Subject: Taxed To Death ! - The World According to Me - tonyh's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Dec 6, 2007 at 07:12 AM : I didn't laugh...

I didn't laugh once through the whole thing tony. I was afraid of being taxed. Seriously, when our young people are out protesting this and badmouthing that, I don't think too much about it, because I know that there will come a day for most of them when they get a job and ask themselves where all their tax dollars are going. Then they will begin to see the light.

Dec 6, 2007 at 07:12 AM : I wonder how long...

I wonder how long we'll have to wait for the California bond repayment tax?

Dec 6, 2007 at 07:12 AM : A billion dollars is...

A billion dollars is six days in Iraq.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : If you knew more about...

If you knew more about econmics random, you might temper your temerity

with a little cognitive cellular level activity

giving a billion USD to layabouts as you often espouse does nothing for the economy

in point of fact it is a drag on the economy, further enticing the layabouts to............. <drum roll>

LAYABOUT!

Now, when it is spent through the MIC and Pentagon to send a msg to creeps like hocmydinnerjacket and khadaffi duck, then it has consequences economic you will never be able to fathom behind your fevered liberal profusely perspiring brow...........

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : And giving a billion...

And giving a billion dollars to war profiteers generates jobs, true. So did 9/11.

A trillion dollars is what the country's military loss in Iraq will eventually cost before Bush is forced out of the White House.

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : force him out so you...

force him out

so you and fellow layabouts can do more

LAYING ABOUT!

Makes perfect sense to me

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : The unknown author is...

The unknown author is wrong on several fronts. The nation absolutely had billions of dollars in debt 100 years ago. The last President to pay off the national debt was Andrew Jackson in 1835, curiously a Democrat. And any chart or analysis you can find will also show that Republican Administrations borrow at a much higher rate than do Democrat Administrations. The absolute kings of borrowing and swelling debt have been Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

There was hardly a middle class in existence 100 years ago when the robber barons ruled the country and exploited immigrant labor in a manner very much like today. It is why the period was called the Gilded Age. Yes, mom stayed home with very high numbers of children, who were forced into labor market with virtually no oversight and protection in order to help pay the bills.

There are no good old days.

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : The MIC and Pentagon,...

The MIC and Pentagon, run properly, are very expensive.

The sticking of one's cranium in the sand and pretending defense is not necessary is much "cheaper"

Works too.........

For a few years

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : Louisiana Senator,...

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans.

Mary's cute, but she won't get that much money. Certain parts of the Big Easy will be rebuilt, and certain - the previously crime-ridden - parts will rot and become ghost towns.

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : Run improperly, even...

Run improperly, even more so.

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : I'm so glad I...

I'm so glad I don't throw out my old email. I responded to a friend who sent this to me in October. Of 06. So let's not pretend this is a present thing.

Nice one, except that it's the Landrieu-Vitter proposal. Someone forgot to mention the Republican. I'm sure that was an honest mistake though. :) Here is the link to where the money goes from the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109iLOo7W::

Here is a real article on the aid they are seeking: http://katrinacoverage.com/2005/09/24/landrieu-vitter-want-250-billion.html

Louisiana's Senators, Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R), have proposed legislation to provide about $250 billion in federal aid to help their state rebuild from Hurricane Katrina. The massive, 10-year plan, contained in a bill introduced on Sept. 22, includes about $180 billion in direct federal spending, Vitter said. The rest would represent the cost of various tax breaks.

But Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and several other GOP colleagues want at least some of the federal hurricane relief spending to be offset with spending cuts. Among their suggestions: a 5% across-the-board cut in discretionary spending other than defense and homeland security; and rescinding $24 billion in earmarked highway projects in the recently enacted highway and transit authorization bill…

…The Landrieu-Vitter package would draw most of its funds from federal appropriations, but they also are seeking 50% of the revenue from oil and gas leases off their state's coast. Vitter says that 50% share of lease payments recently has ranged between $3 billion and $4 billion annually. Those revenues would go for restoration of coastal wetlands and barrier islands as well as infrastructure.

The energy bill signed into law in August provides Louisiana with $135 million in oil and gas lease revenue annually for four years to be used for coastal restoration work

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : In fact, I think this...

In fact, I think this is the very bill that inspired our favorite nutty Republican to freak out when asked to give up his 200 million dollar pork-barrel project affectionately known as "The Bridge to Nowhere". If anyone can find that video where he freaks out (it's not the "series of tubes" one) please post it up.

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : And giving a...

And giving a billion dollars to war profiteers generates jobs

Just not American jobs.

They are hiring Phillipinos and other third world nation people to work in Iraq.

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : Oh, and about half of...

Oh, and about half of those taxes existed 100 years ago. Though I think it's cute that someone is complaining that things like a gas tax or a vehicle registration tax in new in the last 100 years. Look through some old pictures on the roads 100 years ago. You couldn't drive more than 15 mph anywhere or you'd destroy your car. If you even had one in 1907.

That's all.

Dec 6, 2007 at 08:12 AM : Ah, but if that...

Ah, but if that mattered we wouldn't be offshoring American jobs so enthusiastically. As long as they do a good job, and...what's that? Condemned due to shoddy workmanship?

Spam Code GOFUP: Grand Old F-UP.

Dec 6, 2007 at 09:12 AM : Take another look at...

Take another look at the list of taxes. Although we can argue until our hair catches fire about when they were enacted, the majority aren't paid by the poor that the liberals claim to be fighting for. And the ones they are paying, besides the fuel tax and those built into their utility bills are ones they choose to pay. Cigarettes, and the tax on liquor that I don't see up there for example. (Now I'm not saying the poor are chimney smoking alcoholics, I'm saying, these are taxes that are avoidable by not purchasing those items.) But we do see the "Layabouts" purchasing those items with the tax money the rest of us are providing, so if they have to pay taxes on those items, what the heck. At least they're paying "some" taxes. When it comes to paying taxes the ones who pay the least cry more more more! I have never missed a tax payment, nor will I ever, but I will spend a good amount of my remaining life figuring out a way to die and legally avoid the inheritance tax!

Dec 6, 2007 at 11:12 AM : A billion dollars is...

A billion dollars is just the stuff we've *LOST* in Iraq:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/06/iraq/main3584247.shtml

Dec 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM : Don't forget Tom...

Don't forget Tom that the Republicans killed a Katrina rebuilding bill when it required at least 50% of the funds go to poor people. Once that requirement was removed, it passed. And how much ended up making it to the poor (and needy)? Less than 10%.......

Dec 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM : dg: I will...

dg: I will spend a good amount of my remaining life figuring out a way to die and legally avoid the inheritance tax!

Don't spend too much time on that problem, unless you win the lottery big-time. The dying part in particular is easy. As for the rest,

a) by dying you've already avoided the tax, and

b) Most everyone's exempt anyway.

If you're really worried, die in 2010. If you're still alive in December of 2010, be *REAL* careful around your relatives that month.

Dec 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM : Don't forget Tom...

Don't forget Tom that the Republicans killed a Katrina rebuilding bill when it required at least 50% of the funds go to poor people. Once that requirement was removed, it passed. And how much ended up making it to the poor (and needy)? Less than 10%.......

The rest went to bureaucrats, "poor" people (to gamble with, get breast augmentations, bling, etc.), shysters, hookers, pimps, etc.......

You know

The "deserving" poor

Dec 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM : When it should have...

When it should have gone to the "deserving" rich for the same purposes.

Like Diaper Dave Vetter, for example...

Dec 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM : now you're...

now you're getting it...............

except for Dave

Dec 6, 2007 at 02:12 PM : The poor pay less in...

The poor pay less in taxes because they don't have any money. I am reminded of the story of the late Sam Rayburn, speaker of the House from Texas, who in response to a group of constituents who were groaning about the income tax, said, "Hell, before you people didn't have any incomes."

Beware of politicians who say government is the problem. They inevitably are the ones who increase the size of government and use its largesse to enrich themselves and their already wealthy friends.

Dec 6, 2007 at 02:12 PM : It's pretty easy...

It's pretty easy to get out of paying income tax and the estate tax. Quit working. If the poor have it so good, you can quickly join their ranks.

Dec 6, 2007 at 02:12 PM : The Poor Pay...

The Poor Pay More. Percentagewise.

Dec 6, 2007 at 03:12 PM : This is just...

This is just so....so....taxing.

It's not the taxes that are the problem, it's how they are spent. You know, bridges to Alaskan Islands etc.

I have no problem with copious amounts of tax dollars going to the military, but it's bad enough that we taxpayers are charged 10 bucks for a 5 cent screw, without some yahoo going into a country that had nothing to do with 911, then planning to attack another country that gave up their nuclear arms program 4 years ago.

Here's the question....hands please....how many people think that because we went into Iraq, there will be no more terrorism?

How many people actually believe that because we are in Iraq, America is safer?

How many think that the civil war combatants in Iraq, who by the way are causing all the damage, not the terrorists, are going to get into their fighting vehicles, 1987 Toyota pickups, and follow us over to American when we pull out.

Dec 6, 2007 at 03:12 PM : Random, you're...

Random, you're right, I should have made that clear...the poor pay out less in total dollar amounts, but considerably more, percentage-wise, than wealthier taxpayers.

Tom, the estate tax doesn't kick in until something like $6 million. Most of us, our heirs, won't have to worry about it. The ones demanding "reform"...constitute something like a couple of thousand estates.

The hue and cry over taxes has inevitably come from the wealthiest, and what we've seen in terms of "reform" has essentially shifted the tax burden FROM passive income (i.e., investments) TO working income folks. Like the vast majority of us.

Oh, and what the current so-called administration can't raise in taxes from the wealthiest...they borrow the difference. Obligating those who must pay the bill to huge debts in the future. And just barely more than half the voters thought electing that lying dweeb as their president was a good idea. The mind reels.

Dec 6, 2007 at 03:12 PM : Estate tax kicks in at...

Estate tax kicks in at about half of that, but only effects the money over it, so if you've got 3,000,001 dollars when you die, you owe 50 cents.

Dec 7, 2007 at 06:12 AM : The big deal with...

The big deal with estate tax isn't with large sums of money in an estate, it's with family owned and operated businesses, that have been in the family for multiple generations.

In the farming industry, it doesn't take much to go way over the 3M level. A big tractor costs several hundred thousand bucks. Farming is a slim margin business too. Lots of families are forced to sell their farms in order to pay the estate tax when the Patriarch dies. It isn't fair.

Even if they are able to pay out the cash for Estate taxes, it puts a farming operation into a position where they now have to borrow money in order to plant and maintain their crops for the next season. Unless they have several seasons of bumper crops and high market prices, this debt could spell the beginning if a long slow death for that farm.

Dec 7, 2007 at 07:12 AM : It takes more than you...

It takes more than you think, Tony. Especially as tractors are depreciating assets and farmers rarely own more value in the equipment than they have left to pay off. But let's just go with some facts on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300741.html

A new study by the Congressional Budget Office examined estate tax returns filed by farmers and owners of small businesses in 1999 and 2000. The numbers that owed estate tax, the CBO found, were paltry, and the number without enough cash on hand to pay the bill even punier: In 2000, for example, just 1,659 farm estates had taxes due, of which 138 didn't report enough liquid assets to cover their tax liability.

But at that time the amount of money that could be passed on to heirs free of taxes was just half what it is now. With the current exemption level of $1.5 million, the CBO analysis found, only 300 farm estates in 2000 would have owed any tax at all -- and of those, just 27 would have a tax bill in excess of their liquid assets. At the even more generous exemption scheduled to take effect in 2009, $3.5 million, the ranks of those potentially hit hard by the tax would have dwindled even further; 65 farm estates would owe taxes and 13 would not have enough cash to cover the bill.In other words, the image of the grieving heir packing up his hoe as he trudges away from the family farm is just that -- a powerful image but not an accurate one.

Dec 7, 2007 at 08:12 AM : Tom, I've been...

Tom,

I've been through this one twice in the last 10 years or so. I've got first-hand experience (X2). It's heart breaking.

I'll assume that, since you're cutting and pasting from elsewhere on the web, that you have no idea what's' like to go through it. If this is true, I might suggest that you not pass judgment or profess knowledge in areas where you have no experience.

50% estate tax, along with all of the other "Death" taxes (yes, there are others along with Estate Tax) causes a lot of pain for a lot of people every year. I don't think you have any idea what emotional grief it causes families who are forced to sell the business that has fed, clothed and provided for multiple generations of an entire family. Often times, it's all they know how to do for a living. Now, they're placed in a position where they have to go to work for someone else and start all over. It breaks people. They begin to ask each other "What's the use?"................................................

Dec 7, 2007 at 09:12 AM : Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm&nbs...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm "10 bucks for a 5 cent screw" Damn! somebody was desperate!!!

Dec 7, 2007 at 09:12 AM : Tony, I don't...

Tony, I don't have first hand experience. You must run in some nicer circles than me, especially since less than 20,000 families in the last 10 years have had any tax to pay and 2000 didn't have enough cash to cover the tax.

What I do have experience with is people who have families where each kid gets a portion of the business and some want to liquidate and others don't. This is heartbreaking too, but has nothing to do with the tax burden. I imagine that if the farm and assets are worth over a million and some of the heirs want to liquidate, it gets really bad.

As for cut and paste from the web, I was just putting it out there so we all knew you've got to breathing some pretty rarefied air to have this be an issue and it's not happening to your average small farmer. While I feel bad for people who have to liquidate multi-million dollar family legacy, I'd take that burden in a minute.

Lemme ask you, Tony, just to shed some light on your story: In the estates you were involved in, was at least part of the problem that some of the heirs wanted to liquidate their shares?

Dec 7, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Nope, nobody wanted to...

Nope, nobody wanted to cash out. Both times, the Attorney handling probate suggested that something had to give, because the tax bill would be $x,xxx,xxx.

It was either, each person borrow whatever they could, and hope that it would be enough, or sell the business, pay the tax bill and divy up what was left.

The first time, the whole operation was sold out of the estate because there was more there than just the business. Everyone agreed to save the family home place and adjacent property(it's sale wouldn't have covered it anyway). Unfortunately, now, everyone is working for someone else. There's no more family farm. It's sad, because the roots of that farm and family went back to 1907.

The second time, the family company (Plumbing, Pumping, Heat and Air) had to take in a new partner from outside the family. The money that they bought in with, paid the tax bill. Now, all of the family members are trying to squirrel away cash, to buy out this (outside) partner because he hasn't exactly been good for business.

This isn't the kind of problem that you want to take to probate court, unless you want the IRS and state to pick things to pieces. You'd better solve the problem before you get there. I think your numbers are flawed because of this. It happens a lot more than you think.

Dec 7, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Benjamin Franklin...

Benjamin Franklin supported the estate tax. Warren Buffett supports the estate tax. The idea behind it is to keep American families from building a layabout aristocracy, and that each generation will need to make its own way.

Odd that those who support eliminating the estate tax also are the staunchest opponents of benefits for poor people.

Dec 7, 2007 at 11:12 AM : I feel awful for...

I feel awful for people that have to split a $3 million inheritance. The poor things. After taxes it might not even pay for the new Bugatti. : (

Dec 7, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Tony, I think the...

Tony, I think the changes that have come about in the last few years will take care of most of those issues now that the floor has been raised from 600,000 to 1.5 million (and 3 million in 2009). Other than that, I'd love to see a "pay as you go" system set up where people could put money into a government account to pay off the tax incrementally. Of course, they could do that now with an interest bearing account...

Dec 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM : Actually, Tony, in the...

Actually, Tony, in the first case, the estate must have been worth over 2.5 million dollars in order to have a million dollar tax bill if it was before 2001. That puts them well into the top 5% of estates in the country. Now it would take 3.5 million to have a tax burden of 1 million.

Also, I left out above that the totals double for couples.

Dec 7, 2007 at 02:12 PM : ProgressivePete2 , ...

ProgressivePete2 ,

That was a pretty heartless comment, coming from a liburl.................

How about 6 children with spouces and kids of their own, working the farming operation for a living? Trust me, nobody in that whole family drives an exotic car.

That farm was the livelyhood for 29 people who (except for the really young ones) worked there everyday.

It's pretty obvious that those with nothing have no idea what it takes to build and maintain something. If the shoe were on the other foot, you wouldn't be quite so liburl, or as willing to see the government take it away.

A 50% Estate Tax isn't fair.

Dec 7, 2007 at 02:12 PM : Tom, I'm well...

Tom,

I'm well aware if where the ceilings are at, and when they'll change. It's still not right.