Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Droopy
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:52AM
It seems registervoters balls arent the the only thing drooping these days...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The D.C. | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 12:22PM
Yes Fairy, my balls do droop - unless you strap your balls up like you do (drag really sucks for you does it)?
While humorous, it appears Mr. Stewart is nothing more than a whiner on this issue. Good that he could get some humor at Senator Lieberman's expense to keep his ratings up.
If they aren't able to put the details of the Bill out for folks to review, then maybe folks should be asking themselves why they are trying to pass this so quickly. You could understand why thy might want to pass a war bill quickly, or in response to some natural disaster. Pushing to pass this type of bill so quickly usually has a lot more to do with who is going to get money out of it. I know folks keep trying to paint this as some payoff to the insurance industry, but based on the money coming out, we should be asking why Senator Webb isn't fighting like the Senator from Nebraska did so that our expanded Medicaid expenses are picked up by the Federal government. Right now it is all about who they had to bribe and how, so that they would vote for the Bill. You have to figure we have a larger population by far then Nebraska, and if it was important for them to have their expenses picked up, it seems even more important to make sure that Virginia doesn't have to pay expanded Medicaid funding. Do we really have any money in Virginia to pick up more unfunded government mandates?
I suppose deflecting the issue onto Lieberman makes it easier to make it seem like the issue is being dealt with above board. Of course, all those promises of CSPAN coverage probably would have served us all better, but they didn't happen either.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
While humorous, it appears Mr. Stewart is nothing more than a whiner on this issue. Good that he could get some humor at Senator Lieberman's expense to keep his ratings up.
If they aren't able to put the details of the Bill out for folks to review, then maybe folks should be asking themselves why they are trying to pass this so quickly. You could understand why thy might want to pass a war bill quickly, or in response to some natural disaster. Pushing to pass this type of bill so quickly usually has a lot more to do with who is going to get money out of it. I know folks keep trying to paint this as some payoff to the insurance industry, but based on the money coming out, we should be asking why Senator Webb isn't fighting like the Senator from Nebraska did so that our expanded Medicaid expenses are picked up by the Federal government. Right now it is all about who they had to bribe and how, so that they would vote for the Bill. You have to figure we have a larger population by far then Nebraska, and if it was important for them to have their expenses picked up, it seems even more important to make sure that Virginia doesn't have to pay expanded Medicaid funding. Do we really have any money in Virginia to pick up more unfunded government mandates?
I suppose deflecting the issue onto Lieberman makes it easier to make it seem like the issue is being dealt with above board. Of course, all those promises of CSPAN coverage probably would have served us all better, but they didn't happen either.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: December 19, 2009 12:31PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While humorous, it appears Mr. Stewart is nothing
> more than a whiner on this issue.
He does make a point, though. How can capitalists and republicans justify arbitrarily forcing insurance companies to provide better health care at lower prices? I thought government regulation was what they're trying to avoid. God knows the insurance companies won't do it if it means less profit for them.
I still don't see what the huge deal is with the health care reform. If it provides even shitty coverage for people that otherwise wouldn't have coverage at all, what's the problem?
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> While humorous, it appears Mr. Stewart is nothing
> more than a whiner on this issue.
He does make a point, though. How can capitalists and republicans justify arbitrarily forcing insurance companies to provide better health care at lower prices? I thought government regulation was what they're trying to avoid. God knows the insurance companies won't do it if it means less profit for them.
I still don't see what the huge deal is with the health care reform. If it provides even shitty coverage for people that otherwise wouldn't have coverage at all, what's the problem?
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 12:46PM
They got rid of the public option by expanding Medicaid. States pay a large chunk of Medicaid - so that is how they are deferring costs to the Federal government, by playing a shell game now. You think our State budget shortfalls are bad now? :)
The fact is, these folks are getting emergency coverage. I already laid out my thoughts on covering the uninsured many months ago - and it would cover everyone without insurance. The only problem of course is the folks that believe illegals should get free medical care. Note I said illegals - there is another plan coming to make it so they are not "illegals" anymore, which would also qualify them for the plans. I guarantee one thing that will come out of this Bill - increased taxes for folks making less than $250K as State taxes are increased to cover the unfunded mandates.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
The fact is, these folks are getting emergency coverage. I already laid out my thoughts on covering the uninsured many months ago - and it would cover everyone without insurance. The only problem of course is the folks that believe illegals should get free medical care. Note I said illegals - there is another plan coming to make it so they are not "illegals" anymore, which would also qualify them for the plans. I guarantee one thing that will come out of this Bill - increased taxes for folks making less than $250K as State taxes are increased to cover the unfunded mandates.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 01:37PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can capitalists
> and republicans justify arbitrarily forcing
> insurance companies to provide better health care
> at lower prices? I thought government regulation
> was what they're trying to avoid. God knows the
> insurance companies won't do it if it means less
> profit for them.
As a side note, there are industries that require regulation, especially if they serve the public good. I have never been an advocate of deregulation "just because". It makes no sense for an industry that provides an essential service to the public to be allowed to do so in a way that takes advantage of the public trust. Banks, Financial services, etc - they need to be strictly regulated since they directly deal with money, and money issues on a regular basis. Power and utility companies, water treatment and providers, etc - they need to be regulated as well. Health care, providers and insurance, need to be regulated. There should be more focus in the health care bills to ensure services are provided, and less on how much money is spent though. Those kinds of provisions are counter productive.
It's like this - if I provide a service that meets all the needs I am supposed to, why then do people get up in arms if I figure out a more efficient way to do it that increases my profits? So they should regulate what insurance should do - no pre-existing conditions, protocols for approving new treatments, not allowing them to stop providing benefits for treatments, etc - and then open the competition to nationwide. You are still regulating what they can do and how they have to provide it, you just aren't mandating their profit margin.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can capitalists
> and republicans justify arbitrarily forcing
> insurance companies to provide better health care
> at lower prices? I thought government regulation
> was what they're trying to avoid. God knows the
> insurance companies won't do it if it means less
> profit for them.
As a side note, there are industries that require regulation, especially if they serve the public good. I have never been an advocate of deregulation "just because". It makes no sense for an industry that provides an essential service to the public to be allowed to do so in a way that takes advantage of the public trust. Banks, Financial services, etc - they need to be strictly regulated since they directly deal with money, and money issues on a regular basis. Power and utility companies, water treatment and providers, etc - they need to be regulated as well. Health care, providers and insurance, need to be regulated. There should be more focus in the health care bills to ensure services are provided, and less on how much money is spent though. Those kinds of provisions are counter productive.
It's like this - if I provide a service that meets all the needs I am supposed to, why then do people get up in arms if I figure out a more efficient way to do it that increases my profits? So they should regulate what insurance should do - no pre-existing conditions, protocols for approving new treatments, not allowing them to stop providing benefits for treatments, etc - and then open the competition to nationwide. You are still regulating what they can do and how they have to provide it, you just aren't mandating their profit margin.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 19, 2009 02:02PM
Well, I guess we can call up the Senate and tell them to quit fucking around with this health care thing--RV has already solved it. As for as the emergency coverage goes, try showing up at the emergency room and telling them that you need treatment for cancer, or a serious psychological condition, or dental care, or any other of a long list of conditions that aren't immediately life threatening. This is the problem with the Republicans/"conservatives"--they only see life through the prism of their own personal experience. They look and see that they've managed to do okay--so everyone else can too. I've got mine--fuck you. God forbid an "illegal" should get "free" medical care. Incidentally, tell the millions of "illegals" who work and have payroll and income taxes withheld but will never be able to claim Social Security benefits that it's free.
