The Tax Hijack Thread

[1951Campbell]

Damn, all the people left in this thread are agreeing with one another.

I hate when that happens.

Maybe we can get SABRSox to switch sides by reminding him that gay marriage means millions of additional people will be eligible for sweet tax deductions and credits. ;)

[SABRSox]

As long as those tax credits don't go to corporations, I could care less.

[SFS04]

Why would he care if people can get tax credits and deductions? Because he's liberal and therefore wants people taxed?

Shit I want to get married just for those myself. I would have saved a fucking unreal amount last year had I been married.

[1951Campbell]

As long as those tax credits don't go to corporations, I could care less.

Why would he care if people can get tax credits and deductions? Because he's liberal and therefore wants people taxed?

Shit I want to get married just for those myself. I would have saved a fucking unreal amount last year had I been married.


:rolling:

You guys...it was a joke!

[SABRSox]

He's saying that because I generally favor paying more in taxes in exchange for programs like national health care and infrastructure upgrades. In other words, things I'd actually use, unlike the billions we dump down the toilet in pointless killings in the Middle East.

But what he's forgetting is that I'd prefer that those hikes in taxes come from the corporations and high income earners, who have more or less gotten a free ride off the backs of the middle class since Reagan made his insane tax cuts.

[Palehose13]

He's saying that because I generally favor paying more in taxes in exchange for programs like national health care and infrastructure upgrades. In other words, things I'd actually use, unlike the billions we dump down the toilet in pointless killings in the Middle East.

But what he's forgetting is that I'd prefer that those hike in taxes come from the corporations and high income earners, who have more or less gotten a free ride off the backs of the middle class since Reagan made his insane tax cuts.

:thumbsup:

[3D23]

Why would he care if people can get tax credits and deductions? Because he's liberal and therefore wants people taxed?

Shit I want to get married just for those myself. I would have saved a fucking unreal amount last year had I been married.

You coulda saved with GEICO, too.

[1951Campbell]

:rolleyes:

Wish hard, SABRSox, someday your economic creation science may actually come true!

[SABRSox]

We'll have national health care sooner, rather than later, Campbell. But that topic is for a different thread.

[3D23]

He's saying that because I generally favor paying more in taxes in exchange for programs like national health care and infrastructure upgrades. In other words, things I'd actually use, unlike the billions we dump down the toilet in pointless killings in the Middle East.

But what he's forgetting is that I'd prefer that those hikes in taxes come from the corporations and high income earners, who have more or less gotten a free ride off the backs of the middle class since Reagan made his insane tax cuts.

YOU pay more in taxes, I am quite fine with my tax base, thank you very much.

I tell you what, next time you get a refund, you can donate it to the caus de celeb. Mmmm kay? ;)

I really don't think I have gotten a free ride in Reagan's insane tax cuts. How about we go after the liberals favorite tax, DEATH TAX. If I told you what I had to pay on my husband's estate, it would make you vomit your intestines through your eyeballs.

The tax base is insane, and to fund more social programs with taxes is another instance of the 'new deal' gone bad.

But yes, subject for another thread.

[CaptainBallz]

^ probably not

[samram]

:rolleyes:

Wish hard, SABRSox, someday your economic creation science may actually come true!

Yeah, there is no data supporting any notion other than the top 20% of earners pays the lion's share of income taxes in this country. In fact, the percentage has gone up since the Reagan tax cuts.

Anyway, topic for another thread.

[1951Campbell]

YOU pay more in taxes, I am quite fine with my tax base, thank you very much.

I tell you what, next time you get a refund, you can donate it to the caus de celeb. Mmmm kay? ;)

I really don't think I have gotten a free ride in Reagan's insane tax cuts. How about we go after the liberals favorite tax, DEATH TAX. If I told you what I had to pay on my husband's estate, it would make you vomit your intestines through your eyeballs.

The tax base is insane, and to fund more social programs with taxes is another instance of the 'new deal' gone bad.

But yes, subject for another thread.

Iowa taxes passing an estate to a spouse? :confused:

[Dan Mega]

YOU pay more in taxes, I am quite fine with my tax base, thank you very much.

I tell you what, next time you get a refund, you can donate it to the caus de celeb. Mmmm kay? ;)

I really don't think I have gotten a free ride in Reagan's insane tax cuts. How about we go after the liberals favorite tax, DEATH TAX. If I told you what I had to pay on my husband's estate, it would make you vomit your intestines through your eyeballs.

The tax base is insane, and to fund more social programs with taxes is another instance of the 'new deal' gone bad.

But yes, subject for another thread.

The Death Tax (Estate Tax) is the most worthless fucking tax of them all. Anyone who supports a death tax should seriously shoot themselves.

[1951Campbell]

Looks like the mods are gonna have to break off a tax thread...

[Palehose13]

You coulda saved with GEICO, too.

Actually, no. West Bend Mutual gives me the best rate.

YOU pay more in taxes, I am quite fine with my tax base, thank you very much.

I tell you what, next time you get a refund, you can donate it to the caus de celeb. Mmmm kay? ;)

I really don't think I have gotten a free ride in Reagan's insane tax cuts. How about we go after the liberals favorite tax, DEATH TAX. If I told you what I had to pay on my husband's estate, it would make you vomit your intestines through your eyeballs.

The tax base is insane, and to fund more social programs with taxes is another instance of the 'new deal' gone bad.

But yes, subject for another thread.

So you are a million dollar corporation?

As far as the death tax, I don't know anything about it and I suppose I would be called a liberal. (so it can't be my favorite) I was told that one isn't taxed on inheritence. :shrug:

I think a lot of people make assumptions that all liberals are about taxing(everyone) and promoting social programs. I am mostly socially liberal and about civil rights. I also believe that the only way some of these civil rights can be attained is trhough social programs. However, I think the rich should be taxed more...not the middle "working" class.

Yeah, there is no data supporting any notion other than the top 20% of earners pays the lion's share of income taxes in this country. In fact, the percentage has gone up since the Reagan tax cuts.

Anyway, topic for another thread.

I'm sure they pay the most dollars in taxes, but how about percentage of net worth?

[SFS04]

You coulda saved with GEICO, too.

I do have GEICO! I am saving lots!

Not as much as I would have on my taxes if I were married though!

[Dan Mega]

I think a lot of people make assumptions that all liberals are about taxing(everyone) and promoting social programs. I am mostly socially liberal and about civil rights. I also believe that the only way some of these civil rights can be attained is trhough social programs. However, I think the rich should be taxed more...not the middle "working" class.

I'm in a higher tax bracket and I'm not "rich".

I am having to pay taxes at a higher rate because I work my ass off. Excuse me for succeeding I say. Taxing one person higher than the other just seems un-american to me.

