Taxing the 50% who don't pay

Posted in the Grand Rapids Forum

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of299
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Whitmore Lake, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Who are these people that feel they can reach into my pocket and steal my labor to waste on stupid social programs that never raises ones position.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Whitmore Lake, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
That' far to generalized an assertion for me to give it any credence. I happen to know the numbers where the estate taxes kick in. If you're worth THAT much why haven't you learned about trusts and such to protect your children's inheritance?
Oh, and that 35-55% wouldn't happen unless we actually do go over the "fiscal cliff" permanently. Which isn't going to happen.
Glad you are out there. Principles matter and stealing is theft. I am aware of the programs but it does fall back to what is right.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Who are these people that feel they can reach into my pocket and steal my labor to waste on stupid social programs that never raises ones position.
The people that write the tax laws in this country are elected to represent a group you obviously don't understand or care about......

They're called the majority!
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Jan 1, 2013
 
Here's the intellectual disconnect that right keeps inflicting on, well, everyone else that actually pays attention. Let's use Romney's words; "My job is is not to worry about those people. Iíll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
How is not paying any Federal taxes is not taking responsibility and care for their lives? Here all this time I've been hearing the right bemoan taxation. Isn't that saying the right doesn't want anyone taking responsibility and care for their lives? Or is it the right believes the government is supposed to be the keeper of everyone's lives so they should all be paying into it? Just how does that work?

In the simplest terms, according to Romney, and echoed by all the "conservatives", paying taxes to the Federal Government is the people taking responsibility and care for their lives. Why wouldn't you Batch want to pay that 35-55% estate taxes to the Federal Government if it means your children would [then] be taking responsibility and care for their own lives? It is a conundrum.
Ginger

Holland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Jan 1, 2013
 
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
The people that write the tax laws in this country are elected to represent a group you obviously don't understand or care about......
They're called the majority!
Like all the crybaby righties on here, if he had any balls he'd do something about it rather than whine year after year after year.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Jan 1, 2013
 
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> Glad you are out there. Principles matter and stealing is theft. I am aware of the programs but it does fall back to what is right.
What makes it not right? It's legal isn't it? Isn't it being legal make it right? Like in the wealthiest paying a much smaller percentage of their incomes than those who fall far shorter of the same income strata is legal? After all they were brought into existence SO the wealthy could protect their wealth.

I do appreciate you for recognizing what is legal isn't necessarily right though.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Whitmore Lake, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it not right? It's legal isn't it? Isn't it being legal make it right? Like in the wealthiest paying a much smaller percentage of their incomes than those who fall far shorter of the same income strata is legal? After all they were brought into existence SO the wealthy could protect their wealth.
I do appreciate you for recognizing what is legal isn't necessarily right though.
never really been a reacher when it comes to man made law. Constitution has been a great guide but these uniformed and reckless hollywood voters don't allow for common sense governing.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Jan 1, 2013
 
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> never really been a reacher when it comes to man made law. Constitution has been a great guide but these uniformed and reckless hollywood voters don't allow for common sense governing.
Hollywood voters? What is that?

And the 16th Amendment wasn't in the Constitution until 1913. And that is what allowed the Federal Government to tax everyone's incomes. Not to put too much of a point on it, it was done by a Republican president and [Republican] controlled Congress. Sorry to bring that up but it is true.
So What

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
In the simplest terms, according to Romney, and echoed by all the "conservatives", paying taxes to the Federal Government is the people taking responsibility and care for their lives. Why wouldn't you Batch want to pay that 35-55% estate taxes to the Federal Government if it means your children would [then] be taking responsibility and care for their own lives? It is a conundrum.
The Estate Tax usurps the individual/family's right to earn and KEEP the "profit" of their labor. Where in the FF can you find ANY justification for the theft of property duly earned and then passed on to the living members of the family? You can't. This is a Federal government creation to take money and nothing less. It's the Federal government deciding by Fiat that they themselves are DUE that money, not the family. The children own NO duty to the government nor anyone else simply because their family was successful. Again SIB you and the other progressive are making the choice to take by force that which you never earned in order to give it to those who by choice are failures and now must rely upon the "profit" of others. It's greed and class envy that drives you and your ilk.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

