Keep it Civil gentlemen

life insurance? So PaulS in that story should have had life insurance to offset the government stealing his $? WTF!

an oh, by the way -


Section 2042 of the Internal Revenue Code states that the value of life insurance proceeds insuring your life are included in your gross estate if the proceeds are payable: (1) to your estate, either directly or indirectly; or (2) to named beneficiaries, if you possessed any incidents of ownership (we'll discuss this more below) in the policy at the time of your death

You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die? Wow! What an incentive to work hard and provide for your family.

the majority paul dont give a F becuase they wont make that mych money and could care less if the f the rich. thats EXACLTY whats happening now with your O buddy - you know, the millionaires who make 250K a year! THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT OF THE TAX BURDEN THE REST OF THE COUNRTY IMPOSES ON THEM!!

if the majority are not being robbed, why should they care?

Oh, Its Robbery....55% is rediculous

thats just fed, does not include state
but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!

Unfortunately it is in fact everybody. The top 1% generally Have tax shelters and living trusts etc. set up to avoid these estate taxes. The actual estate owner technically does not own the estate. In general all of the physical holdings are part of a corporate trust. Therefore the only thing subject to estate taxes are liquid assets.

The top 1% pay the bare minimum of taxes to avoid government Inquiry. Obama and his cronies know this. Making promises of increasing taxes on the top 1% earners is simply pandering to people who Do not understand and will never have to understand. People are within the top 1% in earnings in the country for a reason. They know how to make money and they know how to keep it. Their annual income reported is just the tip of the iceberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.

Well, if you put it that way......

This has been brought up a few times before as if it means something. Perhaps it does. Supposedly, by those who bring it up, it means something like the red states are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off of the blue states and need the Fed to redistribute the "more back" or they would not be able to survive. Ergo, they should quit complaining about state's rights and government redistribution and individual freedom and all that nonsense. It even implies more, that those in the red states are not as competent as those in the blue, that they are somehow backward and a drag on the country. It even implies that red states are the welfare queens that so many of their people rail against.

But that is, in my opion, a shallow, narrow, one-sided, false interpretation of the meaning. The "more back" is not some blank check. It is not a gift. Nor would the states collapse without it. On the whole, the states would do well enough if they could reverse the rates of taxation so that they could collect the federal rates and the fed was limited to the average state rates. Even more so if they didn't have to spend much of the "more back" as well as their own to fulfill central government mandates. If it were up to them to decide social policies as was intended, they could fit those policies to their fiscal realities and to their social values. And they would have to be more responsible to their citizens desires than a far-off and irresponsible government with pockets that exceeds it's income.

And most of that "more back" is given to individuals not to the states. The money may be spent by those individuals in the state or in other states or countries. More and more is spent on internet purchases. And money such as social security and medicare and welfare receipts are given to some who reside in states other than in which they earned those receipts. And that "more back" is a way to create dependency on the central government, especially for things that should be decided at state levels. It is as much coersion as it is beneficence.

The "more back" is a red herring that draws attention away from the direction of our system of government.

Agree however When compared to their actual wealth...... They make on average hundred and 25 times more money than we do the middle class. That is strictly taxable income. Other holdings which are not necessarily taxable. Add to their net worth. Is kind of what I was getting at.

Those holdings if the property of a trust. Are only taxed it turned into cash (Simply stated I realize) Or income is gained from them. In individual could own $100 million worth of property Through a trust. Then consider themselves an employee of the trust Getting an income from management fees etc. The property is rented at say $45 million a year. Your management employment fees somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.5 million a year. Taxes and insurance 25 million a year. Expenses etc. right down the line. The truck showed a profit of two $3 million a year. You take home for your management fees etc.$1 million a year. Your vehicle is taken care of by the trust. Your life insurance is guaranteed by the trust. There is 1 million ways to get paid without actually taking a check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's true and makes one scratch their head when the Dems say they won't budge on resolving the so-called fiscal cliff unless the rich pay their "fair" share.

But I think there is something to what Jackbass is saying. Unless there is a way to remove the loopholes that are beneficial to the rich, raising the tax rate on their income will have no effect. 100% of the zero that is paid on loophole hidden income is still zero. The compromise the Repubs are proposing--keeping the rates the same but closing loopholes--makes more sense if the goal is raising government revenue. Lowering the upper rates with removal of loopholes would make even more sense. It would encourage the rich to pay the lower rates and would not have a negative effect on business.

I don't know if you guys have noticed but it's not the 1% any more..it's the 2% now...:uhuh:

Insight News

Demonstrators want to end Bush tax cuts for richest 2%, to protect working families
Monday, 12 November

A group of over forty Minnesotans representing the Americans for Tax Fairness coalition, and including representatives of SEIU, TakeAction Minnesota, Minnesotans for a Fair Economy, ISAIAH and CTUL, demonstrated in downtown Minneapolis this morning calling for an end to the Bush Tax Cuts and tax breaks for big corporations. The demonstration coincided with the first week of the congressional lame-duck session where a budget showdown looms.

Cliff Martin, a first-time voter and high school senior from Northfield, told the crowd that the time is now to make sure people are protected, not wealthy CEOs and corporations. "On Tuesday, I voted for a fair economy," he shouted. "It's time the richest who've benefitted the most over the past decade start paying their fair share." Martin supports a corporate tax reform plan that raises substantial revenue from those who have extracted billions from the American economy.

