• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Kiss...kiss..sucking up already

Econ101

Well-known member
jodywy said:
here in the moutain valleys of the rocky moutains land can sell anywhere from $8,000 to 0ver $100,000(jackson Hole)/acre. So a ranch thhat might net $30,000 a year can be worth $5+ million. I rather see the open space and the ranch rather then displacement of wildlife with a final crop of houses.

That is why the income approach would save family farms. The problem is that the land values are way out of whack compared to what those assets can earn as an operating ranch. This is not the family farmer's doing, it is the structure in the economy.

Sure restructuring the economy will take a lot of time. That is why I proposed the income approach over the present value approach.

Give an example, jodywy and we can go through it.

Lets bring this onto its own topic so people can search it later.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
X said:
Econ101 said:
X you are jumping to conclusions again. Settle down. I have said previously that there should be a 5 million dollar exemption with family farms being valued on the income approach in the appraisal process, not land values. That would take care of 99.9 percent of the family farms. The other .01 percent can go jump in the lake.

Don't get your panties in a wad because you jump to conclusions too fast.
I'm not jumping to anything. You state that you are for redistribution of income and wealth...just like Jesse Jackson and others of his type. That's what the Death Tax does, Jesse.

The tax code is in the sorry shape that it's in because of idiot economist-types that don't have enough common sense to pour p*** out of a boot. These educated idiots come up with all sorts of 'tax-relief' formulas and 'exemptions' for each special interest group. Are you really one of those idiots?

Better to do away with the Death Tax completely than to make it something that just soaks those that don't have the loudest voice. Because that would most likely be farmers and ranchers.

There is simply no reason to tax someone again for what they purchase with their already-taxed-once income. Just because they die. That is ridiculous and is just another example of the all-too-common class envy and jealousy that the Jesse Jackson-types use to further their agendas.

I stand by my previous statement:

I find your support of the Death Tax (in any form) on a ranchers site to be sickening and disgusting and an example of how you really feel about ranchers and ranching families. Jesse. :mad:

X you have to understand that ole econ101 has no since of fairness in his figuring he just thinks all issues can be solved with his $9.99 calculator that his mom and dad bought him to use while taking night courses at the local Junior College.

Maybe one day when he gets a good job, pays some taxes himself. Sweats blood to better his families life. Maybe there will be hope that in another 20-30 years when he matures he will get it. Until then we will just have endure his ideas of Taxes and Fairness that he reads off his notes from that nights class.

I just hope his mom bought him one of those Solar Calculators because God knows he does not have enough common sense to change the battery.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
aplus, I probably pay more taxes than you do and I didn't inherit one red cent of my money.

If you want to remain a pawn and pay more taxes because you can't work a little calculator to see you will be getting screwed, go ahead. People like you are needed to change batteries and such. If this is what you call "common sense" we may have redefine the words.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
aplus, I probably pay more taxes than you do and I didn't inherit one red cent of my money.

Is this why you are so for the Death Tax? Mom and Dad left the farm to brother and sister and left you out? Gave you a bad taste in your mouth for inheritance?

You can crunch the calculator all day. I guess you could just say everyone with wealth could give it up and we redistribute it amongst the poor. What would that make you a socialist? Communist?

Why can you not get it through your thick head, if 50% of the people are paying 95% of the bills, paying in 95% of the Income Tax. Paying the largest portion of Social Security. They have DID THEIR PART!

Now let them keep the things they bought with their highly taxed money.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
no, my parents did not cut me out of any will and I have no ill will in that regard.



The "rich" may be paying more of selected taxes but they are not paying more of the tax burden under Bush:

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A04

Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."

"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."

The question posed was a standard request for analysis of the type members on both sides of the aisle routinely make of the CBO. In this case the ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House and Senate budget committees and the Joint Economic Committee asked Holtz-Eakin -- the former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- to estimate the distribution of the tax cuts among income levels, and compare that to tax levels if none of the cuts were passed.

The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle

They point to a different set of numbers within the CBO study that show that the rich are actually paying more in individual federal income taxes. If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed.

"Are the rich paying their fair share?" asked one GOP aide. "Yeah. They're paying more."


Friday's Question:
It was not until the early 20th century that the Senate enacted rules allowing members to end filibusters and unlimited debate. How many votes were required to invoke cloture when the Senate first adopted the rule in 1917?


But to Democrats, the conclusion was clear. For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460, said Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who analyzed the report.

The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent, the Democrats said.

Congressional Republican aides said the CBO analysis has its limitations. For instance, it assumes that the beneficiaries of business tax cuts passed in 2002 and 2003 are the taxpayers who own stocks, bonds and other stakes in the businesses that received the reductions. But that analysis does not consider new workers hired because of the tax cuts, or higher wages that may have been granted because of the boost to the bottom line.

It also does not reflect that during the 1990s, the tax rates on lower-income households fell considerably due to an expansion of the earned income tax credit and other forms of low-income relief. In that sense, GOP aides said, tax cuts for the wealthy were overdue.

Besides, Holt said, looking narrowly at the distribution of tax cuts ignores the broader benefits -- such as investment, consumer spending, and job creation -- that flow from leaving more money in people's hands and that are spread far more evenly through the economy.

"Tax relief is about fairness, but it's also about economic growth," he said. "So the president's tax relief was both fair and effective, when it comes to bringing us from recession to growth."

But Republicans predicted that Kerry will make the report a major political event, and Furman said the results will be too stark to spin.

"This is the first really detailed government report that says not only did the wealthy get an enormous tax cut, but, if the conclusions are what we expect, the middle class will be left paying a larger proportion of the taxes than they were before," he said
 

Econ101

Well-known member
aplus, if you want to continue to talk yourself into paying more of the tax burden because you simply don't get it, go ahead. Leave the rest of us out of it please.


What is totally out of whack is that we put the burden of our decreasing the tax on the rich onto our future generations and financed through borrowing from the Chinese. It is so dumb. The short term for the long term.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
aplus, if you want to continue to talk yourself into paying more of the tax burden because you simply don't get it, go ahead. Leave the rest of us out of it please.


What is totally out of whack is that we put the burden of our decreasing the tax on the rich onto our future generations and financed through borrowing from the Chinese. It is so dumb. The short term for the long term.

What is totally out of Whack is that we put the burden of supporting America on the backs of the Rich in the first place. Then people like you think they should pay more just because they can afford it in your mind.

And then you want to take their farms after they did all this for you? How selfish is that?

I would gladly pay my part ($28K) to get rid of the deficit. As long as Government would start spending less and taxing less.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve, my example does not have the problem, it is your assumptions thar are the problem.

your solution and support of the death tax has two main flaws....one it is not based on current (or even proposed) law.....

The death tax is an asset tax,..and some assets while worth much do not produce adaquate income to justify the tax.....in your utpoian solution, an income producing plan is just fantasy,...and not based on Real assumptions...

Where did you go to school? When I took economics....all my assumptions had to based on facts I could prove..

the biggest and second problem with the death tax is that the Rich can afford to hide it, and the working poor with land assets are unable to shield them....

if you would like a serious discussion with out calling names then maybe think before you call some one an idiot, sissy, Joke or any other name....it seems to be your style.....or critize thier wife....

oh by the way......I've been Married for 20+ years, in act I will be celebrating 21 in a few days.....My wife said that when you grow up you will understand how growing a family and business is made much harder when taxes take what you see your husband work hard for, especially when his work keeps him from his family......just to see it taken by taxes..
 

Latest posts

Top