US Politics

[Maximus]

The estate tax doesn't hurt the wealthy make it 90% it wouldn't matter--They simply use loopholes like living trusts, gifts, buy special kins of life insurance (tax deductable, and other finc vehicles to avoid it)



http://lobby.la.psu.edu/027_Estate_Tax/Organizational_Statements/AAUFT/AAUFT_Principles.htm

We believe that:

1) Estate taxes are unfair and constitute double taxation. People work their entire lives, pay their taxes and struggle to create an estate of value that provides security to the family and employees they leave behind. It is unfair to tax one's life earnings for a second time, robbing them in death of the family economic security they worked throughout their lives to provide.

2) Estate taxes are fiscally and economically counterproductive. Less than 1.5% of federal revenues come from the estate tax. Experts estimate that anywhere from 65% to 100% of that revenue is offset by administrative and compliance expenses. Fiscally, it is an IRS agent full employment program that punishes grieving families while providing minimal benefit to the government treasury after expenses.

3) Estate taxes affect nearly every American. In addition to the millions of Americans who are directly affected by the death tax, there are millions more who are indirectly affected as thousands of small businesses refuse to grow and invest in new jobs for fear of the devastating tax impact of a principle's death.

4) Estate taxes hurt small businesses, women and minorities. 61% of family business owners say that the payment of death taxes will limit their business growth while 13% say that growth will be impossible. Women whose life expectancy exceeds that of men are often left not only with the grief of a lost spouse, but with the painful burden of a death tax that threatens their children's security. The estate tax is particularly harsh on minorities whose families are accumulating wealth for the first time

5) Estate taxes destroy the ability of family-owned farms and businesses to be kept within the family and passed from one generation to the next. A family farm can easily be worth $ 10 million when the value of land, equipment and farm buildings are calculated. The farming income is a small percentage of the asset's value. Yet, when a principle dies, the family is expected to pay more than 50% of the asset values in cash for the estate taxes. It doesn't matter that many members of the family may have worked their entire lives building the farm up, making it successful. All too often, the family has no choice but to sell the farm. Their money was invested in land, in crops, employees and the American dream. But thanks to the estate tax, the family business is dissolved, a heritage is destroyed.

[Maximus]

This is from the national Black Chamber of Commerce

This is a Black Tax

Leonard Harris started Chatham Food Center in Chicago’s South Side in 1983. He wants to leave the business to his sons but can’t because his family will
face an estate tax so huge it will force them to sell off the business jut to pay Uncle Sam. He should know. He started his career as a CPA.
Several years ago, the Chicago Daily Defender, the oldest black-owned daily newspaper in the United States, had to be sold by the Sengstacke family,
which had owned the paper since its founding in 1905, to pay federal estate taxes.

Unfortunately, many of America’s one million black-owned businesses will face a similar fate unless the highly discriminatory tax is repealed. That’s because
most of these businesses are family owned. And it’s the heirs of family-owned businesses – not the super wealthy – who file most estate tax returns.
Supporters of the tax argue that very few families are affected by the tax. But they’re wrong. Between 1995-2005, Congress’s Joint Tax Committee reported
in 2006, estate taxes were paid by more than 37,000 “closely-held businesses,” 24,000 family farms, 50,000 limited-partnerships and nearly 28,000 “other”
non-corporate businesses.

It’s not as if the owners of these catering firms, trucking companies, auto dealerships, print shops, retail stores and restaurants haven’t already paid their
share of income, sales and property taxes. They have.

Yet, if they are successful enough, the government will demand even more when they die, taxing everything they own, including the house, car, savings
accounts, retirement accounts, business equipment, inventory, buildings and land. In other words, any business owner who has managed to climb up the
ladder will have his or her family knocked down again. Is that fair? In essence, this is a “Legacy Killer”.

[The Unknown Caller]

Minorities gave Obama the election, that is a fact--the middle class supported Romney

This is hilariously racist; believe it or not, it is possible to be both middle class and an ethnic minority. Sorry, but Obama won both the minority vote AND the middle class vote.  Midle Class is broad; let's say it applies to the middle 60% of Americans, not the 20% of richer or the 20% of poorer; that means those earning between $20,000 and $100,000 - also the definition accepted by Romney adviser Martin Feldstein. Obama won 52% of that group; Romney won 47%. So Obama actually won it bigger than he won overall. Sorry to burst your bubble.