Personally I'd like to see the estate and income taxes done away with. Tax corporations and increase the sales tax.

[SFS04]

But if you increase the sales tax, you're fucking over the poorer people, as their relative percentage of money paid to tax goes way up. I think that kinda sucks :shrug:

The concept is disgusting and I feel terrible for people that have to pay it, lord knows I'm fucked when my parents die, but you can see how easy it is to cheat that, and why they have it. You could essentially get away with millions untaxed.

[Dan Mega]

But if you increase the sales tax, you're fucking over the poorer people, as their relative percentage of money paid to tax goes way up. I think that kinda sucks :shrug:

I believe government assistance exists to help the poor with food, clothing, and shelter, the essentials.

[samram]

I'm sure they pay the most dollars in taxes, but how about percentage of net worth?

The federal system doesn't have a net worth tax as it were, but a lot of states do.

Anyway, why should we be taxing both income and net worth?

[3D23]

But if you increase the sales tax, you're fucking over the poorer people, as their relative percentage of money paid to tax goes way up. I think that kinda sucks :shrug:

But, the vast majority of said socio-economic category are not home owners. It's all relative.


ETA- No need for a hijack tag when it was subdivided from the original thread, now is there?

[1951Campbell]

As far as the death tax, I don't know anything about it and I suppose I would be called a liberal. (so it can't be my favorite) I was told that one isn't taxed on inheritence. :shrug:

I'm sure they pay the most dollars in taxes, but how about percentage of net worth?

Estate taxes are imposed on the decedent's estate; inheritance taxes are imposed on the person who inherits the property.

The feds impose estate tax; most states impose inheritance taxes.

[Palehose13]

I think the republicans here are not getting what my (and others) idea of "rich" is. If you HAVE to work...you are not rich. :shrug:

[3D23]

I think the republicans here are not getting what my (and others) idea of "rich" is. If you HAVE to work...you are not rich. :shrug:

Here's the thing though, your idea of rich, and the government's idea of rich are two totally different things.

You are not talking rich, you are talking wealthy.

Shaquille O'Neal is rich, the man that signs his check is wealthy.

And here is another fine conundrum for libs to dwell uopn.

The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.

So tax them more, so what, they move MORE businesses overseas?

[Dan Mega]

So if you don't have to work, you're rich?

[SABRSox]

The reason you have an estate tax is because you end up with fuckers like Paris Hilton, who don't get jobs, don't do a damn thing with their lives, and don't contribute to society, and would never pay taxes otherwise if there wasn't an estate tax.

Does is suck for those people who do go out, despite an inheritance, and do something productive? Absolutely, but a few bad apples ruined it for everybody else.

Explain to me why Paris Hilton and the Walton children should not have to pay taxes.

[1951Campbell]

The concept is disgusting and I feel terrible for people that have to pay it, lord knows I'm fucked when my parents die, but you can see how easy it is to cheat that, and why they have it. You could essentially get away with millions untaxed.

Estate tax is fairly easy to avoid (which is legal) but hard to cheat (which is illegal).

[SFS04]

You also have people who could collect income, give it to a dying relative, that person dies in a month or two and they just got their untaxed earnings back.

[SABRSox]

I think the republicans here are not getting what my (and others) idea of "rich" is. If you HAVE to work...you are not rich. :shrug:
Exactly. When I'm talking about high income earners, I'm talking about people who bring in more than $5M a year. It used to be that everything before that level was taxed normally, and everything after at 70%. That's the system I want to go back to.

[maurice]

:campisright:

Federal estate tax applies to estates and is easy to avoid.

In other words, it's only paid by dead people who had a lot of money but didn't bother to spend some of it on a good tax lawyer before they died.

It's like the perfect tax.

[3D23]

:campisright:

Federal estate tax applies to estates and is easy to avoid.

In other words, it's only paid by dead people who had a lot of money but didn't bother to spend some of it on a good tax lawyer before they died.

It's like the perfect tax.

Exactly, but who intends to die at the age of 42? Had we known, we would have planned better.

[SFS04]

I believe government assistance exists to help the poor with food, clothing, and shelter, the essentials.

Brought this over from the other thread--

The people who are really fucked are those with too much money to qualify for aid, yet still on the very low end of the payscale. The people above minimum wage but under a living wage.

[3D23]

Exactly. When I'm talking about high income earners, I'm talking about people who bring in more than $5M a year. It used to be that everything before that level was taxed normally, and everything after at 70%. That's the system I want to go back to.

In case you missed it:

The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.

So the top 25% of all tax payers pay the majority of income tax, yet you want to punish them and make them pay more. Yes, that seems fair.

[1951Campbell]

The reason you have an estate tax is because you end up with fuckers like Paris Hilton, who don't get jobs, don't do a damn thing with their lives, and don't contribute to society, and would never pay taxes otherwise if there wasn't an estate tax.

Does is suck for those people who do go out, despite an inheritance, and do something productive? Absolutely, but a few bad apples ruined it for everybody else.

Explain to me why Paris Hilton and the Walton children should not have to pay taxes.

Because they pay more in income taxes in a year than we'll pay in a lifetime? Jesus, just type "they should pay a lot of taxes because I hate them" and get it over with. Also, they're all trusted up anyway. Are you going to overthrow 500 or so years of trusts being legal instruments too?

And do you really want to go down a road about "contributing to society" when the bottom 50% of federal taxpayers pay only 4% of the taxes?

And I'm guessing that around 70% of millionaires didn't get there through inheritance.

Anyway, no one has satisfactorily explained to me why someone's death is a suitable occasion to take money from the decedent's heirs.

[SABRSox]

Brought this over from the other thread--

The people who are really fucked are those with too much money to qualify for aid, yet still on the very low end of the payscale. The people above minimum wage but under a living wage.
And more people keep slipping into that void everyday.

[3D23]

Come work at my agency for a DAY. Social services used and abused on a daily basis.

[Palehose13]

Here's the thing though, your idea of rich, and the government's idea of rich are two totally different things.

You are not talking rich, you are talking wealthy.

Shaquille O'Neal is rich, the man that signs his check is wealthy.

And here is another fine conundrum for libs to dwell uopn.

And what I am saying is that the government needs to change their definitions.

I sense venom with "libs". Why is that? From my experience, most "libs" are concerned about equality, which you seem to be all for. :shrug:

So if you don't have to work, you're rich?

I was trying to over simplify what I meant, but kinda sorta. Skrip defines what I was thining much better:

Exactly. When I'm talking about high income earners, I'm talking about people who bring in more than $5M a year. It used to be that everything before that level was taxed normally, and everything after at 70%. That's the system I want to go back to.


I just find it amusing that people in the working class who make 6 figures think that they are "upper class". Soooooo not the case.

[SABRSox]

You do realize that less than 2% of all estates actually face the estate tax law as it's currently written, right?