Btw, the Post this morning debunked the idea that expanding medicaid would shift an undue burden onto the states. Yeah, yeah--I know. They are "biased", it's a stretch, LOL, cut, paste, cut, paste--don't bother.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804163.html
Registered Voter Wrote:
> The fact is, these folks are getting emergency
> coverage. I already laid out my thoughts on
> covering the uninsured many months ago - and it
> would cover everyone without insurance.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They got rid of the public option by expanding
> Medicaid. States pay a large chunk of Medicaid -
> so that is how they are deferring costs to the
> Federal government, by playing a shell game now.
> You think our State budget shortfalls are bad now?
> :)
>
> The fact is, these folks are getting emergency
> coverage. I already laid out my thoughts on
> covering the uninsured many months ago - and it
> would cover everyone without insurance. The only
> problem of course is the folks that believe
> illegals should get free medical care. Note I said
> illegals - there is another plan coming to make it
> so they are not "illegals" anymore, which would
> also qualify them for the plans. I guarantee one
> thing that will come out of this Bill - increased
> taxes for folks making less than $250K as State
> taxes are increased to cover the unfunded
> mandates.
Btw, the Post this morning debunked the idea that expanding medicaid would shift an undue burden onto the states. Yeah, yeah--I know. They are "biased", it's a stretch, LOL, cut, paste, cut, paste--don't bother.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804163.html
Registered Voter Wrote:
> The fact is, these folks are getting emergency
> coverage. I already laid out my thoughts on
> covering the uninsured many months ago - and it
> would cover everyone without insurance.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They got rid of the public option by expanding
> Medicaid. States pay a large chunk of Medicaid -
> so that is how they are deferring costs to the
> Federal government, by playing a shell game now.
> You think our State budget shortfalls are bad now?
> :)
>
> The fact is, these folks are getting emergency
> coverage. I already laid out my thoughts on
> covering the uninsured many months ago - and it
> would cover everyone without insurance. The only
> problem of course is the folks that believe
> illegals should get free medical care. Note I said
> illegals - there is another plan coming to make it
> so they are not "illegals" anymore, which would
> also qualify them for the plans. I guarantee one
> thing that will come out of this Bill - increased
> taxes for folks making less than $250K as State
> taxes are increased to cover the unfunded
> mandates.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Cocksuckers!
()
Date: December 19, 2009 02:16PM
Fuck illegals they should not be alowed to flood our country as they will and please. There should be no "plan" to make illegals legal but a "plan" to install a fence. I don't want to pay for illegals medical treatment either, stabilize amd deport. As for this bullshit about they pay taxes but can't collect social security shit, first of all, don't depend on social security depend on yourself. Secondly that's the prroblem, they pay NO TAXES! They tell thier employer to do no withholding and they move from job to job everyear. And why should illegals be entitled to social security bennefits anyways even if they are working here illegaly. Most of them work "under the table jobs" anyways and they shop at stores that buy and sell imorted shit which probably itself has not entered the country properly been inspected or taxed for that matter.
END ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and INSTALL OUR NEW FENCE!
END ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and INSTALL OUR NEW FENCE!
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 02:20PM
Might have wanted to read that article more thoroughly.
So the States should be happy they are getting such a deal - that the Fed is going to pick up so many dollars of the expansion, etc. Wow, such a great deal - and yet in the sub linked articles from months ago, there is still going to be an increased cost to the States. Where is that money coming from again?
BTW - the "illegals" working for companies that pay them taxable wages are usually getting health insurance also. The folks that get paid under the table are the ones we are talking about here. As for never getting to claim their benefits, that is pretty laughable - they are here illegally, they are possibly using someone else's identify (fraud) and any number of other ways to make their stay here even more illegal, and you want to defend that? Brilliant. Gosh, can we see the statistics that you seem to be pulling out your ass to make this sad sob story? Since you can't even use an article from the WAPO to your advantage (interesting how they try to present a factual run down of the numbers when most people don't even know all the numbers yet) - and yes, the WAPO is biased on this issue, notable in how they try to make Nelson (and Nebraska) look bad to deflect the issue.
"Health-policy experts say there is little basis for Sen. Nelson's concerns about Medicaid expansion" - Who? Policy experts? Who are they?
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 02:21PM by Registered Voter.
So the States should be happy they are getting such a deal - that the Fed is going to pick up so many dollars of the expansion, etc. Wow, such a great deal - and yet in the sub linked articles from months ago, there is still going to be an increased cost to the States. Where is that money coming from again?
BTW - the "illegals" working for companies that pay them taxable wages are usually getting health insurance also. The folks that get paid under the table are the ones we are talking about here. As for never getting to claim their benefits, that is pretty laughable - they are here illegally, they are possibly using someone else's identify (fraud) and any number of other ways to make their stay here even more illegal, and you want to defend that? Brilliant. Gosh, can we see the statistics that you seem to be pulling out your ass to make this sad sob story? Since you can't even use an article from the WAPO to your advantage (interesting how they try to present a factual run down of the numbers when most people don't even know all the numbers yet) - and yes, the WAPO is biased on this issue, notable in how they try to make Nelson (and Nebraska) look bad to deflect the issue.
"Health-policy experts say there is little basis for Sen. Nelson's concerns about Medicaid expansion" - Who? Policy experts? Who are they?
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 02:21PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 19, 2009 02:27PM
You are entitled to be as ignorant, hateful, and bigoted as you like, but you aren't entitled to your own facts:
NASHVILLE — The tax system collects its due, even from a class of workers with little likelihood of claiming a refund and no hope of drawing a Social Security check.
Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm
Cocksuckers! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck illegals they should not be alowed to flood
> our country as they will and please. There should
> be no "plan" to make illegals legal but a "plan"
> to install a fence. I don't want to pay for
> illegals medical treatment either, stabilize amd
> deport. As for this bullshit about they pay taxes
> but can't collect social security shit, first of
> all, don't depend on social security depend on
> yourself. Secondly that's the prroblem, they pay
> NO TAXES! They tell thier employer to do no
> withholding and they move from job to job
> everyear. And why should illegals be entitled to
> social security bennefits anyways even if they are
> working here illegaly. Most of them work "under
> the table jobs" anyways and they shop at stores
> that buy and sell imorted shit which probably
> itself has not entered the country properly been
> inspected or taxed for that matter.
>
> END ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and INSTALL OUR NEW FENCE!
NASHVILLE — The tax system collects its due, even from a class of workers with little likelihood of claiming a refund and no hope of drawing a Social Security check.
Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm
Cocksuckers! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck illegals they should not be alowed to flood
> our country as they will and please. There should
> be no "plan" to make illegals legal but a "plan"
> to install a fence. I don't want to pay for
> illegals medical treatment either, stabilize amd
> deport. As for this bullshit about they pay taxes
> but can't collect social security shit, first of
> all, don't depend on social security depend on
> yourself. Secondly that's the prroblem, they pay
> NO TAXES! They tell thier employer to do no
> withholding and they move from job to job
> everyear. And why should illegals be entitled to
> social security bennefits anyways even if they are
> working here illegaly. Most of them work "under
> the table jobs" anyways and they shop at stores
> that buy and sell imorted shit which probably
> itself has not entered the country properly been
> inspected or taxed for that matter.
>
> END ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and INSTALL OUR NEW FENCE!
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 19, 2009 02:34PM
I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying that I have little inclination to try to punish people who started life with so many fewer advantages than I did and who have it so much worse than I do now. It's called compassion--try it, you might like it.
Registered Voter Wrote:
> and any number of other ways to make their stay
> here even more illegal, and you want to defend
> that? Brilliant.
Registered Voter Wrote:
> and any number of other ways to make their stay
> here even more illegal, and you want to defend
> that? Brilliant.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Tally up these numbers...
()
Date: December 19, 2009 02:39PM
Good you be compasionate just don't ask everyone else to pay for your bleeding heart ideas.
As far as this "income" the government is recieving, guaranteed if we had reliable data it would show they COST us WAY MORE than they might "make" us.
