Great article...regarding taxes and leftist

[92bDad]

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/bu...ng_10192.htmlc

This link is to page 1, there is a 2nd link to page 2 on the article.

needless to say, this is a great topic for political discussion and I would be interested in reading some view points from Mav fans.

[Flacolaco]

Ninety percent of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich. They are Henry. To tax them because you think it is a “moral imperative” is legalizing governmental theft from our brightest, most charitable, and most productive citizens.

That's it in a nutshell. That's my favorite part of the story.

Hear that socialists? 90%, first generation. Not a bunch of rich people passing money around to each other and their kids....hard working Americans who made the choice and the sacrifices to be successful. I hope to be one of them some day (good lord do I have a long way to go)

They don't deserve to be taxed more. It's just silly. Good article.

[jefelump]

By taxing everyone at an equal rate/percentage, the "rich" will still pay more in actual dollars. Making them pay even more by increasing their rate is in my opinion immoral. Dave Ramsey seems to agree.

And by the way, his radio show is on AM 570 (KLIF) from 1pm to 4pm

[Flacolaco]

He just talks strictly financial stuff right? not political? I've only ever heard him once or twice.

[mcsluggo]

does this mean you are in favor of the inheritance tax?

-----
and btw... it is neither here nor there, but 90% of millionaires are first generation because there are so many more this generation than in any generation past. THis is true both because opportunity is greater (the real standard of living moves ever up in our great nation) but also even more so because the threshold "millionaire"is SOOOOOO much lower for this generation than it ever has been because of accumulated inflation.

Millionaire just simply ain't got the cache it used to.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

does this mean you are in favor of the inheritance tax?

as for me, the inheritance tax is one i can most easily live with -- taxing the wealth of a dead man is imminently more reasonable than taxing the income of a working man.

[Flacolaco]

Hasn't that money already been taxed once?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

He just talks strictly financial stuff right? not political? I've only ever heard him once or twice.

Yes, his show is about finances... getting out of debt, building wealth, etc. He on occasion gives an opinion about politics as it relates to the economy. I listen to his show as often as I can. IMO, he has one of the best shows on radio.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

does this mean you are in favor of the inheritance tax?

-----
and btw... it is neither here nor there, but 90% of millionaires are first generation because there are so many more this generation than in any generation past. THis is true both because opportunity is greater (the real standard of living moves ever up in our great nation) but also even more so because the threshold "millionaire"is SOOOOOO much lower for this generation than it ever has been because of accumulated inflation.

Millionaire just simply ain't got the cache it used to.

No, I am not in favor of the inheritance tax. I believe as Flaco said, that the money has already been taxed. It's an "inheritance", not an "income" earned by employment or investment. Just because a man dies, doesn't mean he should be taxed again for the amount of money in his estate. Now, if his house is sold as part of the estate liquidation, then I don't have a problem with a tax on the increase (if there is one), because that has not been taxed yet.

And yes, I know the inheriter of the money has an increase, so it's a fine symantical line. But I don't think the dead man should be punished for building wealth to pass to the next generation.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

as for me, the inheritance tax is one i can most easily live with -- taxing the wealth of a dead man is imminently more reasonable than taxing the income of a working man.

Point taken, but at the same time this tax is in effect a tax on the inheriter, since the dead man is dead. It's a net decrease in the amount of money left to the survivors (spouse, children, etc), which in a sense is a punishment to the dead man for dieing.

[Flacolaco]

If you HAVE to punish the dead man for dying, then it amounts to the same thing as the income tax...make it a flat percentage.

If someone leaves a stamp collection, or a tin can to his son after a life of poverty, does that get taxed as well?

It all comes down to the same thing doesn't it? "You did well in life? Well we deserve a larger percentage of your money for some reason! Oh you died? sorry. We're going to take some more of it."

[alexamenos]

i'm just saying, if i have to live with some taxes, then punishing a man for dying is a lot easier for me to accept than punishing a man for working. mostly because the dude is already dead.

and i suppose we can say that we're really taking money from the kids, not the dead dude, and this is certainly true. but here again, if I have to make a choice between one or the other, i much more comfortable taking money from a guy for choosing his parents well than for working.

