Cynical Nation

It's obviously a Rovian plot- which the left has neatly fallen into. Can you say "predictable"?

The hatred for "the rich" is to put it in the nicest possible way, retarded.

It is based on the most simplistic economic fallacy, "the fixed economic pie" - "There's only a set amount of money in the economy and every rich person is taking far more than their fair share and thus CAUSING the plight of many poor people."

That's an idea that only an idiot could embrace.

The more malevolent part of the Liberal philosophy is the championing, NOT of "the poor," but of dependancy programs that employ mostly Liberal government functionaries.

For instance, the Minimum Wage law does not "help the working poor," most of whom make more than the minimum wage and it doesn't help those in the food service industry, nor produce pickers, who are exempted from the Minimum Wage law.

In fact, what the minimum wage does is to eradicate "on-the-job training" positions, by making them more costly than they are worth.

One area I've always disagreed with Libertarians on is the "anything that's peaceful" crap, first espoused by Leonard Read in the 1950s.

Anything that's peaceful?

That's NOT freedom/Liberty, it's LICENSE!

I was drawn to the free market by a fervent anti-communalism (anti-Communism, anti-socialism, etc.).

It has always been my belief that America CANNOT allow a socialist economy to thrive anywhere on earth, even in a South Seas island where fruit falls freely from the trees, or in some oil rich nation that can afford to give all its citizens a basic "living wage" from those oil profits.

WHY?

Because that one example would encourage the moonbats here to want the same and in so doing, to erode the work-ethic here even more.

NEED/deprivation is the primary motivator for work. After all, who'd willingly do all the back-breaking work that needs to get done, if not for deprivation?

If anything, America has bought too much into that inane premise. Where we should be undermining the Chavez regime even more overtly and sliming those proponents of communalism here in the U.S., we've backed away from that unsavory task.

We've become too squeamish.

The main problem I have with Liberals in general is their support for government dependancy programs. The reason that Social Work attracts so many Liberals is because it is largely peopled with (and no offense to your wife) lots of College educated (MSWs), but naive and largely common-senseLESS people. It's a field that allows even those with almost ZERO common-sense to feel they're better than the poor they over-see, when in many cases, they have far less common-sense and far less honed survival skills.

The poor are generally a pretty resourceful lot, it's the bureaucrats that are not.

why not then just intro a bill increasing the minimum wage? Would have made things a lot simpler and gotten the thing passed.

Faced with the choice of increased and tax cut or no increase, I would have gone with the former. I do think it's weird (and obviously that whole attempt at politics make strange bedfellows thing gone wrong) that the two were linked, but sometimes you have to just suck it up. Although, I have to say, that the junior senator from PA should probably just shush. Because anything he supports seems squicky to me.

Speaking of squicky. I did warn you!

The Democrats finally grow a pair, and Rove has failed both to enrich the mega-wealthy core constituancy of Bush or to help the moderate Republics who are losing their re-election bids.

The "Death" Tax is the only thing that stands between our current partial Democracy and the Plutocracy that Bush & Co. want to create.

Paris Hilton doesn't really need a tax break. The idle rich, who almost uniformly inherited fortunes that were made illegally, or at the very least unethically, do far more damage than terrorists ever did to this country, year after year.

JMK forgot to mention Corporate Welfare, which sends middle class tax dollars directly to mega-rich corporations. They don't pay in, they take out, literally.

JMK forgets to mention that "offshore" tax havens are allowing allegedly American corporations to avoid TRILLIONS of dollars in taxes, paying almost nothing. Who picks up the tab? Middle class America. Can you create an offshore tax haven -- no. Can you file bankrupcy to avoid paying creditors -- no. Too bad, you should have been born a rich corporation.

Rove has failed. Everyone saw through the cynical ploy, and trying to use "The Democrats voted against a minimum wage hike!" this election will only result in even more of a backlash, as rube America finally catches on to cynical Republican strategies.

As if paying off the mega-wealthy directly was not enough, Republicans also had to hypocritically try to override the will of west coast voters by trumping their minimum wage protection for people who WAIT TABLES! Ooooh, those overpaid waiters! They were draining the country dry!

What happened to State's Rights? LOL! Republicans don't give a crap about all that BS. It's all about earning those big corporate bribes!

