Debate Over Bush-Era Tax Cuts

[KitterCat]

Well, first, the inheritance tax is not a tax on the dead, but a tax on the heirs of the estate. I quote:

Don't worry; you'll never have to worry about paying federal estate tax...unless your parents have over $7 million in assets. The only people in the USA who ever have to worry about estate tax are millionaires and billionaires - and for the most part they don't give a crap, because the highest taxable amount is 35%...and that's after you exclude the first $5 million (current tax rate/exclusion information is as of 2011).

That’s a really simplified synopsis of the law, and only federal law at that -states can differ. You’ve forgotten Tentative tax, which is part of the “death” tax. You could still end up paying quite a bit as an heir to the government, its just sort of part/sort of not part of the death tax. A small chart on Wikipedia tries to make it a bit more simplified. Just remember it’s the IRS, if they can get money out of your corpse they’re going to try their d@@’es to do it. The past few years its also changed from year to year, making things even more difficult.

As to if its right to take a parents earned money that’s already been taxed and tax it further just because its above a certain amount doesn’t seem right to me. On any level. The governments had its part of that income once already, just because the persons a millionaire doesn’t mean that they should have the right to dip into that pool of money again until the people inheriting the money choose to do something with it. What our government needs to learn on both state and federal levels is how to balance a check book.

[MadMike]

Well, first, the inheritance tax is not a tax on the dead, but a tax on the heirs of the estate.

Either way, it still strikes me as double-dipping. As Protege pointed out, the money the people made when they were alive was alread taxed, and then the government wants to tax it again after they die.

[FArchivist]

That’s a really simplified synopsis of the law, and only federal law at that -states can differ.

That is correct; I'm only going over a simplified synopsis of federal law on the matter only. I think if we started discussing the 50 states we'd be here all night.

You’ve forgotten Tentative tax, which is part of the “death” tax. You could still end up paying quite a bit as an heir to the government, its just sort of part/sort of not part of the death tax.

It's that sort of/isn't bit that causes me to not include it. It is "officially" a separate tax altogether...and one which was strangely unopposed in committee by either party. I see it more as an attempt to stop the practice of giving "gifts" to the heirs prior to death and thus avoiding the estate tax. Loophole stopper, in other words.

As to if its right to take a parents earned money that’s already been taxed and tax it further just because its above a certain amount doesn’t seem right to me. On any level.

*shrugs* I honestly can't say I'm bothered about it. I can say that the people who should worry about it the most, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are completely in favor of it. Why do you think those billionaires are?

[smileyeagle1021]

Either way, it still strikes me as double-dipping. As Protege pointed out, the money the people made when they were alive was alread taxed, and then the government wants to tax it again after they die.

I don't see it as that, they were taxed on it when they received it, and now the next person to receive it is getting taxed on it.
Or should I not have to pay income tax because the business owner paid tax on the money when it was earned?
There is almost always a tax when money changes hands. The IRS considers income anything that improves your economic situation (you could get paid in cheeseburgers and still be expected to pay income tax), so what is so special about inheritence that we no longer consider it an improvement to a person's economic situation?

[MadMike]

There is almost always a tax when money changes hands.

Unless it's a gift, which is what an inheritence is, at least in my opinion.

[smileyeagle1021]

Unless it's a gift, which is what an inheritence is, at least in my opinion.

gifts are still taxed, just to the gift giver... in which case the argument still doesn't work.
We could debate whether or not we should tax gifts, but as justification for not taxing inheritence...

[Mytical]

There is another thing that people seem to be missing, that at least one person here hit the nail on the head. Trickle down was/is not working. Look at the number of jobs lost, etc. What corporations and the more wealthy seem to not understand is .. that somebody has to buy what they are selling in order to make any money. If nobody has money, they can not buy anything, and the rich do not make any profit. So by downsizing, they are shooting their own foot.

