NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[wahday]

One thing that I've always wondered - just what IS the left's ultimate goal? It seems like they are trying to have the government and its ruling elites take over and run everything (health care and banking/finance in the USA now) and wasting no time and effort to badmouth and try to destroy anyone who tries to oppose them - but then what?

I can't sense any logical progression from there - other than to see the results of such activities in other places and times in history (nearly ALL of which have been total disasters).

Mike

Could the ultimate goal perhaps be...responsible government? I don't know your own personal opinions on the particular issues you may be referring to, but I think what some people characterize as "government takeover" in certain areas is actually the reinstitution of regulations and oversight that had been removed by recent Republican administrations.

Since Nixon and especially Reagan, I think the Republicans have been very successful at convincing the American public that any program that is government run is, by definition, dysfunctional and inefficient. I would suggest may not be the case and I definitely encourage people to question this assumption and also to look at cases and programs one-by-one instead of assuming that if the government is involved that it is a disaster (again, I'm not saying this is your opinion, but it is the opinion of many). In fact, so many have come to simply assume that this is true that they bristle at any suggestion that government become involved in anything.

This attitude toward government-run activities has fueled the way for the removal of oversight and regulation in many areas. And in some cases, conservative interests have even underfunded or cut staff in a particular area of regulation and then, when the department is not up to the task, pointed the finger and said "see, the government can't do anything right." I would say the same is true of the mining and extractive services regulation changes during the Bush administration that allowed for more "cooperation" between the private and government bodies involved, resulting in rampant examples of corruption, kickbacks, lavish spending and sexual relations between regulators and employees of the companies they were supposed to regulate. Many of the documented cases, as I recall, directly led to the granting of drilling contracts int he Gulf. Again, conservative interests often point the finger to say that government run programs always fail. But, in fact, those same conservatives also created the situation that led to the failure. So, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not beyond recognizing that government run programs can function poorly and operate inefficiently. But I cannot accept that this is always the case across the board and so I think each department/area needs to be assessed on its own merit. Government programs can run well, efficiently and deliver services to the public that private interests cannot. Not in every area, but in some, I would say this is definitely the case. Health care, for example, is one place where personally, I feel private interests and corporate profit has intruded WAY too far and the result has been a dramatic curtailing of quality of life for many. We have the best medical technology and knowledge in the world, but our method of delivering that care has been a tragic mess. IMHO...

 

[TexanOkie]

Could the ultimate goal perhaps be...responsible government? ...

[etc.]

From an outsider's perspective, it appears there are two factions within the American liberal sphere - self-labelled "progressives" and advocates of Third Way politics.

The modern progressives draw much of their inspiration from the Progressive movement from the early 20th Century, though the tie is more in spirit, historically, than end goal. A great deal of the Progressive (early 20th Century version) agenda has become status quo in our government since the New Deal through the Great Society and even the Nixon presidency. Modern-day progressives usually espouse a mild, center-left form of social democracy, and are usually identified with the intellectual elite and government/non-profit folks within the liberal movement.

Third Way advocates, usually self-identified as "liberals" in the US (as opposed to "progressives"), follow a more conventional approach to politics, and are center, even center-right, in their ideology. They are actually a more recent outgrowth of American liberalism that took hold after the Reagan revolution, and are exemplified by Bill Clinton. They seem to think that the government's welfare-state system has reached is zenith (or as close as they can get), and now strive to implement small reforms to better the current system. It's usually conservative economic policy mixed with social liberalization. "Liberals" tend to be more identified with business-types, blue collar workers, and ethnic minorities within the liberal movement.

On a side note, I think if Bill Clinton had started with the Third Way approach instead of seeming to adopt it in whole after the 1994 GOP takeover, and not fallen in with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing (which was still blown way out of proportion), he would probably have been viewed much more favorably by the conservative establishment and the general public, possibly nixing the whole 2000-2008 era (at least domestically).

 

[wahday]

From an outsider's perspective, it appears there are two factions within the American liberal sphere - self-labelled "progressives" and advocates of Third Way politics.

The modern progressives draw much of their inspiration from the Progressive movement from the early 20th Century, though the tie is more in spirit, historically, than end goal. A great deal of the Progressive (early 20th Century version) agenda has become status quo in our government since the New Deal through the Great Society and even the Nixon presidency. Modern-day progressives usually espouse a mild, center-left form of social democracy, and are usually identified with the intellectual elite and government/non-profit folks within the liberal movement.

Third Way advocates, usually self-identified as "liberals" in the US (as opposed to "progressives"), follow a more conventional approach to politics, and are center, even center-right, in their ideology. They are actually a more recent outgrowth of American liberalism that took hold after the Reagan revolution, and are exemplified by the Bill Clinton. They seem to think that the government's welfare-state system has reached is zenith (or as close as they can get), and now strive to implement small reforms to better the current system. It's usually conservative economic policy mixed with social liberalization. "Liberals" tend to be more identified with business-types, blue collar workers, and ethnic minorities within the liberal movement.

On a side note, I think if Bill Clinton had started with the Third Way approach instead of seeming to adopt it in whole after the 1994 GOP takeover, and not fallen in with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing (which was still blown way out of proportion), he would probably have been viewed much more favorably by the conservative establishment and the general public, possibly nixing the whole 2000-2008 era (at least domestically).

Some may quibble with the details, but I think this is a pretty fair assessment. In this scheme, I would place myself as a "progressive" and I'm fine with that label. I have to say that I haven't spent a lot of time examining why I have this sensibility or what the historical thread it relates to is. But you have given me some places to start. I did attend a Quaker high school and have taken that ethos to heart ever since (I occasionally go to Meeting, but I generally avoid organized religion, which is not to say I am unconcerned with spiritual or moral issues). I think that, along with the sentiments of my parents, both Protestants from Oklahoma that moved east where my father got a job at a university and where their worldview was broadened by interactions with folks of different religions, politics and nations, has informed my view as well. Oh, and I'm a Cancer. They say we're very compassionate....

 

[TexanOkie]

Some may quibble with the details...

And rightfully so. I'm sure I don't have all the details right. But like I said, this assessment is from an outsider's perspective, so for those who post after, please don't beat me up too much.

 

[btrage]

One thing that I've always wondered - just what IS the left's ultimate goal? It seems like they are trying to have the government and its ruling elites take over and run everything (health care and banking/finance in the USA now) and wasting no time and effort to badmouth and try to destroy anyone who tries to oppose them - but then what?

I can't sense any logical progression from there - other than to see the results of such activities in other places and times in history (nearly ALL of which have been total disasters).

Mike

In a nutshell, I would say the end goal is to have a political/economic system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. Basically, capitalism kept in check by proper and efficient government regulation, as opposed to the pure, free market capitalist system that created the mess we now have.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

In a nutshell, I would say the end goal is to have a political/economic system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. Basically, capitalism kept in check by proper and efficient government regulation, as opposed to the pure, free market capitalist system that created the mess we now have.

I'll second that!

 

[Planit]

The Shirley Sherrod Situation

This whole issue is very, very sad - from the conservative website edited video, to Fox News slant, to Obama administration quick overreaction, to Fox News now contradicting itslef a day later. The political landscape in this country is so very tainted.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/201...d-news-organizations-are-hurting-america.html

 

[btrage]

Could the ultimate goal perhaps be...responsible government? I don't know your own personal opinions on the particular issues you may be referring to, but I think what some people characterize as "government takeover" in certain areas is actually the reinstitution of regulations and oversight that had been removed by recent Republican administrations.

Since Nixon and especially Reagan, I think the Republicans have been very successful at convincing the American public that any program that is government run is, by definition, dysfunctional and inefficient. I would suggest may not be the case and I definitely encourage people to question this assumption and also to look at cases and programs one-by-one instead of assuming that if the government is involved that it is a disaster (again, I'm not saying this is your opinion, but it is the opinion of many). In fact, so many have come to simply assume that this is true that they bristle at any suggestion that government become involved in anything.

