Taxing the Rich (pay attention lefties)

[AzCat]

Result in Maryland: Fail.
Result in Oregon: Fail.

Will lefties ever acknowledge reality?   

[Cire]

do not care.  I'm not rich.

[Dirty Sanchez]

do not care.  I'm not rich.

Statists "care" about every other group that they're not a member of.  Why not these people? 

[06wildcat]

True fact:

State taxation is the exact same thing as federal taxation.

[wetwillie]

?=MODS=?  please change name of politics board to:  06wildcat battles tards fervently

[AzCat]

do not care.  I'm not rich.

'Bout damn time you got off your lazy ass and did something about that.   

[Cire]

Waiting for relatives to die

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Waiting for relatives to die

Lefties will take that, too.

[AzCat]

Waiting for relatives to die

Hope they die in the next couple of years, after 1/1/13 there won't be much left when the IRS finishes with the estate. 

[mortons toe]

Waiting for relatives to die

Hope they die in the next couple of years, after 1/1/13 there won't be much left when the IRS finishes with the estate. 

walked into that in epic fashion!

[ednksu]

love the anti-tax tards.  Good thing we didn't have any taxation under clinton.  Tell me again when the rich create all these jobs with no taxes again?  I seem to only recall reaganomics increasing the rich/poor gap and crushing the middle class.

[Jeffy]

Big difference between anti-tax and FairTax.

[mortons toe]

love the anti-tax tards.  Good thing we didn't have any taxation under clinton.  Tell me again when the rich create all these jobs with no taxes again?  I seem to only recall reaganomics increasing the rich/poor gap and crushing the middle class.

please tell us why Cali., Ill., NY, NJ are spiraling down the toilet the fastest.

[Paul Moscow]

love the anti-tax tards.  Good thing we didn't have any taxation under clinton.  Tell me again when the rich create all these jobs with no taxes again?  I seem to only recall reaganomics increasing the rich/poor gap and crushing the middle class.

please tell us why Cali., Ill., NY, NJ are spiraling down the toilet the fastest.

You're selectively omitting Nevada (no state income tax), Florida (no state income tax), Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Alaska (no state income tax), from you spiraling down the toilet hot list.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Let's look at the recent census data and which states show the biggest losses and gains and compare that to state tax levels.

[mortons toe]

love the anti-tax tards.  Good thing we didn't have any taxation under clinton.  Tell me again when the rich create all these jobs with no taxes again?  I seem to only recall reaganomics increasing the rich/poor gap and crushing the middle class.

please tell us why Cali., Ill., NY, NJ are spiraling down the toilet the fastest.

You're selectively omitting Nevada (no state income tax), Florida (no state income tax), Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Alaska (no state income tax), from you spiraling down the toilet hot list.

meh... Merry Christmas!

[ednksu]

Reaganomics has only proven to do one thing.  Make the rich richer.  Fairtax would crush the rich if you want to be fair and include levels of consumption and impact on society. 

I believe that you can't tax your way out of debt but at a certain point the rich are getting richer, the system in many respects is set up to make them richer and prevent risks to that wealth.  Money from less taxes is not being reinvested back into the community which it is suppose to be (talking point of trickle down).  I think it would be great if there were a clause for taxing that would decrease taxes at a greater rate if the rich person could show that a majority of that money was being put back into jobs/community/education (get -10% taxes if your prove 8% of that savings goes into a new position at your business etc etc).

[AzCat]

Money from less taxes is not being reinvested back into the community which it is suppose to be (talking point of trickle down).  I think it would be great if there were a clause for taxing that would decrease taxes at a greater rate if the rich person could show that a majority of that money was being put back into jobs/community/education (get -10% taxes if your prove 8% of that savings goes into a new position at your business etc etc).

Precisely the sort of ham-fisted government intervention in the economy that got us into this mess in the first place.  The results wouldn't be good, or what you expect, at all.

