World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Making ad hominem responses indicate a flaw in the arguement and demonstrates the desire to not have an actual discussion on an issue. But what the hell I will play without the tit for tat ad hominem arguements on your postion like you have tried with mine.

---

Redleg, you do this all the time. It's your modus operandi. I really don't think you understand what ad hominem means; since you misuse it all the time. As soon as you start to lose an argument, you whip out the ad hominem statement. Instead of refuting my numbers, you go straight to the accusation of an ad hominem fallacy. (<--- this too is not an ad hominem fallacy. I'm refuting your statement, arguing against your argument, not arguing against you.)

The quote you chose to call ad hominem was:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

So, was .27% correct? Looks like my number was actually rather high! Ten times too high or so. And your number was in orbit compared to mine.
Shall we play again, Redleg? This is fun.

---

Where is there a personal attack? "And your number was in orbit compared to mine" is an argument only against your argument, not against you. Really. Either learn what ad hominem means or stop using it. Ad hominem means "against the man" and in a debate means the person is not arguing against the content of the opponent's statements but is instead arguing against the opponent himself. If you'd care to explain how arguing that your number was in orbit compared to mine is an argument against you rather than your point, I'm sure we'd all like to hear your explanation. :smile:

Let me give you an example. If you say, "the sun rises in the west!" and I then I argue "you're wrong!" then that it not ad hominem. Simply saying you're wrong is not arguing against you, it's arguing against your argument. I'm arguing against your statement, not you. If I said "you're wrong, you idiot!" then that would be ad hominem. Get it?

Quote:

---

Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong - your arguement consists of the actual estate taxes paid and the actual taxes paid - that number is adjusted each year by the actual deaths of each year. For instance in 1989 the number of deaths that resulted in estate taxes being paid was indeed over 50,000.

My arguement is based upon the potential number of individuals that are can be effected by the current exception rate of 675K versus the old rate of 600K.

---

Ok, I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Bad numbers again, Redleg. The current exemption rate was $1 million in 2003 and it goes up to $2 million for filings made for 2006. Your argument is based upon faulty numbers. but I'm still trying gamely to argue around that problem to the heart of the matter. It doesn't help that you're using a faulty set of numbers at the outset.

Quote:

---

(stuff...)

Income $200,000 or more Total number of Returns 2,536,439 Percent of returns 1.9

---

As I stated in my post, and which you seem to have ignored, you said 2.5 million millionaires. I proved this wrong. I don't care if you quoted it from CNN. I'm using the IRS. There were just above 2.5 million returns total with adjusted gross incomes over $200,000 in 2003. That's $200,000 not millionairs. If we use personal worth instead of income (which happens to be a much more accurate gauge of wealth than just income since it includes fiduciary income such as trust funds as well), then in 2001 there only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. That's net personal worth now, not total worth. It includes things like debts and liabilities which decrease the total worth. It's also a value which more closely relates to estate. In fact, the IRS uses estate tax filings when compiling the personal worth data every 3 years.

Quote:

---

(more stuff...)

So using the base of a tax exemption of 675K anyone with assets totaling more then 675K do indeed recieve a benefit with the higher exemption.

(more stuff) The figures you site do not cover the potential of the middle class to exceed the exemption rate of 600K of old, or even the new one of 675K.

---

Look, if we're going to have an argument about estate taxes, the least you could do is learn about the estate tax first. I'll repeat it, for like the 4th or 5th time, the current exemption is not $675,000. For 2005, the exemption is $1.5 million (You have up to 6 months after the death to file and a person who died at the end of 2005 can file up until the end of this month). For 2006, that exemption increases to $2 million. In 2009, that exemption increases to $3.5 million, then it drops to $0 in 2010, then it reappears in 2011 at $1 million from then on. That's the current law as signed by Bush, in 2001. What is happening now, is that Republicans are calling for it to be eliminated altogether. No estate tax at all. That is why I've been using $1 million, because that is what the number is currently set to be from 2011 on.

Quote:

---

I agree raising the exemption value to 2 million is not a good move by the government - but I do believe from exerience that the 675K does allow for the middle class to actually have a greater ability to plan for retirement, and not have the government take from them because an individual dies an early death.

---

Then why are we arguing? I haven't been arguing that the estate tax shouldn't be reformed. I've been arguing that it shouldn't be repealed altogether which is the current state of the debate. The estate tax exemption is currently $2 million. If you think that raising it to $2 million is not a good move, then you should be on the phone to Kay Bailey right this minute; because it's already at $2 million, as we argue.

Quote:

---

So the current estate exemption does indeed effect many more people then the .27 percent, which is the point, especially since I am using the arguement of potential effect.

---

No it doesn't. I'm not going to go through the numbers again. The current exemption rate is $2 million for 2006, so the number of people affected is even lower. But using the rate which will go into effect if Congress doesn't repeal the current law altogether, then from 2011 on (and in 2001 when the numbers were compiled), the IRS says only 3510 people in the US had a net personal worth over $1 million. Estate taxes are based on net worth, not income. In fact that personal worth number which the IRS is required to compile every 3 years (we'll have 2004 numbers soon), is actually based on the number of estate tax filings! I'm not making this up, Redleg. I'm using the IRS data from the IRS SOI. Since the IRS breaks it up into a $1-2.5 million bracket, I can't get a number for people with net worth over $2 million (which is the current exemption level). But since the exemption was $1 million in 2001, and it will be again from 2011 on, and that happens to be the last year of compiled personal worth data, we're talking about 3510 people in the US under the estate tax law who would be liable. Remember that the number of people who have to file is not the same as the number of people who have actual tax liability. :wink: And the number of people with "taxable" returns is also greater than the number of people who have tax liability, because of exemptions and exclusions and debts that decrease the actual estate value from the value which requires a filing. Got it?

