President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Jana]

Hillary Clinton appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning, where she discussed sexism with co-host Gretchen Carlson and took the opportunity to say that she "appreciated" Fox News' balanced coverage of her campaign. ...

"We did call them on it at Fox, in fact I think you went on record saying that Fox was the most fair and balanced place during the time when you were running," Carlson said.

"There were a lot of times when I appreciated the commentators and reporters on Fox who did step up and make that clear," Clinton responded.


Clinton said that her staff had sent her "some independent study" "which seemed to suggest that" "in terms of the fairness of the coverage," Fox News Channel has treated her campaign more fairly than MSNBC.

"I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear" on MSNBC, said Clinton.

hmmmm...did Hillary turn Republican and someone didn't tell me?

Well, Hillary used to be a Repub ...what's really going on here, however, is that Fox News was the only network that continued to treat Clinton as a frontrunner long after it became statistically impossible for her to win the nomination.
It got the point where her campaign was just a Nader or LaRouche-style vanity campaign.
She became such a attention starved media whore, she even granted a fawning interview with Richard Mellon Scaife – the same right wing mogul who just a decade earlier had accused her and her husband of murder.
Now, you tell me, was Hillary dispassionately grading the media, or just currying favor with anyone who’d give her a microphone?

Regarding talking heads, I was disgusted with many of the comments made by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, very sexist and belittling comments, and then their fawning over Obama way b/f she was out. She was right in respect to shows like that. Joe Scarborough and the Morning Joe show was fairer to her than the other two. Regarding nightly national news shows and Meet the Press and the like, they were fair to her and her campaign.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That Fox News leans conservative shouldn't surprise anyone just as it shouldn't surprise anyone that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC leans the other way. Why anyone ever bothers to argue about this anymore is beyond me.

I'll grant you MSNBC, which actually used to be swarming with Cons, before becoming the Keith Olbermann network.
But show me the liberal O'Reilly, Beck, or Hannity equivalent on any of those other networks?
Doesn't exist.
Even MSNBC still gives Joe Scarborough a 3-hour platform.
Does Fox even give Alan Colmes 30 minutes, much less a full hour?

Of course, even back when MSNBC was chock-a-block with Michael Savage, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley etc etc, you guys still bitched and griped about their liberal bias.
It's all a big game.
The right wing plays the refs so when they're called on their bullshit (or more recently, war crimes) they don't have to take responsibility.
If you undermine the cops on the beat, you can rape and despoil the country any way you choose.

If Matthews, Maddow and Olbermnan aren't the opposites of Beck, O"Reilly and Hannity then I don't know what I'm watching.

If you’re not going to read my post, FF, don’t waste my time or yours responding to it.
I explicitly said “I'll grant you MSNBC.”
Hell, you even quoted me.
And no Mathews, is not the same as any of those guys (cont’d below)...

Chrissey who gets a tingle up his leg over Obama?

Who also bent over backwards praising Bush for having the “sunny disposition of Abe Lincoln” and compared him to Eisenhower for looking “manly” in a flight suit.
Mathews is guilty of nothing but sheer political opportunism.
When the political winds shift the other way, watch for him to suck ass on the right once again.
Of course, by then, you guys won’t say a disparaging word.

Chrissey who calls West Point the "Enemy Terrority."

I don’t like Mathews, but it was pretty obvious what he meant by this.
He said the President had entered enemy territory.
In other words, liberals are anti- military and vice-a-versa.
You should be familiar with this right wing mythology, considering you’ve done more than anyone here to promote it.
Most recently, the Right accused Obama of snubbing our troops in Germany during the campaign (lie).
Last year, photos were also circulated of John Kerry eating alone in Iraq, as proof that the troops hated his treasonous guts.
Of course, that was also false.
So even when a pundit like Mathews tries to cater to your depraved line of thinking, he ends up on the receiving end of some contrived right wing spin.
It's lose-lose with you guys, liberal media bias is just acepted as some sort of wingnut article of faith.