The main beneficiaries from removing it would be the Walton family. Sorry, they don't need more money. Not when there are 10 million children in this country without health care.

[Palehose13]

Come work at my agency for a DAY. Social services used and abused on a daily basis.

I agree and does this mean that the idea of social services is bad? No. It means that the system we have is not working. Much like our school system. I'm for social service reform, not abolishment.

[Dan Mega]

=
I sense venom with "libs". Why is that? From my experience, most "libs" are concerned about equality, which you seem to be all for. :shrug:


Depends on your definition of equality. Making someone pay more taxes simply because they make more is not "equal" by any means.

[samram]

In case you missed it:

The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.

So the top 25% of all tax payers pay the majority of income tax, yet you want to punish them and make them pay more. Yes, that seems fair.

3D, I'm with you. Lefties don't like rich people or the fact that they're rich and you can cite stats all day and it won't make a difference- it's never enough.

[1951Campbell]

I sense venom with "libs". Why is that? From my experience, most "libs" are concerned about equality, which you seem to be all for. :shrug:


Equality means equality before the law, not the Harrison Bergenon equality of outcomes enforced by the goverment that liberals seem to desire so much.

And if you want to get to outcomes, there's no better way than tax policy.

[Palehose13]

The main beneficiaries from removing it would be the Walton family. Sorry, they don't need more money. Not when there are 10 million children in this country without health care.

Who cares about them? They should just work harder!

[3D23]

And what I am saying is that the government needs to change their definitions.

I sense venom with "libs". Why is that? From my experience, most "libs" are concerned about equality, which you seem to be all for. :shrug:
I had a response typed here, where'd it go?

Nutshell, I am moderate on social issues, but very conservative when it comes to someone jerking MORE money out of my hand.





I just find it amusing that people in the working class who make 6 figures think that they are "upper class". Soooooo not the case.

I don't think anyone is arguing class system here, what we are arguing (or at least I am) is tax bases and percentage. According to Skrip, if you make 5 million a year, in a legitimate business you should pay over 3 million in taxes? What the hell? I am not wealthy, but that is just whack.

I agree and does this mean that the idea of social services is bad? No. It means that the system we have is not working. Much like our school system. I'm for social service reform, not abolishment.

But throwing more money at it, and increasing the tax structure is also not the answer.

[SABRSox]

I feel that those people who are rich have benefited more from society than those who are poor, and therefore ought to bear more of the burden because of that. To say that the rich do not take advantage of what our system of government provides, and that they "did it all on their own" is insulting.

[SFS04]

Depends on your definition of equality. Making someone pay more taxes simply because they make more is not "equal" by any means.

Would you be cool with a flat percentage tax?

[SABRSox]

No, Judi, you're not understanding correctly.

$5M taxed at current tax rates. That's something like $1.5M in taxes.

After $5M, any additional income is taxed at 70%. That's how it was from Kennedy to Reagan, and before Kennedy, it was at 90%.

[Palehose13]

3D, I'm with you. Lefties don't like rich people or the fact that they're rich and you can cite stats all day and it won't make a difference- it's never enough.

Wow.

I consider myself socially liberal and economically in the middle. I see the tax write offs that corporations get and all the "foundations" that are set up as tax shelters. It just seems to me that they actually pay less in taxes (proportionally) than I do because of their wealth. I'm fine with paying taxes and that is because I want things in place to better our society.

For those that are against social programs and taxes: Do you have any plans for what to do about our increasing poverty level and lack of education or should we just not care and fend for ourselves?

[Dan Mega]

Would you be cool with a flat percentage tax?

Absolutely. At least that way it would be fair.

Thats why I'm more for increasing the sales tax. You buy more- you pay more.

If you're dirt poor you don't need that PS3.

[1951Campbell]

You do realize that less than 2% of all estates actually face the estate tax law as it's currently written, right?

The main beneficiaries from removing it would be the Walton family. Sorry, they don't need more money. Not when there are 10 million children in this country without health care.

Yeah, um, I'm pretty aware of that.

We'll see how Democrats feel about the estate tax when the marital deduction goes back down to $1,000,000 and all those blue-state baby boomer widow and widowers on the coasts start dying in their expensive homes and condos. I predict a sudden rhetorical shift to "the estate tax is eating away at the assets the middle class has worked a lifetime to amass!"

[3D23]

I feel that those people who are rich have benefited more from society than those who are poor, and therefore ought to bear more of the burden because of that. To say that the rich do not take advantage of what our system of government provides, and that they "did it all on their own" is insulting.

:rolleyes:

I would hasten a guess that 80% of all wealthy people in the US EARNED what they have, either through intelligence of the mind, or common sense. I think they did do it on their own.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are perfect examples of why our system works. They make billions, are two of the world's largest philanthropists, hire 1,000's yearly, and pay their share. Yes, they look for tax breaks, shelters, and other benefits that are available either through design or loopholes, but why does that make them bad people?

[maurice]

And I'm guessing that around 70% of millionaires didn't get there through inheritance.

As silly as it sounds, "millionaire" is a low threshold nowadays. IIRC, in terms of super-rich people, the majority inherited their money. For every Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey, there are 2 Waltons, Queen Elizabeth IIs, etc.

Anyway, no one has satisfactorily explained to me why someone's death is a suitable occasion to take money from the decedent's heirs.

Tax revenue has to come from somewhere. Tax policy determines where it comes from. Ideally, you want to minimize the disincentive to do things that are good for society, like working, investing, and consuming.

Inheritance is a windfall. For every $1 you increase the windfall, the government has to take $1 from a person who actually earned their money, either through labor or wise investment.

:shrug:

[Palehose13]

But throwing more money at it, and increasing the tax structure is also not the answer.

That isn't what I am proposing. I'm with Skrip and his last post with figures (70% and 90%).

Triple D...I'm not trying to get your money unless you are a multi-millionaire with a team of lawyers finding loopholes, tax shelters, and ways to get out of paying your taxes.

[3D23]

No, Judi, you're not understanding correctly.

$5M taxed at current tax rates. That's something like $1.5M in taxes.

After $5M, any additional income is taxed at 70%. That's how it was from Kennedy to Reagan, and before Kennedy, it was at 90%.

:D

Okay Skrip, I got ya. I was understanding you to say anyone who makes over 5 Million pays 70% period.

Your explanation clarified a bit. Not that I agree, but it is a little less insane.

[SABRSox]

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates built their companies on minds that were fostered in public school systems. Care to try again?

[3D23]

That isn't what I am proposing. I'm with Skrip and his last post with figures (70% and 90%).

Triple D...I'm not trying to get your money unless you are a multi-millionaire with a team of lawyers finding loopholes, tax shelters, and ways to get out of paying your taxes.