[mcsluggo]

most of us don't miss it much when we are dead.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by jefelump

No, I am not in favor of the inheritance tax. I believe as Flaco said, that the money has already been taxed. It's an "inheritance", not an "income" earned by employment or investment. Just because a man dies, doesn't mean he should be taxed again for the amount of money in his estate. Now, if his house is sold as part of the estate liquidation, then I don't have a problem with a tax on the increase (if there is one), because that has not been taxed yet.

And yes, I know the inheriter of the money has an increase, so it's a fine symantical line. But I don't think the dead man should be punished for building wealth to pass to the next generation.

it is not a fine line of symantics! you are NOT taxing the dead man, because that is impossible. You are taxing the person that is receiving the inheritance. Period.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

it is not a fine line of symantics! you are NOT taxing the dead man, because that is impossible. You are taxing the person that is receiving the inheritance. Period.

So you are taxing money that when earned has already been taxed.

Double-taxation...........then the state is taxing that person again when they use that same double taxed money in sales tax.

Death and Taxes --- your only guarantees in life.

[Flacolaco]

I'm not saying that this poor deceased chap is being punished for having met his maker by the act of taxation itself, but because he's being taxed a higher percentage than the stiff laying next to him in the next plot.

[GermanDunk]

What´s the max % of incometax you have to pay in U.S. ?

[mcsluggo]

from an economic efficiency standpoint, inheritance tax easily beats all.

We don't need to worry about added disincentive to dying (we are all willing to accept any disincentive to dying that we can drum up), and it doesn't provide a disincentive to working.

I personally am for rewarding incentivising hard and efficient work, the building up of wealth has many spillover effects that generally benefit society (assuming the accumulation occurs within the "rules of teh game") because it requires industriusness and/or innovation, and general economic activity. There is a lot less obvious economic benefit to society from the next 40 generations spending that accumulated wealth.

I am not arguing that you should strip it all away, but as Alex says, if you are GOING to have to tax (and we are going to have to) then do it in a manner that is economically efficient and rewards work.


As to the amout (rate) question... would you really have an issue with a system that says:
tax nothing on the first $1 million in wealth transfer at death, then tax the next $10 million at x% and then tax all wealth over $10 million at z% (z >x )?

[92bDad]

I would vote to have ONLY one tax. One flat tax.

Remove the "Sales Tax", the "Gas Tax", the whatever tax...and simply have ONE tax that is a flat rate based on your Gross Income.

Once that dollar has been taxed, then it can no longer be taxed...even when I pass it down to my kids when I move onto the promised land.

Now if my kids take that inheritance and find a way to make that money grow, thus earning more income...then that new income is subject to the flat tax.

But I have been taxed on my income, and if I choose to give it to my kids, they should NOT be taxed for an inheritance!!!

I suppose the best way around it is to set up the kids as the Custodians of a NON-Profit in which I can spell out what they can do with the money...then I donate my inheritance to that NON-profit thus leaving my kids in charge of that money.

Sure there are rules within a NON-profit, but I believe they could find ways to work within the system and the government not get one more cent than what I have already paid.

Now, what I choose to do with my money is up to me. If I go waste it or I go and support some worthy cause...it's the money that I have worked to receive and after my taxes I should not have to worry about putting aside more for more taxes when I am dead!!!

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

So you are taxing money that when earned has already been taxed.

Double-taxation...........then the state is taxing that person again when they use that same double taxed money in sales tax.

Death and Taxes --- your only guarantees in life.

no, it is NOT double taxation.

once and for all....

you
can
not
be
taxed
when
you
are
dead
<period>

the person inheriting is being taxed.



you know I paid this guy $40 to mow my lawn, and the govt took 4%... and then he used THAT SAME $40 to buy a carton of cigarettes and got taxed AGAIN <the sneaky bastards and their double taxation>

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

from an economic efficiency standpoint, inheritance tax easily beats all.

We don't need to worry about added disincentive to dying (we are all willing to accept any disincentive to dying that we can drum up), and it doesn't provide a disincentive to working.

I personally am for rewarding incentivising hard and efficient work, the building up of wealth has many spillover effects that generally benefit society (assuming the accumulation occurs within the "rules of teh game") because it requires industriusness and/or innovation, and general economic activity. There is a lot less obvious economic benefit to society from the next 40 generations spending that accumulated wealth.

I am not arguing that you should strip it all away, but as Alex says, if you are GOING to have to tax (and we are going to have to) then do it in a manner that is economically efficient and rewards work.


