Obama's economic plan - Soak The Rich

[Tricky]

LOL. This is the second time I have tried a "gotcha" on you and you counter with honesty. Kudos I concede the match.

Well, to be fair, if it made sense for me to itemize, I would. It doesn't, so I don't. I don't feel though like itimization is a scam. There is a reason why people with high expenses should be given tax breaks. I just don't happen to be one of them. I could probably find ways to pay less tax, but for me, it is not worth the stress, the record-keeping, the dealing with accountants and such. Plus I like to keep my liberal credentials.

 

[corplinx]

Yep, tax cuts for the rich, and further squeezing of the middle class.

I'm middle class. I got tax breaks under President Bush. Now that I have a child, I'll get an even bigger tax break because of the child tax credits in his cuts package.

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but in America the Bush tax cuts were across the board to the point where the lowest income people can get back more than they pay in.

"tax cuts for the rich" when used to describe the bush tax cuts package reveals the writer to either be a liar, misinformed, or intellectually dishonest (the twits who point out that a rich person gets more raw dollars back on a 3 percent cut).

 

[Kestrel]

As for the inheritance tax that Bush successfully labeled the "death tax", giving the advantage to historically wealthy people, well, I think he did the country a great disservace in order to benefit wealthy families like his own and his supporters'. It is amazing what a little PR and re-labeling will do. Even poor people were convinced that this tax which was greatly to their benefit, was unfair.

Inheritance tax cuts should really be called a "Paris Hilton tax break".

A couple years ago, Congress had a choice between keeping a tax loophole used by hedge fund managers that make millions a year, or changing the AMT rules that would benefit those who were merely well off. Congress chose to favor the hedge fund manager loophole.

 

[gdnp]

Global Rich List

Perhaps you should look at the reference that they gave for the income distributions:

Milanovic, Branco. "True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculations based on household surveys alone", World Bank Development Research Group, November 2000, page 30.

Hmmm. data from 1988-1993. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers at the low end were relatively similar, but I doubt if 200k still puts you in the top 0.001%

Of course, if you want to use 1993 data, I'll be happy to use mine. My graduate student stipend of $8500

 

[Texas]

I'm middle class. I got tax breaks under President Bush. Now that I have a child, I'll get an even bigger tax break because of the child tax credits in his cuts package.

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but in America the Bush tax cuts were across the board to the point where the lowest income people can get back more than they pay in.

"tax cuts for the rich" when used to describe the bush tax cuts package reveals the writer to either be a liar, misinformed, or intellectually dishonest (the twits who point out that a rich person gets more raw dollars back on a 3 percent cut).

We are approaching 50% of wage earners that pay 0 income tax. That is an outrageous situation and at some point Atlas will shrug.

 

[corplinx]

Inheritance tax cuts should really be called a "Paris Hilton tax break".

Yes, because people will be so inflamed over Paris Hilton receiving her parents wealth when they die that they will be all for government confiscation of dead people's belongings.

In the hyperbole war, "the death tax" wins. I realize its hyperbole but I can't complain since I think this is one of the 2 or 3 issues the GOP is actually right about.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm middle class. I got tax breaks under President Bush. Now that I have a child, I'll get an even bigger tax break because of the child tax credits in his cuts package.

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but in America the Bush tax cuts were across the board to the point where the lowest income people can get back more than they pay in.

"tax cuts for the rich" when used to describe the bush tax cuts package reveals the writer to either be a liar, misinformed, or intellectually dishonest (the twits who point out that a rich person gets more raw dollars back on a 3 percent cut).

Bush also made massive cuts in capitol gains, dividend and inheritance taxes. These changes clearly favor people who don't actually work for a living.

 

[Texas]

Bush also made massive cuts in capitol gains, dividend and inheritance taxes. These changes clearly favor people who don't actually work for a living.

No but they do favor retirees that depend on dividends for retirement income very few of who are rich.

 

[corplinx]

Bush also made massive cuts in capitol gains, dividend and inheritance taxes. These changes clearly favor people who don't actually work for a living.

Are you just a talking point bot?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Are you just a talking point bot?

Pfff.



I recommend this whole thread dies or is split up into all the different issues that people talk about past each other.

 

[gdnp]

I'm middle class. I got tax breaks under President Bush. Now that I have a child, I'll get an even bigger tax break because of the child tax credits in his cuts package.

