretary of State Philander Knox;

2. There is no law that requires most Americans to "file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings;"

3. People who file a Form 1040 "'voluntarily' waive their 5th Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves;"

4. The IRS "routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure," by failing to properly obtain warrants issued; and

5. The IRS "routinely and grossly violates citizens' due process rights" and "operates far outside the boundaries" of U.S. law.

[akaoni 0]

 

You'll find the raw data for the article on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office website. But maybe they're liberal too...huh?

 

It doesnt even matter. Its pure BS that the so called rich are charged with paying higher income taxes. The country got along just fine for 150 years without it. Income taxes are also arguably unconstitutional for the following reasons..

 

1. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was "fraudulently and illegally declared to be ratified" by Secretary of State Philander Knox;

2. There is no law that requires most Americans to "file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings;"

3. People who file a Form 1040 "'voluntarily' waive their 5th Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves;"

4. The IRS "routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure," by failing to properly obtain warrants issued; and

5. The IRS "routinely and grossly violates citizens' due process rights" and "operates far outside the boundaries" of U.S. law.

 

If this is the case, then why hasn't some individual challenged the legality of income tax in the courts? It seems to me that someone would have considered this solution by now. They've almost had 100 years to do it afterall...

[What is the deal? 1]

I'm not confused. There's very little chance you understand more about economics or finance than I do. In theory, lower tax rates result in economic expansion and at some optimal rate, (which is likely lower than what it is right now) maximize tax revenue. Aside from the fact that it's only theory and impossible to implement over the long-term, that's not the issue. The most wealthy in the country pay an effective tax rate much lower than many in the (upper) middle class. The gap between the upper class and lower/middle class widens every day and it's reached unhealthy proportions. I'm all for capitalism and if the market will only bear $8 an hour then the market will only bear $8 an hour but mass poverty has all kinds of adverse social impacts. You're not going to increase the tax base by allowing someone earning $500k to pay $10k less in taxes. Most of it will be tied up in investments until they pass their wealth onto their kids so you're not getting any near-term benefit and will continue to increase the national debt. We're in a precarious position. If the Dollar loses international demand (e.g., China starts selling their hordes of dollars) then the dollar tanks and all of a sudden, we won't be able to renew the $7T+ in outstanding debt we have (unless we pay an unreasonable rate in which case we'll need to raise taxes to even more ridiculously high levels). Things will eventually spiral out of control. I'd prefer that not happen. Since fiscal responsibility won't occur until it's too late, let's cut off a finger to save an arm (or more) down the line.

 

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm not someone who is living paycheck-to-paycheck and is simply jealous of the wealthy. I'm 24 and make $100k. But I recognize that problems exist. Current wage and tax levels for those making under $500k are askew.

I could really care less where you are coming from.

 

Are you saying that "investments" are not important to our economy? Or that they don't help create jobs assist in research and development, etc...?

 

The gap between the upper and lower class will continue to widen if you support the lazy by sharing the wealth of hard working Americans that enjoyed success. The Democratic leaders want the lower and middle class to believe they are helping them. This removes any incentive for people without ambition to do something for themselves. Keeping those people down ensures that the Dems will have people voting for them in the next elections because they will continue to rely on social programs in order to survive.

[IAMWood 6]

yeah yeah yeah, Highest Dow ever, lowest unemployment in the world, our poor have TV's and cell phones etc etc yet the 35% federal income tax + 8% state income tax + 6% sales tax for someone making over 175k is not enough? On top of capital gains on what you make in the market and 50% inheritance tax, property tax are you focking kidding me?!?!!?

 

You think the answer is raising taxes and giving people money rather than having to work for it. You give someone a crutch and they will use it, if you give em a hammer they will use that. You are a crutch guy, im a hammer guy.

 

So it fair for a family living in the outskirts of New York with an hour commute to work, taking care of a wife and two kids to pay half of his income in taxes? And thats before the little crap taxes mentioned above. Im talking about a guy pulling in 175k per year. That guy happens to be a very close friend of mine and they have nothing left at the end of each month and they do not live extravigantly, they both drive pre 2000 ford explorers and can barely make it.

 

So tax increase is the answer right?

 

The dude has a 50% tax rate with two kids, a house and commuting expenses. Tell him to get a better accountant or learn to do his taxes better, he is paying way too much in taxes. What a dumbass.

 

I didn't read where there was a vote to increase taxes. And the republicans did increase taxes for lower income families. So it is just a matter of perspective. Over spending, inflation, decreasing value of the dollar, and waste are the main problems we face. Republicans did nothing but make it worse, in fact the worst it has ever been in the last 100 years. Are raising taxes going to fix it? No. A revolution will have to occur. And we are not there yet. But at this rate it will come. Look at it closely boys, from all views. It ain't just about taxes, and no one has raised them yet. So quit cryin about nothing.