Quote:

---

Did I ever claim that the Estate Tax needs to be repealed - or did I question the numbers effected by the $675,000 exemption?

---

The exemption is not $675,000 and hasn't been since 2000. And did I ever claim that the estate tax shouldn't be changed from where it was or did I claim that it shouldn't be repealed and have since argued from that standpoint? :smile:

Quote:

---

So do you want to answer the previous questions asked of

I guess in essence do you support punishing those who work at achieving something in their lives with a double and yes even triple taxation of their assests?

---

When did Paris Hilton ever work? Do I support taxing the inheritence of the very rich? Sure do. And those very rich are just a fraction of 3510 people with a net worth over $1 million in 2001.

Quote:

---

Are you for punishing the individuals who attempted to save so that they could enjoy some leisure time with a secured income source other then the government for their retirement?

---

All 3510 of them? Including Paris Hilton? Yep. They scrimped and saved and worked their little tushies off, didn't they? I would be in favor of exemptions and exclusions to protect Mom and Pop and family farms. But when you get right down to it, and actually take a look at who funds the front organizations which pressure Congress to repeal the estate tax, then you'll find some interesting names. Mom and Pop? No. The Walton family? Yes.

Quote:

---

Edit: If you don't believe me about the potential number of people effected by the Death Tax exemption rate - take a look at the 401K and IRA investment tables available on the web for wage earners in the 40K to 60K income levels that contribute 4-5% of their before tax income to the investment schemes, especially ones that begin contributing into the funds at age 30. Most schemes will but that wage earner near 500 to 600K when they reach retirement age. Add other assests and they would easily break the old 600K exemption. 675K gives a break to those that attempt to plan for retirement versus depending upon the government for Social Security.

---

Again, it's $2 million and soon to be $3.5 million then for one short year it's no exemption at all, then it's back up to $1 million. You've been arguing using a faulty set of starting data from the beginning.

Aha! I think I see an additional problem. You've managed to confuse gross assets with net assets. Redleg, I hate to break the news to you; but it isn't gross assets and gross worth which is taxed on estates. It's net assets and net worth. We could have avoided this whole discussion if I'd realized that you were simply using an entirely wrong assumption from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Redleg, you do this all the time. It's your modus operandi. I really don't think you understand what ad hominem means; since you misuse it all the time. As soon as you start to lose an argument, you whip out the ad hominem statement. Instead of refuting my numbers, you go straight to the accusation of an ad hominem fallacy. (<--- this too is not an ad hominem fallacy. I'm refuting your statement, arguing against your argument, not arguing against you.)

The quote you chose to call ad hominem was:

---

[/quote]

That happen to be a the end of the post that I was responding to - you know the last paragraph of your response. Making assumptions often need to something - you know what ass-u-me means don't you?

Quote:

---

Where is there a personal attack? "And your number was in orbit compared to mine" is an argument only against your argument, not against you. Really. Either learn what ad hominem means or stop using it. Ad hominem means "against the man" and in a debate means the person is not arguing against the content of the opponent's statements but is instead arguing against the opponent himself. If you'd care to explain how arguing that your number was in orbit compared to mine is an argument against you rather than your point, I'm sure we'd all like to hear your explanation. :smile:


Let me give you an example. If you say, "the sun rises in the west!" and I then I argue "you're wrong!" then that it not ad hominem. Simply saying you're wrong is not arguing against you, it's arguing against your argument. I'm arguing against your statement, not you. If I said "you're wrong, you idiot!" then that would be ad hominem. Get it?

---

So your attempting to state you don't use ad hominem

This earlier statement by yourself defeats your attempt in this post very well.

Redleg, really now. Enough with the bad math. You should know better.

Saying that I am wrong is indeed not an ad hominem statement. However this statement doesn't say that I am wrong - but something else entirily.

But then I am only an ignorant Redneck from South Texas who doesn't understand anything about the use of the english language. LOL

Quote:

---

Ok, I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Bad numbers again, Redleg. The current exemption rate was $1 million in 2003 and it goes up to $2 million for filings made for 2006. Your argument is based upon faulty numbers. but I'm still trying gamely to argue around that problem to the heart of the matter. It doesn't help that you're using a faulty set of numbers at the outset.

---

The arguement used by myself is clearly based upon the exemption rate of 675K versus the old exemption rate of 600K.

Quote:

---

As I stated in my post, and which you seem to have ignored, you said 2.5 million millionaires. I proved this wrong. I don't care if you quoted it from CNN.

---

Your about to disprove your own point, here once again.

Quote:

---

I'm using the IRS.

---

The IRS quotes yearly income, the CNN article mentions people who are considered millionaries not because of income but because of net worth.

Pointing out the CNN article is wrong by using declare yearly income is a continuation of the same error your accusing me of.

Quote:

---

There were just above 2.5 million returns total with adjusted gross incomes over $200,000 in 2003. That's $200,000 not millionairs. If we use personal worth instead of income (which happens to be a much more accurate gauge of wealth than just income since it includes fiduciary income such as trust funds as well), then in 2001 there only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. That's net personal worth now, not total worth. It includes things like debts and liabilities which decrease the total worth. It's also a value which more closely relates to estate. In fact, the IRS uses estate tax filings when compiling the personal worth data every 3 years.

---

Your number is low I suspect. Only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. Because that means I know a higher percentage of wealthly people then could be suspected as being normal for one in the middle class.

Care to site the source of the number 3510? Given that you earlier posted a significantly higher number having had to file estate taxes.

Quote:

---

Look, if we're going to have an argument about estate taxes, the least you could do is learn about the estate tax first. I'll repeat it, for like the 4th or 5th time, the current exemption is not $675,000. For 2005, the exemption is $1.5 million (You have up to 6 months after the death to file and a person who died at the end of 2005 can file up until the end of this month). For 2006, that exemption increases to $2 million. In 2009, that exemption increases to $3.5 million, then it drops to $0 in 2010, then it reappears in 2011 at $1 million from then on. That's the current law as signed by Bush, in 2001. What is happening now, is that Republicans are calling for it to be eliminated altogether. No estate tax at all. That is why I've been using $1 million, because that is what the number is currently set to be from 2011 on.

