Where on the political spectrum do you lie? (Mods: Please don't move!)

[cigar no baka]

Amanda, I think the rich should pay a fair share of thei INCOME in income tax, but I have to state that the inheritance tax is absolutely ridiculous.

All my life my grandmother and grandfather built themselves up with only one of them having finished high school. They paid taxes on all they earned, raised three kids, had several successful businesses, saved every penny they could, invested it, and paid capital gains taxes on their investment revenue. Their parents were farmers who had minimal education and hardly a pot to piss in.

And when my grandparents die, they CONFISCATED a large amount of the money that was going to the family. How is that right, they paid income taxes, sales taxes and capital gains taxes all their lives, it is double taxation, totally unfair, unjust and indefensible.

[reaganyouth84]

Amanda, I think the rich should pay a fair share of thei INCOME in income tax, but I have to state that the inheritance tax is absolutely ridiculous.

All my life my grandmother and grandfather built themselves up with only one of them having finished high school. They paid taxes on all they earned, raised three kids, had several successful businesses, saved every penny they could, invested it, and paid capital gains taxes on their investment revenue. Their parents were farmers who had minimal education and hardly a pot to piss in.

And when my grandparents die, they CONFISCATED a large amount of the money that was going to the family. How is that right, they paid income taxes, sales taxes and capital gains taxes all their lives, it is double taxation, totally unfair, unjust and indefensible.

I totally agree Cigar NO Baka. The inheritance tax is absolutely ridiculous. For me, the only reason I want to succeed is so that my family can have the things that I never did. So they won't have to work in shitty factories for minimum wage, and so they won't have a care in the world. Implimenting an inheritence tax certainly disheartens me, because knowing I can go out right now and work my fingers to the bone day and night so my family won't have to, but then when I die, the government can come in and take a huge chunck of it is bullshit. It's down right communist is what it is. Pisses me off, liberals on Capitol Hill bitching about how the wealth needs to be spread, well heres an idea....get the lazy bums that support you off their asses and have them work for something instead of wanting a free lunch! 90% of my political views have been formed because of the community I'm from. The county has the highest unemployment rate in the state. Not because there aren't any jobs around, but just because people are deadbeats and would rather get a check from the government. I've seen my dad wake up at 4am almost every morning since first grade, and not come home until well after 8pm. Slaving away at his job, he's a pipefitter(he's a union democrat, but hates liberals). My parents struggle to make ends meet, but we get by the best we can, but the asses down the street that don't even have a job and collect wellfare drive nicer cars than us, have a nicer house, their kids get all of their insurance paid for by the tax payers, their kids don't pay for college, etc, etc, etc. I don't understand why Republicans get such a bad rap for screwing over the working man, when liberals are just as bad, if not worse. Now I myself am off to work to help pay for all these deadbeats around here. Be back later.
-Mike

[Amanda]

cigar_no_baka, I am opposed to what happened to your grandparents. I don't know when that happened, but the laws regarding the estate tax have changed significantly in recent years, with assets as high as $8 million no longer being subjected to the estate tax. The parents who saved all their lives and want to pass on $50,000 to their children no longer have anything to worry about with the estate tax. Neither will most family farms or small businesses be subjected to the tax....and nor should they be.

However, less than 5% of the revenue generated through the estate tax comes from people with estates of $8 million or less. Most of the revenue comes from families like the Rockefellers and the Hiltons, who will now be able to pass on billions of dollars of old money from generation to generation and no longer have it subjected to a penny of taxation. This tax was established by Woodrow Wilson in 1916 to avoid a "French nobility" scenario that was prominent before the French Revolution....where the richest people in society pass on untold wealth to their heirs, wealth that buys them ever-more political influence without having to lift a finger to earn that wealth.

Billionaire investor and unlikely populist Warren Buffett said it best a few years back when denouncing the potential roll back of the estate tax by suggesting how dangerous it is for society to reward those simply for "winning the genetic lottery." For all the talk of work ethic coming from the political right, it strikes me as odd that they're defending the lack of initiative that inevitably comes when a person inherits their fortune rather than earns it. And think of it this way. The government stands to lose out on nearly $500 billion in revenue over the next decade or so by repealing the inheritance tax....and for every penny that Paris Hilton is NOT paying in taxes, the rest of us get to pick up the slack.