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but in America the Bush tax cuts were across the board to the point where the lowest income people can get back more than they pay in.

"tax cuts for the rich" when used to describe the bush tax cuts package reveals the writer to either be a liar, misinformed, or intellectually dishonest (the twits who point out that a rich person gets more raw dollars back on a 3 percent cut).

It's not the Bush income tax cuts per se, but the overall Bush tax policy. Yes, you got an income tax break, while his pals got a huge windfall. Inheritance tax cuts save millionaire families billions and affect even rich people like me not one bit. At the same time, income subjected to payroll taxes creep up, and each year more and more people are subjected to the AMT. These cuts also turned a 200 billion plus budget surplus into 100-400 billion deficits, despite strong economic growth. That's $500 to $1500 per person, per year of new government debt. We'll see what happens as we sink into recession.

Not a very good bargain for the middle class, IMHO.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The reason why an inheritance tax is a very good thing isn't that people don't "deserve" the money their parents stashed away during their lives, or that their parents shouldn't have the "right" to give it to their kids or whatever other way the economically privileged prefer to frame the matter.

The simple fact is that over long periods of time in a capitalist system wealth tends to accumulate more and more in the top end of society, all else being equal. The rich have more spare money to use to make money, and they are much better at the financial skills involved in accumulating money.

However another simple fact is that this is bad. The degree of social inequality in a society correlates with all sorts of undesirable outcomes, and in addition there's the moral point that what a person deserves in life is not entirely accounted for by their choice of parents, choice of early home environment and choice of financial skills.

So to keep a capitalist society healthy in the long term we need some means, preferably a fair and equitably applied one, of redistributing some money back down from the rich to everybody else. (Not all of it, obviously, that wouldn't work out too well). An inheritance tax is ideal because it deprives absolutely nobody of money that they have earned and it gets everybody in the end. Increasing marginal income tax is pretty good too.

 

[mr rosewater]

Pfff.



I recommend this whole thread dies or is split up into all the different issues that people talk about past each other.

Well how about you when you get a job and earn your own money. Support yourself and see what it's like.

 

[The Painter]

As for the inheritance tax that Bush successfully labeled the "death tax", giving the advantage to historically wealthy people,

It is a death tax. This is money that taxes have already been paid. Tax it again because of death? No that's wrong. Getting rid of the death tax helps the middle class, not the mega rich. The " historically wealthy" ,like the Kennedys, have had no problem getting around the inheritance laws with various trust and other loopholes.

 

[Texas]

The reason why an inheritance tax is a very good thing isn't that people don't "deserve" the money their parents stashed away during their lives, or that their parents shouldn't have the "right" to give it to their kids or whatever other way the economically privileged prefer to frame the matter.

The simple fact is that over long periods of time in a capitalist system wealth tends to accumulate more and more in the top end of society, all else being equal. The rich have more spare money to use to make money, and they are much better at the financial skills involved in accumulating money.

However another simple fact is that this is bad. The degree of social inequality in a society correlates with all sorts of undesirable outcomes, and in addition there's the moral point that what a person deserves in life is not entirely accounted for by their choice of parents, choice of early home environment and choice of financial skills.

So to keep a capitalist society healthy in the long term we need some means, preferably a fair and equitably applied one, of redistributing some money back down from the rich to everybody else. (Not all of it, obviously, that wouldn't work out too well). An inheritance tax is ideal because it deprives absolutely nobody of money that they have earned and it gets everybody in the end. Increasing marginal income tax is pretty good too.

Wow. You have been berated on this thread for not feeling rich on 250K per year and a few have rightfully defended your argument but now, you are advocating that some folks that have more than you should not be allowed to hand down their money to their families upon their deaths. Ether you accept that the majority on this thread are right and that you are "rich" or you should be honest enough to admit that when it isn't your ox being gored you are not averse to soaking the rich too.

 

[Texas]

It is a death tax. This is money that taxes have already been paid. Tax it again because of death? No that's wrong. Getting rid of the death tax helps the middle class, not the mega rich. The " historically wealthy" ,like the Kennedys, have had no problem getting around the inheritance laws with various trust and other loopholes.

That's what many on this thread cannot understand, that money has already been taxed. It will continue to be taxed once it is inherited but it feels so much better to the envious to just take it in one big gulp to punish the "trust fund" babies.

 

[gdnp]

No but they do favor retirees that depend on dividends for retirement income very few of who are rich.

Actually, if you look at wealth distribution by age, the elderly do pretty well. The table on this web site is based on 1998 data, but show that at that time the wealthiest age groups, in order of median wealth, were those in their 60's. Sorry about the formatting. Check the link.

The Distribution of Wealth, by Age Group (dollar figures in thousands)
Age Group Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Median
80 or older $2,957.8 $ 693.0 $440.0 $252.2 $118.0
70-79 $4,338.1 $1,074.5 $703.4 $316.5 $140.9
60-69 $6,263.4 $1,850.2 $902.8 $356.7 $155.8
50-59 $5,791.7 $1,410.6 $708.8 $326.7 $120.9
40-49 $3,402.7 $ 829.0 $531.6 $226.8 $ 86.2
30-39 $1,210.1 $ 451.1 $267.5 $127.4 $ 34.7
20-29 $ 383.3 $ 148.2 $78.3 $ 25.4 $ 5.2
Source: The VIP Forum, Corporate Executive Board, 1998 data

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/scottburns/columns/2002/stories/041302dnbusburns.807a4.html

 

[mr rosewater]

The reason why an inheritance tax is a very good thing isn't that people don't "deserve" the money their parents stashed away during their lives, or that their parents shouldn't have the "right" to give it to their kids or whatever other way the economically privileged prefer to frame the matter.

The simple fact is that over long periods of time in a capitalist system wealth tends to accumulate more and more in the top end of society, all else being equal. The rich have more spare money to use to make money, and they are much better at the financial skills involved in accumulating money.

However another simple fact is that this is bad. The degree of social inequality in a society correlates with all sorts of undesirable outcomes, and in addition there's the moral point that what a person deserves in life is not entirely accounted for by their choice of parents, choice of early home environment and choice of financial skills.

So to keep a capitalist society healthy in the long term we need some means, preferably a fair and equitably applied one, of redistributing some money back down from the rich to everybody else. (Not all of it, obviously, that wouldn't work out too well). An inheritance tax is ideal because it deprives absolutely nobody of money that they have earned and it gets everybody in the end. Increasing marginal income tax is pretty good too.

So, good people pay taxes on this money and when they die they wish to pass it to a family member and the government should impose some sort of additional tax is that it? By what right?

 

[SezMe]

... if used by politicians with an agenda.

Accusing people of having an agenda has become so hackneyed. Texas, do you know of ANY politician that doesn't have an agenda? In fact, speaking personally, I WANT my representatives to have an agenda. What the hell good is it to be a politician if you don't have an agenda that you think would improve the country?

/rant

 

[Texas]

Actually, if you look at wealth distribution by age, the elderly do pretty well. The table on this web site is based on 1998 data, but show that at that time the wealthiest age groups, in order of median wealth, were those in their 60's. Sorry about the formatting. Check the link.

The Distribution of Wealth, by Age Group (dollar figures in thousands)
Age Group Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Median
80 or older $2,957.8 $ 693.0 $440.0 $252.2 $118.0
70-79 $4,338.1 $1,074.5 $703.4 $316.5 $140.9
60-69 $6,263.4 $1,850.2 $902.8 $356.7 $155.8
50-59 $5,791.7 $1,410.6 $708.8 $326.7 $120.9
40-49 $3,402.7 $ 829.0 $531.6 $226.8 $ 86.2
30-39 $1,210.1 $ 451.1 $267.5 $127.4 $ 34.7
20-29 $ 383.3 $ 148.2 $78.3 $ 25.4 $ 5.2
Source: The VIP Forum, Corporate Executive Board, 1998 data

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/scottburns/columns/2002/stories/041302dnbusburns.807a4.html

For Pete's sake the reason they are statistically more well of is that they have spent 40 years in the labor market and some have been able to save enough to invest which at retirement is manifested in dividend income. I pay taxes on 85% of my SS because I have investment income in excess of a certain limit plus taxes on the dividend income I make. The dividend tax reductions affect millions of non-rich people in this country. The scary part is that with boomers less that 40% even have a 401k to supplement their social security when the retire. They will also be the largest voting bloc so hold on to your wallets cause boomers are going to demand increased social security benefits big time.