http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3784213&page=1

The headliners read like a who's who of music: Aerosmith, 50 Cent and Don Henley of the Eagles.

No, it wasn't the Grammys, it was 13-year-old Elizabeth Brooks' birthday party -- a $10 million mega bat mitzvah. Aerosmith alone was paid a $1 million to perform -- flown in on her father's company jet.

This is the truly scandalous part: we (taxpayers, cops and soldiers) paid for it!

Her father is David Brooks, who was then the CEO of DHB Industries, the leading body armor provider to U.S. soliders in Iraq. And he had his company pick up the tab for the party two years ago, according to investigators.

Brooks is accused of getting his company to pay for his ex-wife's facelift, a $200,000 Bentley, and even a $100,000 belt buckle.

The criminal charges center around the claim that Brooks cashed in $185 million worth of stock just before the New York Police Department recalled 6,000 of his company's defective vests.

I say he has to were one of those vest's and then face a firing squad!

And people like Brooks should pay less taxes too.

Okay, there it is. I was WAITING for someone to take some sort of jab at the right-wing. It's nice to see that is was done by perpetuating the myth that only millionaires benefited from the Bush tax cuts. In reality, anyone who will ever get an inheritance, or make even $30,000 per year, will (and has) benefit from the tax cuts.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-10-02-taxes-usat_x.htm

Yeah, Shane, everyone who pays income taxes (not the working poor though) got a small benefit from the Bush tax cuts. But the overwhelming majority of the benefit went to the wealthy. Of course, the US treasury had to BORROW billions of dollars to give them this benefit. All of our grandkids will be paying interest on this benefit to Paris Hilton and other millionaires...forever.

The only people who benefited from Bush's gifts to people inheriting an estate are the people who weren't already getting an exemption (those inheriting over a few million - raised to $5 million or so, I believe). Most family farms were already exempt from the Estate Tax for example before Bush took office in 2001. Cutting or eliminating the Estate Tax over a certain amount is bad for many reasons. For one, it reduces the incentive to give to charities - normally the beneficiaries of trusts by wealthy people hoping to avoid paying the estate taxes. And of course, at a time when Bush is requesting every more money - 2.4 Trillion total it appears - for Iraq and Afghanistan - we really can't afford to give this gift to multi-millionaires.

Andrew

"Alluding to the political debate that often surrounds tax issues, Gerald Prante, a Tax Foundation economist, said, "It is true that in dollar amounts the rich have gained the most."

Of course the rich have gained the most in dollars, they're paying the most! The percentage of tax people owe went down, so that means I owe a relatively small (but noticeable) amount less each year, and extremely wealthy people owe a lot less. That would be the result of a reduction in the percentage of tax people owe.

Do you believe it's smart fiscal policy to borrow money to finance tax cuts that benefit mostly the wealthy?

There should not be an estate or inheritance tax at all.

That money was taxed when it was earned.

It amounts to double taxation.

It's just another way for the greedy government to extract more money from the public for their socialist programs.

"greedy government to extract more money from the public"

But that's us. We voted in people to represent us and they've acted accordingly. Surely you don't suggest we ignore the will of the voters?

Surely you don't suggest we ignore the will of the voters?

The politicians do, so what's the difference. The will of the voters has nothing to do with them screwing us over every chance they can.

We may have voted them in, but it is because the lies they told during the campaign sounded good to a majority of the people.

Once a politician is elected they will do whatever it takes to fill their pockets with as much money as possible and the "will" of the people is not important to them. Please note that I said politician. I didn’t single out any particular party. They are ALL crooks.

They only thing that is important to them is to channel as many pet projects as they can to the large campaign donors so they will keep giving the politicians money.

I don't remember if it was Mark Twain or W.C. Fields or exactly who said it, but probably the truest political saying EVER said is; "There is no such thing as an honest politician"

"There should not be an estate or inheritance tax at all."

Fine. Then you can personally expect to pay MORE income tax to make up the deficit that will result from eliminating the estate tax. And that greedy government you speak of needs the money to pay for Iraq, a war that you support, and they will get it one way or the other. I don't know about you, but I'm not okay with paying more taxes so millionaires can hoard more of their money.

"The will of the voters has nothing to do with them screwing us over every chance they can."

