Taxation and exemption policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Taxing a church is by definition double-taxation, correct?

Churches in the U.S. are completely funded by donation. If I go to work, earn some money, get half of it taxed, then give some of the half I was allowed to keep to a church, and the church gets taxed on that, how is that NOT double taxation?

If we're going to tax churches, I say we should do away with the concept of tax-exempt organizations all-together. Why should St. Francis's pay taxes on the donations it receives but a marxist one not?

---

A church is basically a business. Certain businesses conducting certain kinds of work (say, non profit, humanitarian causes, social care and services, charities, etc.) qualify for tax-exempt status.

What there is going on, increasingly, are big mega churches, or businesses posing as para-religious organizations, such as "Family Research Institutes" and other think tanks or research focus groups or lobbying organizations, which use being related to churches or being an outgrowth of churches, to basically meddle in government and act as lobbyists and not pay tax.

Personally, I don't think thinly veiled hate groups (almost anything with "Family" in the title with religious political agendas) should be operating within our political system and lobbying for legislation while enjoying tax-exempt status.

I have no problem with your local congregation church not paying tax. I do have a problem if all of you put your money into the church as political donations to ban lipstick or sex in movies and get a special tax status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

A church is basically a business. Certain businesses conducting certain kinds of work (say, non profit, humanitarian causes, social care and services, charities, etc.) qualify for tax-exempt status.

What there is going on, increasingly, are big mega churches, or businesses posing as para-religious organizations, such as "Family Research Institutes" and other think tanks or research focus groups or lobbying organizations, which use being related to churches or being an outgrowth of churches, to basically meddle in government and act as lobbyists and not pay tax.

Personally, I don't think thinly veiled hate groups (almost anything with "Family" in the title with religious political agendas) should be operating within our political system and lobbying for legislation while enjoying tax-exempt status.

I have no problem with your local congregation church not paying tax. I do have a problem if all of you put your money into the church as political donations to ban lipstick or sex in movies and get a special tax status.

---

Now here we more agree than disagree. You're talking about the ability of a religious body to act as a lobbying agent, and I agree with you, if that's what they're up to, tax them as such. But wouldn't other 'lobbying' organizations, like the Sierra Club qualify? Other than you support one and refute the other, personally, can you tell me why one should be tax exempt and the other should be taxable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Now here we more agree than disagree. You're talking about the ability of a religious body to act as a lobbying agent, and I agree with you, if that's what they're up to, tax them as such. But wouldn't other 'lobbying' organizations, like the Sierra Club qualify? Other than you support one and refute the other, personally, can you tell me why one should be tax exempt and the other should be taxable?

---

I disagree with disallowing any and all church tax exempt status. Only the ones meddling in government and not providing any sort of religious function whatsoever except trying to get "moral laws" passed. The Amish, or even Jehova's Witnesses, for instance-- churches pay no taxes, but neither do they put money towards legislation or trying to get religious laws passed. Fine by me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I disagree with disallowing any and all church tax exempt status. Only the ones meddling in government and not providing any sort of religious function whatsoever except trying to get "moral laws" passed. The Amish, or even Jehova's Witnesses, for instance-- churches pay no taxes, but neither do they put money towards legislation or trying to get religious laws passed. Fine by me.

---

If they want to spend money on that fine, called lobbying. Other religions like global warmingism and multiculturalism do the same and aren't excused but actually funded. Church isn't free from taxing that is a myth, they mostly get by with donations that have already been taxed, and it goes into seperate whatsitcalled that have to play by the same rules as any other business. They are only excused from paying over property rights when it comes to the land the church is placed on, that is hardly fair indeed, nobody should have to pay for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If they want to spend money on that fine, called lobbying. Other religions like global warmingism and multiculturalism do the same and aren't excused but actually funded. Church isn't free from taxing that is a myth, they mostly get by with donations that have already been taxed, and it goes into seperate whatsitcalled that have to play by the same rules as any other business. They are only excused from paying over property rights when it comes to the land the church is placed on, that is hardly fair indeed, nobody should have to pay for that.