It is CORPORATIONS who are dependent on the government, not individuals. It is CORPORATE welfare, and CORPORATE Nanny State protection, and CORPORATE tax cheating that is destroying the country, not the minimum wage.

How many restaurants went out of business on the west coast because of the State passed minimum wage laws?

None.

Please, save your bullshit.

> Paris Hilton doesn't really need a tax break.

Predictable. I'm sorry, but it's a poor political argument that relies on one of the co-stars of "A Simple Life" for justification.

BH said: "Paris Hilton doesn't really need a tax break."

And neither do her parents. They -- or more precisely, their lawyers and accountants -- have long since worked out how they're going to avoid any taxes they don't want to pay. Paris Hilton and her charming, but oft forgotten, sister are set for life regardless of what the IRS has to say about the matter.

BH said: "The idle rich, who almost uniformly inherited fortunes that were made illegally, or at the very least unethically, do far more damage than terrorists ever did to this country, year after year."

Ouuuuu...wrong, BH. Almost half of the U.S.'s approximately 2,270,000 millionaires, 1,100,000 (not quite half) are self made, according to the Wall Street Journal, and they oughta know.

"The "Death" Tax is the only thing that stands between our current partial Democracy and the Plutocracy that Bush & Co. want to create.

"Paris Hilton doesn't really need a tax break. The idle rich, who almost uniformly inherited fortunes that were made illegally, or at the very least unethically, do far more damage than terrorists ever did to this country, year after year."

WoW!

You have a virtually perfect record of NOT understanding a single issue you pontificate about.

That's actually rather astounding, when you think about it.

The H-1B Visas exploded from under 50,000 at the end of 1992 to over 900,000 by 2001, the limit was brought down from a high of 195,000/year to its original 65,000/year BY the current administration, Islamo-fascism is indeed a much bigger (global) and more credible threat to the world that was Nazi Germany was some sixty years ago...and the "Death Tax" DOES NOT impact the likes of Paris Hilton, nor any of the very wealthy.

Foundations and Trust Accounts can be set up by ANYONE with large enough holdings and is certainly worth it for anyone with an eight-figure and up fortune, in fact, probably for anyone with over a mid-seven figure largesse.

The Inheritance Tax is specifically directed at those people WITHOUT large enough fortunes to protect via Trusts and Foundations, just as the Income tax is aimed specifically at productivity (work) NOT wealth.

Only 51% of Americans pay an Income Tax and virtually none of the truly wealthy rely on income for their wealth.

I keep holding out hope that one of these days you'll eventually get an issue right.

So far, NO, but hope does spring eternal!

JMK, I can't decide if you are a practiced liar like Rush Limbaugh, or just retarded.

---

Proponents of the estate tax argue that it serves to prevent the perpetuation of wealth, free of tax, in wealthy families and that it is necessary to a system of progressive taxation. Proponents point out that the estate tax affects only estates of considerable size (presently, over $2 million USD, and over $4 million USD for couples) and provides numerous credits (including the unified credit) that allow a significant portion of even large estates to escape taxation. Regarding the tax's effect on farmers, proponents counter that this criticism is misguided as there is an exemption built into the law that is specifically designed for family-owned farms.

Furthermore, supporters argue that many large fortunes do not represent taxed income or savings, that wealth is not being taxed but merely the transfer of that wealth, and that many large fortunes represent unrealized capital gains which (because of a step up in basis at the time of death) will never be taxed as capital gains under the federal income tax.

Proponents further argue that the estate tax serves to encourage charitable giving, one way in which individuals can avoid paying the tax. A 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office found that eliminating the estate tax would reduce charitable giving by 6-12 percent.

Another argument in favor of the estate tax relates to comparative incentives. Proponents argue that the estate tax is a better source of revenue than the income tax, which is said to directly disincentivize work. While all taxes have this effect to a degree, some argue that the Estate Tax is less of a disincentive since it does not tax money that the earner spends, but merely that which he or she wishes to give away for non-charitable purposes. Moreover, some argue that allowing the rich to bequeath unlimited wealth on future generations will disincentivize hard work in those future generations.

