# Is this guy the biggest ass in congress?



## Jroc (Dec 19, 2010)

"it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0[/ame]


----------



## Oddball (Dec 19, 2010)

He's certainly a smug and adolescent little douchebag.

With Alan Grayson out come January, he's definitely in the running....He has an apropos name.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Dec 19, 2010)

> "it's not you're money you're dead" :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "



Oh please, Congress is full of asses jockeying for that position.  The $30 billion Bush and Company up and gave the Banks and Wall Street shysters wasn't his money either.  Did you squawk about that?   

The way I see it, Congress is on one side and the American people on the other. Siding with any of these jokers is fraternizing with the enemy.


----------



## daveman (Dec 19, 2010)

Not collecting money doesn't increase the debt.  Spending more money than you have increases the debt.

He's just another idiot that thinks all money belongs to the government.


----------



## daveman (Dec 19, 2010)

Poli_Sigh said:


> The $30 billion Bush and Company up and gave the Banks and Wall Street shysters wasn't his money either.  Did you squawk about that?



I did.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Dec 19, 2010)

daveman said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > The $30 billion Bush and Company up and gave the Banks and Wall Street shysters wasn't his money either.  Did you squawk about that?
> ...



Then by all means squawk away.  The handing over of American's tax dollars constituted the largest transfer of *public monies to the private sector* ever in the history of the world.  That's something to get mad about and stay that way if you ask me. 

And now some very foolish citizens are splitting hairs with one-side or the other in Congress.  My suggestion is that it would be better if they took a gun and shot themselves in the foot.  At least in the long run it won't hurt as much and there is a guaranteed 99% full recovery rate. I do not hold the same options for these United States.


----------



## daveman (Dec 19, 2010)

Poli_Sigh said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Poli_Sigh said:
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 19, 2010)

Oddball said:


> He's certainly a smug and adolescent little douchebag.
> 
> With Alan Grayson out come January, he's definitely in the running....He has an apropos name.



He comes across as a cocky little banty rooster, "I know everything there is to know about everthing there ever was anything to know about" perfect people from New Yawk.


----------



## Middleman (Dec 19, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0



What a little weasel! He is a total SOB.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 19, 2010)

Weiner:  such a fitting name.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 19, 2010)

Where do dead people spend their money?


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 19, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0



I believe Harry Reid holds that title.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 19, 2010)

Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.

Happily, anarchists and commies seem to hate his "simple" notion that...yes Virginia..taxes are what citizens pay to have a civil society.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 19, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Where do dead people spend their money?



Dead people don't have any money. Most of it goes to the government.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 19, 2010)

Oh all of it huh?

more lies from the right


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> 
> Happily, anarchists and commies seem to hate his "simple" notion that...yes Virginia..taxes are what citizens pay to have a civil society.



He's just like that guy from Florida that mouthed off just to get votes.....but for some reason it didn't work for him this year. Alan Grayson

Wonder why?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 19, 2010)

Biggest ass in Congress:


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 19, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> ...


Because he is a Liberal in a very Conservative district of Orlando, who won on Obama's coattails in 2008.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 19, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Where do dead people spend their money?
> ...



double taxed. maybe that's why demonrats dig up their dead and let them vote. yathink?


----------



## Sarah G (Dec 19, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Biggest ass in Congress:



Toss up between him and this guy:







(Jon Kyl)


----------



## rdean (Dec 19, 2010)

It's no wonder right wingers hate Anthony.  They love John Boehner, caught by video tape passing out bribes on the house floor.  Congress makes the laws so passing out bribes from the tobacco companies just before a vote isn't against the law.  So the right says, "More power to him".  

Besides, the tobacco companies "won".

Imagine what this country could be like without this constant right wing "War on the Middle Class".


----------



## Sallow (Dec 19, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> ...



Alan Grayson was 100% correct.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco[/ame]

And from Arizona!

Death by Budget Cuts: Arizona Governor Slashes Funding for Transplant Program | Health | Change.org


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 19, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


I just went looking for the Bill O'Lielly lie I heard the other night.  I found it on his site, but he chopped off his lie at the end:
_ And the absolute dumbest statement was uttered  by Congressman Alan Grayson, who said "Republicans want you to die  quickly if you get sick."  *The Factor* pointed out that "Congressman Grayson's job died very quickly when he was voted out after one term."                 

_​On his show, he ended that comment with:  "And he is in a very Liberal district".  That's a LIE.  No wonder he left it off his site._




_


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Dec 19, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Where do dead people spend their money?



You might ask Dick Cheney.  He's been dead for years.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 19, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Where do dead people spend their money?



Doesn't matter.  That money is theirs to do with what they will.  It has already been taxed enough.

You do realize that the death tax is one of the biggest killer of small businesses don't you?  A person whose business might be worth millions does not necessarily produce enough income to offset the death tax.  For example a dairy business where there is a lot of land value but relatively little income in comparison.  People would not be able to leave this business in the family because the fucking government wants to take 55% of the value.

So the message from the government is, "Don't expect to be able to pass your business on to your progeny because we're going to steal it out from under you"


----------



## rdean (Dec 19, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Where do dead people spend their money?
> ...



Oh please.  By time someone with all that money dies, they have already given it to family.  If they haven't, it's because there is no one in their family they want to give it to.

Does everything have to be explained?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> 
> Happily, anarchists and commies seem to hate his "simple" notion that...yes Virginia..taxes are what citizens pay to have a civil society.



so the 50% of you dumbasses who pay zero federal taxes would then be the "anarchists and commies" of which you speak? The other 50% of us are the Real Americans.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 19, 2010)

I like Anthony Weiner.  

The Democrat Party needs a lot more like him.  The Republicans don't like him because he gets right up in their face which is something they're not used to.  They much prefer a blatantly corrupt cry-baby like Boehner.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 19, 2010)

rdean said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



The fucking government has no business stealing the estates of citizens merely because they had the misfortune of dying.


----------



## SwordofDamocles (Dec 19, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Weiner:  such a fitting name.



This is exactly how queers will openly serve on the front lines.  They'll stand up after being shot at, hands on cocked hip and squeal: "oh no you didn't."


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 19, 2010)

Biggest Jackasses in Congress:
Kerry
Pelosi
Kucinich
Sanders
Nelson
Frank
Rangel

I could go on, all lying, corrupt, socialist pieces of trash.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 19, 2010)

After Grayson is gone, the title of worst Douchbag in Congress will be retired.  

But Weiner is remarkable for his candor and his crassness.  "You won't be paying it, you are already dead.."


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 19, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> After Grayson is gone, the title of worst Douchbag in Congress will be retired.
> 
> But Weiner is remarkable for his candor and his crassness.  "You won't be paying it, you are already dead.."



I don't know. Harry Reid showed he was a real tool when he whined that he had the right to spend our money this week. 

I'd have to give it to him over Weiner hands down.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Dec 19, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> ...



Is a Real American anything like _Live Nude Girls_?  Considering Presidents Bush and Reagan were anti-government conservatives, did that make them anarchists?  Oh and by the way since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR being called a Commie or Red are no longer derogatory adjectives. Besides I've only found about 14 people on these Message Boards who actually know what a Communist is.  What it isn't is someone who disagrees with you.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 19, 2010)

I'd like to smack this guy so hard he'd loose 30 points of IQ.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 19, 2010)

The competition is quite formidable, so I'm just going to go with him being the Biggest Weenie in Congress.




Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0


----------



## boedicca (Dec 19, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> I'd like to smack this guy so hard he'd loose 30 points of IQ.




I didn't know that IQ could be negative.

Although, after months of exposure to TM, I should have realized it could.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 19, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Where do dead people spend their money?
> ...



Most businesses are incorporated and have perpetual life.  

Based on your post, I do believe you're talking out of your ass.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 19, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> ...



Me?

My tax burden probably pays for your welfare.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 19, 2010)

Poli_Sigh said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Reagan and BushII were probably the worst Presidents in terms of the economy (and just about everything else). Even BushI saw that.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 19, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




Bald R. Dash

Businesses do not have perpetual life - they only exist as long as they have sufficient cash to support their operations.

A Death Tax drains cash out of the business to the point where it will need to be mortgaged or sold to pay the Death Tax Bill.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...





You're killing me Swallow.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 19, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Incorporated businesses don't pay a death tax, dood.  When the owner dies, his/her personal assets are taxed, if he/she is in the 0.3% of people subject to an estate tax.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 19, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




Sophistry.    The owner's stock in the company would have to be sold to someone else in order to pay off the taxes, thus either eliminating or diluting the heirs ownership of and control of the business.