As to the amout (rate) question... would you really have an issue with a system that says:
tax nothing on the first $1 million in wealth transfer at death, then tax the next $10 million at x% and then tax all wealth over $10 million at z% (z >x )?

I have a huge issue with your plan. That money has already been taxed once and I should not have to concern myself with how much will be re-taxed when I am dead.

As you stated, for me to reach the Millions of Dollars you are talking about, I am doing something to help generate the economy, thus I am doing a ton of good that goes beyond the measures of the government.

Is the government going to take this money and do for the economy what I and those I choose can do with it?

I would rather take and donate ALL of my inheritance to my local place of worship than to allow the government to acquire additional tax dollars from money that has already been through the tax system. My local place of worship can be counted on to utilize my hard earned dollars in the way that best meets my beliefs.

Again...I believe in one flat rate for ALL.

If I am making $100 a day or $1,000,000 a day...I can agree to pay the same percentage and then when it's paid, that money can never be RE-taxed.

My other issue is full disclosure and accountability of where those Tax Dollars are going!!! Is the Government prepared to let ME or YOU audit the books of the U.S. Government?

The IRS Audits us...should we not also call for a random audit?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

no, it is NOT double taxation.

once and for all....

you
can
not
be
taxed
when
you
are
dead
<period>

the person inheriting is being taxed.



you know I paid this guy $40 to mow my lawn, and the govt took 4%... and then he used THAT SAME $40 to buy a carton of cigarettes and got taxed AGAIN <the sneaky bastards and their double taxation>

The money when earned was taxed. It has not been used to buy anything. It is just setting there. Then because a different relative has it, you tax the same money again. IE the term DOUBLE Taxation on the same earned money.

You are focusing on the person, I am focusing on the money and how it is being taxed without being utilized for "gain". I have also stated that it is again taxed from the state level with a "sales" tax when used.

I am not taxed. If I don't make money I don't owe the government money. I am taxed by the government on the money I "earn"..........unless you are talking inheritance in which the money which they have already taxed when earned -- is taxed a second time without procuring anything because it changed ownership....ie inheritance tax.

It is still a double taxation of the money without the money being used to procure anything.

[Flacolaco]

I guess the government should have taxed my $5 allowance when I was a kid.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I guess the government should have taxed my $5 allowance when I was a kid.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

What´s the max % of incometax you have to pay in U.S. ?

Here is a link to the 2007 IRS tax tables.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...164272,00.html

The highest percentage shown is 35%, but that's only for the amount of money earned over X dollars. After you determine the total tax and then take the overall percentage, it will be less than 35%.

I don't know if the rates are different for investments and capital gains.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I don't know if the rates are different for investments and capital gains.

Most countries have different rates on that sort of income. Can´t imagine, U.S. does different.

Originally Posted by jefelump

Here is a link to the 2007 IRS tax tables.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...164272,00.html

The highest percentage shown is 35%, but that's only for the amount of money earned over X dollars. After you determine the total tax and then take the overall percentage, it will be less than 35%.

Ah, thanks for the chart.. Interesting thing. Now i know better why so many people from germany are leaving our country to work in the united states....

So "$0 - $11,200 10% of the amount over $0" means even the first 11200 $ are taxable ? Hm...

[jefelump]

That's right, but that's "gross adjusted income", meaning after deductions. If a college student makes $10,000 working part time, then after his deductions he most likely has $0 in taxable income.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by jefelump

That's right, but that's "gross adjusted income", meaning after deductions. If a college student makes $10,000 working part time, then after his deductions he most likely has $0 in taxable income.

OK, means Calculators out - when you make 1 $ more 10 % are milked for the whole sum.

[Robillion]

In short.. very short..... Id rather be in a world that the poor are not damned to continueing to be poor and the rich are not given incentives to continue to make the gap even larger. Call me a socialist.

Whether someone inherits a ton of money or not...I doubt that you can show me a larger figure saying that they started out in poverty then grew to make millions. They at least had some type of resources to aid them in their ascension. In most cases the very poor stay poor because they have little aid in getting over that hump, and a large part of the money they do make is being taxed... There is a huge difference in this society between the poor and the middle class. Then again between the middle class and the rich.