[Amanda]

reaganyouth, repealing the inheritance tax increases the number of "lazy bums sitting on their asses" since there's no incentive for the very rich to work if they're simply waiting for daddy's inheritance. If I was waiting on an inheritance check, it's doubtful I'd be running around sweating in a gruelingly hot restaurant four nights a week.

Reading your post, it really struck me what a masterful PR job the Republicans have done in selling the working man on the "death tax" premise and conjuring up the kind of misdirected anger your post arouses. I have to believe that there are 35-year-old heirs and heiresses sitting in the family mansion eating bon-bons laughing hysterically at every drop of sweat that falls from your brow on the factory floor. By lending your emphatic support for the inheritance tax repeal, you are essentially VOLUNTEERING to pay more taxes so that they can pay less.

We have to ask ourselves whether society is better served by inheritance or productivity. Is it fair that you and I pay taxes on the money we sweat to earn while Paris Hilton pays no taxes on the money she received because she was passed through the loins of nobility when she was born? Not in my book.

[Kenyth]

Don't fall into all the hype of "inheritance tax" killing the average Joe. I think what you're referring to is the fact that an inheritance is also considered income (I think. Tell me if I'm wrong), and subject to an immediate income tax in a higher bracket. %20 or more of the inheritance is still a large chunk. Many people could confuse this as an inheritance tax I think.

Talking about it being double taxing is also incorrect. Double taxing is when you are charged a tax on money already spent on taxes. Every time money changes hands it gets taxed. That's the only way it works. Determining which points in the cycle it gets taxed is the hard part. Both your employer AND you are taxed on the income you earn. That wage is paid by the businesse's income, which was taxed when they earned it also. It's taxed yet again as it's spent by you. Then again as the receiver of the cash earns it as income.

[joshua]

Heres some facts about the estate tax http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

[cigar no baka]

Don't fall into all the hype of "inheritance tax" killing the average Joe. I think what you're referring to is the fact that an inheritance is also considered income (I think. Tell me if I'm wrong), and subject to an immediate income tax in a higher bracket. %20 or more of the inheritance is still a large chunk. Many people could confuse this as an inheritance tax I think.

Talking about it being double taxing is also incorrect. Double taxing is when you are charged a tax on money already spent on taxes. Every time money changes hands it gets taxed. That's the only way it works. Determining which points in the cycle it gets taxed is the hard part. Both your employer AND you are taxed on the income you earn. That wage is paid by the businesse's income, which was taxed when they earned it also. It's taxed yet again as it's spent by you. Then again as the receiver of the cash earns it as income.

Sorry it IS double taxation. Money changing hands between family members should be NO business of the government's or society. Taxing INCOME is OK in my book, but taxing money COMING FROM YOUR FAMILY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED OUT THE WAZOO IS NOT INCOME, ITS YOUR BIRTHRIGHT!!! Anything else is dangerously socialist in thinkiing. Why not just each according to his abilities, each according to his needs?

[Kenyth]

Hey, it may well be an unfair tax to some. I'm just saying that it's not "double" taxing. Also, if you can't tax income given from a family member, does this mean that business transactions between family are untaxable? Significant monetary gifts between family members are untaxable? Are game show prizes considered income? Remember, any loophole will be exploited. It's a sticky situation. Generally, any money that comes into your possession is considered income.

Another area that people get mad about is medical bills/nursing home bills. Any medical bills, like nursing home care for instance (which adds up quick!), will come out of the estate (including the home and vehicles) before medicare will cover it. A persons estate can be completely wiped out in short order!

[Amanda]

Joshua, thanks for the link showing us some specific numbers.

