0
   

HUCKABEE'S FAIRTAX PROPOSAL

 
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 12:36 pm
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced this week that he plans to give away 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to charity. Buffett explained his motivation in today's New York Times:

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society," he said. "At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."


Buffett is entitled to his opinion and he may do with his money whatever he wishes.

I am a great believer in the idea of noblesse oblige and I have been looking for ways to use the money that my uncle left me for some educational or community service use. But it not your right or responsibility to tell Buffett, me or anyone else what we must or even what we should do with money that belongs to us.


So the concept of taxation, re-distribution of wealth, middle class, is repulsive to you. Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 01:22 pm
woiyo wrote:
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced this week that he plans to give away 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to charity. Buffett explained his motivation in today's New York Times:

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society," he said. "At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."


Buffett is entitled to his opinion and he may do with his money whatever he wishes.

I am a great believer in the idea of noblesse oblige and I have been looking for ways to use the money that my uncle left me for some educational or community service use. But it not your right or responsibility to tell Buffett, me or anyone else what we must or even what we should do with money that belongs to us.


So the concept of taxation, re-distribution of wealth, middle class, is repulsive to you. Have a nice day.


If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor? Why not simply have the government seize all wealth and property in existence and give every individual an equal portion?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 02:10 pm
Huckabee also promises that, as president, he would require social security recipients to earn their benefits. If physically able, they would have to report to a federal facility to work a minimum numbers of hours per week. Then, some paid civil servants could be fired. For example, recipients could report to post offices to move around mail sacks, act as couriers at the CIA, pursue tax delinquents at the IRS, etc.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 02:20 pm
Advocate wrote:
Huckabee also promises that, as president, he would require social security recipients to earn their benefits. If physically able, they would have to report to a federal facility to work a minimum numbers of hours per week. Then, some paid civil servants could be fired. For example, recipients could report to post offices to move around mail sacks, act as couriers at the CIA, pursue tax delinquents at the IRS, etc.


You would have to work for Social Security benefits even after having lost pay over the years while your employer was forced to pay FICA taxes? Huckabee is an absolute fool. Yet one more reason why I won't be voting for the Republican candidate no matter how bad the Democrat nominee is.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 02:30 pm
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"When she dies I will have pay estate taxes on what she is able to leave me.

The estate tax is the most unfair tax imaginable and the income tax isn't much different. Both should be abolished"

Nothing in your post indicates that your Mom's net worth exceeds $2,000,000. You will NOT be subject to Federl Estate Tax upon her death unless she exceeds that threshold.

Apparently, you do not understand the Federal Estate and Gift Tax system.


Then why did my mother have to pay estate taxes on her brother's estate? She had to fill out a tax return form for the estate and she had to send the IRS a check for taxes due. If it wasn't an estate tax what was it?

Income tax. Estates are not exempt from income tax. Inherited 401ks and IRAs are required to pay income tax just as if the deceased had taken the money out.

If she had to pay "estate tax" she would have inherited a couple of million dollars.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 02:31 pm
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced this week that he plans to give away 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to charity. Buffett explained his motivation in today's New York Times:

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society," he said. "At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."


Buffett is entitled to his opinion and he may do with his money whatever he wishes.

I am a great believer in the idea of noblesse oblige and I have been looking for ways to use the money that my uncle left me for some educational or community service use. But it not your right or responsibility to tell Buffett, me or anyone else what we must or even what we should do with money that belongs to us.


So the concept of taxation, re-distribution of wealth, middle class, is repulsive to you. Have a nice day.


If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor? Why not simply have the government seize all wealth and property in existence and give every individual an equal portion?


The concept of a progressive tax system makes perfect sense in this society. While you may not realize this, taxes are used to pay for things that everyone uses every day. So to make a blanket statement that we"seize wealth and give it to the poor" just further demonstrates you have no concepts of how a society should operate.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 02:39 pm
Interestingly, estates sometimes do earn income and are liable for income tax. They file Form 1041 in this case.

Form 706 is the return for the federal estate tax.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 02:43 pm
flaja wrote:

If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor? Why not simply have the government seize all wealth and property in existence and give every individual an equal portion?

Your characterization of the tax system is what is "rich". You don't seem to understand where and how the Federal government spends its money.

What percentage of the US budget goes to the "poor" in your viewpoint? What percent of those receiving SS are poor in your viewpoint?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 03:04 pm
woiyo wrote:
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced this week that he plans to give away 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to charity. Buffett explained his motivation in today's New York Times:

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society," he said. "At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."


Buffett is entitled to his opinion and he may do with his money whatever he wishes.

I am a great believer in the idea of noblesse oblige and I have been looking for ways to use the money that my uncle left me for some educational or community service use. But it not your right or responsibility to tell Buffett, me or anyone else what we must or even what we should do with money that belongs to us.