Then there is John Gibson at ABC who didn't even know about the ACORN story.

Why should he?
Ultimately, two undercover kids exposed Acorn.
That guerilla amateur footage was then posted on Breitbart.
Even Fox News was asleep at the switch.
Until the kids exposed Acorn, all Fox had were spurious charges of voter registration fraud – most of which were known about because Acorn had reported it themselves.

Dan Rather who faked documents.

Who was fired, and whose Bush documents scandal was then investigated by an independent commission.
What more do you want?

A true liberal will not see the difference a real conservatives sees in the media since Foxs arrival on the scene. Before, we didn't have a voice other than an odd Brit Hume at ABC, or Trapper. Yeah there was Buckey and Novak and a few others that we only found on PBS, but they were always greatly outnumbered by the libs.

I don’t believe that at all.
It doesn’t matter what your ideology is: fair is fair.
Shep Smith and Special Report are no different from the nightly newscasts on the big three networks.
It’s neutral, middle of the road, solid reporting, as it should be.

Yeah there was Buckey and Novak and a few others that we only found on PBS, but they were always greatly outnumbered by the libs.

What crap.
Most of Buckley’s Firing Line featured Buckley going mano-a-mano with another guest.
That’s the very definition of a fair fight.
To this day, PBS’s one remaining political free-for-all, The McLaughlin Group, provides an equal ratio of libs to cons.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Regarding talking heads, I was disgusted with many of the comments made by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, very sexist and belittling comments, and then their fawning over Obama way b/f she was out. She was right in respect to shows like that. Joe Scarborough and the Morning Joe show was fairer to her than the other two. Regarding nightly national news shows and Meet the Press and the like, they were fair to her and her campaign.

You may see sexisim in that - and you'd be correct, but I'd say the larger bias was Edwards, Hillary, and Obama being the only Dem. candidates ever taken seriously by the press to begin with.
Likewise, the media played favorites on the right, prematurely anointing Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain.
Underdogs like Huckabee and Ron Paul managed to temporarily shatter through the media’s filter.
But then Fox News decided to ban Paul from the debates, despite him out-fundraising most of the candidates.
I think that was a big wake up call to a lot of independent minded libertarians and Conservatives.
A real conservative network would not have done that.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Seriously though, what is the purported rationale behind it?

Better ask Repubs like Abe Lincoln, McKinley, and Teddy Roosevelt who first started it.
Warren Buffet has been defending it recently.
If you want a rationale, this article may be a good place to start - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/busin ... ffett.html

[Ehwmatt]

Seriously though, what is the purported rationale behind it?

Better ask Repubs like Abe Lincoln, McKinley, and Teddy Roosevelt who first started it.
Warren Buffet has been defending it recently.
If you want a rationale, this article may be a good place to start - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/busin ... ffett.html

I mean I get that argument and it certainly has some merit to it when it comes to the super rich and a potential blueblood plutocracy. I just don't see the merit or the fairness in taxing someone who is responsible and saves up a decent chunk of change at their death...

[Ehwmatt]

Mr. Buffett, 77, said. “A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy.”

Like say The Kennedy's right?

Got it.

Like so many well-intentioned things, it's clear that the underlying purpose of the tax isn't being fulfilled - plenty of blue-blooded families with lots of money who at this point in their lineage have done nothing at all to earn it.

[Ehwmatt]

D-NY, Louise Slaughter: Pelosi should have been person of the year

http://www.politico.com/arena/

You Dems really oughta be embarrassed by people like this, just as I'm embarrassed about self-righteous Repubs who preach family values and proposition men in toilets or have an Argentinian mistress and other assorted Republican buffoons.

My question is how come they don’t see how much Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be given this honor in a year when her accomplishments are gigantic, impressive, monumental, ground-breaking and clearly historic. Not only is the first and only woman Speaker finishing her third year as leader of an energetic Democratic majority but she is doing it with style, creativity and persistence.