Proponents of the estate tax tend to object to characterizations that it operates as a double or triple taxation. They either note that such double and triple taxation is common (through income, property, and sales taxes, for instance), or argue that the estate tax should be seen as a single tax on the inheritors of large estates.

Some proponents of the estate tax also point to historical precedent for limiting inheritance. This is cited for the proposition that unlimited inheritance tends to destabilize societies, as well as that current generational transfers of wealth are greater than they have been historically.

OK, here's a big part of your problem - you seem to mistakenly think you're a Free Market advocate, but apparently, as usual, you really don't understand what the "Free Market" really is.

For starters, even attempting to "prevent the perpetuation of wealth is inherantly anti-free market, or anti-Capitalistic. It is, in essence, a call for the "eradication of private property."

It is, in fact, a basic tenet of Marxism.

So, by the way, is advocating "progressive taxation," or "workers controlling the means of production" (controlling access to the fields in which they work).

Apparently you read Marx's Das Kapital and mistook it for Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. But at any rate, simply calling Marxist principles "Free Market principles" doesn't make them so.

HINT: Karl MArx was NOT a pro-Free Market kind of guy.

The Estate Tax IS NOT directed at the truly wealthy.

Three kids who inherit their parents 250 acres of Warren County, New Jersey farmland (that land now worth around $100,000/acre, or about $25 Million) are not truly wealthy...at least not until such time as that land is sold.

And with zoning laws and other State & Local encumbrances, it's doubtful those heirs will receive anything close to the real value for that land.

THAT'S who's hit with the Estate Tax, NOT the Paris Hiltons, etc.

Anyone with real assetts (cash, stocks, bonds, etc) in exces of $5 Million or so, CAN and SHOULD immediately go to an attorney and a financial planner and set up a Trust account fund for their heirs.

That pretty much bypasses the whole "Death Tax" idea.

So, it shoudl be clear that the so-called "Estate Tax" is NOT directed at people like the Hiltons, the Gates' or the any of the super-rich...nor should it be. I'm NOT advocating that it should.

After all, America was Founded on the principles of people like Thomsa Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith...it was founded on the principle of private property and huge fortumes have been a part of American life since its inception and without incident.

Again, there is neither any NEED nor reason to now attempt to "prevent the perpetuation of wealth."

Now you got ONE thing pretty much right, "Proponents argue that the estate tax is a better source of revenue than the income tax, which is said to directly disincentivize work."

Yes, the Income Tax (now paid by only 51% of Americans) is a HUGE disincentive to work. But THAT'S an argument in favor of eradicating the Income Tax and switching to a Consumption Based tax (the NRST or "Fair Tax").

BUT THEN you go and ruin that moment by heading off in a completely wrong direction - "While all taxes have this effect to a degree, some argue that the Estate Tax is less of a disincentive since it does not tax money that the earner spends, but merely that which he or she wishes to give away..."

First off, ALL TAXES are NOT "disincentives to work." Consumption based taxes are disincentives to spending/consumption NOT work/productivity.

Second, since there are many obvious ways for the truly rich to avoid the Estate Tax (Trust Funds, Foundations, etc) its impact is deliberately dispropotionate upon those (A) not quite "rich enough" to for Trusts and Foundations and (B) those who are left "land rich" and all too often "cash poor."

"supporters argue that many large fortunes do not represent taxed income or savings..." (BH)
(BH)


Well thank God those "supporters" go un-named because that's not only wrong, but idiotic.

If Grandpa bought 1,000 shares of Exxon (then Esso) stock back in 1920, at $4/share and, through stock splits, etc, now leaves 1.6 million shares valued at $38/share, that $58.4 million in Exxon-Mobil stock is NOT "untaxed," nor an "unrealized Capital Gain" when transferred to an heir.

The Dividends on that stock portfolio were taxed throughout Gamp's life, as was the money he bought that stock with and the Capital Gain doesn't materialize UNTIL that stock is sold or "cashed out."

Same with Uncle Buck's 200 acres of NJ farmland, that he'd bought in 1938 for $28,000, now going for $80,000/acre! That $16 million of farmland is NOT an "untaxed assett" to Buck's heirs. There is NO Capital Gains tax due until such time as that land is sold.

That IS right and just.

