Obama to announce increase in taxes for businesses and wealthy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MrDODGE, Feb 21, 2009.

  1. You may be a "Man" but you are also an Idiot with a capital "I".

    Giving the Govt. the right to legislate what is deemed to be "hard" work is downright scary . . . not too mention your support of "double-taxation" when it comes to a person's assets, let alone at a 45% tax.

    The fact that you are unable to "see" this is quite absurd.

    Welcome to ET.
     
    #151     Feb 24, 2009
  2. In an effort to discourage dynastic, unearned wealth which can occur over time and with compounding, thereby dramatically skewing the socioeconomic composition of the country at an accelerating pace, and which generally spoils the heirs who didn't work for it or earn it in the first place. And the tax would kick in after a reasonable level under Obama's plan. It's actually good policy. You complain that people on welfare are discouraged from earning a living, but you want excessive privilege to be passed down unfettered to heirs who will also be discouraged to work? Where's the logic in that?

    Yes, it may be "double taxation" but it is the cost of having the incredible opportunity to create such wealth in the first place. Further, the government needs to balance its budget and begin paying down the national debt. If taxes must be paid, then estate taxes should not be overlooked. Unless, of course, you'd just like to see the social net, school systems and so on cut away so that the US can go Third World.
     
    #152     Feb 24, 2009
  3. This is nothing new.
    It just depends on what your idea of a REASONABLE tax is.

    But for many here on ET who don't even have an ounce of knowledge on Estate Taxation, here is some background:

    Right now Obama wants the first $3.5 million of an Estate exempt from the Estate Tax, with anything > $3.5 million to be taxed at 45%.

    As current legislation stands, the Estate Tax "sunsets" after 2010, and if Congress does nothing to extend the law before Jan. 1st, 2011, it would revert back to everything > $1 million being taxed at a whopping 55%.


    Old Law New Law
    Year Top Rate Exemption Top Rate Exemption

    2001 55% $675,000 55% $675,000
    2002 55% 700,000 50% 1,000,000
    2003 55% 700,000 49% 1,000,000
    2004 55% 850,000 48% 1,500,000
    2005 55% 950,000 47% 1,500,000
    2006 55% 1,000,000 46% 2,000,000
    2007 55% 1,000,000 45% 2,000,000
    2008 55% 1,000,000 45% 2,000,000
    2009 55% 1,000,000 45% 3,500,000
    2010 55% 1,000,000 0% No tax
    2011 55% 1,000,000 55% 1,000,000

    If you look at the above schedule of taxation, you get an idea of just how absurd it is. If you die in 2010, there is no taxation. If you die in 2011, you get taxed at 55% on assets above $1 million.

    Just ridiculous.

    If you are on life support, make sure that they don't pull the plug until 2010. :D
     
    #153     Feb 24, 2009
  4. gnome

    gnome

    Disagree. The Gummint plan is to tax again and again.... as much as they can get away with.... which is considerable in as much as they make the rules.

    One must weight the potential dynastic ills of huge wealth accumulation vs. the moral depravity of double/multiple taxation.... the greater evil.
     
    #154     Feb 24, 2009
  5. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to determine what is "excessive priviledge". They have already taxed the money once. At this point their job is done.
     
    #155     Feb 24, 2009
  6. Agreed 100%.
     
    #156     Feb 24, 2009
  7. gnome

    gnome

    The Gummint "needs to balance the budget".. what the Hell is wrong with refusing "deficit spending"? Generations ago, it was thought a moral obligation of the Government to be "guardian of the public purse"... nowdays, they abuse the CRAP out of it, then ask for more.

    Estate taxes are IMMORAL. The estate's valuation has already been made, AFTER TAX. ONCE IS ENOUGH! The Gummint is NOT morally entitled. Oh sure, they get away with it because there are not enough people who understand and are therefore not willing to bitch... still wrong.

    And for you Socialists... as you're so envious of "those with more than you", why don't you get off of you ass and do something significant yourself? Then, I think, you'd be much less likely to see the moral side of confiscating one's wealth for the benefit of those who did less than you... perhaps did nothing at all.
     
    #157     Feb 24, 2009
  8. The federal government's responsibility is not to create opportunity. Individual people create opportunity. The federal government is here to protect individual and company rights, maintain a military, make coinage, maintain infrastructure and a few other misc. things. Other than that, they are stepping out of bounds.
     
    #158     Feb 24, 2009
  9. And so, the name calling begins. I used to think you were better than that, gnome. Even so, thanks for the insight. But where was all your piss and vinegar when the exemption was only $1 million?
     
    #159     Feb 24, 2009
  10. It helps create the environment for opportunity.
     
    #160     Feb 24, 2009