And once again, you display a complete an utter disregard for the rights of a minority.  

What a sad way to live  - eaten up with Pea Green Envy over that .3%.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 19, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Oh my.  The poor, downtrodden top 0.3%.  Yeessssss, it just MUST be about envy.

If your against it on principle, that's one thing.  But arguing that it kills business is really about as silly as a rainbow afro wig.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 19, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




You are just yet another class warfare moron who neither understands nor respects The Constitution.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 19, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



  You kill me, Boe, you really do.

Devoid of ideas?  Just say "CONSTITUTION!" as if it's a coherent argument.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 19, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Poli_Sigh said:
> ...



Woohoo..another faggot after my jiz..

Go bark up someone elses tree..

Mudflaps.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Agree - however, Reagan covered his ass with both hands, whereas Bush always seemed to have his thumb up his.  I was a Republican when Reagan was Governor.  His idea of balancing the State budget was shutting down prisons, out-patient free clinics and raising the University of California's incidental fees.  I worked at UCLA at the time.

When he became President he was instrumental in opening us up to the free market which signaled the shut-down of the United States of America.  IMO these are the final days of a plan to turn the U.S. into a 3rd World country by destroying the Middle Class (which the Republicans have almost successfully accomplished with more than a little help from their BFFs, the Democrats).  

Tricky Dick Nixon balked at introducing that economic system when he was President.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 19, 2010)

Bravo Anthony. 

Are all republicans as easily fooled as their congressmen?  It would seem so, another example below.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCRnuIDPrPM[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Dec 19, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> Bravo Anthony.
> 
> Are all republicans as easily fooled as their congressmen?  It would seem so, another example below.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCRnuIDPrPM


You and Weiner probably both believed Dan Rather's "Fake But Accurate" memo.


----------



## hortysir (Dec 19, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Where do dead people spend their money?
> ...





Truthmatters said:


> Oh all of it huh?
> 
> more lies from the right


You're such a stupid liar


----------



## Jroc (Dec 19, 2010)

Poli_Sigh said:


> > "it's not you're money you're dead" :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All CONSERVATIVES I know screamed about that shit. It's the Dems and fakes ass Republican's that supported that shit. actually the most if the Banks paid back thier TARP money, which just gave Obama more to spend.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 19, 2010)

Poli_Sigh said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



If You think Bush was anti government conservative, Then you are a real lefty. Well I guess compared to Obama anybody looks like a right winger


----------



## Oddball (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> 
> Happily, anarchists and commies seem to hate his "simple" notion that...yes Virginia..taxes are what citizens pay to have a civil society.


Wrong....The grave robber tax is the price we pay for a socialistic welfare state that costs to goddamn much.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 19, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0


This guy is an idiot, can't even answer a question honestly and trys to lecture. It is your money even when you die, it is nothing more than gov't double taxation and should end.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 19, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Where do dead people spend their money?


They don't, they give it ti their children to spend. They already paid  taxes on the money. Typical dimwit thinking my money is theirs. Idiots.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> 
> Happily, anarchists and commies seem to hate his "simple" notion that...yes Virginia..taxes are what citizens pay to have a civil society.


If he is the only dimwit with a spine, that explains alot for the last two years.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 19, 2010)

Strange that it's never chalked up to pure greed when little pencil necked shitburgers like Weiner (a more appropriate name, you'll not find) are robbing the grave, isn't it?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 19, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Biggest ass in Congress:
> ...


No, pelosi!!


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


No, he was a typical dimwit liar.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 19, 2010)

fla voted the vicious ugly mr grayson out of office, weenie man still has his new yawk job. yuck.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 19, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Where do dead people spend their money?
> ...


Just like every other thing they want to steal from us, the socialist pigs.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 19, 2010)

rdean said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


It does to stupid libs.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> 
> Happily, anarchists and commies seem to hate his "simple" notion that...yes Virginia..taxes are what citizens pay to have a civil society.



Since when do we have a civil society?

Starting acting civilly, and Ill believe it.


----------



## Rozman (Dec 19, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Where do dead people spend their money?



Maybe it's a family business and the family scrimped and saved and created something and want to pass it on to their children.Well you Libs wouldn't know about sacrifice and working hard and trying to make a better life for their loved ones.You guys want government and guys like Weiner to steal it from those that EARNED it and have them give it to people like you.

What an idea people go out and put something together and the typical LIB attitude is they don't understand that concept,it''s totally foreign to them.Unreal.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Dec 19, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Where do dead people spend their money?



so truth if you had a nice Estate....would you rather it goes to who you want it to go to when you go....or the fucking leaches in Congress?......cause we know they will put it to good use.....


----------



## The T (Dec 19, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead" :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0


 
I'd kick this TWERP in the fucking teeth and be done with it. He's a fucking Elitist parasite.


----------



## jillian (Dec 19, 2010)

The T said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > "it's not you're money you're dead" :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> ...



translated: he's smart and you hate smart people.


----------



## jillian (Dec 19, 2010)

Rozman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Where do dead people spend their money?
> ...



if it were the family business then it would already be owned jointly by the family and the person's demise wouldn't make a difference.

once again... people who aren't beneficiaries of these policies fighting for the right of rights of rich people not to pay their fair share.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 19, 2010)

This is one of my pet hates - I don't think estates should be taxed. They've already paid tax on their earnings. But let's say they do tax them, what gives the govt the right to get that money? Why does the govt deserve to get that money? They don't. Let the person whose money it is decide - if it needs to be taxed at all...


----------



## The T (Dec 19, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


 
Wrong Jilly-Baby...He's a Gubmint Elitist parasite that thinks Gubmint has a claim to dead people's property and the Family doesn't...even after the Estate has paid it's fucking taxes LONG AGO.

It's a power grab that flies in the face of the Declaration of the people regarding LIFE, LIBERTY, and the persuit of HAPPINESS...meaning _property_ aquired by the estate.

But then idiots as YOU think that all property belongs rightfully to the _STATE._

_Now piss off. I have adults to speak with...and YOU don't make the cut at this juncture._


----------



## Rozman (Dec 19, 2010)

This little buttmunch Weiner from my State....He was screaming at the Fox lady..."unearned" income he calls it.The family that was to get the whole inheritance should not get it ALL because it was UNEARNED income....Who the fuck earned it then.So the little peckers argument goes like this. The family doesn't get the whole thing because they didn't earn it,so now 50% -  60% must go to the government.....

Why because they earned it.

I bet every Lib on this board feels that 50 % -60 % going to the government is not nearly enough..They probably would agree to 90% going to Uncle Sam.


----------



## The T (Dec 19, 2010)

Rozman said:


> This little buttmunch Weiner from my State....He was screaming at the Fox lady..."unearned" income he calls it.The family that was to get the whole inheritance should not get it ALL because it was UNEARNED income....Who the fuck earned it then.So the little peckers argument goes like this. The family doesn't get the whole thing because they didn't earn it,so now 50% - 60% must go to the government.....
> 
> Why because they earned it.
> 
> I bet every Lib on this board feels that 50 % -60 % going to the government is not nearly enough..They probably would agree to 90% going to Uncle Sam.


 
And that's the rub isn't it? Unearned? Really? And Government thinks it can define that and just take it?

Hell? I think Government has larger worries than _pitchforks..._and that would be GUNS in their faces to accentuate the point.

This is madness on the part of Government. And they keep up? they WILL have guns in their faces.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 19, 2010)

With a last name like Weiner your always a douche bag!


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 19, 2010)

The T said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...




What, is your "big brother" over?  Ya guys watching some foot-ball, hmmm?


----------



## Rozman (Dec 19, 2010)

There's a big problem coming and it should scare each and every one of us.I saw a little bit of the promo for 60 minutes tonight and it scared me so much I couldn't watch it.

Every thing that has been done to get this economy going again will be in vein because State after State is on the road to bankruptcy.They will need to be bailed out and it will undo whatever little gains we have made so far.They said the WH does not even want to think about what will happen if this comes to be true.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 19, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> With a last name like Weiner your always a douche bag!



Michael Savage is a "Weiner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)


----------



## The T (Dec 19, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
Go tend to your gerbils.

I have adults to speak with. Not children as you.


----------



## The T (Dec 19, 2010)

Rozman said:


> There's a big problem coming and it should scare each and every one of us.I saw a little bit of the promo for 60 minutes tonight and it scared me so much I couldn't watch it.
> 
> Every thing that has been done to get this economy going again will be in vein because State after State is on the road to bankruptcy.They will need to be bailed out and it will undo whatever little gains we have made so far.They said the WH does not even want to think about what will happen if this comes to be true.