---

..... this argument doesn't really deserve a response. When global warming is applying for tax-exempt status as a religion, come back and re-offer this one.

Correction, when a company selling solar roof panels is trying to get a law passed that all houses MUST have solar roof panels, and enjoys tax-exempt status as part of the "Church of Global Warming", you will actually have an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

..... this argument doesn't really deserve a response. When global warming is applying for tax-exempt status as a religion, come back and re-offer this one.

---

Why would they need one tax is what grows them fat, unlike churches that get by with donations.

Actually, Koga, the Sierra club DOES lobby for changes based off of mankind-induced global climate change, and they are tax exempt. Should they either be taxed or stop lobbying? Or is it okay for them to lobby and keep their tax exempt status?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Actually, Koga, the Sierra club DOES lobby for changes based off of mankind-induced global climate change, and they are tax exempt. Should they either be taxed or stop lobbying? Or is it okay for them to lobby and keep their tax exempt status?

---

I don't think anyone should be lobby for anything as a tax-exempt organization. I think the moment you want to step into the political process you should be taxed. But I would prefer (we're talking about plan B previously) to get rid of the huge influence of lobbying firms in the first place. It benefits corporations and the super rich way before it gets down to little old quaint ideas like alternative energy. Big tobacco, big guns, big oil, big wal mart... would rather crap it all out. If businesses want to be individuals in the eyes of the law, fine. Impose a $50 political donation cap on every individual in the country, businesses included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Taxing a church is by definition double-taxation, correct?

Churches in the U.S. are completely funded by donation. If I go to work, earn some money, get half of it taxed, then give some of the half I was allowed to keep to a church, and the church gets taxed on that, how is that NOT double taxation?

If we're going to tax churches, I say we should do away with the concept of tax-exempt organizations all-together. Why should St. Francis's pay taxes on the donations it receives but a marxist one not?

---

I'm OK with that. Sierra Club, Boy Scouts, VFW, Churches, are all voluntary memberships in voluntary organizations. Tax 'em (but no more than individual taxpayers are).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'm OK with that. Sierra Club, Boy Scouts, VFW, Churches, are all voluntary memberships in voluntary organizations. Tax 'em (but no more than individual taxpayers are).

---

Fair.

And if anyone is wondering what I meant in the fragmented quote I gave, I meant to say St. Francis soupkitchens versus Marxist ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Fair.

And if anyone is wondering what I meant in the fragmented quote I gave, I meant to say St. Francis soupkitchens versus Marxist ones.

---

I don't want to tax a church doing a soup kitchen. I just don't want them hiding behind "I'm a church, don't tax me" when they're paying a lobbyist $400,000 a year.

But yes, if we're talking about get rid of all tax exempt status, that's fine too. I'm not trying to selectively punish just certain groups. I'm just tired of all these loopholes in our systems and things which are, in fact, big corrupt business like mega churches, posing as something humanitarian for the tax benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Taxing a church is by definition double-taxation, correct?

Churches in the U.S. are completely funded by donation. If I go to work, earn some money, get half of it taxed, then give some of the half I was allowed to keep to a church, and the church gets taxed on that, how is that NOT double taxation?

If we're going to tax churches, I say we should do away with the concept of tax-exempt organizations all-together. Why should St. Francis's pay taxes on the donations it receives but a marxist one not?

---

Christian propaganda. America is a Navarosocracy. Yet its Christians squeak and whine as if they were about to be send to the lions in the Colosseum.


Gifts to charitable organisations are tax-deductible. Many charitable organisations are religious. And many religious organisations work under the cover of charity.

So churches are, in fact, doubly tax-exempt.

Whereas, If you go to work, earn some money, get half of it taxed, then use some of the half you were allowed to keep to buy food for your children - only to discover that this food is taxed as well - how is that not double taxation?

In other words, the American government subsides fat, rich churches, and pays for that by stealing the money meant to feed America's children. :drama1:

:tnt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Christian propaganda. America is a Navarosocracy. Yet its Christians squeak and whine as if they were about to be send to the lions in the Colosseum.


