hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 5, 2006 13:39:03 GMT -5
I am just curious what the breakdown of the board is.
Please select the category which most closely matches your beliefs, not necessarily your voting patterns. I know a lot of people who say they are Libertarian but still vote either Democratic or Republican.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2006 13:54:00 GMT -5
Hifi's. Best. Post. Ever.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 5, 2006 14:02:13 GMT -5
Suggest you remove the "nut case" from the option. Or, also place it on one of the options for liberals. You do want a fair poll, don't you? Also, for those who state they are fiscal conservatives but social liberals, how about telling us what you would cut, other than defense, to achieve fiscal sanity. Or whether it just says you would raise taxes for the "rich".
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jun 5, 2006 14:32:43 GMT -5
Being a fiscal conservative, as far as I'm concerned, means believing in a balanced budget. That's what it always meant. Now, whether you think the federal government should amount to 33% of GDP or 31% - I don't care. Tell me how we'll get there and we can talk. But the definition of fiscal conservatism is the exact opposite of what Bush has done, and there's just no two ways about it. We were in fiscal balance. Bush pushed through a bunch of tax cuts. We now face a massive structural deficit. This one is pretty simple - repeal the tax cuts. Just about all of them. Start with the unbelievably idiotic and morally reprehensible estate tax phase out. Please post somethiing in favor of ending the estate tax so that I can rant at you for 2000 words. Please. Were taxes at 2000 levels really that bad? Were they really crippling our nation's competitiveness? Now, I was still a teenager then, so I wasn't out there in the working world trenches, but I seem to remember those were heady days. Of course there are programs I would cut in the budget - a line item veto would be awesome - but those earmarks and waste are still just a percentage points out of a huge pie. You can't balance anything that way. In terms of controlling spending, once you take out defense, interest, and entitlement spending, you're left with about a whopping 20% of the federal budget. Did you know that ed? So, Bush has made it harder, yes. He didn't really cut taxes, he transfered taxes a few years down the road. All that money we've been borrowing comes due, and so when we're dishing out 15 cents on every one of your tax dollars to pay back (foreign held) debt, send Bush a thank you note. Longer term, I'd take a variety of steps to control health care costs. Also, I'd tax some of the rampant prostitution and legal drug use that I would foster as a social liberal.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 5, 2006 16:15:19 GMT -5
Just as I thought, the only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes. I'm still looking for items you would cut. Tell me what "variety of steps to control health care costs" you propose. And, I don't mean trashing those drug companies. How would you cut health care costs? Would you ration it? If not, what? I, for one, would get the government out of extraneous things. I would start by identifying what things are necessary for federal involvement: defense, operating the courts, federal law enforcement, State Department, Treasury Department, Post Office, Interstate Commerce Commission, federal parks, etc. Then I would look at all the things that are not really necessary for federal involvement like education, arts, welfare and other social services, housing, "pork" funding of local items,etc. - all of which I would leave to the state to decide if they will fund. After World War II a Democrat president appointed the Hoover Commission to take a look at the federal bureacracy and recommend changes. We should do that now to decide what we must do as a federal government, what we would "like to do" but is not necessary, and what should be left to the states. In addition I would introduce some sort of federal sales tax to replace all the other federal taxes so we can prevent the millions who do not pay all their taxes from continuing to do so, such a sales tax tailored to ensure the really needy are given preferential treatment by a tax refund or other mechanism. Despite what you say about Bush "cutting taxes", the amount going into the treasury is much higher since the "tax cuts" went into effect. What's gone up is spending and I blame Bush and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress for that. Despite all the clamor about this right wing president, Bush is not a conservative! As for the estate tax. Whose money is it anyway? It belongs to a person, not the federal government. If a person pays taxes on what he/she earns during their lifetime what is the moral lesson in taking a large part of that through another tax when he/she dies? Why do you believe this money belongs to the federal government?