 
Of course the WH and it's present invader doesn't want to think about it.

HE only wishes the PERKS...but not the JOB and the HARD choices that come with the office.

If Any issue isn't PARTYTIME?

Obama will shun it. His record is clear on this.

He's a BOY in a MAN'S JOB.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 19, 2010)

jillian said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




Class warfare a favorite tactic of the libs along with racial and ethnic. Divide people into little groups and pit those groups against each other when it serves the purpose of advancing their agenda. thats ok though is all for the greater good.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 19, 2010)

Rozman said:


> There's a big problem coming and it should scare each and every one of us.I saw a little bit of the promo for 60 minutes tonight and it scared me so much I couldn't watch it.
> 
> Every thing that has been done to get this economy going again will be in vein because State after State is on the road to bankruptcy.They will need to be bailed out and it will undo whatever little gains we have made so far.They said the WH does not even want to think about what will happen if this comes to be true.



*vain*


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 19, 2010)

*vein* a tube through which yer blood flows.


----------



## rdean (Dec 19, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I guess you CAN take it with you?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 19, 2010)

Oh that's Wiener-wagger isn't it?  Yeah, he's a douche.  Right up their with Bawney Fwank, and Fuck Rangel.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 19, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> 
> Happily, anarchists and commies seem to hate his "simple" notion that...yes Virginia..taxes are what citizens pay to have a civil society.


That isn't a spine.  That's a stick up his ass.  The guy's yet another community activist gone 'pro'.  Worked previously for Mediamatters.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 19, 2010)

rdean said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Dead or alive, Hairnet, when did it become the Government's property unless they were named in the fucking will?  And rest assured, Money IS property that has already been taxed once.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 19, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> *vein* a tube through which yer blood flows.



Since when did you become the board typo police? Check out the last post - in response to your 'aberration' head's up - we can all play that game - til the cows come home...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-r...-fox-news-makes-you-stupid-4.html#post3107859


----------



## Rozman (Dec 19, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > *vein* a tube through which yer blood flows.
> ...



Geez you spell a word wrong and they nail yer ass for it.....I guess I was a little angry when I wrote it. I'm not perfect like some people that's my problem.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Dec 19, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> This is one of my pet hates - I don't think estates should be taxed. They've already paid tax on their earnings. But let's say they do tax them, what gives the govt the right to get that money? Why does the govt deserve to get that money? They don't. Let the person whose money it is decide - if it needs to be taxed at all...



i agree......especially since they will use that money for their own little earmarks....and  knowing the Govt.,it will be blown......hey if my folkes built something up and then they are gone....the ONLY earmark i wanna see it go to is my families earmarks.....i in turn will leave it to my Son for his earmarks.....screw the govt and their earmarks....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Dec 19, 2010)

rdean said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



no but maybe your kids can use it dickhead......or are you one of those who feel the Govt is entitled to it and your kids aren't.....


----------



## Sallow (Dec 20, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony Wiener is one of the few Democrats with a spine.
> ...



Naw..it's a spine. That's what a person looks like when they don't capitulate every time they get opposition.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Dec 20, 2010)

Jroc said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...




When Eisenhower was President, Obama would have been considered a Moderate Republican.  That's how far to the right the GOP has drifted since that time and goes a long way in explaining why so many (such as myself) Moderate Republicans have become Independents.

Being a student of political science or history is not a necessity for a discussion of either subject.  But a clear, absolute understanding that neither commenced on the date of the discussant's birth is (a necessity).


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 20, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "




My sentiments exactly.

Why would anyone vote for that pathetic gweeb?


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 20, 2010)

Poli_Sigh said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Poli_Sigh said:
> ...



We ran a certified moderate last Prez. election, and have moderate Senators and House Reps.  So that's BS.

America agrees with us, and sorry to break this to you dude, but looks like you may have been a RINO.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



And if you knew anything about corporations, especially closely held S corps, you'd know that the stock held by a business owner is part of the value of his estate.


----------



## daveman (Dec 20, 2010)

jillian said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


They've paid their fair share once already.  How many fair shares do you want them to pay?

And by "them", I mean anyone who leaves an estate.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 20, 2010)

Death tax proponents are nothing but evil ghouls.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 20, 2010)

Rozman said:


> This little buttmunch Weiner from my State....He was screaming at the Fox lady..."unearned" income he calls it.The family that was to get the whole inheritance should not get it ALL because it was UNEARNED income....Who the fuck earned it then.So the little peckers argument goes like this. The family doesn't get the whole thing because they didn't earn it,so now 50% -  60% must go to the government.....
> 
> Why because they earned it.
> 
> I bet every Lib on this board feels that 50 % -60 % going to the government is not nearly enough..They probably would agree to 90% going to Uncle Sam.



It is, by definition, unearned income to the heirs.

And I don't speak for all "Libs" on this board, but yeah I'd like to see a 90% tax above a certain threshold.  I'm sick of the fucking aristocracy around here.  Among other things, they form aggressive media campaigns to convince people like you that electing their shills will somehow benefit you.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 20, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yeah, it's an asset like any other.  If the estate is worth $5M, I find it highly unlikely that more than 65% of that amount is in stocks in a closely held company.  If one is concerned about that, he can start broadcasting his stock during his life.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 20, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0



An ass?  Oh yeah, he's leading the pack.

I'd say he's more of a gutless coward.  In any "interview" this worm gives he wants to answer his own questions.  If the interviewer repeats thier question, looking for a straight answer, this worm gets all upset, repeats his question to himself, and gives the same answer.  Then he starts to act like a spoiled child that's not getting it's way.

Pay attention dems, this worm wants to make himself one of the faces of your party.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 20, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Spine eh?  How's that faux goldline outrage investigation going again?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 20, 2010)

Muhammed said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> ...


The citizen thieves who live in his district who want a front man to take from their neighbors and give to them.  That's who.  They don't have the balls to rob their neighbors themselves, so they hire... elect someone to do it for them in a nice neat bureaucratic and legal manner.  Just as long as they get their share or they'll find someone else who will take the profits and labor from someone who 'doesn't deserve it as much as they do'.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Tell me why would anyone give away their stock in a closely held S corp while they were still alive when by doing so they effectively are giving away a large part of their income?


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



you can also gift the company over multiple years to avoid estate taxes, but that is only if the value of the business is over $5M. 
most people who have large estates know this, and they hire attorneys to limit their estate tax liability. otherwise how would people who are billionaires pass on their estates without losing the majority of it. 

again the reason there is an estate tax is because it is new income to the recipient. just like winning the lottery would be. if there is nothing in place to protect those assets.


----------



## AquaAthena (Dec 20, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0



Lol, I just KNEW you were talking about him before I opened the thread....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 20, 2010)

rdean said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



You are one stupid fuck.

You think every person of wealth knows the date of their demise.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 20, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



When the maximum gift allowed by the IRS is 26K if you have a few million to gift you better have started 50 years ago.

And again, especially with a business, why would you give it away while you were alive?  You might as well have not started a business in the first place if the only way to stop the fucking government from stealing it from your heirs is to never realize any income from it.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 20, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



"Congress has recognized the burden placed upon families faced with the dilemma of whether to sell the business to pay taxes. In 1998, Congress passed the latest legislation to reduce the estate taxes for family-owned businesses. As part of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, IRS Code §2057 allows certain heirs of a person who died owning a qualified family business interest to exclude up to $1,300,000 from estate taxes that would otherwise be attributable to the value of the business. This provision is known as the Qualified Family-Owned Business Interest deduction (QFOBI)."
Planning Your Estate

thats just one way to avoid the estate tax. if you hire a lawyer, there are many other ways.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/estate-gift-trust-law-estate-tax/14551940-1.html


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 20, 2010)

Qualified?

Just another round of impossible to figure out red tape. 

You just can't admit that the death tax is nothing but another government money grab can you?


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 20, 2010)

you probably didnt even read the article......


----------



## jillian (Dec 20, 2010)

The T said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



you keep repeating that little mantra... yet you keep throwing tantrums like an infant.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 20, 2010)

I never understood the legitamcy of a death tax.

The tax has been paid on the money and property.  So why is it being taxed yet again?

I had a freind of a freind that ended up with nothing.  His dad owned a large farm with a number of buildings on it, and died suddenly w/o insurance or a will.  His kids ended up haveing to sell everything b/c they didn't have money for the taxes.