As far as this "income" the government is recieving, guaranteed if we had reliable data it would show they COST us WAY MORE than they might "make" us.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 02:42PM
Voter__ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying that
> I have little inclination to try to punish people
> who started life with so many fewer advantages
> than I did and who have it so much worse than I do
> now. It's called compassion--try it, you might
> like it.
>
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> > and any number of other ways to make their stay
> > here even more illegal, and you want to defend
> > that? Brilliant.
I have plenty of compassion. But there are plenty of American families that could use help that never get it either. I would be much happier with a plan that says "Hey, we are going to open clinics in under served communities to make sure they have access to preventative health care". Folks that come here and want to work, great, more power to them - but they are still nationals of their own countries. Let their own countries come up with ways to pay for their health care. Canada, while not a great example, but a decent one - provides health care, and then if you go out of country they allow for you to buy coverage for while you are away so that you can still go to the doctor or hospital elsewhere.
It's great that America is a land of opportunity - but it is also a country of laws. If you don't want to enforce laws on folks here illegally, then why should folks living here legally give a shit about other laws? For folks that want to come here and register, and follow the legal process, then they will most likely get medical care. If you want to sneak in and take advantage of the system, then yeah, sorry, my compassion meter is a bit low.
EDIT: But I digress - the current health care reform has very little to do with real health care reform - mostly it is about who gets to line what pockets.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 02:44PM by Registered Voter.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying that
> I have little inclination to try to punish people
> who started life with so many fewer advantages
> than I did and who have it so much worse than I do
> now. It's called compassion--try it, you might
> like it.
>
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> > and any number of other ways to make their stay
> > here even more illegal, and you want to defend
> > that? Brilliant.
I have plenty of compassion. But there are plenty of American families that could use help that never get it either. I would be much happier with a plan that says "Hey, we are going to open clinics in under served communities to make sure they have access to preventative health care". Folks that come here and want to work, great, more power to them - but they are still nationals of their own countries. Let their own countries come up with ways to pay for their health care. Canada, while not a great example, but a decent one - provides health care, and then if you go out of country they allow for you to buy coverage for while you are away so that you can still go to the doctor or hospital elsewhere.
It's great that America is a land of opportunity - but it is also a country of laws. If you don't want to enforce laws on folks here illegally, then why should folks living here legally give a shit about other laws? For folks that want to come here and register, and follow the legal process, then they will most likely get medical care. If you want to sneak in and take advantage of the system, then yeah, sorry, my compassion meter is a bit low.
EDIT: But I digress - the current health care reform has very little to do with real health care reform - mostly it is about who gets to line what pockets.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 02:44PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 19, 2009 04:45PM
Oh, I know Republicans have plenty of compassion. They rally the forces when they see examples of unfairness which must be acted on. Take double taxation of dividends--what an outrage! Or the estate tax--another injustice that must not be stand. Oh, and reverse discrimination--if we don't stand up for that rich white kid who didn't get into Harvard because some poor black kid did, who will?
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter__ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying
> that
> > I have little inclination to try to punish
> people
> > who started life with so many fewer advantages
> > than I did and who have it so much worse than I
> do
> > now. It's called compassion--try it, you might
> > like it.
> >
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> > > and any number of other ways to make their
> stay
> > > here even more illegal, and you want to
> defend
> > > that? Brilliant.
>
> I have plenty of compassion. But there are plenty
> of American families that could use help that
> never get it either. I would be much happier with
> a plan that says "Hey, we are going to open
> clinics in under served communities to make sure
> they have access to preventative health care".
> Folks that come here and want to work, great, more
> power to them - but they are still nationals of
> their own countries. Let their own countries come
> up with ways to pay for their health care. Canada,
> while not a great example, but a decent one -
> provides health care, and then if you go out of
> country they allow for you to buy coverage for
> while you are away so that you can still go to the
> doctor or hospital elsewhere.
>
> It's great that America is a land of opportunity -
> but it is also a country of laws. If you don't
> want to enforce laws on folks here illegally, then
> why should folks living here legally give a shit
> about other laws? For folks that want to come here
> and register, and follow the legal process, then
> they will most likely get medical care. If you
> want to sneak in and take advantage of the system,
> then yeah, sorry, my compassion meter is a bit
> low.
>
> EDIT: But I digress - the current health care
> reform has very little to do with real health care
> reform - mostly it is about who gets to line what
> pockets.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter__ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying
> that
> > I have little inclination to try to punish
> people
> > who started life with so many fewer advantages
> > than I did and who have it so much worse than I
> do
> > now. It's called compassion--try it, you might
> > like it.
> >
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> > > and any number of other ways to make their
> stay
> > > here even more illegal, and you want to
> defend
> > > that? Brilliant.
>
> I have plenty of compassion. But there are plenty
> of American families that could use help that
> never get it either. I would be much happier with
> a plan that says "Hey, we are going to open
> clinics in under served communities to make sure
> they have access to preventative health care".
> Folks that come here and want to work, great, more
> power to them - but they are still nationals of
> their own countries. Let their own countries come
> up with ways to pay for their health care. Canada,
> while not a great example, but a decent one -
> provides health care, and then if you go out of
> country they allow for you to buy coverage for
> while you are away so that you can still go to the
> doctor or hospital elsewhere.
>
> It's great that America is a land of opportunity -
> but it is also a country of laws. If you don't
> want to enforce laws on folks here illegally, then
> why should folks living here legally give a shit
> about other laws? For folks that want to come here
> and register, and follow the legal process, then
> they will most likely get medical care. If you
> want to sneak in and take advantage of the system,
> then yeah, sorry, my compassion meter is a bit
> low.
>
> EDIT: But I digress - the current health care
> reform has very little to do with real health care
> reform - mostly it is about who gets to line what
> pockets.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 19, 2009 05:25PM
Voter__ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying that
> I have little inclination to try to punish people
> who started life with so many fewer advantages
> than I did and who have it so much worse than I do
> now. It's called compassion--try it, you might
> like it.
>
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> > and any number of other ways to make their stay
> > here even more illegal, and you want to defend
> > that? Brilliant.
Wow..a human being on FFXU! Who knew? Then again...
Oh, I know Republicans have plenty of compassion. They rally the forces when they see examples of unfairness which must be acted on. Take double taxation of dividends--what an outrage! Or the estate tax--another injustice that must not be stand. Oh, and reverse discrimination--if we don't stand up for that rich white kid who didn't get into Harvard because some poor black kid did, who will?
Oh I see humor...ok..still a human being...and a funny one at that!
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 05:27PM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying that
> I have little inclination to try to punish people
> who started life with so many fewer advantages
> than I did and who have it so much worse than I do
> now. It's called compassion--try it, you might
> like it.
>
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> > and any number of other ways to make their stay
> > here even more illegal, and you want to defend
> > that? Brilliant.
Wow..a human being on FFXU! Who knew? Then again...
Oh, I know Republicans have plenty of compassion. They rally the forces when they see examples of unfairness which must be acted on. Take double taxation of dividends--what an outrage! Or the estate tax--another injustice that must not be stand. Oh, and reverse discrimination--if we don't stand up for that rich white kid who didn't get into Harvard because some poor black kid did, who will?
Oh I see humor...ok..still a human being...and a funny one at that!
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 05:27PM by Vince(1).
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: December 19, 2009 09:27PM
Voter wrote:
"You are entitled to be as ignorant, hateful, and bigoted as you like........"
________________
True to liberal doctrine... when you disagree with someone, call him a hateful ignorant racist/bigot.
You forgot to include the mandatory "white trash/trailer park" insult, by the way.
Let's examine your "bigoted" insult. Explain to us how RV is a bigot.
"You are entitled to be as ignorant, hateful, and bigoted as you like........"