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jun 5, 2006 16:25:07 GMT -5
Powder keg.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 5, 2006 17:02:57 GMT -5
Being a fiscal conservative, as far as I'm concerned, means believing in a balanced budget. That's what it always meant. Now, whether you think the federal government should amount to 33% of GDP or 31% - I don't care. Tell me how we'll get there and we can talk. But the definition of fiscal conservatism is the exact opposite of what Bush has done, and there's just no two ways about it. We were in fiscal balance. Bush pushed through a bunch of tax cuts. We now face a massive structural deficit. This one is pretty simple - repeal the tax cuts. Just about all of them. Start with the unbelievably idiotic and morally reprehensible estate tax phase out. Please post somethiing in favor of ending the estate tax so that I can rant at you for 2000 words. Please. Were taxes at 2000 levels really that bad? Were they really crippling our nation's competitiveness? Now, I was still a teenager then, so I wasn't out there in the working world trenches, but I seem to remember those were heady days. Of course there are programs I would cut in the budget - a line item veto would be awesome - but those earmarks and waste are still just a percentage points out of a huge pie. You can't balance anything that way. In terms of controlling spending, once you take out defense, interest, and entitlement spending, you're left with about a whopping 20% of the federal budget. Did you know that ed? So, Bush has made it harder, yes. He didn't really cut taxes, he transfered taxes a few years down the road. All that money we've been borrowing comes due, and so when we're dishing out 15 cents on every one of your tax dollars to pay back (foreign held) debt, send Bush a thank you note. Longer term, I'd take a variety of steps to control health care costs. Also, I'd tax some of the rampant prostitution and legal drug use that I would foster as a social liberal. Too much to comment on and give it justice right now. I am getting ready to leave work and have no computer out at the lake place. But ask and you shall receive. OK, cuts in the Estate Taxes were a good thing. What reasoning can you give which really justifies any ... much less the exhoritant 55% top end tax rate on estates that we had before the cuts? I know you will probably dream up the ne'er do well who won the lottery and whose uneducated and non-working kids stand to inherit $20 million. Emotionally in that case I see your point to a degree ... but even then not all the way. This is a much more realistic scenario. A hard working individual develops a successful business through years of effort. During which time he develps many successful familes as employees of his. By the time he retires at 65, his two sons have been working in the family business for 25 years as well. In fact, several of his grandkids are helping in the business. Through this successes of their efforts, this family has acquired numerous assets. For argument's sake, let's say 14 single family homes, 4 other significant properties a couple of vacation homes and at least one nice vehicle for each of the individuals involved. Now let's suppose the senior member of the business has a massive stroke or heart attack and passes away. How much of the results of their hard work do you think the government has a right to take? Suppose he was simply a poor planner and had very little "tax shelters" ... just houses, properties and cars. How much? Keep in mind that taxes have already been paid when these properties were purchased. Taxes such as "property tax" and both "tangible and intangible" taxes have been paid additionally every year. The rent for the properties which have tenants has been taxed annually as well. Insurance for these properties as well as additional premiums for Flood/Fire and Hurricane damage has also been paid annually. Each of which has an additional tax component. There are many other taxes too numerous to list. But this represents 45 years of this families hard work and another 25 from the next generation, who will in turn pass it on the the next generation. Now how much should the government take away making it that much harder for the next generation?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 5, 2006 17:10:20 GMT -5
The truth is that there is money on both sides of the issue. Benchmarking the US versus the rest of the world, our tax burden is not large. We have some of the lowest taxes in the free world. It doesn't mean we should raise them, but it does mean that our populace as a whole is not suffering from a huge tax burden. Should we raise taxes? I think a small raise might be in order, given our deficit. Personally, I think a simplification of the tax code might be nice, with the now freed up resources of the IRS going after large cheats would be a good idea. We do need to get rid of the loopholes that wealthy individuals can exploit -- note that I do not necessarily favor raising tax rates but rather getting rid of some ridiculous tax havens that only the rich can use. As for the estate tax, there's no objection to that that isn't shared by any tax. Whose money is it anyway? is a ridiculous argument given that the country shelters you nightly. Estate tax versus income tax is a matter of form. I see nothing wrong with an estate tax. Rich kids are usually spoiled and unproductive anyway. As for spending, I'm not as libertarian in that fact as many, but there is TONS of money to be found in the federal budget. The bureaucracy is bloated and inefficient. We waste tons of money simply managing the government. There is tons of unnecessary pork barrel spending as well. While you and I probably disagree on what is the government's domain, I think we can both agree that there is plenty of spending NO ONE thinks is the government's domain and even things we think are the government's area generally cost too much.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 5, 2006 17:39:35 GMT -5
Hey, HiFi, you left out "Traditionally Euro/modern commie". That would be me.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 5, 2006 19:37:22 GMT -5
Re: the estate tax "repeal," the general consensus seems to be is no way it will not sunset in 2010, even if the R's control both houses and the presidency. It is written in the US Constitution that no Citizen may have noble titles (Duke, Earl, etc.). I see no reason to create legacies which may be different in name but similar in their social effect.