Just seems cruel.  After you bury your loved one, you have to dig money up to pay the tax man.


----------



## jillian (Dec 20, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> I never understood the legitamcy of a death tax.
> 
> The tax has been paid on the money and property.  So why is it being taxed yet again?
> 
> ...



first of all, "death tax" is a misnomer intentionally created by those who want to propagandize about what an estate tax is. First, the person who is dead is not taxed. The people inheriting the money are taxed like ANY OTHER INCOME.... Do I think that every penny of inherited weath should be taxed? No. But I think someone inheriting over 6 million dollars won't be traumatized if they have to pay a little tax.

We've often used estate taxes to pay for wars.

CRS Report on History of Federal Taxes (Copyright, 2001, Tax Analysts)

And I'll leave you with this tidbit from that liberal rag The Econimst:



> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
> 
> With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.



Estate tax and the founding fathers: You can&#039;t take it with you | The Economist


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 20, 2010)

its not being taxed a 2nd time, since the money is new money for the new owner. 

now i agree there are instances like the one you just described that are unfair to some families. But i also have to say that it is the responsibility of the business owner to plan ahead if he wanted to pass the business on to his/her family. many times the children do not want to take over the business, or the business owner does not want to pass it on. (look at warren buffet for example, most of this estates is being donated to charity upon his death, it is not being given to his children) 
FORTUNE Magazine: Warren Buffett gives away his fortune - Jun. 25, 2006

understand that one of the purposes of the estate tax is make sure that people can not use their business as a tax shelter. i.e. putting all of their assets into the business and lowering the individuals estate value and thus tax liability. 

but like anything, with proper planning, much of the estate tax can be avoided.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 20, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> its not being taxed a 2nd time, since the money is new money for the new owner.
> 
> now i agree there are instances like the one you just described that are unfair to some families. But i also have to say that it is the responsibility of the business owner to plan ahead if he wanted to pass the business on to his/her family. many times the children do not want to take over the business, or the business owner does not want to pass it on. (look at warren buffet for example, most of this estates is being donated to charity upon his death, it is not being given to his children)
> FORTUNE Magazine: Warren Buffett gives away his fortune - Jun. 25, 2006
> ...




You're full of shit. The same money is being taxed twice. Period.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 20, 2010)

prove its the same money. you cant! quit being another ignorant texas jackass.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 20, 2010)

The sad part about this discussion is this.  No matter how badly the looters get their philosophical asses handed to them on the evil nature of their desire to take the estates of people from the next of kin it belongs to, they still won't care because it's not an ethical issue to them.  It's an emotional one.  

"I don't have it, and I don't like other people to have more than me so they should be punished.  Of course if it's me, I deserve it, and I'll destroy you all if you try to take it from me!"

It's greed.  Evil, base, greed and envy that rules their soul.  Otherwise, they would not stand for it either.  All that matters is how they feel, and in the end, that's the only thing that matters to them.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > its not being taxed a 2nd time, since the money is new money for the new owner.
> ...



No, like he said, it's new money for the new owner.  *Bolded Period.*


----------



## Oddball (Dec 20, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> The sad part about this discussion is this.  No matter how badly the looters get their philosophical asses handed to them on the evil nature of their desire to take the estates of people from the next of kin it belongs to, they still won't care because it's not an ethical issue to them.  It's an emotional one.
> 
> "I don't have it, and I don't like other people to have more than me so they should be punished.  Of course if it's me, I deserve it, and I'll destroy you all if you try to take it from me!"
> 
> It's greed.  Evil, base, greed and envy that rules their soul.  Otherwise, they would not stand for it either.  All that matters is how they feel, and in the end, that's the only thing that matters to them.


The ghouls don't have the nerve to steal the gold fillings from corpses themselves, so they schlepp the duty off onto some politicians and bureaucrats.


----------



## The T (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...


 
BULLSHIT. It's a ploy to TAX that which has alredy been taxed and payed for. It's fucking GREED of politicians.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> No, like he said, it's new money for the new owner.  *Bolded Period.*



I disagree Cuyo. That money was earned by a member of the family. Once that wealth has entered the family unit, it is up to them on how it is distributed. 

Hands up here - anybody - who when slaving away, making money, paying off the mortgage, says to themselves while lying on their death bed, "Well, I'm glad I put in all those hours so 35% of my hard-earned cash goes to the govt".

Anybody have those thoughts?

I sure as shit don't....I begrudingly give the govt up to 30 percent of my current salary and I'm not too happy how they spend the majority of it as it is, let alone what they do with any they take from me after I die.

Tell me, if the govt is so willing to take my hard earned cash after I die, are they willing to reimburse me, if say, my stocks start losing money? They want me to take the risk while I'm alive, and if I lose money, tough shit. But when I die, they have their hand out saying "Thanks very much."...

..they can get lost.

And going back to the OP, yes Weiner looks like a turd hound. Not so much his demeanour, but I hate the way Pollies are asked a simple question, yet refuse to answer it. He does look a tad worse with his sophmorish pouting....


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 20, 2010)

The T said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Yes I know, everything's a conspiracy.  You realize politicians' pay is guaranteed regardless of tax collected, right?  You do know they don't _keep _the money, right?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...


No.  It is not.  If the person had not died, it could not have been taxed again.  The fact that they are no longer able to be taxed, does not give the government ownership of it, or the right to any more of it after they have taken their share.  You're trying to make a VAT out of the movement of money.  For every person it goes to, you seem to think you deserve a piece of it just for being the government.

This is why liberals should never be given power.  They too quickly forget they are not nobles.  That form of government is long obsolete.


----------



## The T (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


 
However they seek more to _redistribute to lazy fucks that didn't EARN it...for thie vote-buying schemes for POWER._

_FAIL.(As usual)._


----------



## The T (Dec 20, 2010)

I'd be willing to bet that MOST of the idiots applauding the Estate TAX are unemployed assholes living off the Government DOLE...Broodmares...and welfare IDIOTS with no life that love stealing from others for legalized theft from the Gubmint.

That or just plain fucking stupid and have no regard for thier own Liberty...and are too stupid to be voting.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 20, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > No, like he said, it's new money for the new owner.  *Bolded Period.*
> ...



It is literally mathematically impossible that the estate is taxed at 35%.  We're talking about 35% after a very generous free ticket - That 0.3% of Americans who pay any estate tax at all is a statistic that bears repeating - But that's not the point.

The government needs money to function.  This is paid for through taxation.  I don't see an estate tax as double taxation, but it is taxation nonetheless.  It's also a very important impediment to the establishment of an aristocracy or "Ruling class" (As Winston Churchill once argued, "a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich").  The establishments of such ruling classes are often cause for revolution and societal collapse.

I must say I'm shocked to see you on this side of the argument.  And FYI, if you're dabbling in stocks, yes you should be able to carry a loss forward to offset taxes on future gains.  Talk to your tax preparer.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 20, 2010)

The T said:


> I'd be willing to bet that MOST of the idiots applauding the Estate TAX are unemployed assholes living off the Government DOLE...Broodmares...and welfare IDIOTS with no life that love stealing from others for legalized theft from the Gubmint.
> 
> That or just plain fucking stupid and have no regard for thier own Liberty...and are too stupid to be voting.



Nope, not unemployed.  Employed, and an employ*er* to boot.  And much, much smarter than you.


----------



## jillian (Dec 20, 2010)

The T said:


> I'd be willing to bet that MOST of the idiots applauding the Estate TAX are unemployed assholes living off the Government DOLE...Broodmares...and welfare IDIOTS with no life that love stealing from others for legalized theft from the Gubmint.
> 
> That or just plain fucking stupid and have no regard for thier own Liberty...and are too stupid to be voting.



really? if that's what you'd bet, you'd lose your money. 

but then again, you're clearly not very bright.


----------



## The T (Dec 20, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be willing to bet that MOST of the idiots applauding the Estate TAX are unemployed assholes living off the Government DOLE...Broodmares...and welfare IDIOTS with no life that love stealing from others for legalized theft from the Gubmint.
> ...


 
That's EXACTLY what I bet...and judging from the MIDTERMS?

I'd say I was right on the Money.

YOU are _dismissed._


----------



## The T (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be willing to bet that MOST of the idiots applauding the Estate TAX are unemployed assholes living off the Government DOLE...Broodmares...and welfare IDIOTS with no life that love stealing from others for legalized theft from the Gubmint.
> ...


