Skip navigation

I.o.u.s.a. (2008)

or Register to post new content in the forum

56 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Nov 18, 2009 10:31 pm

[quote=Billy Mays]

I belive intellectual property, like your estate, should be subject to different rules over time. 17 years for patents - a lifetime for your estate. I like that both these time limits exist. I believe it is better for our economy. [/quote]   How about politicians having time limits. It should be a privilage for someone to be selected by their community, state, country etc. Not a damn life long career. Run two-four terms, either is fine with me, then move up or move on.
Nov 18, 2009 11:16 pm

“the inheritance tax is intended to hit trust fund babies. “

It doesn’t do that. You may have noticed we still have trust fund babies. The tax hits people who are asset “rich” and cash “poor” because they lack the liquidity to buy large insurance policies to pay the estate taxes. The only thing that takes wealth out of the hands of the idle rich trust fund babies like the Hiltons and the Kennedys is a few generations without any entrepreneurial ability and drive.

It really sounds to me like you have little real understanding of the reality of the situation.

“People who don't really work and don't deserve their wealth.”

It’s not the government’s place to determine who “deserves” what.

‘The government has the "right" do do whatever they believe is best for the country.’

Tell me you’re joking. Try reading our Constitution, government’s powers are limited by us, the people.

“All of these professions require passing a state issued examination. States adjust the difficulty of these exams to control the supply of professionals in these fields. This is done to reduce competition and keep salaries high. “

This is complete nonsense.

Nov 18, 2009 11:16 pm

[quote=Billy Mays]Y’all have your heads shoved so far up Rush Limbaugh’s ass that you can’t see the real world.

This ain't socialism...this is real capitalism. More players means more competition. You people need to turn off Fox News and read a little about economics.  [/quote]   And you need to learn your history.  Until the 20th century the Estate tax was enacted, in various forms, so that the country would have the ability to raise capital to do things like create a Navy (Stamp Tax of 1797) and fight a civil war (Revenue Act of 1862). It wasn't until the War Revenue Act of 1898 that the first rendition of our modern estate tax was created.  You'll remember that time frame as the Industrial Revolution.  Wealth was being transferred from farms and property to business and industry.  The money the government used to get from tariffs and real estate taxes was evaporating.  But yet the wealthy industrialists were pretty much left alone.  So, they created, amidst very heated debate, the War Revenue Act of 1898, which for the first time taxes not the inheritance, but the estate itself.  It was the "social reformers" (read progressives) who were crying foul that the industrial giants were getting wealthy and not paying their fair share.  The difference between these taxes/acts was that they were designed to be temporary.  They were designed to get the country through a rough patch and not kill the federal budget.    This progressive movement (some might call it communism, but progressive is probably more PC) gathered a lot of followers and grew in influence until it culminated with Teddy Roosevelt, a staunch progressive himself, in the White House.  They believed that there were inequalities in wealth in our country.  No kidding.  They also believed that the government had the right to take care of that inequality.  Thus the Estate Tax, Gift Tax, and progressive Income Taxes were born.  Actually, the 16th Amendment created Income Taxes.  The Estate tax was created as a way to fund another war - WW1.  Unfortunately since then it's not been repealed.  Until next year.  And that's temporary.    Today the government uses the Estate tax not as a way to get us over the hump during a rough patch, but to put dollars in the Federal Budget.  I don't believe that was what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the Stamp Tax many years ago.    So, Billy, this isn't capitalism.  It's progressivism.  You're a progressive.  Just like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson.    It's not about more competition.  I find it funny that you progressives believe that if there were only a few more dollars spread around that everything would be OK.  Well, the heart of capitalism is that if you have something you can sell to me, be it intellectual property, product, or service and I buy it from you, you make a $.  The more you can do that, the more $$'s you make.  If you don't have any money, you're going to need to convince someone who does that your idea is good and go into business with that person.  That way you both make money.  Then you get more and more people to give you their $$.  If someone can't afford to pay you, then too bad.  They need to get off of their happy butts and figure out a way to make money.  They shouldn't have to rely on you and your money to make money for them.  Chances are if you gave them money they'd piss it away anyway.  Once they figure out how to make money, you make money, and the world keeps turning.    Has nothing to do with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, or any of the other's on Fox.  They're just the ones who have the pulpit to speak against your ideas.  My fear is that there aren't enough of them.  There are way too many folks who think like you do for my liking.  I'll bet guys like Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln are spinning in their graves.    
Nov 18, 2009 11:23 pm

Dayum! And that’s why I like debating with you Spiff. Glad I wasn’t on the wrong side of that argument.