This attitude toward government-run activities has fueled the way for the removal of oversight and regulation in many areas. And in some cases, conservative interests have even underfunded or cut staff in a particular area of regulation and then, when the department is not up to the task, pointed the finger and said "see, the government can't do anything right." I would say the same is true of the mining and extractive services regulation changes during the Bush administration that allowed for more "cooperation" between the private and government bodies involved, resulting in rampant examples of corruption, kickbacks, lavish spending and sexual relations between regulators and employees of the companies they were supposed to regulate. Many of the documented cases, as I recall, directly led to the granting of drilling contracts int he Gulf. Again, conservative interests often point the finger to say that government run programs always fail. But, in fact, those same conservatives also created the situation that led to the failure. So, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not beyond recognizing that government run programs can function poorly and operate inefficiently. But I cannot accept that this is always the case across the board and so I think each department/area needs to be assessed on its own merit. Government programs can run well, efficiently and deliver services to the public that private interests cannot. Not in every area, but in some, I would say this is definitely the case. Health care, for example, is one place where personally, I feel private interests and corporate profit has intruded WAY too far and the result has been a dramatic curtailing of quality of life for many. We have the best medical technology and knowledge in the world, but our method of delivering that care has been a tragic mess. IMHO...

In a nutshell, I would say the end goal is to have a political/economic system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. Basically, capitalism kept in check by proper and efficient government regulation, as opposed to the pure, free market capitalist system that created the mess we now have.

I'll second that!

Since mgk920 asked the question, and we responded, I'm wondering if he has any follow up responses?

He seems to have a habit of asking these questions, but then sometimes disappears when the question is answered. Almost as if he has no logical response. Hey Mike...........don't go disappearing on us!

 

[mgk920]

Since mgk920 asked the question, and we responded, I'm wondering if he has any follow up responses?

He seems to have a habit of asking these questions, but then sometimes disappears when the question is answered. Almost as if he has no logical response. Hey Mike...........don't go disappearing on us!

Hehehehehehe

My thoughts on that are that of course, I want good, sound government with a good, sensible, logical and strictly limited set of fairly administered rules to live by, but it almost seems that the modern left wants to go far overboard, to the point of stifling those who simply want to live their lives, prosper and so forth by using an increasing morass of rules that make no sense other than to require that people be hired at their expense to administer them. Also, I see a lot of elitism from the ruling class of the left - "I got my advanced degree from (insert 'proper' school name here) and that makes me more learned, wise and *better* than you and thus able to best determine the proper course of your affairs", rather than "I started and successfully ran a profitable business from scratch, now with several hundred people who are gainfully employed by me to make, sell and service my popular products, and that gives me the *real life experience* needed to make the everyday decisions of (small 'g') governing".

Right now, it seems almost like those now in power are relishing in a disturbing level of contempt, if not raw hatred, for those who, of their own effort and hard work, are simply trying to better themselves and their communities. This includes piling on mountains of punitive tax rules, including highly 'progressive' rate structures and the coming avalanche of 1099 form paperwork, plus other regulations, such as environmental rules, EEOC rules, local zoning laws and so forth - they all take massive amounts of time and effort to comply with and all of their related paperwork produces nothing of economic value. It is pretty much to the point where many who may otherwise have wanted to set out for themselves and pursue the American Dream are not even bothering to start - the hassles are just too great.

Those are not good, sensible and logical rules.

My sense is that there are many on the left now in power who truly want to sweep all of that private initiative and enterprise away and go in a pure 'statist' course where the (big 'G') Government at all levels is the be-all and end-all of every aspect of life and where the wise counsel of the ruling elites is the final word.

Throughout World history, we have all too often seen where that ultimately leads - AND, I see nothing that says that the logical progression of what is coming from the current ruling left will be any different.



Mike

 

[CJC]

^That's hard to respond to, so I'll just give you some advice. Never leave the US for any other even semi-developed country, be it Brazil, Canada, the Netherlands, China, Russia, South Africa, Singapore, Australia, or well, anywhere else, because you will be horrified at what you see.

 

[Hink]

Also, I see a lot of elitism from the ruling class of the left - "I got my advanced degree from (insert 'proper' school name here) and that makes me more learned, wise and *better* than you and thus able to best determine the proper course of your affairs", rather than "I started and successfully ran a profitable business from scratch, now with several hundred people who are gainfully employed by me to make, sell and service my popular products, and that gives me the *real life experience* needed to make the everyday decisions of (small 'g') governing".

This makes me think of another odd political ploy - elitists. Otherwise known as the successful or well educated. But it seems that some in R party (admittedly it is mostly the divisive talking heads) think that it is a bad thing to be "elitist". They ignore the business owner who got an advanced degree started a business did well and created jobs, but dismiss the college educated lawyer who happens to disagree with them as "elitist".

Then it is always taken a step further because as Mike points out that these folks are portrayed as " learned, wise and *better* than you". Which they are learned. The wise and better than you is really just a way to try and marginalize what they stand for. Somewhat like being "more" American than someone else.

R's want us to support the wealthy class. They want you to support the business owners. But somehow want you to believe that "elitism" is a negative thing. I have yet to meet a CEO that doesn't have a HUGE ego and consider themselves elite. This is what makes them successful. Their drive, education, and ability to be "better" than people at something.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Hehehehehehe

My thoughts on that are that of course, I want good, sound government with a good, sensible, logical and strictly limited set of fairly administered rules to live by, but it almost seems that the modern left wants to go far overboard, to the point of stifling those who simply want to live their lives, prosper and so forth by using an increasing morass of rules that make no sense other than to require that people be hired at their expense to administer them. Also, I see a lot of elitism from the ruling class of the left - "I got my advanced degree from (insert 'proper' school name here) and that makes me more learned, wise and *better* than you and thus able to best determine the proper course of your affairs", rather than "I started and successfully ran a profitable business from scratch, now with several hundred people who are gainfully employed by me to make, sell and service my popular products, and that gives me the *real life experience* needed to make the everyday decisions of (small 'g') governing".

Right now, it seems almost like those now in power are relishing in a disturbing level of contempt, if not raw hatred, for those who, of their own effort and hard work, are simply trying to better themselves and their communities. This includes piling on mountains of punitive tax rules, including highly 'progressive' rate structures and the coming avalanche of 1099 form paperwork, plus other regulations, such as environmental rules, EEOC rules, local zoning laws and so forth - they all take massive amounts of time and effort to comply with and all of their related paperwork produces nothing of economic value. It is pretty much to the point where many who may otherwise have wanted to set out for themselves and pursue the American Dream are not even bothering to start - the hassles are just too great.

Those are not good, sensible and logical rules.

My sense is that there are many on the left now in power who truly want to sweep all of that private initiative and enterprise away and go in a pure 'statist' course where the (big 'G') Government at all levels is the be-all and end-all of every aspect of life and where the wise counsel of the ruling elites is the final word.

Throughout World history, we have all too often seen where that ultimately leads - AND, I see nothing that says that the logical progression of what is coming from the current ruling left will be any different.



Mike

Boulderdash!

Tell us, what environmental rules are silly and should be done away with. You seem to fancy yourself an expert, so tell us, what can be ejected from regulation?

Tell us, what zoning rules are silly and should be eliminated?

Give us a list of state regulations you think are worthless?

Bah, you don't have the first clue. Its just crap you throw out there. You have no clue.

 

[btrage]

Right now, it seems almost like those now in power are relishing in a disturbing level of contempt, if not raw hatred, for those who, of their own effort and hard work, are simply trying to better themselves and their communities. This includes piling on mountains of punitive tax rules, including highly 'progressive' rate structures and the coming avalanche of 1099 form paperwork, plus other regulations, such as environmental rules, EEOC rules, local zoning laws and so forth - they all take massive amounts of time and effort to comply with and all of their related paperwork produces nothing of economic value. It is pretty much to the point where many who may otherwise have wanted to set out for themselves and pursue the American Dream are not even bothering to start - the hassles are just too great.