________________
True to liberal doctrine... when you disagree with someone, call him a hateful ignorant racist/bigot.
You forgot to include the mandatory "white trash/trailer park" insult, by the way.
Let's examine your "bigoted" insult. Explain to us how RV is a bigot.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 19, 2009 09:45PM
Actually, I called 'Cocksuckers!' ignorant, hateful, and bigoted--if you re-read my post you'll see that it was in response to a ignorant, hateful, and bigoted post from that particular enlightened individual. Look it up.
Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter wrote:
> "You are entitled to be as ignorant, hateful, and
> bigoted as you like........"
> ________________
>
> True to liberal doctrine... when you disagree
> with someone, call him a hateful ignorant
> racist/bigot.
>
> You forgot to include the mandatory "white
> trash/trailer park" insult, by the way.
>
> Let's examine your "bigoted" insult. Explain to us
> how RV is a bigot.
Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter wrote:
> "You are entitled to be as ignorant, hateful, and
> bigoted as you like........"
> ________________
>
> True to liberal doctrine... when you disagree
> with someone, call him a hateful ignorant
> racist/bigot.
>
> You forgot to include the mandatory "white
> trash/trailer park" insult, by the way.
>
> Let's examine your "bigoted" insult. Explain to us
> how RV is a bigot.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 09:56PM
The inheritance tax - that is funny. Do you know who gets hurt the most by the inheritance tax? The middle class for the most part. Folks with estates valued more than $500K in most cases can afford to hire someone to tell them how to set up trusts to ensure that their estate passes on with little or no tax implications. The only ones hurt are the folks in the middle - the ones who run their own business, and if they pass away their family can't do much except pay the taxes on the estate. Under Bush I believe they raised it to $500K, but that will be expiring soon, and the word is they are going to lower it back to $100K. That is taxable estate.
I speak from experience on this as the small business my parents had run since I was a little kid, and the small bit of savings they had was mostly wiped out when my father passed away (that was back before they had a limit). My mother paid so much in taxes that she was left with very little - but lucky for her she was able to get a job with a company that my father did business with and was able to support us. The business didn't bring in that much when it was running - we had 8 or 9 people working for the company - but it was wiped out when he passed away. The inheritance tax is ridiculous - as is double taxation of dividends. There is no justification for it. None. Please explain that rationale - because certainly we were not rich, and yet my mother lost almost everything because of taxes. But the rich folks are laughing their asses off, because even with a $500K limit they STILL paid very little in inheritance tax. But their accountants and tax LAWYERS at least got paid. Screw the regular folks though. Only the rich and the poor should get all the advantages right? The rich can afford it, and the middle class ends up paying for everyone else when you start raising taxes to screw the rich. But it sounds good to invoke how the poor people suffer when you are trying to pass new laws huh? You are absolutely gullible if you think that is why they are passing these laws - the ones that allow them to line the pockets of their "rich" friends with even more money.
Ask Obama about his "no tax increase on folks making less than $250K". The joke is on anyone that believed that - but we had that discussion back before the election. So what change DID you all get from Obama? Open government? Nope. Less spending then the Republicans? Nope. Raising taxes on the rich? Not so far. Raising taxes on everyone else? Yep - when health care, and cap and tax, and all the rest are passed we will all pay for that. The rich folks will still do just like they always have (although there will be an army of new IRS folks to go after overseas accounts - and when those are all gone who will they go after next?), and the poor will stay poor. But hey, the Federal government will get bigger - that should help right? Since we can't pay for the government we have already, it makes sense to make it bigger.
I am guessing someone decided to come out of anonymity since everyone was ignoring him.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 10:48PM by Registered Voter.
I speak from experience on this as the small business my parents had run since I was a little kid, and the small bit of savings they had was mostly wiped out when my father passed away (that was back before they had a limit). My mother paid so much in taxes that she was left with very little - but lucky for her she was able to get a job with a company that my father did business with and was able to support us. The business didn't bring in that much when it was running - we had 8 or 9 people working for the company - but it was wiped out when he passed away. The inheritance tax is ridiculous - as is double taxation of dividends. There is no justification for it. None. Please explain that rationale - because certainly we were not rich, and yet my mother lost almost everything because of taxes. But the rich folks are laughing their asses off, because even with a $500K limit they STILL paid very little in inheritance tax. But their accountants and tax LAWYERS at least got paid. Screw the regular folks though. Only the rich and the poor should get all the advantages right? The rich can afford it, and the middle class ends up paying for everyone else when you start raising taxes to screw the rich. But it sounds good to invoke how the poor people suffer when you are trying to pass new laws huh? You are absolutely gullible if you think that is why they are passing these laws - the ones that allow them to line the pockets of their "rich" friends with even more money.
Ask Obama about his "no tax increase on folks making less than $250K". The joke is on anyone that believed that - but we had that discussion back before the election. So what change DID you all get from Obama? Open government? Nope. Less spending then the Republicans? Nope. Raising taxes on the rich? Not so far. Raising taxes on everyone else? Yep - when health care, and cap and tax, and all the rest are passed we will all pay for that. The rich folks will still do just like they always have (although there will be an army of new IRS folks to go after overseas accounts - and when those are all gone who will they go after next?), and the poor will stay poor. But hey, the Federal government will get bigger - that should help right? Since we can't pay for the government we have already, it makes sense to make it bigger.
I am guessing someone decided to come out of anonymity since everyone was ignoring him.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 10:48PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 10:29PM
And it appears the Chinese will not be funding our debt... so it will be interesting to see which train hits the end of the track first. Rampant spending and no way to pay for it (that will be interesting) - or massive inflation/deflation.
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/print.asp?id=423054
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/print.asp?id=423054
Quote
...
In a discussion on the global role of the dollar, Zhu told an academic audience that it was inevitable that the dollar would continue to fall in value because Washington continued to issue more Treasuries to finance its deficit spending.
He then addressed where demand for that debt would come from.
"The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries," Zhu said, according to an audio recording of his remarks. "Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible."
"The US current account deficit is falling as residents' savings increase, so its trade turnover is falling, which means the US is supplying fewer dollars to the rest of the world," he added. "The world does not have so much money to buy more US Treasuries."
China continues to see its foreign exchange reserves grow, albeit at a slower pace than in past years, due to a large trade surplus and inflows of foreign investment. They stood at US$2.3 trillion at the end of September.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: December 19, 2009 10:30PM
My apologies, Voter.
May I extend to you my peace pipe?
Attachments:
May I extend to you my peace pipe?
Attachments:
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 10:34PM
Yeah - I just have no compassion. Get with the program here Alias... :)
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: December 19, 2009 10:56PM
Hey, Voter, give me back my pipe. Wipe if off first, please.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:07PM
Okay, really you have no clue about this. No middle class people are affected by the estate tax--I can assure you. The current exemption is 3.5M per person or 7M per couple. I actually oppose the estate tax on some levels but understand the rationale on others. I oppose the estate tax for the reasons you cite--because people have to take extraordinary measures to avoid it, including hiring estate planners, establishing trusts, accountants, lawyers, etc., but it's not even close to what you are talking about. Btw, currently anyone can give 13k to any other individual without any tax consequences. That means a married couple can give their adult married child 52k. Multiply that by several sets of children and you can pass on hundreds of thousands of dollars per year tax free. The middle class are not hurt by the estate tax.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The inheritance tax - that is funny. Do you know
> who gets hurt the most by the inheritance tax? The
> middle class for the most part. Folks with estates
> valued more than $500K in most cases can afford
> to hire someone to tell them how to set up trusts
> to ensure that their estate passes on with little
> or no tax implications. The only ones hurt are the
> folks in the middle - the ones who run their own
> business, and if they pass away their family can't
> do much except pay the taxes on the estate. Under
> Bush I believe they raised it to $500K, but that
> will be expiring soon, and the word is they are
> going to lower it back to $100K. That is taxable
> estate.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The inheritance tax - that is funny. Do you know
> who gets hurt the most by the inheritance tax? The
> middle class for the most part. Folks with estates
> valued more than $500K in most cases can afford
> to hire someone to tell them how to set up trusts
> to ensure that their estate passes on with little
> or no tax implications. The only ones hurt are the
> folks in the middle - the ones who run their own
> business, and if they pass away their family can't
> do much except pay the taxes on the estate. Under
> Bush I believe they raised it to $500K, but that
> will be expiring soon, and the word is they are
> going to lower it back to $100K. That is taxable
> estate.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:19PM
Recently a friend of ours had someone pass away in the family. Luckily the person had setup a trust for part of his estate. Everything over $2M was subject to Federal taxes - even though it was in the trust. All it did was bypass State probate for the majority. There was also a State inheritance tax that had to be paid regardless of the estate. So - you have recent experience with this?