Gifts to charitable organisations are tax-deductible. Many charitable organisations are religious. And many religious organisations work under the cover of charity.

So churches are, in fact, doubly tax-exempt.

Whereas, If you go to work, earn some money, get half of it taxed, then use some of the half you were allowed to keep to buy food for your children - only to discover that this food is taxed as well - how is that not double taxation?

In other words, the American government subsides fat, rich churches, and pays for that by stealing the money meant to feed America's children. :drama1:

---

Oh yeah!?!? Well.... you're FRENCH!!!!

Seriously, you have a good point, though not as good as you think. Money you pay to a church is tax deductible (lowers your overall taxable income bracket, if there's enough of it), not tax exempt in the sense you think.

But I'm all about abolishing all forms of tax exemption. I'm a Fair Tax advocate myself.

P.S. Navaros is Candadian. You know, that big white land to our North that Europeans aren't actually intimidated by and jealous of? :tnt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

:tnt:
But I'm all about abolishing all forms of tax exemption. I'm a Fair Tax advocate myself.

---

Basically means rich right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Basically means rich right?

---

The rich don't deserve to pay any tax at all because they work hard to get where they are. IMO only the poor should be made to pay for public services, they are the only ones who use them anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Basically means rich right?

---

Do the rich get more government? No they just pay more for the same thing wether they make 60 or even 70 hours a week instead of the comfortable bliss that is a 40 hour week, nope that is not fair it's legalised theft and nothing more then that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do the rich get more government? No they just pay more for the same thing wether they make 60 or even 70 hours a week instead of the comfortable bliss that is a 40 hour week, nope that is not fair it's legalised theft and nothing more then that.

---

The rich benefit more from government.

You think poor people wanted the war in Iraq? You think poor people have the police respond quickest to their calls? Do poor people get the best school districts? The best libraries? The best local services? You think poor people lobbied for tax incentives for corporations to take jobs overseas? You think poor people voted to subsidize the oil industry? Do the poor get better medical care? Do they even get medical care? You think poor people serve less and get more out of what Americans in the military uniform do than the rich?

Don't give me this crap about how the rich are victims in our society. All that's been going on for the last 8 years is institutionalized corporate welfare, first with all the no-bid contracts paid for with taxpayer money off the budget, in Iraq, in Katrina, now the bailout. The rich are happy to take their tax cut, happy to outsource their business, and happy to bring those products back into the country, tarriff-free, and still charge the same price as if they'd made them here, paying higher wages, under stricter environmental and safety standards. They are also happy to sign themselves $18 million dollar CEO compensation packages for 3 weeks of work, as happened with 1 CEO for Washington Mutual, while big companies like Wal Mart pay employees minimum wage and encourage them to sign up for welfare.

The more you talk, Fragony, the more obvious it becomes you really don't know half as much about America as you think you do. We do NOT have a socialist system where everyone gets the same thing no matter if they work 40 or 60 hours... if that is your axe to grind with your country don't project it onto the U.S., it isn't accurate. We have the greatest disparity of wealth out of first world countries, our distribution of wealth compares more to third world countries and oligarchies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The rich don't deserve to pay any tax at all because they work hard to get where they are. IMO only the poor should be made to pay for public services, they are the only ones who use them anyway.

---

Anyone with even the most basic hard facts about how most people become wealthy in the United States would not argue this. The greatest indicator of one's future economic status is one's economic status at the time of their birth. Translation: if you are born rich, you will go forward to be rich. If you are born middle class, you will go forward to be middle class. Doing differently is a deviation, not a norm.

Does Paris Hilton work harder than your great-grandparents did when they got off whatever boat they got off? I doubt it. Yet somehow I am pretty sure your great-grandparents died without a lot of money, unless they were aristocracy or something. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Anyone with even the most basic hard facts about how most people become wealthy in the United States would not argue this. The greatest indicator of one's future economic status is one's economic status at the time of their birth. Translation: if you are born rich, you will go forward to be rich. If you are born middle class, you will go forward to be middle class. Doing differently is a deviation, not a norm.