The highlighted part is complete nonsense. A neighbor of mine has helped start 4 businesses in the last 18 months. Another neighbor of mine just yesterday helped start another business.

While I would agree that there are some things that could be done to simplify current tax rules at all levels of government, I think it is a gross over generalization to claim that it is just too difficult to pursue the American Dream, and blame it on zoning end environmental rules. And the EEOC? Really? That's the problem?

The problem is we (the collective we, as in all political parties, legislators and citizens) since 1980, have let corporate America run this country into the ground in pursuit of "profit". I firmly believe that the Republican party is more in bed with Wall Street than the Democratic Party, and that the "liberal left" has more solutions to the corporate libertarian bullshit that we find ourselves in today.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Right now, it seems almost like those now in power are relishing in a disturbing level of contempt, if not raw hatred, for those who, of their own effort and hard work, are simply trying to better themselves and their communities. This includes piling on mountains of punitive tax rules, including highly 'progressive' rate structures and the coming avalanche of 1099 form paperwork, plus other regulations, such as environmental rules, EEOC rules, local zoning laws and so forth - they all take massive amounts of time and effort to comply with and all of their related paperwork produces nothing of economic value. It is pretty much to the point where many who may otherwise have wanted to set out for themselves and pursue the American Dream are not even bothering to start - the hassles are just too great.

Those are not good, sensible and logical rules.



Mike

Yes, please enlighten us as to which of these regulations are not good, sensible and logical.

Before you do, you might want to take a field trip to Indiana and talk to the people who have breathing problems because of the pollution. I might even loan you one of my inhalors that I have to keep with me at all times. While you are there, you might not want to eat any of the locally caught fish because of the pollution. There are limits even a healthy man is supposed to eat. If you have woman of child bearing years or a kid under the age of 15, they may not want to eat any of the fish, especially the bigger ones caught in rivers and streams. In general, it's not a good idea to eat the locally caught fish. I am really curious what you would have to say to the good folks of Indiana who have had to live with the effects of pollution. So again, please tell us what of the environmental regulations are not good.

Btw, they are places that actually want zoning regulations. As for the EEOC regs, I've sat through enough of the training to realize how much of a problem it really is.

While some of the regulations do go a little overboard, some don't go far enough. Again, talk to the people who actually benefit from the regs or have suffered from the lack of them.

 

[imaplanner]

One thing that I've always wondered - just what IS the left's ultimate goal?

To take all your hard earned money and give it to lazy people and minorities. Duh

 

[boiker]

Hehehehehehe

My thoughts on that are that of course, I want good, sound government with a good, sensible, logical and strictly limited set of fairly administered rules to live by

Right and Left agree on this point.

but it almost seems that the modern left wants to go far overboard

This is a value statement that needs to be defined. What is overboard and from what perspective?

by using an increasing morass of rules that make no sense other than to require that people be hired at their expense to administer them.

I don't deny there are a ton of rules, but I think each party does their part to layer on the bureaucracy. Each new tax rule, whether to lower or raise taxes or create credits/deductions, etc adds paper work. If the border is to be secured, e-verify has to be widely implemented to stop those who still manage to get across illegally. That's additional paperwork. If we want to protect the nation from money laundering related to terrorism, we had to add paperwork. The list is long, but both parties are doing it and the only businesses which can easily absorb these costs are the very large corporations. It really hurts everyone else.

Also, I see a lot of elitism from the ruling class of the left - "I got my advanced degree from (insert 'proper' school name here) and that makes me more learned, wise and *better* than you and thus able to best determine the proper course of your affairs", rather than "I started and successfully ran a profitable business from scratch, now with several hundred people who are gainfully employed by me to make, sell and service my popular products, and that gives me the *real life experience* needed to make the everyday decisions of (small 'g') governing".

Which also smacks of elitism from anecdotal personal experience. Where have you seen articles or video clips of liberals using their education as a tool to trample? Where have we seen articles or video clips of conservatives using their experience and business know-how as tools to trample? I bet I can find examples of both.

Right now, it seems almost like those now in power are relishing in a disturbing level of contempt, if not raw hatred, for those who, of their own effort and hard work, are simply trying to better themselves and their communities.

Hatred is a powerful word. What actions or policies demonstrate hatred?

This includes piling on mountains of punitive tax rules, including highly 'progressive' rate structures

and the coming avalanche of 1099 form paperwork,

I see that the change was included to prevent people from lying about business purchases for the tax deduction. I doubt you are pro-tax evasion, so I'm interested to know what different way this could've been handled. I don't disagree, the paperwork is going to suck.

plus other regulations, such as environmental rules

Have new ones gone into effect recently? I did a couple google searches and couldn't find any. The potential for new ones like cap and trade is there, but it's being debated.

[quote[My sense is that there are many on the left now in power who truly want to sweep all of that private initiative and enterprise away and go in a pure 'statist' course where the (big 'G') Government at all levels is the be-all and end-all of every aspect of life and where the wise counsel of the ruling elites is the final word.[/quote]

How does this rectify with recent events of BP? The ruling elites have allowed them to operate without penalty despite violation of those arduous regulations? BP didn't act in the best interests of the citizens of the USA, it acted in its own self interest.

I feel there is a corporatocracy takeover occurring where corporations are using the government as their strong arm to tailor policy and law to favor them. Government will be the end-all, be-all but it will not be because of the power grab of some left-wing loonies, it'll be of the desires of powerful corporations to hold their power and influence. Corporations aren't evil, they just aren't social creatures. The only establish relationships when it can be exploited or mutually beneficial. The don't care about social responsibility, unless it'll cost them less money to act upon than not to. They have to make more money every year and exceed expectations every year. Why is not surprising that they seem to have such a bold role in policy making? Fortunes and influence depend upon it and they cannot loose it. Again, both parties are accomplice to this.

Throughout World history, we have all too often seen where that ultimately leads

Any extreme is frightening and we should do what we can to balance all aspects.

Thanks for the response and I honestly would like to hear more of the things that cause you to feel that way. I'll do the same with my views.

 

[btrage]

Thanks for the response and I honestly would like to hear more of the things that cause you to feel that way. I'll do the same with my views.

Thank you for the point by point handling of this.

He won't respond, unless it's in sweeping generalizations.

But hey, that's the signature of right wing conservatives, trying to spread fear that the government is the problem, when in reality the USA is slowing becoming the The United Corporations of America, thanks to the free market capitalist nonsense espoused by the GOP.

 

[Gedunker]

From a column in the Indianapolis Star by Matthew Tully:

These days, even two senators crossing over on any big vote in D.C. counts as an example of bipartisanship. Of course, it's no surprise that Lugar is one of the few willing to put politics aside and not obsess over how each vote might affect the next election. A record of doing just that explains why even many people who don't agree with his positions hold him in the type of lofty regard that eludes most politicians.
But Lugar has taken a few licks from so-called defenders of the conservative philosophy over his position on the nomination, a position that in more rational times wouldn't cause the slightest uproar.

You can count this former-Republican among those holding Senator Lugar in lofty regard.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

You can count this former-Republican among those holding Senator Lugar in lofty regard.

I hope all my conservative brothers and sisters on this site are sitting down..... I always liked Lugar and voted for him when I lived there. He is a person who should have been president. Birch Bayh, Lee Hamilton and Lugar are some of the best politicians that Indiana has produced.

 

[boiker]

Thank you for the point by point handling of this.

He won't respond, unless it's in sweeping generalizations.

And that is stupid. I want to believe there is more than generalizations to any political view.

There are conservatives on this board who would respond and have great reasons for their position.

 

[mgk920]

Thank you for the point by point handling of this.

He won't respond, unless it's in sweeping generalizations.

and the lefties don't?

But hey, that's the signature of right wing conservatives, trying to spread fear that the government is the problem, when in reality the USA is slowing becoming the The United Corporations of America, thanks to the free market capitalist nonsense espoused by the GOP.

Actually, the way this forvm's software works makes it very difficult to counter-respond to a posting like that.