WOW. Just wow. The majority of America hates her and thinks she's an evil bitch... disillusioned much? She hasn't accomplished shit!

The disconnect between our "representatives" and the "people" is just mind boggling. I really truly think the days of our democracy are limited.

[7 Wishes]

I'm sure of one thing - Plastic-face Pelosi was NOT behind the decision to tax voluntary cosmetic surgery.

[7 Wishes]

Also, have you notice how many Democrats have severe lisps? Peter Welch, Barney Frank, Boston mayor Tom Menino (whose idiot son was my roommate in college many years ago; he almost flunked out twice)...I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

[Behshad]

Ensign, DeMint to Force a Vote on Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate

Jim DeMint and John Ensign are going to force a vote on the issue. Democrats will be forced to take a position on whether or not the federal government can force individuals to buy products on pain of criminal penalty.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

[Behshad]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21






Man o man, look at the red spike up the last few days.

[7 Wishes]

Hmmm!!!! GOP hypocrisy rears its ugly head again. Only this time, the guy calling you out is one of your own!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_deficit

WASHINGTON – Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago, when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits.

The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who claim that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support.

By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt.

Some conservatives have no patience for such explanations.

"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."

Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."

The pending health care bills in Congress, he noted, are projected to add nothing to the deficit over 10 years.

Other lawmakers who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion include the Senate's top three Republican leaders, all sharp critics of the Obama-backed health care plans: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Eleven Democratic senators voted with them back then.

[7 Wishes]

Really, Merry Christmas to all you guys. You know I love ya bastards...

Hit me with your best shot.

[separate_wayz]

Mr. Buffett, 77, said. “A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy.”

Like say The Kennedy's right?

Got it.

Like so many well-intentioned things, it's clear that the underlying purpose of the tax isn't being fulfilled - plenty of blue-blooded families with lots of money who at this point in their lineage have done nothing at all to earn it.

With all due respect, Mr. Buffett's interest in the estate tax is anything but altruistic or charitable. Mr. Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, thrives on acquiring family-owned businesses that are forced onto the auction block to liquidate assets at bargain prices upon the death of their owners and founders. The reason many of these companies have to sell (rather than passing on ownership to heirs) is to pay estate taxes. Some of the family-owned companies that Berkshire acquired in such a manner include: Dairy Queen, Jordan’s, Justin Industries, Star Furniture, Borsheim, Ben Bridge Jewelers, U.S. Liability, NetJets, R.C. Wiley, Flight Safety and Nebraska Furniture Mart.

It's the existence of the estate tax that puts these companies into the predicament (and to the benefit of Berkshire) of having to sell at fire-sale prices. To add insult to injury, one the companies that Berkshire acquired sells estate tax insurance, so Mr. Buffett profits from that angle too.

[Monker]

Here are the facts about the estate tax situation. For those who are so worried about it, I wonder how many of you would fall into the taxable category, and I wonder how many of you have actually planned your estate.

----------------

Under current law, the federal estate tax is scheduled to temporarily disappear next year before returning in 2011 at an even higher rate. The House voted on December 3, 2009 to indefinitely extend a 45% tax on estates larger than $3.5 million, canceling a one-year repeal of the tax set to begin January 1, 2010.

A similar effort is afoot in the Senate, but the health care debate and disagreements among senators over the tax rate and the size of the estate exemption could preclude action before Congress breaks later this month for the holidays. It’s possible that legislation may be passed in early 2010 and made retroactive to January 1st.

Under the House bill, estates smaller than $3.5 million would continue to be exempt from the estate tax. Married couples, with proper estate plans, could exempt a total of $7 million. That would leave less than 1% of all estates subject to the estate tax.

A House leader stated that it’s important to set a permanent estate tax so wealthy families and small business owners can plan accordingly; exempting estates as large as $3.5 million from the tax will protect all but the wealthiest Americans.