[What is the deal? 1]

You'll find the raw data for the article on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office website. But maybe they're liberal too...huh?

In that same CBO report did you notice that pretax income increased across all stratas? Granted the after tax income levels increased more once you get to the defined middle class and upper class, but that's also because their earnings increased in similar fashion.

 

One thing that doesn't go reported is tip income. I would suggest that a portion of the folks that are considered lower class is probably under reporting their earnings. I used to work part-time in the service industry and many people claim somewhere between half and none of their tips. This goes largely unnoticed because their wages "on the books" stay the same while their tips may increase because people have more money to tip. An example would be my former roommate who claimed something like $12-15k of income on his taxes while he made almost twice that...I also have a buddy that bartends and claims nothing in tips despite making around $80 a night on average. The whole place works like that.

[GettnHuge 1]

Republicans did nothing but make it worse, in fact the worst it has ever been in the last 100 years.

 

they have, and they deserve to get whacked for it. but when they add up all the spending bills in the senate for example, whether they

pass or fail, the top of the list are all dems. both sides do it but one does much more than the other and that won't change. what

happened from 1995 thru 2001 is the exception to the rule, too bad both sides so quickly forget how positively balanced budgets

affected the country

[What is the deal? 1]

happened from 1995 thru 2001 is the exception to the rule, too bad both sides so quickly forget how positively balanced budgets

affected the country

Newt Gingrich for President

[parrot 789]

So house Democrats, having been elected into power, decided they don't want to let the Republicans to continue to effectively control tax policy? Wow, that's crazy!

[De Novo 0]

not my fault I've inherited a nice bit and will again someday. I've also made quite a lot over the years with my own savings through

smart buys and sells. Inheritance isn't why I'm where I am. Like many people, I want to retire in my 30s and that's looking good.

You're clearly a very hard worker evidenced by your 20,000 posts.

[De Novo 0]

yeah yeah yeah, Highest Dow ever, lowest unemployment in the world, our poor have TV's and cell phones etc etc yet the 35% federal income tax + 8% state income tax + 6% sales tax for someone making over 175k is not enough? On top of capital gains on what you make in the market and 50% inheritance tax, property tax are you focking kidding me?!?!!?

 

You think the answer is raising taxes and giving people money rather than having to work for it. You give someone a crutch and they will use it, if you give em a hammer they will use that. You are a crutch guy, im a hammer guy.

 

So it fair for a family living in the outskirts of New York with an hour commute to work, taking care of a wife and two kids to pay half of his income in taxes? And thats before the little crap taxes mentioned above. Im talking about a guy pulling in 175k per year. That guy happens to be a very close friend of mine and they have nothing left at the end of each month and they do not live extravigantly, they both drive pre 2000 ford explorers and can barely make it.

 

So tax increase is the answer right?

35% is the MARGINAL tax rate. Their effective tax rate is much lower. I think the optimal answer is spending less, as I pointed out. That's not going to happen, so if you can't spend less you need to take in more. I'm pretty sure that increasing the marginal tax rate (or reducing tax credits) for the wealthiest in this country (I'm talking $500k+) will do that.

 

Your friend making 175k probably doesn't pay 50% in taxes. Also, I don't think people making 175k should have their taxes increased. $175k isn't a whole lot of money with a family. I'm in favor of tax increases for those making $500k+. Also if both of them didn't drive SUVs on a 1-hour commute, maybe they'd have more left at the end of the month. HTH.

 

You do realize, I hope, the this tax thing gets trotted out simply as a political maneuver. After all who could possibly against the rich paying more taxes, right? Just like who could possibly be against English as the official language, right? Pure politics.

 

The middle class always loses in a tax rate hike because they are the ones who pay the highest percentage of their meaningful income. When the Dems produce a real tax initiative like a flat tax or a sales tax, then maybe you can get me behind it. Otherwise learn to spot politics in action.

The tax increases they're proposing are not for the middle class. HTH.

 

It doesnt even matter. Its pure BS that the so called rich are charged with paying higher income taxes. The country got along just fine for 150 years without it. Income taxes are also arguably unconstitutional for the following reasons..

 

1. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was "fraudulently and illegally declared to be ratified" by Secretary of State Philander Knox;

2. There is no law that requires most Americans to "file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings;"

3. People who file a Form 1040 "'voluntarily' waive their 5th Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves;"

4. The IRS "routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure," by failing to properly obtain warrants issued; and

5. The IRS "routinely and grossly violates citizens' due process rights" and "operates far outside the boundaries" of U.S. law.