Perhaps, but we have the choice to vote them out next election. But as we have seen with the "re-election" of GW Bush in 2004, voters often are content with the way things are. Gotta blame the voters for bad politicians.

An exception, of course, is US Rep Wes Cooley (r) a crook who was pressured to drop his re-election bid by eastern Oregon voters who threatened to vote for the Democrat candidate for the first time in a very long time.

ps: Cooley, of course, is less of a thug than our vice president, and, of course, disposed House leader Tom DeLay, but that's another thread.

"There should not be an estate or inheritance tax at all."

This puts you at odds with a number of the Country's founding fathers & past republican presidents who considered the concentration of wealth a major threat to "Republican government".

Thomas Jefferson considered the abolishment of primogeniture - enheritance exclusivly to the eldest son - to be one of his greatest accomplishments. Preferring to have the inheritance spread (and diluted) among all survivors regardless of gender.

Thomas Paine proposed an inheritance tax to create a national fund that would give the sum of 15 pounds sterling to everyone turning 21 years old as a compensation for the loss of their “natural inheritance,” and would give a sum of 10 pounds a year to every person over the age of 50 as an early version of Social Security.

Alexis de Toqueville, Not an American, but an observer of early American democracy (and a cheese eating surrender monkey) observed:

"the secret of democratic success lies in a few simple facts: (1) the courageous action of the American Revolution, (2) the wisdom of the Constitution (with its checks and balances), and, interestingly enough (3) American estate law. “It was estate law that made equality take its last step. I am astonished that ancient and modern political writers have not attributed to estate laws a greater influence on the course of human affairs.”


Rutherford B. Hayes (R) 19th President of the United States:

"We ought not to allow a permanent aristocracy of inherited wealth to grow up in our country. How would it answer to limit the amount that could be left to any one person by will or otherwise? What should be the limit? Let no one receive from another more than the law gives to the chief justice, to the general of the Army, or to the president of the Senate. Let the income of the property transmitted equal this, say $10,000 to $20,000. If after distributing on this principle there remains undistributed part of the estate, let it go to the public. The object is to secure a distribution of great estates to prevent accumulation."

Theodore Roosevelt (R) 26th President of the United States:

“The desire to provide security for one’s self and one’s family is natural and wholesome, but it is adequately served by a reasonable inheritance. Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security. Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government. A tax upon inherited economic power is a tax upon static wealth, not upon that dynamic wealth which makes for the healthy diffusion of economic good”

Would you consider thses guys commies?

No, not commies, just wrong.

If my parents or your parents worked hard all their life and built their wealth, no matter how much or how little, and by the way paid taxes on it AS IT WAS EARNED, then what gives the government any right to either take it or tax it again?

And by the statement" what gives the government the right" I'm not talking about law as it is written today, I'm talking about reality.

Those are all socialist statements that they have made. They all sound like Robin Hood; let’s take from the rich and give to...the government, the poor, the politicians....you fill in the blank.

If you go by the statements made above, then what is the purpose in building wealth for your family?

I say BRAVO and a standing ovation to anyone that finds a way to skirt around these socialists.

If I had a bunch of money (which I don't), I'd start giving gifts to my kids every year of $.01 below what they would have to pay taxes on. I'd also make sure that they would get $.01 below what they have to pay taxes on in inheritance and then give the rest of the money to some charity or my dog or any other way to keep the government from getting it.

Why should the government be entitled to any more of it than they already have taken?

I also find it funny that the statements above were made by people who probably had a lot of $'s.

"I also find it funny that the statements above were made by people who probably had a lot of $'s."

Perhaps they just had a sense of community as opposed to a sense of self.

From their statements, their concern was not so much a matter of enriching government, but rather the survival of the Republic.

They believed the accumulation of wealth was a threat the the Republic.

On Edit:
Accumulation of wealth is probably the wrong term to use here.
Heck, I'm trying to accumulate some myself!
Consolidation of wealth is probably the better term.

Skybill, are you willing to pay more taxes yourself to fund the elimination of the estate tax? I understand your principle, but I want to see if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Elimination of estate taxes = higher income taxes for all. You wanna pay more?

Vitalogy, No one would have to pay higher taxes if the government spent money wisely.

