Obama supports abortion including post birth abortion (against Catholic teachings).
He never should have been invited to ND. Shame on ND
Students To Walk Out During Commencement
- Thread starter irish4life888
- Start date
He never should have been invited to ND. Shame on ND
I still would like your answer why republicans are the bad guys. I do not take a radical nun serious. She speaks in generalities and that's way too easy. I'm looking for actual data, proof, that republicans don't care about children after they are born.
Why ? You are not going to acknowledge anything you don't t agree with. It's my opinion. Don t like it ? Too bad.
It never ceases to amaze me that when poor people receive some form of assistance from the government, it's always a "handout", but when rich people do, such assistance, of course, is never a "handout".
You made a definitive statement and I wanted to know what facts you used to back it up. Now you say it was just an opinion. An opinion skewed by a political view no less. The nun you sourced also used her opinion as fact with zero to back it up. An opinion skewed by a political view. If you have cold hard facts that republicans don't care about babies after they are born, then I'm all ears.
Where are your facts that they do ? You have not countered my opinion with anything to the contrary. Discount the nun
all you like. I thought she was spot on.
And just what are those tax breaks for the wealthy and how does that affect you or someone on welfare? "Tax breaks for the wealthy" is a talking point when most can't even explain what it is.
"Tax breaks for the wealthy" is a comical liberal talking point that they have been using for decades. Every fair & equitable tax decrease, from a monetary basis, as opposed to percentage basis, impacts most those who pay the most in taxes. It's not rocket science. But it's a great tool for misleading the masses who don't have the time nor inclination to try and understand how it really works.
Geez, so vulgar. We were counting on your relocation to the USC and Stanford boards.
twalsh, that is not entirely true. There are three basic types of "tax breaks for the wealth." The first, and most common, is to reduce the tax rate for the wealthy. The most recent tax plan proposed by the Republicans does this and is completely contradictory to what Trump campaigned for. Tax rate reductions are appropriate for the middle class but not the uber-wealthy. I would agree that reducing the tax rate on active income, as opposed to passive income, might be acceptable except for the excessive compensation package for top executives.
Secondly, there are deductions. Allowing mortgage interest deductions on vacation homes benefits only the wealthy. There are numerous other deductions, including those for real estate investors, that only benefit the wealthy.
Finally, there is the death tax. The federal exemption currently is $5,000,000 which means that anyone who dies and passes $5,000,000 or less on to their heirs suffers no tax consequences. Trump and the Republicans want to get rid of the death tax. That only favors the weak (such as Trump) who's net worth is in excess of $5,000,000. I don't know about you, but my net worth is a hell of a lot less than $5,000,000.
These are the tax breaks that most people are talking about and there is nothing misleading about it.
Two things. Who gets to decide if tax breaks for anyone are appropriate or not appropriate? And what is the rationale for those who favor the "death tax"? Why should wealth that is accumulated net of taxes over a lifetime be taxed again upon your death. I think the only real rationale is that those people can afford it, which is a totally bogus rationale for any tax policy.
As to death taxes, our country has always been based on the concept of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. We have not, for the most part, been based upon generational wealth, although there have been exceptions, i.e, the Roosevelts, the Vanderbilts, etc. The question is whether we want people to be wealthy because of the work of prior generations or because of their own hard work.
Please remember that wealth is not an individual effort. Those who become wealthy do so, in part, because of the infrastructure of the nation (schools, transportation, public safety, military, etc.) Certainly the public benefits from such wealth throughout income taxation but I believe that it is better for the common good to not allow great wealth to be passed down to often undeserving generations. For example, what has Paris Hilton contributed to society to deserve her great inherited wealth? There are countless examples of younger generations that live a luxurious lifestyle because of the hard work of their ancestors. I'm a liberal so I believe that the general public, rather than the entitled few, should get that wealth.
As to what is appropriate for tax breaks, it is our representatives in Congress who have to make those decisions and to be answerable to the constituents for the decisions they make.
I apologize for being a bit wordy here as this really isn't the proper forum for this type of discussion but you posed some intelligent questions and positions and I was just trying to respond in kind.
This is easily the best post I have seen on the board all week. Love the content. Laughed very hard. Still am giggling about it... God damn this was great.
Twalsh,
Many years ago when I was a teacher working two jobs to make ends meet, the Democrats passed
A tax on the rich. Surprise ! surprise ! surprise ! I was now , accourding to the Democrats " one of the rich !
You should have worked less and received more handouts according to the tards on this board.
As I have stated on other posts, I think the IRS should be eliminated because it is an Organization
That can and has been used for political purposes. I would much rather see a Consumption type of tax.
