30
   

It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!!

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:38 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
arbitrary tax

What evidence do you have that it is any more arbitrary than any other tax?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:39 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
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.

And that dealer paid tax when he or she bought it, and the dealer before that, and the dealer before that....

This is just another case of an asset changing hands.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:46 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
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?

I've got a better question: why not? Double taxation happens all the time, and it's no big deal. We pay income tax on our money when we earn it and sales tax when we spend it and fuel tax if we spend it on gasoline and alcohol tax if we spend it on booze and capital-gains tax when we invest it, and, and, and. The people we pay, in turn, pay income tax on our money when they get it, and from there, the cycle continues forever.

What's so special about the inheritance tax? And what principle of law or economics commands that every dollar be only taxed once throughout its lifetime? Cycloptichorn need not justify an exemption from a rule when you made up the rule out of thin air.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:53 pm
@mysteryman,
Damn MM. I have to pay sales tax when I use money I already paid income tax on. Why should I have to pay Sales tax?




By the way sales tax is a state tax. The feds didn't get any money.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:55 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
You keep saying he should sell part of the collection, but you haven't made the case as to WHY.

He doesn't have to sell any part of it. He only needs to pay taxes on it. How he comes up with the cash is entirely up to him. I would bet he can find a bank to let him borrow the cash based on the value of the assets.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 04:09 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

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?


The tax is not arbitrary; it's a tax on a transaction, just like any other the government would charge.

Quote:
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?


Assets and goods change hands many, many times over their lives; are you asserting that they should only be taxed the once?

For example, if Ford produces a car out of steel that was imported from China, and they pay tax on that steel, should you then not have to pay tax on the car when you buy it? If you then re-sell the car, should you not have to pay tax on THAT sale? I think, if you think about it, you'll realize that what you are proposing is a completely unworkable system of taxation. On the other hand, our current system works extremely well indeed.

Quote:
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.


You're clearly incorrect about this. What more, there are a wide variety of legal avenues available for those who are nearing death to transfer their assets to their children and others at reduced tax rates - if people bother to plan ahead.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 06:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

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?


The tax is not arbitrary; it's a tax on a transaction, just like any other the government would charge.


So, even though no money changes hands and the only actually transaction is a piece of paper that says someone else now owns something, that should be taxed at 35% of it's worth?

Quote:
Quote:
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?


Assets and goods change hands many, many times over their lives; are you asserting that they should only be taxed the once?

For example, if Ford produces a car out of steel that was imported from China, and they pay tax on that steel, should you then not have to pay tax on the car when you buy it? If you then re-sell the car, should you not have to pay tax on THAT sale? I think, if you think about it, you'll realize that what you are proposing is a completely unworkable system of taxation. On the other hand, our current system works extremely well indeed.


That's sales tax. Paid on cash transactions between companies. But, Ford does not pay taxes on the fender produced in Detroit and then shipped to Tennessee where it is added to a car. That's an internal transaction. The ford plant in location A built it, but the Ford plant in location B used it. Kind of like a family...

Quote:
Quote:
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.


You're clearly incorrect about this. What more, there are a wide variety of legal avenues available for those who are nearing death to transfer their assets to their children and others at reduced tax rates - if people bother to plan ahead.

Cycloptichorn


So you are in favor of tax loopholes then? So long as they are planned in advance?

I am still stuck on "after all, he did nothing to earn any of that wealth. "

What did the government do to earn any of the wealth?
A Good Year To Die
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:04 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:

So, even though no money changes hands and the only actually transaction is a piece of paper that says someone else now owns something, that should be taxed at 35% of it's worth?

Yes. If I do some work for you and you pay me with a car I owe income taxes on the value of that car. You don't avoid income taxes by bartering. It may be harder to track you down but legally you do owe taxes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:06 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:

What did the government do to earn any of the wealth?

I tell you what McG. You can get out of taxes if you promise to not use any government service for the next year.

No police, no fire, no internet, no listening to radio, no driving on roads, no food from stores since that will have used roads to get to the store.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:20 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
So, even though no money changes hands and the only actually transaction is a piece of paper that says someone else now owns something, that should be taxed at 35% of it's worth?

That's a distinction without a difference. Property changes hands. The government taxes the transaction. In one case, the property is a collection of valuables. In another case, it's pieces of green paper with images of dead presidents on them. Tomeydo, tomuhto.

McGentrix wrote:
What did the government do to earn any of the wealth?

Provide an economic and legal framework in which the wealth could be earned in the first place. Indeed, without government-enacted laws, there wouldn't be any property. All there would be is possessions. But the legal title to those possessions is an artifact of government.

McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 10:10 pm
@Thomas,
oh yeah, I forgot that govt does everything. My bad.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 07:37 am
@McGentrix,
I hear Afghanistan is nice this time of year.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 07:47 am
@DrewDad,
Afghanistian has more government than Somalia.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 08:10 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
oh yeah, I forgot that govt does everything. My bad


Must you always speak in hyperbole's? Who said or even hinted the government does everything? Government if run right provides the framework for individuals to attain their goals and dreams, some of those goals and dreams might not have been realized without government help in some fashion. Why has that basic truth turned into an argument from you folks?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 10:02 am
speaking of government roles

Paul Ryan gets Republican crowd to cheer publicly funded education

Quote:
You know what? I spent four formative years here in Ohio. I'm a product of the Ohio public university system. (Applause.) I'm a graduate of Miami of Ohio. (Applause.)

Paul Ryan, praising public education? Maybe the congressman really is a secret Obama plot.


Quote:
WE built Paul Ryan(21+ / 0-)



Look at his life:

Born into a family that made its fortune building railroad embankments, highways and airports - all funded by us, the taxpayers.

He attended a public high school - funded by us, the taxpayers.

He received Social Security (survivor) benefits from age 16 to 18 - funded by us, the taxpayers.

He attended Miami (Ohio) University - funded by us, the taxpayers.

In the 20 years since he graduated from college, Ryan has spent 14 as a congressman and several more as a congressional aide - funded by us, the taxpayers.

His entire non-taxpayer-funded life consists of a couple years working for conservative 'think-tanks' in Washington, and a year doing marketing for the family business (funded by us, the taxpayers).

We built Paul Ryan.

And now that he has achieved his (taxpayer-funded) American dream, his life ambition is to prevent as many people from doing the same as he possibly can.

What an American hero!

Cheers.


Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

by databob on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:14:17 AM PDT
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 11:06 am
@mysteryman,
I paid sales tax when I bought my last car. Why should I be taxed every year to renew my tags?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 12:34 pm
I say, why should the government tax us for anything. They should just hand out assault rifles and ammo to all of us, and then disband. If your house catches fire, we'll all come over to tear it down before the fire spreads. If you stand in our way, we'll shoot your commie, hippie ass.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 02:54 pm
@Thomas,
"Why not?" is a better question?

You're suggesting that government intrusion into the lives of citizens should be based on whether or not the citizen can effectively argue that it is unnecessary or unfair rather than government demonstrating why they should?

A difference without distinction?

I think not.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You're suggesting that government intrusion into the lives of citizens should be based on whether or not the citizen can effectively argue that it is unnecessary or unfair rather than government demonstrating why they should?

Are you disputing that we have a need for the government to collect taxes?

If you accept that we need a government (of whatever size), and you accept that it will support itself via taxes (of whatever kind), then yes it is a distinction without a difference.

Make a reasoned case for why this type of transaction should be exempt from taxation, because you've already admitted that taxation is reasonable and necessary.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 06:28 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON-- In a television interview with WCPO Cincinnati, Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) directly contradicted an Associated Press report that said he had sought stimulus funds for his congressional district, while at the same time publicly decrying the bill as a "wasteful spending spree."

"No, I never asked for stimulus," Ryan said when questioned on reports that he had sought funds.

Ryan's statement directly counters the evidence of four letters obtained by the AP which the congressman wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, praising energy programs supported by the stimulus and requesting funds for initiatives in his district.

Ryan's private praise for Department of Energy programs and his written requests for stimulus funds contradict not only his public criticism of the 2009 stimulus bill, but also many of the budget priorities he has laid out, including cuts to investments in green technologies.

The Boston Globe reported that in 2010, after writing several letters to federal departments requesting stimulus funds for his district, Ryan told a caller on Boston talk radio show WBZ Nightside with Dan Rea that he would never vote against the stimulus bill and "then write to the government to ask them to send us money."

Ryan went on to state that he "did not request any stimulus money."

Raising further questions about the vice presidential candidate's claim today that he never sought stimulus money, Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck referred AP to previous explanations by the congressman's office that by requesting funds Ryan was simply "providing a legitimate constituent service."

"If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job," Ryan's office said when first asked about the funding requests by the Wall Street Journal in 2010.

UPDATE: 11:59 p.m. --
Ryan responded Thursday night with a statement that said the letters "should have been handled differently."

"After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled," Ryan said in the statement.

"This is why I didn't recall the letters earlier," he added. "But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that. Regardless, it's clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the president is asking to do it all over again."


links to back up statements at the source
0 Replies
 
 

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 08/05/2020 at 07:57:54