Republican Obstructionism and extremism will cost them
- Thread starter mame
- Start date
SCARHOLE
Well-Known Member
It's real google "estate planing 2013"
"The first and most vexing thing you need to know is that federal estate tax rates are slated to change again in 2013, unless Congress decides otherwise. That's little comfort for estate planners, who in recent years have been whipsawed by a federal rate that changed annually, going to zero in 2010 and then moving upward again this year."
http://www.aarp.org/money/estate-planning/info-10-2011/estate-planning-to-do-list.html
thechemist310
Active Member
Without reading anything but the first post, it makes me sad that people have been brain washed into thinking they just DESERVE everything.
Really? Taxes are just pretend money? Those people deserve to have more and more money taken from them to fix the Gov't fuck ups?
$60 billion... let's see. Couldn't get it done with over $900 billion so we'll take care of the country's problems with $60 billion.
What about all the jobs bills Harry no brain Reed has shut down that the house has passed? Right...... that's different, right?
Really? Taxes are just pretend money? Those people deserve to have more and more money taken from them to fix the Gov't fuck ups?
$60 billion... let's see. Couldn't get it done with over $900 billion so we'll take care of the country's problems with $60 billion.
What about all the jobs bills Harry no brain Reed has shut down that the house has passed? Right...... that's different, right?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the real answer is to make sure homosexuals and women are treated as second class citizens.
yep, that's the fix.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
I'm still not seeing anything anywhere that says they are raising the estate tax to 55%.
dukeanthony
New Member
It is 55%
if you take a bunch of Hypotheticals
Along with some improbables
And mix in some Dubious Variables
Then write it all out on a Chalkboard
Dont Fear The Reefer
New Member
'Occupy Wall Street' Protester Throws Violent Fit in McDonald's When Denied Free Food
Published November 05, 2011
New York Post
NEW YORK -- An "Occupy Wall Street" protester threw a violent fit in a McDonalds after employees refused to give him free food.
Fisika Bezabeh, 27, ripped a credit-card reader from a counter and threw it at workers at about 2:30am local time Friday at the downtown Manhattan restaurant, which has become a bathroom spot for protesters.
No one was hurt by Bezabeh, who has been seen hanging out with protesters in the occupied park, police sources said.
He was charged with criminal mischief.
Cheryll Forsatz, a McDonalds spokeswoman, said, Its still an ongoing police investigation, and were cooperating with the police.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/05/occupy-wall-street-protester-throws-violent-fit-in-mcdonalds-when-denied-free/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1crxRflwe
Published November 05, 2011
New York Post
NEW YORK -- An "Occupy Wall Street" protester threw a violent fit in a McDonalds after employees refused to give him free food.
Fisika Bezabeh, 27, ripped a credit-card reader from a counter and threw it at workers at about 2:30am local time Friday at the downtown Manhattan restaurant, which has become a bathroom spot for protesters.
No one was hurt by Bezabeh, who has been seen hanging out with protesters in the occupied park, police sources said.
He was charged with criminal mischief.
Cheryll Forsatz, a McDonalds spokeswoman, said, Its still an ongoing police investigation, and were cooperating with the police.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/05/occupy-wall-street-protester-throws-violent-fit-in-mcdonalds-when-denied-free/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1crxRflwe
Doer
Well-Known Member
Lot of words for a sentence that doesn't make sense....I'm not taking sides, so not
criticizing anything. This is what I call the tyranny of opinion. You have to take one
side or the other is the force of this society and that's why you are so fooled? Those that see the vast middle are ostracised. And from your end of the gene pool, you can't see the middle, at all? Or maybe you just like to feel safe, a herd mentality?
Maybe read my post again,
see if you can understand it....or not.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Somewhat valid point on the feudalism. I'll give you that. You have to remember, though, nothing is guaranteed. In the feudal states in Europe the land was the money and it was given to nobility by the government. Further indication that size of government causes these problems.
If you look at the top 20 richest in America, you see names like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin and Larry page, Micheal Dell, Forest Mars, Larry Ellison. These are people of the latest generation that have created their wealth with merely implementing an idea. This proves that it is nothing like the feudal states (at least not yet) because the poor can still become the richest. (In case you didn't know, those people are from companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, Dell, and Amazon)
dukeanthony
New Member
Cough Cough
Koch brothers
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
No, I get what you're saying. You're more enlightened than the rest of us because you don't take sides because of course, if you take a side that means you aren't thinking for yourself. You think elevating your indecisiveness to a form of zen makes you smarter than everyone else.
GL with that.
Personally, this is a pretty clear cut issue as far as I'm concerned. The math doesn't lie. We are being taken advantage of by the top 1%. You're holier than though "I'm so enlightened that I'm too cool to have an opinion" attitude doesn't change the real facts of the pillaging of America by the ultra-wealthy.
I guess I'm a sheep for believing that we should have socioeconomic opportunity in this country. Having an opinion is so conformist, I know. And of course me disagreeing with that bullshit philosophy doesn't mean I disagree with you, it means I failed to understand your profound wisdom so you felt the need to tell me to condescendingly tell me to read your post again.
Yeah, I get it...
That's not the case since a large majority EARN their money and don't gain it through inheritance. The problem is not allowing the free market to exist and allowing an oligarchy to run the country. Take away the power of the Federal government and let the locals handle things.
Charlie Ventura
Active Member
Quit yer bitchin' ... after all, you get "free" medical, right?
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Actually that's not true. The feudal Europe nobility would pay for the government, if not directly than by the infrastructure they created. In return the government would create a set of circumstances which allowed them to make obscene profits and make sure the rest of the population was not socioeconomically mobile so those nobles wouldn't have any potential competition.
That's what's starting to happen today. The wealthy prop up the political leadership through campaign donations and the wealthy's infrastructure pays for the government. In return they get access to our government the rest of us do not have. They can create laws or attach amendments to bills which give them an edge in the marketplace making competing with them an impossibility. Even if they decide to not involve themselves directly in business, they can simply live off the interest generated by the wealth they have without ever having to work a day in their lives. That interest is created by the labor of their serfs (the American working class), not by their own hard work.
In a way, the system we are headed towards now is WORSE than feudal Europe. In feudal Europe the kings were not being put in office by the wealthy, and therefor their decisions didn't require the approval of wealthy nobles. In our system the wealthy elites (nobles) actually get to decide who is king and that king (king = president and congress in our system) must comply with the interests of the wealthy in order to stay in office.
At least in feudal Europe the kings would have the option of acting in the best interests of his people. In our system the government has no such option. Either they comply with the interests of the wealthy, or the wealthy put new kings in office.
And then there is the Koch brothers, Paris Hilton, Donald Trump, etc. Do you think Paris Hilton would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars if she grew up poor? No. She'd be a stripper. She's not wealthy because she worked harder than everyone else, she's wealthy because she won the genetic lottery.
Same with Koch brothers (although they'd make really shitty strippers).
Well you also have to understand that those wealthy European families at one point were the Bill Gates and Michael Dells of their time. They got wealthy by providing some type of goods or services that were in high demand or were simply better at business than their peers. And that's ok. I've got no problem with people getting rich like that. But then those people died and their children simply lived off the economic infrastructure and relationships with government and other elites their parents created. So did their children. So did their children. 1000 years later and some of their children were still living off the wealth created by their great great great great great great grandparents. I don't want that here. That's why I support the estate tax.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
The estate tax has nothing to do with the benefits of capitalism. The estate tax actually encourages capitalism. It forces the children of the wealthy to take that money and put it to work if they want to have the same type of wealth their parents have rather than simply live off the interest their whole lives. If the children of the wealthy and the children of the children of the wealthy prove they can't earn money like their parents did, their family doesn't just permanently stay wealthy from generation to generation. Without the estate tax generational wealth just allows families a permanent state of wealth passed down from generation to generation without ever having to work, just simply living off the interest on the wealth created by their ancestors.
Charlie Ventura
Active Member
OK, if we're going to confiscate inherited wealth ... lets start with the Kennedys and then move to the Heniz fortune and anyone Ms. Heinz has married.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Fine by me. As long as we can take the Koch brothers wealth at the same time.OK, if we're going to confiscate inherited wealth ... lets start with the Kennedys and then move to the Heniz fortune and anyone Ms. Heinz has married.
Charlie Ventura
Active Member
Did the Koch brothers inherit their wealth, or did they make it on their own?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they inherited the living shit out of it.
dukeanthony
New Member
They Inherited it From their Father
Fred Koch who also Happens to be one of the founders of the John Birch Society