So What wrote:
<quoted text>
The Estate Tax usurps the individual/family's right to earn and KEEP the "profit" of their labor. Where in the FF can you find ANY justification for the theft of property duly earned and then passed on to the living members of the family? You can't. This is a Federal government creation to take money and nothing less. It's the Federal government deciding by Fiat that they themselves are DUE that money, not the family. The children own NO duty to the government nor anyone else simply because their family was successful. Again SIB you and the other progressive are making the choice to take by force that which you never earned in order to give it to those who by choice are failures and now must rely upon the "profit" of others. It's greed and class envy that drives you and your ilk.
You missed my point entirely. You just ass umed it. No surprise.

But as long as you asked. Seeing as you believe so heavily in the tenets of the Founding Fathers;
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010...

What you will find is today's inheritance tax doesn't go near as far the the founder's principles believed it should;
"Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" ó in fact an inheritance tax ó on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

You should be glad not all of the philosophies of [some of] the founders have been followed through with.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SeenItBefore wrote:
Here's the intellectual disconnect that right keeps inflicting on, well, everyone else that actually pays attention. Let's use Romney's words; "My job is is not to worry about those people. Iíll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
How is not paying any Federal taxes is not taking responsibility and care for their lives? Here all this time I've been hearing the right bemoan taxation. Isn't that saying the right doesn't want anyone taking responsibility and care for their lives? Or is it the right believes the government is supposed to be the keeper of everyone's lives so they should all be paying into it? Just how does that work?
In the simplest terms, according to Romney, and echoed by all the "conservatives", paying taxes to the Federal Government is the people taking responsibility and care for their lives. Why wouldn't you Batch want to pay that 35-55% estate taxes to the Federal Government if it means your children would [then] be taking responsibility and care for their own lives? It is a conundrum.
Simple question...simple answer please, if you can. Why should anyone pay taxes twice? They are taxed the first time around on their earnings and then the government wants to tax their heirs, yet again? Oh, that's right, it's only the Republicans who ever pass taxation laws. I guess I keep forgetting that.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Really wrote:
<quoted text>Simple question...simple answer please, if you can. Why should anyone pay taxes twice? They are taxed the first time around on their earnings and then the government wants to tax their heirs, yet again? Oh, that's right, it's only the Republicans who ever pass taxation laws. I guess I keep forgetting that.
You want a simple answer? Because the heirs didn't pay any taxes on what they inherited/gained before it came down to them.

But then you don't understand the concept of earned and unearned income.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Really wrote:
<quoted text>Simple question...simple answer please, if you can. Why should anyone pay taxes twice? They are taxed the first time around on their earnings and then the government wants to tax their heirs, yet again? Oh, that's right, it's only the Republicans who ever pass taxation laws. I guess I keep forgetting that.
Aren't you the one who said they were a accountant?

If you weren't lying, then you would know the heirs are NEVER taxed. The tax is levied against the deceased person's estate.

No wonder you failed in that career choice!
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Jan 1, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You want a simple answer? Because the heirs didn't pay any taxes on what they inherited/gained before it came down to them.
But then you don't understand the concept of earned and unearned income.
And you and Boob ass umed what I asked. The monies that are being GIVEN to the heirs had already been taxed and NOW the Feds want to tax them yet again??? Thanks for making the point for me...the progressives don't care about the tax rates, just that the monies go to the government who soooooo much wiser than anyone else in how to spend other's monies. Yeah right.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Jan 1, 2013
 
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you the one who said they were a accountant?
If you weren't lying, then you would know the heirs are NEVER taxed. The tax is levied against the deceased person's estate.
No wonder you failed in that career choice!
The failure is you.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Jan 1, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And you and Boob ass umed what I asked. The monies that are being GIVEN to the heirs had already been taxed and NOW the Feds want to tax them yet again??? Thanks for making the point for me...the progressives don't care about the tax rates, just that the monies go to the government who soooooo much wiser than anyone else in how to spend other's monies. Yeah right.
Obviously there no point in my responding to you and posting the whys to the questions you raise because you refuse to read them, or is to understand them? But I'll do it again anyway:
"The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

The entire intent in the way the FFS set this country up was to eliminate the righteous gentry oppression they were throwing off in the revolution.