Anyways, check where the BIGGEST corporate campaign donors (ie, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, many/most of the Wall Street elites and so forth) send their money. Democrats champion rules that make it very difficult for entrepreneurial businesses to grow to effectively compete against the BIG EVIL CORPORATIONS :-@ and for those families to stay in business for the long run (ie, see: 'Death Tax' - over time it works to eliminate the family-owned competitors of those big corporate conglomerates). Example, had George Steinbrenner died either in 2009 or earlier or 2011 or later, his heirs would have had no choice but to sell the Yankees in order to raise the cash needed to pay the death tax, rather than being able to keep them in the family. That tax, IMHO, is beyond immoral.

The death tax has also been DISASTROUS to family farms (a huge percentage of which are valued well in excess of $1M), forcing them to sell out to raise the cash to pay that tax and again, favoring corporate conglomerate 'mega-farms'.

When a large corporate shareholder dies, yes, his/her heirs will pay a death tax - BUT - the corporation continues on without skipping a beat. When Bill Gates passes on, Microsoft will continue on unimpeded.

As for the looming 1099 avalanche, yes, it might bring in an additional $10-20G per year, but, at what cost to the economy? It is very possible that the compliance cost to the economy of that rule will be multiple times what it will bring in in additional revenue. I suspect that many smaller business guys will, over time, simply end up throwing up their hands, saying 'screw THIS!!' and/or be driven out of business due to these 1099 rules. For example, some coin dealers are estimating that they may have to fill out 10,000-20,000 1099s every year just on their normal trading in gold and silver coins - many of which trade at well over $600. And then, many of those individuals selling coins will be very leery, indeed, of providing their SSNs for those required 1099s for very legitimate identity-security reasons. LOOMING TRAINWRECK!

OTOH, the BIG, EVIL CORPORATIONS :-@ will be able to do most of that 1099 work in-house.

I can't help but sense that we are fast reaching a point where the income tax will no longer be viable as a method of raising revenue - it will be so top-heavy in compliance costs that will collapse under its own weight.

I strongly support its repeal and replacement with a sales-based consumption tax.

Mike

 

[Hink]

The death tax has also been DISASTROUS to family farms (a huge percentage of which are valued well in excess of $1M), forcing them to sell out to raise the cash to pay that tax and again, favoring corporate conglomerate 'mega-farms'.



I strongly support its repeal and replacement with a sales-based consumption tax.

Mike

I disagree with you often, but these are two points I strongly agree with you on. The Estate Tax in its previous form exempted portions of family farms - the form that will exist in 2011 does not. Which in turn will reek havoc on family farms and their future. I disagree with the Estate Tax in part because I don't think that working hard and "giving" that money to your heirs is wrong. If make $10m, I damn well want my kids to live a better life than I did. Why should the money I make get taxed again at such a rediculous rate. Take your 10% and be done. 55%.... really? Because no one deserves that much money? Just stupidity.

I agree as well that our tax system is becoming more and more of a logistical nightmare. Although I don't know if it will get better with a sale-based tax (i.e. the Fair Tax) I think it couldn't be worse. We will have to keep the IRS people on as the prebate department, so even those jobs won't be "lost". I see very little downside to seeing what it would do to our economy.

 

[boiker]

The Estate Tax in its previous form exempted portions of family farms - the form that will exist in 2011 does not. Which in turn will reek havoc on family farms and their future.

Needs to be fixed. Pronto.

I disagree with the Estate Tax in part because I don't think that working hard and "giving" that money to your heirs is wrong. If make $10m, I damn well want my kids to live a better life than I did. Why should the money I make get taxed again at such a rediculous rate. Take your 10% and be done. 55%.... really? Because no one deserves that much money? Just stupidity.

I decided it was worth exploring when the "death tax" was first instituted and why it was used. The tax was first used in 1797 to pay for naval bonds. I couldn't find details on thresholds. More interestingly, From 1916 through 1975 the tax was levied against estates valued over $50,000 in 1916 dollars. In current dollars that is $11 MILLION. The rate varied and topped out on estates valued in excess of $1 BILLION in today's dollars at 10%.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/01/Estate-Taxes-An-Historical-Perspective

In my opinion, if the death tax is to remain, the bottom exemption needs to be bumped up miss the family businesses, small businesses and modest inheritances that upper-middle class and middle-class individual may desire to leave for their children. Also, rates should be adjusted to not be so punitive-- even for large estates.

So why even have a death tax? One thing a high death tax and very large estates does is cause the money to be creatively allocated at death into trusts, charity, investments or tax shelters. Often, it is sheltered effectively and the small portion remaining becomes reinvested into a lower tax venture or spent into the economy. What I believe this does is help the country pay for war-time debts (as it had been used historically until the 1920s) and it helps prevent exceedingly wealthy and powerful families from accumulating generational wealth and using that power to influence policy (minimally helps, but helps).

Although I don't know if it will get better with a sale-based tax (i.e. the Fair Tax) I think it couldn't be worse.

Fair or Flat Taxes could be exceptionally regressive if a baseline exemption is not built in. A 10% tax on $100,000 is much easier for the earner to swallow than 10% on a $30,000 earner.

 

[mgk920]

Needs to be fixed. Pronto.


I decided it was worth exploring when the "death tax" was first instituted and why it was used. The tax was first used in 1797 to pay for naval bonds. I couldn't find details on thresholds. More interestingly, From 1916 through 1975 the tax was levied against estates valued over $50,000 in 1916 dollars. In current dollars that is $11 MILLION. The rate varied and topped out on estates valued in excess of $1 BILLION in today's dollars at 10%.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/01/Estate-Taxes-An-Historical-Perspective

In my opinion, if the death tax is to remain, the bottom exemption needs to be bumped up miss the family businesses, small businesses and modest inheritances that upper-middle class and middle-class individual may desire to leave for their children. Also, rates should be adjusted to not be so punitive-- even for large estates.

So why even have a death tax? One thing a high death tax and very large estates does is cause the money to be creatively allocated at death into trusts, charity, investments or tax shelters. Often, it is sheltered effectively and the small portion remaining becomes reinvested into a lower tax venture or spent into the economy. What I believe this does is help the country pay for war-time debts (as it had been used historically until the 1920s) and it helps prevent exceedingly wealthy and powerful families from accumulating generational wealth and using that power to influence policy (minimally helps, but helps).

Thus, like that dippy federal telephone tax that was recently dumped (it was set up to help pay the debts of the Spanish-American War), its original purpose was long ago consigned to the history books.

Fair or Flat Taxes could be exceptionally regressive if a baseline exemption is not built in. A 10% tax on $100,000 is much easier for the earner to swallow than 10% on a $30,000 earner.

The 'Fair Tax' proposal is essentially an all-encompassing sales tax on all retail-level sales of services and new goods (used goods would be exempt on the assumption that they will have already been taxed), including food, retail rents, clothing, medical care, etc, with a monthly rebate equal to the tax rate times the poverty level. Thus, spending up to the poverty level would be exempt from taxation and if you spend below the poverty level, you'll have an effective negative tax rate - rewarding saving, investing, hard work and thrift. Under the proposal, the rebates would be claimed by filing an annual 'family status' form with the SSNs of everyone in the family and those can be easily and quickly cross-checked (like the IRS already does on dependent exemption claims). The only penalty for not filing one = no rebates. Such a filing could be a five-minute task on line (compare that to doing a full 1040 with all of the schedules)

Mike

 

[CJC]

Anyways, check where the BIGGEST corporate campaign donors (ie, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, many/most of the Wall Street elites and so forth) send their money.

The people that you mention are individuals, not corporations. Rich individuals, sure, but there is a HUGE difference between an individual donation and that of a corporation (though not in the eyes of the supreme court, it seems). Besides, there's pretty much no evidence to show that corporations give to one party more than the other - they spread the money around in order to maximize influence.