I've always been confused by the whole "double taxation" argument used to defend gutting taxes on inheritances and stock dividends. The backpack I have taken to classes for the past three years is starting to shred. Before September, I'll have to buy a new one. When I do, I can expect to pay a tax....on the same income I already paid taxes on. Two days ago, I sent in my phone bill and there was a tax charge on that as well....on top of the taxes I already had withheld from paycheck. With the exception of food items, a tax is incurred every time there is a transfer of ownership. Perhaps that is unfair. But should we accept the premise that the only transfer of ownership that should NOT be subject to taxation is when multi-millionaires shift their assets to heirs and heiresses?

If only half as much indignation that is given to the "death tax" (which affects a few hundred heirs and heiresses) could be given to the "birth tax"....the nearly $20,000 bill every newborn receives as their share of the national debt.

[cigar no baka]

Joshua, thanks for the link showing us some specific numbers.

I've always been confused by the whole "double taxation" argument used to defend gutting taxes on inheritances and stock dividends. The backpack I have taken to classes for the past three years is starting to shred. Before September, I'll have to buy a new one. When I do, I can expect to pay a tax....on the same income I already paid taxes on. Two days ago, I sent in my phone bill and there was a tax charge on that as well....on top of the taxes I already had withheld from paycheck. With the exception of food items, a tax is incurred every time there is a transfer of ownership. Perhaps that is unfair. But should we accept the premise that the only transfer of ownership that should NOT be subject to taxation is when multi-millionaires shift their assets to heirs and heiresses?

If only half as much indignation that is given to the "death tax" (which affects a few hundred heirs and heiresses) could be given to the "birth tax"....the nearly $20,000 bill every newborn receives as their share of the national debt.

Your argument is specious in my situation. The inhertiance came before the changes in the law so a huge chunk of it was STOLEN by the federal government. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it.

[Amanda]

It's unfortunate the situation with your relatives (was it grandparents?) occurred. I don't blame you for being upset that their modest inheritance was so thoroughly confiscated. Nonetheless, there is a wide expanse of middle ground in between public seizure of Grandpa Johnson's piggy bank before they lower him into the ground and being able to pass on hundreds of millions of tax-free inheritance assets. Efforts were made multiple times in the last decade to accommodate people like your grandparents by raising the eligibility threshold to as high as $8 million, but ideologues in Congress wouldn't budge without an all-or-nothing repeal of the tax. Supporting the developing plutocracy slated to become law in 2010 will not bring your grandparents' inheritance back.

[cigarsarge]

Is this a thread on politics that no one is getting pissed and posting alot of crap? Shows people can disagree and not flame each other.

[reaganyouth84]

Just saw these 2 links on a website, both are pretty funny. Enjoy!

http://democraticleaders.ytmnd.com/ This one is titled "Democratic Leaders"

http://crayons1.ytmnd.com/ This one is titled "Mind Fuck"
-Mike

[Amanda]

reaganyouth, the first of the two links you provided inadvertently spelled out what will be the downfall of the Republican Party. I know, I know, you were just joking, but indulge me a little here....

As much vitriol as is spewed out about "Democratic leaders," your link is correct. They are not leading anything right now. The modern conservative movement has gained its momentum by generating a manic rage against a "liberal establishment." When Congress was teeming with a corrupt and arrogant Democratic leadership, the conservative movement was successful in putting Newt Gingrich in charge. Then they replaced Bill Clinton with George Bush....then they swelled the ranks of hard-right ideologues in Congress...somewhere in between they created their own media so that conservatives don't have to hear any news story or editorial that doesn't concur with their pre-conceived notion of reality...and now they're ridding the courts by trading in one brand of "activist judge" for another. The problem is.....the movement is running out of bogeymen to blame society's ills on.....and that's a pretty big consequence of absolute power when the entire movement is built on foaming-at-the-mouth anger about a "liberal establishment" that has been thoroughly dismantled.

[Bkcloud114]

are you here to talk about anything but politics?? Every one of your post is either in this thread or has something to do with government, politics or mentions politicians........

And Yes.... I do know this is the Politics forum

[Amanda]

bk, I assume you are addressing me in your post. I'm quite passionate about politics, but have generally kept the discussion in this one thread where I feel it is appropriate until the moderator tells me differently. I have been keeping up with the posts on the Cigar Board, but probably haven't posted on there in a week or so. I'll probably be on another cigar kick soon and will be posting regularly about that again before long.

