30
   

It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!!

 
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:08 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
This I still disagree with. My children should be entitled to my stuff without the govt getting involved as should your children be entitled to your stuff without paying taxes on it.


Buy why do you think so? Upon what basis are your children entitled to your money, tax-free?

Let me start your argument for you. They are entitled to the money because you wish to give it to them, and it's yours to give. But why are they entitled to it tax-free? Nearly every other form of monetary exchange is taxed.

Why should inheritance not be taxed when gifts are?


Because usually inheritance is in the form of physical possessions and not cash. That can create an undue burden upon the survivors of then selling assets to cover the tax and that exchange is also taxed as income. Survivors should not be burdened by such things in my opinion. It's tough enough dealing with an estate without the added bureaucracy of govt getting involved.

As an example, I have a friend whose father has spent his entire adult life collecting civil war memorabilia. His collection is valued at well over 25 million dollars and when he passes, that collection will be passed down to his son, my friend, who will then have to pay taxes on it. He does not have the money to pay that tax and why should he? His father paid taxes on the collection as he purchased the pieces. Why should that collection be taxed merely because it passed from father to son?
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:28 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Because usually inheritance is in the form of physical possessions and not cash. That can create an undue burden upon the survivors of then selling assets to cover the tax and that exchange is also taxed as income. Survivors should not be burdened by such things in my opinion. It's tough enough dealing with an estate without the added bureaucracy of govt getting involved.


This is a problem with the taxation of gifts of dubious liquidity, not with inheritance tax. I agree that taxation of gifts of dubious liquidity is wrong but this doesn't indict all inheritance tax.

If you win a one-on-one game of basketball against Michael Jordan as a prize and are taxed on it I think this is a tough tax to justify, given that though this event indubitably has some value it's not a very liquid value and in this case winning a prize like that can be a tax burden that you can't reasonably pay. I disagree with these situations but it isn't because inheritance tax is wrong, it is because the valuations the IRS is using is wrong.

For example, recently a painting/sculpture (Canyon, by Robert Rauschenberg) was valued by the IRS at $65 million, with a $29 million tax bill. However it is illegal to sell it as it contains a bald-eagle in the sculpture.

This is clearly not a just valuation by the IRS, but the fact that the art was part of a collection worth over a billion dollars that these individuals inherited does not make the tax bill wrong, the fact that the tax bill is an arbitrary valuation that the taxed can't reasonably realize is what makes it wrong.

Quote:
As an example, I have a friend whose father has spent his entire adult life collecting civil war memorabilia. His collection is valued at well over 25 million dollars and when he passes, that collection will be passed down to his son, my friend, who will then have to pay taxes on it. He does not have the money to pay that tax and why should he? His father paid taxes on the collection as he purchased the pieces.


I hear you. This is a tough problem where the value is decreased by the sentimental value. I think that there should be a way that these kinds of gifts are not taxed unless they are sold but determining what is such a gift of largely sentimental value or not is going to be a hard one (many are surely sentimental about their houses).

I think that one way to fix all these kinds of situations is to tax only the realization of the value but even then this is hard to determine as keeping art or a house is in one way to realize this value.

Anyway, my point is that this is an understandably undesirable situation but not inherently because it's an inheritance tax.

Quote:
Why should that collection be taxed merely because it passed from father to son?


The question that I think is missing from these arguments is almost always whether we need more or less taxes. Your argument should not be whether this should or should not be taxed but whether we need more or less taxes. And if you claim less you should know where you are taking it from (not just foreign aid, that is a rounding error. You need to pick the social program or military project you are gutting).

I argue for taxes about where they are now, and not raising them, because I think the US military budgets should be cannibalized before taxes are raised. I do not think we need to spend that much money killing people around the world and would prefer to spend less there than raise taxes.

Now you seem to want less taxes in general, so make the case for them. Where you are going to cut spending, where revenue is going to come from etc because that is the reasonable answer to why anything should be taxed, whether it is gift from father to son or salary from employer to employee.