Also, it is not like the government is impounding all rich people's assets upon death. In hifi's scenario above, the hardworking family would not lose all its assets (even if we ignore the fact that business assets would not be subject to federal estate tax). Family members would likely retain some assets and sell others. What is so wrong about that, particularly when you take into account the fact that the business will continue to generate family income?
(Also, a complex estate tax means más dinero for future lawyers like myself.)
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 5, 2006 21:08:23 GMT -5
As a liberal I would like to impose a heavy tax burden on hifi - potentially per post.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Jun 5, 2006 21:41:51 GMT -5
"As for the estate tax, there's no objection to that that isn't shared by any tax. "
Yes there is, a very big one SFHOYA. That estate has already been taxed my friend. The estate tax is a second tax predicated on the idea that you are not around any more to protect yourself. And your statement that its the state's money as much as your own because the state "shelters you nightly," well, let's just say I'm thinking Leviathan even more than modern day Sweden re: that frightening perspective.
I am flabbergasted to see that AustinHoya thinks that the constitution's objection to hereditary titles of nobility extends to a tacit approval of the state stealing assets from your children (already taxed) when you shed your mortal coil. Yeah, I am sure that is EXACTLY what old Jimmy Madison had in mind. The entire ethos of our nation's founding document celebrates the sanctity of property rights as much as anything- I am sure what they really meant was that when you die, the State has first dibs before your greedy little kids get theirs. Perhaps more frightening is his logic that its OK because they are not "impounding ALL rich people's assets. " Well I guess we really ought to be grateful to the Sopranos...ummm government for letting us keep a nice piece of OUR money. Wow that's a whole lot of power to lend the state, from people who scream about the Patriot Act at the drop of a dime. I really can't believe there are people who support the death tax who have really thought about it for more than a minute or two.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 5, 2006 23:17:17 GMT -5
"As for the estate tax, there's no objection to that that isn't shared by any tax. " Yes there is, a very big one SFHOYA. That estate has already been taxed my friend. The estate tax is a second tax predicated on the idea that you are not around any more to protect yourself. And your statement that its the state's money as much as your own because the state "shelters you nightly," well, let's just say I'm thinking Leviathan even more than modern day Sweden re: that frightening perspective. I am flabbergasted to see that AustinHoya thinks that the constitution's objection to hereditary titles of nobility extends to a tacit approval of the state stealing assets from your children (already taxed) when you shed your mortal coil. Yeah, I am sure that is EXACTLY what old Jimmy Madison had in mind. The entire ethos of our nation's founding document celebrates the sanctity of property rights as much as anything- I am sure what they really meant was that when you die, the State has first dibs before your greedy little kids get theirs. Perhaps more frightening is his logic that its OK because they are not "impounding ALL rich people's assets. " Well I guess we really ought to be grateful to the Sopranos...ummm government for letting us keep a nice piece of OUR money. Wow that's a whole lot of power to lend the state, from people who scream about the Patriot Act at the drop of a dime. I really can't believe there are people who support the death tax who have really thought about it for more than a minute or two. thebin, re: your objection to SFHoya's comment, an individual does not pay tax on real property when that property is purchased. Which taxes are you referring to? Annual property taxes? Please be more specific as to how the estate tax is a double tax. Re: your objection to my comments, my 2nd paragraph above was mainly designed to point out that hifi's argument was a bit overstated -- the estate tax has become more of a bogeyman than it actually is. I did not assign a value, good or bad, to the amount the federal government takes. But, if you agree with the premise that many government taxes or exemptions from tax are designed to shape the behavior of individuals and/or society, isn't that the mark of a good tax? One that regulates behavior without being overly burdensome? My guess is that you don't agree with that premise, and that's probably why we disagree on this issue. And please don't lump anyone who supports the estate tax in with "people who scream about the Patriot Act at the drop of a dime."