He also won, funnily enough, the Catholic vote. There you go!

[Maximus]

Minorities gave Obama the election, that is a fact--the middle class supported Romney

This is hilariously racist; believe it or not, it is possible to be both middle class and an ethnic minority. Sorry, but Obama won both the minority vote AND the middle class vote.  Midle Class is broad; let's say it applies to the middle 60% of Americans, not the 20% of richer or the 20% of poorer; that means those earning between $20,000 and $100,000 - also the definition accepted by Romney adviser Martin Feldstein. Obama won 52% of that group; Romney won 47%. So Obama actually won it bigger than he won overall. Sorry to burst your bubble.

He also won, funnily enough, the Catholic vote. There you go!

I knew it--you don't even know who the middle class is--- You need to get your facts straight--Sorry to burst your bubbble!!!!!! Further it is not just  about income to be in the middle class

Dennis Gilbert, 2002

Upper middle class (15%)
 
Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees), most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy.

Lower middle class (30%)
 
Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white-collar.

Leonard Beeghley, 2004

Middle class (plurality/
 majority?; ca. 46%)

College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.

So when you are talking about 20,000 to 40,000 you are not talking about the middle class you are talking about the working class

Leonard Beeghley, 2004

Working class
 (ca. 40% - 45%)

Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education.


Once again you have shown your ignorance of the American Electorate and american society--Further your silly 20/60/20 model further compounds my thoughts on why liberals are out of touch. The middle class is typically considered income of a min of 45,000-55,000 depending on your model and Romney won that group (53%) and why yes there are minorities in the middle class-obama lost the middle class. He carried the working class, and the minority vote.

[Maximus]

Here is another take on what middle class is from US News and world report:

For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000.

BTW Romney carried 50-100K (53%) and 100-200K (54%)

For two-parent families, the typical home is worth about $231,000


The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class, usually including professionals, highly skilled laborers, and lower and middle management.
American Heritage Dictionary

[The Unknown Caller]

Once again you have shown your ignorance of the American Electorate and american society--Further your silly 20/60/20 model further compounds my thoughts on why liberals are out of touch. The middle class is typically considered income of a min of 45,000-55,000 depending on your model.

No, it's not. That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say. There is no "typical" definition of the middle class. The definition of middle class varies wildly and there is nothing remotely close to a scholarly consensus on it. Your way seems particularly silly since it sets the "minimum" income for being middle class at or above the median income of the United States as a whole. All you've done is cherry pick a definition of middle class which you can pretend that Romney won. 20/60/20 is as good as any other way. If you disagree and want to try to define it in a way which makes you feel better, that's fine, but don't pretend it's 'typically considered' right.

The point being that you can try and construct a tortured definition by which you can pretend Romney won the middle class... but it's not really actually getting you anywhere and all it does is help delude you into ignoring all the reasons your party actually lost. (Hint: It's because 53% of the electorate didn't vote for you and shockingly enough, a poor person's vote counts the same as a rich person's and a white person's vote counts the same as a black person's)

[Tumbling Dice]

But even if Romney carried marginally more middle class votes, Obama had the overwhelming working class vote and those of the welfare classes, in addition to his big share of the middle class vote.  And from I understand, not a few Wall Street Aristocrats voted for Obama as well.  Unfortunately for the Republicans, people on low incomes also have a vote in a democracy.  Obama had the centre ground locked up – and this despite a challenging economic background – and so if the GOP wants to win the next presidential election, they’re going to have to appeal to a much broader proportion of the middle class, and field a more effective communicator as the candidate.  Going into to bat for the super-wealthy isn’t really going to do that, IMHO, especially in the new economic environment we’re living in.