I know, I know..global economy right. Other nations/etc can buy the goods. The jobs lost here pop up in other countries, so people will still be able to buy the goods. Except for the wage gap. Yeah, companies etc save a ton of money by outsourcing..but again..less money out may TEMPORARILY improve profits..but it is short sighted. As more and more people have less and less money..less and less is going to get bought. Which is part of what happened to cause the 'world wide' recession we were in.

Same goes with taxes. Saving money may be all well and good NOW, but it is short sighted. The infrastructure is getting dated, and needs completely redone, not just spots here and there. Baby boomers are going to retire, causing a serious strain. Think about it, if they don't have the funds available to buy buy buy..what will that do to most businesses?

Meh, just rambling. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

[Andara Bledin]

Unless it's a gift, which is what an inheritence is, at least in my opinion.

No, if a gift passes a certain threshold in the US, it gets taxed, too, and it's likely a rare inheritance that falls at or below the $10,000.00 limit.

^-.-^

[MadMike]

Andara and Smiley -- good points, which I never thought of before. I still don't like the idea of taxing inheritence, especially at 55% (seems excessive), but I guess it isn't really different from taxing wages.

Mytical -- I've raised that same point myself, and even predicted the downward spiral that it would cause. And the out of control gas prices only compound the problem. I'm glad someone else sees it.

[FArchivist]

I do not and will not believe myself to be entitled to money I did not earn or put into the system (such as unemployment taxes).

If you have been employed and have paid taxes on the income you received from being employed, then yes, you are entitled to unemployment. Unless you've been paid under the table your entire life, this is a null argument.

I do not believe it is up to 'the wealthy' to pay my way through life solely because they have more than I do.

Neither do I.
I do support what Adam Smith, the guy who wrote The Wealth of Nations said; that each person should be taxed proportionately to their wealth and that wealth used to enhance the general welfare of the nation.
He believed it.
The Founding Fathers believed it.
I believe it.

I do not view a progressive tax system as the wealthy paying my way through life, and in fact, since I was born and raised and still LIVE in that wealthy class, believe it is my noble duty to pay more.

The tax cuts will ultimately benefit my store in the long run (if they become permanent), because it is set up as a C-corporation. At this time, we do not have any 'employees' other than myself.

Uh, no they won't. If you've been advised this by a financial expert, you are sorely misinformed and I would recommend hiring someone else to advise you. The tax cuts will not benefit you at all. The Bush-era tax cuts would help you immensely if you were an S corporation, but not as a C.

If our store concept really takes off (and it seems to be doing well all things considered) and we are able to open another store location in another city, then that makes 2-5 MORE people that we can employ.

That would be irrelevant, as it would really take having 500+ employees in order to see a significant impact. You need at least Firm status, really; a small business such as yours is just not going to get anything decent out of it, even if you transfer your incorporation to Puerto Rico.

When the store gets to the point where we are not needing to work anymore and we are financially well-off, what gives you the right to say that because we are reaping the benefits of our sweat and time, we are somehow obligated to give more than half of it to those who DID NOTHING to help build our business to where we hope it is someday?

1) Bush-era tax cuts really only affect personal income, not corporate income.

2) Corporate profits are not personal profits. So, if you have incorporated your business correctly and reinvest the corporate profits back into the business, you won't have to give a damn thing away to anyone.

3) If you are assigning those profits to yourself as personal profit, then the legal right to tell you to pay more taxes is listed in the tax code/16th Amendment and the moral justification is given by Adam Smith and the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves.

As it is, unless you are pulling down $250K+ after taxes per year, the Bush-era tax cuts will not really provide you with any assistance anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it.

In the mean time, we donate items to local golf charities and silent auctions/benefits, and we recently paired up with the Tex-Mex restaurant in our same building and did a Toys-For-Joy tequila tasting in our lounge with all the donations going to the charity. We raised $250 in the 2 hours they were here, average donation being $5 per person.

Bully for you. When you're giving away Warren Buffett and Bill Gates type of money, I'll be duly impressed.

