The money is still taxed twice, and there are many reasons for the system of inheritance. I mean many people earn money to pass it to their kids, so the money will be taxed twice.

I am unclear in the cap. Is there an income level that can't be taxed any more?? Or was Freakboy right and you were talkign about SS, in which case I can understand (although I think the SS percnetage should decrease to match the large increases in payroll tax that occur, and I am not saying a large one, but maybe like 7% on income over 200K or something like that), just so the tax doesn't end up being too high (when all taxes calculated)

Well thats the problem with tax cuts. The republicans have won the propoganda campaign that "its your money," and every policitian goes after any other politician who raises taxes. Thats why the whole tax cuts permanent thing just pisses the hell out of me. Tax cuts should be made to automatically go back up, so that politicians can cut taxes and save face and not have to raise them later.

When he said eliminate illegal gambling, I thought that counted all gambling currently illegal which would not include lotteries.

My Audible.com copy is a mouse click away, but the basic idea was that they looked at situations where the same 2 candidates ran against each other in more then one election and the financing levels changed.

The difference was not great, they concluded. I had my doubts about the conclusion myself.

You seemed to be discussing legal gambling here to prove your point:



What that seems to indicate is that you don't think much of legal gambling, but that you discriminate as to the kind. Since there are so many cities with legal gambling I don't really have the data to evaluate your statement even if you are just referring to casinos. There is plenty of legal and illegal gambling outside of casinos which makes it harder to follow those statements.




Money is taxed an infinite number of times. Might as well just say you're only allowed to tax property once and then never again.

edited to add an is, since it was missing and I think I know the meaning of it

I think to have it completely widespread everywhere would be a problem, not to mention disastrous to the cities that have it. I know lots of cities have it but I dont think it should be legal everywhere, hence it should be zoned.



Sorry late at night and not doing anything to night so I am just online.

That's a pretty good point and I dont have much of a response. I didn't say don't double tax I said just admit you are. But I guess property tax would occur however many times, so again good point.

Thank you for reminding me, no more government sponsored lotteries. I see no reason for the government to encourage stupidity.

If it will make you feel better Duke, you could just look at the stupidity as a constant. The government just wants its piece of the action.

I'm not saying its necessarily so, but cyncism can have its rewards.

The same could honestly be said of a sales tax; but why is no one saying it? Oh, yeah; because there's no billionaire owners of media empires who stand to cheat the treasury of hundreds of millions if that nonsense, applied to the sales tax, becomes the terms of the debate.

The estate tax is a tax on the heirs. They've never earned a penny of that money (it's a fatuous assumption that the recently deceased necessarily did, either); and have never been taxed on it before.

That would the the 'churches are untaxed' thing, right?

It's too small for me to care, and it doesn't have anything to do with either the practice of religion (since you don't have to practice anything specific to qualify) or the establishment thereof (since it doesn't compel anyone to worship). If previous generations of Americans are OK with it, I'll accept it because I don't think it's specifically unconstitutional.

Why?

Right!

Not-so-right! Dependents should be deductible. Charitable donations probably should, too. I don't know about much else. Maybe there should be very few deductions, but I don't think there should be none.

Right!

Also right!

Sounds good.

Well... two and a half out of three ain't bad.

What about things like PCP?
Right!

I'm guessing:
Then institute a program to refinance parts of the debt to US allies.
Only two words out of place. See?

I think it makes sense; it's in our interest for our debts to be held by countries that have reasons not to screw us over other than our interest payments.

No, this is the other man.

OK, now that's better.

If Bush wants to institute a tax on the rich, then let it be done! Now! Possibly retroactively! Anything to encourage right behaviors on his part!

There are three separate taxes here. First let me put out my argument against making religious exemption in general: it is tantamount to establishment of a set of religions. Any sect that the IRS does not recognize is de facto discriminated against, as are the irreligious, since their taxes pay for the ministers' exemptions and the building's services alike.