Okay, here's an example. I sunk a bunch of additional money into Putnam accounts for my kids, and contribute through work without paying taxes on the money. This is TECHNICALLY a loophole, or a designed tax shelter. How is it any different than any other benefit accorded to those that can afford a great attorney?

[Dan Mega]

Inheritance is a windfall. For every $1 you increase the windfall, the government has to take $1 from a person who actually earned their money, either through labor or wise investment.

I think the government could avoid this by stopping wasteful spending and notstarting useless wars.

[1951Campbell]

I feel that those people who are rich have benefited more from society than those who are poor, and therefore ought to bear more of the burden because of that. To say that the rich do not take advantage of what our system of government provides, and that they "did it all on their own" is insulting.

How have they benefitted more from society? Show your work.

[Dan Mega]

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates built their companies on minds that were fostered in public school systems. Care to try again?

The public school system they went through is very, very different from today's school system.

Back then, money was used for education in math, reading, science, etc.

[3D23]

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates built their companies on minds that were fostered in public school systems. Care to try again?

They PROVE my point. my kids go to public schools, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You said, and I quote:
I feel that those people who are rich have benefited more from society than those who are poor, and therefore ought to bear more of the burden because of that. To say that the rich do not take advantage of what our system of government provides, and that they "did it all on their own" is insulting.

They have benefited, and also receive millions of dollars from tax shelters and loop holes. Or do they not count because they went to public schools?

[Palehose13]

Absolutely. At least that way it would be fair.

Thats why I'm more for increasing the sales tax. You buy more- you pay more.

If you're dirt poor you don't need that PS3.

Sure. I'll agree with you here also.

Yeah, um, I'm pretty aware of that.

We'll see how Democrats feel about the estate tax when the marital deduction goes back down to $1,000,000 and all those blue-state baby boomer widow and widowers on the coasts start dying in their expensive homes and condos. I predict a sudden rhetorical shift to "the estate tax is eating away at the assets the middle class has worked a lifetime to amass!"

It must be fun to be a libertarian and ping pong insults to the major parties.

:rolleyes:

I would hasten a guess that 80% of all wealthy people in the US EARNED what they have, either through intelligence of the mind, or common sense. I think they did do it on their own.


Are you kidding me? I would flip your 80%. I imagine that there is more "old money" out there instead of "new money". For instance, almost each child* and grandchild of the wealthy in Milwaukee (descendents of Bradley, Schlitz, Pabst, etc) has their own foundations in order to avoid getting killed with taxes. This is their "job". I am friends with a few of these people and they definitely don't hide what they are doing.

*the children are now in their 60's or older.

[1951Campbell]

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates built their companies on minds that were fostered in public school systems. Care to try again?

:rolleyes:

Sorry, but that is fucking trite.

[Palehose13]

I think the government could avoid this by stopping wasteful spending and notstarting useless wars.

This I totally agree with.

The public school system they went through is very, very different from today's school system.

Back then, money was used for education in math, reading, science, etc.

This I don't. How are schools different and where is money spent?

[SABRSox]

How have they benefitted more from society? Show your work.
Let's take the Bill Gates example. Bill Gates built Microsoft, but he didn't write all the programs by himself. He hired a lot of programmers to do that. Where did those programmers learn the skills they needed to do that job? Public schools, most likely. Bill Gates was able to build his company because of public education. Without it, Microsoft doesn't exist.

That's just one example. Give me any billionaire, and I can tell you how he directly benefits from government programs.

[Dan Mega]

Let's take the Bill Gates example. Bill Gates built Microsoft, but he didn't write all the programs by himself. He hired a lot of programmers to do that. Where did those programmers learn the skills they needed to do that job? Public schools, most likely. Bill Gates was able to build his company because of public education. Without it, Microsoft doesn't exist.

That's just one example. Give me any billionaire, and I can tell you how he directly benefits from government programs.

Wrong. Private college and tinkering around with programming. Doing it on their own, which according to you is impossible to be successful without the government's help.

My stepfather is one of those "old school" programmers and will tell you that hardly any classes existed back in the 70's and 80's focusing on programming in private colleges. In public schools? Forget about it.

[3D23]

Sure. I'll agree with you here also.



It must be fun to be a libertarian and ping pong insults to the major parties.



Are you kidding me? I would flip your 80%. I imagine that there is more "old money" out there instead of "new money". For instance, almost each child* and grandchild of the wealthy in Milwaukee (descendents of Bradley, Schlitz, Pabst, etc) has their own foundations in order to avoid getting killed with taxes. This is their "job". I am friends with a few of these people and they definitely don't hide what they are doing.

*the children are now in their 60's or older.


Okay, here's Forbest list of wealthiest Americans:
1 William Henry Gates III 53.0 50 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Edward Buffett 46.0 76 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Sheldon Adelson 20.5 73 Las Vegas, NV casinos, hotels
4 Lawrence Joseph Ellison 19.5 62 Redwood City, CA Oracle
5 Paul Gardner Allen 16.0 53 Seattle, WA Microsoft, investments
6 Jim C Walton 15.7 58 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
7 Christy Walton & family 15.6 51 Jackson, WY Wal-Mart inheritance
7 S Robson Walton 15.6 62 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
9 Michael Dell 15.5 41 Austin, TX Dell
9 Alice L Walton 15.5 57 Fort Worth, TX Wal-Mart
11 Helen R Walton 15.3 86 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
12 Sergey Brin 14.1 33 Palo Alto, CA Google
13 Larry E Page 14.0 33 San Francisco, CA Google
14 Jack Crawford Taylor & family 13.9 84 St Louis, MO Enterprise Rent-A-Car
15 Steven Anthony Ballmer 13.6 50 Bellevue, WA Microsoft
16 Abigail Johnson 13.0 44 Boston, MA Fidelity
17 Barbara Cox Anthony 12.6 83 Honolulu, HI Cox Enterprises
17 Anne Cox Chambers 12.6 86 Atlanta, GA Cox Enterprises
19 Charles De Ganahl Koch 12.0 70 Wichita, KS oil, commodities
19 David Hamilton Koch 12.0 66 New York, NY oil, commodities
21 Forrest Edward Mars Jr 10.5 75 McLean, VA candy
21 Jacqueline Mars 10.5 67 Bedminster, NJ candy
21 John Franklyn Mars 10.5 70 Arlington, VA candy
24 Carl Icahn 9.7 70 New York, NY leveraged buyouts
25 John Werner Kluge 9.1 92 Palm Beach, FL Metromedia


Quite a good number of these people 'earned' their money. I know there are quite a few of the Walton children up there in the top 25, (notice Oprah is not? funny to me) But take for example, Paul Allen. Would he be where he is without Gates? Nope.

[SABRSox]

Wrong. Private college and tinkering around with programming. Doing it on their own, which according to you is impossible to be successful without the government's help.