This death was in the last 3 years - did the limits change recently? This guy wasn't a "rich" person either - and yet the estate paid over $400K in taxes. And he certainly wasn't worth $3.5M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
Looks like if you are going to die, 2010 is the year to do it in. BTW - my father passed away before they set the exclusion to $500K (which was before 2001) - that was the last time I thought about the rate. After you posted I remembered the $2M exclusion - and it is only $3.5M this year. It may revert to $1M - although they haven't agreed on what it should be yet. But ok, as of 2002 it was less of a problem to middle class folks, but $1M isn't much when you talk about places like NY City.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 11:29PM by Registered Voter.
This death was in the last 3 years - did the limits change recently? This guy wasn't a "rich" person either - and yet the estate paid over $400K in taxes. And he certainly wasn't worth $3.5M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
Looks like if you are going to die, 2010 is the year to do it in. BTW - my father passed away before they set the exclusion to $500K (which was before 2001) - that was the last time I thought about the rate. After you posted I remembered the $2M exclusion - and it is only $3.5M this year. It may revert to $1M - although they haven't agreed on what it should be yet. But ok, as of 2002 it was less of a problem to middle class folks, but $1M isn't much when you talk about places like NY City.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2009 11:29PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Dane Bramage
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:24PM
All I can say is that I am happy about the new 'Change' of bipartisanship and working together, now that Barack is in town.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
2rich
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:34PM
Every civilisation has wrestled with what to do about inherited property. The human impulse to pass on what you own to your heirs is one of the most primeval and elemental of all. But allowing too few families to concentrate property ownership and thus deny the prospect to others is pernicious. It creates an unfair aristocracy of the propertied that ultimately undermines the legitimacy of the very idea of property.
This is why most societies have developed a system for taxing property when it moves between generations. Whether it was the seigneurage that a young baron paid to the king when taking over his father's lands or the tax the Romans levied on inheritance, the principle of society taking a proper cut on such bequests has long been established. Until today.
Suddenly the notion that taxing inherited property is immoral is taking root, and without much opposition. Recently I joined a conversation of three very rich businessmen, all of whom would consider themselves liberal but all questioned the justice of paying even a small fraction of their fortune to the state on their death.
No moral system yet devised can justify this position. The world's great religions say that the Earth is given to all men and women by God, so exclusively to privilege some of God's children with inherited property free of tax and not others is, a priori, wrong. A left-wing position is clear: property on death should be taxed. But even political philosopher John Locke, the great advocate of private property as the just reward for individual hard work, acknowledged that only a fair part should be passed on.
Which is why the emerging consensus that inheritance tax is unfair and should be reduced, if not abolished, (which Shadow Chancellor George Osborne exploited so successfully last week in his proposal to lift the threshold to £1m) is so odd. Only about 6 per cent of the value of inherited property in Britain is paid in tax; less than in most other countries, much less than we paid even 25 years ago, and much less than in feudal England. This should be a cause for concern, not for lowering it still further.
Rather, the take should be raised and the loopholes closed that let much property to be held offshore. The economic benefits are clear. More property would have to be sold on death to pay the tax, easing house-price inflation and giving people the chance to buy property that otherwise would not come on the market. Farmers in my grandfather's generation won the chance to buy farms after the war when estate duty was high and land came on the market. No more.
Neither has any economic study managed to associate light inheritance tax with innovation, entrepreneurship or high business start-ups. Rather, the story is the opposite. Easy access to unearned wealth destroys the incentive to work and to experiment - one of the reasons the wiser among the super-wealthy are generally careful to limit the money they leave to their children. One very wealthy man I know has decided that, having paid for his children's education and bought them houses, he will leave them no bequest because already the prospect of being gifted wealth is undermining, even destroying, their character. The 120 American billionaires campaigning against the elimination of inheritance tax in the US take the same view.
Why have we arrived where we are? Part of the story is the "brilliance" of US neoconservatives in labelling inheritance tax as a 'death tax' - and the phrase being imported to Britain. In fact, inheritance tax is a life tax: it promotes social mobility, creates opportunity, limits entrenched advantage, redistributes wealth and helps keep property cheaper - but that is not how it is known in popular culture. Extraordinarily, inheritance tax is felt to be unfair. There is one good reason for this: more than 70 per cent of the take is paid by people inheriting estates of half a million pounds or less.
Labour, of course, should have seen this coming. It should have protected its position by making the case for inheritance tax morally, socially and economically at the same time as designing the system so that it was much fairer. The eligibility threshold for inheritance tax should have been raised, while simultaneously making the rates sharply progressive. Glaring loopholes should have been eliminated. Labour could even have copied the ultra-capitalist Swiss and introduced a small wealth tax levied annually, including on super-rich foreigners living in Britain who enjoy the right to be considered 'non-domiciled' and so excused taxation on British income and assets.
This cluster of policies is proposed by the father of the third way (and Blairism), Tony Giddens, in Over to You, Mr Brown. Yet Chancellor Brown eschewed both making inheritance tax more progressive and thus fairer, or even making the case for it. He preferred to keep the temperature down while watching the yield more than double, courtesy of house-price inflation unmatched by a parallel rise in inheritance tax thresholds.
Osborne's numbers almost certainly do not add up; to find £3. 5bn to pay for his inheritance tax cut he will have to do more than levy £25,000 per head on the non-domiciled rich. But it is clever politics, appealing to the new amoral consensus, forcing Labour to defend the foreign super-rich and exposing its ambiguities over inheritance tax. Britain could soon become one of the few civilisations in history with no effective taxation on inherited wealth, with incalculable effects on opportunity, social mobility and fairness. Labour's high command should ask how it has come to this.
This is why most societies have developed a system for taxing property when it moves between generations. Whether it was the seigneurage that a young baron paid to the king when taking over his father's lands or the tax the Romans levied on inheritance, the principle of society taking a proper cut on such bequests has long been established. Until today.
Suddenly the notion that taxing inherited property is immoral is taking root, and without much opposition. Recently I joined a conversation of three very rich businessmen, all of whom would consider themselves liberal but all questioned the justice of paying even a small fraction of their fortune to the state on their death.
No moral system yet devised can justify this position. The world's great religions say that the Earth is given to all men and women by God, so exclusively to privilege some of God's children with inherited property free of tax and not others is, a priori, wrong. A left-wing position is clear: property on death should be taxed. But even political philosopher John Locke, the great advocate of private property as the just reward for individual hard work, acknowledged that only a fair part should be passed on.
Which is why the emerging consensus that inheritance tax is unfair and should be reduced, if not abolished, (which Shadow Chancellor George Osborne exploited so successfully last week in his proposal to lift the threshold to £1m) is so odd. Only about 6 per cent of the value of inherited property in Britain is paid in tax; less than in most other countries, much less than we paid even 25 years ago, and much less than in feudal England. This should be a cause for concern, not for lowering it still further.