Those rallying marched on Nicollet Mall and through the skyway system, urging Congress to end tax cuts for the richest 2%, those that make more than $250,000 per year. To chants of "They never pay the taxes they owe. The money always goes to the CEO!" marchers headed into U.S. Bancorp's downtown headquarters, then over to Verizon and into Macy's department store.

if it doesn't belong to you and you take it or you empower someone else to take it against the will of the owner...it's robbery...you just have ways to justify it in your head and you don't care because it doesn't belong to you :uhuh:

I think the exemption this year is $5,000,000 so I think there is $0 tax in your example above. Also, the death benefit is not taxable to the beneficiary. The ownership that they are talking about in your example above is the ownership of the policy. So if the estate owns the policy, the estate will have to pay tax on the cash value of the policy. If the beneficiary (in this case the 2 kids) owns the policy, they don't have to pay taxes on the cash value when Paul dies. And if I'm correct on the exemption, the ins. will only increase the benefits to the heirs.

Why wouldn't I care - we're talking about taxes. I have to pay taxes like everyone else.

Just because the majority doesn't consider it robbery, doesn't mean it's not robbery. A majority doesn't, in and of itself, imply righteousness. I point you to days when the majority thought slavery was OK, or when a majority thought the Holocaust was OK.

If you take a poll of 6 robbers and 4 victims, and ask them if robbery should be OK, what result would you expectf?

Obama, and the media, have successfully fooled a majprity of voters that our economic problems are, in some meaningful way, due to the fcat that wealthy don't "pay their fair share".

Fine. I hope the GOP rolls over and lets this Mao-ist run wild with his lefty agenda. That way, when the inevitable collapse happens, no one will be able to claim that it wasn't caused by liberalism.

Pure, unchecked liberalism has worked so well in CT, why wouldn't we want to extrapolate that mess to the whole country? CT's economy is an absolute, unmitigated disaster. And it doesn't get any more purely liberal than here in my state, has been that way for a generation. No one sees a connection between those 2 things. Unbelievable.

I heard a woman on the radio this week. She was a liberal. She used to live in New York, but she couldn't afford the taxes and cost of living, so she moved to Florida, which has lower taxes and a much lower cost of living. She doesn't like how conservative Florida is, so she suppports liberalism in Florida. Liberalism forced her to move across the country, and now she wants to infest Florida with the same disease, and she sees nothing ironic or stupid with that.

You can't cure stupid.

Where in NY did she live? What did she do for a job? Did she move to Florida because of a job offer? Family?

Your stories are about as valid as the National Inquirer.

"Did she move to Florida because of a job offer? Family? "

Did you read my post? I specifically said that she moved to FL because the cost of living was too high in New York.

Sorry if I was going too fast for you.

actually we don't...we don't decide tax policy and most other issues by majority vote, the "majority" decides the election of representatives and local issues...we elect representatives who hash those other things out, supposedly in our interest...maybe you missed that part of civics class....if we decided tax policy etc. on a vote by vote basis and everyone actually voted and Americans actually paid their taxes directly rather than having them deducted or disguised in fees and the like I imagine things would be quite different...

you support taxes specifically targeting the incomes and property of others in order to increase funding for a government that is not only bloated and inefficient and operating well beyond what it was ever intended to but cannot seem to pass a budget and apparently has no intention of curbing growth and scope of it's already indebted programs....you don't care becasue in this case it likely doesn't affect you...it won't solve any problems but apparently makes you feel better


as for the majority deciding what is robbery and what isn't and majority rule....can we look at these exit polls: :)

National exit polls conducted on election day found 26 percent of voters wanted the law(Obamacare) expanded, 18 percent want it left as-is, 27 percent wanted to repeal some of the law and 25 percent wanted to repeal all of it.

can't help yourself, can you? :confused:

Paul, for what purpose did you post that link? I was not there, if that's what you were implying. And if your point is to show that there are racists out there, I have never heard anyone deny that. But you are correct, there are racists out there.

Paul, can I ask you an honest question? Can you show me some numbers to support Obama's claim that raising taxes on the wealthy will put a meaningful dent in our debt?

My opinion (and I have shown numbers to support this), is that any revenue generated by tax hikes is utterly meaningless in the face of our debt. I can provide those again if you'd like.

I keep hearing about the importance of "the wealthy paying their fair share". I just want to know what value that adds. I'm a numbers guy, and I am rational, and persuadable.

Just using his convoluted thought process to show him how stupid many of his posts are.

Paul
Are you a black man ?





Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

every time I see that Raider Ronnie has posted I start hearing Warren Zevon's "Excitable Boy" in my head...:rotf2: he cracks me up

dude...what's up with the defense :confused:

No, he can't. He has learned that when someone uses facts to back him into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape, his last play is the race card. As you know, it's a common tactic, and it always indicates defeat and humiliation on the part of the accuser.

I say Obama is wrong-headed when he claims that tax hikes of $90 billion a year are the way to manage debt of $60 trillion, including SS and Medicare shortfalls. I say $90 billion a year is utterly meaningless when compared to $60 trillion in debt. And to Paul, that makes me a racist.

Makes sense.

Unlike Obama and PaulS, I have an understanding of third grade arithmetic. In Paul's mind, that makes me a racist.

Yes, why?

No, whenever you see something you don't like in what you assume is a liberal, you start attributing that behavior to all liberals. In fact, John has had to ask you to stop doing that many times - sort of like how you try to teach a 7 year old. So it is the same thing - there were a bunch of cons. in Miss. who were yelling racists things about the elect. Your a cons. therefore, your a racist. See how I've used your convoluted thought process to label you a racist?

This is done.....


Embargo ON