My stepfather is one of those "old school" programmers and will tell you that hardly any classes existed back in the 70's and 80's focusing on programming in private colleges. In public schools? Forget about it.
I was referring to the basics, like math and science. You've got to start with a foundation.

[Dan Mega]

This I totally agree with.

:hug:

This I don't. How are schools different and where is money spent?

Are there certain required courses and classes in public schools that didn't exist 30 years ago?

I had to take one but I'll wait for your answer.

[Palehose13]

Let's take the Bill Gates example. Bill Gates built Microsoft, but he didn't write all the programs by himself. He hired a lot of programmers to do that. Where did those programmers learn the skills they needed to do that job? Public schools, most likely. Bill Gates was able to build his company because of public education. Without it, Microsoft doesn't exist.

That's just one example. Give me any billionaire, and I can tell you how he directly benefits from government programs.

For shits and giggles, I am in the middle of watching a 4 hour PBS "History of public education" for my Democracy in Education class. Seems that the idea of free public education is a very new concept and one of the major reasons immigrants came to the USA. So how about we privatize schools? :D

[Dan Mega]

I was referring to the basics, like math and science. You've got to start with a foundation.

You don't need public schooling to get the basics.

[SABRSox]

Okay, here's Forbest list of wealthiest Americans:
1 William Henry Gates III 53.0 50 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Edward Buffett 46.0 76 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Sheldon Adelson 20.5 73 Las Vegas, NV casinos, hotels
4 Lawrence Joseph Ellison 19.5 62 Redwood City, CA Oracle
5 Paul Gardner Allen 16.0 53 Seattle, WA Microsoft, investments
6 Jim C Walton 15.7 58 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
7 Christy Walton & family 15.6 51 Jackson, WY Wal-Mart inheritance
7 S Robson Walton 15.6 62 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
9 Michael Dell 15.5 41 Austin, TX Dell
9 Alice L Walton 15.5 57 Fort Worth, TX Wal-Mart
11 Helen R Walton 15.3 86 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
12 Sergey Brin 14.1 33 Palo Alto, CA Google
13 Larry E Page 14.0 33 San Francisco, CA Google
14 Jack Crawford Taylor & family 13.9 84 St Louis, MO Enterprise Rent-A-Car
15 Steven Anthony Ballmer 13.6 50 Bellevue, WA Microsoft
16 Abigail Johnson 13.0 44 Boston, MA Fidelity
17 Barbara Cox Anthony 12.6 83 Honolulu, HI Cox Enterprises
17 Anne Cox Chambers 12.6 86 Atlanta, GA Cox Enterprises
19 Charles De Ganahl Koch 12.0 70 Wichita, KS oil, commodities
19 David Hamilton Koch 12.0 66 New York, NY oil, commodities
21 Forrest Edward Mars Jr 10.5 75 McLean, VA candy
21 Jacqueline Mars 10.5 67 Bedminster, NJ candy
21 John Franklyn Mars 10.5 70 Arlington, VA candy
24 Carl Icahn 9.7 70 New York, NY leveraged buyouts
25 John Werner Kluge 9.1 92 Palm Beach, FL Metromedia


Quite a good number of these people 'earned' their money. I know there are quite a few of the Walton children up there in the top 25, (notice Oprah is not? funny to me) But take for example, Paul Allen. Would he be where he is without Gates? Nope.
Not really. Lot of inheritances on there.

[maurice]

I think the government could avoid this by stopping wasteful spending and notstarting useless wars.

Or you could do both and cut taxes on people who are not dead, further stimulating the economy.
:rock:

[SABRSox]

You don't need public schooling to get the basics.
How do you figure that?

[1951Campbell]

Are you kidding me? I would flip your 80%. I imagine that there is more "old money" out there instead of "new money". For instance, almost each child* and grandchild of the wealthy in Milwaukee (descendents of Bradley, Schlitz, Pabst, etc) has their own foundations in order to avoid getting killed with taxes. This is their "job". I am friends with a few of these people and they definitely don't hide what they are doing.

*the children are now in their 60's or older.

Geez, where do you hang out, at University School of Milwaukee alumni meetings? :D

The Bradley I knew in high school is a con law lawyer in San Francisco.

[Dan Mega]

How do you figure that?

Private schooling :cool:

[SABRSox]

Oh... and how many people can afford private schooling?

A: Not enough to sustain a workforce in America.

[1951Campbell]

Let's take the Bill Gates example. Bill Gates built Microsoft, but he didn't write all the programs by himself. He hired a lot of programmers to do that. Where did those programmers learn the skills they needed to do that job? Public schools, most likely. Bill Gates was able to build his company because of public education. Without it, Microsoft doesn't exist.



Bill Gates probably went to school with people who are now, say, convicted felons or winos who got the same "benefit."

I guess what you do with the benefit doesn't matter?

[Palehose13]

:hug:



Are there certain required courses and classes in public schools that didn't exist 30 years ago?

I had to take one but I'll wait for your answer.

Here are the mps graduation requirements:


Students must earn a minimum of 22 units

14 units are required as follows:

4.0 units of English

2.0 units of Mathematics (must include Algebra)

2.0 units of Science, which incorporate instruction in the
biological and physical sciences

3.0 units of Social Studies as follows:
1.0 unit of U.S. History (Grade 11)
1.0 unit of World History or World Studies
0.5 unit of American Government
0.5 unit of Economics

1.5 units of Physical Education

0.5 unit of Health

1.0 unit of Fine Arts

Maybe fine arts is different, but I don't see why you think this may be significant.

[3D23]

Not really. Lot of inheritances on there.

All of the Waltons currently are employed through the company. Their father died how many years ago now? If they were not doing the work, those sotres would be closing left and right. No question. Same for Mars.

How about Phillip Knight? Founder of Nike shoe in Oregon. I know he is in the top 50, and look at the name recognition he has. Yet sadly, the taxes and insurance cost such an insane amount, most of his production is now overseas.

yes, increasing the taxes will work out well.

As much as this will drive you batshit, trickle-down economics WORKS.

[SABRSox]

Bill Gates probably went to school with people who are now, say, convicted felons or winos who got the same "benefit."

I guess what you do with the benefit doesn't matter?
I'm saying his wealth is because of the exploits of his employees. His employees learned the basic skills they needed in the public school system, therefore Gates benefited from a strong public education system. How is this so hard to understand?

[1951Campbell]

Not really. Lot of inheritances on there.

:confused:

32% is a lot? It's not even a majority.

[Dan Mega]

Maybe fine arts is different, but I don't see why you think this may be significant.

I stand corrected!

[SABRSox]

All of the Waltons currently are employed through the company. Their father died how many years ago now? If they were not doing the work, those sotres would be closing left and right. No question. Same for Mars.