[The Unknown Caller]

But even if Romney carried marginally more middle class votes, Obama had the overwhelming working class vote and those of the welfare classes, in addition to his big share of the middle class vote.  And from I understand, not a few Wall Street Aristocrats voted for Obama as well.  Unfortunately for the Republicans, people on low incomes also have a vote in a democracy.  Obama had the centre ground locked up – and this despite a challenging economic background – and so if the GOP wants to win the next presidential election, they’re going to have to appeal to a much broader proportion of the middle class, and field a more effective communicator as the candidate.  Going into to bat for the super-wealthy isn’t really going to do that, IMHO, especially in the new economic environment we’re living in.

I think both sides overestimate the importance of the candidate themselves. Yes, they matter, but the Obama coalition isn't dramatically different from past (Post-1980) Democratic coalitions except that its core groups are much bigger and more influential now. Actual policy changes are important; it is hard to see Republicans winning the women's vote with their current positions on most women's issues, for instance, or winning the Latino vote with their current positions on immigration and the economy.

Otherwise, I largely agree.

[Tumbling Dice]

The estate tax doesn't hurt the wealthy make it 90% it wouldn't matter--They simply use loopholes like living trusts, gifts, buy special kins of life insurance (tax deductable, and other finc vehicles to avoid it)



http://lobby.la.psu.edu/027_Estate_Tax/Organizational_Statements/AAUFT/AAUFT_Principles.htm

We believe that:

1) Estate taxes are unfair and constitute double taxation. People work their entire lives, pay their taxes and struggle to create an estate of value that provides security to the family and employees they leave behind. It is unfair to tax one's life earnings for a second time, robbing them in death of the family economic security they worked throughout their lives to provide.

2) Estate taxes are fiscally and economically counterproductive. Less than 1.5% of federal revenues come from the estate tax. Experts estimate that anywhere from 65% to 100% of that revenue is offset by administrative and compliance expenses. Fiscally, it is an IRS agent full employment program that punishes grieving families while providing minimal benefit to the government treasury after expenses.

3) Estate taxes affect nearly every American. In addition to the millions of Americans who are directly affected by the death tax, there are millions more who are indirectly affected as thousands of small businesses refuse to grow and invest in new jobs for fear of the devastating tax impact of a principle's death.

4) Estate taxes hurt small businesses, women and minorities. 61% of family business owners say that the payment of death taxes will limit their business growth while 13% say that growth will be impossible. Women whose life expectancy exceeds that of men are often left not only with the grief of a lost spouse, but with the painful burden of a death tax that threatens their children's security. The estate tax is particularly harsh on minorities whose families are accumulating wealth for the first time

5) Estate taxes destroy the ability of family-owned farms and businesses to be kept within the family and passed from one generation to the next. A family farm can easily be worth $ 10 million when the value of land, equipment and farm buildings are calculated. The farming income is a small percentage of the asset's value. Yet, when a principle dies, the family is expected to pay more than 50% of the asset values in cash for the estate taxes. It doesn't matter that many members of the family may have worked their entire lives building the farm up, making it successful. All too often, the family has no choice but to sell the farm. Their money was invested in land, in crops, employees and the American dream. But thanks to the estate tax, the family business is dissolved, a heritage is destroyed.

Looked at from the point of view of accumulating wealth, any taxes can be seen as problematic.  But if income taxes don’t deter people from working hard and being enterprising, then why should inheritance taxes?  Plus, this makes out that estate taxes are leaving families in penury when in fact it only kicks in on estates worth over $5 Million.  And hasn’t the success of American capitalism been built on the foundations of a system of tax rates which were historically higher than today’s levels?  Doesn’t this also include estate tax?  Seriously, how many dynastic ambitions have been thwarted by the existence of estate taxes and how many farms have been broken up and jobs lost because of them?  And one way of protecting a family’s control of a business empire from estate taxes would be for the ownership to be shared out between family members since the taxes are levied on individuals.  That would make these businesses truly family owned, and this is common practice with large family-owned corporations in Germany and France.  I am sympathetic about the sense of injustice many ordinary people bequeathing relatively modest estates may feel about inheritance taxes, but essentially the tax is on the beneficiaries.  If it’s fair to tax people’s labour and enterprise then I think it’s fair to tax their windfalls.  I’d like to see the inheritance tax threshold increase in the UK from the current level of £325,000 per person to £1 Million, and the Conservative Party promised this before the last general election, but the current economic climate put that on the backburner.  It’s not really justifiable to increase tax allowances on inheritance while consumers are being levied 20% VAT on many goods and services.