The point of taxes is the societal benefit that the civic platform it pays for represents. The arguments should be about the nature of the civic we construct and not the ideological nature of taxation.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:30 am
Upon what basis do you assert that the collection was taxed when it was acquired? If you purchase a valuable item, that purchase is not taxed by the Federal government, although, of course, there might be a sales tax. If you then sell your valuable item, you pay a capital gains tax. If you have never before reported capital gains, the capital gains tax you will pay will be 5%. If you routinely, or at least more than once, make a profit on a capital gain, you pay 15%. Neither of those are onerous burdens. Your friend could well sell a portion of the collection, sufficient to pay any other tax obligations, and pay only 5% on the profit from the capital gains. Unless, of course, he routinely files taxes for capital gains--in which case any sympathy i might have had will evaporate.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:41 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
As an example, I have a friend whose father has spent his entire adult life collecting civil war memorabilia. His collection is valued at well over 25 million dollars and when he passes, that collection will be passed down to his son, my friend, who will then have to pay taxes on it. He does not have the money to pay that tax and why should he? His father paid taxes on the collection as he purchased the pieces. Why should that collection be taxed merely because it passed from father to son?


Aside from the fact that the only taxes your friend paid on these appreciating assets were sales taxes, it's pretty foolish to wait until he dies for it to transfer to his son. If your friend's dad were to do so over the course of several years, he could avoid most if not all the taxes on the collection.

Not only that, but your friend - who stands to inherit a tremendous amount of money - could sell off part of the collection in order to afford the taxes on the rest. This isn't exactly a negative outcome for him; after all, he did nothing to earn any of that wealth.

Cycloptichorn
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:49 am
Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan

By DAVID A. STOCKMAN

Published: August 13, 2012
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:50 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, I'm talking about Ryan's 2010 'RoadMap to Prosperity.' Here's the text from his own website:


The Ryan plan for 2012 does not include the zero deductions anymore.

http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf


Okay, now back on topic.

You are correct that the latest version of Ryan's plan doesn't include that anymore. But, it's still the guy's basic ideology - it's what he would put into law if he could. And it's the plan that supposedly established him as a 'budget wonk' in the House.

As for his current budget, it's incredibly drastic in the calls for cuts.

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2016769412dac970b-550wi

Quote:
[L]ook at all the arguing around the sequestration—the automatic cuts scheduled to take effect next year. Though there focus is exclusively the defense cuts, R[epublican]s in particular are fighting these cuts, including members who voted for them! All the sudden, government spending is critically important for jobs!

Well, that holds for non-defense spending too, and it holds times a factor of three (see figure) for the cuts in the Ryan budget. So when you hear that we can cut taxes trillions beyond the Bush cuts, increase defense spending, and make up for it all by cutting spending and closing loopholes, think about the dust up were into right now over scheduled cuts majorities in both parties actually voted for.


http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/ryans-spending-cuts-and-the-sequester/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JaredBernstein+%28Jared+Bernstein%29

Ryan's plan leads to the absolute elimination of almost every discretionary function of government, while expanding defense spending and increasing tax cuts for the rich. It's going to be very, very difficult for Romney to defend this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:51 am
I also got this from Politico in my email this morning - can't vouch for the accuracy, but it's interesting nonetheless -

Quote:
GOP PROS PRIVATELY PANICKING ABOUT RYAN PICK: "Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren't being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington:Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right - and a huge chance of going horribly wrong ," Alex Burns, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin report. "In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives - old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike - the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election. It is not that the public professions of excitement about the Ryan selection are totally insincere. It is that many of the most optimistic Republican operatives will privately acknowledge that their views are being shaped more by fingers-crossed hope than by a hard-headed appraisal of what's most likely to happen. And the more pessimistic strategists don't even feign good cheer: They think the Ryan pick is a disaster for the GOP. Many of these people don't care that much about Romney - they always felt he faced an improbable path to victory - but are worried that Ryan's vocal views about overhauling Medicare will be a millstone for other GOP candidates in critical House and Senate races."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:22 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not only that, but your friend - who stands to inherit a tremendous amount of money - could sell off part of the collection in order to afford the taxes on the rest. This isn't exactly a negative outcome for him; after all, he did nothing to earn any of that wealth.