---

Lets review your statement shall we....The previous law sets the estate tax on estate beginning at $675,000. Estates worth less than that were exempt. The exemption under the current law rises, in 2006, to $2 million per couple.

Again your own words in a previous post actually states something else, that I responded to that post seems to mean that I am using faulty information, Hmmmm.... Interesting.

Quote:

---

Then why are we arguing? I haven't been arguing that the estate tax shouldn't be reformed. I've been arguing that it shouldn't be repealed altogether which is the current state of the debate. The estate tax exemption is currently $2 million. If you think that raising it to $2 million is not a good move, then you should be on the phone to Kay Bailey right this minute; because it's already at $2 million, as we argue.

---

I questioned the .27 percent and you chose to accuse me of something, Does this ring a bell

Nice try at obfuscation, Redleg.

Maybe you should of focused on the subject of the discussion versus attempting other courses of action.

Quote:

---

No it doesn't. I'm not going to go through the numbers again. The current exemption rate is $2 million for 2006, so the number of people affected is even lower. But using the rate which will go into effect if Congress doesn't repeal the current law altogether, then from 2011 on (and in 2001 when the numbers were compiled), the IRS says only 3510 people in the US had a net personal worth over $1 million. Estate taxes are based on net worth, not income. In fact that personal worth number which the IRS is required to compile every 3 years (we'll have 2004 numbers soon), is actually based on the number of estate tax filings! I'm not making this up, Redleg. I'm using the IRS data from the IRS SOI. Since the IRS breaks it up into a $1-2.5 million bracket, I can't get a number for people with net worth over $2 million (which is the current exemption level). But since the exemption was $1 million in 2001, and it will be again from 2011 on, and that happens to be the last year of compiled personal worth data, we're talking about 3510 people in the US under the estate tax law who would be liable. Remember that the number of people who have to file is not the same as the number of people who have actual tax liability. :wink: And the number of people with "taxable" returns is also greater than the number of people who have tax liability, because of exemptions and exclusions and debts that decrease the actual estate value from the value which requires a filing. Got it?

---

More then you will ever understand - but that is not the subject of the discussion now either.

Quote:

---

The exemption is not $675,000 and hasn't been since 2000. And did I ever claim that the estate tax shouldn't be changed from where it was or did I claim that it shouldn't be repealed and have since argued from that standpoint? :smile:

---

A previous comment answers this statement.

Quote:

---

When did Paris Hilton ever work? Do I support taxing the inheritence of the very rich? Sure do. And those very rich are just a fraction of 3510 people with a net worth over $1 million in 2001.


All 3510 of them? Including Paris Hilton? Yep. They scrimped and saved and worked their little tushies off, didn't they? I would be in favor of exemptions and exclusions to protect Mom and Pop and family farms. But when you get right down to it, and actually take a look at who funds the front organizations which pressure Congress to repeal the estate tax, then you'll find some interesting names. Mom and Pop? No. The Walton family? Yes.

---

And you would find names of a few people I know who happen to run family business and farms that do indeed have a net assest valuation of close to 1 million. A figure that is not all that hard to reach given careful investiments and long term planning. Again care to provide the source of the number used, or would you rather just accuse me now of using faulty information and bad numbers?

Quote:

---

Again, it's $2 million and soon to be $3.5 million then for one short year it's no exemption at all, then it's back up to $1 million. You've been arguing using a faulty set of starting data from the beginning.

---

Since the discussion I entered into was based upon this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

The estate tax only affects .27% of the US taxpayers. That's it. Just a little more than 1/4 of a percent of the nation pays estate taxes. Is giving them a tax cut really a priority when we're already desperately in debt and in a war too?

Let's find out the truth, OK?

The previous law sets the estate tax on estate beginning at $675,000. Estates worth less than that were exempt. The exemption under the current law rises, in 2006, to $2 million per couple.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a $2 million exemption (what the new law makes the exemption level in 2006) means that less than 123 American farms this year might owe any estate tax. And with the increase in the exemption to $3.5 million in 2009, only 94 farms would owe any estate tax. That's it. According to the USDA, the average farm household net worth ranged from $546,000 up (the original estate tax margin was set at $675,000) to $1.5 million for the very largest family farms.

---

You got me on not paying attention to when it went to 1.5 million - but that doesn't give one sufficient reason to make certain statements now either does it? Maybe instead of stating this

Nice try at obfuscation, Redleg. Won't work. You can dispute the numbers all you like. They're the actual numbers. It's .27%. If the land value was worth more than $675,000 then too bad for you. Because according to that horrid liberal institution, the USDA - the ones who might actually know the facts, the average net worth of family farms is only $546,000. But at least now we're getting a clearer picture of where you come from, politically.

You should try a different tact.

Quote:

---

Aha! I think I see an additional problem. You've managed to confuse gross assets with net assets. Redleg, I hate to break the news to you; but it isn't gross assets and gross worth which is taxed on estates. It's net assets and net worth. We could have avoided this whole discussion if I'd realized that you were simply using an entirely wrong assumption from the beginning.

---

No confusion on my part - other then a simple one concering the change to 1.5. But given the initial arguement - maybe you could of avoided it by simply clarifying your own statement versus launching into several attempts at arguing the person versus the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That happen to be a the end of the post that I was responding to - you know the last paragraph of your response. Making assumptions often need to something - you know what ass-u-me means don't you?

