Hooray for the tax cut…

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?[/quote]

Gates and Buffet have created arguably thousands of jobs during their lifetime and many millionaires where there were previously none. Those jobs have not only benefited the workers, they have also created a society where luxuries that could only be previously accessible to the rich are now even affordable to the poorest of the United States.

Gates and Buffett have also decided to spend a large portion of their personal fortune to charity and other humanitarian causes.

Their benefits to society should be pretty evident and was not just limited to the rich and powerful.

Not saying everyone does this, but there is something in America that fosters this more than any other civilization. Even other societies have benefited from this, not just ours.

[Anonymous]

Gates and Buffet are nice examples of “benign billionaires,” but the the overall humanitarian track record for the extremely wealthy is a little more mixed.

But if anyone is arguing the merits of an incentive-based capitalist system, we are in violent agreement.

However this thread is about taxes. Surveyor seems to be promoting the thesis of “lower taxes equals more capitalism,” which is oversimplified and just plain wrong.

Taxes and capitalism are not incompatible. Government is essential for capitalism to work (the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith agree with this as well.) And to pay for government, you must have taxes.

The main question in tax policy is: “who should pay for government?” The obvious answer is: “whomever benefits from government”

Rehash from another thread:

Bill Gates has benefited tremendously from the development of the internet, which was initially created with government funding.

One of Warren Buffet’s favorite investments is insurance companies. Would insurance companies have done as well without a legal and regulatory infrastructure that enables people to trust their investments in insurance products? (In other words, how many insurance companies are based in Somalia? It’s no coincidence that there are no taxes there either.)

The Walton family benefits tremendously from the interstate highway system, our international ports, and government agencies that protect commerce on the seas. These services enable and protect Wal Mart’s massive international distribution system.

So who benefits most from government?

So who should pay for it?

Too many folks just don’t get it. They just want their taxes to be lower (and for some bizarre reason many seem to even more concerned with the taxes of people with orders of magnitude more wealth…)

Lower taxes and everything will get better? It just doesn’t work that way.

[Anonymous]

Gates and Buffet are nice examples of “benign billionaires,” but the the overall humanitarian track record for the extremely wealthy is a little more mixed.

But if anyone is arguing the merits of an incentive-based capitalist system, we are in violent agreement.

However this thread is about taxes. Surveyor seems to be promoting the thesis of “lower taxes equals more capitalism,” which is oversimplified and just plain wrong.

Taxes and capitalism are not incompatible. Government is essential for capitalism to work (the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith agree with this as well.) And to pay for government, you must have taxes.

The main question in tax policy is: “who should pay for government?” The obvious answer is: “whomever benefits from government”

Rehash from another thread:

Bill Gates has benefited tremendously from the development of the internet, which was initially created with government funding.

One of Warren Buffet’s favorite investments is insurance companies. Would insurance companies have done as well without a legal and regulatory infrastructure that enables people to trust their investments in insurance products? (In other words, how many insurance companies are based in Somalia? It’s no coincidence that there are no taxes there either.)

The Walton family benefits tremendously from the interstate highway system, our international ports, and government agencies that protect commerce on the seas. These services enable and protect Wal Mart’s massive international distribution system.

So who benefits most from government?

So who should pay for it?

Too many folks just don’t get it. They just want their taxes to be lower (and for some bizarre reason many seem to even more concerned with the taxes of people with orders of magnitude more wealth…)

Lower taxes and everything will get better? It just doesn’t work that way.

[Anonymous]

Gates and Buffet are nice examples of “benign billionaires,” but the the overall humanitarian track record for the extremely wealthy is a little more mixed.

But if anyone is arguing the merits of an incentive-based capitalist system, we are in violent agreement.

However this thread is about taxes. Surveyor seems to be promoting the thesis of “lower taxes equals more capitalism,” which is oversimplified and just plain wrong.

Taxes and capitalism are not incompatible. Government is essential for capitalism to work (the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith agree with this as well.) And to pay for government, you must have taxes.

The main question in tax policy is: “who should pay for government?” The obvious answer is: “whomever benefits from government”

Rehash from another thread:

Bill Gates has benefited tremendously from the development of the internet, which was initially created with government funding.

One of Warren Buffet’s favorite investments is insurance companies. Would insurance companies have done as well without a legal and regulatory infrastructure that enables people to trust their investments in insurance products? (In other words, how many insurance companies are based in Somalia? It’s no coincidence that there are no taxes there either.)

The Walton family benefits tremendously from the interstate highway system, our international ports, and government agencies that protect commerce on the seas. These services enable and protect Wal Mart’s massive international distribution system.