Does Paris Hilton work harder than your great-grandparents did when they got off whatever boat they got off? I doubt it. Yet somehow I am pretty sure your great-grandparents died without a lot of money, unless they were aristocracy or something. ;)

---

I was only kidding, I just feel like spamming tonight. Check my political compass, I come about mid-left. It makes me the only Backroom ambassador for the Christian-left. Except maybe SwedishFish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I was only kidding, I just feel like spamming tonight. Check my political compass, I come about mid-left. It makes me the only Backroom ambassador for the Christian-left. Except maybe SwedishFish?

---

Sorry, it's hard to know sometimes when people are joking through text. ;) :laugh4: Is pretty much the only one I can spot most times, you are all pretty good actors when being sarcastic. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The rich benefit more from government.

You think poor people wanted the war in Iraq? You think poor people have the police respond quickest to their calls? Do poor people get the best school districts? The best libraries? The best local services? You think poor people lobbied for tax incentives for corporations to take jobs overseas? You think poor people voted to subsidize the oil industry? Do the poor get better medical care? Do they even get medical care? You think poor people serve less and get more out of what Americans in the military uniform do than the rich?

Don't give me this crap about how the rich are victims in our society. All that's been going on for the last 8 years is institutionalized corporate welfare, first with all the no-bid contracts paid for with taxpayer money off the budget, in Iraq, in Katrina, now the bailout. The rich are happy to take their tax cut, happy to outsource their business, and happy to bring those products back into the country, tarriff-free, and still charge the same price as if they'd made them here, paying higher wages, under stricter environmental and safety standards. They are also happy to sign themselves $18 million dollar CEO compensation packages for 3 weeks of work, as happened with 1 CEO for Washington Mutual, while big companies like Wal Mart pay employees minimum wage and encourage them to sign up for welfare.

The more you talk, Fragony, the more obvious it becomes you really don't know half as much about America as you think you do. We do NOT have a socialist system where everyone gets the same thing no matter if they work 40 or 60 hours... if that is your axe to grind with your country don't project it onto the U.S., it isn't accurate.

---

What makes you think I consider myselve to be an america expert, I admire it's mindset I wish we had that optimism here in the Netherlands. You can crash just as hard here and be poor, but define poverty, poverty is not being part of these selective few to you? About these high wages, if you make a lot of money for a company didn't you earn that money, slap that equality thought on that. We just aren't equal, some rock, some don't, everything else is nothing more then a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Basically means rich right?

---

Goodness, no. I should hope to be rich one day, but that's well in the future. It's got more to do with having a tax code I can actually understand.

I really truly believe in limited government, preferably at the local town-hall level. I live in the woods in New Hampshire, don't forget. We don't get government services, and we're not rich. But we do see a lot of our money going south to Boston to pay for one crazy scheme like ACORN after another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I was only kidding, I just feel like spamming tonight. Check my political compass, I come about mid-left. It makes me the only Backroom ambassador for the Christian-left. Except maybe SwedishFish?

---

Me and you can rule together, as father and- wait, wrong time.

Anyway, I'll gladly take that position if bestowed upon my person. (It'll also have something to add to my "Who the Hell are You?" profile).

All hail my Socialistic God! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What makes you think I consider myselve to be an america expert, I admire it's mindset I wish we had that optimism here in the Netherlands. You can crash just as hard here and be poor, but define poverty, poverty is not being part of these selective few to you? About these high wages, if you make a lot of money for a company didn't you earn that money, slap that equality thought on that. We just aren't equal, some rock, some don't, everything else is nothing more then a waste of time.

---

The fact that you disagree, constantly, with Americans, about America, about things you do not experience yourself, makes me think you consider yourself an expert. It'd be one thing to live here and have a different opinion. But if I sat here and told you that you were wrong about life or problems in the Netherlands, give me a good slap. I'd deserve it.