Rather, the take should be raised and the loopholes closed that let much property to be held offshore. The economic benefits are clear. More property would have to be sold on death to pay the tax, easing house-price inflation and giving people the chance to buy property that otherwise would not come on the market. Farmers in my grandfather's generation won the chance to buy farms after the war when estate duty was high and land came on the market. No more.
Neither has any economic study managed to associate light inheritance tax with innovation, entrepreneurship or high business start-ups. Rather, the story is the opposite. Easy access to unearned wealth destroys the incentive to work and to experiment - one of the reasons the wiser among the super-wealthy are generally careful to limit the money they leave to their children. One very wealthy man I know has decided that, having paid for his children's education and bought them houses, he will leave them no bequest because already the prospect of being gifted wealth is undermining, even destroying, their character. The 120 American billionaires campaigning against the elimination of inheritance tax in the US take the same view.
Why have we arrived where we are? Part of the story is the "brilliance" of US neoconservatives in labelling inheritance tax as a 'death tax' - and the phrase being imported to Britain. In fact, inheritance tax is a life tax: it promotes social mobility, creates opportunity, limits entrenched advantage, redistributes wealth and helps keep property cheaper - but that is not how it is known in popular culture. Extraordinarily, inheritance tax is felt to be unfair. There is one good reason for this: more than 70 per cent of the take is paid by people inheriting estates of half a million pounds or less.
Labour, of course, should have seen this coming. It should have protected its position by making the case for inheritance tax morally, socially and economically at the same time as designing the system so that it was much fairer. The eligibility threshold for inheritance tax should have been raised, while simultaneously making the rates sharply progressive. Glaring loopholes should have been eliminated. Labour could even have copied the ultra-capitalist Swiss and introduced a small wealth tax levied annually, including on super-rich foreigners living in Britain who enjoy the right to be considered 'non-domiciled' and so excused taxation on British income and assets.
This cluster of policies is proposed by the father of the third way (and Blairism), Tony Giddens, in Over to You, Mr Brown. Yet Chancellor Brown eschewed both making inheritance tax more progressive and thus fairer, or even making the case for it. He preferred to keep the temperature down while watching the yield more than double, courtesy of house-price inflation unmatched by a parallel rise in inheritance tax thresholds.
Osborne's numbers almost certainly do not add up; to find £3. 5bn to pay for his inheritance tax cut he will have to do more than levy £25,000 per head on the non-domiciled rich. But it is clever politics, appealing to the new amoral consensus, forcing Labour to defend the foreign super-rich and exposing its ambiguities over inheritance tax. Britain could soon become one of the few civilisations in history with no effective taxation on inherited wealth, with incalculable effects on opportunity, social mobility and fairness. Labour's high command should ask how it has come to this.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
fuckthepoor
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:42PM
There is a stunning disconnect between the terrible budget shortfalls facing states and localities and the priorities of federal tax-cutters. States face budget deficits of more than $60 billion for the coming year--and the ax is falling on mental health, education and children's healthcare. Libraries are being shuttered, tuitions increased and parks closed. Governors of all political persuasions talk about the need for massive federal relief to the states in the form of block grants and Medicaid subsidies.
John Cavanagh & Chuck Collins: In this age of inequality, the wealth that should be shared by all Americans trickle up to the rich.
Yet the President and Congressional tax-cutters are marching ahead with a $670 billion tax cut that could include elimination of dividend taxes and an acceleration of 2001 tax rate cuts. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, 42 percent of the benefits of the dividend tax cut will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, whose incomes are above $330,000. These proposals have more to do with rewarding campaign contributors and lobbying patrons than with economic stimulus.
Also at the top of the domestic agenda is the push to make repeal of the federal estate tax permanent. Such a step will not have any short-term or long-term economic stimulus effect. But cutting $850 billion in revenue in the decade after the tax is phased out--money that would have been collected from the heirs of multimillionaires--will prolong the current fiscal crisis. Many states will feel the pain of revenue loss first because their inheritance and estate taxes are linked to the federal levy.
Today, the estate tax affects less than 2 percent of the richest households, those with wealth exceeding $1 million. A reformed estate tax, with wealth exemptions boosted to $3.5 million, would still generate tens of billions of dollars of revenue a year. Under such a reform, an estimated 6,000 estates a year, averaging $17 million each, would pay the tax. In Maine, Montana, Alaska and Mississippi--states where both senators have voted to completely eliminate the tax--the estimated number of estates paying the tax every year would be fewer than twenty-five.
Proposals to reform the tax have been blocked since 2000 by the "all or nothing" repeal lobby, which understands the peril of not having smaller estates as camouflage. Once exemptions rise above $3 million, it becomes impossible to find a credible and photogenic farmer or restaurant owner who will complain about what opponents call the "death tax." It's hard enough to find them now. The pro-repeal American Farm Bureau was asked to produce an example of a farmer who had lost a farm because of the estate tax. It could not identify a single one.
Lost in this debate are the benefits to our country of maintaining an estate tax. Originally passed in 1916, the estate tax was a fundamentally American response to the excesses of the Gilded Age. Populist reformers labored for the three decades before 1916 to pass federal income and estate taxes in order to shift the tax burden, mostly in the form of nineteenth-century tariff duties and excise taxes, off of Midwestern and Southern farm states and onto the wealthy Northeastern states. But underlying the movement for an estate tax was a recognition that too much concentrated wealth and power was putting our democracy at risk. We had fought a revolution to reject hereditary political and economic power--and the dizzying inequalities of the Gilded Age violated a fundamental American ideal of equality of opportunity.
We are now in a second Gilded Age. Instead of taking steps that would strengthen our democracy, we're heading backward to the wealth inequalities of a century ago. We need to preserve the estate tax in states and at the federal level for exactly the reason it is under assault. In a democracy, we should be offended when the power of concentrated wealth brazenly attempts to shape the terms of policy debate and dictate the rules of our society.
John Cavanagh & Chuck Collins: In this age of inequality, the wealth that should be shared by all Americans trickle up to the rich.
Yet the President and Congressional tax-cutters are marching ahead with a $670 billion tax cut that could include elimination of dividend taxes and an acceleration of 2001 tax rate cuts. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, 42 percent of the benefits of the dividend tax cut will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, whose incomes are above $330,000. These proposals have more to do with rewarding campaign contributors and lobbying patrons than with economic stimulus.
Also at the top of the domestic agenda is the push to make repeal of the federal estate tax permanent. Such a step will not have any short-term or long-term economic stimulus effect. But cutting $850 billion in revenue in the decade after the tax is phased out--money that would have been collected from the heirs of multimillionaires--will prolong the current fiscal crisis. Many states will feel the pain of revenue loss first because their inheritance and estate taxes are linked to the federal levy.
Today, the estate tax affects less than 2 percent of the richest households, those with wealth exceeding $1 million. A reformed estate tax, with wealth exemptions boosted to $3.5 million, would still generate tens of billions of dollars of revenue a year. Under such a reform, an estimated 6,000 estates a year, averaging $17 million each, would pay the tax. In Maine, Montana, Alaska and Mississippi--states where both senators have voted to completely eliminate the tax--the estimated number of estates paying the tax every year would be fewer than twenty-five.
Proposals to reform the tax have been blocked since 2000 by the "all or nothing" repeal lobby, which understands the peril of not having smaller estates as camouflage. Once exemptions rise above $3 million, it becomes impossible to find a credible and photogenic farmer or restaurant owner who will complain about what opponents call the "death tax." It's hard enough to find them now. The pro-repeal American Farm Bureau was asked to produce an example of a farmer who had lost a farm because of the estate tax. It could not identify a single one.
