Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
To the people here who live under socialism...; and think it is good or great....
Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 11:57 PM (1,465 Views)
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 11:09 AM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 06:51 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 06:39 AM
somerled
Oct 29 2008, 07:48 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 12:41 AM
Of course there is. It penalizes achievement.
What achievement ?
Dying rich ?
Being lucky enough to inherit some wealth that you personally did absolutely nothing to earn ?

How pathetic.

No, Einstein, I mean those who work hard and make money. THOSE are achievers. Not the Kennedy family. Not the Paris Hiltons. People who put their noses to the grindstone and make something of themselves.
But inheritence tax certainly does not penalise achievement of those people who "work hard and make money". It penalises those who inherit large amounts of wealth that somebody else earned.
I was talking about capital gains taxes, myself, but why should someone who has achieved not be able to bequeath his/her estate to her children instead of the state?

I'll admit that this is how wealthy democrats are created, but I don't think they should be penalized. :rotfl:
Well I take the view that I would rather have a tax on the dead than increase the tax on the living to pay for its abolition.

I also think that inheritence tax is fair in many ways as the money raised can be used to give all children a good start rather than, as often happens, making the children of a wealthy person very wealthy overnight without them having to work for it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ Taxing inheritance is a tax on the living.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dwayne
Oct 30 2008, 01:23 PM
^^^ Taxing inheritance is a tax on the living.
Well true I suppose, it depends which way you look at it as to whether it is a tax on a deceased persons estate on a tax on the person recieving the inheritence. Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting which I prefer to taxes on earned income.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM
Dwayne
Oct 30 2008, 01:23 PM
^^^ Taxing inheritance is a tax on the living.
Well true I suppose, it depends which way you look at it as to whether it is a tax on a deceased persons estate on a tax on the person recieving the inheritence. Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting which I prefer to taxes on earned income.
For example, if I die I leave everything to my wife. Why should the woman I married, the other (some say "better!") half of my marriage, have to pay a penalty to receive what I bequeath to her. She was right by my side, after all.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 02:07 PM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM
Dwayne
Oct 30 2008, 01:23 PM
^^^ Taxing inheritance is a tax on the living.
Well true I suppose, it depends which way you look at it as to whether it is a tax on a deceased persons estate on a tax on the person recieving the inheritence. Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting which I prefer to taxes on earned income.
For example, if I die I leave everything to my wife. Why should the woman I married, the other (some say "better!") half of my marriage, have to pay a penalty to receive what I bequeath to her. She was right by my side, after all.
Under UK inheritance tax the spouse or civil partner is exempt from the tax.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:16 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 02:07 PM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM
Dwayne
Oct 30 2008, 01:23 PM
^^^ Taxing inheritance is a tax on the living.
Well true I suppose, it depends which way you look at it as to whether it is a tax on a deceased persons estate on a tax on the person recieving the inheritence. Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting which I prefer to taxes on earned income.
For example, if I die I leave everything to my wife. Why should the woman I married, the other (some say "better!") half of my marriage, have to pay a penalty to receive what I bequeath to her. She was right by my side, after all.
Under UK inheritance tax the spouse or civil partner is exempt from the tax.
Ours isn't.

Quote:
 
Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
Edited by Admiralbill_gomec, Oct 30 2008, 02:24 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 02:21 PM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:16 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 02:07 PM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM
Dwayne
Oct 30 2008, 01:23 PM
^^^ Taxing inheritance is a tax on the living.
Well true I suppose, it depends which way you look at it as to whether it is a tax on a deceased persons estate on a tax on the person recieving the inheritence. Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting which I prefer to taxes on earned income.
For example, if I die I leave everything to my wife. Why should the woman I married, the other (some say "better!") half of my marriage, have to pay a penalty to receive what I bequeath to her. She was right by my side, after all.
Under UK inheritance tax the spouse or civil partner is exempt from the tax.
Ours isn't.
Well I see why that would be disliked because when people enter a marriage (or civil partnership) they enter a financial union.

Under the UK system if you leave your estate to charity then inheritence tax is not usually payable. The first £312,000 is also exempt from the tax as it is covered by the inheritence allowance. Spouses and civil partners can also pool their allowances so you can together leave £624,000 to anyone without paying tax. Anything above that is taxed at 40%.

I think that is not an unreasonable inheritence tax as it only applies to large estates, allows you the choice of giving to charity rather than the state and taxes only very large unearned sums inherited outside marriage/civil partnership.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Oct 28 2008, 05:45 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 28 2008, 05:20 PM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 01:32 PM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:48 AM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 07:41 AM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:21 AM
Unfornutately, one persistent misstatement all of you seem to be making in describing your medical system is this...

"I can get the medical treatment I need totally free of charge"

"Hospital is free"

It is never free, you're just paying for it on the front end, through your tax system.
This is incorrect as for me personally it is totally free. However the point is it is free of charge not free of cost. That means that the cost to an individual is not related to how much they need to use the system or the costs to the system but only to their tax bill.
So, are you saying you produce no income at all? Are you incapable of producing income?

If you are incapable of producing an income, then would it surprise you to know that 100% of your medical needs would be covered in the United States?
I do produce an income but in the UK everyone has something called the personal allowance which means the first £6035 you earn is free from income tax. That means I dont pay that much tax and when you take into account the tax credits I get it means I do indeed pay no tax whatsoever.

8247
 
Basically, I want to know this:

If your gross income is $100,000 a year, how much could you expect to pay in taxes in a year, total.

In the UK, based on current exchange rates, you would pay $25,333 in Income Tax and $6348 in National Insurance. So of $100,000 earned you would keep $68,319, with total deductions of $31,618.

I would be interested to know what the deductions would be like under the US system.
In the United States you would pay $19,472 in tax, leaving you with $80,528.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/page/0,,id=14806,00.html
How much is your private insurance costing you per year. Just to put the total cost on a proper comparison.
Just over $500 a month ($6000 a year for a family of four)

Don't forget that my taxes ALSO pay Medicare (1.45% of the first $102,000 of my income).
Edited by Admiralbill_gomec, Oct 30 2008, 03:23 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


Just to comment on this inheritance business, most people, especially us "baby boomers" who are now at the age where a lot of our parents are passing on, are inheriting. However, as someone who is a legal courier and deals with lawyers doing wills and estates all the time, the MAJORITY of those inheriting money from their folks are NOT wealthy.

Most of my middle class friends are not inheriting a lot anyway. A little real estate, some savings, other materialistic commodities, and so on. Most people who inherit money, are not suddenly becoming "rich". If it's a small sum, that usually gets blown pretty fast. "Let's rush out and buy furniture, a new vehicle, a trip to Hawaii", and that's about it.

This envy of inheritance is apparant sometimes. But why do we have an attitude in our culture that the road to happiness is based on wealth ? As one of my friends put it, after inheriting a couple of million (lucky, but I will not tax him any more than I wish to be taxed) and buying all sorts of luxery items, and so on, he realized how unfulfilling that all was. "I thought a nice house and luxery furniture and vehicles would make me satisfied...." but now he's practically out of money with a bunch of materialistic goods whose lustre wore off within a few months.

Wish he'd bought a new model corvette, now that he's selling all off. Not really interested in a Lexus and BMW minivan.

Just as a final note, I know people who could not have afforded college and university and buying their first humble home, without inheritance, or a lot of financial help from parents or grandparents.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I understand we can all disagree on terminology, but what we cannot disagree about is that what many of us are opposed to or are supporting is the concept of a progressive income tax and government operated and financed social services. Those who favor that are derided as socialist and those opposing it are derided as stingy capitalist.

Now as some try to point out to varying degree of success, is the idea that for a person and a system to be socialist, they must advocate and support nationalized industry... ALL INDUSTRY. No one is really supporting that level of socialism in the United States, but those derided as socialist often do want to nationalize aspects of industry, particularly the medical field.

And in that instance it is very legitimate to deride them is socialist.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 02:21 PM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:16 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 30 2008, 02:07 PM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM
Dwayne
Oct 30 2008, 01:23 PM
^^^ Taxing inheritance is a tax on the living.
Well true I suppose, it depends which way you look at it as to whether it is a tax on a deceased persons estate on a tax on the person recieving the inheritence. Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting which I prefer to taxes on earned income.
For example, if I die I leave everything to my wife. Why should the woman I married, the other (some say "better!") half of my marriage, have to pay a penalty to receive what I bequeath to her. She was right by my side, after all.
Under UK inheritance tax the spouse or civil partner is exempt from the tax.
Ours isn't.

Quote:
 
Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
So contact your state or federal government and complaign about it , or start a public compaign to change how it applies or to have the tax recinded.

Or - like many rich people do in countries where it applies , transfer all your assets and savings to her and your kids before you die , or otherwize hide them so the tax man can't find them.

BTW , there is no inheritance tax here in Australia as far as I am aware off.
Edited by somerled, Oct 31 2008, 11:06 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Oct 31 2008, 10:56 PM
I understand we can all disagree on terminology, but what we cannot disagree about is that what many of us are opposed to or are supporting is the concept of a progressive income tax and government operated and financed social services. Those who favor that are derided as socialist and those opposing it are derided as stingy capitalist.

Now as some try to point out to varying degree of success, is the idea that for a person and a system to be socialist, they must advocate and support nationalized industry... ALL INDUSTRY. No one is really supporting that level of socialism in the United States, but those derided as socialist often do want to nationalize aspects of industry, particularly the medical field.

And in that instance it is very legitimate to deride them is socialist.
Dwayne as usual is confusing communism with socialism and showing he doesn't have the foggiest....

He needs to read more than just ultrarightist and neocon blogs and get into the real world a lot more.
Edited by somerled, Oct 31 2008, 11:12 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 01:21 PM
I also think that inheritence tax is fair in many ways as the money raised can be used to give all children a good start rather than...
Ideal world vs real world. Government is an extremely inefficient charity. The pittance that does make it through the bureacracy has so many strings attached that it holds people back more than it helps them get ahead.

One REALITY is, assets are taxed. You work all your life to build a business and when you die your heirs are forced to sell it to pay the tax on it. It's theft.

This happened to Joe Robbie. He owned a football team and he owned the stadium they played in. The taxes were near a $100,000,000. His heirs didn't have that kind of liquid assets so they had to be sold.

The inheritance is currently VERY low. If no legislative action is taken it'll jump back to 50% on January 1, 20XX. How many elderly people will ponder suicide on December 31?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM
Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting...
With that "logic" every gift you buy for someone should be claimed as income and taxed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
RTW
Oct 31 2008, 11:11 PM
ds9074
Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM
Effectively though it is a tax on unearned income for the person inheriting...
With that "logic" every gift you buy for someone should be claimed as income and taxed.
That would be a Gift Tax , I believe such a tax exists in the USA .... the giver pays the tax from what I have read.

Again - no gift tax here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus