[JohnInIndy]

That's not what you said at tax time.
When will you be truthful John?

When the AFL/CIO comes to call.

I paid no tax this year. I also made no money. I lived off of savings. Savings that I did pay royally in taxes for. I did however contribute $1.00 towards next year's tax burden.

I believe I said I made no money. That would be income tax. Would it not? If so then I didn't pay any. As much as you can't understand truth it is so. Still I did pay taxes. Do union people know the term "capital gains"?

[shooz]

Like I said, you weaseled out of paying.
How will your plan pave a road, fix a bridge, support those less fortunate?

[JohnInIndy]

Like I said, you weaseled out of paying.
How will your plan pave a road, fix a bridge, support those less fortunate?

How did I weasel out?

BTW if Warren were truly serious about being taxed more he and our President are fully free to stroke a check in any amount they deem appropriate in their hearts to the IRS. But then we know they are full of nothing but lip service.

[Nesster]

BTW if Warren were truly serious about being taxed more he and our President are fully free to stroke a check in any amount they deem appropriate in their hearts to the IRS. But then we know they are full of nothing but lip service.

As you already don't pay income tax - and don't believe in it - but advocate a consumption tax, by the same token please stroke a check to cover all your spending & send that to the IRS...

[shooz]

How did I weasel out?

I have no idea how weasels do what they do.
Why don't you explain it.

Perhaps you would be interested to know that I feel we should adopt Jeffersons idea that patents should last only 3 years.
After all no idea is formed in a vacuum and long lasting patents are nothing, if not regressive.

[Colbyt]

Yes, of course it is much more "moral" to collect that money from live, productive, working people than the heirs of the dead.

Gee! That sounds a lot like the normal Liberal agenda, Take his money, not mine. Each and every living citizen should pay a fair share and to some degree that should be based on ability to pay with the qualifier that everyone pays something. In the current scenario many get back far more than they paid into the system.

[shooz]

many get back far more than they paid into the system.

Every one of those wallstreet CEOs
That's why I say tax the crap out of them.
Gotta make up for lost time.

I never heard of one provable job created by the tax break for the job creators.
Let alone the millions that were needed.

[boriscleto]

Daily Kos: A Civil War: We're Eating Each Other For The Crumbs

[GeneV]

Gee! That sounds a lot like the normal Liberal agenda, Take his money, not mine. Each and every living citizen should pay a fair share and to some degree that should be based on ability to pay with the qualifier that everyone pays something. In the current scenario many get back far more than they paid into the system.

And that sounds like unreasoned conservative dogma. Why? Get past the talking point. Why is is more "moral" to tax living, working, earning people than heirs who did not earn the income?

[Nesster]

And what is wrong with "many get back far more than they paid into the system"? Is that not the point? Otherwise why even have a system at all?

If two kids get government scholarships - or army training - and one is killed right away, or simply is 'non productive' in life, whereas the other lives and has a 'productive' life - maybe even becomes a Job Creator - is one an immoral kid, one we should not have supported? And the second kid, is there not an call for her to pay back - with interest - the aid she got getting started?

[boriscleto]

By Cutting Taxes on the Rich, We've Incentivized Greed--How Do We Return to Fairness? | | AlterNet

It is curious that the American Right, which waxes nostalgic for the happier days of the 1950s when the United States was supposedly more moral and more united, ignores one of the central reasons behind that middle-class era: very high taxes on the rich.

[Nesster]

Here's an interesting & educational piece from J S G:
John Steele Gordon: A Short History of the Income Tax - WSJ.com

Unfortunately the corporate income tax, originally intended as only a stopgap measure, was left in place unchanged. As a result, for the last 98 years we have had two completely separate and uncoordinated income taxes. It's a bit as if corporations were owned by Martians, otherwise untaxed, instead of by their very earthly—and taxed—stockholders.

This has had two deeply pernicious effects. One, it allowed the very rich to avoid taxes by playing the two systems against each other. When the top personal income tax rate soared to 75% in World War I, for instance, thousands of the rich simply incorporated their holdings in order to pay the much lower corporate tax rate.

There has since been a sort of evolutionary arms race, as tax lawyers and accountants came up with ever new ways to game the system, and Congress endlessly added to the tax code to forbid or regulate the new strategies. The income tax act of 1913 had been 14 pages long. The Revenue Act of 1942 was 208 pages long, 78% of them devoted to closing or defining loopholes. It has only gotten worse.

The other pernicious consequence of the separate corporate and personal income taxes has been a field day for demagogues and the misguided to claim that the rich are not paying their "fair share." Warren Buffett recently claimed that he had paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year. But Berkshire Hathaway, of which Mr. Buffett owns 30%, paid $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes. Were Berkshire Hathaway a Subchapter S corporation and exempt from corporate income taxes, Mr. Buffett's personal tax bill would have been 231 times higher, at $1.6 billion.

[JohnInIndy]

And that sounds like unreasoned conservative dogma. Why? Get past the talking point. Why is is more "moral" to tax living, working, earning people than heirs who did not earn the income?

That money was already taxed once. So it's ok to tax it again when it is inheritance? What right does the government have to get taxes twice on the same pool of money? Should we then tax life insurance proceeds? Why do lawyers think they are entitled to be paid $300+ per hour + expenses? Or get so much of a settlement? Sometimes more than the client?

[shooz]

So many questions, John.
When will you answer those asked of you?

[jeffkrol]

That money was already taxed once. So it's ok to tax it again when it is inheritance? What right does the government have to get taxes twice on the same pool of money? Should we then tax life insurance proceeds? Why do lawyers think they are entitled to be paid $300+ per hour + expenses? Or get so much of a settlement? Sometimes more than the client?

In a sense the "heirs" didn't earn a penny of that money and in essence are as entitled to it as the government.


What made it their MONEY???? Birthright... How about Countries rights as provider of the environment that "allowed" them to "collect" the Fed dollars....

Must be a psychological thing since each time I inherited something I considered it a gift, certainly not something I EARNED by my existence... Good thing my family was more stable and one sibling or another did not feel they DESERVED more than the other... like soo many other dysfunctional ones.....