continued (sorry for multiple posts but the system is not letting me post as one, another filter beyond the one previously discovered)...

However in order to provide a reasonable safety net and provide broad based opportunity we accept redist.. However we should all (obviously except the destitute) pay for the taxes necessary for the wealth transfer we FREELY CHOOSE to provide.

I believe we do benefit from the creation of family wealth both individually and as a nation.

The US has about 8,000,000 families with net worth in excess of one million dollars (not included real estate weatlh which pushes it up way beyond that) which exceed our number of unemployed. We can afford a vibrant safety net but we don't have to destroy our prosperity and freedom to do that.

vry,

RET

(continued)

I believe in using taxation to accomplish policy objectives in the minimum extent possible. There are exceptions.

I believe taxes should be broad based so that we understand as a people that when we raise spending we are also raising OUR taxes, not let us vote more benefits to ourselves and we will 'tax the other guy'.

Mark,

We have a fundamentally different view on taxation and wealth.

I understand intellectually that if I have been taxed at 40% rate and the rate goes to 30% in a meaningful sense I have been 'given something'. However one must consider that if a theif mugs you and takes the $100 from your wallent and then gives you $10 back for cab fare you might not feel too grateful, an extreme metaphor but it captures an important philisophical difference.

However, my assumption starts that government is created by citizens and starts with 0% taxes. We, the govern consent to the use of governments powers which ultimately are coercive to tax us, the citizens in order to perform the functions we as a free people choose.

...

Ah, Mark G and I hit the same note on estate taxes. I'm hoping with a little issue focusing we can get RET to a point of agreement.

The error in current estate taxes is the impact it has on capitalized buisness owned wholly or in part by the deceased. I would argue that no estate assets are taxable until or to the degree that they are liquidated. That puts heirs taxing on the same basis as everyone else without desmantaling the legacy of the deceased.

This is precisely consistent with the concept of tax reform I've discussed under that topic, general asset transfer (GAT)tax in place of income tax. The heirs would still do rather well with a GAT tax.

Bill"for what we are together"

"Death Tax" is a Karl Rove generated boogeyman. No dead person in the history of the world has ever paid taxes or in fact done anything. They're dead.

In America, we tax financial activity. In Europe they tax wealth. I prefer our version, as there are many ways to achieve wealth, one being hard work and frugality, both of which we consider good. Another is through greed and avarice, which we consider bad. (Read Enron, Worldcom, etc.)

The financial activity that takes place in the transfer of an estate is that a person who acquired a set of assets through whatever means has died, and the effort is to pass these assets along to heirs who have done NOTHING!!! to earn them. This is indeed a small and special group of people. Every other transfer is a result of activity - the capitalist risks his capital, the laborer sells his time and the sweat of his brow, the merchant and manufacturer, the tradesman and the professional all put forth an effort to obtain compensation and hopefully profit. It is ony the indolent heir who does absolutely nothing to deserve a cent and yet expects to recieve his or her reward tax free while all other Americans pay taxes on their hard-earned receipts.

SATXRich,please, give me a break! It is a leap of logic to call the reduction or elimination of a very special, unfair, unwise and undeserved priveledge "punishment," don't you think?

Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle

Past a certain level, the rich get richer even if they do nothing. They can hire quite capable people to manage their inherited wealth and increase it. This can lead to a sitution where the wealth of a nation is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of families, who are then able to exercise enough control on government policies to keep it that way. I believe this is one of the forces that explains why Mexico is the way it is. Not the only one, certainly, it has a small number of very wealthy family dynasties.

So, death tax, or family dynasty tax? Whats in a name? Why not just stick with estate tax and try to look at both sides of this issue?

Respectfully Submitted,

Sketch

As a center-right Republican and retired business owner, I feel that corporate taxes are regressive and should be eliminated. The alternative is laid out here: www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org (Click Taxes on the left column)

Permanent repeal of the death tax ir vastly increasing the limit primarily benifits family owned business to include family farms.

Since congress has a voracious spending appetite they would presumable replace the revenue elsewhere.

The purist, of which I am one, want a complete elimination of the estate tax for a variety of value reasons to include:

(1) Why aim a tax at a very small group of people ? Seems the major motivation is to punish them (similar to a state implementing regulations that are defined in a way they only affect one specific company). Talk about unequal protection etc.

(2) A high value on the idea that a person that earns or is given or however legitimate owns property should be able to dispose of the property on their death as they choose.

and more but not in the mood to type it all out today.

Regardles it will not be a key issue in the presidential race but that is true of many of the things we like to chat about here.

vry,

RET

If one third of the Senate and one fourth of the House are millionaires are they impartial?
We hear how cutting the estate tax will benefit investors but then we have WorldCom, Enron...
We have grandma and grandpa who choose each winter between "heat or eat" afraid they will leave behind a tax burden when they will owe nothing.

Many may feel that 55 mph is more fuel efficient but few will drive it when the speed limit is 70 mph.
If you need to try to prove a double standard you would need to look no farther than newt for numerous possibilities.
CBC? You mean the home of McKinney and Jefferson? Sure that isn't more for the benefit of the caucus and a few high paid entertainers (actor, singer, athlete?)

Indeed Buffett-Gates are wise people even if they say one thing and do another on Estate Taxes.

Clearly actions speak louder than words and their actions show:

1) In spite of their pronouncements they do not like the idea of Estate Taxes since they took action to avoid them.

2) They understand they can spend their money better than the government even after they are dead. OTHERWISE they just would have let the government take the money in estate tax OR even better donate the money to the Government (yes that's legal and why do so few uber-wealthy leftists do that?).

3. And lets face it they have set up their loved ones as VERY highly paid managers of the non-profits.

4. Yes their actions speak loudly, estate taxes are for poorer (relative to them) folks.

5. Look at the strong support for the permanent repeal of the estate tax in the Black Congressional Caucus which recognizes that the estate tax is a threat to achieving long term prosperity among all ethnic groups.

6. You want higher taxes, lead the way and just pay extra voluntarily!

vry,

RET

John-

You are certainly the wise one. I think the Michael Levitt case revealed this week pointed out one of the downfalls of our current system - namely that you can call a whole lot of things charities or philantropy which aren't.

That said, I think that the only justification for not taxing the crap out of the estates of the wealthy dead is in the circumstance where they have earmarked their wealth toward legitimate philanthropic endeavors that will increase the beneficial outcome of activities that government would otherwise be funding through taxes. i.e. allowing these folks to target their estates to specific social causes deemed valuable to our society rather than hoping the government allocates these resources appropriately.

The end result will be fairly negligible - allowing the tax rate to perhaps be reduced marginally on the general population but in the end still funding neccessary functions at level appropriate to achieving worthwhile objectives. The main effect would be to allow those who spend their lives accruing wealth far beyond their personal needs to feel that they have some control over the dispensation of their hoard - not a high price to pay in my view to harness the incredible power of greed to the common good.