Nov 19, 2009 1:10 am

Spiff,

I'll take being called progressive. But I only favor ideas which I feel will increase the efficiency and competition in our economy. I'd love to be a Republican, but I feel like the party has been hijacked by a bunch of morons. 

I certainly do not believe moving money around will make everything ok. I look at it more as a tempering mechanism.   I'm getting the feeling that to argue my point fully would require more space and time than this forum deserves.   Nice reply, though.
Nov 19, 2009 1:12 am

[quote=alwaysaguest] “All of these professions require passing a state issued examination. States adjust the difficulty of these exams to control the supply of professionals in these fields. This is done to reduce competition and keep salaries high. “

This is complete nonsense. [/quote]

You probably believe the Series 7 makes sure only the best become brokers too???
Nov 19, 2009 1:41 am

[quote=Billy Mays][quote=alwaysaguest] “All of these professions require passing a state issued examination. States adjust the difficulty of these exams to control the supply of professionals in these fields. This is done to reduce competition and keep salaries high. “

This is complete nonsense. [/quote]

You probably believe the Series 7 makes sure only the best become brokers too???[/quote]  

Is that supposed to mean something?

Tell me you don't really believe the Series 7 exam is manipulated by shadowy government operatives to control the pass rate and thereby hold down the numbers of licensed brokers to fight off competition.

Nov 19, 2009 1:45 am

[quote=Billy Mays]

I'm getting the feeling that to argue my point fully would require more space and time than this forum deserves.    [/quote]   Yeah, THAT'S the reason that you want to drop the subject..... "space and time" not "I got caught talking out my azz by people who really understand economics and the founding documents that underpin our form of government".
Nov 19, 2009 1:46 am

[quote=Billy Mays][quote=alwaysaguest] “All of these professions require passing a state issued examination. States adjust the difficulty of these exams to control the supply of professionals in these fields. This is done to reduce competition and keep salaries high. “

This is complete nonsense. [/quote]

You probably believe the Series 7 makes sure only the best become brokers too???[/quote]   Judging from your posts, I would say not.
Nov 19, 2009 3:40 am
alwaysaguest:

[quote=Billy Mays] I’m getting the feeling that to argue my point fully would require more space and time than this forum deserves.

Yeah, THAT'S the reason that you want to drop the subject..... "space and time" not "I got caught talking out my azz by people who really understand economics and the founding documents that underpin our form of government".[/quote]   I know you are wrong if you believe I am talking out of my a$$. Once I realized we were in a broad discussion about domestic policy and taxation and we are going into what Lincoln thinks and the Stamp tax, I felt like I was in a circus. (To be fair, looking back at some of my comments, I'm a clown too!)   In the end, I strongly support the death tax and I know I can go on and on about it. Here's just a few more nuggets:   I believe the death tax "expands the pie" of our economy. It's not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor; my belief is based on what is best for growing our economy. I believe people who have to pay the death tax:  - are more likely to find legal or accounting loopholes to avoid paying taxes (UBS).  - invest less (percentage of savings) in the US economy.  - buy less American goods.  - more likely to invest in "arbitrage opportunities" that have a negative impact on our economy.   With our country facing a glut of people dying (baby boomers), it makes sense to raise the death tax. I believe $3.5MM is the right number, politically, and I would expect congress to freeze it at $3.5MM going forward. Creating the illusion that it would actually get repealed was a political move - if Bush really wanted it repealed, why didn't he have the balls to repeal it during his term?
Nov 19, 2009 4:34 am
Billy Mays:

[quote=alwaysaguest][quote=Billy Mays] I’m getting the feeling that to argue my point fully would require more space and time than this forum deserves.