Pet projects and waste consume a huge amount of money. Probably way more than what the inheritance tax would bring in.

Check out this link for a few (only a few) examples of waste.

http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/

Also if they did away with a huge portion of the socialist programs that too would save taxpayers a fortune.

We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the morons that have been elected will continue to waste our (yours and mine) tax dollars.

That is one reason I am 100000000000% for term limits and line item veto.

Perhaps they just had a sense of community as opposed to a sense of self.

From their statements, their concern was not so much a matter of enriching government, but rather the survival of the Republic.

They believed the accumulation of wealth was a threat the the Republic.

But my question remains:

If my parents, or yours, bust their butts and make a fortune, while paying income tax on that money as it is earned, then what right does the government have to tax it a 2nd time just because they had the audacity to die or to limit how much can be passed down to their heirs?

IIRC in history class wasn't their some kind of a party in Boston to protest double taxation?

Wow. This thread has taken a turn from its original intent! Sorry for contributing to that turn.

Because, to their heirs, it's income!

Not if the parents set it up in trusts correctly.

Skybill said-"That money was taxed when it was earned."

Listening to the righties to much Skybill. Most of Sam Walton's and Bill Gate's wealth is in capital gains from shares of stock that were issued at low or no par value.

Not one penny of tax has been paid on the gain in value. So stop repeating that they have paid taxes on all of their wealth, when the have not.

Skybill: You are waging two battles here. One, the elimination of the estate tax, and two, elimination of what you consider to be waste. Those are two different issues that are independent of each other. You do understand from an accounting perspective that if you eliminate a source of taxes, that shortfall must be made up from some other source, right? To assume that the government would cut spending enough to absorb that cost is naive. Cutting taxes for one group means raising taxes for another.

Right. And when the shares are sold they, or someone, will have to pay capital gains tax.

Capital Gains Tax, by the way is considerably higher than income tax.

I don't remember who, but someone in one of the other threads said it best; (this may not be an exact quote)

Why are the liberals so afraid that someone might accumulate weatlh?

Socialisim does not work.

Your wrong again Skybill.

In 2010 if you choose to receive your inheritance there is no inheritance tax, and if you sell the stock it will be based at the value on the day you inherit the stock.

Therefore the tax on inherited capital gains in 2010 is zero and your buddy GW wants to make that tax advantage permanent.

I know the majority of Americans would like to see capital gains tax equal to the tax on wages, but you seem to disagree.

The problem, is often the shares are never sold, the dividends are taxed, but the accumolation of wealth is never taxed. Most rich people leave the source of income in various non taxable trusts, paying out dividend income.

As I have said before, the accumulation of wealth should be taxed, as its gained.

"Capital Gains Tax, by the way is considerably higher than income tax."

Better check your stats. Capital gains tax is 15%, the income tax brackets range from 10% to 35% depending on your income level.

"Why are the liberals so afraid that someone might accumulate weatlh?"

Liberals want to make sure they are not subsidizing the accumulation of wealth by shifting the tax burden to those that are not accumulating wealth.

But, here's a question I have for conservatives: Why are conservatives who currently don't earn big bucks so concerned about those that do earn big bucks getting tax breaks? You average income conservatives get used and abused by the wealthy and they laugh all the way to the bank.

"but the accumolation of wealth is never taxed."

Yes it is, that's what the estate tax is for.

And, trusts won't get you around paying the estate tax.

The fear is not the accumulation of wealth.

The fear is the threat of Aristocracy.
That was one of the things that sparked the American Revolution.

And yes, the Boston Tea Party was a tax revolt.
But it was a tax imposed by an Aristocracy.
Remember "Taxation without representation?"

What are your thoughts on Aristocracy?
Do you consider it superior to Democracy?
It is certainly more efficient.

Democracy is the best. It (or some version of it) is what we have now.

We also have Aristocracy (or some version of it) that is trying to take over the Democracy we have. It's not just individuals it is the corporations.

Politicians and their votes can and are bought every day by bribes that are called campaign donations.

I have no problems with people accumulating wealth.

What I do have a problem is when the government tries to take it away.

Fair taxation is fine. Taxing the same money over and over is wrong.

I'll throw more gas on this fire and twist this already twisted thread some more!