Cycloptichorn


No, he stands to inherit a collection his father put together over many, many years. Though there is some civil war money, it is mostly guns and weapons from the time. So, he does not stand to inherit much money at all. Just an environmentally sealed safe room full of stuff.

"after all, he did nothing to earn any of that wealth."

This is one of the major things I dislike about the liberal ideology.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:22 am
@Robert Gentel,
I would no problem with a drastic reduction in military spending.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:31 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not only that, but your friend - who stands to inherit a tremendous amount of money - could sell off part of the collection in order to afford the taxes on the rest. This isn't exactly a negative outcome for him; after all, he did nothing to earn any of that wealth.

Cycloptichorn


No, he stands to inherit a collection his father put together over many, many years. Though there is some civil war money, it is mostly guns and weapons from the time. So, he does not stand to inherit much money at all. Just an environmentally sealed safe room full of stuff.


If the collection is really worth 25 million dollars, than the guy is inheriting 25 million worth of assets. There's no significant difference between an asset and cash.

It also places him in a position that's far, far above 99% of the population. He could sell that collection and never work another day in his life. I think you are going to have a hard time finding a lot of pity over this guys' problems.

Quote:
"after all, he did nothing to earn any of that wealth."

This is one of the major things I dislike about the liberal ideology.


Too bad - it's the truth. While that may be inconvenient or unwelcomed by you, it's a fact - kids do nothing to earn the money they are transferred by a dead parent. They have no greater claim on those assets than anyone else in society does; upon what moral and ethical justification do you base this pronouncement that wealth should remain in the bloodlines that earned it, for infinity?

The inheritance tax is one of our nation's oldest taxes, and it's there for a reason.

Cycloptichorn
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 12:05 pm
@McGentrix,
Compared to Ryan, Romney wants to spend much more on defense, and much less on everything else

Mitt Romney is trying to distance himself from Paul Ryan’s budget. “I have my budget plan. And that’s the budget we’re going to run on,” he said on Sunday. What’s the difference between the two? Well, in broad strokes, Romney would spend much more on defense and much less on everything else.

Romney hasn’t released many details about his budget, but he’s laid out a few core principles. He would decrease and cap all federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, down from its current level of 24 percent of GDP. Within that, core defense spending would have a floor of 4 percent of GDP, leaving 16 percent for everything else.

According to those principles, Romney would increase defense spending to $7.9 trillion between 2013 and 2022, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. By comparison, Ryan would spend $5.7 trillion on core defense over the same period—only 72 percent of what Romney wants to spend.

But Romney would also spend far less than Ryan on non-defense programs, including entitlements. To stick to his budgeting principles, Romney would have to cut $7 trillion from all non-defense programs, and he would have to cut $9.6 trillion if he wanted to balance the budget, as he’s also promised, the CBPP says. The Ryan plan would cut $5.2 trillion from entitlements and non-defense discretionary spending. “Thus, Governor Romney’s ten-year cuts would range from one-third deeper than those in the Ryan budget to almost twice as deep as the Ryan cuts,” the CBPP concludes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/romney-ryan-budget.jpg




(Source: Figures from CBPP)

Romney, however, doesn’t go into the specifics as to what programs he’d actually cut. His running mate does: Ryan’s budget gets nearly 62 percent of its non-defense savings from Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs that aid lower-income Americans, the CBPP says. Romney would have to cut far deeper into those and other programs to achieve his budget targets.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 12:52 pm
Do you all think that when conservative tv and radio ads are cranked up that the average voter will understand the screwing their going to get because they wont check the politicians previous beliefs? The fact that in an election year one should believe all politicians are liers seems to go over the head of almost everyone.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 01:51 pm
Well, one thing about Paul Ryan's choice as the GOP, Inc. VP candidate is that Gov. McDonnell of Virginia spent so much time and money kissing Romney's butt, to no avail.

