Hooray for the tax cut…

[an]

[quote=deadzone]Right or wrong I’m all for higher inheritance tax. What did those worthless, spoiled rich kids to do deserve that financial windfall? They didn’t do shit, their parents did, or their grandparents. I say tax the shit out of em. You can call it “double taxation” if you want but all the same, it would rather them pay more than the rest of us.

Anyone who relies on their family for their financial well being is a loser in my book.[/quote]
Wow, just wow.

[surveyor]

deadzone:

The problem with taxing the rich or other plans so that it’s better “they” pay than the rest of us is that it will eventually be us who will have to pay the taxes.

AMT was originally devised as a way to catch those “filthy rich” but it now regularly hits middle class people.

Remember, the rich are the rich because they know how to handle their money. If there is an estate tax here, they will just go somewhere else or they will devise some way to legally divest the money to their heirs without triggering the estate tax. How many billions will Gates and Buffet not pay in estate taxes? They are deliberately putting most of their fortune in charities or other things. As a result, they will not pay as much estate tax as you think. Many others will do this.

And maybe you think it’s a loser for families to help their children. But the overwhelming number of us live our lives, scrape, and deny ourselves many things so that we can build a better future for our children and our grandchildren. If you tax that ability, rest assured that our children will not be better off. You will basically force people to spend it all before dying.

So if you think that having more taxes on others will spare you from those taxes, think again. History has proven you wrong.

[surveyor]

deadzone:

The problem with taxing the rich or other plans so that it’s better “they” pay than the rest of us is that it will eventually be us who will have to pay the taxes.

AMT was originally devised as a way to catch those “filthy rich” but it now regularly hits middle class people.

Remember, the rich are the rich because they know how to handle their money. If there is an estate tax here, they will just go somewhere else or they will devise some way to legally divest the money to their heirs without triggering the estate tax. How many billions will Gates and Buffet not pay in estate taxes? They are deliberately putting most of their fortune in charities or other things. As a result, they will not pay as much estate tax as you think. Many others will do this.

And maybe you think it’s a loser for families to help their children. But the overwhelming number of us live our lives, scrape, and deny ourselves many things so that we can build a better future for our children and our grandchildren. If you tax that ability, rest assured that our children will not be better off. You will basically force people to spend it all before dying.

So if you think that having more taxes on others will spare you from those taxes, think again. History has proven you wrong.

[surveyor]

deadzone:

The problem with taxing the rich or other plans so that it’s better “they” pay than the rest of us is that it will eventually be us who will have to pay the taxes.

AMT was originally devised as a way to catch those “filthy rich” but it now regularly hits middle class people.

Remember, the rich are the rich because they know how to handle their money. If there is an estate tax here, they will just go somewhere else or they will devise some way to legally divest the money to their heirs without triggering the estate tax. How many billions will Gates and Buffet not pay in estate taxes? They are deliberately putting most of their fortune in charities or other things. As a result, they will not pay as much estate tax as you think. Many others will do this.

And maybe you think it’s a loser for families to help their children. But the overwhelming number of us live our lives, scrape, and deny ourselves many things so that we can build a better future for our children and our grandchildren. If you tax that ability, rest assured that our children will not be better off. You will basically force people to spend it all before dying.

So if you think that having more taxes on others will spare you from those taxes, think again. History has proven you wrong.

[surveyor]

deadzone:

The problem with taxing the rich or other plans so that it’s better “they” pay than the rest of us is that it will eventually be us who will have to pay the taxes.

AMT was originally devised as a way to catch those “filthy rich” but it now regularly hits middle class people.

Remember, the rich are the rich because they know how to handle their money. If there is an estate tax here, they will just go somewhere else or they will devise some way to legally divest the money to their heirs without triggering the estate tax. How many billions will Gates and Buffet not pay in estate taxes? They are deliberately putting most of their fortune in charities or other things. As a result, they will not pay as much estate tax as you think. Many others will do this.

And maybe you think it’s a loser for families to help their children. But the overwhelming number of us live our lives, scrape, and deny ourselves many things so that we can build a better future for our children and our grandchildren. If you tax that ability, rest assured that our children will not be better off. You will basically force people to spend it all before dying.

So if you think that having more taxes on others will spare you from those taxes, think again. History has proven you wrong.

[surveyor]

deadzone:

The problem with taxing the rich or other plans so that it’s better “they” pay than the rest of us is that it will eventually be us who will have to pay the taxes.

AMT was originally devised as a way to catch those “filthy rich” but it now regularly hits middle class people.

Remember, the rich are the rich because they know how to handle their money. If there is an estate tax here, they will just go somewhere else or they will devise some way to legally divest the money to their heirs without triggering the estate tax. How many billions will Gates and Buffet not pay in estate taxes? They are deliberately putting most of their fortune in charities or other things. As a result, they will not pay as much estate tax as you think. Many others will do this.

And maybe you think it’s a loser for families to help their children. But the overwhelming number of us live our lives, scrape, and deny ourselves many things so that we can build a better future for our children and our grandchildren. If you tax that ability, rest assured that our children will not be better off. You will basically force people to spend it all before dying.

So if you think that having more taxes on others will spare you from those taxes, think again. History has proven you wrong.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=deadzone]Right or wrong I’m all for higher inheritance tax. What did those worthless, spoiled rich kids to do deserve that financial windfall? They didn’t do shit, their parents did, or their grandparents. I say tax the shit out of em. You can call it “double taxation” if you want but all the same, it would rather them pay more than the rest of us.

Anyone who relies on their family for their financial well being is a loser in my book.[/quote]
Wow, just wow.[/quote]

Actually I’m starting to see this sort of sour grapes of “reverse entitlement” mentality prevail.. In that people with more should share with the rest and other people should have less financial capital available so RE prices can come down so he can afford coastal living at 50% off 🙂

At once upon at time I believed raising taxes for everyone to offset this ballooning debt we have would be ideal.

However, it does appear now that we have the prevailing view of entitlement for those who have more and reverse entitlement for those who have less….

In short, I think everyone’s adopted the notion of “everyone for him/herself”…

In that case, I retract my opinion about how I think this tax cut is a bad idea…….I think it’s a great idea for me personally, since now I have two more years to figure out how to reduce my tax liabilities on dividends/capital/etc….I’ve …The bigger tax cuts for me, the better off I’m am..And that’s all that really matters….

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=deadzone]Right or wrong I’m all for higher inheritance tax. What did those worthless, spoiled rich kids to do deserve that financial windfall? They didn’t do shit, their parents did, or their grandparents. I say tax the shit out of em. You can call it “double taxation” if you want but all the same, it would rather them pay more than the rest of us.

Anyone who relies on their family for their financial well being is a loser in my book.[/quote]
Wow, just wow.[/quote]

Actually I’m starting to see this sort of sour grapes of “reverse entitlement” mentality prevail.. In that people with more should share with the rest and other people should have less financial capital available so RE prices can come down so he can afford coastal living at 50% off 🙂

At once upon at time I believed raising taxes for everyone to offset this ballooning debt we have would be ideal.

However, it does appear now that we have the prevailing view of entitlement for those who have more and reverse entitlement for those who have less….

In short, I think everyone’s adopted the notion of “everyone for him/herself”…

In that case, I retract my opinion about how I think this tax cut is a bad idea…….I think it’s a great idea for me personally, since now I have two more years to figure out how to reduce my tax liabilities on dividends/capital/etc….I’ve …The bigger tax cuts for me, the better off I’m am..And that’s all that really matters….

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=deadzone]Right or wrong I’m all for higher inheritance tax. What did those worthless, spoiled rich kids to do deserve that financial windfall? They didn’t do shit, their parents did, or their grandparents. I say tax the shit out of em. You can call it “double taxation” if you want but all the same, it would rather them pay more than the rest of us.

Anyone who relies on their family for their financial well being is a loser in my book.[/quote]
Wow, just wow.[/quote]

Actually I’m starting to see this sort of sour grapes of “reverse entitlement” mentality prevail.. In that people with more should share with the rest and other people should have less financial capital available so RE prices can come down so he can afford coastal living at 50% off 🙂

At once upon at time I believed raising taxes for everyone to offset this ballooning debt we have would be ideal.

However, it does appear now that we have the prevailing view of entitlement for those who have more and reverse entitlement for those who have less….

In short, I think everyone’s adopted the notion of “everyone for him/herself”…

In that case, I retract my opinion about how I think this tax cut is a bad idea…….I think it’s a great idea for me personally, since now I have two more years to figure out how to reduce my tax liabilities on dividends/capital/etc….I’ve …The bigger tax cuts for me, the better off I’m am..And that’s all that really matters….

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=deadzone]Right or wrong I’m all for higher inheritance tax. What did those worthless, spoiled rich kids to do deserve that financial windfall? They didn’t do shit, their parents did, or their grandparents. I say tax the shit out of em. You can call it “double taxation” if you want but all the same, it would rather them pay more than the rest of us.

Anyone who relies on their family for their financial well being is a loser in my book.[/quote]
Wow, just wow.[/quote]

Actually I’m starting to see this sort of sour grapes of “reverse entitlement” mentality prevail.. In that people with more should share with the rest and other people should have less financial capital available so RE prices can come down so he can afford coastal living at 50% off 🙂

At once upon at time I believed raising taxes for everyone to offset this ballooning debt we have would be ideal.

However, it does appear now that we have the prevailing view of entitlement for those who have more and reverse entitlement for those who have less….

In short, I think everyone’s adopted the notion of “everyone for him/herself”…

In that case, I retract my opinion about how I think this tax cut is a bad idea…….I think it’s a great idea for me personally, since now I have two more years to figure out how to reduce my tax liabilities on dividends/capital/etc….I’ve …The bigger tax cuts for me, the better off I’m am..And that’s all that really matters….

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=deadzone]Right or wrong I’m all for higher inheritance tax. What did those worthless, spoiled rich kids to do deserve that financial windfall? They didn’t do shit, their parents did, or their grandparents. I say tax the shit out of em. You can call it “double taxation” if you want but all the same, it would rather them pay more than the rest of us.

Anyone who relies on their family for their financial well being is a loser in my book.[/quote]
Wow, just wow.[/quote]

Actually I’m starting to see this sort of sour grapes of “reverse entitlement” mentality prevail.. In that people with more should share with the rest and other people should have less financial capital available so RE prices can come down so he can afford coastal living at 50% off 🙂

At once upon at time I believed raising taxes for everyone to offset this ballooning debt we have would be ideal.

However, it does appear now that we have the prevailing view of entitlement for those who have more and reverse entitlement for those who have less….

In short, I think everyone’s adopted the notion of “everyone for him/herself”…

In that case, I retract my opinion about how I think this tax cut is a bad idea…….I think it’s a great idea for me personally, since now I have two more years to figure out how to reduce my tax liabilities on dividends/capital/etc….I’ve …The bigger tax cuts for me, the better off I’m am..And that’s all that really matters….

[surveyor]

flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/

[surveyor]

flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/

[surveyor]

flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/

[surveyor]

flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/

[Author]

Posts