I do not think there is any work you and only you can do, that makes you worth $18 million in 3 weeks and someone else worth $5 per hour. I honestly don't. And I think while that kind of disparity exists, and as long as some people like that it exists, and wish it to continue, and wish to take their Las Vegas chances at one day being one of those 2 million+ in assets at age 35 type people, then be willing to pay your fair share into a system where compensation and take-home income is wildly, wildy unequal. Why should taxes be "flat equal" when pay is not? No, paying everyone the same wage for 2 hours or 2 years of work is not what I am advocating. It's a false choice when people bring up "pure socialism" when I say anything about the huge ridiculous income differences in the U.S. for celebs, athletes, CEO's, execs, heirs and inherited wealth, and then all the rest of us who work to make ends meet. Our disparity is enormous-- even the CEO's of other successful first world countries like Japan SHUDDER when they hear the amounts paid out to their counterparts in American corporations. It's an individualistic mindset gone bad; it's the idea that "oh well, who cares that if 1 person makes that much, it means 20,000 other people make dirt... *I* am going to be one of the rich ones", and most of the time it's fantasy.

There's a certain level of income you can hack off everyone's paycheck because you need it to support basic living in our society. And for a large number of people (depending on where they live) who make anywhere under six figures, usually relatively little of what they spend is on sheer frivolity. Again yes you can buy a house for 70,000 in semi-rural Wisconsin or whatever, but making say 80k doesn't exactly make you part of John McCain's club in a part of the country where "cheap housing" is 470,000 even though the company you work for pays you exactly the same wage it pays someone else performing the same job out somewhere where houses cost 120,000. (This is the reason for a lot of strikes with things like grocery store chains here in the U.S., where the workers in states with higher costs of living make, relatively, much less.)

Our disparity of wealth, incidentally, is approaching the robber baron era. A time that most Americans familiar in history would not look back upon and call an economic utopia, or a desirable state to emulate.

A lot of American problems would be greatly alleviated with a more sensible distribution structure. Not strict socialism, but not 18 million vs. 5/hour. One of the crazy, wide-eyed ideas I've heard thrown around are wage caps. No one in the company can make more than I dunno, 500x what the lowest paid employee makes. Or 1,000 times. These things are not just the "natural course of things", in America, this disparity has gotten enormous in the last few decades. Why do a lot of Americans have trouble buying a house, or qualifying for a loan to buy a house? I dunno, ask the guy who had 12 houses at age 28. Or the guy married to the beer heiress. Or the lady descended from that big hotel chain guy. They all EARNED that money, right? Take your pick.

One of my big problems with the "meritocracy" argument in the U.S. is that the same people who argue those who have money worked for it, etc. etc., implying we all start out from the same place and those who work hard get rich and those who don't get poor, have at the top of their agenda things like tax cuts for the rich, overturning the estate tax, getting rid of capital gains, etc. All things which don't help people working hard everyday to make ends meet. They help primarily and dominantly the class of people already so rich they can just play around with money, investing, or passing along obscene wealth to family members when they die. I don't understand, at all, the mentality of someone chugging along working hard at 1-2 jobs making under six figures, who then goes and espouses tax cuts for people making half a mil, or estate taxes, or what have you, unless they themselves have illusions of magically being rich one day. It doesn't help them in any other way, and in fact, hurts many their state budget, hurts the Federal deficit, and helps contribute to the underfunding of all the things we like to complain about spending money on but need, like schools, police, safety regulation enforcement or prenatal care or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Goodness, no. I should hope to be rich one day, but that's well in the future. It's got more to do with having a tax code I can actually understand.

I really truly believe in limited government, preferably at the local town-hall level. I live in the woods in New Hampshire, don't forget. We don't get government services, and we're not rich. But we do see a lot of our money going south to Boston to pay for one crazy scheme like ACORN after another.

---

Okay, I can grapple with that and respect it. I agree the tax code is insane. But I think the simple reality is that with such enormous pay and wealth deficits in the U.S., there needs to be a graduated system. (Reagan cutting the number of tax brackets didn't help, it kinda screwed the people at the bottom of each bracket and helped people at the top of each, but again, probably another topic.)