 
Then when the FUCK SAKES are you gonna portray it?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> It is literally mathematically impossible that the estate is taxed at 35%.  We're talking about 35% after a very generous free ticket - That 0.3% of Americans who pay any estate tax at all is a statistic that bears repeating - But that's not the point.
> 
> The government needs money to function.  This is paid for through taxation.  I don't see an estate tax as double taxation, but it is taxation nonetheless.  It's also a very important impediment to the establishment of an aristocracy or "Ruling class" (As Winston Churchill once argued, "a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich").  The establishments of such ruling classes are often cause for revolution and societal collapse.
> 
> I must say I'm shocked to see you on this side of the argument.  And FYI, if you're dabbling in stocks, yes you should be able to carry a loss forward to offset taxes on future gains.  Talk to your tax preparer.



I object more to the govt getting it more than the tax itself. If there was a law that said you should give 25 percent or whatever to a charity or charities of your choice, I could live with that.

However, in saying that, there is something inherently ...(hmmm, not too sure of the word) - unsatisfactory maybe? - that the money already earned within, and behalf of, a family unit -whether the person who earned the money dies or not - is now open to be taxed by the govt.

Let me put it this way...let's say I start a company. I work on a deal that take two years to put together - a very, very risky deal - but all the stars are aligned and I make just over $40 million. Huge sigh of relief. The day the money arrives I put aside 35 % for tax (not too sure what the tax rate in US is, but it's around about that here  - and notwithstanding deductibles), which equates to about $14 million, leaving me $26 million. Let's say the next day I drop dead. So the govt taxes me another 30 percent on the $26 million. That is about another $7.8 million. So my original $40 million has gone down to $18.2 million. Is it fair for the govt to receive $21.8 million of my money at no risk to them? I don't think so...


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 21, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > No, like he said, it's new money for the new owner.  *Bolded Period.*
> ...



you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir. you try to make the argument that it is family $. but then you fail to see that families can you use inheritance as a tax shelter and hide it from paying any taxes. (which you probably think is a good thing as well.) thus since it is new income, it is taxable. now i have already stated several times that there are many ways to legally transfer businesses and money and be able to avoid the estate tax. this is how the wealthy transfer estates to the children generation after generation. if you read or listen to warren buffet you would also understand more of why the estate tax is a necessity. Buffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap | Reuters. if we repeal the estate tax, that lost tax revenue must be recovered in some other manner. which will ultimately lead to higher taxes on the middle class. something which you obviously support if you want to once again shift the tax burden off the 0.3% of people who are hit with the estate tax. 

you also complain about paying taxes, but you probably enjoy many of the benefits of taxation. such as roads, schools and parks. should we just become a pay as you go society? lets pay for each individual use of everything. then we can make all schools private and all roads toll roads. what about national parks? lets just close them all and let them be run by private corporation. then they can become like disneyland and charge a hundred bucks a person, let corporations advertise on their lands, and sell the rights to the wildlife and natural resources until they are depleted. if youre unhappy with the amount of taxes you pay why dont you go abroad and see what the tax rate and quality of life is like. 

England has a top tax rate of 40%
France has a top tax rate of 52%
Germany has a top tax rate of 45%
Australis has a top tax rate of 45%
Spain is also 45%

The US has a top income tax rate of 35% currently, and we dont even provide universal health care. we are not overtaxed as a nation.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 21, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir. you try to make the argument that it is family $. but then you fail to see that families can you use inheritance as a tax shelter and hide it from paying any taxes. (which you probably think is a good thing as well.) thus since it is new income, it is taxable. now i have already stated several times that there are many ways to legally transfer businesses and money and be able to avoid the estate tax. this is how the wealthy transfer estates to the children generation after generation. if you read or listen to warren buffet you would also understand more of why the estate tax is a necessity. Buffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap | Reuters. if we repeal the estate tax, that lost tax revenue must be recovered in some other manner. which will ultimately lead to higher taxes on the middle class. something which you obviously support if you want to once again shift the tax burden off the 0.3% of people who are hit with the estate tax.
> 
> you also complain about paying taxes, but you probably enjoy many of the benefits of taxation. such as roads, schools and parks. should we just become a pay as you go society? lets pay for each individual use of everything. then we can make all schools private and all roads toll roads. what about national parks? lets just close them all and let them be run by private corporation. then they can become like disneyland and charge a hundred bucks a person, let corporations advertise on their lands, and sell the rights to the wildlife and natural resources until they are depleted. if youre unhappy with the amount of taxes you pay why dont you go abroad and see what the tax rate and quality of life is like.
> 
> ...



All those countries provide *much more *in terms of service to their citizens and have a tiny fraction of the military bill..we have.


----------



## beowolfe (Dec 21, 2010)

IMO, the dude's right.  When the person who earned the money was alive, if he/she gave the money to their kids, the kids would have to pay taxes, it's call a 'gift tax'.  I don't see the logic changing simply because the person who earned the money dies.  An inheritence is still a 'gift' and should be taxed accordingly.  IMO, I think wages should have the lowest taxes of all of the various types of income.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



A house or property is not income, a stock portfolio is not income, a business is not income.

they are assets that may produce income but they themselves are not income.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 21, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...





That's some mighty fine linquistic gymnastics.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 21, 2010)

seeing as how a house has value, it can be perceived as income. same with a stock portfolio and a business. its basically free money. just like you get taxed at 55% if you win the lottery. maybe you dont want to see that money taxes either.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



Yes I can see how definitions may seem confusing to you.

Let me ask you this, your rich uncle leaves you a house, you move into that house, how did your income go up?

Your rich relative leaves you a business, you close the business and let the equipment sit in a warehouse, did your income increase?

You inherit 100 acres of land, you put the deed in a safe and forget about it, how much did your income go up because of the land?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> seeing as how a house has value, it can be perceived as income. same with a stock portfolio and a business. its basically free money. just like you get taxed at 55% if you win the lottery. maybe you dont want to see that money taxes either.



It is not income.  It is an asset of the estate.  Income is the gain realized by a business or property not the business or property itself.

The last time I checked a business wasn't money it is something that may or may not produce income.  Your lottery example is income because it is the gain derived from gambling.   You can also deduct the money spent on all your losing lottery tickets from your winnings.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 21, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > seeing as how a house has value, it can be perceived as income. same with a stock portfolio and a business. its basically free money. just like you get taxed at 55% if you win the lottery. maybe you dont want to see that money taxes either.
> ...



if your net worth increase then your income went up. a business whose value is say $10M means that you are now worth $10M. you didnt earn this money through a regular job, hence it it new money an it is taxable.

your argument is extremely flawed. by your reasons investment income wouldnt be taxes either. because you also stated that a stock portfolio has no value. (as a dumb assumption). anything of value given to you as part of an estate above the $5M exemption is taxable as new income.


----------



## beowolfe (Dec 21, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



But any of those things passed on by a living relative is subject to gift taxes.  It should be the same if the person passing them on dies.  Why should someone who receives their inheritance before the person dies have to pay taxes and the one who gets it after the person dies doesn't.  That's what's unfair to me.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 21, 2010)

> you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir,  it is still new income to the heir.



No, we disagree that it is taxable income to the heir.  We recognize the heir is gaining the property of their deceased relative.  This often includes the debts too.  Those aren't credited against them are they?  No.  Debts often go along with the estates.

Nobody's answering my question on why they think death automatically gives the government right to a family's property?  I suspect it's because it shines a spotlight on their unethical, evil desires.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 21, 2010)

> gift taxes



Another taxation abomination.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 21, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir,  it is still new income to the heir.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it doesnt give them an automatic right. i have stated this many times already on this thread. with proper planning, most large estates get passed down without hardly an tax liabilities. it just takes proper planning.

and the person taking over the estate is not liable for any debt, the estate is liable for those debts. thus they have to be paid off before anyone can receive any proceeds from that estate. 

on the terms of taxable income, any new income is taxable. whether it be an asset, or actual cash. otherwise, why couldnt i just give away my entire estate in small pieces each year and avoid paying any of my own taxes? if i show that i lost money every year and took a tax deduction against that loss, why would i ever pay any real taxes?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



Net worth is NOT income.  What an item is valued at and income are two entirely different things.

You don't know much about business.  If you inherit a dairy farm where the land is worth 5 million but the farm itself only produces 1 million a year by your estimation you would have 6 million in income.  Wrong.  The business produced or you realized 1 million in income the value of the land does not figure into the income calculations.

