Big P
Well-Known Member
so say if i have a $400,000 house when i get older and then i die, i leave it to my son, he got to pay about 40% or 160K to keep the house i think
when GW's tax cuts expire that is
so say if i have a $400,000 house when i get older and then i die, i leave it to my son, he got to pay about 40% or 160K to keep the house i think
when GW's tax cuts expire that is
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
there is no estate tax at all in 2010 (federal)
in 2011 and forward there is a $1M exemption
Congress will, most likely, increase the exemption amount because well, you know, the rich don't like taxes
the rate doesn't start at 50%
it is a graduated rate, just like income tax, although it "graduates" a little quicker and goes a little higher than the individual rates
a provision attached to the house jobs bill includes an estate tax exemption bump, but i'm not sure how much
undertheice
Well-Known Member
the individual is what it's all about. the only real difference between what is referred to as the left and the right is that the latter believes the interests of society are best served by allowing the individual to make his own decisions, while the former seems to think that the state should look after us all. one aims toward anarchism, the other toward totalitarianism. i think you've probably got a pretty good idea which train i'm on.
handouts to those who pay little or no tax in the first place are not tax cuts but wealth redistribution, increasing a debt that will be paid by those capable of success. such programs are nothing more than public relations ploys to garner support for the next election cycle. an economy is not grown by scattering crumbs to the indigent at the expense of the productive, it is stimulated by allowing the individual to keep what he earns and invest it in an ever widening spiral of growth. government does not create, it merely rearranges the pieces in the game and feeds off of the fat. the individual creates, but only if he is allowed to do so.
yup, i'm an anarchist at heart and i'm looking out for myself and my family first, just like everyone else. but i am representative of every other individual and i can't see why i should be forced to take responsibility for those who are not willing to take responsibility for themselves. i choose to aid those i can, but i am unwilling to allow a totalitarian regime to force that decision on me. even if that force is directed by the majority, it is still an unwarranted intrusion on my freedom.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
from a theoretical point of view that all makes perfect sense. you know as well as anyone that it is a blend of these philosophies that manifests itself as a nation.
there is no point in expousing either extreme or demonizing either point-of-view. and an anarchist state is impossible.
citizens have to take responsibility for the condition of there government and it leaders. an anarchist doesn't believe in a government. anarchists are not good citizens. anarchists have no sense of nationhood or citizenship.
swishatwista
Well-Known Member
lol..........
undertheice
Well-Known Member
what the hell do you think a society or a nation is? it certainly isn't the government, it is the people. failing to bend to the will of the state does not make one a bad citizen. government is not required to make one care about the other members of society.
oh shit, i'm just too high for this particular rant. i'm just so damn sick of folks that see government as the glue that holds society together that i can't help myself. it is the intent of the people that determines the ethos of a nation, government is merely the instrument used by one group to force conformity on others through the threat of violence and incarceration. at its best, government merely acts to protect the individual from the undue influence of others. at its worst, it demands total control and the subversion of the individual for the sake of an ideal. can you tell which way we are heading right now?
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
this is the problem with the extreme right. debating any issue, they twist and turn the opposing position and then respond to something entirely irrelevant.
i never said, implied, insinuated or even set a baseline that could be developed into any concept you are bitching about. like where did i say that a nation was a government? and on and on ..
i don't think anarchy is the answer and you are an admitted philosophical anarchist. that's all i'm saying.
and don't think you don't make me sick, as well.
archaeo
Member
exactly correct here - it's the 'straw man argument':
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
BTW, it was very common in the last administration...