The quirk in the current law, in which the estate tax would disappear for only one year in 2010, came out of a series of tax cuts enacted in 2001. The intent was to permanently repeal the estate tax, but Congress settled on a gradual reduction, with a one-year repeal, to reduce the impact on the federal budget deficit. Also, in 2010, there would be no step-up in basis on inherited assets. Under current law, the estate tax would return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and whopping top rate of 55%.

-------- Existing Law ---------- | -------Proposed Changes --------
Year | Estate Tax Exemption | Tax Rate | Estate Tax Exemptiohn | Tax Rate
|
2009 $3.5 million 45% | n/a n/a
2010 Unlimited exemption 0% | $3.5 million 45%
2011 & forward $1.0 million 55% | $3.5 million 45%

[RossValoryRocks]

Here are the facts about the estate tax situation. For those who are so worried about it, I wonder how many of you would fall into the taxable category, and I wonder how many of you have actually planned your estate.

----------------

Under current law, the federal estate tax is scheduled to temporarily disappear next year before returning in 2011 at an even higher rate. The House voted on December 3, 2009 to indefinitely extend a 45% tax on estates larger than $3.5 million, canceling a one-year repeal of the tax set to begin January 1, 2010.

A similar effort is afoot in the Senate, but the health care debate and disagreements among senators over the tax rate and the size of the estate exemption could preclude action before Congress breaks later this month for the holidays. It’s possible that legislation may be passed in early 2010 and made retroactive to January 1st.

Under the House bill, estates smaller than $3.5 million would continue to be exempt from the estate tax. Married couples, with proper estate plans, could exempt a total of $7 million. That would leave less than 1% of all estates subject to the estate tax.

A House leader stated that it’s important to set a permanent estate tax so wealthy families and small business owners can plan accordingly; exempting estates as large as $3.5 million from the tax will protect all but the wealthiest Americans.

The quirk in the current law, in which the estate tax would disappear for only one year in 2010, came out of a series of tax cuts enacted in 2001. The intent was to permanently repeal the estate tax, but Congress settled on a gradual reduction, with a one-year repeal, to reduce the impact on the federal budget deficit. Also, in 2010, there would be no step-up in basis on inherited assets. Under current law, the estate tax would return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and whopping top rate of 55%.

-------- Existing Law ---------- | -------Proposed Changes --------
Year | Estate Tax Exemption | Tax Rate | Estate Tax Exemptiohn | Tax Rate
|
2009 $3.5 million 45% | n/a n/a
2010 Unlimited exemption 0% | $3.5 million 45%
2011 & forward $1.0 million 55% | $3.5 million 45%

What I don't get is why there is an estate tax at all...EVERY dollar in any estate...no matter the size...has been taxed at least once by the Federal Government. How this is Constitutional I don't understand. If anyone can explain it to me, or provide links I would be appreciative.

If a person works all his/her life to achieve and somehow manages to get to the top, it isn't right (IMHO) for the government to take almost 1/2 or better (depending on how this all shakes out) of monies and properties that have already been taxes repeatedly.

It really boggles the mind.

[Lula]

i'm sure there are ways around the tax. just like when a parent adds a child to the title of their house. but maybe people with a ton of money can't trust anyone. there are so many tricks that accountants use, even for us poverty level earners

in the big picture, an estate tax is the least of my worries. i'd rather see our wartime vets given a home and job to come back to.

[Monker]

Here are the facts about the estate tax situation. For those who are so worried about it, I wonder how many of you would fall into the taxable category, and I wonder how many of you have actually planned your estate.

----------------

Under current law, the federal estate tax is scheduled to temporarily disappear next year before returning in 2011 at an even higher rate. The House voted on December 3, 2009 to indefinitely extend a 45% tax on estates larger than $3.5 million, canceling a one-year repeal of the tax set to begin January 1, 2010.

