The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

But budget is out of control, but god forbid we tax people who are dead.

You mean re-tax themAll the money the estate laws tax is money that has already been taxed.Clinton made it retro-active when he took office, he actually went back on the dead and took more of their money

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

this argument doesn't work as well if you treat people as more than discrete life forms and place any emphasis on family like most of this judeo-christian principled country.edit: also, what BG said.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

You mean re-tax themAll the money the estate laws tax is money that has already been taxed.

All money has already been taxed. The money I get paid my salary with has already been taxed. Should I not have to pay tax on it because of that? Just because Dad paid tax on it doesn't mean Junior did.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

this argument doesn't work as well if you treat people as more than discrete life forms and place any emphasis on family like most of this judeo-christian principled country.edit: also, what BG said.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, really. Do the not-so-well-to-do not have families as well? For a fixed total amount of tax to be collected by the government, wouldn't you rather it comes from inheritance of estates than from taxing the working class?Also, I don't really recall that part of the bible where Jesus encouraged not taxing the inheritance of wealth. But, then again, he pretty much abhorred wealth and urged us to sacrifice financially for the benefit of others.

[Balloon guy 158]

All money has already been taxed. The money I get paid my salary with has already been taxed. Should I not have to pay tax on it because of that? Just because Dad paid tax on it doesn't mean Junior did.

If Dad makes a million, pays $380K of it and is left with $620K which he then gives to his kids in the form of a farm. A farm that feeds orphan children who's parents died defending this country against Canadians, should the government then step in and force the kids to sell the farm and as a result free the northern border to the aggression of the Canooks who can't wait to see the streets run wet with the blood of the maple tree?Why don't you sell your communism somewhere where they are buying it.Francois

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, really. Do the not-so-well-to-do not have families as well? For a fixed total amount of tax to be collected by the government, wouldn't you rather it comes from inheritance of estates than from taxing the working class?Also, I don't really recall that part of the bible where Jesus encouraged not taxing the inheritance of wealth. But, then again, he pretty much abhorred wealth and urged us to sacrifice financially for the benefit of others.

What I would rather is we don;t approach this issue with the notion that the government is owed this money. That once they decide they want X amount of dollars, that we must all pony up whatever they deem they want from us.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

should the government then step in and force the kids to sell the farm and as a result free the northern border to the aggression of the Canooks who can't wait to see the streets run wet with the blood of the maple tree?

mais oui!

[Balloon guy 158]

mais oui!

SORRY, I DON'T SPEAK COMMUNIST

[El Guapo 8]

All money has already been taxed. The money I get paid my salary with has already been taxed. Should I not have to pay tax on it because of that? Just because Dad paid tax on it doesn't mean Junior did.

That doesn't make sense. The taxes were payed on it when it was earned. Hence the term earned income taxes. This is taxing the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next. Right now, if my dad gives me $15,000, he will pay taxes on $2,000 of it.There are some very advanced and complicated ways to get around these taxes, but for middle America they may have the assets but not the income to use those techniques.

[mk 11]

this argument doesn't work as well if you treat people as more than discrete life forms and place any emphasis on family like most of this judeo-christian principled country.edit: also, what BG said.

what do the judeo-christians say about my idea of grinding up old people and feeding them to the animals?

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

in honesty, i don't actually support estate or inheritance taxes that would have that effect. i think the greater good is probably served by taxing the liquid assets of a estate to help pay for infrastructure, social programs, etc. i think it's counterproductive to ruin a family and force the sale of your aforementioned farm to do the same. nuance is a pain and hard to codify in law effectively.

[Balloon guy 158]

what do the judeo-christians say about my idea of grinding up old people and feeding them to the animals?

If we start with liberals, the world will become such a better place and people might mistakenly equate the two actions falsely.If we start with conservative, the world will fail miserably and the world will misunderstand the true cause effect parameters in play.But if we start with the lawyers, who cares what people think afterwards.

[Balloon guy 158]

in honesty, i don't actually support estate or inheritance taxes that would have that effect. i think the greater good is probably served by taxing the liquid assets of a estate to help pay for infrastructure, social programs, etc. i think it's counterproductive to ruin a family and force the sale of your aforementioned farm to do the same. nuance is a pain and hard to codify in law effectively.

With the only people who this law effects being the wealthy, and with the top 25% of all wage earners paying 87% of all taxes, and the top 50% paying 98% of all taxes, at what point does 'paying their fair share' give them a little relief?I guess not at death.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

What I would rather is we don;t approach this issue with the notion that the government is owed this money. That once they decide they want X amount of dollars, that we must all pony up whatever they deem they want from us.

But this is clearly the correct way to approach the issue. Anything else is arguing in circles.Let's say that the government wants to take in x dollars in revenue in a year. I'm not concerned with why this was chosen. For any possible x, we come up with a distribution p(y,x) where y is the wealth of a particular person and p(y,x) is the fraction of x that person y must pay in a year (and I left open the possibility that this is a function of x). Obviously using the 1-dimensional value of y to describe the complete space of Americans is a gross simplification, but it serves the point.For instance, if you're a flat tax person, p(y,x) is cy. If you're more progressive, you may choose a function like cy + dy*y.Anyway, the point is that we work with a fraction of x, so if I lower p for high y, I have to raise p for low y. If I only lower p for high y and do nothing about p for lower y, I'm making the statement that I want the government to take in less taxes in total, which is fine, but then you're effectively calculating a p(y, x') that is flatter and x' < x. This way, the argument has to be approached in two ways: what x do I want and what is the distribution of p for that x.I believe that, for any x, p should be very large for large y. However, I would prefer a lower x.