---

Ah, Redleg, here you go. Typical. Since you're losing the argument, rather badly too, we're now going from accusations to thinly veiled insults. Do you really think calling me an ass in a way designed to try and hide it from the mods is a good argument in a forum debate? Shame on you. If you want to play that game, I'll be happy to oblige. You appear to be unable to distinguish between sarcasm and insults. You use both, all the time; but if someone else replies with sarcasm to your sarcasm, they're the ones guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. It's rather ironic; because as soon as you make the accusation, you've resorted to it yourself just by making it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So your attempting to state you don't use ad hominem

This earlier statement by yourself defeats your attempt in this post very well.

Redleg, really now. Enough with the bad math. You should know better.

Saying that I am wrong is indeed not an ad hominem statement. However this statement doesn't say that I am wrong - but something else entirily.

---

Umm, no. The statement says that you are wrong. It certainly doesn't say that you are right. Maybe you're reading more into the statement than is really there? You got caught using bad math. Remember now, bad math isn't just screwing up the operands. It's also bad math if you're using the wrong numbers entirely. And since this all began with your first sarcastic response to my post, to which I then responded with sarcasm, the fault is all yours. :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

But then I am only an ignorant Redneck from South Texas who doesn't understand anything about the use of the english language. LOL

---

Comes right after:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

... but something else entirily.

---

I can only hope that you were being intentionally ironic here. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The arguement used by myself is clearly based upon the exemption rate of 675K versus the old exemption rate of 600K.

---

First, the old exemption rate is $675,000! It hasn't been $675,000 since 2001, when Bush signed the new tax into law.

And, No. You directly argued all of my points specifically, entirely ignoring the correct numbers and compared my numbers, based on the correct exemption amounts to your numbers, based on the incorrect exemption amounts. You even tried to use IRS data for years in which the exemption rate was already $1 million and then somehow connect that to the old exemption rate of $675 thousand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your about to disprove your own point, here once again.

The IRS quotes yearly income, the CNN article mentions people who are considered millionaries not because of income but because of net worth.

Pointing out the CNN article is wrong by using declare yearly income is a continuation of the same error your accusing me of.

---

I didn't say the CNN article was wrong. I said you were wrong. Entirely different thing, isn't it? Which is why you've got such a big bee in your bonnet.

We've already been over the IRS numbers. I suppose we have to do it again. I didn't just use the IRS info on yearly income, I also used the IRS tables on personal net wealth. The IRS has all kinds of fun statistics derived from returns. All available on their website. And every three years, they are required by law to complile the personal net worth wealthiest people. Did you just not see that part; or did you just ignore it in this rant about how my numbers are wrong? They aren't my numbers, sport. They're the IRS numbers. You remember them, the people who actually collect the taxes and compile the data?

I used the IRS Statistics of Income data to get my data on personal wealth. It's right there in my paragraph on personal wealth. I didn't use declared yearly income alone. I used personal wealth. Sorry about the multiple bold, but I'm having trouble understanding why you can't see it. Net personal wealth. From the IRS. On the IRS SOI pages dealing with personal net worth. In fact, the 2001 table for personal wealth which I used is right here!

It's not difficult to understand, Redleg. The title of the Excel sheet is, in fact, Top Wealthholders with Net Worth of $1,000,000 or more by State of Residence. Please notice that it says net worth not income. The table breaks down net personal wealth by state. The total is 3510 in 2001, which is the last year for which the data has been compiled. That's it. 3510 people with a net personal wealth of over $1 million. Why can't you grasp that? The CNN article discusses millionaires. But you're using it the numbers in an erroneous way. Income and assets (which CNN used to come up with the number, apparently) does not equate with net wealth. Debts and liabilities also figure into that, as they figure into estate taxes, which is what we're discussing (well I am anyway). I explained this too. Multiple times. Estate taxes aren't based on income. Income is what the CNN article used. Clearly. Because the IRS, you know - the people who should know, states quite clearly exactly how many people have a net worth over $1 million by state. End of story. Those are the numbers I used. Refute them as you like. And yet, you continue in this fantasy that my numbers are wrong. Would you like the number to the IRS so you can complain about their math skills?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your number is low I suspect. Only 3510 people with a net personal worth over $1 million. Because that means I know a higher percentage of wealthly people then could be suspected as being normal for one in the middle class.

Care to site the source of the number 3510? Given that you earlier posted a significantly higher number having had to file estate taxes.

---

I just cited it (Hint: look for the underlined word). But I told you in the previous posts where I got it too; but I figured you were smart enough to be able to type "irs.gov" into a web browser.

As for the number of people who filed estate tax returns, that would be form number 706 and variants such as 706NA, as I stated, care to guess where those numbers came from? No, really! Take a big guess. Do I need to post that link for you, too? It's about one page over and two pages up from the other link. Look under - GASP - estate taxes. I'm not posting another link for you. Try I...R...S... then a . and then G...O...V. Works wonders.

As I took great pains to explain, and which you quite obviously ignored completely, the number of estate tax filings does not equal the number of estate tax returns which are taxable. And the number of estate tax returns which are taxable does not equal the number of people who are actually liable for some estate tax debt. Why? Well, that's usually pretty simply; but I'm not going to hold my breath hoping you get it. I'll try anyway.

Your estate is required to file a 706 within 6 months of your death if your gross estate plus gifts plus specific exemption (see the "Who has to file" portion of any form 706... duh) exceeds the exemption limit (please don't make me go over what it is again, my fingers are worn to the bone over your insistence that it's $675,000 when it hasn't been that since 2001). Your executor files a 706. That's the number of returns filed. Out of those, some will have debts which lower their liability below the specific exemption limit and some will drop off because of the marriage exemption. Those are the non-taxable returns. That leaves the taxable returns. I quoted these numbers way way back in a previous post. 66K some odd returns, 30K+ taxable returns and 35K+ non-taxable returns. I even noted that the numbers didn't quite add up and that the IRS had lost a return somewhere! I used the 2003 tables as I recall. They're right there on the IRS SOI pages.