1) Income, payroll and other taxes for ministers. No comparison, non-profit workers are still taxed to the best of my knowledge.

2) Property taxes. This is more a state and local issue, but there is still no comparison. Non-profit organizations that own land have to pay taxes on it to the best of my knowledge.

3) Churches taxed as corporations. This is the only one that your criticism counts towards, as far as I can tell. Most churches will not draw profit in any way, so they can qualify as non-profit organizations.



I was pointing the Double Tax sneer more at the Dividend tax, but you do have a point. The Estate taxation is a double taxation as far as that goes. As to Capital Gains, meh. Lower Interest rates also encourage investment, and that's what having a surplus means.



Fine, standard dedunction's back in. Everybody can have children out the wazoo! Exhaust the Uterii of our great nation. The Germans have had population reconstitution payments for encouraging large families for decades, but these are a program, and not a deduction.

As to charitable donations, may lightning strike me dead, but I have very little faith in charitable organizations because it seems to me a lot of them spend more time soliciting donations then performing actual charity.



I think you misunderstand. Payroll taxes are a flat 16% percent for everybody up to $80,000. I want that cap taken off so that the multi-millionaires are paying 16% as well as the janitors. That would probably mean an increase in maximum benefits, but...



Increases in spending can be just as efficient as tax cuts in upping the nation out of a recession, and that is also what the Fed's interest rate adjustment mechanism is for. But I cede your point, being too rigid is a potential disadvantage. I don't think Estate should ever exceed 50%, basically put a half-life on hereditary fortunes. Discount loans to nationally important industries like Defense. Not steel.

I'll let the a-vice debate range on its own.

The estate tax is a tax neither on the deceased nor on the heirs. It is a tax on the money. The money is taxed twice.

I just realized that one of the reasons I have problems with estate taxes is not that money is being taken from the wealthy but that this money is going to government. Why should the goverment get two pieces of the pie just because an earner has died?

Doing this would be fair; I withdraw my objections.

It also discourages televangelists and other profit-making religious entities, which is good.

There is no way that the US is going to have an overpopulation problem due to excessive birth rates in the foreseeable future, being as how our we're more or less at replacement rate. That being the case, there is no reason for us to impose factors that would discourage people from having children, or to remove existing factors that encourage them. The dependent deduction is friendly to non-poor-people. It's difficult to exploit. And if we remove it, we would then have to introduce considerable welfare programs aimed at achieving the same effect.

Possibly a good point. I don't know.

What did the kids do to warrant earning - and yes, they are earning it, that's income for them - millions or billions of dollars untaxed? They were born? I was born. How come I have to pay taxes on my earnings?

Inheritence is not the grand prize you seem to think it is. I defy you to find a single instance of a great good - or even a great success - coming on the back of inherited wealth. (And no, Wal-Mart doesn't count, because its "success" comes at the expense of the American workforce, painfully so in some sectors.)


The charity I worked for (and, yes, my paycheck was taxed) managed to transform 98% of its income directly out into charitable aid. We had one development personell (compared to the dozen we had on staff for food distribution - I worked at a Food Bank.)

Even large charities don't spend an enormous part of their budget soliciting donations; it just seems like they do because of how much time that small slice they devote buys.

What makes you think they ever got one, Malice? Unless we have a 100% estate tax out there that I've never heard of, most 'estates' go back for generations; and they haven't paid a dime in taxes as they've grown since the last death. Making sure of that much is what estate planners, tax advisors, and corrupt congresscritters do for a living.

And before I forget; you're wrong about what or who is being taxed. If I left it all to the RCC, not a dime of my many billions would ever be touched; because my heirs would be tax exempt. If it were a tax on the money, it would not matter who the heirs were.

For what it's worth, Howard Hughes comes to mind as someone who became a success with his father's money. I think it actually worked out that he would have been better off putting his income from Hughes Tools in a savings account, but he certainly did a lot with the money while he had it.

But giving to RCC would be in violation of mortmain, as there would be no escheat to the crown!