And I never said an asset like stock has no value.  I said the asset in itself is not income. If I buy 1000 shares of X for 1000 dollars today and let it sit for the rest of my life even though that stock will be worth 1 million when I die, it is not income until I realize that 1 million by selling it and I do not pay taxes on it until that income is realized. It does not count as income if I don't sell it.

So if you inherit a stock that is worth 1000 dollars today but don't sell it to realize the gain it is not income.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 21, 2010)

It's never the uber wealthy that get dinged.  It's always those on the bubble to BECOMING wealthy.  Gotta keep the commoners out of the club.


----------



## Douger (Dec 21, 2010)

Normal. Another obnoxious **** on a power trip. 
Once again. You assholes voted for it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 21, 2010)

Nice, a anti-semite kanuckian.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 21, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



nice try, but the moment you inherit something it automatically deemed income. because you never had it before thus it is new and can be taxed. you can argue until you are blue in the face but youre still able to grasp any basic concepts.

well lets take your dairy farm for example. well first off in this case, the first $5M is exempt, so you actually wouldnt owe any money on that first $5M. secondly, did you not just inherit $5M? that meant if you sold the business right then and there you had $5M, because that what the value of the asset was. its your choice to keep it or sell it, but at the moment you acquired it, you made $5M, no matter if you realized it or not. how did you come about this $5M? did you earn it through a job (where it was taxed?) or was it just given to you? it was free! just like if you wont the money at a casino. there are no family property right in the united states. just because a family members own something, that does not give you legal entitlement to it. hence why you have to have a will, or a trust or some other legal product in place to limit the liability. the only thing that is currently tax free is life insurance. 

unless youre of the 0.3% of people who the estate tax may affect i dont understand why youre so up in arms about this.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



So tell me if an increase in net worth is the same thing as in increase in income is a decrease in net worth the same thing as a decrease in income?

No it's not. therefore net worth is not income.

I don't care if I will or won't be affected by the death tax.  The point is that it is nothing but theft of assets already bought and taxed .  The fucking government wants to take a second bite of the apple and it should not be allowed.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 21, 2010)

As far as the question posited in the OP...



> Is this guy the biggest ass in congress?


Well he's got some very assholish competition.

What about Dodd, Van Hollen, Dick Durbin etc? 

Sure he's a pencil-necked slimey asshole, but you must admit that there is alot of competition out there.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 21, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



yes it actually is. if you take losses in a year due to investing or business losses,  and you realize those losses, you can write down the amount of your income to the federal limit. you can then carry over the rest of the loss to the next tax year if needed. this becomes known as a write-off. thank you for making my point to easy to explain

you still cant prove that inherited assets aren't new income and taxed as such.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 21, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir, it is still new income to the heir. you try to make the argument that it is family $. but then you fail to see that families can you use inheritance as a tax shelter and hide it from paying any taxes. (which you probably think is a good thing as well.) thus since it is new income, it is taxable. now i have already stated several times that there are many ways to legally transfer businesses and money and be able to avoid the estate tax. this is how the wealthy transfer estates to the children generation after generation. if you read or listen to warren buffet you would also understand more of why the estate tax is a necessity. Buffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap | Reuters. if we repeal the estate tax, that lost tax revenue must be recovered in some other manner. which will ultimately lead to higher taxes on the middle class. something which you obviously support if you want to once again shift the tax burden off the 0.3% of people who are hit with the estate tax.
> 
> you also complain about paying taxes, but you probably enjoy many of the benefits of taxation. such as roads, schools and parks. should we just become a pay as you go society? lets pay for each individual use of everything. then we can make all schools private and all roads toll roads. what about national parks? lets just close them all and let them be run by private corporation. then they can become like disneyland and charge a hundred bucks a person, let corporations advertise on their lands, and sell the rights to the wildlife and natural resources until they are depleted. if youre unhappy with the amount of taxes you pay why dont you go abroad and see what the tax rate and quality of life is like.
> 
> ...



I don't fail to see your first point at all. I see it, but disagree with it.
I've never said I disagree with tax, I agree with tax, just not this one.
I am abroad. I live in Australia...where the top tax rate is 45. In NZ (where I was born) it is 33 percent


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 21, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> seeing as how a house has value, it can be perceived as income. same with a stock portfolio and a business. its basically free money. just like you get taxed at 55% if you win the lottery. maybe you dont want to see that money taxes either.



Both in NZ (where I lived for 38 years) and Aust. (where I live now), there is no tax on lottery winnings. Same with the UK...


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 21, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > you still fail to recognize that when the $ is transferred to the heir,  it is still new income to the heir.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Debts offset the value of the estate.  Not entirely clear on why you would even bring them up.  

If you have $10M in assets and $6M in debt, the estate is valued at $4M and therefore not subject to any estate tax.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 21, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> I don't fail to see your first point at all. I see it, but disagree with it.
> I've never said I disagree with tax, I agree with tax, just not this one.
> *I am abroad.* I live in Australia...where the top tax rate is 45. In NZ (where I was born) it is 33 percent



"A broad" is two words.  



Oh stop you know I love ya.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 21, 2010)

Well the person is dead and the government now owns the property does it not?  Therefore the debts should be erased or paid for by the government shouldn't it?


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 21, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Well the person is dead and the government now owns the property does it not?  Therefore the debts should be erased or paid for by the government shouldn't it?



Do I really have to go into the processes that take place when a debtor dies?

In short, no, the government does not own the property, nor does it own the debt of a recently deceased person.  Your line of logic is difficult to follow.

Take assets; Subtract debts; Then subtract $5,000,000.00.  If the resulting number is below zero, no estate tax is due.  If the resulting number is above zero, multiply it by 0.35, and the result of that calculation is the tax due.  As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, in 99.7% of estates, the result of the first formula is zero or below and hence no tax is due.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 21, 2010)

If the government does not own the property, then why does it presume to have a right to it after the owner dies and bequeaths it on to his heirs?  It has no valid claim.  Inheritance is not income in the traditional meaning of the term.

Hell, why does the government presume to have any claim on the property while the owner is alive?


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 21, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> If the government does not own the property, then why does it presume to have a right to it after the owner dies and bequeaths it on to his heirs?  It has no valid claim.  Inheritance is not income in the traditional meaning of the term.
> 
> Hell, why does the government presume to have any claim on the property while the owner is alive?



Because we all belong to a society, and we all _use_ and _depend on_ the commons of that society.  We have a representative republic form of government, and our legal framework, starting with the Constitution, allows congress to tax people and other entities to pay for those commons on which we all depend.

The concept of money is meaningless outside of the framework of government.  I don't think people realize how inextricably linked they are to a government they apparently hate when they start talking about "MY money."  Sorry, but the government prints this stuff, valuates it, disburses it, and takes measures to expand and contract the supply thereof as necessary.  Without government, 'YOUR' money would be useless, unless you could find a guy to trade it to who was desperate for kindling at the time.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 22, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



You have to realize the loss by selling the depreciated asset.  If you don't sell it you can't take the loss.

If you buy stock and the price drops you can't write off the loss unless you sell for less than you bought.  If you don't sell your net worth still decreased but your income did not.

If your home value goes down your income does not decrease even though your net worth decreased.

So once again net worth is not income.  Just because an inherited asset is taxed does not define the asset as income.  If it were income would it not be taxed at income tax rates?  As far as I know there is no 55% income tax bracket in this country.

Even though you don't understand the difference between income, assets and net worth, the death tax is nothing but theft and you don't care because the fucking government is not stealing from you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 22, 2010)

> Because we all belong to a society, and we all _use_ and _depend  on_ the commons of that society.



that's right.  Send me a bill for the military, courts and other essential services of government... but other than that government has expanded beyond it's constitutionally allowed powers and therefore is NOT proper to be given tax monies for.  I've no problem paying for those enumerated powers.  But 70% of the budget is unconstitutionally beyond that and I don't feel it is my job to pay for that.  Therefore, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

As for your incorrect understanding of money, you need to take some economics classes.  Government's creation of a neutral unit of trade does not give it ownership of that unit of trade.  It only facilitates the ability for people to do business with one another.  Before the Fed and even the national bank, individual banks and states printed their own currency.  Today, corporations create their own currency all the time.  Airline miles, coupons, tokens... all these are forms of trade.  Of course they convert your money into their currency but it's the same damn thing as currency.  They do not 'own' what you've 'earned' in their currency.  They are the only ones who will accept it as currency though.