So the concept of taxation, re-distribution of wealth, middle class, is repulsive to you. Have a nice day.


If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor? Why not simply have the government seize all wealth and property in existence and give every individual an equal portion?


The concept of a progressive tax system makes perfect sense in this society. While you may not realize this, taxes are used to pay for things that everyone uses every day.


On the contrary.

I don't use food stamps, but I pay taxes to provide food stamps to others against my will.

I don't have children in school, but I pay taxes to fund both public and private schools in the state of Florida.

I don't have Medicare or Medicaid, but pay taxes to provide these things to others against my will.

I've never received AFDC, but I still have pay taxes so my neighbor (who has 2 illegitimate children) can receive AFDC against my will.

I've never ridden on AMTRAK, but my tax money subsidizes this federal boondoggle against my will.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 03:10 pm
I don't live in your state, but pay taxes to maintain roads there.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 03:16 pm
parados wrote:
What percentage of the US budget goes to the "poor" in your viewpoint?


My understanding is that since at least before the Reagan Administration more than half of the federal budget every year goes to pay for social spending and entitlements.

Quote:
What percent of those receiving SS are poor in your viewpoint?


Many people receive Social Security benefits without ever having paid anything in to Social Security. People who were declared to be disabled for the purpose of getting SSI at a young age fall into this category. People who receive widow's and orphan benefits often fit this category as well. Back in the mid-1960s my father's sister with 3 children was married to a roockie cop. That cop was killed in a car accident and left her something like $100,000 in life insurance (over $600,000 in 2006 money). But she also received a Social Security check for each of her kids until they turned 18. My aunt made more in Social Security than my mother was making by working 50-60 hours a week.

Furthermore, since money received in Social Security retirement benefits has historically been less than what the tax money paid in to Social Security would have generated if invested in the stock market, anyone who gets Social Security retirement benefits is poorer for the trouble.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 03:24 pm
flaja wrote:

On the contrary.

I don't use food stamps, but I pay taxes to provide food stamps to others against my will.

I don't have children in school, but I pay taxes to fund both public and private schools in the state of Florida.

I don't have Medicare or Medicaid, but pay taxes to provide these things to others against my will.

I've never received AFDC, but I still have pay taxes so my neighbor (who has 2 illegitimate children) can receive AFDC against my will.

I've never ridden on AMTRAK, but my tax money subsidizes this federal boondoggle against my will.

There it is.. the cry of a selfish ignoramus.


Why do I have to pay for stuff I never use. Gee. I never have needed the police, why should I pay for them? I have never had a fire, why should I pay for the fire department?

Only the truly ignorant can't see the hidden benefit.

Let's eliminate food stamps, that way those that are starving can steal directly from you instead.
Lets not educate the children of others, that way they won't get good jobs so will steal directly from you.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 03:27 pm
Maybe I can a refund of my taxes that were spent on Bush's war on Iraq.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 03:45 pm
flaja wrote:
parados wrote:
What percentage of the US budget goes to the "poor" in your viewpoint?


My understanding is that since at least before the Reagan Administration more than half of the federal budget every year goes to pay for social spending and entitlements.
I see. So everyone that gets an "entitlement" from the government is poor? Didn't you just tell us that your mother had to pay estate tax on her inheritance but gets SS disability? So which is it? Is she a rich mooch or poor disabled woman?

Quote:

Quote:
What percent of those receiving SS are poor in your viewpoint?


Many people receive Social Security benefits without ever having paid anything in to Social Security.
Really? Maybe you should check out the REAL facts like the facts of the SS law. No retired person qualifies for SS without a benefit being earned through work credits by either that person or a spouse.
Quote:
People who were declared to be disabled for the purpose of getting SSI at a young age fall into this category.
Either they or their parents have paid into the system. Your claim that nothing was paid in is just BS.
Quote:
People who receive widow's and orphan benefits often fit this category as well.

What a crock. How does being a "widow" make one poor let alone mean nothing was paid in?
Quote:
Back in the mid-1960s my father's sister with 3 children was married to a roockie cop. That cop was killed in a car accident and left her something like $100,000 in life insurance (over $600,000 in 2006 money). But she also received a Social Security check for each of her kids until they turned 18. My aunt made more in Social Security than my mother was making by working 50-60 hours a week.
I guess she wasn't poor then, was she?
Quote:

Furthermore, since money received in Social Security retirement benefits has historically been less than what the tax money paid in to Social Security would have generated if invested in the stock market, anyone who gets Social Security retirement benefits is poorer for the trouble.
I see... So in other words your statement about all the poor people receiving benefits was nothing but your usual BS. Your own anecdotes often contradict your rhetorical BS.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 05:15 pm
Certain people, such as Flaja, should not be allowed to vote. We should administer a test to show basic knowledge and intelligence.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 05:16 pm
parados wrote:
I see. So everyone that gets an "entitlement" from the government is poor?