How about Phillip Knight? Founder of Nike shoe in Oregon. I know he is in the top 50, and look at the name recognition he has. Yet sadly, the taxes and insurance cost such an insane amount, most of his production is now overseas.

yes, increasing the taxes will work out well.

As much as this will drive you batshit, trickle-down economics WORKS.
Bullshit, Judi. Bullshit. Taxes did not drive jobs overseas. Slave wages in foreign countries did. Shitty trade policy (from Bushes, Reagan, and Clinton) let it happen. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.

[Dan Mega]

I'm saying his wealth is because of the exploits of his employees. His employees learned the basic skills they needed in the public school system, therefore Gates benefited from a strong public education system. How is this so hard to understand?

Can you provide proof they all went through public school and none of them were homeschooled or went through private education?

How is this so hard to understand that you don't need socialism to succeed?

[SABRSox]

:confused:

32% is a lot? It's not even a majority.
Those were the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure if I went through the Fortune 500 list, that percentage would rise.

Even still, how do you justify those 32% not paying any taxes?

[1951Campbell]

I'm saying his wealth is because of the exploits of his employees. His employees learned the basic skills they needed in the public school system, therefore Gates benefited from a strong public education system. How is this so hard to understand?

Okay, so put "his employees" in the place of "Bill Gates." :shrug:

Your arugment also assumes they got their basic skills there. I don't remember computer programming classes in the public or private schools I went to.

It's a big stretch, amigo.

[Palehose13]

Geez, where do you hang out, at University School of Milwaukee alumni meetings? :D

The Bradley I knew in high school is a con law lawyer in San Francisco.

I know some Pabst's and Uihlein's. :shrug:
I suppose I mingle with some of the wealthy of Milwaukee. You got to get money for school programs and gay rights somewhere.

I stand corrected!

LOL.

What were you thinking has changed?

Perhaps teaching methods and discipline policies, but not so much the requirements.

[3D23]

I'm saying his wealth is because of the exploits of his employees. His employees learned the basic skills they needed in the public school system, therefore Gates benefited from a strong public education system. How is this so hard to understand?

Oh no, make no mistake, his wealth is because of him. End of story.

He could have sold Microsoft decades ago and retired a very rich man in his 30's.

[SABRSox]

Okay, so put "his employees" in the place of "Bill Gates." :shrug:

Your arugment also assumes they got their basic skills there. I don't remember computer programming classes in the public or private schools I went to.

It's a big stretch, amigo.
Ugh. You can't learn computer programming without first learning math and science.

I'm not saying that Bill Gates isn't entitled to his money. He is. He had the idea, and the wherewithal to see it through. But he didn't do it all on his own. He owes a bigger debt to society than the guy working at McDonald's for $6.50 an hour.

[1951Campbell]

Those were the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure if I went through the Fortune 500 list, that percentage would rise.

Even still, how do you justify those 32% not paying any taxes?

Simple: the disposition of one's property--to whom it goes--is a private matter that should be the choice of the decedent, not the government.

[maurice]

All of the Waltons currently are employed through the company. Their father died how many years ago now? If they were not doing the work, those sotres would be closing left and right.

I doubt it. If you pull them out of the management structure, they'd be replaced with MBAs who earned their position through merit and experience.

Even if they're better than the MBAs for some unknown reason, they certainly are not worth an additional $15 bil. each. That's just a total windfall randomly assigned to them due to their membership in the lucky sperm club. They didn't "earn" it any more than a powerball winner "earns" her money.

[SABRSox]

Simple: the disposition of one's property--to whom it goes--is a private matter that should be the choice of the decedent, not the government.
And I don't agree with that at all. Income is income, no matter where it comes from. Company, spouse, father, etc. If you're only income is what Daddy gives you, you should get taxed on that.

[1951Campbell]

Ugh. You can't learn computer programming without first learning math and science.

I'm not saying that Bill Gates isn't entitled to his money. He is. He had the idea, and the wherewithal to see it through. But he didn't do it all on his own. He owes a bigger debt to society than the guy working at McDonald's for $6.50 an hour.

You're right, he didn't do it on his own. He paid people pretty handsomely to help. But I guess all those well-paying jobs aren't repayment of some ephemeral debt, they're...why he owes more?

You've totally lost me, dude.

[Palehose13]

You're right, he didn't do it on his own. He paid people pretty handsomely to help. But I guess all those well-paying jobs aren't repayment of some ephemeral debt, they're...why he owes more?

You've totally lost me, dude.

He's lost me a bit too...

[maurice]

Simple: the disposition of one's property--to whom it goes--is a private matter that should be the choice of the decedent, not the government.

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that, if a rich dead guy gives me money, it should be tax free. OTOH, if I work for a paycheck or earn capital gains through wise investment, I should pay a substantial % to the government. If I own shares in a well-run and therefore profitable corporation, the corporation should pay taxes. If I own real estate or buy a ham sandwich, I should pay taxes. If I have a car and therefore a driver's license, a license plate, a license plate sticker, gallons-upon-gallons of gas, etc., I should pay taxes. Taxes taxes everywhere on the living, but the dead rich guy pays zilch.

[1951Campbell]

And I don't agree with that at all. Income is income, no matter where it comes from. Company, spouse, father, etc. If you're only income is what Daddy gives you, you should get taxed on that.

That taxes me back to Federal Taxation in law school. I can hear my professor now: "but I see an accession to wealth!" :D

So if a relative gives you $50 in a birthday card, you report it, right?

Anyway, all tax policy is is deciding what income won't be taxed, because the first principle of tax law is that it's all income. I look to a first principle that I order above the first principle of tax law--that people should be able to choose what to do with their lives and property without government interefence.

[maurice]

I look to a first principle that I order above the first principle of tax law--that people should be able to choose what to do with their lives and property without government interefence.

But you haven't explained why this applies to estate tax but not to buying a ham sandwich.

[1951Campbell]

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that, if a rich dead guy gives me money, it should be tax free. OTOH, if I work for a paycheck or earn capital gains through wise investment, I should pay a substantial % to the government. If I own shares in a well-run and therefore profitable corporation, the corporation should pay taxes. If I own real estate or buy a ham sandwich, I should pay taxes. If I have a car and therefore a driver's license, a license plate, a license plate sticker, gallons-upon-gallons of gas, etc., I should pay taxes. Taxes taxes everywhere on the living, but the dead rich guy pays zilch.

Theoretically, you derive benefit from all those taxes.

What benefit does a dead person get from paying taxes? They don't cost society anything.

[samram]

But what about the single mother left behind who needs that estate to live and raise kids? Dead people are never taxed.

Don't worry, the government knows how much everyone needs.

[SABRSox]

It's not an easy point to make, I can see that.