This is an interesting discussion.

Koga, what are your views on the taxation (and or limits) on inherited wealth? Earning disparities are something you clearly despise, but successful people - as you note - often are able to leave substantial sums to their offspring, who sometimes make good use of it and more often don't. Is there a re-distributive model you consider fair, and what is the current US policy?

From my point of view, there is of course no such thing as old money in your fair land :wink: - but over here, there are families whose wealth has been handed on for such a long time that much of their assets are in effect, stewarded for future generations, and indeed the nation they reside within. Would your view be that this is no defence, and such assets should be broken up, or that there is a time span which would release fiscal penalty in return for the benefits of such private stewardship?

As a point of reference, the inheritance tax policies of the Republic and the United Kingdom would make Lenin weep with unrestrained joy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The fact that you disagree, constantly, with Americans, about America, about things you do not experience yourself, makes me think you consider yourself an expert. It'd be one thing to live here and have a different opinion. But if I sat here and told you that you were wrong about life or problems in the Netherlands, give me a good slap. I'd deserve it.

---

Some americans, it's not armchair cosmopolitism it is about having the right idea, I constantly disagree with some dutch members about the Netherlands, I am an expert of neither, but excuse me for having an opinion and excuse me for caring about what goes on at the other side of the big wet. Feel free to have an opinion on the Netherlands. You are taking a pretty universal problem and claim it to be an american one, that is pretty short-sighted if you ask me, inequality is the reality in every society that exists, and America is hardly a hell to live poverty is a very relative thing. Here in the Netherlands you are poor if you can't take 2 holidays a year, I'd say poverty doesn't exist here we are rich as hell, others say it does because some people have a bigger house but I file that under jealousy. It is not neo-feudalism it's the result of a free society that allows everyone to have a shot at being above others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Some americans, it's not armchair cosmopolitism it is about having the right idea, I constantly disagree with some dutch members about the Netherlands, I am an expert of neither, but excuse me for having an opinion and excuse me for caring about what goes on at the other side of the big wet.

---

It's one thing to say "I think this is the right idea, I think that is the right idea." You're more than entitled to your opinion. But when you get into the nitty gritty of controversial issues affecting the day to day lives of Americans, and acting like you know what you're talking about in more than an armchair anthropologist sense, it's not pleasant but I think it's quite fair to ask upon what basis you are making your claims or flatly denying what others say. If it's based on what you've read or heard around the net, well, we can all read headlines and have opinions, but don't go around telling Americans they're wrong about their perceptions or views of American life and the American system.

Quote:

---

Feel free to have an opinion on the Netherlands. You are taking a pretty universal problem and claim it to be an american one, that is pretty short-sighted if you ask me, inequality is the reality in every society that exists, and America is hardly a hell to live poverty is a very relative thing. Here in the Netherlands you are poor if you can't take 2 holidays a year, I'd say poverty doesn't exist here we are rich as hell, others say it does because some people have a bigger house but I file that under jealousy. It is not neo-feudalism it's the result of a free society that allows everyone to have a shot at being above others.

---

Poverty IS relative. Yes, Americans aren't keeling over by the tens of thousands from malaria along the riversides. But, you do have houses and schools falling apart when 10 miles away you have vastly overfunded public schools in high property tax upper income districts. You have people never seeking medical attention because they fear the price tag, and finally, when desperate enough, clogging the overcrowded emergency rooms because many have no other alternative to get treatment. (This winds up on the taxpayer's bill anyway.) Meanwhile, other people are getting plastic surgery for their pets and their fifth nose job for that fine-tuning. The leaders and speakers in our country most in favor of war over any provocation are, almost without exception (there are a couple) from the richest strata of society, have never served in the armed forces, and make sure to keep their own kids out. (Romney, for instance, all in support of the war, but his kids? They had "other priorities.") The people who serve in the armed forces fall into two groups; the truly patriotic (from many backgrounds) who probably constitute a significantly small minority, and then the poor. The kids from inner cities and urban areas who don't have the grades to get the full rides they'd need to afford college and whose job options other than the military are a) cashier at Kentucky fried chicken b) gas station attendant.