[Balloon guy 158]

But this is clearly the correct way to approach the issue. Anything else is arguing in circles.Let's say that the government wants to take in x dollars in revenue in a year. I'm not concerned with why this was chosen. For any possible x, we come up with a distribution p(y,x) where y is the wealth of a particular person and p(y,x) is the fraction of x that person y must pay in a year (and I left open the possibility that this is a function of x). Obviously using the 1-dimensional value of y to describe the complete space of Americans is a gross simplification, but it serves the point.For instance, if you're a flat tax person, p(y,x) is cy. If you're more progressive, you may choose a function like cy + dy*y.Anyway, the point is that we work with a fraction of x, so if I lower p for high y, I have to raise p for low y. If I only lower p for high y and do nothing about p for lower y, I'm making the statement that I want the government to take in less taxes in total, which is fine, but then you're effectively calculating a p(y, x') that is flatter and x' < x. This way, the argument has to be approached in two ways: what x do I want and what is the distribution of p for that x.I believe that, for any x, p should be very large for large y. However, I would prefer a lower x.

That's what they want you to think.What you should be thinking is more standard:Government = waste (w)Tax payers = You (u)Spending = spending (s)Blind obedience = democrats (s)Stop being a wuss

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Tax payers = You (u)

Not with the amount of money I earn a year.

[hblask 1]

The ideal tax:-- should not allow loopholes for the politically favored.-- should be highly visible and easily understood-- should not allow social engineering for favored lifestyles-- should not harm economic growth-- should be paid in rough proportion to benefits received from legitimate functions of governmentI think it's clear the estate tax and income tax fail badly on all counts. A single level sales tax with exemptions for "necessities" is probably the only politically feasible tax that meets them all. A Land Tax probably meets them all, although the fourth item would definitely not be satisfied in the short term transitional period, and has no chance of being implemented in our lifetime.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

That doesn't make sense. The taxes were payed on it when it was earned. Hence the term earned income taxes. This is taxing the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next. Right now, if my dad gives me $15,000, he will pay taxes on $2,000 of it.

ok. is your position that because Jr didn't earn it, he shouldn't have to pay taxes on it? because i don't think the argument that the act of receiving money incurs a tax burden is inherently worse than having to earn said money to trigger the taxing. i mean, i know a whole bunch of people who do as little earning of their salaries as possible and yet are still taxed on their income just as heavily as any hardworking immigrant out there.all joking aside, it sucks. there's some real sense of entitlement the full value of an estate/inheritance, and i don't blame anyone for feeling raw at being told to give some of it up (especially if the estate is not easily divisible, like a farm as stated). but there's a real sense of entitlement to the full value, pre-tax, of my paycheque too, and that doesn't make income tax any less necessary. you can argument the merits of the programs taxes go to paying, very effectively in some cases, but that doesn't make taxes any less necessary right now. the tax revenue has to come from somewhere - where else would you rather?

[Balloon guy 158]

Not with the amount of money I earn a year.

Me too this year. High Five

[Balloon guy 158]

ok. is your position that because Jr didn't earn it, he shouldn't have to pay taxes on it? because i don't think the argument that the act of receiving money incurs a tax burden is inherently worse than having to earn said money to trigger the taxing. i mean, i know a whole bunch of people who do as little earning of their salaries as possible and yet are still taxed on their income just as heavily as any hardworking immigrant out there.all joking aside, it sucks. there's some real sense of entitlement the full value of an estate/inheritance, and i don't blame anyone for feeling raw at being told to give some of it up (especially if the estate is not easily divisible, like a farm as stated). but there's a real sense of entitlement to the full value, pre-tax, of my paycheque too, and that doesn't make income tax any less necessary. you can argument the merits of the programs taxes go to paying, very effectively in some cases, but that doesn't make taxes any less necessary right now. the tax revenue has to come from somewhere - where else would you rather?

A stupid tax would be nice.But how long before the democrats realize that they are the ones paying 90% of the tax?Lol Kidding, the answer would be never, cause their stupid! they're isn't right here ducy?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Me too this year. High Five

Oh, sh#$, you just gave me a brilliant idea. I was going to say, "Let's smoke a cuban to celebrate," and then I thought about it for a second. I thought to myself, "Yorke, don't you live in Switzerland right now, and isn't Switzerland, like, neutral or something. Aren't they likely to actually sell authentic cuban cigars?"So, yeah, I know what I'm doing this weekend.

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh, sh#$, you just gave me a brilliant idea. I was going to say, "Let's smoke a cuban to celebrate," and then I thought about it for a second. I thought to myself, "Yorke, don't you live in Switzerland right now, and isn't Switzerland, like, neutral or something. Aren't they likely to actually sell authentic cuban cigars?"So, yeah, I know what I'm doing this weekend.

I'm going to have sex, with a woman.Enjoy your cigar

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

A stupid tax would be nice.But how long before the democrats realize that they are the ones paying 90% of the tax?Lol Kidding, the answer would be never, cause their stupid! they're isn't right here ducy?

huh? and where'd all my money go? DAMMIT!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm going to have sex, with a woman.Enjoy your cigar

You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Balloon guy 158]

huh? and where'd all my money go? DAMMIT!

Why you think it's nickname is a loonie?