 

Yeah, good call. Nobody pay taxes. That will solve everything.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

when is say my buddy paying 50% in taxes I mean 50% collectively. Counting all taxes, state income, sales, property etc etc. I just dont think, regardless of where the tax is comming from, that anyone should have to pay half of his/her income in taxes. And then, when he dies, his kids only get 50% of the 50% that he earned. Anyway you slice it, its not right. There are some egregious misallocation of our tax dollars going on, war or not. The politicians dont give a fock that its breakin the backs of the common man, as long as the gravy train keeps on runnin. Both sides are guilty but its a slap in the fockin face that everytime dems get in power they wanna turn the screws even more. Fockin commie azzholes.

[parrot 789]

when is say my buddy paying 50% in taxes I mean 50% collectively. Counting all taxes, state income, sales, property etc etc. I just dont think, regardless of where the tax is comming from, that anyone should have to pay half of his/her income in taxes. And then, when he dies, his kids only get 50% of the 50% that he earned.

So he's barely making ends meet but he's going to leave behind a multimillion dollar esate?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

So he's barely making ends meet but he's going to leave behind a multimillion dollar esate?

 

Most likely, he's young, 27. He'll die in 50 yrs, due to compound interest alone he should have that much to give his kids. But with inflation at 4% per year you do the math......falling under the inheritance tax in 50 years wont be all that hard. 2 million 50 years from now will be around 50k.

[Guest Davaco]

we gotta pay for Dubya's mistake of invading Iraq somehow. he is running record deficits, just wait till the boomers start to retire

 

I think you are confused. I have already explained it to this board many times.

 

In the longterm, a higher tax rate does not mean that you will increase tax revenue anymore than a company raising prices guarantees that they'll increase their profits

 

so why do we have taxes? imagine how much people would spend without them

[wiffleball 4,649]

I really don't mind them eliminating the tax breaks for the rich (or - as the "talking points" readers call it - "Raising Taxes"). When Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and a cadre of the country's richest (and smartest) people came out a few years ago against the tax breaks, I tend to listen. They had the most to lose - and were STILL against the tax breaks. The general consensus was that it was immoral for them to enjoy tax cuts while racking up a crippling deficit that their grandchildren would have to pay down.

 

Didn't stop GWB from taking care of all his buddies though... Now, he's dropping 20-30 Million a DAY in Iraq. Look, you can either spend OR cut taxes, you can't do both.

[parrot 789]

I really don't mind them eliminating the tax breaks for the rich (or - as the "talking points" readers call it - "Raising Taxes"). When Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and a cadre of the country's richest (and smartest) people came out a few years ago against the tax breaks, I tend to listen. They had the most to lose - and were STILL against the tax breaks. The general consensus was that it was immoral for them to enjoy tax cuts while racking up a crippling deficit that their grandchildren would have to pay down.

 

Didn't stop GWB from taking care of all his buddies though... Now, he's dropping 20-30 Million a DAY in Iraq. Look, you can either spend OR cut taxes, you can't do both.

I liked what Buffett had to say about the inheritance tax too; in a nutshell "My kids have gone to the best schools and enjoyed every possible advantage they could, there's no reason I should need to leave them millions of dollars."

[Artist Formerly Known as Big O 0]

They're going to raise taxes on The Shocker!?? Those Bastages!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2in the pink, 1in the stink

[What is the deal? 1]

so why do we have taxes? imagine how much people would spend without them

well why don't we just tax everyone 100%, think about how quickly we could reduce our deficit then

[GettnHuge 1]

I liked what Buffett had to say about the inheritance tax too; in a nutshell "My kids have gone to the best schools and enjoyed every possible advantage they could, there's no reason I should need to leave them millions of dollars."

 

my grandfather due to a bad infection was rendered nearly deaf as a child. he went to ohio state in the 40s in veterinary medicine

and finished near the top of his class despite this disability. one way he got by was to rewrite other people's class notes. basically he worked

his ass off and was a smart fella. after graduating he married my grandmother and they eventually bought a house and he started his

own clinic. he was the vet and my grandma the assistant and they worked hard to get ahead, soon he was able to build a new, large vet

clinic with several employees and my grandma raised the kids. He was finally making a lot of money and investing it wisely.

He died in his 60's of a heart attack when I was still growing up. My grandmother was set up just fine, but much of what he made that

was passed on to the family wasn't. You can't protect everything. So of course the gov't swoops in and takes a large chunk of what

he worked his entire life to earn.

 

As a family we still inherited a lot of money, but the point is, for every Bill Gates, there are thousands upon thousands of doctors, lawyers,

businessmen and of course, vets, in every town across this country who get screwed over for being smart and successful.

[De Novo 0]

falling under the inheritance tax in 50 years wont be all that hard. 2 million 50 years from now will be around 50k.

 

I'm sure they will raise the inheritance tax threshold by then.