Democrats champion rules that make it very difficult for entrepreneurial businesses to grow to effectively compete against the BIG EVIL CORPORATIONS :-@ and for those families to stay in business for the long run

No argument here. I think you're kind of sidestepping the arguments that others were making though - it wasn't a discussion of corporate power vs small businesses - it was a discussion of corporate power vs the people (represented through government). Just like corporate donations going to both parties, I think it's pretty hard to argue that both parties don't champion measures that overwhelmingly help large corporations at the expense of small businesses.

(ie, see: 'Death Tax' - over time it works to eliminate the family-owned competitors of those big corporate conglomerates). Example, had George Steinbrenner died either in 2009 or earlier or 2011 or later, his heirs would have had no choice but to sell the Yankees in order to raise the cash needed to pay the death tax, rather than being able to keep them in the family. That tax, IMHO, is beyond immoral.

Ok, seriously? I think that there is a decent debate to be had about the morality and/or place in society for an estate tax, but throwing out hyperbole doesn't bolster your case. The Yankees are owned by a CORPORATION, and Steinbrenner was the majority owner of the corporation. If this was 2009 or 2011, there are about a dozen different ways that the estate could have been handled to avoid the family losing control of the Yankees.

The death tax has also been DISASTROUS to family farms (a huge percentage of which are valued well in excess of $1M), forcing them to sell out to raise the cash to pay that tax and again, favoring corporate conglomerate 'mega-farms'.

The estate tax doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's impossible to say that the estate tax has had a more meaningful impact on American small farmers than about a dozen other policies and market changes. Personally, I'd pin most of it on ag subsidies and broken immigration policies (for government influence), with the vast majority of the decline coming from basic market changes like automation, but that's just me.

When a large corporate shareholder dies, yes, his/her heirs will pay a death tax - BUT - the corporation continues on without skipping a beat. When Bill Gates passes on, Microsoft will continue on unimpeded.

Nearly every business is a "corporation" these days. I'm a roughly 20% owner of a corporation, but I hold 25% of the voting power (and own/work in a small business with fewer than 15 employees). My parents own and run a small business that is a corporation (with no other shareholders). The estate tax will apply to Bill Gates fortune the same as anyone else's - the difference is that he will most likely have given almost all of his away at that point, so there won't be much left (which is one of the arguments in favor of the estate tax - that it encourages charitable giving).

As for the looming 1099 avalanche, yes, it might bring in an additional $10-20G per year, but, at what cost to the economy? It is very possible that the compliance cost to the economy of that rule will be multiple times what it will bring in in additional revenue. I suspect that many smaller business guys will, over time, simply end up throwing up their hands, saying 'screw THIS!!' and/or be driven out of business due to these 1099 rules. For example, some coin dealers are estimating that they may have to fill out 10,000-20,000 1099s every year just on their normal trading in gold and silver coins - many of which trade at well over $600. And then, many of those individuals selling coins will be very leery, indeed, of providing their SSNs for those required 1099s for very legitimate identity-security reasons. LOOMING TRAINWRECK!

Not much different than some of the stuff that the Patriot bill included that required folks to document every cash transaction large than $5,000. I'd be all in favor of simplifying or changing the tax code, though I'd probably not be looking at "how will this affect coin dealers" as a place to start discussions

OTOH, the BIG, EVIL CORPORATIONS :-@ will be able to do most of that 1099 work in-house.

In-house doesn't equal free. Nevertheless, your point is valid.

I can't help but sense that we are fast reaching a point where the income tax will no longer be viable as a method of raising revenue - it will be so top-heavy in compliance costs that will collapse under its own weight.

???

What is this sense based on? I can't seem to find it now, but I remember reading a very good study a few years ago that measured the average time and expense of doing taxes for individuals over the past 40 years - it peaked in the early 90's and has been steadily heading down since then, because of the rise of Turbotax, H&R Block, etc. The code may be larger and larger and more complex year after year, but automation has rendered that issue moot (in large part).

I strongly support its repeal and replacement with a sales-based consumption tax.

I fail to see how a consumption tax would necessarily equal "harder to cheat" or "easier to comply with" (again, depends largely on the amount of automation that is allowed/encouraged/etc).

That said, I too would prefer a progressively-structured VAT for all national funding, with land value tax for all state and local funding.

 

[wahday]

The death tax has also been DISASTROUS to family farms (a huge percentage of which are valued well in excess of $1M), forcing them to sell out to raise the cash to pay that tax and again, favoring corporate conglomerate 'mega-farms'.

This argument about family farms being "killed" by the "Death" tax is a red herring that politicians have glommed onto for its emotional appeal.

Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent.

Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said.

Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.

In Iowa, the average farm has a net worth of $1.2 million. Loyd A. Brown, president of Hertz Farm Management in Nevada, Iowa, which runs more than 400 farms in 10 states, said none of his firm's clients nor anyone he knew was facing problems because of the estate tax.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries are the heirs of people who made their fortunes through their businesses and investments in securities and real estate.

What is more, a farm couple can pass $4.1 million untaxed, so long as the heirs continue farming for 10 years.

The Estate Tax serves a purpose both to generate revenue for the Federal Government (and all of us who benefit from the government;s activities - that is, all of us) and also to prevent the perpetuation of wealth among the already wealthy by avoiding taxation. Bear in mind that the estate tax applies only to estates valued at $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple. Even beyond these numbers, there are many allowances that can be applied to shield large portions of an estate from taxation and virtually no one pays the high end figure allowed by the IRS. The real average paid by those owing estate taxes at all is 17 percent.

For 2009, only 5500 estates in the entire country actually ended up paying estate taxes at all. Nearly half of that was paid by the richest 1 in 1000 people. In 2009, estates with farm and business assets making up at least half of gross estate and totaling $5 million or less represented just 1.9 percent of all estate tax returns.

I think there has been a lot of misrepresentation concerning this tax and it has succeeded in convincing the average household that it not only impacts them (which is probably doesn't if they are not among the richest people in the nation) but that it is also hurting good hardworking people (like farmers - also not true) and is a plague on society. I disagree. I think this tax issue will impact very few of us here, the farm issue is a non-issue and that people with this much money in assets could stand to pay more to the common good.

IMHO...

 

[Gedunker]

Don't forget that, even without a death tax, there is still income tax to be dealt with. We learned that the expensive and hard way when we inherited my mother's estate. Even though we had estimated the tax before payout, we fell short and I wrote a BIG check to the state and feds. Ouch!

 

[Hink]

What is more, a farm couple can pass $4.1 million untaxed, so long as the heirs continue farming for 10 years.

This is pre-2010. This exemption does not exist anymore. Hence the issue.

The Estate Tax serves a purpose both to generate revenue for the Federal Government (and all of us who benefit from the government;s activities - that is, all of us) and also to prevent the perpetuation of wealth among the already wealthy by avoiding taxation

How are they avoiding taxation? That money was already taxed when it was earned.

I think this tax issue will impact very few of us here, the farm issue is a non-issue and that people with this much money in assets could stand to pay more to the common good.

Which is why they are losing the battle. You honestly believe that money that has already been taxed, deserves to be taxed again at 55%? I don't have a chance in hell of ever making that much money, but if by some freak of the time/place continuum I do - I will pay taxes on my earnings/lotto winnings/theft and enjoy it. I should be able to give whatever I choose to my children because it was already taxed. Sure take a small chunk to help pay for my good fortune (5-15% seems fair), but half?! Really? How is this even something that is considered?


I have my issues with the Billionaires, but I don't fault them for their success. The Estate Tax is far too progressive. The billionaires already are taxed out of their minds (sure they can "afford it"), should they pay 40% of their income in life (24-28% or so after tax sheltering) and then have the money they have left get taxed again at 55%? I just don't see the logic in that. You are not serving a purpose other than to get more money from those who have it.

 

[boiker]

Thus, like that dippy federal telephone tax that was recently dumped (it was set up to help pay the debts of the Spanish-American War), its original purpose was long ago consigned to the history books.

Considering that we are at war, I don't see a problem with the tax as a temporary measure to pay for it. After that, I'm up to rescinding it and/or revision.