To be even more socialist... going from being a "proletariat" to a "bourgeoisie" can be a rather large task for someone in poverty that barely afford to live. These types of people are not ALWAYS the lazy, incompetent people of this society. Once you are born in it, raised unfortunately by example... and have been given little to no resources to build on... it is hard for that type of person to get out of the common man work force and start his own business (successfully). Some people are just not raised to be able to and will never be able to do that. Society will always have those people. The types of people that will work the hardest they could possibly work all of their lives and never see a quality standard of living.

Bottom line for me is... if you are making $300k plus a year. Taxes are not going to hurt your standard of living. At all. If you are making $10,000 a year... it can take away much needed food on the table for your family. .. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely in the "bourgeoisie" or at least starting to be with making around $40k at 21 years old. But, I definitely understand and know some people that will just never be able to make it over that hump. And those people are far from lazy.

So yeah... I definitely support taxing the rich much much more than the poor.. and taxing the middle class more than the poor. We should want more people becoming successful, rather than the largest class of society moving in the opposite direction. - Besides whatever way poor people use their extra money from a tax return/less taxation... they either save it to build a better future, or they are in fact the stupid ones, and they spend it, thus helping the economy either way.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

OK, means Calculators out - when you make 1 $ more 10 % are milked for the whole sum.

I'm not completely sure I follow you, but I'll give an example based on Robillions quoted $40k/yr income. Let's assume he's single at the age of 21, so he's going to file as Single, and his parents are not claiming him as a dependent on their taxes. The following link provides info on Standard Deductions:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/...blink100033844

Robillion's standard deduction is $5,350. If he has no other deductions, he is wiser to take standard deductions instead of trying to itemize. For the sake of easy math, we'll just use standard deductions. So Robillion's gross adjusted income is $34,650. Based on the tax chart posted earlier, his taxes break down as following:

$0 - $7,825: 10%, or $782.50
$7,825 - $31,850: 15%, or $3,603.75
$31,850 - $34,650: 25%, or $700.00

To even though he's in the 25% tax bracket, that does not mean he pays 25% on the entire $34,650. His tax liability in this example is $5,086.25

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Robillion

In short.. very short..... Id rather be in a world that the poor are not damned to continueing to be poor and the rich are not given incentives to continue to make the gap even larger. Call me a socialist.

Whether someone inherits a ton of money or not...I doubt that you can show me a larger figure saying that they started out in poverty then grew to make millions. They at least had some type of resources to aid them in their ascension. In most cases the very poor stay poor because they have little aid in getting over that hump, and a large part of the money they do make is being taxed... There is a huge difference in this society between the poor and the middle class. Then again between the middle class and the rich.

To be even more socialist... going from being a "proletariat" to a "bourgeoisie" can be a rather large task for someone in poverty that barely afford to live. These types of people are not ALWAYS the lazy, incompetent people of this society. Once you are born in it, raised unfortunately by example... and have been given little to no resources to build on... it is hard for that type of person to get out of the common man work force and start his own business (successfully). Some people are just not raised to be able to and will never be able to do that. Society will always have those people. The types of people that will work the hardest they could possibly work all of their lives and never see a quality standard of living.

Bottom line for me is... if you are making $300k plus a year. Taxes are not going to hurt your standard of living. At all. If you are making $10,000 a year... it can take away much needed food on the table for your family. .. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely in the "bourgeoisie" or at least starting to be with making around $40k at 21 years old. But, I definitely understand and know some people that will just never be able to make it over that hump. And those people are far from lazy.

So yeah... I definitely support taxing the rich much much more than the poor.. and taxing the middle class more than the poor. We should want more people becoming successful, rather than the largest class of society moving in the opposite direction. - Besides whatever way poor people use their extra money from a tax return/less taxation... they either save it to build a better future, or they are in fact the stupid ones, and they spend it, thus helping the economy either way.

I don't really have a problem with the above ideas. That might shock you.

But, some people take the above logic and then say something like, "Bush's tax cuts are for the wealthy."

The tax cuts in question were to the class of industry, business, etc. The tax cuts to the business world result in more hiring and more investment and more economy expansion. The tax cuts in this category are Reagan 101.

So, remember that. And, remember that the number one employer in the USA is:
Small Business...

Tax breaks for small business mean Big Business for America.

[wmbwinn]

Welcome to America, GermanDunk. When you get here, don't vote for Liberal politicians who want to increase the tax rate to support bigger government...