Now we're left with 30K some odd taxable returns with an estate minus debts which is above the line. But...

And this is the tricky part and you're probably lost back at I...R...G.gov somewhere, but I'll try...

You deduct the specific exemption! For 2005, this exemption was $1.5 million and it will be $2 million for those who die in 2006. Please note that it's not $675,000 and hasn't been since 2001. So, out of all those 30K some odd taxable returns, only those left after the specific exemption actually have any tax liability.

Think of it like this:

Let's say you make $12,000 in a year. This puts you well below the entry point for actually owing any taxes; but you still have to file!. You had taxable income, but because of tax levels and exemptions you don't actually owe any taxes. You had to file a taxable return; but you didn't have any tax liability. Same thing as for estate taxes. Get it? Probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Lets review your statement shall we....The previous law sets the estate tax on estate beginning at $675,000. Estates worth less than that were exempt. The exemption under the current law rises, in 2006, to $2 million per couple.

Again your own words in a previous post actually states something else, that I responded to that post seems to mean that I am using faulty information, Hmmmm.... Interesting.

---

Yes indeed it does. Very faulty information. In fact, right up there in this last post of yours you said - again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The arguement used by myself is clearly based upon the exemption rate of 675K versus the old exemption rate of 600K.

---

Wrong. The old rate was $675,000, and while using that number you used income (also wrong) for years in which it was already higher than $675,000! It was raised to $1 million then $1.5 million then $2 million and it'll go up again to $3.5 million in 2009, then it drops to zero for one year in 2010, then it goes back up to $1 million in 2011 and stays there - unless something is changed in the law. That's it. This is fact. It's part of the EGRRA, signed into law by Bush in June of 2001. Simple, easy to understand... for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I questioned the .27 percent and you chose to accuse me of something, Does this ring a bell

Nice try at obfuscation, Redleg.

Maybe you should of focused on the subject of the discussion versus attempting other courses of action.

---

When I did the math and it turned out that .27% was, in fact too high, I went straight to the source and used the exact numbers from the IRS itself.

Does his ring a bell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

So, was .27% correct? Looks like my number was actually rather high! Ten times too high or so.

---

Looks like I did focus on the subject. It's not my fault that you wandered off into magic number lala land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And you would find names of a few people I know who happen to run family business and farms that do indeed have a net assest valuation of close to 1 million. A figure that is not all that hard to reach given careful investiments and long term planning. Again care to provide the source of the number used, or would you rather just accuse me now of using faulty information and bad numbers?

---

I've provided the source multiple times. It's up to you to read it. It's not like it was that difficult to type "irs.gov" into a web browser; but, oh well. (sigh)

Anyway, you know these people? You're richer than I thought. I expect you probably won't read that article. It's a long .pdf and details exactly who has been funding the nearly decade-long campaign to repeal the estate tax, through front groups and trade associations run by their own businesses. It details how they've misled people (like you) using bad numbers (like you), faulty logic and ridiculous rhetoric. Poor Mom and Pop business owners, those 18 families. The heirs of Sam Walton, the Gallo family, the Cox family and more. Those poor family farmers got used by the super-wealthy and you bought into it. Not my problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

No confusion on my part - other then a simple one concering the change to 1.5. But given the initial arguement - maybe you could of avoided it by simply clarifying your own statement versus launching into several attempts at arguing the person versus the subject.

---

Lots of confusion on your part. In this same post, you were still using $675,000! It wasn't simple confusion. You used income numbers from years in which the exemption was already $1 million or more and then compared that income to the $675,000 to make the numbers look better for you. If it wasn't intentional, which I'm willing to give you, then it certainly wasn't just a simple error. It was bad math.

But that isn't all. You continued to use personal income numbers, even after I made a long post explaining all of the differences, using personal income, fiduciary income (which is also part of estates), and actual estate filings. I stated, clearly I thought, that I was using the IRS information. And yet, here you are, still acting like I'm making up the numbers and asking for the site.

Your first response to me in this began with "how funny" and I responded in kind. But who draws out the ad hominem card? You do. Do you really want me to go back through your posts here in the backroom and find all the instances where you used that phrase when someone questioned your facts? I recall one just a few months back. It's your standard tactic. You make incorrect posts usually with a great amount of sarcasm ("how funny..."), and when you get called on it, you accuse the other person of the ad hominem fallacy. If you direct responses at me with that kind of sarcasm, then I'll respond in kind. Every time. If you're going to post like that, then you'd better grow thicker skin or learn to find out the facts and use the numbers properly. :wink:

Want to play again?:balloon2:

I apologize to everyone else for making all these long posts way off topic. Mea culpa. I have a very low tolerance for arguments made with faulty data or faulty logic or which arise from plain old-fashioned ignorance.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

World socialism will prevail over capitalism because most people can't add two plus two and get four; while those who can are either robbing them blind and getting rich from it or patiently explaining to them why it's a bad thing to be robbed blind.

And I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned surplus value, which is averaging about $33/hour per worker in the US at the moment. Whoops! I just lost a bunch of people who claim to not like socialism because they understand it. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

It is my opinion that individual liberty and true capitalism will be overrun by socialist autocracy, and that the people are powerless to stop it. It is inevitable.

---

If the state becomes totalitarian it seldom tends to keep socialism values of equal rights to all and good living standards and social security for all. Rather, totalitarianism is a system that promotes something similar to the differences in wealth of capitalism, only that the way the money is distributed is different from a free market. But on the other hand we've never had a free market either and no country has it today - much of distribution of wealth in European countries too is ruled by friendship and stuff going on behind the scenes. For example how many missions are given to friends of the rulers at a higher production cost rather than being given to other companies who happen to be less good friends of the rulers etc. It's for instance funny with all these things when billions of tax payer money is spent on finding a slogan or similar, I believe that exists in all European and American countries. Or when some building, design or architecture mission is given to someone, then billions are spent on repairing the first version of the work after the first version was clearly not working as it should. Free market is an utopia that has never existed and probably never will. Only time such freedom has ever existed was before civilization (which was before homo sapiens during homo erectus), and quite conveniently at that time there was also the best ever social security. Social security can never be 100% and free market can never be 100%, but both can be 99% at the same time if people would try to strive for both rather than for unrealistic utopias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

I have come to the realization that the values of the United States have died in the cradle. Our infant idealism of the individual as sovereign and people's power to limit government died a very very long time ago.