The 'Fair Tax' proposal is essentially an all-encompassing sales tax on all retail-level sales of services and new goods (used goods would be exempt on the assumption that they will have already been taxed), including food, retail rents, clothing, medical care, etc, with a monthly rebate equal to the tax rate times the poverty level. Thus, spending up to the poverty level would be exempt from taxation and if you spend below the poverty level, you'll have an effective negative tax rate - rewarding saving, investing, hard work and thrift.

I'd imagine this would severely reduce the amount of taxes collected, reduce paperwork for individuals and certainly affect the bottom line for corporations/small businesses. This unavoidable tax (which I presume would be higher than the current sales tax) would hit all companies. Currently, small businesses can take advantage of various tax exemptions, deductions and credits for purchasing, marketing, employees. Without an income tax, they can't take advantage of those.

The billionaires already are taxed out of their minds (sure they can "afford it"), should they pay 40% of their income in life (24-28% or so after tax sheltering)...

The highest bracket is 35%, soon to be 38%. The marginal percentage is in the range you cited, I believe. Also, most billionaires are not receiving that level of income, they are receiving the wealth via Capital Gains which is taxed at a flat 15%, lower than much of middle class has their income taxed. I believe Warren Buffett was quoted recently as saying that his marginal tax rate of all income earned was 17% which was lower than what his secretary making $60k/yr was taxed. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/

 

[wahday]

This is pre-2010. This exemption does not exist anymore. Hence the issue.

Well, for 2010, there is no estate tax at all, so...The most recent reference I found for this exemption was in 2009. When was it revoked? Its worth mentioning that even without this exemption, the cap is at $3.5 million. But I would like to know when and if it was revoked.

The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center estimates that fewer than 110 small-farm estates in the entire nation would likely face the tax in 2011 if Congress reinstated the tax at its 2009 levels, as President Obama has proposed. Moreover, estate tax opponents have not been able to produce a single case in which a family farm had to be sold to pay the tax, even before the 2001 tax law began phasing down the tax significantly.

How are they avoiding taxation? That money was already taxed when it was earned.

It was taxed when it was earned, but we are talking about parents passing on the money to their children. The people receiving the funds did not earn it, they are inheriting it. They take taxes out of my salary as well. So, should I not pay sales tax when I buy things? Because that money was already taxed? Generally, its the transaction that is taxed - you paying for goods at the store, your employer paying money for your time worked, etc. Giving money in excess of $3.5 million to your kids after you die is also considered a transaction and that is part of the rationale for taxing it.

They are not taxing the original earner twice. They are taxing the non-earner who is inheriting the LARGE sum of $3.5 million or more an average of 17 percent (see below).

You honestly believe that money that has already been taxed, deserves to be taxed again at 55%?

Firstly, I don't view the issue of the money "already having been taxed" as a valid argument. Secondly, as I stated in my earlier post, this large percentage is what is listed as the maximum allowable by law. In reality, those that pay the estate tax pay an average of 17 percent - much more like the 15 percent you mentioned as seeming "fair."

The Estate Tax is far too progressive. The billionaires already are taxed out of their minds (sure they can "afford it"), should they pay 40% of their income in life (24-28% or so after tax sheltering) and then have the money they have left get taxed again at 55%? I just don't see the logic in that. You are not serving a purpose other than to get more money from those who have it.

Again, the rate is more like 17 percent in practice. The logic relates at least in part to attempts even as far back as this country's founding to address the tremendous income disparity we experience. With such a small percentage (2 percent) having such a large percentage of the money in our economy, it takes very little effort, in the absence of an estate tax, to prevent this small elite from amassing more and more wealth. Because, afterall, a small rate of return on 20 million dollars is an enormous sum, whereas that same rate on $20,000 is not nearly as much.

Its not that I think the rich need to be put in their place or made to feel bad or otherwise knocked down to size. Truly, I believe that the point at which one has to pay estate tax is so high that the people who pay it (especially when various exemptions and other allowances are taken into account) really are not hurt significantly by it.

 

[Hink]

Well, for 2010, there is no estate tax at all, so...The most recent reference I found for this exemption was in 2009. When was it revoked? Its worth mentioning that even without this exemption, the cap is at $3.5 million. But I would like to know when and if it was revoked.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June09/Features/FederalEstateTax.htm

The 1997 Act also included a special deduction for farmers and other small business owners that will come back into effect should the current law be allowed to expire at the end of 2010. This provision allows for the deduction of the first $675,000 of value for qualified family-owned businesses. The deduction is in addition to the basic exemption and any benefits from special-use valuation. However, the total amount excludable under this provision and the basic exemption is limited to $1.3 million.

It isn't going to kill the family farm, but it is going to hurt them and their ability to survive. If you know any farmers, it isn't exactly easy to survive today.

It was taxed when it was earned, but we are talking about parents passing on the money to their children. The people receiving the funds did not earn it, they are inheriting it. They take taxes out of my salary as well. So, should I not pay sales tax when I buy things? Because that money was already taxed? Generally, its the transaction that is taxed - you paying for goods at the store, your employer paying money for your time worked, etc. Giving money in excess of $3.5 million to your kids after you die is also considered a transaction and that is part of the rationale for taxing it.

They are not taxing the original earner twice. They are taxing the non-earner who is inheriting the LARGE sum of $3.5 million or more an average of 17 percent (see below).

I agree with you on the sales tax argument, but not on the "they are not taxing the original earner twice" argument. That money is already taxed. It doesn't matter that it was given to someone else. Every transaction of money shouldn't be taxed. Take your percentage originally, then let it go. If we can't manage with the taxes we take in, deal with it that way. Taxing income twice is not the solution. I agree with you though that a sale tax is a double tax. That is why we should look at one tax on everything - maybe call it a Fair Tax

Firstly, I don't view the issue of the money "already having been taxed" as a valid argument. Secondly, as I stated in my earlier post, this large percentage is what is listed as the maximum allowable by law. In reality, those that pay the estate tax pay an average of 17 percent - much more like the 15 percent you mentioned as seeming "fair."

What you don't take into account is the cost of getting your estate to be viewed as below the threshold. Making 55% look like 17% is not only costly, but extremely difficult. I also find it to be extremely frustrating that people have to find creative ways to hide their money from being taxed. It is now second nature to do this. Accountants know all the "tricks".

The logic relates at least in part to attempts even as far back as this country's founding to address the tremendous income disparity we experience. With such a small percentage (2 percent) having such a large percentage of the money in our economy, it takes very little effort, in the absence of an estate tax, to prevent this small elite from amassing more and more wealth. Because, afterall, a small rate of return on 20 million dollars is an enormous sum, whereas that same rate on $20,000 is not nearly as much.

Its not that I think the rich need to be put in their place or made to feel bad or otherwise knocked down to size. Truly, I believe that the point at which one has to pay estate tax is so high that the people who pay it (especially when various exemptions and other allowances are taken into account) really are not hurt significantly by it.

I guess this is just where we agree to disagree. I don't think that just because 2% of the population has either A.) Succeed enough in life to have a large estate, or B.) Been lucky enough to be part of a family who has had a member succeed enough to have a large estate; that we should grab their money. The economics of $20m and $20k are huge - I get that. But that isn't really what the issue is. If you want to change the capital gains tax fine. Make that rate equal to the rate of income. If you make $90k a year in capital gains you pay 35%. Seems pretty fair to me. Taxes shouldn't be so complicated. You make this much a year - you pay this percentage. Done and done. Our system is flawed, and the Estate Tax is just a cog in the broken wheel.

 

[wahday]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June09/Features/FederalEstateTax.htm

In this article, it states:

The value of property for Federal estate tax purposes is generally the fair market value on the date of the property owner’s death. However, if certain conditions are satisfied, the estate’s real property that is used solely for farming or another closely held business may be valued at the property’s value as a farm or business rather than at its fair market value.

and goes on to say that in 2009 one can use the special-use valuation to reduce the overall value of an operating farm up to $1 million. Add that to the $3.5 million threshold and you now can have a farm with a market value of up to $4.5 million and still not pay estate taxes.