Yeah, THAT'S the reason that you want to drop the subject..... "space and time" not "I got caught talking out my azz by people who really understand economics and the founding documents that underpin our form of government".[/quote]   I know you are wrong if you believe I am talking out of my a$$. Once I realized we were in a broad discussion about domestic policy and taxation and we are going into what Lincoln thinks and the Stamp tax, I felt like I was in a circus. (To be fair, looking back at some of my comments, I'm a clown too!)   In the end, I strongly support the death tax and I know I can go on and on about it. Here's just a few more nuggets:   I believe the death tax "expands the pie" of our economy. It's not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor; my belief is based on what is best for growing our economy. I believe people who have to pay the death tax:  - are more likely to find legal or accounting loopholes to avoid paying taxes (UBS).  - invest less (percentage of savings) in the US economy.  - buy less American goods.  - more likely to invest in "arbitrage opportunities" that have a negative impact on our economy.   With our country facing a glut of people dying (baby boomers), it makes sense to raise the death tax. I believe $3.5MM is the right number, politically, and I would expect congress to freeze it at $3.5MM going forward. Creating the illusion that it would actually get repealed was a political move - if Bush really wanted it repealed, why didn't he have the balls to repeal it during his term?[/quote]  

You make so little sense it's hard to know where to begin. Your bullet point list would be funny if you weren't in a business involving investing and economics, but I‘m guessing you‘re new and won‘t last long. Taxing success never “grows the pie”. People who pay the estate tax are less likely to “buy American” or invest less in the US economy???? They’re likely to “invest in "arbitrage opportunities" that have a negative impact on our economy”? You just can’t be serious. Where do you get $hit like this? Watching Olbermann or Maddow?

Oh, and why didn't Bush "have the balls" to repeal the estate tax in his term? The GOP didn't have the power to pass it with sixty votes so they used the budget reconciliation process which requires only a simple majority but has the downside of creating legislation that expires.

Nov 19, 2009 12:48 pm

[quote=alwaysaguest]You make so little sense it’s hard to know where to begin. Your bullet point list would be funny if you weren’t in a business involving investing and economics, but I‘m guessing you‘re new and won‘t last long. Taxing success never “grows the pie”. People who pay the estate tax are less likely to “buy American” or invest less in the US economy??? They’re likely to “invest in “arbitrage opportunities” that have a negative impact on our economy”? You just can’t be serious. Where do you get $hit like this? Watching Olbermann or Maddow

Oh, and why didn't Bush "have the balls" to repeal the estate tax in his term? The GOP didn't have the power to pass it with sixty votes so they used the budget reconciliation process which requires only a simple majority but has the downside of creating legislation that expires. [/quote]   See, I disagree. I do not believe the sub-set of our economy with a $25MM to $250MM net worth benefit our economy. I know this is quite a broad statement, and you can easily cite examples to refute this, but I beleive this is true.   They are paying alot less taxes than you would imagine - and have alot more political influence than they deserve. They also have their own TV network (Fox News) which helps spread their message to stupid red-necks who will follow anyone who mentions God or Guns. (both of which I love)   For an extreme example, look up Leona Helmsley. She became so ingrained in this that she proclaimed, "Rich people don't pay taxes".
Nov 19, 2009 4:17 pm

The thing about you forget with estate taxes and rich people, is that the super rich, the trust fund babies you mentioned earlier, know how to avoid paying those taxes.  They hire guys like us to set up fancy estate plans to make sure the government gets zippo when they die.  Sure, the government will catch some newbies to the arena, but the old money, the Kennedy type money, has been protected for generations.  Their attorneys and CPAs make their living on making sure those folks don’t pay taxes. 