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Welcome to America, GermanDunk. When you get here, don't vote for Liberal politicians who want to increase the tax rate to support bigger government...

Ha, i wouldn´t be allowed to vote over there. But i think there´s not that enourmous difference between dem and rep.
But maybe better than over here. We even get ballooned offices when voting con *hahaha*

Which place can you recommend ?

[92bDad]

Here's an article that could make you question your tax position:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/...millionaires_1

Now these folks are striking rich, due to untapped Oil in the Dakota's.

This couple is in their 80's and they have become overnight Millionaires. They are setting up Trust funds for their children and so forth.

For all I know these folks could live for many years to come, however at the age of 80 they have less time than if they where 40.

Basically meaning they have less time to give out the cash to the family and avoid double taxation.

Should the Government get to tax that income twice, or should the couple be able to give that money after it has been taxed to its relatives? After all, they are sharing the wealth that happens to be their own wealth. Only they may not be sharing it two times with the government.

Seems to me that an inheritance tax is the government being greedy!!!

I know if that was me, and I struck some oil rich in my final days, I would do everything in my power to protect that income from being stolen by the government when I'm dead.

The older I get, the more I find myself in support of ONE flat tax on income and remove all, and I do mean ALL other forms of taxation.

[mcsluggo]

for the person RECEIVING a wealth transfer.... what is it if it is not income?

[92bDad]

Exactly the point.

When Ma and Pa kettle receive Millions of Dollars for Oil under their land, that is Income for them to provide for themselves and their 60 year old kids.

Alive or Dead the income has already been taxed.

[mcsluggo]

that is exactly the point?

I am saying that when Ma and Pa Kettle's 60 year old children recieve the wealth transfer it should be taxed as income. I don't think you are saying that.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

that is exactly the point?

I am saying that when Ma and Pa Kettle's 60 year old children recieve the wealth transfer it should be taxed as income. I don't think you are saying that.

No I am NOT saying that...

To me the income was taxed when it was earned into the FAMILY. If I make my millions, I am making it to take care of my family. Regardless of how old I am, I want my children and their children to be well taken care of. I don't want them to be dependant on the Government...

I suppose you could say that I am doing my part to take my family off of the Government Welfare program. I am being responsible.

Now, when I FIRST earn the money, I am more than willing to pay my % of taxes...hopefully it's the same % as EVERYONE else.

How I choose to spread the wealth is up to me. Personally I want to give my wealth to my family without it being taxed AGAIN!!!

It has been taxed once as Income, why would I want to have it taxed again?

That is why, I believe we should go to a FLAT tax...get rid of Inheretance Tax, Sales tax, Property Tax...any other tax. Just make it one tax, flat % on INCOME.

This way, if I choose to give 1,000,000 dollars to a family member or a friend and it was a gift from me, then it is NOT INCOME to them...it is simply a gift. Gifts should NOT be taxed.

I earned it from my work, investment or such.

The only gift I would consider to be Income is that which one wins in a lottery, gambling or game show. You actually have to do something to get the pay-off.

However a family or friend who receives a gift from me does nothing more than exist...thus no Gift Tax!!!

With a flat tax, you get rid of every loop-hole and everyone pays their fair share.

As it is today, I still owe nearly $20,000 in back taxes, because I was renting and not owning the home I am in. Thus I didn't get the same tax break...my company didn't pull out enough taxes on me and at tax time I had a debt larger than I could pay.

All my other money goes to my kids and their school activities (Public School)

Once I am out of this hole, I hope to never see another negative tax bind.

Had I been under a Flat Tax program, I would NEVER have accrued the Tax Debt as it would have been pulled out correctly from my pay check the first time.

I have lived broke over the years, even survived under the poverty line...now I'm in that 70K-90K a year bracket and hopefully if things continue to go well, this will increase.

I have nearly nothing saved up as I have been caught in tax hell.

Again, I am in support of a Flat Tax...no strings attached, no special deductions...just flat across the board on INCOME.

The lawyers can all work within the Government to determine how to manage the Tax Dollars within the system.

I don't agree with half the crap the government spends its money on, but let that which is Ceasers go to Ceaser.

Once I'm in the green and I have the means to give back to my family...then they should NOT be taxed for my generosity...during my life or my death!!!

[mcsluggo]

yes, I knew what you meant. I simply disagree.

[92bDad]

Fair enough.