I don't think anyone should be forced to pay Social(ist) (In)Security Tax.

If when you retire, you are broke, then it's your fault. Should have managed your money better.

But since we are forced to pay Social(ist) (In)Security Tax, then at least let us manage our own accounts. We should be able to invest it so it will grow and actually be there for us when we do retire. It should also be in an account that the government cannot touch. Just like an IRA.

That will never happen, Social(ist) (In)Security Tax is way too big of a cash cow for the crooks, and I seriously doubt that I'll get much if any of the Social(ist) (In)Security Tax back that I paid in.

Skybill turn the radio dial your just placing to much crap here that is not correct about 100% of obtained wealth already being taxed.

Many on this site have pointed out that your wrong so please confess to your error and move on. Oh that's right you righties can't admit your mistakes, you just blame others.

Skybill, you sound like one selfish dude. I'll bet that you get more than 100% of the SS tax you've paid. And, feel free to donate your SS income to someone else if you don't like SS.

SS isn't considered a tax, and I think I should get every penny back, with interest.

SS was advertised as an investment, not a tax.

The money that comes out of your paycheck that goes to SS certainly is a tax.

SS itself is and always has been advertised as INSURANCE.

Insurance, Tax, Investment...

Matters not. It should still be optional.

That being said, if you don't pay in, you don't collect.

The problem is, Skybill, is that people like you would opt out, and then when you're old and feeble and need help, you'll be coming to us to bail you out. This way, every one pays and everyone benefits.

The problem is, Skybill, is that people like you would opt out

You bet I would. In a heartbeat. That way I can take my money and invest it in something that will make a good return and that I have control over.

and then when you're old and feeble and need help, you'll be coming to us to bail you out.

Did you not read my last line?

That being said, if you don't pay in, you don't collect.

If you don't save for your retirement, then bad on you.

But since they will never make Socialist Insecurity an option, then at least let us have control over our own account to invest as we see fit.

"That way I can take my money and invest it in something that will make a good return and that I have control over."

That's providing you make a good return. Returns are not guaranteed and many lose money on their investments when not properly managed. The future holds no guarantees as to the level of returns. Just ask the employees of Enron who thought though they had control of their money and promises of good returns. It's the people like you that think it can never happen to people like you.

Oh believe me I don't think it can't happen to me.

Want a good buy on a stock? Just let me buy some of it about 2 weeks before you want some! I guarantee you'll get it at a good price!

What I do want is the choice to make my bad investments. And if I do, so be it. It will be my problem and nobody else’s.

We might as well put this to rest as the government will never let that happen. As I said, Sociaist Insecurity is too big of a cash cow for them.

Again, the voters have made it clear they want SS left alone. Should we ignore the will of the people?

Social Security works. That's why voters overwhelmingly said not to screw with it. Yes, it needs tweaks, but it does what it's supposed to do.

"What I do want is the choice to make my bad investments."

You already have that. It's called a 401K, IRA, Roth IRA, etc.

Just curious Skybill, would you support a lower SS tax, say 2% rather that the current 6.2% if the income cap was eliminated? For 2007, once you gross $97,500, you no longer pay SS tax.

The tax rate is actually 7.65% if you figure in the Hospital Insurance tax of 1.45%.

I don't know if I'd go for the 2% thing or not. It would certainly lower my taxes since I don't reach the cap. I did 1 time but that was due to an extremely generous bonus we got several years ago!

The breakeven point would be somewhere slightly above $300K so it probably would lower the tax for most people.

Yeah, I'd probably go for that.

I'd still rather have the option to opt out completely.

I wouldn't be opposed to having a mandatory savings such as a 401K or IRA that is payroll deducted, but I want control over it.

I don't want the government getting their hands on it. Income tax would be paid on it when you withdraw the money after a given age 60, 65, whatever.

As far as your statement: You already have that. It's called a 401K, IRA, Roth IRA, etc. You are correct. But not in lieu of the Social Security Tax. I want the option to manage my own SS account.

Skeptical, I don't ever remember having the opportunity to vote on managing my own SS account. I remember seeing where the politicians voted against it, which isn't surprising since it would lock them out of diverting the SS funds for lots of the things they use it for now. So why not give us the choice. Stay in and let the government manage your SS account or opt for self management. Give us the choice.