A Capital Gains tax is due on stock and Real Estate holdings and that Cap Gains bite should be low (10%, currently it's 18%).

Marxists claim that the individual is owned by the State and thus doesn't and cannot really own anything, but merely "rents it" from the State for use during his/her life.

Those who believe in Liberty, the Free Market, America's Founders, Adam Smith, the contemporary Austrian School of Economics, all see the State as subservient to the individual (OK, to "the great individual," or high achievers, especially), they see government's roll as that of a "reluctant referee."

A support for the Free Market pretty much negates any support for Marxist principles, such as the reversion of private property (a/k/a "Wealth") back to the State, progressive taxation designed to make wealth creation more difficult, or worker's controlling the means of production (including access to the fields in which they work).

See? A belief in any of those last three things pretty much negates (that's "cancels out") any belief one would espouse for Free Markets.

People who support Liberty/freedom, support it precisely because "life is unfair." Hell, given that, Freedom/individualism is actually the most natural and thus nakedly "unfair" system one could espouse.

After all, how can the lethargic, unmotivated, unskilled, uneducated, emotionally disturbed and handicapped all compete with those who are gifted with both great ability and great desire/avarice?

In the vast majority of cases, they can't!

That's why deriders of the Free Market always assail its "celebration of greed." What they mistake as "greed," is LIBERTY, where everyone is forced to compete in a "come-as-you-are" economic free-for-all. It's not all about "winning and losing" it's about the freedom to compete on an equal level.

Thanks for repeated your deliberate lies, such as "poor farmers are hurt the most" ... LOL!

Can you read? Family farms are exempt.

"In TV and radio ads two conservative groups greatly overstate the burden that the federal estate tax puts on heirs to a family farm or business.

One ad claims the federal estate tax "can bury your family in crippling tax bills," which is untrue for nearly all of those who will see the ad, including the large majority of farm and business owners. Both ads claim the estate tax is a "double tax," which is only partly true, and mostly false when it comes to very wealthy families."

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

FACTCHECK.ORG, check your facts and stop repeated what Rush Limbaugh tells you for three hours a day.

Seriously, do you get paid to post all of your long-winded lies?

My above example is NOT about "family farms," but ANYONE who inherits land!

Those three kids in my above example have no desire to farm that land, nor sell it to anyone who would. That land is now far too valubale to farm! Developpers have made it so.

They intend to cash in, BUT the government assesses the Estate Tax on such people, upon their inheritance, well BEFORE that land is ever sold.

The basic right to private property insures that person A (be it Bill Gates or the Hiltons) have the right to pass on their private property (businesses, stocks, bonds, real estate, cash, etc) to whomever they choose.

Now, since you've only quibbled over the real estate issue I guess I can safely presume you have no issue with my primary example; "If Grandpa bought 1,000 shares of Exxon (then Esso) stock back in 1920, at $4/share and, through stock splits, etc, now leaves 1.6 million shares valued at $38/share, that $58.4 million in Exxon-Mobil stock is NOT "untaxed," nor an "unrealized Capital Gain" when transferred to an heir.

The Dividends on that stock portfolio were taxed throughout Gamp's life, as was the money he bought that stock with and the Capital Gain doesn't materialize UNTIL that stock is sold or "cashed out."

You and I have no rightful problem with the likes of Paris Hilton. Her family earned every penny she now enjoys and we both should say, "More power to her. I hope even more places pay her to wave at people."

Her lifestyle takes nothing away from you nor I, as the economy we all live in is NOT a "fixed pie."

That's why folks like us should really be very happy to know that various forms of Trusts and Foundations are routinely set up for those with large amounts of wealth.

Once again, and I hate to repeat myself, BUT "A support for the Free Market pretty much negates any support for Marxist principles, such as the reversion of private property (a/k/a "Wealth") back to the State, progressive taxation designed to make wealth creation more difficult, or worker's controlling the means of production (including access to the fields in which they work)."

You've claimed to support the Free Market, so act like it and stop supporting things like "wealth reverting back to the State once the original earner dies," and "workers controlling the means of production (access to their fields of endeavor)."

Those are Marxist principles and are diametrically opposed to the Free Market view, a/k/a today's "Austrian School of Economics."