  You said it yourself that the people the estate tax is designed to target is the small business owner.  Those folks are not Rupert Murdoch.  Those folks are Mr. and Mrs. Smith from small town Missouri who own a cleaning company or air conditioning business.  Those people employ Americans, pay their taxes during their lifetimes, set up benefits plans, retirement plans, put kids through college, and live in small town America where they buy stuff from the local economy.  I don't understand why when Mr. and Mrs. Smith die, the government should be the FIRST in line for a chunk of their inheritance.  They have paid their dues.  They could very well have blown their wad during their lifetime, but they didn't.  They saved, sacrificed, and sweated to make sure they and their kids and grandkids have enough to live on.  Fortunately for them capitalism worked and they made a bunch of money.    You start screwing around with taxes, health care, and energy and you're going to put a lot of those folks out of business.  The Rupert Murdochs of the world will survive.  Mr. and Mrs. Smith will not.    As to your comments on about the stupid rednecks - I just checked.  I'm one of them.  Before you continue with your argument in favor of estate taxes, progressive tax rates, and the like, do yourself a favor and go back to the roots of our country.  You need to study, read, and learn about the founders of our country and what they felt our government should be.  I promise you that it is not what you see today.    Are you seriously going to quote Leona Helmsley to us?  I don't think you want to start a let's quote the extremist contest.  I promise you there are many more on your side than ours.    Fox News is not the enemy.  They have a very loyal following that seems to be growing every time Obama opens his mouth. 
Nov 19, 2009 5:50 pm

[quote=Billy Mays][quote=alwaysaguest]You make so little sense it’s hard to know where to begin. Your bullet point list would be funny if you weren’t in a business involving investing and economics, but I‘m guessing you‘re new and won‘t last long. Taxing success never “grows the pie”. People who pay the estate tax are less likely to “buy American” or invest less in the US economy??? They’re likely to “invest in “arbitrage opportunities” that have a negative impact on our economy”? You just can’t be serious. Where do you get $hit like this? Watching Olbermann or Maddow

Oh, and why didn't Bush "have the balls" to repeal the estate tax in his term? The GOP didn't have the power to pass it with sixty votes so they used the budget reconciliation process which requires only a simple majority but has the downside of creating legislation that expires. [/quote]   See, I disagree. I do not believe the sub-set of our economy with a $25MM to $250MM net worth benefit our economy. I know this is quite a broad statement, and you can easily cite examples to refute this, but I beleive this is true.   They are paying alot less taxes than you would imagine - and have alot more political influence than they deserve. They also have their own TV network (Fox News) which helps spread their message to stupid red-necks who will follow anyone who mentions God or Guns. (both of which I love)   For an extreme example, look up Leona Helmsley. She became so ingrained in this that she proclaimed, "Rich people don't pay taxes". [/quote]     I am curious to know if you share your thoughts on this subject with your clients.  I would be willing to bet that you don't, or work exclusively with LNW people.
Nov 19, 2009 10:35 pm
Spaceman Spiff:

…I don’t understand why when Mr. and Mrs. Smith die, the government should be the FIRST in line for a chunk of their inheritance…

  That's because the government feeds and grows off of the ignorant (for lack of a better term) like an undiscovered parasite until it sucks the life out of its host.   But I am sure you understand that. You just wish it were not true.
Nov 21, 2009 1:30 pm
Spaceman Spiff:

Are you seriously going to quote Leona Helmsley to us?  I don’t think you want to start a let’s quote the extremist contest.  I promise you there are many more on your side than ours. 

  I wanted Ron Paul to win last year, so I'm not sure which "extremists on my side" you are talking about. Although Leona is extreme example, I believe she is also a symptom of the culture that exists within her ranks. I could say the same about Randy "Duke"Cunningham being a symptom of the corruption that exists in congress and among defense contractors.   The real indication for me is the 15,000 to 50,000 accounts that UBS opened with the specific intent of dodging US taxes. If we were still in a good economy, we never would have known about them. It's only because the IRS needs money that it came up.   You make an excellent point about the estate tax effecting only the poor-er rich people. When I say I like the death tax, I'm assuming that it will be applied equitably and that all of the other inequities still exist in our political and taxation systems.