Stop with the 'haves' vs. 'have-nots'. Methinks that you grew up in a materialistic family who never taught you to not envy things that others had, but instead find out how they were successful in achieving the level of income to do so.

Incorrect. I grew up in a family that no longer cared about materialism because it had ceased to become relevant. I attended a top-notch private school. I was raised amongst the wealthy and the political; I've sat and had dinner at Bush Sr's table. If I so chose, I could just live off the family tit for life and never worry. All of my financial limitations are self-imposed because it suits my pride.

So yes, it is the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. As far as I'm concerned, you're a have-not. And you don't even recognize that us Haves pulled a screw-job on you with those tax cuts. Heck, you don't even SENSE the screw-job.

You know what your real problem seems to be? Laziness, bad attitude, and jealousy. Those three will always keep you down-and you will never be truly happy because you will always be worried about what you don't have instead of really seeing what you do have, and working towards what you don't.

That's a mighty assumption. Oh, certainly, I'm lazy; I have no interest in becoming management, no interest in being an executive. I'm not like my brother, who's an economist over at Booz Allen. I have no wish to strive for the big pay, the power, the high status. Who needs the stress? It's foolishness, IMHO.

But jealous? Of what? That you have to work insane hours? That you struggle? That you will probably always be a small business that remains non-rich because, unless you interest us ruling class types, we won't let you get above a certain level?

Yet you will always find ways of blaming others because that is exactly what the government wants you to do. Blame others rather than looking at your own decisions and actions that led you down the path. Sometimes bad luck hits. Sometimes it seems like you can't just catch a break. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! It is NOT fair, no matter how much your mother tried to make it for you! Don't like it? Get a helmet and a kevlar vest, and I have a spare bukket for your tears. Butch-up Sally!

Let me tell you something, madame. Here's a harsh truth for you. You are correct; life is not fair. Most members of my class, who comprise the CEOs and executives, who ARE the government, who actually run things and decide economic policy and how business will go, deliberately try to keep it unfair so you don't get to where we are. By and large, we succeed and do it well. It doesn't matter what decisions and actions you make because you are in a rigged game where the assholes are in charge. You will only win if we LET you win.

Now, about half of us in this class believe that our wealth and status as the rulers of this nation - and don't kid yourself, we rule it - behooves us to level the playing field so that you have-nots get a chance at the brass ring. The other half would just as soon see you burn. This isn't a Republican/Democrat division; there are elements on both side. But the side that wants you to burn? They're the ones that put in the Bush-era tax cuts and they're the ones that have been pulling the strings since the Cold War began.

Now, you won't believe any of this and that's just fine, because no one outside of IRL believes this when I just blatantly tell them where I come from and how it is. That's OK because that's not my problem. But don't come rampaging through here telling me that I'm jealous and materialistic and blah blah blah. The simple truth can be put in two sentences:

1) The Bush-era tax cuts won't help you with shit.
2) I know this because I'm part of the class that created them to give us breaks and to fuck you over.

Like I said, I know you won't believe it. But that's on you. I've done my duty.

[Boozy]

I've done my duty.

And how!

Those were some fascinating insights into the minds of the upper class.

[Gravekeeper]

And how!

Those were some fascinating insights into the minds of the upper class.

Indeed, bravo. Especially fascinating from my commie socialist terrorist utopia up here. When you watch from the outside in, it seems really obvious some of the crap going on. But its largely frustrating to talk about with people on the inside. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

But its largely frustrating to talk about with people on the inside. >.>

Try talking about it to others who are on the outside who absolutely refuse to believe that any of that is even a possibility.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

2) I know this because I'm part of the class that created them to give us breaks and to fuck you over.

Er, I agree with a large number of your sentiments, but I think that this statement has a bit of a problem with it. Namely, that you may be part of the class, but you didn't personally create them. You can only make an educated guess about the reasoning, same as anyone else.