[David G. Hall]

My major is education. I'll be teaching social studies, but hopefully end up at a school with political science courses since that's obviously my passion. Considering all the tiny rural schools in Iowa, however, I could easily end up at a school without political science in the courseload.

I messed up my post.

Mandy, what is your major?

I meant to say, "What is your major malfunction?"

[TonyDogs]

I would have to say I am a conservative Republican.
I am not a holy roller by any means but there is something say about living your life by some kind of commandments.
From a business point of view I am a republican all the way. I work hard and smart so why should my tax dollars go to social programs that have a losing track record. I want smaller goverment. Let me decide what to do with my money.
I know liberals are all about school systems but why do our public schools fail?
Moral issues abortion, Let the women decide what she does with her own body.
I have nothing positive to say about liberals, I have many friends that are.

Thats my take
TonyDogs

[Amanda]

Why do our public schools fail?

This is a very common question that has no single identifiable answer. First of all, the premise that public schools are indeed failing is an argument primarily made by groups and individuals who have a political interest in seeing public schools fail. With that said, a large percentage of our schools, particularly those in areas with the highest-risk student populations, are consistently producing unimpressive standardized test scores and graduation rates.

As someone a year and a half away from graduating college with an education degree, I can tell you that teacher pay is an issue. I currently work 24 hours a week as a waitress, but am expecting to take a pay cut when I become a full-time teacher. And there are states that pay even less than Iowa to beginning teachers. And all this at time when the conventional wisdom among the public is that teachers are being paid too much. When waiting tables four nights a week yields a better living than trying to teach math, science and history to a classroom full of students, it's a huge disincentive for the best and brightest to pursue a career in the education profession. Just as a company that wants to pay its CEO $50,000 a year is unlikely to score the most effective company leader, a society that wants to pay its teachers $23,000 a year is unlikely to attract the top caliber of educators.

Poverty is also a huge issue, much as conservatives would like to pretend it isn't. It's much harder to reach children in an impoverished climate (particularly urban poverty) because they're less likely to have high IQ's, less likely to have grown up in an environment with parents who planted the seeds of knowledge in them during their most formative early years, and more likely to face the distractions of gangs, drugs and daily survival in today's urban warfare culture. This will open up a whole new can of worms but my personal belief is that the entire urban culture, including its public schools, would benefit greatly if narcotics were decriminalized and distribution was shifted from teenage gang members to licensed pharmacists whose commerce is regulated. This is unlikely to ever happen, however, so further speculation on its potential benefits (and downfalls) is hardly worth mentioning.

Lastly, and this is the most controversial position I will take, is immigration. The most common denominator in all of America's public schools deemed "failing" is that their student body includes a higher percentage of first generation Americans than the national average. In today's America, corporations feel an entitlement to saturate the labor force with a revolving door of immigrant workers with the endgame of suppressing wage levels....and then leave taxpayers to pick up the bill for social costs. Highest among that list of social costs is schools overflowing with students who can barely speak English. As a future educator, it will be my duty to educate any young person who comes through my doors, but is sure will be more challenging if I end up in a meatpacking town whose student body is composed of 50% ESL students than it will be if I end up in suburban Des Moines teaching the sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers.

Bottom line.....as long as this country tolerates third-world living conditions for a quarter of its population while the rest of the civilized world is effectively alleviating poverty within its borders, public schools will NOT be utopian bubbles capable of obliterating every negative influence that young people experience outside the walls of the school.

[joshua]

My father is actuallya 3rd grade teacher and he used to teach at an inner city school. The problem there was it was under funded, under staffed, and the facility was in poor condition.

Now he teaches at a school which is mostly first generation american kids with immigrant parents. He actually has an easier time teaching these kids because the parents care more about their kids doing well and having bi-lingual classes and special programs because the school is better funded probably helps.

The whole no child left behind act however was a good idea, but then they cut the finding on it. So now students have to meet this stricter criteria but the schools don't have money to put into it to make sure the kids can pass. Some schools the children should be in special education at least part time but because of cuts to funding they can't afford it.