Lost in this debate are the benefits to our country of maintaining an estate tax. Originally passed in 1916, the estate tax was a fundamentally American response to the excesses of the Gilded Age. Populist reformers labored for the three decades before 1916 to pass federal income and estate taxes in order to shift the tax burden, mostly in the form of nineteenth-century tariff duties and excise taxes, off of Midwestern and Southern farm states and onto the wealthy Northeastern states. But underlying the movement for an estate tax was a recognition that too much concentrated wealth and power was putting our democracy at risk. We had fought a revolution to reject hereditary political and economic power--and the dizzying inequalities of the Gilded Age violated a fundamental American ideal of equality of opportunity.
We are now in a second Gilded Age. Instead of taking steps that would strengthen our democracy, we're heading backward to the wealth inequalities of a century ago. We need to preserve the estate tax in states and at the federal level for exactly the reason it is under assault. In a democracy, we should be offended when the power of concentrated wealth brazenly attempts to shape the terms of policy debate and dictate the rules of our society.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
bg
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:44PM
We Still Need the Estate Tax
by Bill Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins
In December 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed alarm about the dangerous concentration of wealth and power in the United States and called on the incoming 60th Congress to pass a federal estate tax. Its primary objective, intoned T.R., ``should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes, which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate.''
A century later, after a 10-year assault, the federal estate tax is here to stay. While the votes no longer exist for permanent repeal, action is still needed. Otherwise, the tax will vanish in 2010 and return in 2011, creating a one-year window for tax-free dying. Congress must act to discourage a year of mysterious accidents in affluent households, bring back predictability and prevent further deterioration of the nation's fiscal situation.
Year of reform
It is likely that 2007 will be the year of estate-tax reform because of these pressures and the rising cost of inaction. But before Congress simply raises exemptions or cuts rates, let's consider all our options.
Congress has been unable to have a reasoned deliberation on the topic, even after solid research and investigative journalists have dispelled most of the fallacies about the tax. The facts are clear: The estate tax raises substantial revenue from those with the greatest capacity to pay.
Abolishing the estate tax would cost $1.03 trillion over the first decade. There are only three ways to fill that shortfall: cut spending, raise taxes on the nonwealthy, or, the current favorite, pile it onto the national debt.
Starting in January, the amount of wealth exempted by the tax will be $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple, and the tax rate will fall to 45 percent. At that point, less than one-third of the richest one percent of households will pay the tax. Ample wealth will still flows to heirs and heiresses, as the effective tax rate on a $10 million estate is only 19 percent.
Repeal advocates are still gunning for the estate tax. They have offered several reckless proposals to gut the tax under the guise of ''reform.'' They need to explain how to pay for the billions in lost revenue.
Instead of leaving more debt for the next generation, the United States should retain a robust estate tax and dedicate its revenue to increasing economic opportunity for the next generation.
A responsible reform would increase the amount of wealth exempted by the tax to $2.5 million for an individual and $5 million for a couple -- and include provisions to assist in the transfer of closely held family businesses.
Instead of the present ''flat rate'' system -- where a $5 million estate pays the same rate as a $5 billion estate -- we should adopt a progressive rate structure. Lifting the tax off smaller estates could be paid for by higher rates on estates over $50 million.
In a November ballot initiative, Washington state voters chose to retain their estate tax by substantial margins. Revenue from the state's tax is dedicated to an Education Legacy Trust Fund that last year spent $100 million to reduce K-12 class size and provide college scholarships for working-class students. We should consider a similar design for the federal estate tax.
Such a prudent policy won't happen unless we change our attitude about taxing inheritances. No one makes a fortune alone, without the help of our society's investments. The moral justification for an estate tax is that some of us have disproportionately benefited from the fertile economic soil we have cultivated together.
How many billionaires land on the Forbes 400 list courtesy of our technological and scientific commons, including the Internet, airwaves, biotechnology and mechanical advances? Seeing the invisible role of the commons in individual wealth creation should foster both an attitude of gratitude and recognition of our obligation to pass on similar opportunities. Previous generations did it for us -- and it is our turn to pass on the gift.
Universal GI Bill
We are not fans of earmarking funds, but the estate tax should be appreciated as an ''economic-opportunity recycling'' program. Estate-tax revenue should go into an ''American opportunity fund,'' a sort of universal GI Bill for the next generation. It could provide grants for higher education and stakeholder funds to start businesses and purchase homes.
A progressive estate tax could serve as an intergenerational pact between the wealthy at the end of their lives -- and those in the next generation who are not born wealthy. Like the GI Bill, it could be one of the best investments our nation makes in its people's aspirations.
Bill Gates Sr. is co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. They are coauthors of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.
© 2006 The Miami Herald
by Bill Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins
In December 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed alarm about the dangerous concentration of wealth and power in the United States and called on the incoming 60th Congress to pass a federal estate tax. Its primary objective, intoned T.R., ``should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes, which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate.''
A century later, after a 10-year assault, the federal estate tax is here to stay. While the votes no longer exist for permanent repeal, action is still needed. Otherwise, the tax will vanish in 2010 and return in 2011, creating a one-year window for tax-free dying. Congress must act to discourage a year of mysterious accidents in affluent households, bring back predictability and prevent further deterioration of the nation's fiscal situation.
Year of reform
It is likely that 2007 will be the year of estate-tax reform because of these pressures and the rising cost of inaction. But before Congress simply raises exemptions or cuts rates, let's consider all our options.
Congress has been unable to have a reasoned deliberation on the topic, even after solid research and investigative journalists have dispelled most of the fallacies about the tax. The facts are clear: The estate tax raises substantial revenue from those with the greatest capacity to pay.
Abolishing the estate tax would cost $1.03 trillion over the first decade. There are only three ways to fill that shortfall: cut spending, raise taxes on the nonwealthy, or, the current favorite, pile it onto the national debt.
Starting in January, the amount of wealth exempted by the tax will be $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple, and the tax rate will fall to 45 percent. At that point, less than one-third of the richest one percent of households will pay the tax. Ample wealth will still flows to heirs and heiresses, as the effective tax rate on a $10 million estate is only 19 percent.
Repeal advocates are still gunning for the estate tax. They have offered several reckless proposals to gut the tax under the guise of ''reform.'' They need to explain how to pay for the billions in lost revenue.
Instead of leaving more debt for the next generation, the United States should retain a robust estate tax and dedicate its revenue to increasing economic opportunity for the next generation.
A responsible reform would increase the amount of wealth exempted by the tax to $2.5 million for an individual and $5 million for a couple -- and include provisions to assist in the transfer of closely held family businesses.
Instead of the present ''flat rate'' system -- where a $5 million estate pays the same rate as a $5 billion estate -- we should adopt a progressive rate structure. Lifting the tax off smaller estates could be paid for by higher rates on estates over $50 million.
In a November ballot initiative, Washington state voters chose to retain their estate tax by substantial margins. Revenue from the state's tax is dedicated to an Education Legacy Trust Fund that last year spent $100 million to reduce K-12 class size and provide college scholarships for working-class students. We should consider a similar design for the federal estate tax.
Such a prudent policy won't happen unless we change our attitude about taxing inheritances. No one makes a fortune alone, without the help of our society's investments. The moral justification for an estate tax is that some of us have disproportionately benefited from the fertile economic soil we have cultivated together.
How many billionaires land on the Forbes 400 list courtesy of our technological and scientific commons, including the Internet, airwaves, biotechnology and mechanical advances? Seeing the invisible role of the commons in individual wealth creation should foster both an attitude of gratitude and recognition of our obligation to pass on similar opportunities. Previous generations did it for us -- and it is our turn to pass on the gift.
Universal GI Bill
We are not fans of earmarking funds, but the estate tax should be appreciated as an ''economic-opportunity recycling'' program. Estate-tax revenue should go into an ''American opportunity fund,'' a sort of universal GI Bill for the next generation. It could provide grants for higher education and stakeholder funds to start businesses and purchase homes.