Oh well, maybe there will be a cabinet position available to him. Like Secretary of Keeping Non-White, Non-Christian, and Females in their Places.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:24 am
Quote:
Mitt Romney has been talking up Rep. Paul Ryan’s bipartisan credentials since he unveiled the congressman as his running mate early Saturday. But the mild-mannered Wisconsinite’s record reveals a near-total absence of Democratic support for his many ambitious proposals, very few of which have won enough support to become law.

“This guy’s a real leader,” Romney told CBS News on Sunday. “He’s reached across the aisle. He’s worked with Democrats, Republicans. Tried to take on the toughest issues America faces.”

On the campaign trail in Florida Monday, Romney again praised Ryan for “working across the aisle” to find solutions to the nation’s problems.

The argument belies Ryan’s storied record as a no-compromise conservative ideologue, an approach that has become more rigid during the Obama administration. He has become his party’s visionary on sweeping proposals to remake the federal budget, wedding nearly all Republicans to a blueprint that has failed to win over a single Democrat.

In almost 13 years as a congressman, Ryan has proposed just two bills that have passed and become law, one of which involved renaming a post office in his district. It’s a low number by any standard, but particularly for a chairman of the powerful Budget Committee. He has introduced many bills, including a Social Security privatization measure in 2004 so far-reaching that the Bush White House called it “irresponsible.”

Statistics peg Ryan as a staunch conservative. According to the DW-Nominate metric, Ryan’s voting record makes him almost as conservative as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and more conservative than Rep. Allen West (R-FL). By the same measurement, Ryan is the most right-wing member of Congress to be selected for vice president since at least 1900, according to data analyzed by the New York Times.

Ryan has also helped thwart bipartisan efforts at debt reduction, an issue he frequently touts as a top national priority. He attacked and voted against the Bowles-Simpson deficit plan in late 2010, which would have reduced the nation’s budget shortfall by trillions of dollars with a combination of spending cuts and new revenues. “It does not fix the problem,” he has said.

The Romney campaign’s lone evidence that Ryan is a bipartisan leader amounts to a vague blueprint he co-wrote with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) late last year that mirrors key elements of his Medicare plan. Wyden voted against Ryan’s budget and said Romney’s characterization of their work was dishonest.

“Governor Romney is talking nonsense. Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts,” Wyden’s office said in a statement. “I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

Even in his lukewarm way, Wyden remains the only Democrat to support any aspect of Ryan’s Medicare vision, which partially privatizes the program.


source

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 08:44 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:

No, he stands to inherit a collection his father put together over many, many years. Though there is some civil war money, it is mostly guns and weapons from the time. So, he does not stand to inherit much money at all. Just an environmentally sealed safe room full of stuff.

If he has the money to keep paying for storage then he can certainly find the money to pay the tax even if he needs to sell some parts of the collection.

I doubt the collection has the value to make it taxable under current law.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 12:00 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

No, he stands to inherit a collection his father put together over many, many years. Though there is some civil war money, it is mostly guns and weapons from the time. So, he does not stand to inherit much money at all. Just an environmentally sealed safe room full of stuff.

If he has the money to keep paying for storage then he can certainly find the money to pay the tax even if he needs to sell some parts of the collection.

I doubt the collection has the value to make it taxable under current law.


The room was an addition to his house. His dad is a doctor, not short on money for capital investments to the house.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 01:56 pm
@McGentrix,
Then he shouldn't be short of money to pay the inheritance tax. I don't see the problem you are whining about.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 02:54 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Then he shouldn't be short of money to pay the inheritance tax. I don't see the problem you are whining about.

Because you're destroying small businesses and punishing job creators and Obama is a socialist!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
I'll let Stephen King respond to that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You keep saying he should sell part of the collection, but you haven't made the case as to WHY.

Why should anyone be forced to sell anything inherited, just to pay an arbitrary tax?
If any part of that collection was bought from a dealer or a public auction, or anywhere else except another private collector, the price included tax.
So why should the son pay tax on the items again?
Sales tax is a percentage of the purchase price, so the govt got their money then.
To decide that they want more after death on something that has already been taxed is wrong.
 

Related Topics

Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:29:13