Then you have Paris Hilton, you have inherited wealth and the attempt to eliminate estate tax, you have the multimillion dollar homes in Malibu and the Canyons where, since the threat of erosion and wildfire means insurance wont' cover them or is way too expensive, the rich people get together and slip through a bill where the state covers the cost of reimbursing them when their homes get destroyed in natural disasters. Over, and over. Compare this to Katrina, where a great deal of the people who lost everything continue to be exiles with lives crowded into the poor inner cities of the rest of the U.S., trying to start over from scratch. But, those were poor lazy blacks so they deserved it. They weren't overpaid rich whites with family lawyers and ties to state government.

We spend $10 billion per month in Iraq. We're talking about a 700 billion dollar bailout for Wall Street.

But, we can't afford better public education. We can't afford healthcare. No no, that is too expensive.

So yeah, I get my back up when people say there isn't a poverty problem in the U.S., or start making excuses for how no fix is desirable and no tax expenditure for something that would help so many struggling Americans who don't worry about how to buy their next model of ipod, they worry about how they are going to take some time off for chemo without losing both their job and their house. It isn't poverty by the standards of the third world, heck, it's not even poverty by the standards of how people live on reservations within our own borders. But it's still relative poverty of such staggeringly obscene proportions compared to the tremendous wealth in our country concentrated in so few hands, that there is nothing you can call it but immoral.

Why not go to Africa and explain to a skinsack filled with bones how miserable your life is because that useless tramp Paris Hilton can drink champagne at breakfeast each and every day. You live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world with an excellent standard of living. Of course there are problems but these are luxory-problems at most.

Why so Sour-R-us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

This is an interesting discussion.

Koga, what are your views on the taxation (and or limits) on inherited wealth? Earning disparities are something you clearly despise, but successful people - as you note - often are able to leave substantial sums to their offspring, who sometimes make good use of it and more often don't. Is there a re-distributive model you consider fair, and what is the current US policy?

From my point of view, there is of course no such thing as old money in your fair land :wink: - but over here, there are families whose wealth has been handed on for such a long time that much of their assets are in effect, stewarded for future generations, and indeed the nation they reside within. Would your view be that this is no defence, and such assets should be broken up, or that there is a time span which would release fiscal penalty in return for the benefits of such private stewardship?

As a point of reference, the inheritance tax policies of the Republic and the United Kingdom would make Lenin weep with unrestrained joy.

---

If you define old money as like, going back to the Tudors, no, we don't have old money. But we have our own version of it, we have people with the last name Rockefeller who are still filthy, insane, can't get rid of it if they wanted to rich. We have people with the last name Bush with family ties going back to English royalty who remain rich, not apparently out of any particular family lineage of talent or intelligence, but just because they seem to have always had wealth and been plugged into the power system of our country.

The estate tax, in my view, is absolutely more than fair. All the ideological defenses of America's system revolve around meritocracy. The idea that, those with talent who work hard rise up, luck not required. America's promise is, work hard, and you will do better than you did before, and your children will have a better life than you did. A meritocracy assumes everyone has roughly the same tools to start with and may the best man win. Starting off with a 4 million dollar trust fund goes a long way in this world towards helping you reach for the stars over someone who starts with nothing, regardless of your talent. Inherited wealth in the region of millions of dollars to qualify you for having to pay estate tax is, even after tax, still free money flowing to you from your parents or ancestors, that you didn't lift a finger to earn. The fact that you genetically share a lineage with the people who did earn it in no way means it's somehow sacred and shouldn't be taxed. It is also a handy way to slow, though it does not stop, the creation over time of an entrenched economic aristocracy of inherited wealth, which is contrary in every sense to our democracy and the American Dream, and the values we claim to espouse of equality, meritocracy, and moving up through hard work. In my view there are way too many loopholes, ANY responsible family with millions in assets and access to a lawyer is able to set up trusts and other financial manuevers to avoid or at least vastly minimize estate tax liability. One of the ways people do it is to sign away via gifts or quickclaims, their real estate property and such before death, so that, on paper, when they die or retire, they are poor or at least well under several million. I think this is b.s. I think that if someone hands you a house worth 600,000 you should have to pay tax just as if someone just handed you 600,000 dollars. Because that is exactly what has just transpired. Why you should be taxed LESS for something handed to you for free, than someone who earned the same amount of wealth through work, is absolutely beyond me, y et that is what rich people propose should be the case.