I agree with you on the sales tax argument, but not on the "they are not taxing the original earner twice" argument. That money is already taxed. It doesn't matter that it was given to someone else. Every transaction of money shouldn't be taxed. Take your percentage originally, then let it go. If we can't manage with the taxes we take in, deal with it that way. Taxing income twice is not the solution. I agree with you though that a sale tax is a double tax. That is why we should look at one tax on everything - maybe call it a Fair Tax

Personally, I don't agree with the Fair Tax approach as I believe it is regressive and hurts working people. But I think that is another discussion. What concerns me in the not-taxing-twice argument is that it can quickly be taken to its logical (or illogical) extreme. If you allow money to pass from one generation to the next untaxed because it was "already taxed," what kind of precedent does that set for other transactions or transfers of money form one party to another? What about my company? I paid taxes when I sold my widgets, so why should my employees also have to pay taxes on the salaries I give them? Heck, the dollar bill I am holding was at one point part of a taxed transaction, so why should I have to pay any taxes when spending it? How do you make these distinctions? It all seems pretty messy to me...

What you don't take into account is the cost of getting your estate to be viewed as below the threshold. Making 55% look like 17% is not only costly, but extremely difficult. I also find it to be extremely frustrating that people have to find creative ways to hide their money from being taxed. It is now second nature to do this. Accountants know all the "tricks".

I think there is more to the parsing of the assets to reduce the overall tax paid than just "tricks." A big part of the issue is determining the NATURE of the assets one is inheriting as not all types of wealth are treated equal. Stocks and bonds, versus real estate versus cars and boats versus 401(k)s and so on. Part of the process of determining the estate value and therefore what should be taxed is examining the nature of all of these assets. To inherit two cars (depreciating assets) and a house (real property) is not the same as inheriting $1 million in cash (even if the estimated value is the same) and so the IRS has set up different rates accordingly.

I guess this is just where we agree to disagree. I don't think that just because 2% of the population has either A.) Succeed enough in life to have a large estate, or B.) Been lucky enough to be part of a family who has had a member succeed enough to have a large estate; that we should grab their money. The economics of $20m and $20k are huge - I get that. But that isn't really what the issue is. If you want to change the capital gains tax fine. Make that rate equal to the rate of income. If you make $90k a year in capital gains you pay 35%. Seems pretty fair to me. Taxes shouldn't be so complicated. You make this much a year - you pay this percentage. Done and done. Our system is flawed, and the Estate Tax is just a cog in the broken wheel.

I agree that we disagree on this I would just say that, as with my above comment, the way that different people get their income (from their job, from investments, trust funds, etc.) should have some bearing on what taxes are paid and how much (and even when they are paid - tax deferred investments as opposed to annual gross salary for example).

 

[The One]

Hmmm.....

Please consider this article before you vote in Kentucky or Nevada this year.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0...paign-2010-the-most-important-senate-contest/

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

California's Proposition 8 just got struck down with a 136 page ruling. Its either near iron clad as a ruling or a lot of drivel. We shall see!

GOOD JOB JUDGE!

 

[TexanOkie]

California's Proposition 8 just got struck down with a 136 page ruling. Its either near iron clad as a ruling or a lot of drivel. We shall see!

You can read the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law on the case here:

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al, Case No. C 09-2292 VRW, US District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over and authored by Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

Gay marriage will not be allowed to resume, however, despite the ruling, until Judge Walker hears arguments whether his order should or should not be suspended while the defendants pursue an appeal to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected. Written arguments about suspension of the order are due August 6. If Judge Walker decides to suspend his order, it could still be several months to years before marriage licenses are again issued to homosexual couples in California.

Other interesting tidbits: Judge Walker is one of only 2 openly gay federal judges. He was nominated, unsuccessfully, for a federal judicial position in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, and then again, this time successfully, in 1989 by President George H. W. Bush. His nominations were fought fiercely by leading Democrats in Congress, especially Nancy Pelosi, because it was felt that he was insensitive to gays and the poor (a feeling based on decisions he advocated while in private practice for the US Olympic Committee against the Gay Games encroaching on the "Olympic" moniker - also quite ironic given his sexual orientation). Judge Walker is known for being unorthodox and libertarian in his rulings. He's also still held in contempt by many in the San Francisco gay community for the aforementioned Gay Games case. I can imagine that contempt is about to end.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

..........

Other interesting tidbits: Judge Walker is one of only 2 openly gay federal judges. He was nominated, unsuccessfully, for a federal judicial position in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, and then again, this time successfully, in 1989 by President George H. W. Bush. His nominations were fought fiercely by leading Democrats in Congress, especially Nancy Pelosi, because it was felt that he was insensitive to gays and the poor (a feeling based on decisions he advocated while in private practice for the US Olympic Committee against the Gay Games encroaching on the "Olympic" moniker - also quite ironic given his sexual orientation). Judge Walker is known for being unorthodox and libertarian in his rulings. He's also still held in contempt by many in the San Francisco gay community for the aforementioned Gay Games case. I can imagine that contempt is about to end.

The contempt will lessen somewhat.

This case is incredibly interesting.

Conservatives will now, finally, after all the many months long of this case, accuse the judge of conflict of interest. Everybody noted how he was openly gay, but did not necessarily make rulings benefiting gay people as noted above.

Ask yourself, how could the judge be anything BUT unconventional and libertarian leaning? To be a gay, republican judge. A log cabin republican. Rejected by your own party and people you naturally gravitate too.

Being libertarian in the last election cycle has been the in vogue thing in the GOP. Well, he ruled according to the constitution and his value system, like a good conservative should.

If you followed the Prop 8 trial, it was amazing. The state refused to defend their own case. They let idiots defend the states position. The defendant side was incompetent. At one point in the trial, the Prop 8 defense told the judge they did not need any evidence at all to defend the case. It was close to a first year pop-warner football kid aged 12 versus two all pro football giants. When your argument is that "our position is self evident, you have to side with us", your in trouble.

That judge was very wily as well. He asked a large number of questions related to the case in writing and made sure they come up in the transcripts of the trial. They were tough for both sides to answer in fact. Cogent, direct, pointed, and numerous. The plaintifs answered with facts well anchored in science and logic. The defendants..... well, some day when the actually get through midnight and weekend law school...

The judge new and understood he would be viciously attacked one way or the other. A true case of damned if you do damned if you don't. It will take me a while to read through 136 pages, but I am sure it was well written to stand the tests ahead. We shall see.

 

[mgk920]

I have been wondering more and more over the past few years about whether or not governments should just simply be getting out of the 'marriage' business entirely, instead just be registering 'domestic partnerships', with whatever rules are needed to address the various issues that would normally come up regarding them (ie, kids, dissolution of a partnership, taxes, death of a participant, etc) and leave actual 'marriage' to churches, temples, covens and so forth,

^o)

Mike

 

[Bear Up North]

I have been wondering more and more over the past few years about whether or not governments should just simply be getting out of the 'marriage' business entirely, instead just be registering 'domestic partnerships', with whatever rules are needed to address the various issues that would normally come up regarding them (ie, kids, dissolution of a partnership, taxes, death of a participant, etc) and leave actual 'marriage' to churches, temples, covens and so forth,

^o)

Mike

Well said, well said.

Bear

 

[CJC]

I have been wondering more and more over the past few years about whether or not governments should just simply be getting out of the 'marriage' business entirely, instead just be registering 'domestic partnerships', with whatever rules are needed to address the various issues that would normally come up regarding them (ie, kids, dissolution of a partnership, taxes, death of a participant, etc) and leave actual 'marriage' to churches, temples, covens and so forth,

^o)

Mike

I've thought that for a loooooong time. I'll be pretty surprised if it happens in my lifetime though (in the US - I could see it happening in some smaller countries, especially in east Asia).

