It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. House passes estate tax repeal

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: queenofswords
Sooo glad to hear about this repeal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with accumulation of generational wealth.


That is a very un-american position to take - just where did you pick it up? On TV perhaps.


Wrong. It is actually a very American position to take. I picked it up all by myself
TV is so yesterday!




posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
How is it screwing the poor when 70% of all federal income taxes is paid by those earning over $200,000 annually.


Are you referring to individuals or entities? If individuals I'd LOVE to see the stats on that. Including percentage of income paid.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Calling me an asshole because I refuse to participate in your class warfare meme is, sadly, what I've come to expect here.


Isn't that against T&C?

Hell if it is okay to call someone an A-Hole? *rubbing hands together with a devilish look on face* /end sarcasm
edit on 18-4-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Google is your friend.


www.cnbc.com...


Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent. You read that right.

One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero. It's right there in Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.



When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.



It does not look to be getting better. The CBO said that since 2010, new taxes have been added which will raise rates for everyone, with the biggest increase hitting the 1-percenters. They could end up with their highest federal tax rate since 1997 this year.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

The top 40%. Not that .2%. Nice to equate the moderately well off with the wealthy to skew numbers.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent.

Simple enough?

If it wasn't for "the evil rich", this country wouldn't have a pot to piss in.

edit on 18-4-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: intrepid


The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent.


Not what your source said. It equated upper middle class in there. It said top 40%. Like I said, nice way to skew the numbers.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Willtell

Would you donate to a charity that only spend 10 cents for every dollar you gave, towards what it was supposed to?


If you are implying that government is inefficient; I counter that it is, in many areas, consideribly more efficient then private enterprises. The exception being where the government has been coerced into 'out-sourcing' services.

Take Medicare: 95% of every dollar to patient care; private insurance more like 70% to patient care.

It is only logical that when profit is required, service suffers. When you have to spend billions on marketing and advertising, it's only logical that services suffer.

When "The Prime Directive" (to paraphase Star Trek) is PROFIT uber alles, service and quality will always suffer.

The entire point of government is to provide services that are not and cannot be profitable. And when greedly individuals try to profit off traditional governmental functions (i.e., education - with standardized tests and teaching...) ... well, you see what happens.

I am horrified by the responses in this thread - the self-centered and williful ignorance of the drafting of the US constitiution by people who suffered under 'inherited wealth'. The lack of empathy and fear is disgusting.

I remember when Christians of all denominations walks with poor southern blacks for justice. Where are those people today - or have they all become Reaganite - wealth as holiness - war mongering - idiots that spout lies at every instance.

The last 30/40 years of evidence support the position that so-called 'trickle-down' or 'supply-side' economics do the opposite of what was claimed. If it worked, if the wealthy or unincumbered capital created jobs, we've have more jobs then people to do them.

Attributed to Sinclair Lewis (see link):



When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and waving a cross




From Henry Wallace (Look him up):


“The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned.

The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.

With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.”
― Henry A. Wallace


The last 30/40 years support that position
edit on 18-4-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The entire point of government is to provide services that are not and cannot be profitable. And when greedly individuals try to profit off traditional governmental functions (i.e., education - with standardized tests and teaching...) ... well, you see what happens.


You wrote a nice post. Not that I agreed with it, but it was well written.

there are many things that you said that I disagreed with.

First and foremost was the above. Government cannot "profit" but it can grow. And it's growth is predicated on the needs of those it serves. So government (in order to be successful), cannot profit, but it can grow. And in order to do that, it must create an environment where it is not only able to grow, but is encouraged to grow.

I honestly do not believe that the founding fathers had that in mind.

The taxes that it takes in are used to also create the environment where it can and is encouraged to grow.

So it will also create any and every situation where taxes are encouraged and any talk of lower taxes met with resistance.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


If you are implying that government is inefficient; I counter that it is, in many areas, consideribly more efficient then private enterprises. The exception being where the government has been coerced into 'out-sourcing' services.


A business in the private sector that cannot keep it's head above water, ie generate a profit goes out of business! The government however, who can't keep it's head above water, raises taxes?

Comparing the public sector, ie government, to the private sector is pointless. The private sector doesn't create laws or collect taxes, the government does!



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: intrepid


The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent.


Not what your source said. It equated upper middle class in there. It said top 40%. Like I said, nice way to skew the numbers.


Oh boy! Sheesh! This was an additional statistic and was meant as an extra clarification to add to the bigger picture, which, it seems, you are having a great deal of difficulty seeing. I got it from the taxfoundation.org website.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The entire point of government is to provide services that are not and cannot be profitable. And when greedly individuals try to profit off traditional governmental functions (i.e., education - with standardized tests and teaching...) ... well, you see what happens.


You wrote a nice post. Not that I agreed with it, but it was well written.

there are many things that you said that I disagreed with.

First and foremost was the above. Government cannot "profit" but it can grow. And it's growth is predicated on the needs of those it serves. So government (in order to be successful), cannot profit, but it can grow. And in order to do that, it must create an environment where it is not only able to grow, but is encouraged to grow.

