Second R Debate

#76
#76
btw, that's a very cool site where you can find how elected officials voted and what they said on certain issues. I highly recommend it.
 
#77
#77
JayVols said:
How many people does this actually impact? Serious question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Not as many now that the exclusion has increased, but the number is probably higher than you think.
 
#78
#78
JayVols said:
How many people does this actually impact? Serious question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

apparently quite a few since the democrats kick and scream every time a repeal or reduction of the inheritance tax is proposed
 
#79
#79
MG1968 said:
apparently quite a few since the democrats kick and scream every time a repeal or reduction of the inheritance tax is proposed
Click to expand...

I really don't think most Americans have to worry about the 'death' tax. What are the current applicable inheretance amounts? I know I could google it, but just wondering if anyone knows off the top of their head.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#80
#80
JayVols said:
I really don't think most Americans have to worry about the 'death' tax. What are the current applicable inheretance amounts? I know I could google it, but just wondering if anyone knows off the top of their head.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So let's flip the logic. If it applies to so few how valuable is it as a source of revenue? Also, why are we okay with confiscating the wealth of so few if we aren't going to apply it to all? Seems discriminatory...
 
#81
#81
JayVols said:
I really don't think most Americans have to worry about the 'death' tax. What are the current applicable inheretance amounts? I know I could google it, but just wondering if anyone knows off the top of their head.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I believe it came back at $5 million this year after being completely gone in 2010. It's been as low as $600,000 several years ago.

It has always seemed to me to be one of the most illogical taxes: taxing wealth which has been amassed on an after tax basis.
 
#82
#82
volinbham said:
So let's flip the logic. If it applies to so few how valuable is it as a source of revenue? Also, why are we okay with confiscating the wealth of so few if we aren't going to apply it to all? Seems discriminatory...
Click to expand...

It may very well be discriminatory. I wasn't advocating in favor of or against. Was just curious. One thing that I don't like is the term 'death tax'. It conjures the image of taxing everyone to die. Very misleading.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#83
#83
GAVol said:
I believe it came back at $5 million this year after being completely gone in 2010. It's been as low as $600,000 several years ago.

It has always seemed to me to be one of the most illogical taxes: taxing wealth which has been amassed on an after tax basis.
Click to expand...

I see your point. One thing I hate is where the state taxes the sale of, say, a car or a boat every time it changes hands. Drives up the 'real' tax rate enormously. Hell, if it's sold enough times, you could theoretically reach a 100+% tax rate. Crazy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#84
#84
GAVol said:
It has always seemed to me to be one of the most illogical taxes: taxing wealth which has been amassed on an after tax basis.
Click to expand...

It's the same reasoning people use to defend capital gains tax.

Really though, I don't see how anybody can make a 'moral' argument over which form of taxation is better than an other. Effectiveness is a debate I'll have all day.
 
#85
#85
Bachmann surprised me. Pretty well spoken, I wasn't expecting it.

I didn't agree with a single word she said on the social/moral stuff, but she made her points effectively enough.
 
#86
#86
rjd970 said:
Bachmann surprised me. Pretty well spoken, I wasn't expecting it.

I didn't agree with a single word she said on the social/moral stuff, but she made her points effectively enough.
Click to expand...

I agree in general - I think it's bad news for Rs unless 1) she keeps it up and 2) is a VP not P candidate. In some ways she'd be a good VP add on for a guy like Romney in terms of support of the base but it might cost the ticket a few I voters. If she is a serious P contender then the Rs will probably be hurt by the fighting and move to the social right to win the primaries.

I think she could hold her own against Biden in a VP debate.
 
#87
#87
milohimself said:
What bugs me with Romney is the fact that he's distancing himself from the mass health care reform, yet it seems to be a big success.

It may be a function of politics, but the R's are behind the 8 ball to get elected here, and whenever they answer a question it's always in the framework of Obama and the dems and then explaining why. It's backasswards, but that's politics...

Gonna go find the debate online.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

He explained the differences between his policy and Obamacare. While similar the devil is in the details. Plus he did it on a STATE level which is not against any laws (like car insurance). The FEDS have no business in getting involved in HC. Obamacare is doomed if for no other reason than it is illegal.
 
#91
#91
you are still responsible for taxes for something like up to 5 or 10 years after leaving the country if I recall. So if you know that you're about to get a lot of money, you can't just move out of the country and collect.
 
#92
#92
golfballs03 said:
you are still responsible for taxes for something like up to 5 or 10 years after leaving the country if I recall. So if you know that you're about to get a lot of money, you can't just move out of the country and collect.
Click to expand...

i see. I know they were talking about how the bills' family ownership was going to get screwed when Ralph Wilson dies. I think the plan is to leave it to his wife to avoid the tax...but when she dies...the invoice will be ridiculous.
 
#97
#97
yep, getting O out is the real task. I can hold my nose in the booth if I have to
 
#98
#98
volinbham said:
All I care about is a win so I'm down with Romney
Click to expand...

I agree. Someone has to beat Obama, and if Romney has the best shot of doing, then so be it.

Hopefully his term would be sucessful enough to give Republicans some real credibility with the American people that we can get better/more conservative candidates to run down the line
 
#99
#99
But he's the same person as Obama. There's really no difference. A completely wishy-washy, big-smiling politician who favors big government, war, and spending. If "winning" is what this is about and not actual change then I guess Romney is my guy.
 
#100
#100
nbakerld said:
But he's the same person as Obama. There's really no difference. A completely wishy-washy, big-smiling politician who favors big government, war, and spending. If "winning" is what this is about and not actual change then I guess Romney is my guy.
Click to expand...

You live in a cave if you think he's as liberal as Obama.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top