Republicans Push $269 Billion Handout For Millionaire Heirs And Heiresses

Obviously since there would be a vacuum in the needs of the population, a new business will take it's place and take the money the rich people who left would leave behind.

So, you are saying the solution to American's problem with companies that offshore their businesses is to bar them from doing business within the United States so that small business can grow to fill the void and thus create wealth.

Sounds like a great plan to me.

 

Nope, didn't say any of what you represented. Not even close...

 

Damn, cause that would really solve a lot of problems in the United States. Especially with things like the wealth gap, and growth in the economy and taxation and all of it.

But still, double taxation is a bad idea.

 

This is an interesting arguement because every time I have engaged it with someone they look at it from two very different angles.

One side specifically states they are voting so for what it does for them, asking the opposition why they are against them if they dont gain from it.

The other side states they simply think its against their moral code and they are frustrated their opposition cannot understand them.

It's funny because being so, niether side will ever agree.

 

And they want to "allow" us to keep more of our earnings. I'm sure the Democrats will oppose that.

- - - Updated - - -

The cliché machine is strong with this one.

 

I'd still like an answer to those questions.

 

I thought the GOP would have been smart enough to let this issue rest, after the deduction limits were raised to insane values under "socialist" Obama, as stated in an above post.

Maybe bringing the "death tax" to the front page again will show voters how much the GOP is in the pockets of the ultra-rich, by high-lighting these insane deduction limits, which I am sure the average voter has no clue about how high they are.

 

Arbitrary liberal is arbitrary - and greedy. Before there existed any such greedy liberal notions of taking away one's family inheritance, there was an right; one so presumptuous that in the past you would have been shot if attempting to take away a family's work.

What's shameful is that you're happy with the idea simply because most businesses are under the threshold. Screw those that aren't, eh?

 

Do you? You haven't told us how "high" they are either - so how high are they, and how high should they be?

Are we to be subjected to your idea of fair?

 

5 million is the Federal Estate Tax. That doesn't at all address the fact that each State may have inheritance taxes - and I can assure you, those are generally not exempt below 5 million dollars.

The Government is so greedy that it actually can tax an estate twice: once when giving it away, and once on the person receiving.

Pure tyrannical greed and entitlement from liberals.

 

It would only be a matter of time until the filthy money grabbing parasites increased taxes and taxing all inheritance - we know how they operate.

Just because it mightnt effect many people now doesnt mean its right. People pay taxes on their income already and capital gains already, theres no need to be taxing them again via inheritance tax. If when the beneficiary sells said asset they'll have tax to pay. Damn you people just dont let up trying to get other peoples money do you?

 

It's not a handout from government to these families, it's refraining from forcing these families to give a handout to the government. A reduction in taxation is not an increase in spending.

I'm sure we could agree on much when it comes to lowering income inequality, but taxation is evidently not included.

 

The money was taxed once when they earned it, why on earth should it be taxes again?

 

yeah cause the post of YOURS I replied to was not full of republican propaganda itself... lol, pot\ meet kettle, ect... lol

 

yeah right, that was Bush policies that tanked the economy, but yes, let's re-write history and blame it on Democrats

 

Are you sure they paid taxes when they "earned" it? And, if they actually did, at what rate? I think those are serious questions, only because I'm aware of many tax gambits enjoyed by the very wealthy that have let them avoid taxes for a long time, and, if they did pay anything, paid at a much lower rate. Finally, for all who've wondered how many family farms and businesses might have to be sold because of this tax, there's this editorial from USA Today:

 

How is it a handout to keep your own money???

 

Yes.

Whatever rate the government forced them to pay. Likely a rate much much higher than what YOU pay.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but here's what Ben and Jerry have to say about it:

 

No I don't support expanding the tax. I don't want it taking any more than it does now.

 

It wasnt Bush policies that tanked the housing market. Check out who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.....it wasnt Bush.

- - - Updated - - -

Who cares what RADICAL liberal ice cream makers think?

Their business doesnt rely on prosperous customers, it relies on obese and depressed customers.

 

They are not taxing the person who earned it, are they? Money is can be taxed anytime it changes hands, which is the case here.

 

Interesting. I do not consider letting someone keep some of the money they earned, whether rich or poor a hand out. To me a hand out is when you take someone else's money and give it to others who didn't earn it.

That being said, I do believe in the safety net and have no problem in taxing inheritances above 5 million. Some have said those who earned the money already paid taxes on it, which is very true. But those inheriting the money haven't. Is that double taxation, it most likely is. But this is a taxing country, when I get paid I am taxed on it, when I spend some I am taxed again, then some of the things I bought with money that had been taxed twice already continues to be taxed every year. So it continues on and on.

I suppose the only problem I have here is the term handout with your title of the thread. It isn't.

 

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was named after three Republicans. And the mortgage-backed securities that tanked the market existed long before the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. It wasn't until subprime mortgages took off in the early 2000's that the crisis started. When predatory lending became a problem, it was Bush that failed to act.

- - - Updated - - -

We're talking about the estate tax here. It's not the people who earned it who get to keep it, now is it?

 

Very true, but perhaps it is a question of who gets to decide who gets your money after you die. Do you decide who gets it or does the government? To put it another way, perhaps it is a handout. But since you earned it, do you hand it out to whom you want and does the government confiscate and decides who will get the handouts.

Let's face it, if you want the government to have it to hand out to whom they want, you can leave all that you have to the government. That would be your choice. After all you earned it, you were taxed on it, shouldn't you be able to decide who gets what is left of your life's work?