A similar effort is afoot in the Senate, but the health care debate and disagreements among senators over the tax rate and the size of the estate exemption could preclude action before Congress breaks later this month for the holidays. It’s possible that legislation may be passed in early 2010 and made retroactive to January 1st.

Under the House bill, estates smaller than $3.5 million would continue to be exempt from the estate tax. Married couples, with proper estate plans, could exempt a total of $7 million. That would leave less than 1% of all estates subject to the estate tax.

A House leader stated that it’s important to set a permanent estate tax so wealthy families and small business owners can plan accordingly; exempting estates as large as $3.5 million from the tax will protect all but the wealthiest Americans.

The quirk in the current law, in which the estate tax would disappear for only one year in 2010, came out of a series of tax cuts enacted in 2001. The intent was to permanently repeal the estate tax, but Congress settled on a gradual reduction, with a one-year repeal, to reduce the impact on the federal budget deficit. Also, in 2010, there would be no step-up in basis on inherited assets. Under current law, the estate tax would return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and whopping top rate of 55%.

-------- Existing Law ---------- | -------Proposed Changes --------
Year | Estate Tax Exemption | Tax Rate | Estate Tax Exemptiohn | Tax Rate
|
2009 $3.5 million 45% | n/a n/a
2010 Unlimited exemption 0% | $3.5 million 45%
2011 & forward $1.0 million 55% | $3.5 million 45%

What I don't get is why there is an estate tax at all...EVERY dollar in any estate...no matter the size...has been taxed at least once by the Federal Government. How this is Constitutional I don't understand. If anyone can explain it to me, or provide links I would be appreciative.

If a person works all his/her life to achieve and somehow manages to get to the top, it isn't right (IMHO) for the government to take almost 1/2 or better (depending on how this all shakes out) of monies and properties that have already been taxes repeatedly.

It really boggles the mind.

It's taxed because it is INCOME for people receiving a portion of the estate.. To me, it's no different then winning the lottery and should simply be added as income on your tax forms....I would completely agree that we should get rid of the estate tax if an inheritence must be included as taxable income....and maybe it already is, I don't know. If it IS counted as income, then I would agree that it is double taxation and one or the other needs to be removed..

And, if someone is making $3.5 million a year, they should be smart enough to plan for this.

[RocknRoll]

It's taxed because it is INCOME for people receiving a portion of the estate.. To me, it's no different then winning the lottery and should simply be added as income on your tax forms....I would completely agree that we should get rid of the estate tax if an inheritence must be included as taxable income....and maybe it already is, I don't know. If it IS counted as income, then I would agree that it is double taxation and one or the other needs to be removed..

And, if someone is making $3.5 million a year, they should be smart enough to plan for this.

This is not income, it is the total value of the estate including savings, house, etc. Remember inflation is about to run rampant and 3.5m is going to be nothing in a couple years.

BTW I agree with RVR about double taxation. Wasn't that a big issue way way back when. Also, I really enjoy these political threads and the cut/pastes from both sides. It gives me an opportunity to follow-up on these issues.

[Monker]

It's taxed because it is INCOME for people receiving a portion of the estate.. To me, it's no different then winning the lottery and should simply be added as income on your tax forms....I would completely agree that we should get rid of the estate tax if an inheritence must be included as taxable income....and maybe it already is, I don't know. If it IS counted as income, then I would agree that it is double taxation and one or the other needs to be removed..

And, if someone is making $3.5 million a year, they should be smart enough to plan for this.

This is not income, it is the total value of the estate including savings, house, etc. Remember inflation is about to run rampant and 3.5m is going to be nothing in a couple years.

BTW I agree with RVR about double taxation. Wasn't that a big issue way way back when. Also, I really enjoy these political threads and the cut/pastes from both sides. It gives me an opportunity to follow-up on these issues.