To say that the richest people in this country got there on their own is misleading. They didn't. They had help from other people, and in a less direct way, the government.

I'm trying to dispel the myth that wealth is created independently from the government. It's not. It's created by individuals, who work very hard, but they work within the system, and enjoy benefits of that system.

Without government, you don't have public schools that educate workforces, roads to deliver goods to markets, etc. The wealthy take more advantage of those things than the poor do. So why is it not fair that they should owe more of a debt?

[samram]

It's not an easy point to make, I can see that.

To say that the richest people in this country got there on their own is misleading. They didn't. They had help from other people, and in a less direct way, the government.

I'm trying to dispel the myth that wealth is created independently from the government. It's not. It's created by individuals, who work very hard, but they work within the system, and enjoy benefits of that system.

Without government, you don't have public schools that educate workforces, roads to deliver goods to markets, etc. The wealthy take more advantage of those things than the poor do. So why is it not fair that they should owe more of a debt?

You mean by paying people to work for them, they're not repaying some of this benefit received? Job creation is a good repayment, IMO.

Furthermore, it's already been demonstrated they are paying more. You just don't think it's enough more.

[maurice]

But what about the single mother left behind who needs that estate to live and raise kids?

Estate tax only applies above a certain threshold. The 1st x dollars is taxed at 0% (aka not at all). Anything above x is taxed at y%. x = a very big number.

You can complain that x is too low or that y is too high, but those numbers are adjustable and indeed are frequently adjusted. I just can't see how you can argue that y should = zero when almost everything else in life is taxed at a pretty high %.

I guess I should also mention that a husband's stuff normally is transferred to his wife without going through probate. Hence Camp's earlier surprise that a wife had to pay estate tax when her husband died. That's a bad situation, but it's also very unusual. One bad example does not render the tax inherently bad in every instance.

[SABRSox]

I'm trying to view this simply in the realm of taxation, not payroll.

And yes, they aren't paying nearly enough.

[SFS04]

Carl should look this up in my taxation book that's probably about 3 feet max from him and see what it says, it's for 2005 I wanna say.

[samram]

I'm trying to view this simply in the realm of taxation, not payroll.

And yes, they aren't paying nearly enough.

Well, there are payroll taxes too, so you can't just separate the two. Those people are paying taxes on income received from the wealthy guy's job creation.

The year to die is 2010. There's no estate tax that year, IIRC. In 2011, the estate tax comes back in full force.

[SABRSox]

I wouldn't call it punished... and I'm leaving it at that.

I don't really know why we do these threads. Campbell and samram aren't moving off their libertarian positions, I'm not moving off my liberal position. In the end, nothing is agreed upon, other than to end debate.

[Palehose13]

I find it interesting to see different POV and it help me in bar debates. :)

[maurice]

Theoretically, you derive benefit from all those taxes.
What benefit does a dead person get from paying taxes? They don't cost society anything.

Who cares? They're dead. We should be far more concerned about benefiting the living. With respect to the heirs, that's why the minimum threshold should be reasonably high. Anything above that threshold clearly is a total windfall and should be taxed AT LEAST as highly as earned income and almost everything else.

I'm all about rights, but it's hard to get too worked up about the rights of the dead. As far as I know, the ONLY right they have is the right to bequeath their estate . . . AFTER all debts have been paid . . . including taxes. Well, that and attorney-client privilege.

:shrug:

I just think it's crass to tax the dead

I think it's far more crass to tax a ham sandwich purchased by a hypothetical low-income single mother.
:shrug:

[1951Campbell]

It's not an easy point to make, I can see that.

To say that the richest people in this country got there on their own is misleading. They didn't. They had help from other people, and in a less direct way, the government.

I'm trying to dispel the myth that wealth is created independently from the government. It's not. It's created by individuals, who work very hard, but they work within the system, and enjoy benefits of that system.

I've owned a business. Sales tax. Matching Federal withholding. Paid to incoporate. Massachusetts DOR was happy to accept sales tax that was illegally charged to us. What benefit did we get? Was the government benefit when an advertiser went bankrupt but the court ignored our claims? These are the benefits of this great system?

The idea that every great success is owed to Uncle Sam is pretty out there, if you ask me. Everything for the state, by the state, nothing outside the state?

Without government, you don't have public schools that educate workforces, roads to deliver goods to markets, etc. The wealthy take more advantage of those things than the poor do. So why is it not fair that they should owe more of a debt?

Someone who gets more dollar value in government services than they pay in taxes "owes" less than someone who pays more taxes than they cost to the commonweal? When people point out that red states usually take in more tax dollars than blue states, do you say "that's because blue states owe more to society"?

[samram]

Who cares? They're dead. We should be far more concerned about benefiting the living. With respect to the heirs, that's why the minimum threshold should be reasonably high. Anything above that threshold clearly is a total windfall and should be taxed AT LEAST as highly as earned income and almost everything else.

I'm all about rights, but it's hard to get too worked up about the rights of the dead. As far as I know, the ONLY right they have is the right to bequeath their estate . . . AFTER all debts have been paid . . . including taxes. Well, that and attorney-client privilege.



:shrug:

Yeah, but that last tax wasn't a debt until the person died and the government decided to get one last piece.



I think it's far more crass to tax a ham sandwich purchased by a hypothetical low-income single mother.
:shrug:

That's a state tax though. One's not really a substitute for the other as of now.

[1951Campbell]

I wouldn't call it punished... and I'm leaving it at that.

I don't really know why we do these threads. Campbell and samram aren't moving off their libertarian positions, I'm not moving off my liberal position. In the end, nothing is agreed upon, other than to end debate.

It's a good conversation, and good for us to have assumptions tested.

[maurice]

That's a state tax though. One's not really a substitute for the other as of now.

Props for the qualification "as of now."
:D

I'm just talking about tax policy generally but, if we are going to distinguish fed/state/local, I hereby replace "ham sandwich" with "FICA."

The point is--don't hassle the dead...they have eerie powers.

http://www.productdose.com/images/products/draft_445_big.jpg

[Prope]

3D, I'm with you. Lefties don't like rich people or the fact that they're rich and you can cite stats all day and it won't make a difference- it's never enough.
Love the hyperbole....

I think the government could avoid this by stopping wasteful spending and notstarting useless wars.
Then how are s'posed to fight terra??

[Palehose13]

The idea that every great success is owed to Uncle Sam is pretty out there, if you ask me. Everything for the state, by the state, nothing outside the state?

I'm fine with the state view except that sometimes people end up paying double taxes. For instance, if my dad moves to Wisconsin, he gets taxed on his retirement income from Illinois and Wisconsin. I think that sucks. I guess my view is state or federal, not both. :shrug:

[Prope]

Are there certain required courses and classes in public schools that didn't exist 30 years ago?