Capital seeks acceptable rates of return at acceptable levels of risk.  The implicit bargain, that stood for decades in the US, namely that taxes would be high (but not too high), regulatory costs might increase (but not too quickly), returns would be good (but not world-beating), government might be fiscally irresponsible (but not ruinously so), property rights would be sacrosanct as against private interests,  and political stability & predictability would be the order of the day is gone.  With the stability & predictability that once made the US a favored investment climate now dead we're now left to compete on more purely economic terms with the rest of the world.  Good luck with that given the ultra-high tax / ultra-intrusive regulatory proclivities of our political class. 

If you want more investment in your local community: a) make the US economically competitive (hint: this requires a *LOT* less government than we have now at all levels and in all respects); b) make your state economically competitive (hint: see (a) ); c) make you community economically competitive (hint: see (a) & (b) ).   

[ednksu]

Money from less taxes is not being reinvested back into the community which it is suppose to be (talking point of trickle down).  I think it would be great if there were a clause for taxing that would decrease taxes at a greater rate if the rich person could show that a majority of that money was being put back into jobs/community/education (get -10% taxes if your prove 8% of that savings goes into a new position at your business etc etc).

Precisely the sort of ham-fisted government intervention in the economy that got us into this mess in the first place.  The results wouldn't be good, or what you expect, at all.

Capital seeks acceptable rates of return at acceptable levels of risk.  The implicit bargain, that stood for decades in the US, namely that taxes would be high (but not too high), regulatory costs might increase (but not too quickly), returns would be good (but not world-beating), government might be fiscally irresponsible (but not ruinously so), property rights would be sacrosanct as against private interests,  and political stability & predictability would be the order of the day is gone.  With the stability & predictability that once made the US a favored investment climate now dead we're now left to compete on more purely economic terms with the rest of the world.  Good luck with that given the ultra-high tax / ultra-intrusive regulatory proclivities of our political class. 

If you want more investment in your local community: a) make the US economically competitive (hint: this requires a *LOT* less government than we have now at all levels and in all respects); b) make your state economically competitive (hint: see (a) ); c) make you community economically competitive (hint: see (a) & (b) ).   

your critique falls on its face because it doesn't take into account how the rich work.  there is very little government regulation which stifles innovation.   Infact when big business is allowed to "regulate itself" the results are PROVEN to be disastrous.  Hell look at net neutrality and how that deregulation will eff OVER the common consumer.  Look at any FCC reg, enviro safety reg or the regulation which prevents speculative lending which led to the mortgage crisis.

Our economic and taxation system is designed to do one thing in the US, keep the rich, rich. 

As a side note that someone touched on above with the estate tax: you should really do some more research on that.  There are easy ways to protect your family.  See the family farmer which is usually a fav talking point.  If you aren't smart enough to have some sort of incorporation/LLC to protect your family then its your fault if they get hurt, not the government.   

[OregonSmock]

Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, which helps compensate for the higher income taxes on the top 2%.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, which helps compensate for the higher income taxes on the top 2%.

Oregon benefits from the "not as shitty as that neighboring state to the south" syndrome.

[AzCat]

What the hell, I've got ten minutes to kill:

your critique falls on its face because it doesn't take into account how the rich work.

Yes, yes, at last I have seen the error of my ways.  *PLEASE* do enlighten me as to how, "... the rich work."   

there is very little government regulation which stifles innovation.

I'm not sure exactly how stifling innovation entered the conversation but since you brought it up.

Infact when big business is allowed to "regulate itself" the results are PROVEN to be disastrous.

Please provide examples of completely unregulated industries including relevant date ranges during which said industries were completely unregulated along with the specifics of said alleged disasters.

Hell look at net neutrality and how that deregulation will eff OVER the common consumer.

You're a stunningly entertaining parody poster.

