- This topic has 355 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 16, 2010 at 12:38 PM #641448December 16, 2010 at 12:52 PM #640362
Anonymous
Guest[quote=drboom]The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.[/quote]
Ya sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
December 16, 2010 at 12:52 PM #640433Anonymous
Guest[quote=drboom]The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.[/quote]
Ya sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
December 16, 2010 at 12:52 PM #641014Anonymous
Guest[quote=drboom]The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.[/quote]
Ya sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
December 16, 2010 at 12:52 PM #641150Anonymous
Guest[quote=drboom]The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.[/quote]
Ya sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
December 16, 2010 at 12:52 PM #641468Anonymous
Guest[quote=drboom]The federal deficit fell during part of Clinton’s administration, but the so-called “surplus” was the result of accounting changes that tossed Social Security contributions into the general revenue pot.[/quote]
Ya sure about that?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
December 16, 2010 at 12:55 PM #640367briansd1
Guestflu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.
December 16, 2010 at 12:55 PM #640438briansd1
Guestflu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.
December 16, 2010 at 12:55 PM #641019briansd1
Guestflu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.
December 16, 2010 at 12:55 PM #641155briansd1
Guestflu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.
December 16, 2010 at 12:55 PM #641473briansd1
Guestflu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.
December 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM #640397Coronita
Participant[quote=briansd1]flu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.[/quote]
Yes, but don’t you think the difference is a technicality?
I mean, same dollars, from same source, for the same end purpose….December 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM #640468Coronita
Participant[quote=briansd1]flu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.[/quote]
Yes, but don’t you think the difference is a technicality?
I mean, same dollars, from same source, for the same end purpose….December 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM #641049Coronita
Participant[quote=briansd1]flu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.[/quote]
Yes, but don’t you think the difference is a technicality?
I mean, same dollars, from same source, for the same end purpose….December 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM #641186Coronita
Participant[quote=briansd1]flu, the difference is that you gave away money at a lower basis. And when you give it away, it’s not yours anymore.
That’s what estate planning is all about. With proper estate planning, only the richest (about 5,500 estates) are subject to the estate tax.
Remember, that under this tax deal, the very rich (a tiny percentage of the population) get a bigger estate tax break. Everybody else gets an extension of the tax cuts.
Like I said before, we know who the Republicans are working for. I doubt their voters are educated enough to realize it.[/quote]
Yes, but don’t you think the difference is a technicality?
I mean, same dollars, from same source, for the same end purpose…. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.