Oh, please, they are taxing the entire estate rather then taxing the people inheriting the $'s. It IS income. You can't give your children a $3.5million gift without it being taxed...inheritence should not be any different. Again, I think it should be on your tax forms as income - because THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

You have also not time-traveled into the future to tell us with %100 certainty about inflation....and IMO, it's irrelevant anyway to the topic itself. Again, if people PLANNED THEIR ESTATE, I doubt this would be as much of an issue as it is. Anybody with a brain should know that it is best to leave this world with as many assets as when you entered it.

As far as my 'cut/paste' it was something sent to us at work, directed more at those who have to deal with such issues to inform them of what the situation is now and how it may change in the near future...so they can deal with clients and be informed. It was not a political msg from some newspaper...that is the way it is, and will be. I hate the political BS that people like MythMaker post that is obviously slanted with one agenda or another.

[RocknRoll]

It's taxed because it is INCOME for people receiving a portion of the estate.. To me, it's no different then winning the lottery and should simply be added as income on your tax forms....I would completely agree that we should get rid of the estate tax if an inheritence must be included as taxable income....and maybe it already is, I don't know. If it IS counted as income, then I would agree that it is double taxation and one or the other needs to be removed..

And, if someone is making $3.5 million a year, they should be smart enough to plan for this.

This is not income, it is the total value of the estate including savings, house, etc. Remember inflation is about to run rampant and 3.5m is going to be nothing in a couple years.

BTW I agree with RVR about double taxation. Wasn't that a big issue way way back when. Also, I really enjoy these political threads and the cut/pastes from both sides. It gives me an opportunity to follow-up on these issues.

Oh, please, they are taxing the entire estate rather then taxing the people inheriting the $'s. It IS income. You can't give your children a $3.5million gift without it being taxed...inheritence should not be any different. Again, I think it should be on your tax forms as income - because THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

You have also not time-traveled into the future to tell us with %100 certainty about inflation....and IMO, it's irrelevant anyway to the topic itself. Again, if people PLANNED THEIR ESTATE, I doubt this would be as much of an issue as it is. Anybody with a brain should know that it is best to leave this world with as many assets as when you entered it.

As far as my 'cut/paste' it was something sent to us at work, directed more at those who have to deal with such issues to inform them of what the situation is now and how it may change in the near future...so they can deal with clients and be informed. It was not a political msg from some newspaper...that is the way it is, and will be. I hate the political BS that people like MythMaker post that is obviously slanted with one agenda or another.

So what your saying is assets are income to whoever receives them, except for the fact that taxes have already been paid on these assets at least once. Not quite the same as the lottery. It's still double taxation no matter how you look at it. Actually now that I think about it, lottery winnings are based on people buying lottery tickets that they've paid taxes on so you might have a point. Of course if those lottery winning are left as part of an estate than they get taxed at least 3 times. I guess the only difference is in most cases these are assets that people have worked and saved for. Now even I'm getting confused, no wonder this doesn't work.

I think I"m getting more and more supportive of the FairTax initiative.

I assume you're following what's going on in the economy with the debt and interest rates. Inflation is coming it's just a matter of how soon and how much. This is going to impact a lot more folks down the road than just congress's definition of the super rich that some think should bear the brunt of supporting this government(I think that used to be called the economy).

Remember I like the cut/paste in this thread. It gives me a chance to see both sides.

[Memorex]

Every dollar is taxed a zillion times as it changes hands. a single dollar becomes income to different people over and over.

I'd rather inherit half of a wealthy estate than what I am going to get in reality - DEBT! Ha ha.

For me, car registration is what irks me. That's true double/triple.... taxation. I paid tax on the car when I bought it, now I have to pay a fee (which is a tax) to continue to operate it. I don't have to do that with jewelery, my fridge, my TV... I know people are quick to say it's for the roads - but that's what income taxes are for.

And worst of all - gas tax. Talk about hitting the poor the hardest. The wealthy man pulling up in the limo pays the same 18% (or whatever it is in each state) as the working single mother with 3 kids trying to get to work. We do not tax food in this country, we ought to take it easy on things that help people get to work (clothes, cars, fuel). Just my opinion.