 

[TexanOkie]

I have been wondering more and more over the past few years about whether or not governments should just simply be getting out of the 'marriage' business entirely, instead just be registering 'domestic partnerships', with whatever rules are needed to address the various issues that would normally come up regarding them (ie, kids, dissolution of a partnership, taxes, death of a participant, etc) and leave actual 'marriage' to churches, temples, covens and so forth,

^o)

Mike

That's been my take on this whole issue for years. However, I think states still have the right to define their civil union/marriage statutes, even if I don't agree with the outcomes, provided they recognize unions granted in other jurisdictions. That's where the CA law came into the most problems, legally, IMO, in addition to the exclusionary language (rather than a positive law definition of the states marriage policy). Supposedly the original language of the proposition reflected this latter concept, but was changed near the last minute by Jerry Brown. This last minute change, coupled with the AG's backing out of its defense, screams intention for it to not be able to stand, from a strictly legal standpoint (moral arguments aside).

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

That's been my take on this whole issue for years. However, I think states still have the right to define their civil union/marriage statutes, even if I don't agree with the outcomes, provided they recognize unions granted in other jurisdictions.....

That is the crux of the case. The ruling states that a state does not have a right to create a situation of discrimination without a state interest. That's the point of the constitutional amendments, they cover everyone in all states. In this instance, the judge ruled that the issue at hand was outside of a decision voters can make and was to be decided based on the 14th amendment.

How could you recognize marriages from other jurisdictions but not from your own jurisdiction?

 

[TexanOkie]

How could you recognize marriages from other jurisdictions but not from your own jurisdiction?

The same way marriages are recognized now. I got married in Oklahoma, but my wife and I live in Texas. Texas recognizes the marriage license from the state we got married in. Some states still require bloodwork, etc., to clear a marriage license. Oklahoma does not. Does this mean, if we move to a jurisdiction that does, we have to reapply for our married status? No. Same thing with gay marriage. If a couple from Connecticut get married there, then move to Texas for a job, school, etc., their married legal status should still be recognized by the state of Texas, even if Texas' marriage statutes do not grant licenses to homosexual couples - Texas was not the one granting the license to start with, and it doesn't require married couples (of any sexual orientation) to get Texas marriage licenses when they move to the state.

 

[Maister]

TO, that works well enough if all 50 states happen to play cricket and choose to recognize those unions, but without any overarching federal authority nothing obligates them to do so. What if Connecticut recognizes same-sex unions and Texas elects not to? If a couple wed in Connecticut moves to Texas would they then be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits if Texas doesn't recognize the union? This is a federal issue. In many ways it wouldn't be all that different than how in 1860 Alabama recognized slavery and Ohio didn't; that issue was settled once and for all a few years later.

 

[Hink]

that issue was settled once and for all a few years later.

Which is how this is going to end up. Even on a conservative Supreme Court, there is no way legally you can look at this as anything other than a 14th Amendment issue. And if you look at it as such, how on Earth you could deny the same rights is mind boggling.

I guess if the noble Senator from South Carolina Mr. Graham wants to rewrite the 14th amendment, he could always leave out the equal protection stuff...

 

[TexanOkie]

TO, that works well enough if all 50 states happen to play cricket and choose to recognize those unions, but without any overarching federal authority nothing obligates them to do so. What if Connecticut recognizes same-sex unions and Texas elects not to? If a couple wed in Connecticut moves to Texas would they then be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits if Texas doesn't recognize the union? This is a federal issue. In many ways it wouldn't be all that different than how in 1860 Alabama recognized slavery and Ohio didn't; that issue was settled once and for all a few years later.

My whole point was that states should still be free to set their own civil union/marriage policies provided that they recognize those granted in other jurisdictions. If a state enacts a law that expressly does not recognize a marriage or civil union granted by another jurisdiction, strike that particular part of the law down - but don't usurp more state authority over such issues by either making it a federal issue, which is a constitutional argument that can be solved easily and still retain states' rights. Not that either side of the debate will settle for this. Instead, gay marriage proponents will settle for nothing less than a Supreme Court decision making gay marriage a civil right (somewhat off-topic, but I find the comparisons to slavery and racism appalling misuse and misunderstanding of both issues - the legal reasoning in its reliance on the 14th Amendment in the Prop 8 case in essence relies on a singular [i.e. no other] motive for the Prop 8 supporters: a desire to signal to homosexuals that they are inferior and that heterosexuals are superior, and that simply is not the case), and traditional marriage defenders will settle for nothing less than something like a Defense of Marriage Act or similar Federal Constitutional amendment.

 

[Hink]

gay marriage proponents will settle for nothing less than a Supreme Court decision making gay marriage a civil right

I respect where you are coming from, but it is a civil rights issue. It is exactly the same as slavery and racism. The marriage portion isn't the important part - it is the ability to have the same benefits and view from legal authorities to make decisions and dealings as a couple. Call it whatever you want - civil unions, marriage, etc. It doesn't matter their reasoning for denying same-sex people from receiving the same benefits, it is still a denial. This is a federal issue.

 

[ursus]

I respect where you are coming from, but it is a civil rights issue. It is exactly the same as slavery and racism. The marriage portion isn't the important part - it is the ability to have the same benefits and view from legal authorities to make decisions and dealings as a couple. Call it whatever you want - civil unions, marriage, etc. It doesn't matter their reasoning for denying same-sex people from receiving the same benefits, it is still a denial. This is a federal issue.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Hink, on the main point, but I don't think anyone on the prop 8 side is opposed to "civil unions" being recognized or benefits for those domestic partnerships, etc. I think the LGBT community recognizes that as well. This is really two things IMO: States Rights vs. Federal Govt. and the question of moral equality (is it really equal if gay marriage is not called marriage but a civil union?). That's my opinion. So the comparison to slavery is apt on that point; it really has to be decided by the nation as a whole, and by public opinion. That will take more than courts, and more than a little while.

 

[wahday]

Here is an excerpt from Judge Walker's ruling. I think this states the issue very eloquently for me. I do personally think this should be addressed at the federal level (in the same way that we would not leave interracial marriage restrictions to the states) but I am skeptical that the current court would hear the case if it made it there (from here it will likely go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the SC, though they are not required to hear the case - they can throw it back to the state).

Here it is:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

"Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."

Word!

 

[TexanOkie]

I respect where you are coming from, but it is a civil rights issue. It is exactly the same as slavery and racism. The marriage portion isn't the important part - it is the ability to have the same benefits and view from legal authorities to make decisions and dealings as a couple. Call it whatever you want - civil unions, marriage, etc. It doesn't matter their reasoning for denying same-sex people from receiving the same benefits, it is still a denial. This is a federal issue.

I understand the desire for this to be a federal issue based on political and moral opinions. However, it is a federal issue, legally, only as it relates to how states use their authority. In other words it is a federal issue if a state makes it a federal issue. It is NOT a federal issue, legally speaking, only due to its perceived importance.

The Prop 8 case is a federal issue based on the language of the Prop, as I mentioned earlier (negative, exclusionary, etc), not because of the nature of gay marriage itself. If Prop 8 does go to the SCOTUS and is struck down, it will not not have a legal bearing on most other state marriage statutes because of this exclusionary differentiation in its actual language. The moral arguments and rationale, even within the arguments constructed by Judge Walker in his ruling (I'm about halfway through his 136-page decision), seem to support this (as a state-specific issue) so far. If the language of the Prop had not been exclusionary, many of the findings of fact (or at least in the first 2 of the 3 which I have read) become moot points.

Also, on a side note, the legal counsel and subsequent defense strategy for the Prop 8 proponents is/was awful. It's no wonder court blogs have predicted the outcome for months (even in the conservative arena)... I guess it shouldn't have been so surprising upon reading it, given the nature of the Prop 8 ads back in 2008. It seems like the cultural conservatives in CA are even crazier than those in TX.

 

[Hink]

I have thought about it more and maybe it is likened more to inter-racial marriages. Should that be a state issue? Should they only be allowed civil unions?

Loving v. Virginia was not a states right issue - it was a federal issue.

Great quote from the Supreme Court ruling...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.