We are no longer a collection of sovereign states, united for the common good by a federal government of limited specifically written powers. The concept of the sovereign state is no more. America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more. The power of the federal government has completely eclipsed "those powers left to the States". The "States" are nothing more than geographically determined divisions of local administration.

---

The same would be true for most unions. The same is on the way of happening in the EU - which would be a disaster, recreating the late Roman Empire, which as we all know was a pretty horrible place. Early Rome has some virtues worth striving for, but the late roman empire is a horrible thing we should never create again. One really bad thing about having a centralized power very far from the home of most is that there's really no way of launching a successful rebellion in the case of a madman gaining power and using a coup or hidden means of acquiring totalitarian power. If the government that has most of the power lives close to your own house you can go and kill them if they go nuts and do coups, but if they're moved to Brussels then there's little possibility of gaining freedom in the case of a constitutional disaster such as a madman getting totalitarian power. That's why both EU and the USA should be careful and be preserving the local power and keeping the power of the central institutions limited, preferably as limited as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

That said, I have come to the conclusion that this is inevitable across the world. There will continue to be brief moments of liberty in pockets of the world, and populist libertarians will continue to sound their cries so long as free mediums of speech are available.

---

One reason why this seems inevitable is that the crucial steps towards totalitarian rule are steps that don't immediately look like steps towards totalitarian rule. The increasing of central EU power is a step towards totalitarian rule and restriction of liberty of the individual, but who would make a rebellion against a slow, gradual constitutional change? When finally something is done that is illegal - a coup - the people working against liberty have already received too much power to be able to stop easily. We should perhaps be ready to launch rebellions in response merely to constitutional changes, rather than waiting for actual coups, if we want to avoid disasters (disasters both for ourselves and outsiders) such as communism and nazism from happening again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Freedom and capitalism lead to economic propserity. This prosperity leads to both complacency and a sense of entitlement in the masses. They become sedated and demand greater benefit for reduced effort. As this occurs in capitalism, an economic disparity occurs where the selfish ignorant complacent entitled masses begin to engage in less and less work. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the educated driven visionary entrepreneurs achieve great economic success. The safe and complacent masses at the bottom then feel jealousy and entitlement towards the earnings of the fewer successful risk-takers. They pressure legislators to give them greater and greater benefits and the entrepreneurs are left with less and less. The middle class, meanwhile, are just as complacent and don't give a damn what the hell is going on. The politicians, interested only in their personal benefit, appeal to the lowest common denomitors and steal from the wealthy to give to the self entitled masses.

---

I agree that classes turning against each other is seldom as much a deliberate action from rulers, as it is an inevitable development. But remember that the "jealousy" of the poor towards the rich isn't entirely unfounded in modern society. One of the main methods of getting rich is by buying and selling stock - hardly anything that helps society because you produce neither products nor services for others - but the stock market is very unpredictable and it's less about skills than about luck, or having a large amount of money when you start buying and selling, and/or the influence that allows you to buy/sell before the average customers so you can take more advantage of the fluctuation in the stocks. Jealousy towards those who make benefits from stock and interest of money inherited from their parents without them doing any real work for the common good at all is justified. Jealousy towards a hard-working medic, engineer, author, actor etc. is not. The poor tend to see the successful stockbrokers, the rich tend to look at the medics and engineers etc., unless they're stockbrokers in which case they're glad the society form temporarily happens to favor people in their line of work without caring about the consequences for society of that. The jealousy doesn't only lie in laziness, it lies in unpredictability and randomness. The best way of getting motivation for work is belief that you can affect your future by choosing how to act. It's a fact that a decent job such as medic, engineer or lawyer doesn't make you part of the richest elite by working hard - the economists, stockbrokers, investors and people who were born by rich parents get richest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Capitalism will remain in highly regulated form.

---

With my definition, socialism as seen in for instance many European countries are a form of capitalism, not a rival ideology. All societies since the invention or money have been capitalistic societies at the bottom, since they've been based on economical success, whether regulated or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Violence as a control measure is a thing of the past. We will socailly evolve towards this end because natural selection has been disrupted to allow the dregs and waste of the world to overpower the survivors and liberty loving capitalists among us.

---

Notice that economical success hasn't been proportional to amount of work, to intelligence, to good organizational ability, or just and ethical behavior. It has been based on what was most economically profitable, whether that required strength or not. An common pattern already in the earliest civilizations: A weak, stupid man with rich parents buys 10 slaves who cuts out gold from a mine for him. He gets richer than a farmer who is strong, intelligent and caring for his family. The farmer has to pay taxes because the influence of people like the first one causes tax raises and similar. At the end the slave-owner gold miner buys prositutes and wives and gets ten children, while the farmer is inprisoned for theft when he tries to steal food for his family after the tyrannic taxes made them nearly starve. Economical profit is not proportional to how strong or good human being you are. That's why most forms of capitalism since the beginning of civilization have worked so badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Free speech will become more and more regulated and conviluteed to meet the demands of the shallow masses and political elite. Land rights are taken away. Guns are taken away. The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

And any resistance will be met with manipulation, distortion, and isolation.