I think the Reagan tax brackets and tax structure is b.s. It favored the rich. The caps on Social Security and other payroll taxes are b.s. Whereas average people pay payroll taxes on 100% of their income, people with higher incomes pay on only a portion of what they earn, up to set caps. This is in large part the problem with social security, financially speaking. People who earn a lot aren't putting more in than people who earn quite a lot less in many cases, because of the caps. People say well who cares, they won't benefit from SS anyway, why should they have to pay into it? I call b.s. I work in an accounting office and I don't know of a single well off older person who doesn't make darn sure they get their social security check. A lot of people (this brings us back to the healthcare problem again) who more than have the means to cover their own medical expenses in old age still set up trusts or sign away their assets to their children when they retire so that, on paper, they qualify as poverty level or near enough to get medicaid and other taxpayer-paid medical care. I'm not talking about people on the border. I'm talking about people who made 600,000 a year right up until they retired and then play the system to make sure they take everything out of it that they can. This is not the exception, this is endemic. The people with wealth or means who don't do this, people call stupid. There are always some stubborn people who refuse to sign away full control of their money, or are OCD, or whatever, and just can't let go of it, or procrastinate on setting up trusts and other tax loopholes until it's too late and they get sick or senile or up and die abruptly. But those are the exceptions among well off and rich people. McCain himself, cashes each and every single social security check. And he's a multimillionaire and has been for all of his life. Go figure.

I don't know where this idea comes from... and i dont think it's really an ideology, I think it's a justification for being selfish and shirking civic duty, that "I shouldn't have to pay a dime more into taxes than I get directly back in the form of services that benefit me, and only me." You see this attitude all over the upper middle class and rich in America. This happens with the schools where every upper income neighborhood breaks off and forms its own school district, so that the property taxes locally only go into the local public school district, and don't go into any bigger pots for larger school districts encompassing lower income areas. That's just one example. You have parents in the middle, not rich and not poor, struggling and beg borrow and stealing money to get that house which is a bit higher than what they can afford (this brings us to some of the mortgage crisis too) because they want so badly for their kids to have a decent chance in life by being able to attend a good school district, instead of a horribly underfunded, underperforming one. And the poor of course are screwed and they get to go wherever they get to go. But wars? Wall Street Bailouts? Do the poor or the working middle class get to say, "No, I don't benefit from that, so my tax dollars are not going to that, cut my taxes while the war is on and while the bailout is being paid, only tax the rich for that?" Hell no they don't get to say that. But much of our tax structure works that way in reverse for the rich.

I hear people say, rich people pay the lionshare of taxes. Hell yes they do. When 90% of America's wealth is concentrated in 10% of AMerica's population, and within that figure it gets even worse, with most of it concentrated in the hands of a couple dozen families in the top 1-2%, why the hell shouldn't they be paying most of the taxes? They virtually control the government. Their industries and corporations are all over the globe. They do their best to pay their workers as little as possible and not give benefits, pension or health insurance wherever they can get away with it. They get the best police protection and access to the very best schools and best medical facilities, and when they opt for even more exclusive private services, that is their option but hell no they shouldn't get special tax considerations for it. When they send their kid to an 80,000 dollar per year elite prep academy for the kids of celebrities, senators and Congressmen, why should they get a school voucher and not put any money into the public school district? This attitude of me first, I got mine, screw everyone else, is at the heart of pretty much everything plaguing America today IMHO.