So when the FCC promulgates a new rule enforcing it against an activity that had heretofore not been the subject of any FCC rule that is "deregulation"?  Since regulation is the opposite of deregulation then the state extant prior to the FCC's promulgation of the first rule governing the relevant activity must have been "regulation".  Thus, if in the future the FCC's new rule is rescinded such will be "regulation".  At least according to you. 

In case you're not fluent in English:

No rule (the present circumstance) = regulation.
Shiny new FCC Net Neutrality rule = deregulation.
Eventual recission of FCC New Neutrality rule = regulation.

Call me crazy but I really don't think you're qualified to comment on regulatory matters. 

Look at any FCC reg, enviro safety reg or the regulation which prevents speculative lending which led to the mortgage crisis.

Agreed, these regulatory regimes eff over consumers and should obviously be abolished or at least greatly scaled back. 

An aside: it was forced (via federal regulation of the financial industry) lending to obvious deadbeats that led to the problems in the mortgage industry.  Regulations caused the problem and will force a repeat of it in the future if not significantly modified.

Our economic and taxation system is designed to do one thing in the US, keep the rich, rich.

Agreed.  The larger the government becomes the more it favors large businesses and "the rich" (think "Ranging from around John Kerry's ol' lady to Warren Buffet.")  Thus, as I noted above, we really need to make it much smaller at all levels pronto. 

As a side note that someone touched on above with the estate tax: you should really do some more research on that.  There are easy ways to protect your family.  See the family farmer which is usually a fav talking point.  If you aren't smart enough to have some sort of incorporation/LLC to protect your family then its your fault if they get hurt, not the government.   

Really?  Guess you really schooled me here as well.  I'm pretty dense so let's do it with a concrete example.  Consider & discuss the following hypothetical:

A single small businessman has $1M in liquid assets and a small business structured as an unincorporated sole proprietorship with a fair market value of $9M.  His net worth is thus $10M ($1M liquid assets + $9M equity in his business). 

The man dies at a time when the estate tax that allows him to pass up the $1M tax-free to his heirs.  Assume that every dollar beyond $1M is taxed at a flat rate of 55%.

After the man's death, simultaneous with IRS acceptance of the $9M valuation of the business, a rapidly developing economic crisis occurs and the fair market value of the business falls to $5M.  The IRS refuses to revise their $9M valuation citing rules requiring valuation as of the date of death. The heirs cannot, due to the financial crisis, find a lender willing to lend them the money to pay the estate tax due. 

Rather than sell the business at a depressed value, the heirs spend $500k of the $1M liquid assets challenging the IRS in tax court. The IRS prevails and the $9M valuation stands. 

A subsequent sale of the business nets the heirs $2.5M after fees and expenses. 

1) How much do the heirs inherit?

2) What is the maximum amount of the $10M estate the heirs could have inherited had the businessman structured his unincorporated sole proprietorship as, "... some sort of incorporation/LLC?" 

3) Discuss how, precisely, "... some sort of incorporation/LLC," would have been structured so as to avoid the largest possible amount of estate tax.

4) If you believe yourself incompetent to answer #3 (as seems overwhelmingly likely), provide references that explain, in detail, the "... easy ways to protect your family," from estate taxes via, "... some sort of incorporation/LLC."   

[Jeffy]

What the hell, I've got ten minutes to kill:

your critique falls on its face because it doesn't take into account how the rich work.

Yes, yes, at last I have seen the error of my ways.  *PLEASE* do enlighten me as to how, "... the rich work."   

there is very little government regulation which stifles innovation.

I'm not sure exactly how stifling innovation entered the conversation but since you brought it up.

Infact when big business is allowed to "regulate itself" the results are PROVEN to be disastrous.

Please provide examples of completely unregulated industries including relevant date ranges during which said industries were completely unregulated along with the specifics of said alleged disasters.

Hell look at net neutrality and how that deregulation will eff OVER the common consumer.

You're a stunningly entertaining parody poster.