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 6, 2006 8:42:11 GMT -5
Estates include everything you own - real estate, automobiles, stock, bonds, mutual funds, savings accounts, etc. To own any of these you have to earn money which is taxed (income) at the federal, state and local levels. In addition, you pay sales taxes when you buy some of them. To own property you pay a yearly real estate tax to the state/countylocality. In my locality, if you owned a $1M home you would pay about $10,000 every year just to own it. In many states you also pay personal property tax on automobiles, boats and airplanes. You pay taxes every time you buy and sell stocks, bonds or mutual funds. To say that what's in the estate is not taxed previously can only be said by someone who has not had to pay them him/herself and it's only an academic exercise for them. I am not a "rich" person and what I have I have worked for. It belongs to me, not the federal or state government. They have already taxed what I have every time I breathed. Nothing gives the government the right to take some or all of that when I die.
|
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by CO_Hoya on Jun 6, 2006 9:00:45 GMT -5
I may have this wrong, but from what I understand:
You don't pay estate tax on your property when you die (you are dead, after all). Your heirs pay the estate tax when they take ownership of what used to be your property. If your property were to be transferred to a recognized non-profit / charity, there is no estate tax applied.
[Edited to add] And since the first $4 million ($5 million??) of one's estate is exempt from the estate tax, I'm not sure that easyed or I will ever have to worry about this other than in the abstract (unless easyed's definition of "not a rich person" is wildly different than mine).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 9:53:46 GMT -5
I may have this wrong, but from what I understand: You don't pay estate tax on your property when you die (you are dead, after all). Your heirs pay the estate tax when they take ownership of what used to be your property. If your property were to be transferred to a recognized non-profit / charity, there is no estate tax applied. And there's the important distinction. Everything my parents have earned/made/paid taxes on in their lifetimes is NOT what I have earned/made/paid taxes on. When they pass on, I will have to pay taxes on anything I inherit, none of which I have earned or previously paid taxes on.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jun 6, 2006 10:39:44 GMT -5
There are a myriad of ways to avoid having the government take "your" money after you die. Though many die quickly and unexpectedly, most have some idea that their time is coming and can plan ahead by donating to charity, giving it away to loved ones ahead of time, etc.
How morbid!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 6, 2006 11:09:50 GMT -5
"As for the estate tax, there's no objection to that that isn't shared by any tax. "
Yes there is, a very big one SFHOYA. That estate has already been taxed my friend. The estate tax is a second tax predicated on the idea that you are not around any more to protect yourself. And your statement that its the state's money as much as your own because the state "shelters you nightly," well, let's just say I'm thinking Leviathan even more than modern day Sweden re: that frightening perspective.
Well, thebin, my point, which I probably didn't explain well, is this:
The Government needs to generate cash in some manner, and that's primarily through taxation.
So I can get rid of the estate tax but to generate the same revenue I'd need to increase other taxes.
Since estate taxes -- or any kind of wealth based tax -- are assessed MUCH LATER than income or sales tax, I'd think you'd prefer an Estate tax to higher income taxes.
Reality, you simply want lower taxes. If that weren't true, you'd actually prefer estate taxes over income taxes as a methodology, I'd think.
The money needs to come from somewhere. Would you prefer a higher income tax? One that you'll have to pay as opposed to one that is somewhat avoidable? ($5MM in assets, which you can dodge by donating to get below the mark?)
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jun 6, 2006 11:36:06 GMT -5
Thanks afirthionado. Actually, there is a very logical (and persuasive) argument that estate taxes cut against a more meritocratic system (i.e., folks will avoid probate/taxes by giving money ahead of time). Experience tells us, however, that people (we Americans especially) suck at planning ahead.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Jun 6, 2006 12:00:37 GMT -5
I'm all for a new galactic emperor that will be bring peace to the galaxy by crushing all the rebels. Also a Fiscal Conservative emperor. 2 Death Stars aren't cheap.
|
|