So who benefits most from government?

So who should pay for it?

Too many folks just don’t get it. They just want their taxes to be lower (and for some bizarre reason many seem to even more concerned with the taxes of people with orders of magnitude more wealth…)

Lower taxes and everything will get better? It just doesn’t work that way.

[Anonymous]

Gates and Buffet are nice examples of “benign billionaires,” but the the overall humanitarian track record for the extremely wealthy is a little more mixed.

But if anyone is arguing the merits of an incentive-based capitalist system, we are in violent agreement.

However this thread is about taxes. Surveyor seems to be promoting the thesis of “lower taxes equals more capitalism,” which is oversimplified and just plain wrong.

Taxes and capitalism are not incompatible. Government is essential for capitalism to work (the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith agree with this as well.) And to pay for government, you must have taxes.

The main question in tax policy is: “who should pay for government?” The obvious answer is: “whomever benefits from government”

Rehash from another thread:

Bill Gates has benefited tremendously from the development of the internet, which was initially created with government funding.

One of Warren Buffet’s favorite investments is insurance companies. Would insurance companies have done as well without a legal and regulatory infrastructure that enables people to trust their investments in insurance products? (In other words, how many insurance companies are based in Somalia? It’s no coincidence that there are no taxes there either.)

The Walton family benefits tremendously from the interstate highway system, our international ports, and government agencies that protect commerce on the seas. These services enable and protect Wal Mart’s massive international distribution system.

So who benefits most from government?

So who should pay for it?

Too many folks just don’t get it. They just want their taxes to be lower (and for some bizarre reason many seem to even more concerned with the taxes of people with orders of magnitude more wealth…)

Lower taxes and everything will get better? It just doesn’t work that way.

[Anonymous]

Gates and Buffet are nice examples of “benign billionaires,” but the the overall humanitarian track record for the extremely wealthy is a little more mixed.

But if anyone is arguing the merits of an incentive-based capitalist system, we are in violent agreement.

However this thread is about taxes. Surveyor seems to be promoting the thesis of “lower taxes equals more capitalism,” which is oversimplified and just plain wrong.

Taxes and capitalism are not incompatible. Government is essential for capitalism to work (the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith agree with this as well.) And to pay for government, you must have taxes.

The main question in tax policy is: “who should pay for government?” The obvious answer is: “whomever benefits from government”

Rehash from another thread:

Bill Gates has benefited tremendously from the development of the internet, which was initially created with government funding.

One of Warren Buffet’s favorite investments is insurance companies. Would insurance companies have done as well without a legal and regulatory infrastructure that enables people to trust their investments in insurance products? (In other words, how many insurance companies are based in Somalia? It’s no coincidence that there are no taxes there either.)

The Walton family benefits tremendously from the interstate highway system, our international ports, and government agencies that protect commerce on the seas. These services enable and protect Wal Mart’s massive international distribution system.

So who benefits most from government?

So who should pay for it?

Too many folks just don’t get it. They just want their taxes to be lower (and for some bizarre reason many seem to even more concerned with the taxes of people with orders of magnitude more wealth…)

Lower taxes and everything will get better? It just doesn’t work that way.

[GoUSC]

[quote=briansd1][quote=GoUSC]
I have never agreed with the gift or estate tax. It is pure double taxation. Why should my kids have to pay taxes on money that I earned and paid taxes on already? [/quote]

Not quite GoUSC. Say you earned and paid taxes on income which, net of taxes leave you $100. That asset grows to $10,000. You then give that asset to your kid. Should that be totally untaxed?

There is such thing as estate planning and most people will never pay estate taxes. And even people who pay estate taxes have planned much of it away.

Estate taxes affect only 5,500 Americans per year (even fewer now with the new law) out of a population of 310 million. I congratulate you if, on your own, you earned enough to be among those privileged folks.

We know who the Republicans are working for. Too bad real American voters are too ignorant to see it.[/quote]

Let’s talk real money. Real money that would be effected by this estate tax. Let’s say I owned a business and for years and years I scrapped by. But I kept working and kept taking risk. And one day that acceptance of risk worked and I made $1mil. Then I took that one $1mil and made it work for me. Again taking risk. So I turn that $1mil into…say $10mil in the stock market. I sell some of that money (paying capital gains) and put it to use somewhere else. I win some…I lose some. But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[GoUSC]

[quote=briansd1][quote=GoUSC]
I have never agreed with the gift or estate tax. It is pure double taxation. Why should my kids have to pay taxes on money that I earned and paid taxes on already? [/quote]

Not quite GoUSC. Say you earned and paid taxes on income which, net of taxes leave you $100. That asset grows to $10,000. You then give that asset to your kid. Should that be totally untaxed?