[Monker]

So what your saying is assets are income to whoever receives them, except for the fact that taxes have already been paid on these assets at least once.

And, when you receive a paycheck from your work, income taxes will be applied for the business and to you. if you give your kids $100,000, income taxes will be applied to that even though you have already paid for them. If you go to the casino and win the big jackpot, income taxes will be applied to that even tho the casino has paid.

Income taxes are applied to the person receiving the money, regardless of how it was taxed by the person giving it. That's way it is. Double taxation is if YOU are taxed twice for the same money...If you are charged income taxes for the appreciation on your house, and you are charged property taxes. THAT is double taxation.

It's still double taxation no matter how you look at it.

Only if you are blinding by the politics of it.

Actually now that I think about it, lottery winnings are based on people buying lottery tickets that they've paid taxes on so you might have a point.

My point is if you get $3.5 million dollar check, you should be charged income taxes on it...whether it is because you win the lottery or if you parents died in a plane crash. It is INCOME to you.

Of course if those lottery winning are left as part of an estate than they get taxed at least 3 times. I guess the only difference is in most cases these are assets that people have worked and saved for. Now even I'm getting confused, no wonder this doesn't work. [/quote[]

It doesn't 'work' because it is made complicated by politics. Republicans calling it a 'death tax' and using it in their mindless fear mongering. And, Democrats inability to fight against it so it looks like they are scheming behind closed doors.

I think I"m getting more and more supportive of the FairTax initiative.

I don't think fairs should be taxed. In fact, they should be tax free environments where you pay no taxes for all the fried food and fun.

I assume you're following what's going on in the economy with the debt and interest rates. Inflation is coming it's just a matter of how soon and how much. This is going to impact a lot more folks down the road than just congress's definition of the super rich that some think should bear the brunt of supporting this government(I think that used to be called the economy).

It's ridiculous to predict such things with such certainty. You have no idea what forces will be around in the future. For example, if gas prices crash to under $1/gallon, that is a HUGE DEFLATIONARY impact. I think we are in a place where we don't know AT ALL where will be in two or three years. I think the economy is recovering but to say there is going to be a huge amount of inflation is guesswork at best...it may happen, it may not....nobody knows for certain.

[RocknRoll]

I don't think fairs should be taxed. In fact, they should be tax free environments where you pay no taxes for all the fried food and fun.

LOL!! Congress will probably want to add taxes to all that fair food since most of it is bad for your health and fun is way too dangerous. We must keep costs down.

Actually the FairTax concept does make a lot of sense, but it would probably put a lot of government workers out of a job and what would congress do? We can't have that even though it would probably increase payrolls in the private sector.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

[strangegrey]

It's taxed because it is INCOME for people receiving a portion of the estate.. To me, it's no different then winning the lottery and should simply be added as income on your tax forms....I would completely agree that we should get rid of the estate tax if an inheritence must be included as taxable income....and maybe it already is, I don't know. If it IS counted as income, then I would agree that it is double taxation and one or the other needs to be removed..

And, if someone is making $3.5 million a year, they should be smart enough to plan for this.

Monker, you don't know what you're talking about....please either acquiesce on this topic or research the matter with tax literature before commenting further.....

Inheritance is *not* taxible....You can inherit more money than you can make in 1000 lifetimes. Feel free to look into this so that yolu don't sound off like you don't know what you're talking about.

What gets taxed is the persons ESTATE. NOT the surviving inheritors 'income from inheritance'. To that extent, the money is getting double taxed and it's wrong. Some will argue that it's constitutionally wrong. You work your entire life, giving uncle sam, state and local municipalities 20-50% of your money.....what is left over, is taxed once again...when you die. Double taxation is circumvented in a rather bullshit way, because legally, a person's estate is treated as a seperate entity.

Regardless.....AFTER that money is taxed, anything left over is INHERITANCE....and is tax free to anyone left to inherit it, intestate or otherwise.