Not necessarily poor in that you need mot be impoverished to receive public entitlement benefits, but anyone who receives such benefits is likely dependent on the government- which is what the government wants.

Quote:
Didn't you just tell us that your mother had to pay estate tax on her inheritance but gets SS disability?


Unlike people who begin receiving SSI at a young age my mother worked for 30 years- usually 50-60 hours per week during which time she lost pay because her employers had to pay Social Security taxes. Had that tax money gone into a retirement/disability account with her name on it, my mother would be far better off. She is poorer than she would have been otherwise because of the government's tax and spend policy.

Quote:
Really? Maybe you should check out the REAL facts like the facts of the SS law. No retired person qualifies for SS without a benefit being earned through work credits by either that person or a spouse.


But you can get a Social Security disability check without having paid anything into the Social Security system. I have a 76 year old friend who never did anything more than waitress work and she has received a Social Security disability check since about the time she was 30. So even if she started work at age 15, she paid Social Security taxes for only about 15 years, but she has received Social Security benefits for over 40 years.

And note that my uncle was a roockie cop. When he died he hadn't been on the job for more than 10 years, but his widow collected orphan checks for about 10 years for her oldest child, 15 years for her middle child and 18 years for her youngest child. What she received in Social Security benefits was far out of proportion to what her husband had paid into the Social Security system.

Quote:
Either they or their parents have paid into the system.


You don't get it do you? The amount of money you have paid into the system does not determine your eligibility period. My elderly friend paid about no more than 15 years' worth of taxes and has received about 40 years in disability benefits. She passed the break-even point a long time ago and since then all other taxpayers have been paying her bill.

Quote:
What a crock. How does being a "widow" make one poor let alone mean nothing was paid in?


I didn't say that nothing was paid in. I said that too much was paid out in proportion to the little that had been paid in. My aunt and cousins were allowed to live off of the largesse of the American taxpayer courtesy of the Social Security income redistribution scheme.

Furthermore, Social Security has always been this way. When the Social Security law was enacted the government began paying out benefits immediately. The first people to receive Social Security benefits had never paid anything into the Social Security system. Social Security began as a socialist income redistribution system and has been a socialist income redistribution system ever since.

Quote:
I guess she wasn't poor then, was she?


When did I say she was? The people that were poor were the working people like my mother who had to work and pay taxes that supported my aunt's income.

Quote:
I see... So in other words your statement about all the poor people receiving benefits was nothing but your usual BS. Your own anecdotes often contradict your rhetorical BS.


Huh? Because most Americans at any given time are not receiving Social Security and they loose money by paying Social Security taxes (rather than investing that tax money for themselves) anyone who receives Social Security is made poorer by the government and its liberal allies.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 05:22 pm
To qualify for SS and, I think, disability, you need only 40 quarters (10 years) of creditable service. So the waitress working 15 years would more than qualify for something.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 06:17 pm
flaja wrote:

If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor?


flaja wrote:

Not necessarily poor in that you need mot be impoverished to receive public entitlement benefits, but anyone who receives such benefits is likely dependent on the government- which is what the government wants.

So in other words your first statement was rhetorical bull ****.


flaja wrote:

I didn't say that nothing was paid in. I said that too much was paid out in proportion to the little that had been paid in.


flaja wrote:


Many people receive Social Security benefits without ever having paid anything in to Social Security.


Of course... you didn't really say what you said. Rolling Eyes

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you deny things you obviously said?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 06:38 pm
Advocate wrote:
To qualify for SS and, I think, disability, you need only 40 quarters (10 years) of creditable service. So the waitress working 15 years would more than qualify for something.


Work 10 years and have a guaranteed living for 40+?

The math doesn't compute and this is why Social Security is going broke.

Contrary to liberal doctrine, we cannot tax and spend our way to universal prosperity- impoverished socialism yes, prosperity no.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 06:43 pm
parados wrote:
flaja wrote:

If it is OK to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor, explain how and why it isn't equally OK to seize the wealth of the middle class and give it to the poor?


flaja wrote:

Not necessarily poor in that you need mot be impoverished to receive public entitlement benefits, but anyone who receives such benefits is likely dependent on the government- which is what the government wants.

So in other words your first statement was rhetorical bull ****.


flaja wrote:

I didn't say that nothing was paid in. I said that too much was paid out in proportion to the little that had been paid in.


flaja wrote:


Many people receive Social Security benefits without ever having paid anything in to Social Security.


Of course... you didn't really say what you said. Rolling Eyes

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you deny things you obviously said?


Now I remember why I was avoiding your posts. Your logic and thinking skills are excelled only by your vocabulary.

You need not be "poor" in order to be eligible to receive benefits from some of the government's income redistribution schemes. But the benefits are morally wrong regardless of whom the recipients are.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 12:26:34