A progressive estate tax could serve as an intergenerational pact between the wealthy at the end of their lives -- and those in the next generation who are not born wealthy. Like the GI Bill, it could be one of the best investments our nation makes in its people's aspirations.
Bill Gates Sr. is co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. They are coauthors of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.
© 2006 The Miami Herald
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: December 19, 2009 11:46PM
You all are some of the most uninformed..self congratulating challenged people.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
'CockSuckers'
()
Date: December 20, 2009 12:04AM
Hey Voter_,
your a moron.
You called me racist and a bigot because I stated my opinion on illegal immigration and how it costs us a ton to tale care of and school these folks and how we need to install a fence.
But I guess because you are probably a minority, it in YOUR mind is okay to do this.
Well here goes, I'm more of a minority than you ever meet in your life and I call YOU out sir as the racist bigoted asswipe!
Just to earn my titles you called me, I'm also going to add you a an ugly black hair watermelon eatin' seed sucking finger lickin good nigger.
How do you like that for racist you Pansy Liberal fuck.
your a moron.
You called me racist and a bigot because I stated my opinion on illegal immigration and how it costs us a ton to tale care of and school these folks and how we need to install a fence.
But I guess because you are probably a minority, it in YOUR mind is okay to do this.
Well here goes, I'm more of a minority than you ever meet in your life and I call YOU out sir as the racist bigoted asswipe!
Just to earn my titles you called me, I'm also going to add you a an ugly black hair watermelon eatin' seed sucking finger lickin good nigger.
How do you like that for racist you Pansy Liberal fuck.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: December 20, 2009 12:22AM
Voter wrote:
"Btw, currently anyone can give 13k to any other individual without any tax consequences. That means a married couple can give their adult married child 52k. Multiply that by several sets of children and you can pass on hundreds of thousands of dollars per year tax free. The middle class are not hurt by the estate tax."
_______________________
What's the "look back" period? Five years.. seven years?
You have to plan the timing of your death very carefully, don't you?
"Btw, currently anyone can give 13k to any other individual without any tax consequences. That means a married couple can give their adult married child 52k. Multiply that by several sets of children and you can pass on hundreds of thousands of dollars per year tax free. The middle class are not hurt by the estate tax."
_______________________
What's the "look back" period? Five years.. seven years?
You have to plan the timing of your death very carefully, don't you?
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
DoinItDoggyStyle
()
Date: December 20, 2009 12:30AM
Or better yet have someone plan it for you. If your a married man, usually this can be executed by your wife.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: December 20, 2009 01:20AM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > While humorous, it appears Mr. Stewart is
> nothing
> > more than a whiner on this issue.
>
> He does make a point, though. How can capitalists
> and republicans justify arbitrarily forcing
> insurance companies to provide better health care
> at lower prices? I thought government regulation
> was what they're trying to avoid. God knows the
> insurance companies won't do it if it means less
> profit for them.
>
> I still don't see what the huge deal is with the
> health care reform. If it provides even shitty
> coverage for people that otherwise wouldn't have
> coverage at all, what's the problem?
Certain de-regulations would have achieved the same thing, and that is what any true Conservative is for (ie, Less governmental intervention). The government's job is simply to protect us from abuses, not to abuse us in the process. Now they're forcing people to buy into the system otherwise you face a fine. They're also shrinking Medicare benefits, so that they can expand the coverage (Which is another way of saying that more people will have coverage, but for those who already have it, it'll become crappier).
Also, do you, or any other Americans for that matter, actually know what is in all 2,000 pages of this bill? If that should not create some pause or concern....
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > While humorous, it appears Mr. Stewart is
> nothing
> > more than a whiner on this issue.
>
> He does make a point, though. How can capitalists
> and republicans justify arbitrarily forcing
> insurance companies to provide better health care
> at lower prices? I thought government regulation
> was what they're trying to avoid. God knows the
> insurance companies won't do it if it means less
> profit for them.
>
> I still don't see what the huge deal is with the
> health care reform. If it provides even shitty
> coverage for people that otherwise wouldn't have
> coverage at all, what's the problem?
Certain de-regulations would have achieved the same thing, and that is what any true Conservative is for (ie, Less governmental intervention). The government's job is simply to protect us from abuses, not to abuse us in the process. Now they're forcing people to buy into the system otherwise you face a fine. They're also shrinking Medicare benefits, so that they can expand the coverage (Which is another way of saying that more people will have coverage, but for those who already have it, it'll become crappier).
Also, do you, or any other Americans for that matter, actually know what is in all 2,000 pages of this bill? If that should not create some pause or concern....
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 20, 2009 06:37AM
lol
'CockSuckers' Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Voter_,
>
> your a moron.
'CockSuckers' Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Voter_,
>
> your a moron.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Voter__
()
Date: December 20, 2009 07:15AM
There are lots of ways for people with even large estates to avoid most of the estate tax. A simple trust in and of itself wouldn't avoid the tax, but a trust can be set up to hold a life insurance policy that will then be outside of the estate. The proceeds of the policy would be tax free and can be used to offset the estate tax on the remainder of the estate. There are also charitable bypass trusts and other mechanisms. The only reason most people would ever pay estate tax is if they had relatively large estates and failed to do any planning at all. That said, the fact that people are willing to go through such extremes tells me that they don't regard the estate tax as fair. As far as state estate taxes go, you can easily avoid those by living in one of the many states that don't have the estate tax.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recently a friend of ours had someone pass away in
> the family. Luckily the person had setup a trust
> for part of his estate. Everything over $2M was
> subject to Federal taxes - even though it was in
> the trust. All it did was bypass State probate for
> the majority. There was also a State inheritance
> tax that had to be paid regardless of the estate.
> So - you have recent experience with this?
>
> This death was in the last 3 years - did the
> limits change recently? This guy wasn't a "rich"
> person either - and yet the estate paid over $400K
> in taxes. And he certainly wasn't worth $3.5M.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_Uni
> ted_States
> Looks like if you are going to die, 2010 is the
> year to do it in. BTW - my father passed away
> before they set the exclusion to $500K (which was
> before 2001) - that was the last time I thought
> about the rate. After you posted I remembered the
> $2M exclusion - and it is only $3.5M this year. It
> may revert to $1M - although they haven't agreed
> on what it should be yet. But ok, as of 2002 it
> was less of a problem to middle class folks, but
> $1M isn't much when you talk about places like NY
> City.
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recently a friend of ours had someone pass away in
> the family. Luckily the person had setup a trust
> for part of his estate. Everything over $2M was
> subject to Federal taxes - even though it was in
> the trust. All it did was bypass State probate for
> the majority. There was also a State inheritance
> tax that had to be paid regardless of the estate.
> So - you have recent experience with this?
>
> This death was in the last 3 years - did the
> limits change recently? This guy wasn't a "rich"
> person either - and yet the estate paid over $400K
> in taxes. And he certainly wasn't worth $3.5M.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_Uni
> ted_States
> Looks like if you are going to die, 2010 is the
> year to do it in. BTW - my father passed away
> before they set the exclusion to $500K (which was
> before 2001) - that was the last time I thought
> about the rate. After you posted I remembered the
> $2M exclusion - and it is only $3.5M this year. It
> may revert to $1M - although they haven't agreed
> on what it should be yet. But ok, as of 2002 it
> was less of a problem to middle class folks, but
> $1M isn't much when you talk about places like NY
> City.
Re: Daily Does Lieberman
Posted by:
Dane Bramage
()
Date: December 20, 2009 02:34PM
Looks like Harry Reid and Co. bought their last vote:
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, agreed to support the bill in return for more money for his state.
cnn.com
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, agreed to support the bill in return for more money for his state.
cnn.com