I had to take one but I'll wait for your answer.
Economics is becoming more and more to be a requirement to graduate. I'd be interested to know what percentage of districts had that in their curriculum.

EDIT: Val - I'm disgusted that Milwaukee does not require more Phys. Ed.

[Palehose13]

Economics is becoming more and more to be a requirement to graduate. I'd be interested to know what percentage of districts had that in their curriculum.

EDIT: Val - I'm disgusted that Milwaukee does not require more Phys. Ed.

A year and half is more than what was required of me in HS. :shrug:

You know when money is tight Art and PE are the first to get cut.

[Prope]

Theoretically, you derive benefit from all those taxes.

What benefit does a dead person get from paying taxes? They don't cost society anything.
They take up land that could be used for mini-malls (business tax for the community) or subdivisions (property taxes to fund schools).

[samram]

Love the hyperbole....

And I use inflammatory language how often? Certainly not with great frequency.

[Prope]

A year and half is more than what was required of me in HS. :shrug:

You know when money is tight Art and PE are the first to get cut.
I suppose you are right, but it is weird when you look at the fact that Illinois is the only state that requires 4 years of P.E. (which may have changed - that was true at least as far back as 2005) and others do not have it.

I can think of three things that could be cut before P.E. should ever be cut.

And I use inflammatory language how often? Certainly not with great frequency.
That is why it was kind of surprising.

[Dan Mega]

I suppose you are right, but it is weird when you look at the fact that Illinois is the only state that requires 4 years of P.E. (which may have changed - that was true at least as far back as 2005) and others do not have it.

I can think of three things that could be cut before P.E. should ever be cut.

Fine arts, humanities, and....?

[Prope]

Fine arts, humanities, and....?
Humanities - FUCK NO.....you think I want to be out of a job?!?!? I'm assuming you are including band and choir into the scope of Fine Arts, which was actually my second one. Now it is a top 2 list.

1. Fine Arts
2. Industrial Tech

[Palehose13]

I suppose you are right, but it is weird when you look at the fact that Illinois is the only state that requires 4 years of P.E. (which may have changed - that was true at least as far back as 2005) and others do not have it.

I can think of three things that could be cut before P.E. should ever be cut.


That is why it was kind of surprising.

Fine arts, humanities, and....?

Humanities - FUCK NO.....you think I want to be out of a job?!?!? I'm assuming you are including band and choir into the scope of Fine Arts, which was actually my second one. Now it is a top 2 list.

1. Fine Arts
2. Industrial Tech

PE should be important and I am focusing on nutrition this semester in my Health class (which actually counts as another PE credit to put it up to 2.0 credits).

I have a whole idea for school reform that would pretty much wipe out high schools as we currently know them, but I don't want to hi jack the hi jacked thread. :cool:

[SABRSox]

They take up land that could be used for mini-malls (business tax for the community) or subdivisions (property taxes to fund schools).
Good point. Fucking corpses. Drain on our economy.

[Dan Mega]

I have a whole idea for school reform that would pretty much wipe out high schools as we currently know them, but I don't want to hi jack the hi jacked thread. :cool:

Start a new one! :dance:

[Palehose13]

Start a new one! :dance:

Perhaps, but I am so behind in work right now because of you butt plugs and your interesting banter.

[samram]

Perhaps, but I am so behind in work right now because of you butt plugs and your interesting banter.

Same here. I keep trying to pull myself away, but then I'm right back in 10 minutes at most.

[SABRSox]

That's why this is the best sub-forum on this site.

[Dan Mega]

:fact:

[Palehose13]

Same here. I keep trying to pull myself away, but then I'm right back in 10 minutes at most.


Ok...that's it. I'm going to do some work!

[Dan Mega]

I say we burn them, spread the ashes and prorate each fleck of dust for profit and pleasure.

You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Mike Huckabee is The Man

The reason you have an estate tax is because you end up with fuckers like Paris Hilton, who don't get jobs, don't do a damn thing with their lives, and don't contribute to society, and would never pay taxes otherwise if there wasn't an estate tax.

Does is suck for those people who do go out, despite an inheritance, and do something productive? Absolutely, but a few bad apples ruined it for everybody else.

Explain to me why Paris Hilton and the Walton children should not have to pay taxes.

This is precisely my point about the national sales tax! A) The Big Spenders will be paying the lion's share (B) people who were not a part of the taxpaying system like foriegn tourists, criminals, drug dealers, illegals and rich people with no income are now paying into the system and (C) poor folks get prebated for money spent on basic necessities.

How is that all not good???

[maurice]

They take up land that could be used for mini-malls

Pft. Just pave over the cemeteries.

[SABRSox]

How is that all not good???
Because, proportionally, the poor pay more than the rich in regards to the total sum of money they have.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

But that is where the prebate comes into play. Any taxes they pay on basic necessities, they get back. The only way they would pay any tax, therefore, would be if they buy that PS3.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I sense venom with "libs". Why is that? From my experience, most "libs" are concerned about equality, which you seem to be all for. :shrug:




Libs are for equality- for everyone else. They love to fly about in their private jets and lecture people on how they need to cut back and get rid of their SUVs and so forth. And they are fond of defining what everyone needs. "Well, you don't need 5 million dollars. 1 million should be enough!" They also like the idea of government being involved in solving all of our problems. But as Big Fred says "A government that is big enough to do anything for us, is powerful enough to do anything to us."

Bottom line is that government cannot solve all of our problems. There is no evidence to suggest they have ever been successful in attempting to do so.

[CaptainBallz]

Libs are for equality- for everyone else. They love to fly about in their private jets and lecture people on how they need to cut back and get rid of their SUVs and so forth. And they are fond of defining what everyone needs. "Well, you don't need 5 million dollars. 1 million should be enough!" They also like the idea of government being involved in solving all of our problems.

Who the fuck are you talking about??!

I'll read your response after I return from my trip to the Alps where I shall ski the powder-white slopes, drink fine wines, and comisserate with other wealthy communists...

:jagoff:

generalize much, fuller??

But as Big Fred says "A government that is big enough to do anything for us, is powerful enough to do anything to us."

Yes, let's fear an effective government... then run for president... :confused:

[dcb]

Ugh. You can't learn computer programming without first learning math and science.

I'm not saying that Bill Gates isn't entitled to his money. He is. He had the idea, and the wherewithal to see it through. But he didn't do it all on his own. He owes a bigger debt to society than the guy working at McDonald's for $6.50 an hour.

Stop being absurd. These same McDonald's employees making $6.50 benifit as much, if not moreso from the government in that they enjoy the same roads, education, police, fire, and social services as everyone else without paying hardly anything in taxes. Let's not even mention the fact that they benifit from the same education system that educated their managers, executives, and franchisees who make their jobs possible in the first place.