Pop  goes your theory again.  Go back to a non-socialist economics course.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 22, 2010)

And another point.  If, as you claim, this is income and therefore needs to be taxed on the heir as income... why is it being taxed at a tax bracket separate from the income tax at a time separate from income tax?  Should the estate be rolled into the heir's income tax and get the same credits, deductions and brackets as is currently in the income tax system?

Oh yeahhhhh... BECAUSE IT'S NOT INCOME!

Pop.... another lie dies.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 22, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> And another point.  If, as you claim, this is income and therefore needs to be taxed on the heir as income... why is it being taxed at a tax bracket separate from the income tax at a time separate from income tax?  Should the estate be rolled into the heir's income tax and get the same credits, deductions and brackets as is currently in the income tax system?
> 
> Oh yeahhhhh... BECAUSE IT'S NOT INCOME!
> 
> Pop.... another lie dies.



its being taxed as income on a separate scale. just like investment income is taxed on a separate scale. (which is currently at 15% instead of 25% of 30%) isnt that income? why isnt that rate the same? ohhh thats right, because GWB cut that tax rate to help the top 2%.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 22, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



Inherited assets aren't new assets, hence the term "old money".


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 22, 2010)

they are new assets to the person who receives them. since the assets were not in their name legally before, they become new once the transfer is completed. try again...


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 22, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > And another point.  If, as you claim, this is income and therefore needs to be taxed on the heir as income... why is it being taxed at a tax bracket separate from the income tax at a time separate from income tax?  Should the estate be rolled into the heir's income tax and get the same credits, deductions and brackets as is currently in the income tax system?
> ...


I see, we've made two scales of income taxation.  One for when you're alive and one for when you're dead.  Wow, you libs are so generous.

And besides, what the fuck does it matter to you what the upper 2% of wage earners keep?  They earned it.  Did they take it from you?  No.  Why?  Because economics is not a zero sum game as played over time, only as a snapshot.  There is only x amount of dollars at any one moment, but that does not mean that it cannot grow based on work and and exploited resources.

So why are you so keen that those who employ most of the world, the top 2% of wage earners are unable to continue?  What hurt to them makes your life better?  Talk about shadenfreude... which ironically seems to be the basis of all liberal economics.  Steal from those that have and produce give those who don't deserve and cannot produce.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 23, 2010)

not all of the top 2% of wage earners are small business owners or business owners.

CEO's, Bankers, Professional Athletes, Lawyers and Doctors are not small business or business owners, but they all help make up the top 2% of earners.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 24, 2010)

> not all of the top 2% of wage earners are small business owners or  business owners.


Doesn't matter if they're the president of GE or the heir to J.J. Astor.  They still earn their money, and your envy does not give you rights to it.


----------



## Rozman (Dec 24, 2010)

Actually it was Alan Grayson until this douche nozzle went off like this.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 24, 2010)

"So why are you so keen that those who employ most of the world, the top 2% of wage earners are unable to continue?"

your exact words Fitz. You implied that the top 2% or earners employ most of the world. I simply showed that to be untrue. 

most small business owners, who actually create 80% of all new jobs are not affected by the estate tax. and like ive said many times before, if you are part of the .05% of people who would be affected by the estate tax, simply hiring a tax attorney will solve all of your problems. 

as it is currently written in law, when assets in an estate change hands they are seen as new income to the recipient. they did not own them before, and no one here has been able to show that they had ownership. Everyone here who is against the estate tax wants the ability to pass anything to family tax free. once that door is opened, any individual can then simply pass on any asset and avoid paying taxes on them to begin with. i could make a huge profit through investing and to simply avoid paying any taxes on them, i could pass those assets on to a family member instead of taking ownership of them. 

the other issue at hand is that if the estate tax is eliminated you have pushed approximately $500 billion over the next ten years back on to the middle and lower classes. (as per the CBO:http://www.floridaprobatetrustlaw.c...-how-much-revenue-does-the-estate-tax-raise/:


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 25, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> "So why are you so keen that those who employ most of the world, the top 2% of wage earners are unable to continue?"
> 
> your exact words Fitz. You implied that the top 2% or earners employ most of the world. I simply showed that to be untrue.
> 
> most small business owners, who actually create 80% of all new jobs are not affected by the estate tax. and like ive said many times before, if you are part of the .05% of people who would be affected by the estate tax, simply hiring a tax attorney will solve all of your problems.



If the law is so easily thwarted then why waste any time on it at all?



> as it is currently written in law, when assets in an estate change hands they are seen as new income to the recipient. they did not own them before, and no one here has been able to show that they had ownership. Everyone here who is against the estate tax wants the ability to pass anything to family tax free. once that door is opened, any individual can then simply pass on any asset and avoid paying taxes on them to begin with. i could make a huge profit through investing and to simply avoid paying any taxes on them, i could pass those assets on to a family member instead of taking ownership of them.



If you give something to someone while you're alive it's subject to gift taxes.  You would have to die to leave an inheritance to an heir which then would be subject to estate taxes.  

Ans so what if a person can leave something he already bought and most likely paid taxes on already to a family member?  Shit if we have it your way, we should be claiming every gift we get from anyone as income.



> the other issue at hand is that if the estate tax is eliminated you have pushed approximately $500 billion over the next ten years back on to the middle and lower classes. (as per the CBO:http://www.floridaprobatetrustlaw.c...-how-much-revenue-does-the-estate-tax-raise/:



500 billion is a pittance compared to the waste in government.  Why don't you worry about getting the fucking government's house in order instead of being obsessed with more taxes?


----------



## Rozman (Dec 25, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > "So why are you so keen that those who employ most of the world, the top 2% of wage earners are unable to continue?"
> ...



It goes against the DNA genetic code of a liberal democrat to have low taxes and small government.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 25, 2010)

> your exact words Fitz. You implied that the top 2% or earners employ  most of the world. I simply showed that to be untrue.



Two things here you are forgetting, but not surprising really.

1. The top two wage earners invest in things that employ people.  They may not be the boss directly, but their money works for them by making it possible for jobs to exist.

2. It is irrelevant how they earn their money.  You are still not entitled to the vast majority of it.  Oh a little nibble as a part of paying for the constitutional powers of the government, not distorted by the misused of the commerce clause and public good misinterpretations, yes.  Just as every citizen should pay.  But to assume that because it costs so little of their capital to have an 'average' life, you are entitled to the rest is just evil greed on your part.



> most small business owners, who actually create 80% of all new jobs are  not affected by the estate tax.



Unless they retire or die.  Then they or their heirs are ruined by the taxation.  Secondly, where did they get the capital to start up?  Institutions making the money from the richest 2% among others work for interest.  Or do loans come from Obama's Stash or thin air in the bank vaults?



> if you are part of the .05% of people who would be affected by the  estate tax, simply hiring a tax attorney will solve all of your  problems.



Then you are quibbling over a trifle since they can easily escape the law and you create only hardship for those who cannot afford the tax attorneys and accountants who are less financially sound and doomed to be fucked over by your overzealous sense of entitlement.  Yeah.. that's the way to do it.



> as it is currently written in law, when assets in an estate change hands  they are seen as new income to the recipient. they did not own them  before, and no one here has been able to show that they had ownership.



Really?  Is that so?  Explain the generational family farm which is consistently destroyed by this philosophy.  Grandfather to father to son to grandson.  It never makes it past this current generation because the tax man shows up, assesses the property and decides the family which has never left the land and nothing has changed owes 12 million so they can continue doing what they did for 4 generations on the same spot.  All to satisfy your selfish jealousy and greed.



> Everyone here who is against the estate tax wants the ability to pass  anything to family tax free.



You're goddamned right.  I can tell you don't stand to inherit anything and your jealousy clouds your judgment.  Or you're just stupid.



> any individual can then simply pass on any asset and avoid paying taxes  on them to begin with.



So?  I fail to see this as a bad thing.  Ain't yours.  Ain't the government's.



> i could make a huge profit through investing and to simply avoid paying  any taxes on them, i could pass those assets on to a family member  instead of taking ownership of them.



Umm... dumbass, you only die once.



> the other issue at hand is that if the estate tax is eliminated you have  pushed approximately $500 billion over the next ten years back on to  the middle and lower classes. (as per the CBO:http://www.floridaprobatetrustlaw.co...te-tax-raise/:



Really?  My, I guess they'll just have to cut 500 billion in spending.  We don't have the money.  Oh damn.

Tax cuts are free.  Spending is not.  If you do not have the income, you cannot spend on new toys or bigger ones.  Cut spendng and your problems go away.  Why are you so blind to the solution that is soon to be rammed down your throat by economic reality regardless of the tax rate?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 25, 2010)

Rozman said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...