Jesus....read a fucking book or two on this. These are basic taxaion concepts, for fucks sake.

[Saint John]

Monker, you must just love bending over, opening up your asshole and letting the tax fairies plow through your rectum like Peter North at a sorority party (or in JasonD's case, Peter North at a frat party.). People work hard and sacrifice to leave the next generation better off than they were, and whether it's $5 or $50 million ... it should be left behind tax free.

PS You're an asshole.

[strangegrey]

Unrealized gains have not been taxed and those are the gains the IRS should maybe take a little bit of at death. Realized gains have already been taxed, in most cases pretty heavily, and should not be subjected to a double tax at death.

which is one of the arguments for maintaining a death/estate tax. However, if the only thing being taxed at the estate level, is a percentage portion of unrealized gains, then I don't think the movement of people arguing against it would have much steam.

I would love to see a study of a sample of 706's filed in the US...and see just how much was taken from dead taxpayers that represent unrealized gains. Seriously. The effective rate on such a gain is probably quite high....and it will shoot straight on up to 100% and beyond when the death tax sunsets next year.

[Monker]

It's taxed because it is INCOME for people receiving a portion of the estate.. To me, it's no different then winning the lottery and should simply be added as income on your tax forms....I would completely agree that we should get rid of the estate tax if an inheritence must be included as taxable income....and maybe it already is, I don't know. If it IS counted as income, then I would agree that it is double taxation and one or the other needs to be removed..

And, if someone is making $3.5 million a year, they should be smart enough to plan for this.

Monker, you don't know what you're talking about....please either acquiesce on this topic or research the matter with tax literature before commenting further.....

Inheritance is *not* taxible....You can inherit more money than you can make in 1000 lifetimes. Feel free to look into this so that yolu don't sound off like you don't know what you're talking about.

And, you didn't read my posts. I said in the beginning that I believe that it should be taxed as income...and if that happens then the 'death tax' should not be. I

So, please, read MY posts so you actually know what YOU are talking about.;

What gets taxed is the persons ESTATE. NOT the surviving inheritors 'income from inheritance'.

Yep...and that's not the way it should be...when you inherit, it is income to you and you should be taxed for it.

To that extent, the money is getting double taxed and it's wrong. Some will argue that it's constitutionally wrong. You work your entire life, giving uncle sam, state and local municipalities 20-50% of your money.....what is left over, is taxed once again...when you die. Double taxation is circumvented in a rather bullshit way, because legally, a person's estate is treated as a seperate entity.

Regardless.....AFTER that money is taxed, anything left over is INHERITANCE....and is tax free to anyone left to inherit it, intestate or otherwise.

And, that is backwards. It is taxed before it is inherited...it should be after.

Jesus....read a fucking book or two on this. These are basic taxaion concepts, for fucks sake.

If you want to spend your life reading the tax code, that's your business. All I am saying is that a $3.5 million estate is income to those who inherit a portion and should be taxed...and it is NOT 'double taxation' to do so.

[Monker]

Unrealized gains have not been taxed and those are the gains the IRS should maybe take a little bit of at death. Realized gains have already been taxed, in most cases pretty heavily, and should not be subjected to a double tax at death.

And, if your father gives you $3,500,000, it is taxed. If your father gives you $3,000,000 at death, it should also be taxed. Realized gains on assets are irrelevant because YOU did not hold on to that asset long enough to have any gain/loss.

[strangegrey]

Yep...and that's not the way it should be...when you inherit, it is income to you and you should be taxed for it.

I deleted the rest of your post because you restated the same stupid idea several times in an attempt to put lipstick on your pig of an idea.


Regardless, Monker, you're looking at over 80 years of precedent. Some states and countries have an inheritance tax in addition to or in leu of an estate tax. It doesn't make the tax any more just.

Seriously. The passage of wealth from parent to child is not a transaction that the government should have a claim to.