So when the FCC promulgates a new rule enforcing it against an activity that had heretofore not been the subject of any FCC rule that is "deregulation"?  Since regulation is the opposite of deregulation then the state extant prior to the FCC's promulgation of the first rule governing the relevant activity must have been "regulation".  Thus, if in the future the FCC's new rule is rescinded such will be "regulation".  At least according to you. 

In case you're not fluent in English:

No rule (the present circumstance) = regulation.
Shiny new FCC Net Neutrality rule = deregulation.
Eventual recission of FCC New Neutrality rule = regulation.

Call me crazy but I really don't think you're qualified to comment on regulatory matters. 

Look at any FCC reg, enviro safety reg or the regulation which prevents speculative lending which led to the mortgage crisis.

Agreed, these regulatory regimes eff over consumers and should obviously be abolished or at least greatly scaled back. 

An aside: it was forced (via federal regulation of the financial industry) lending to obvious deadbeats that led to the problems in the mortgage industry.  Regulations caused the problem and will force a repeat of it in the future if not significantly modified.

Our economic and taxation system is designed to do one thing in the US, keep the rich, rich.

Agreed.  The larger the government becomes the more it favors large businesses and "the rich" (think "Ranging from around John Kerry's ol' lady to Warren Buffet.")  Thus, as I noted above, we really need to make it much smaller at all levels pronto. 

As a side note that someone touched on above with the estate tax: you should really do some more research on that.  There are easy ways to protect your family.  See the family farmer which is usually a fav talking point.  If you aren't smart enough to have some sort of incorporation/LLC to protect your family then its your fault if they get hurt, not the government.   

Really?  Guess you really schooled me here as well.  I'm pretty dense so let's do it with a concrete example.  Consider & discuss the following hypothetical:

A single small businessman has $1M in liquid assets and a small business structured as an unincorporated sole proprietorship with a fair market value of $9M.  His net worth is thus $10M ($1M liquid assets + $9M equity in his business). 

The man dies at a time when the estate tax that allows him to pass up the $1M tax-free to his heirs.  Assume that every dollar beyond $1M is taxed at a flat rate of 55%.

After the man's death, simultaneous with IRS acceptance of the $9M valuation of the business, a rapidly developing economic crisis occurs and the fair market value of the business falls to $5M.  The IRS refuses to revise their $9M valuation citing rules requiring valuation as of the date of death. The heirs cannot, due to the financial crisis, find a lender willing to lend them the money to pay the estate tax due. 

Rather than sell the business at a depressed value, the heirs spend $500k of the $1M liquid assets challenging the IRS in tax court. The IRS prevails and the $9M valuation stands. 

A subsequent sale of the business nets the heirs $2.5M after fees and expenses. 

1) How much do the heirs inherit?

2) What is the maximum amount of the $10M estate the heirs could have inherited had the businessman structured his unincorporated sole proprietorship as, "... some sort of incorporation/LLC?" 

3) Discuss how, precisely, "... some sort of incorporation/LLC," would have been structured so as to avoid the largest possible amount of estate tax.

4) If you believe yourself incompetent to answer #3 (as seems overwhelmingly likely), provide references that explain, in detail, the "... easy ways to protect your family," from estate taxes via, "... some sort of incorporation/LLC."   

[OregonSmock]

Please provide examples of completely unregulated industries including relevant date ranges during which said industries were completely unregulated along with the specifics of said alleged disasters.

It wasn't "completely unregulated," but the BP oil spill is a great example of what happens when corporations are allowed to get away with just about anything they want. 

[Sugar Dick]

your critique falls on its face because it doesn't take into account how the rich work.

A common symptom of a person infected with the mental disorder known as liberalism is the "Scrooge McDuck Delusion".  One afflicted with Liberalism often believes that rich people horde their money in large fortified edifices so they can swim in their wealth and protect it from those whom are "entitled" to it for no reason other than a common sovereign government. 

Here is an image of what the mentally deranged see when this symptom is at work