---

This sounds like a typical conspiracy theory to me. Since we live in a capitalism it's far more likely for rich people to get influential and affect politics, and rich people tend to favor capitalism more than socialism. They also tend to favor unjustly regulated forms of capitalism more than normal capitalism or socialism. With unjustly regulated forms of capitalism I'm referring to the above system where friends of the rulers get missions to construct things etc. Please show some proof of your alleged "socialist world conspiracy". Your current ruler is for instance conservative, not left wing or middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Thus, we are doomed to be ruled over by a very few elite who manipulate the masses like the dogs and scum that humanity ultimately is.

---

Isn't the point of the capitalism you're advocating that the elite should rule the masses? I assume what you're really meaning is that a group will be an elite measured in society terms, while as humans being scum? That's nothing unique but something that has existed since the dawn of civilization. There have been exceptions local in time and space, and studying those suggests that it's very well possible to spread liberty, freedom and justice all over the world or at the very least create an isolated Eden of such virtues that can remain over a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

And it has already begun. The United States of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin has been destroyed. And so the transition into the New American State has already occurred before we realized it.

But is is inevitable the world over. It isn't bad, good, or indifferent. It's just the way it is. And I'm done fighting for a cause that cannot win. I will continue to serve my community. I will continue to care for my fellow man. And I will continue to believe in the ideals of individual liberty so long as I live. But humanity cannot sustain that which it is incapable of.

---

What exactly is it you're saying has changed to the worse recently? You seem to be confusing the regulation of capitalism with totalitarianism and also with socialism. You also seem to be claiming you've once had economical liberty and free market and that it's being taken away from you - the fact is you've never had any free market. Secondly, your current rulers are conservative, not socialists. Thirdly, the theoretical unregulated capitalism has never existed and if it would it wouldn't favor strong and ethical human beings, but whatever happens to be most economically benefitial at a certain time. Fourthly, capitalism in theory isn't the same as capitalism in practise, because capitalism in practise involves regulation of the market, regulating it based on friendships behind the scenes, and in benefit of those who happened to already be rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I apologize to everyone else for making all these long posts way off topic. Mea culpa. I have a very low tolerance for arguments made with faulty data or faulty logic or which arise from plain old-fashioned ignorance.

---

Pot calling the Kettle Black,

It seems you missed something in the table that you claim there are only 3510 millionaires. Did you look at the key before claiming that there are only 3510 millioniaries in the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IRS Table

All figures are estimates based on samples-- numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars.

---

The IRS never uses normal numbers in any spread sheet or table - the key is the most important thing to read before going to the table to interpate the data contained.

Now if you add the thousand on the end of your number - you get the actual number that the IRS is using. For instance in this case its 3,510,000.

I have been rather amused by this exchange, accusations of using faulty numbers and bad math. Accusations of not understanding the IRS and the Estate Tax. Claims of not using ad hominem arguements and that I started ad hominem with my initial comment of how funny.

ass-u-me makes its meaning clear each and every time its done.


The .27 percent is questionable when one looks into what the report you linked is advocating. The group does some of the same faulty misinterpation of the IRS data as you - except that they are better at it, because they are out to prove a specific point. They focused soley on the group above the 2 Million cap. 4 million for couples.

Rather interesting.

I happen to have some detailed inside information on taxes given that in any given year from the time period of 1985-1988 I personally saw over enough tax returns that would blow the claim of 3510 millionaires out of the water - and I only worked at the Ogden Internal Revenue Service Center for three years. Has nothing to do with my personal wealth which defeats an earlier statement of yours about my personal wealth.....

I have personally fix tax returns so that the tax payer would not get an audit from the government, working with people who made a simple mistake on their returns.



Oh well that ends my amusment for awhile - I will be away for a week so feel free to educate me on how I misread the IRS table that you used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now if you add the thousand on the end of your number - you get the actual number that the IRS is using. For instance in this case its 3,510,000.

---

You are indeed correct. I misread the table. I was flat out, dead wrong on that part. :bow:

That only slightly changes the nature of the argument; however. The 30,000+ 706 forms filed number still stands. That's it and it doesn't appear to vary much over the last few decades, hovering around 100K returns, until the 2001 law was passed, then it decreases dramatically. And that was before the number went up again this year. Just around 30,000 people filed taxable estate tax returns. You can refute that now if you wish.

Are you prepared to admit you were using the wrong estate tax limit numbers yet? Probably not.

Quote:

---

I have been rather amused by this exchange, accusations of using faulty numbers and bad math. Accusations of not understanding the IRS and the Estate Tax. Claims of not using ad hominem arguements and that I started ad hominem with my initial comment of how funny.



ass-u-me makes its meaning clear each and every time its done.

---

And yet, you seem to think that that isn't an ad hominem attack. You do it all the time in these forums. It's on of your favorite phrases. It there such a thing as a pompous ass-u-me? You're the poster child. That's OK, as long as you're making pompous ass-umptions, I'll be here to call you on it.

Quote:

---

The .27 percent is questionable when one looks into what the report you linked is advocating. The group does some of the same faulty misinterpation of the IRS data as you - except that they are better at it, because they are out to prove a specific point. They focused soley on the group above the 2 Million cap. 4 million for couples.

---

Why wouldn't they? That's the cap! No one is really this stupid. It's got to be an act. Why would they focus on those below the cap? Those below the cap don't have a tax liability!

Quote:

---

Rather interesting.

I happen to have some detailed inside information on taxes given that in any given year from the time period of 1985-1988 I personally saw over enough tax returns that would blow the claim of 3510 millionaires out of the water - and I only worked at the Ogden Internal Revenue Service Center for three years. Has nothing to do with my personal wealth which defeats an earlier statement of yours about my personal wealth.....

I have personally fix tax returns so that the tax payer would not get an audit from the government, working with people who made a simple mistake on their returns.

---

Tax examiner, eh? How funny (your phrase not mine). I know the qualifications needed for the job. In fact, I know a couple of people with just GEDs doing it right now. You haven't impressed me.