There is such thing as estate planning and most people will never pay estate taxes. And even people who pay estate taxes have planned much of it away.

Estate taxes affect only 5,500 Americans per year (even fewer now with the new law) out of a population of 310 million. I congratulate you if, on your own, you earned enough to be among those privileged folks.

We know who the Republicans are working for. Too bad real American voters are too ignorant to see it.[/quote]

Let’s talk real money. Real money that would be effected by this estate tax. Let’s say I owned a business and for years and years I scrapped by. But I kept working and kept taking risk. And one day that acceptance of risk worked and I made $1mil. Then I took that one $1mil and made it work for me. Again taking risk. So I turn that $1mil into…say $10mil in the stock market. I sell some of that money (paying capital gains) and put it to use somewhere else. I win some…I lose some. But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[GoUSC]

[quote=briansd1][quote=GoUSC]
I have never agreed with the gift or estate tax. It is pure double taxation. Why should my kids have to pay taxes on money that I earned and paid taxes on already? [/quote]

Not quite GoUSC. Say you earned and paid taxes on income which, net of taxes leave you $100. That asset grows to $10,000. You then give that asset to your kid. Should that be totally untaxed?

There is such thing as estate planning and most people will never pay estate taxes. And even people who pay estate taxes have planned much of it away.

Estate taxes affect only 5,500 Americans per year (even fewer now with the new law) out of a population of 310 million. I congratulate you if, on your own, you earned enough to be among those privileged folks.

We know who the Republicans are working for. Too bad real American voters are too ignorant to see it.[/quote]

Let’s talk real money. Real money that would be effected by this estate tax. Let’s say I owned a business and for years and years I scrapped by. But I kept working and kept taking risk. And one day that acceptance of risk worked and I made $1mil. Then I took that one $1mil and made it work for me. Again taking risk. So I turn that $1mil into…say $10mil in the stock market. I sell some of that money (paying capital gains) and put it to use somewhere else. I win some…I lose some. But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[GoUSC]

[quote=briansd1][quote=GoUSC]
I have never agreed with the gift or estate tax. It is pure double taxation. Why should my kids have to pay taxes on money that I earned and paid taxes on already? [/quote]

Not quite GoUSC. Say you earned and paid taxes on income which, net of taxes leave you $100. That asset grows to $10,000. You then give that asset to your kid. Should that be totally untaxed?

There is such thing as estate planning and most people will never pay estate taxes. And even people who pay estate taxes have planned much of it away.

Estate taxes affect only 5,500 Americans per year (even fewer now with the new law) out of a population of 310 million. I congratulate you if, on your own, you earned enough to be among those privileged folks.

We know who the Republicans are working for. Too bad real American voters are too ignorant to see it.[/quote]

Let’s talk real money. Real money that would be effected by this estate tax. Let’s say I owned a business and for years and years I scrapped by. But I kept working and kept taking risk. And one day that acceptance of risk worked and I made $1mil. Then I took that one $1mil and made it work for me. Again taking risk. So I turn that $1mil into…say $10mil in the stock market. I sell some of that money (paying capital gains) and put it to use somewhere else. I win some…I lose some. But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[GoUSC]

[quote=briansd1][quote=GoUSC]
I have never agreed with the gift or estate tax. It is pure double taxation. Why should my kids have to pay taxes on money that I earned and paid taxes on already? [/quote]

Not quite GoUSC. Say you earned and paid taxes on income which, net of taxes leave you $100. That asset grows to $10,000. You then give that asset to your kid. Should that be totally untaxed?

There is such thing as estate planning and most people will never pay estate taxes. And even people who pay estate taxes have planned much of it away.

Estate taxes affect only 5,500 Americans per year (even fewer now with the new law) out of a population of 310 million. I congratulate you if, on your own, you earned enough to be among those privileged folks.

We know who the Republicans are working for. Too bad real American voters are too ignorant to see it.[/quote]

Let’s talk real money. Real money that would be effected by this estate tax. Let’s say I owned a business and for years and years I scrapped by. But I kept working and kept taking risk. And one day that acceptance of risk worked and I made $1mil. Then I took that one $1mil and made it work for me. Again taking risk. So I turn that $1mil into…say $10mil in the stock market. I sell some of that money (paying capital gains) and put it to use somewhere else. I win some…I lose some. But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[Author]

Posts