[Maximus]

Once again you have shown your ignorance of the American Electorate and american society--Further your silly 20/60/20 model further compounds my thoughts on why liberals are out of touch. The middle class is typically considered income of a min of 45,000-55,000 depending on your model.

No, it's not. That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say. There is no "typical" definition of the middle class. The definition of middle class varies wildly and there is nothing remotely close to a scholarly consensus on it. Your way seems particularly silly since it sets the "minimum" income for being middle class at or above the median income of the United States as a whole. All you've done is cherry pick a definition of middle class which you can pretend that Romney won. 20/60/20 is as good as any other way. If you disagree and want to try to define it in a way which makes you feel better, that's fine, but don't pretend it's 'typically considered' right.

The point being that you can try and construct a tortured definition by which you can pretend Romney won the middle class... but it's not really actually getting you anywhere and all it does is help delude you into ignoring all the reasons your party actually lost. (Hint: It's because 53% of the electorate didn't vote for you and shockingly enough, a poor person's vote counts the same as a rich person's and a white person's vote counts the same as a black person's)

1. I gave you the scholarly sources so argue with them

2. You give 20,000 as the bottom of the Middle class---- Yet 21,835 is considered below the poverty line (for a typical family of 4)

3. You think middle class is only about income it is a socio-economic class--- It also involves education level, job types, and home type not just income.

4. You don't know the difference bt the working class and the middle class--Now I understand why you argue that Obama helps and Obama care helps the middle class--you don't know what it is.


There you go bring up race--why is it always racism with you guys-- It is true if the minorty vote just went 60% O, Romney would have won

[Maximus]

But even if Romney carried marginally more middle class votes, Obama had the overwhelming working class vote and those of the welfare classes, in addition to his big share of the middle class vote.  And from I understand, not a few Wall Street Aristocrats voted for Obama as well.  Unfortunately for the Republicans, people on low incomes also have a vote in a democracy.  Obama had the centre ground locked up – and this despite a challenging economic background – and so if the GOP wants to win the next presidential election, they’re going to have to appeal to a much broader proportion of the middle class, and field a more effective communicator as the candidate.  Going into to bat for the super-wealthy isn’t really going to do that, IMHO, especially in the new economic environment we’re living in.

I agree with you, this a true statement

250,000 a year, 400,000 a year are not the super wealthy

[Maximus]

The estate tax doesn't hurt the wealthy make it 90% it wouldn't matter--They simply use loopholes like living trusts, gifts, buy special kins of life insurance (tax deductable, and other finc vehicles to avoid it)



http://lobby.la.psu.edu/027_Estate_Tax/Organizational_Statements/AAUFT/AAUFT_Principles.htm

We believe that:

1) Estate taxes are unfair and constitute double taxation. People work their entire lives, pay their taxes and struggle to create an estate of value that provides security to the family and employees they leave behind. It is unfair to tax one's life earnings for a second time, robbing them in death of the family economic security they worked throughout their lives to provide.

2) Estate taxes are fiscally and economically counterproductive. Less than 1.5% of federal revenues come from the estate tax. Experts estimate that anywhere from 65% to 100% of that revenue is offset by administrative and compliance expenses. Fiscally, it is an IRS agent full employment program that punishes grieving families while providing minimal benefit to the government treasury after expenses.

3) Estate taxes affect nearly every American. In addition to the millions of Americans who are directly affected by the death tax, there are millions more who are indirectly affected as thousands of small businesses refuse to grow and invest in new jobs for fear of the devastating tax impact of a principle's death.