Quote:

---

Oh well that ends my amusment for awhile - I will be away for a week so feel free to educate me on how I misread the IRS table that you used.

---

Run away child. Enjoy your time away from our lovely forum. Unlike you, I can readily admit an error. Are you heading out to take a pompous ass-umption class? :laugh4:

When you return, I promise to bow before your superior pompous ass-umptions. Or is that anterior? Hmmm...

LOL you guys started a long debate over an ambiguous comment I made about the estate tax repeal. Oh well, its a dead bill now as I understand it, so the conspiracy theory I was going to float is moot.

Excuse me, but where exactly is the "not socialist" USA not in stark financial difficulties as well ? By what I know of it the national foreign debt alone is something awesome, plus the society is displaying all the symptoms of too great income inequalities (ie. lots of serious poverty on the lower end of the scale) - and this despite all the somewhat questionable little feats of economic legerdemain used to lessen the budget imbalances (such as creative currency exchange)...

Quote:

---

Another reason socialism is unreasonable in America is that it requires a population to be very compliant--which won't happen. Americans won't give up their guns, Americans won't give up their rights.

---

Americans have their silly guns, which are worth Jack Fertilizer as far as political influence goes. The French have the institution of La Rue, and their popular demonstrations can actually have effects on official policy.
France = teh win here.
You were saying...?

I agree there, Watchman. Here we are in the USA, supremely confident in our guns protecting us from our own government. Meanwhile that very government has spent the last few years vigorously and rather effectively chipping away at the very freedoms those guns are supposed to be protecting, with many of the gun owners actively supporting that policy! It's insane. Meanwhile, it seems the only people speaking out about those individual liberties are the ones labelled as "socialists" and "liberals" and "traitors" and are seen as the enemies of those freedoms. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

I'm also pretty sceptical of the supposed ability of those privately-owned firearms to "protect the People from the Governement" in the first place - look at the West Bank or Iraq to see just how well untrained civilians, no matter how motivated, can fight against well-equipped modern armies. And over there the "governement" side doesn't have good legal records on the gun-owners in the first place like it does in the US...

Seems to me a way more sensible way to curtail "tyranny" or whatever would be to actually pay attention to and participate in the actual politics and governing of the state so the possession of firearms as a defense against "the Man" doesn't become an issue in the first place, rather than to strut and posture and gesticulate at the Sacred Gun and refuse to have anything to do with "damn Feds".
:no:
Anyway. A bit of a peeve of mine and not necessarily wholly relevant to the topic, that.

Reason has no place in the gun debate, OK? Please forget about modern day tanks etc etc and think of the industry as a whole.

If you stop Americans killing each other not only are there going to be more unemployed from reduction in manufacturing, but also due to the increased people that won't be killed.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

You are indeed correct. I misread the table. I was flat out, dead wrong on that part. :bow:

---

Oh I am surprised that you admitted that your incorrect. Very good.

Quote:

---

That only slightly changes the nature of the argument; however. The 30,000+ 706 forms filed number still stands. That's it and it doesn't appear to vary much over the last few decades, hovering around 100K returns, until the 2001 law was passed, then it decreases dramatically. And that was before the number went up again this year. Just around 30,000 people filed taxable estate tax returns. You can refute that now if you wish.

---

That was never my point. My point has always been potential.

Quote:

---

Are you prepared to admit you were using the wrong estate tax limit numbers yet? Probably not.

---

You might want to go back and read one of the posts - been away for a week but a remember clearly stating this statement.

You got me on not paying attention to when it went to 1.5 million - but that doesn't give one sufficient reason to make certain statements now either does it?

Quote:

---

And yet, you seem to think that that isn't an ad hominem attack. You do it all the time in these forums. It's on of your favorite phrases. It there such a thing as a pompous ass-u-me? You're the poster child. That's OK, as long as you're making pompous ass-umptions, I'll be here to call you on it.

---

How funny might or might not be an ad hominem fallacy or it could be simple sarcasm at the arguement. What is an ad hominem arguement is making accusations of bad math and bad numbers directed at the individual when one is indeed themselves guilty of doing exactly that.

What does ass-u-me mean?. Break it down you might begin to get a clear picture of the term. Here I will help. Assume makes rearends of both and all involved. (And I thought you spent time in the military - its a pretty basic saying. The saying has been around for many years.)

Quote:

---

Why wouldn't they? That's the cap! No one is really this stupid. It's got to be an act. Why would they focus on those below the cap? Those below the cap don't have a tax liability!

---

I questioned the percentaged based upon what I knew. That I did not pay attention to the cap being raised to 2 million this year is indeed my error. However we both have clearly demonstrated by the IRS numbers that the potential to be greater then .27 percent does indeed exist when one considers that their is 3510000 millionaries in the United States. You may believe it to be correct - that is your choice my opinion is something else. However when you yourself are guilty of using incorrect data - it is easy to see how the data can be used to develop the picture that one wants to paint.

Quote:

---

Tax examiner, eh? How funny (your phrase not mine). I know the qualifications needed for the job. In fact, I know a couple of people with just GEDs doing it right now. You haven't impressed me.

---

Making assumtions again - you might want to re-read what was written.

Quote:

---

Run away child. Enjoy your time away from our lovely forum. Unlike you, I can readily admit an error. Are you heading out to take a pompous ass-umption class? :laugh4:

---

ad hominem comments because I had to go on a business trip. To bad your still haven't learned a few simple lessons about behaviors.

Quote:

---

When you return, I promise to bow before your superior pompous ass-umptions. Or is that anterior? Hmmm...

---

Not necessary - you have demonstrated exactly the reason why one fails to learn from their own mistakes quite well.

As promised, I hereby and forthwith bow to your pompous ass-umptions. :bow:

You're still wrong; but Xiahou was having a hard time of it, so welcome back. We were running short of silly arguments to dissect. Things should pick up now! :wink: