Warren Buffet - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-03-2006, 11:33 AM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


If you see nothing wrong with a "transfer fee", as you call it, then you would see nothing wrong with the following scenario.

For her birthday, you give your sister a gift of $40. The government steps in and says "oh wait, there's a transfer fee that applies", and takes $10 away from your sister.

Since you are in favor of "transfer fees", you should take no issue with the scenario I just described.


ever used an ATM?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2006, 11:37 AM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
The two most interesting posts on this subject so far are Martha's personal experience with the estate tax, and the article that indicates that Warren Buffet actually supports the estate tax.

Both imply that this subject is a little more complicated then perhaps we'd like to admitt.


this is a very fair post, and Martha's situation is interesting, though i had thought that the tax didn't apply unless it was worth over $1.5m, and wikipedia says this:

[q]For a person dying during 2005, an estate with a value less than $1,500,000 would not pay a federal estate tax and most likely would not have to file a federal estate tax return. The applicable exclusion amount increases to $2,000,000 for decedents dying in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. The amount increases to $3,500,000 for 2009.[/q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2006, 03:03 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


ever used an ATM?
I wasn't aware that the governement gets the fees that a bank charges for ATM withdrawal...

Hmmm...learn something new every day...
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-03-2006, 03:13 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



he can pass on whatever money he wants when he's alive, it's that when he's dead, and children inherity the money through no work of their own that it gets taxed.

and he's perfectly allowed to pass it on. it's just going to be taxed because it is inherited money not earned income.

and it is 100% ethical.
So, you'd be okay with the following scenario, I guess:

Joe Blow earns 19,000 a year. When he dies, he leaves his entire savings account - all $10,000 of it - to his children. The government then takes $2500 of that, leaving his children with $7500.

I know that wouldn't happen under the current guidelines of the estate tax, but if you agree with it in principal, you should be consistent and agree that it applies to everyone. Otherwise, you are discriminating.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-03-2006, 03:34 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:15 PM
so.....about Warren Buffet......
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 07-03-2006, 03:47 PM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I wasn't aware that the governement gets the fees that a bank charges for ATM withdrawal...

Hmmm...learn something new every day...



so it's okay when a bank does it, but not the government.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2006, 03:49 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


So, you'd be okay with the following scenario, I guess:

Joe Blow earns 19,000 a year. When he dies, he leaves his entire savings account - all $10,000 of it - to his children. The government then takes $2500 of that, leaving his children with $7500.

I know that wouldn't happen under the current guidelines of the estate tax, but if you agree with it in principal, you should be consistent and agree that it applies to everyone. Otherwise, you are discriminating.


so do you think that people who make over $100,000 a year should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than someone who makes $25,000 a year?

because that's discrimination, too, isn't it?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2006, 03:57 PM   #53
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
this is a very fair post, and Martha's situation is interesting, though i had thought that the tax didn't apply unless it was worth over $1.5m, and wikipedia says this:

[q]For a person dying during 2005, an estate with a value less than $1,500,000 would not pay a federal estate tax and most likely would not have to file a federal estate tax return. The applicable exclusion amount increases to $2,000,000 for decedents dying in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. The amount increases to $3,500,000 for 2009.[/q]
My situation occurred in 1993.

And again, we all know what the average family home is worth right now.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 07-03-2006, 06:10 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




so do you think that people who make over $100,000 a year should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than someone who makes $25,000 a year?

because that's discrimination, too, isn't it?
No, I sure don't. I think there ought to be a flat 12% rate.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-03-2006, 06:12 PM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


No, I sure don't. I think there ought to be a flat 12% rate.


at least you're consistent.

do you see any difference between earned wealth and inherited wealth?

(keep in mind, the earner in this situation is dead)
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2006, 06:17 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





so it's okay when a bank does it, but not the government.
My bank doesn't charge me one red cent if I withdraw money from an ATM owned by my bank. I have the choice to accept that free withdrawal or pay a withdrawal fee by using other bank's ATMs. In fact, my friend's bank doesn't even charge him for using other ATMs. So, added to my choice of which ATM to use, I even have the choice of switching banks.

With banks, you have many choices. Nothing is forced upon you.

What choice do you have regarding the government assessing an estate tax? Only one: you have the choice to limit your income to an amount below the "taxable" amount.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-03-2006, 06:21 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


at least you're consistent.

do you see any difference between earned wealth and inherited wealth?

(keep in mind, the earner in this situation is dead)
I am editing this from my original post, because I thought of something. I do think there is a difference between earned wealth and inherited wealth. Earned wealth is income, and is taxed. Inherited wealth is a gift from someone who earned the money and has already paid taxes on it.

If my father worked his butt off his entire life to provide for his family, his family shouldn't be punished when he actually decides to leave them the money he was already taxed on.

And you know what, it doesn't even matter to me if it's family. If you walked some sweet old woman across the street every day for 15 years and she decided to leave you $50 million, I think you should get every cent of that $50 million she left you, because she had already paid taxes on it once.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-03-2006, 06:34 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:15 PM
The idea that “Warren Buffet supports the estate tax” is somewhat misleading. First, as someone who can take care of multiple generations of his family with or without an estate tax, I’m not sure his support is meaningful to the average American who is forced through difficult financial times due to the estate tax (Martha’s example is not unusual at all). Second, he trumpets the estate tax as a “motivating” factor for charitable work – the taking of money out of the government’s hands and putting it into the hands of private aid groups. Essentially, give it away or we will take it away from you. This is “American”?

I can fully understand if someone wants to adopt Buffet’s personal goal to “give them enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing." I would applaud them. I am interested, however, to see how some would feel free to impose this personal mantra on others, when the complaints of government intrusion on the individual are so often heard as well.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-04-2006, 02:26 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:15 PM
I think the undercurrent to this whole discussion is pretty clear.

There are those that believe that government is something that should be limited, that feeding the beast via tax money is a bad idea, and so no matter how rich or poor you are the less money that goes to the government the better. Those less fortunate are better served when those more fortunate are allowed to keep more of their wealth. We must trust in the goodwill of the well-off, and the efforts of privately funded charities to meet the needs of the needy.

This is the Standard Conservative Stance. You'd be hard pressed to find a conseravative anywhere these days who'd support any kind of tax.


Then there are those that believe that government is a great good, that should be empowered to provide for those who can't provide for themselves. Taxes should be high enough to enable the government to fund whatever the needs of the nation might be, and naturally that burden should be shouldered by those more able to afford it. Those less fortunate are better served by a government which can be relied upon, rather than the whims of the well-off and good intentions of private charities.

This is the Standard Liberal Stance. You'd be hard pressed to find a liberal anywhere these days who would oppose a tax that they believe would contribute to the common good.

The problem with both of these views, which, thanks to folks like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, are becoming more and more entrenched and knee-jerk is that they are too simplistic. Both views ignore that elements of truth in the opposing view. Both views, in my opinion, ignore the complicated issues involved in running a nation.

I'm just amazed that we still have people trying to argue that Warren Buffet does not oppose the estate tax when he said he did!! I know it must be frustrating as a conservative to have this master of free enterprise and free market capitalism not toe the "party line." Doesn't he understand he wouldn't be rich as freakin' Croesus if the "evil government" was able to tax his ass into poverty like the liberals want it to? Doesn't he understand that he and his family have to singluar control over every single dime of his multiple billions? How frustrating.

Likewise, it would seem we must acknowledge in light of Martha's story, that the estate tax as it stands now is making life very difficult for some people who might not be so rich as they seem. Maybe the estate tax should, at the very least be reformedso that it doesn't end up harming those who are theoretically rich. I kind of have a hard time with the idea of taxing non-liquid assets. I'm not a rich man, and I know that if I say, won a car in a contest, I'd probably have to sell it because I wouldn't be able to afford the taxes on it (never mind, that I need a car). For those of us who are living paycheck to paycheck, having a car, a house, or property the value of which can be taxed is a very real burden, because having such assests does not give us anymore cash in our pockets to pay additional taxes.

We could make real progress if we quit the knee-jerk "conservative/liberal" responses and looked at the issue with the objectivity that it deserves.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-04-2006, 12:10 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

We could make real progress if we quit the knee-jerk "conservative/liberal" responses and looked at the issue with the objectivity that it deserves.
Personally, I think it's a little insulting that you reduce all of our opinions to "knee-jerk" reactions. Maybe we've actually all thought about this and similar subjects for a while and have formed our opinions not based on party lines or impulse, but on our own thought processes and value systems.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com