Be that as it may, under the current IRS system, the uber rich do not pay an inheritance tax, because
They hire the world's best tax lawyers and have all their estate in Trusts ,Foundations , tax havens
Spread all over the world, etc.
In short, the "Rich" are not going to pay any death taxes ! Their teams of lawyers and accountants
are just too smart !
That can and has been used for political purposes. I would much rather see a Consumption type of tax.
Be that as it may, under the current IRS system, the uber rich do not pay an inheritance tax, because
They hire the world's best tax lawyers and have all their estate in Trusts ,Foundations , tax havens
Spread all over the world, etc.
In short, the "Rich" are not going to pay any death taxes ! Their teams of lawyers and accountants
are just too smart !
Last edited:
He thinks he's the epitome of compassion as long as it's someone else's money then he's all in. I believe it's called " cheap grace".
All taxes are designed to hurt and inhibit the growth of the middle class
Because you don't believe in individual private property rights. You see private property as ill gotten gains and a corrupt distribution goods. When what it is the natural result of the exercise of free rights. Equal rights are legally guaranteed but equal results are not. If your egalitarianism is so sincere why don't you relocate to the workers paradise known as Venezuela
Who said that I didn't believe in individual private property? Private property is not ill gotten gains (presumably) but what I am talking about is the passing of multi-generational wealth. C'mon DublinND, if you are going to try and engage in intellectual discourse, try using your intellect and address the issues raised.
Duck and BGI,
Here is a question for both of you. I will State my goal and views first. Since I am now up in years,
I have been trying to get all my affairs in order, and to be as productive as I can with the time that I have left
Before God calls me.
Over the last year, I have set up a " Dynasty Trust " " Perpetual " Trust ". I have now placed most of my assets ,home, investments, bank accounts, etc into that trust. I have set it up in such a way that It will provide income and growth in Perpertuity to all current and future beneficiaries. The trust income not only goes to my blood descendants but also to a number of my favorite charities.
Just another point, the Trust is nowhere near being a large one ( it is no larger than a modest will would be ) but I have invested in a number of bonds for income, Blue chip stock for income and steady growth, and a number of small stocks in " Cutting edge technologies" that I believe will eventually add explosive growth to the trust over time.
In short, I am planting a small seed that I believe will grow into a hugh plant over time.
Question: assuming that my family trust grows like I believe it will, why can the Government
Spend the money in the Trust better than my beneficiaries can ?
As the Trust grows and income is taken, the future beneficiaries must still pay tax on that income.
Whatever money that they spend after taxes will still go back into the economy also helping to create
Jobs directly or indirectly?
Why do I not have the right to build this " memorial " to my wife and myself and to have my
Descendants reap the benefits there from ?
Why can a government official use the assets in that a Trust ( to benefit society ) than my beneficiaries can ?
Last edited:
The Estate tax is the same as any other tax. It occurs when there is a transfer of money or material goods from one party to another. You buy a car, there is tax collected. You collect a pay check, there is a tax collected. You die and the estate is transferred to other(s), there is a tax collected.
No one likes paying taxes but collecting them after one is dead is IMO the best time. Also, we long abandoned ruling through kings and family lines. Allowing families to "rule" through the centuries via inheritance is counter to the ideal of a meritocracy.
rgc, read Ivan Brunetti's comment above, he articulates the position much better than I can.
I read it but he is not correct ! He is mixing sales tax and income tax with inheritance tax. There are different laws
rates and thresholds for all three of them.
Trusts also have laws specifically dedicated to Trusts, so Ivan is mixed them all into one type of tax.
He uses the word Democracy, but we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic !
However, more importantly we are a Free Market Economy, so even though , as, I believe , you stated in another tread, estates under $5,000,000 are not subjected to income tax. So either way, Trust or not,
I am nowhere close that figure.
Ivan seems to favor Socialism which in its true form rewards the productive and the unproductive
Evenly.
I favor rewarding success and giving every one equal opportunity to succeed !
So Ivan and I can never agree on his points.
Last edited:
rgc, a tax is a tax. They may tax different aspects of income and/or property and they may have different rates (and different exemptions, deductions, offsets, etc.) but they are still all forms of taxes. We are, in fact, a republic but we are also a community. That means that to a certain extent (and not to the extreme of socialism), we share in benefits and expenses of being a community. We all benefit from national defense and police/fire protection and public education.
I am, at heart, a capitalist in that everyone should be encouraged to work hard and, if they do so successfully, they should reap the rewards of that hard work. That does not necessarily mean that people, several generations down, should reap those same rewards without any of the work or sacrifice.
That is such bullshit. What makes you think the Government would do any better things with those tax dollars? I would rather have Paris Hilton spending her families money. At least her spending would be taxable.
Last edited:
Similar threads