It could be set up similar to an IRA or 401K where you have everything from a guaranteed annuity (government managed) all the way up to a high risk fund (self managed) with choices in-between.

"Give us the choice."

Uh, no. I'd like to manage how my defense dollars are spent too. But that ain't gonna happen either.

SS wasn't set up for managing your own account. Now if people want it changed, you'd have to elect enough people to get the votes to make a change. I don't think Americans are going to ever go for it.

SS is now engrained in our society like free speech and the right to bear arms. There are those that would like to stifle our free speech and take our guns away, but that ain't gonna happen. Consider SS in the same way.

I'm thinking the only way people might go for SS accounts is if these account holders are willing to give up something -- like access to disability benefits or even perhaps medicare. This way the numbers will still pencil out for everybody else on SS not wanting account management.

No, the rate is double that, because your employer makes an equivelant contribution in your name.

I think anyone wanting to manage "their money" paid in to some program, needs to sign a waiver saying they get *nothing* ever, related to, or funded by that program.

For those things, where it's not possible to prevent them from seeing the benefit, the waiver is not an option, only the ballot bot.

Of course, there is always surrendering one's citizenship too. Don't like the tax structure and services provided? Can't seem to get enough of your peers to see it the same way?

There are lots of nations to choose from, many of whom are looking hard for new citizens.

It's not hard. You too can be free in as little as a year!

The majority of people I have talked to on these kinds of topics, see plenty of value and good being done. They know they drive on the roads, communicate over the infrastructure, are safe in their homes, etc....

It's about poor use of the dollars that is generally seen as bad. The easiest target is people on the take, but those numbers are but a small fraction of the really major league waste happening right now.

(yeah, it's Iraq and pride, but no need to really get too upset over that. Change is coming.)

We deal with that boondoggle and suddenly there will be more than enough money to do the basics, and most of these "my money" conversations will be moot.

Also consider the value of "your money" has diminished by about a third. This is why you are feeling the pinch, wanting to manage "your money", not because too much is being asked.

Read that again. All the money is worth a third less. That's yours. mine, everybody's. That's s 33 percent effective pay cut.

Now picture yourself making 33 percent less than you are right now, with the tax burden being the same! Would be too high right?

I would agree, and that's exactly what has happened. The numbers are difficult to parse because of the general devaluation. Add on the very high fuel energy costs and suddenly those devalued dollars just don't do much. This is the problem.

...and we've got a very expensive Iraq pulling on us on top of all that.

Looking at taxes is easy, but it's not the solution. Fixing how they are used, and fixing our policy decisions that has led to:

-less dollars made by people in general

-expensive foregin policy

-devaluing our currency, largely over debt and inability to produce

-nearly all manufacturing that matters no longer being done in the US.

Bottom line is that making enough dollars, and that's factoring out the Iraq mess, is growing very difficult for a lot of people. If one makes enough dollars, they are worth less, so that's difficult too.

Finally, having so many products produced off shore means having to deal with fuel costs, coupled with the lack of jobs. Messy.


Want to know why I don't shop at Wal*Mart?

I don't want to get trapped. You see, if I start dealing with all those lower cost products, I'll use the money elsewhere and suddenly I will have made a change that binds me to the deep discounters. I won't be able to afford to deal anywhere else, so I'll be 100 percent go Wal*Mart!

Rather than always looking for the rock bottom dollar price, I know it is far better to just have less and work hard to fix the problems that make the rock bottom price so compelling.

Remember back when service meant something? You go to some stores that know your name, might put something cool on order for you, or buy some products because they are made here, or are of high quality, come with support, etc...?

I still live in those times, but pickings are lean.

If it's all about cost, we lose on so many fronts.

This problem is the same as the "my money" one. It's easy for people to focus on the wrong factors and thus push for solutions that end up doing more harm than good.

That is a deliberate artifact being exploited right now too, BTW.

Add Warren Buffett to the list of those who support an Estate Tax.

"Warren Buffett thinks those who use the phrase "death tax" are intellectually dishonest because the phrase in his words is "clever, Orwellian and dead wrong."


http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/14/pf/taxes/buffett_hearing/index.htm?postversion=2 007111412