okie, The dead don't pay taxes. Pay is a verb.
Maybe not personally, but someone in charge of their estate does pay the tax for them. Again, not based on income. And the estate tax is considered to be a progressive tax.
Some consider it to be the most progressive of all taxes. Proof again that a progressive tax can be any kind of tax, including a sales tax, and a progressive tax does not have to be based on income. If it did, an estate tax could not be considered progressive by definition. Break out of your pre-conceived notions, people!
Wrong as always. If there were no heirs, there would be no tax. Therefore, only the living pay taxes.
The administrator of the estate pays the tax, imposter, before the heirs receive the money. You can't pay tax on anything you don't have yet. Go ahead and play word games, but regardless of the side argument as to who pays the tax, it isn't based on income anyway, so you still lose the main argument.
okie wrote:The administrator of the estate pays the tax, imposter, before the heirs receive the money. You can't pay tax on anything you don't have yet. Go ahead and play word games, but regardless of the side argument as to who pays the tax, it isn't based on income anyway, so you still lose the main argument.
Of course you can pay taxes on what you don't have yet. Everyone that gets a paycheck with taxes taken out has paid taxes on something they didn't have when the taxes were paid.
Word games? Maybe you need to look at your own statements when it comes to word games. You have done nothing but play games as you tried to claim that a sales tax is progressive but never showed HOW, then dropped it when I pointed you to the spending per category based on incomes that proved spending wasn't progressive. Then you tried to get around the argument of progressive is based on income by bringing up the estate tax. When we point out it is based on people receiving money you argue we are playing word games. The dead don't keep the money. The amount the heir receives is reduced by the tax. Workers don't receive their entire pay. The amount they are paid is reduced by taxation before they get the money. No one would argue that the employer is paying the income tax and it has nothing to do with the employees salary, would they?
We are arguing over how you wish to look at something. Along the lines of your argument, an employer pays 7.5% of the Social Security Medicare tax and the employee pays 7.5% out of his paycheck. I am correct to say the employer pays the 7.5%, and I agree if the employer did not pay the tax, he could afford to pay the employee an additional 7.5%. Whether he would or not in all cases, we do not know. To be sure, a self employed person pays the entire 15%. My example of the employer paying the 7.5% would be akin to the estate tax wherein if the government did not tax the estate, the estate could pay the heirs more money. In practice, you have a point, but technically, I believe I am correct because it was never the money belonging to the heirs when taxed. Your analogy is not correct because the tax being deducted from a person's paycheck is in fact their money when taxed.
My whole point is to argue that your insistance that whether any tax is progressive or regressive has to be judged by a person's income does not hold up. I clearly have shown one very progressive tax, the estate tax, that clearly is not, so why do you continue to insist that all others need be? I can see the reasoning of basing the judgement on income for an income tax, but I do not think it is so clear for other taxes not based on income. An estate tax is not; it is based on the estate, which is what is being taxed. I am sure you can find people that agree with you, but I think my argument is consistent and logical.
I vote we suspend the argument, and agree to disagree.
okie, Your assumption that your arguments are based on logic on almost any topic shows how ignorant you are. Haven't you ever wondered why your position is usually 180 degrees off from most others? Nah!
Imposter, in case you haven't figured it out, this forum does not accurately represent a cross section of opinion. Thankfully.
okie, It's not only this thread; it includes all the others you engage yourself in.
I at least provide a little balance to the kooky left here, imposter. Not everyone agrees with you. Get over it.
Disagreements of issues is not what we're talking about. But, that's something too spacial for you to understand.
Is that "spacial" or "special," imposter? I'm just trying to get with the program and learn from you here. So I need to clarify your lecture points.
Darn stock market is almost half way to 14,000 after just going over 13. What is the matter with those guys, don't they know the economy is in shambles, there is a housing bubble, everybody is out of work, and has even given up on even looking for work, etc. etc. etc.? They need to call imposter.
By the way, imposter, if you know anyone that needs work, tell them to become a nurse or trained in the medical field in some way, and they can find work almost anywhere. Unless of course they don't show up for work, have a serious drug problem, or whatever.
okie wrote:Darn stock market is almost half way to 14,000 after just going over 13. What is the matter with those guys, don't they know the economy is in shambles, there is a housing bubble, everybody is out of work, and has even given up on even looking for work, etc. etc. etc.? They need to call imposter.
So honestly okie, do you really think the market (DOW)
is a good indicator of how well the economy is doing?
Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's. It is one indicator, not the only indicator. But I would rather the market be going good than bad, as long as it is not a false bubble. The bubble of the 90's had to be corrected, and it took time, I do agree with that.
okie wrote:Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's. It is one indicator, not the only indicator. But I would rather the market be going good than bad, as long as it is not a false bubble. The bubble of the 90's had to be corrected, and it took time, I do agree with that.
Even though the Dow broke records in the 90's, the gap between the rich and poor shrank and the standard of living for all Americans rose. That's why we thought it was a good economy at the time.
Contrast that to today - you see the
exact opposite. No group has had a significant rise in either wages, savings or standard of living, besides the wealthy.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's. It is one indicator, not the only indicator. But I would rather the market be going good than bad, as long as it is not a false bubble. The bubble of the 90's had to be corrected, and it took time, I do agree with that.
Even though the Dow broke records in the 90's, the gap between the rich and poor shrank and the standard of living for all Americans rose. That's why we thought it was a good economy at the time.
Contrast that to today - you see the
exact opposite. No group has had a significant rise in either wages, savings or standard of living, besides the wealthy.
Cycloptichorn
Isn't that the segment of the population this administration represents?
au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's. It is one indicator, not the only indicator. But I would rather the market be going good than bad, as long as it is not a false bubble. The bubble of the 90's had to be corrected, and it took time, I do agree with that.
Even though the Dow broke records in the 90's, the gap between the rich and poor shrank and the standard of living for all Americans rose. That's why we thought it was a good economy at the time.
Contrast that to today - you see the
exact opposite. No group has had a significant rise in either wages, savings or standard of living, besides the wealthy.
Cycloptichorn
Isn't that the segment of the population this administration represents?
Them, and the fools who are convinced that they are going to be in that segment sooner rather than later
Cycloptichorn
Do you have data to link to show what you are claiming, cyclops? I won't say you are wrong, but just want to see which graph or set of data you are basing it on.
okie needs evidence that the spread is widening between the rich and the poor. It's quite evident, he's either very rich or hasn't been keeping up with the news; it's common knowledge to most.
In today's San Jose Mercury News, front page, there's an article showing the increase in defaults on mortgage loans by ZIP code. All these people are benefiting from the rise in the DOW, because we're one of the highest paid in the US - San Jose at about $75,000.