Of course.  They feel the call of charity on their heart and so they steal from another who does not to help someone they should be paying for themselves.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 25, 2010)

> the other issue at hand is that if the estate tax is eliminated you have pushed approximately $500 billion over the next ten years back on to the middle and lower classes. (as per the CBO:http://www.floridaprobatetrustlaw.co...te-tax-raise/:



You've got to love how the libs fudge the numbers and don't take into account when this money is left in the private sector, it is used  creates jobs and spurs economic growth but that&#8217;s the mind of a liberal demagogue. 500 billion?..


*How Much Revenue Does the Estate
Tax Bring In, and How Much Does It
Scare Away?*

Even though federal estate tax rates were falling throughout the decade, and the exemption level was rising, revenue held steady at about $25 billion each year between 2001 and 2009. Receipts were as high as $28 billion when the economy was strong and the stock market up, and as low as $23 billion when the economy weakened, as it did in 2008 and 2009.

 The one-year repeal of the federal estate tax in 2010 drives down the U.S. Budget&#8217;s predicted revenue from transfer taxes to $17 billion this year, and then revenue rebounds in 2011 and beyond in anticipation of the law&#8217;s reinstatement. The U.S. economy has become soThe U.S. economy has become so dynamic that a constant turnover occurs among the wealthiest people.

 Instead of the same few families staying at the top of the heap for generations, new American entrepreneurs constantly emerge and soar past older fortunes. But is this the whole revenue story? No, even though the estate tax has been reporting approximately $25 billion a year in revenue, much of that has been diverted from other reasury accounts.

 For example, capital gains revenue would be much higher over time without the estate tax. Regular come tax revenue would be higher, too. Estate Tax Repeal Boosts Capital Gains.Tax Revenue To prevent assets in estates from being doubletaxed by both the estate tax and the capital gains tax, the so-called step-up in basis was,
until 2010, part of estate tax law. By that rule,assets to be transferred were valued at their current market value on the date of death &#8211; &#8220;stepped up&#8221; from the original purchase price &#8211; leaving the heir with no taxable gain if he sold the inherited asset for an amount that equaled the value on the date he inherited it. The estate tax is complex to the point of absurdity, to the point where even a savvy lawyer or accountant would be a fool to plan his own estate if he had substantial wealth.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr179.pdf


----------



## 007 (Dec 25, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0



I would get GREAT PLEASURE in BEATING LIVING DOG SHIT otta that CONDESCENDING LITTLE LIBERAL SOCIALIST SHIT STAIN.... maybe twice.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> 1. The top two wage earners invest in things that employ people.




Where is your evidence that they are investing in THIS country, employing Americans?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The top two wage earners invest in things that employ people.
> ...


Who's fault is it for making this nation a bad investment risk?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 25, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> ...


Actual photo of Pale Rider:









Oh, and Merry Christmas!


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Republicans, by offering tax breaks to companies who took their manufacturing overseas.

So....you have no evidence?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Oh you're fucking kidding me?  Republicans are the ones making this nation a bad investment risk?  Are you fucking loopy?

Who's fucked up the tax code by adding taxes and increasing taxes?  

Who's making it unfriendly to move resources back into the US by taxing foreign investment thereby making it easier and more profitable to keep money abroad?  

Who was it that created NAFTA, CAFTA, gave China most favored trade status without following through on demands of human rights improvements?

Who is it increasing environmental restrictions making it more expensive and harder to start business in this nation?

Who is penalizing functional business and subsidizing losers like green energy?

Who protects job killing unions?

All democrat initiatives and goals.  All of them.

Republicans?  Bull fucking shit.  Globalists for sure in either party, but 95% of the rest is all Democrats and libs looking to create a green socialist parasite paradise.

The hosts are fleeing, and you guys are starving.


----------



## jillian (Dec 25, 2010)

you can't cut taxes and run two wars.

it's really that simple.

so who wouldn't do any other work unless rich people got their tax breaks?

if tax breaks led to job creation, then the past 10 years would have led to nothing but jobs jobs jobs.

so given that, what makes us a bad investment? and i'm not saying it's just repubs b/c the dems gave in, didn't they?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 25, 2010)

> if tax breaks led to job creation, then the past 10 years would have led  to nothing but jobs jobs jobs.



They did work.  They prevented a collapse that should have happened in 2000 thanks to the dot bomb collapse.  Instead we got slow growth instead of the rightful economic collapse that could have happened in 2001 when the twin towers came down too.

But, instead now we have the democrats having to admit that the tax cuts worked.  They're scrambling to keep the distaster that they know in their hearts will come if they do let the Bush tax rates expire.  they know money will flee this nation en masse.  They know that companies will shut down left right and sideways.  The unemployment extension was a stupid move that is only going to make things worse when we MUST address government overspending which is little more than months or weeks away.

This nation needs to clean fiscal house.  It needs to start at the top, and strip the cupboards bare of all the fiscal junk food we have cluttering it and burn it in a big blue sugary flame.  Fiscal sanity must be returned.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Dec 27, 2010)

Poli_Sigh said:


> > "it's not you're money you're dead" :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> 
> Oh please, Congress is full of asses jockeying for that position.  The $30 billion Bush and Company up and gave the Banks and Wall Street shysters wasn't his money either.  Did you squawk about that?
> ...



Of course they didn't squawk about it, and isn't it amazing how these dumb sh*** can have nothing and be HAPPY and SATISFIED with fantasies about someone else's richness...

And the dumb blonde in the video with her, " OOOOOOOOOOOO I'd like to be rich someday," all the while cutting her own throat to keep an oligarch happy!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 27, 2010)

Jroc said:


> "it's not you're money you're dead"  :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXGo8EsBT0



Wow that guy is ignorant and maybe a touch mentally challenged.

Either that or he truly believes people are stupid.   

He doesn't understand double taxation and starts throwing a strawman about gambling at her.

What a "Weiner"


----------



## Jroc (Dec 27, 2010)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> And the dumb blonde in the video



Really? So you assume this women is dumb becouse she's a blond? What kind of feminist are you?  Brains and smoken hot imagine that?

*Megyn Kelly Bio *







Kelly was nine years of age when her parents moved to Delmar, New York from Syracuse, New York. At Bethlehem Central High School, Kelly played on the basketball and field hockey teams, as well as captaining the cheerleading squad. Her father, who was on the staff of the University at Albany, died when she was 15. 

*She earned her undergraduate degree in Political Science from Syracuse University and her J.D. from Albany Law School, where she served as an editor of the Albany Law Review.[3] In college, she was in the Kappa Alpha Theta sorority.

[edit] Legal careerShe was an associate in the Chicago office of Bickel & Brewer LLP, during which time she co-wrote an article for the American Bar Association's Litigation journal entitled "The Conflicting Roles of Lawyer as Director."[4] She also practiced as a litigator with Jones Day in New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C., before leaving to pursue a career in journalism.*Broadcast careerShe joined Fox News in 2004.[6] Before joining Fox News Channel, Kelly served as a general assignment reporter for ABC News affiliate WJLA-TV in Washington D.C. During her tenure at WJLA, Kelly covered significant national and local events, including major national events such as the 2004 presidential race and the D.C. sniper cases.[7]

Prior to her anchor role, Kelly served as a general assignment reporter for FNC based in Washington, where she provided live coverage of the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John Roberts. She also reported on the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.[8]

Kelly contributed legal segments for Special Report with Brit Hume and hosted her own legal segment, "Kelly's Court," during Weekend Live. She frequently appears on The O'Reilly Factor and occasionally fills in for Greta Van Susteren on On the Record. Most of Kelly&#8217;s reporting focused on legal or political matters. She also is a regular anchor, after beginning as a substitute anchor during weekends.[9]

On February 1, 2010, Kelly&#8217;s show, America Live, replaced Fox News&#8217; The Live Desk which was co-hosted by Martha MacCallum and Trace Gallagher. In turn, MacCallum took Kelly&#8217;s position on America&#8217;s Newsroom. She has been a regular guest-panelist on Fox News' late-night satire program Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, and she was a guest on the Howard Stern radio program on April 20, 2010.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megyn_Kelly


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 28, 2010)

Contessa_Sharra said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > > "it's not you're money you're dead" :roll: I feel like snapping his little pencil neck "
> ...



How is she cutting her own throat?   People shouldn't have to pay taxes on estates which they were already taxed on when they earned the wealth the first time.


----------