I honestly do not believe that the founding fathers had that in mind.

The taxes that it takes in are used to also create the environment where it can and is encouraged to grow.

So it will also create any and every situation where taxes are encouraged and any talk of lower taxes met with resistance.


Yes, government has the tendency to grow as it must to meet the needs of a growing citizenry.

I don't know the specifics of when this change was made but the constitution states each x (I seem to recall 135,000) citizens require a representative in congress. At a point in recent history the number of representatives was fixed regardless of population. Built into the consitution were mechanisms for the expansion of government.

The same need for more government services as population expands (or less should it decline) is true at all levels of governance.

I love the no tax people when they complain of the horrible service they get from government agencies that cannot afford the employees necessary to effectly service their constituients.

Forgive my horrible spelling....

I'll look up more specifics when I get in this evening.
edit on 18-4-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
What should be entered into the equation of the richer paying higher taxes is that our society has benefited them immeasurably…

Let’s say their business enterprise goes out in the society seeking high level employees to profit their business. These potential employees were educated within the society’s many fine universities of higher learning that offer a dynamic learning environment that produces many potential employees that will benefit the business enterprise of the said capitalist tremendously…

The society, which we all take part in, produces these people for him so naturally if he wants to further the potential of his business it would be in his own self interest to pay taxes.

These taxes will continually allow for these higher learning institutions to offer the safe and healthy environment that taxes to the municipality in question will continue to provide for the institutions within the society


The real problem is that we no longer hold politicians feet to the fire so they will manage our taxes wisely



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: FyreByrd


If you are implying that government is inefficient; I counter that it is, in many areas, consideribly more efficient then private enterprises. The exception being where the government has been coerced into 'out-sourcing' services.


A business in the private sector that cannot keep it's head above water, ie generate a profit goes out of business! The government however, who can't keep it's head above water, raises taxes?

Comparing the public sector, ie government, to the private sector is pointless. The private sector doesn't create laws or collect taxes, the government does!




Because government is our, I repeat our collective means of providing services to ourselves and others. Taxes, when equitable, are of benefit to all members of our society.

Who writes legislation, big business. Who is writing the TPP, big business.

You've bought the party line. I'm sorry.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd



I love the no tax people when they complain of the horrible service they get from government agencies that cannot afford the employees necessary to effectly service their constituients.


And we all know it takes three government employees to do the work that one should be doing. Walk into any federal agency office like the IRS or HHS in a major metropolitan area and observe. It is virtually impossible for one to be fired for lack of merit or for their inefficiency and corruption.

Our tax dollars are not being managed efficiently and it is time those who pay more than their fair share say enough is enough. Stop treating us, the taxpayers, like your own personal money tree.


edit on 18-4-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

You can't justify an increase in taxes based on bigger populations because that doesn't justify departments like DHS.

It's my humble opinion, that government creates situations where people then require a need that wasn't there before government intervened, thereby justifying a reliance and a need for government, and thereby justifying an increase in taxes to fund the needs that were initiated by government in the first place.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Big business may influence legislation, but it is still the politicians that we elect that write legislation.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: FyreByrd


If you are implying that government is inefficient; I counter that it is, in many areas, consideribly more efficient then private enterprises. The exception being where the government has been coerced into 'out-sourcing' services.


A business in the private sector that cannot keep it's head above water, ie generate a profit goes out of business! The government however, who can't keep it's head above water, raises taxes?

Comparing the public sector, ie government, to the private sector is pointless. The private sector doesn't create laws or collect taxes, the government does!




Because government is our, I repeat our collective means of providing services to ourselves and others. Taxes, when equitable, are of benefit to all members of our society.

Who writes legislation, big business. Who is writing the TPP, big business.

You've bought the party line. I'm sorry.


Who has fudged the laws to allow big business and money to become so influential in a government that is suppose to represent the people?

If you choose to blame one party over the other that is on you! I have NO loyalty to any political party nor any politician until one finally shows up that actually represent the Constitution! You can't paint me into a political corner that easy! I hate them both, because they are both the same! They act different only because it gets people who believe in them like a religion to blindly have faith in them!

Plain and simple? Corporation are NOT PEOPLE! The SCOTUS made a big mistake (or did they) when they ruled against "Citizens United"?

When big money and Corporation can "FUNNEL" more money into the political prostitutes in Washington, just who do these so called "representatives" represent?

I hate both parties! They are like the good guy versus bad guys in the WWF! How many of you who support a political party make fun of someone who thinks Professional Wrestling is real?

Well, for those of you who believe in the 2 party system? I put you guys at the same level of mentality as those who think the WWF if real!
edit on 18-4-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
5 Million sounds like a lot to most people but a typical family farm would go there with land and equipment. Farmland near me is $10,000 an acre and still going up.




posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: beezzer

I think the point is that it IS a tax break....only for the wealthy.



Enough with the old 'screw the wealthy with more taxes' argument.
Estate taxes punish the American family farmer much more than trust fund kids.
Removing death taxes is a relief for family farms being able to remain intact and within the family.

Moot point, as Obama will obviously veto.

fortune.com...



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join