4) Estate taxes hurt small businesses, women and minorities. 61% of family business owners say that the payment of death taxes will limit their business growth while 13% say that growth will be impossible. Women whose life expectancy exceeds that of men are often left not only with the grief of a lost spouse, but with the painful burden of a death tax that threatens their children's security. The estate tax is particularly harsh on minorities whose families are accumulating wealth for the first time

5) Estate taxes destroy the ability of family-owned farms and businesses to be kept within the family and passed from one generation to the next. A family farm can easily be worth $ 10 million when the value of land, equipment and farm buildings are calculated. The farming income is a small percentage of the asset's value. Yet, when a principle dies, the family is expected to pay more than 50% of the asset values in cash for the estate taxes. It doesn't matter that many members of the family may have worked their entire lives building the farm up, making it successful. All too often, the family has no choice but to sell the farm. Their money was invested in land, in crops, employees and the American dream. But thanks to the estate tax, the family business is dissolved, a heritage is destroyed.

Looked at from the point of view of accumulating wealth, any taxes can be seen as problematic.  But if income taxes don’t deter people from working hard and being enterprising, then why should inheritance taxes?  Plus, this makes out that estate taxes are leaving families in penury when in fact it only kicks in on estates worth over $5 Million.  And hasn’t the success of American capitalism been built on the foundations of a system of tax rates which were historically higher than today’s levels?  Doesn’t this also include estate tax?  Seriously, how many dynastic ambitions have been thwarted by the existence of estate taxes and how many farms have been broken up and jobs lost because of them?  And one way of protecting a family’s control of a business empire from estate taxes would be for the ownership to be shared out between family members since the taxes are levied on individuals.  That would make these businesses truly family owned, and this is common practice with large family-owned corporations in Germany and France.  I am sympathetic about the sense of injustice many ordinary people bequeathing relatively modest estates may feel about inheritance taxes, but essentially the tax is on the beneficiaries.  If it’s fair to tax people’s labour and enterprise then I think it’s fair to tax their windfalls.  I’d like to see the inheritance tax threshold increase in the UK from the current level of £325,000 per person to £1 Million, and the Conservative Party promised this before the last general election, but the current economic climate put that on the backburner.  It’s not really justifiable to increase tax allowances on inheritance while consumers are being levied 20% VAT on many goods and services.

The wealthy can avoid them, or afford them-- the middle class and small farmers and small B owners can't. I could buy off on a farm exemption or something like 15M for a farm or smallB and 5M on e/t else

[Tumbling Dice]

But even if Romney carried marginally more middle class votes, Obama had the overwhelming working class vote and those of the welfare classes, in addition to his big share of the middle class vote.  And from I understand, not a few Wall Street Aristocrats voted for Obama as well.  Unfortunately for the Republicans, people on low incomes also have a vote in a democracy.  Obama had the centre ground locked up – and this despite a challenging economic background – and so if the GOP wants to win the next presidential election, they’re going to have to appeal to a much broader proportion of the middle class, and field a more effective communicator as the candidate.  Going into to bat for the super-wealthy isn’t really going to do that, IMHO, especially in the new economic environment we’re living in.

I agree with you, this a true statement

250,000 a year, 400,000 a year are not the super wealthy

Hasn't Obama offered to increase extending the Bush tax cuts to a threshold of $400,000?  What percentage of American voters pull in more than that?

[The Unknown Caller]

1. I gave you the scholarly sources so argue with them

No, you didn't, you gave me what some people say. You argued that this was pretty much universally accepted, you have produced absolutely nothing to back up that patently ludicrous claim.

2. You give 20,000 as the bottom of the Middle class---- Yet 21,835 is considered below the poverty line (for a typical family of 4)

Yes, but 20% of Americans earn less than that.

3. You think middle class is only about income it is a socio-economic class--- It also involves education level, job types, and home type not just income.

Agreed, but since that can't be qualified, we'll stick with income for these purposes. Particularly since... you're also trying to set an income threshold!

4. You don't know the difference bt the working class and the middle class--Now I understand why you argue that Obama helps and Obama care helps the middle class--you don't know what it is.

Which doesn't explain why Obama got, at absolute worst, about 46% of the middle class vote and in all probability (IE: According to anything but a cherry-picked analysis intended to produce the opposite result) he won it.

There you go bring up race--why is it always racism with you guys-- It is true if the minorty vote just went 60% O, Romney would have won

And there again you go insinuating that the votes of minorities should count for less than the votes of anyone else.

[Tumbling Dice]

I think both sides overestimate the importance of the candidate themselves. 

That's a good do for the Labour Party with the leader they've got.