If you don't like it go argue it with the Founding Fathers. You know, those Socialist, Marxist, Communistic people who started and fought the Revolution against the entitled gentry for "individual freedom". Then ask yourself, not me, why you want it returned to that.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Jan 1, 2013
 
Robin wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to remember these two were not loved. They were abused children dropped on their heads way to many times. Nobody left them anything. So because they are angry at the world they don't want anyone to ever get anything inherited. They are losers in life and collect all the benefits of the government.
You really should think about what you right before you click Post Comment. It's obvious you are the one feeling entitled to be given someone elses wealth.
So What

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You want a simple answer? Because the heirs didn't pay any taxes on what they inherited/gained before it came down to them.
But then you don't understand the concept of earned and unearned income.
Why should they have to pay taxes on property that is transferred after death? What makes it taxable? The Feds said so?

Isn't it enough that they grab money out of EVERYONE's pocket and still have the audacity to reach into the grave to further steal that which they never deserved! WHY?
So What

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Jan 1, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously there no point in my responding to you and posting the whys to the questions you raise because you refuse to read them, or is to understand them? But I'll do it again anyway:
"The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."
The entire intent in the way the FFS set this country up was to eliminate the righteous gentry oppression they were throwing off in the revolution.
If you don't like it go argue it with the Founding Fathers. You know, those Socialist, Marxist, Communistic people who started and fought the Revolution against the entitled gentry for "individual freedom". Then ask yourself, not me, why you want it returned to that.
You are so full of BS. The issue the states sought to effect was NOT the taxation of estates for the equity of all citizens. It was for the equity of the heirs because under the English system ONLY the adult male heirs were entitled to the estate and daughters were excluded. Several states, including NC, changed the laws to allow daughters equality. NOT the undeserving state itself.

In April 1784, the NC Legislature, in lieu of primogeniture, substituted a scheme where, in the case of intestate death, the father's real property would be shared among all the deceased's male children. The female children were completely left out of the sharing. Several years later, in 1795, the NC law was again changed to allow the daughters to share equally with the sons. An excerpt from the 1784 law follows:

"I. Whereas it will tend to promote that equality of property which is the spirit and principle of a genuine republic, that the real estates of persons dying intestate should undergo a more general and equal distribution than has hitherto prevailed in this State,

"II. Be it therefore Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina, and it is hereby Enacted by the authority of the same, That when any person shall die seized or possessed of, or having any right, title or interest in and to any estate or inheritance of land or other real estate in fee simple, and such person shall die intestate, his or her estate or inheritance, shall descend in the following manner, to wit: To all the sons to be equally divided amongst them, and for want of sons, to all the daughters to be divided amongst them equally, share and share alike,... " [See Walter Clark, The State Records of North Carolina, Volume XXIV, Laws 1777-1788]
So What

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Jan 1, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed my point entirely. You just ass umed it. No surprise.
But as long as you asked. Seeing as you believe so heavily in the tenets of the Founding Fathers;
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010...
What you will find is today's inheritance tax doesn't go near as far the the founder's principles believed it should;
"Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" ó in fact an inheritance tax ó on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
You should be glad not all of the philosophies of [some of] the founders have been followed through with.
Nothing is more frustrating than someone using anothers information when that information is factually incorrect in the first place. You are a victim of the progressives misinformation machine. As presented, your link is completely wrongly and a perversion what was really going on.

The truth won't support your argument so you just twist it and hope people can't tell.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of299
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

14 Users are viewing the Grand Rapids Forum right now

Search the Grand Rapids Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Local News Women (Apr '09) 24 min Jef helms 2,255
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 10 hr Go Blue Forever 916
Amazing $5,000 Kitchen Makeover 20 hr Rick 1
What about the Malaysian jetliner? Tue Go Tigers 17
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Tue Plughead 922
What Obamacare's Advertising Is Costing We Taxp... Tue Jim 10
Report: ACA Will Increase Costs of Small Busine... Tue Jim 200
•••
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••