isadore;396143 wrote:Charity contribution decrease in times of economic need, as can be seen during the Depression and during 2008 and 2009. In times of extreme need the federal government is the only institution that has the resources to prevent mass suffering, homelessness and starvation. And if the rich have to pay some more taxes, so be it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060903233.html
http://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/news-releases/2009/eighth-annual-guidestar-nonprofit-economic-survey.aspxBuffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap

You seem to think that social security, medicare, Medicaid, etc mainly exist to support an enormous group of idle poor. Why I am sure there are some, the mass majority of those receiving benefits need and deserve them Oldsters who have contributed to social security and medicare, the handicapped, children who have lost a breadwinner, the unemployed. But of course in your view of the world, if they are not contributing then….

I refuse to respond to this since you keep distorting what I have said.

isadore;396143 wrote:Mr. Buffet and some of the other super rich disagree with your view of the estate tax and not fear government taxing his estate.
Buffett backs estate tax, descries wealth gap
(Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett on Wednesday endorsed the estate tax as a check on wealth accumulation,
"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline," Buffett said. "A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1442383020071114

Dozens of the Wealthy Join to Fight Estate Tax Repeal
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm

Uh huh, sure. I say, "Follow the money."

Con_Alma;396162 wrote:The government does not currently have the resources to provide for the mass suffering, homelessness and starvation while the private community does. The private community has much more resources than the federal government.

at times of extreme unemployment and suffering as during the Great Depression the private community through charity has show itself unable or unwilling to aleviate the suffering. As the above sites show in 2008 and 2009 as need grew, contributions to charity lessened.

Yes I read that. My comments were relating to you posting that the federal government is the only institution that has the resources to to prevent mass suffering, homelessness and starvation.

They don't have such resources. They must go elsewhere to find enough. Currently they are borrowing to provide the services they do.

It is quite understandable why you try to deny your lack of sympathy for those in need. But of course we have your need to fight to protect the estates of future generations of “idle rich.”

BCBulldog wrote:Are you kidding me?! You actually believe that the government (or someone else?) has the right to a deceased persons estate other than to whom he/she bequeaths it? Estate tax, inheritance tax, death tax or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than legalized governmental theft.

Vs Warrren Buffett
"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline," Buffett said. "A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."
Buffett, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway (#HYPERLINK "/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=BRKa.N"BRKa.N) questioned any effort to further cut taxes for the wealthy.
"Further shifting of this burden away from the super-rich is not the way to go," he said.
"In a country that prides itself on equality of opportunity, it's becoming anything but that as the gap between the super-rich and the middle class is widening


He can see what a threat to our nation these great hereditary fortunes are and obviously does not see them in your hyperbolic phrase “legalized governmental theft.” And if the government will not tax him as he requested and lobbied then he will give his money away to prevent the creation of those lingering cancerous enemies of meritocracy.

Con_Alma;396206 wrote:Yes I read that. My comments were relating to you posting that the federal government is the only institution that has the resources to to prevent mass suffering, homelessness and starvation.

They don't have such resources. They must go elsewhere to find enough. Currently they are borrowing to provide the services they do.

Well they are the ones that have prevented it. So is your preference that they dont and just let those in need starve, freeze, die.

The point is not what Mr. Buffett or Mr. Gates thinks. The point is what do we think as a collective and who will we put in place to represent our views. If people do not want a transfer tax badly enough then we should be certain to place legislators in place who will ensure our interests are represented.

isadore;396233 wrote:Well they are the ones that have prevented it. So is your preference that they dont and just let those in need starve, freeze, die.

My preference was not the point of my post.

My preference is that you are accurate with presented facts. The government does not have the means to currently do as you previously displayed.

Con_Alma;396236 wrote:The point is not what Mr. Buffett or Mr. Gates thinks. The point is what do we think as a collective and who will we put in place to represent our views. If people do not want a transfer tax badly enough then we should be certain to place legislators in place who will ensure our interests are represented.

We had an election and put President Obama in office until at least January, 2013 and a Democratic majority in office until January 2011.In the 2008 campaign they favored raising taxes on the rich and corporations. The people voted for them.
Actually what Mr Buffett and Mr.Gates think is very important for they have estates that would pay very large amounts of money if this tax is collect. Possibly you are in that group, I am not.
“The top ten percent of income earners pays virtually all of the tax; almost half is paid by the richest 1 in 1,000. Much of the political debate about the estate tax centers around its impact on family farms and small businesses. In fact, almost no farms or businesses actually pay the tax”
“TPC estimates that 14,900 individuals dying in 2009 will leave estates large enough to require filing an estate tax return (gross estates under $3.5 million need not file a return in 2009). After allowing for deductions and credits, 5,500 estates will owe tax”
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/who.cfm

Con_Alma;396250 wrote:My preference was not the point of my post.

My preference is that you are accurate with presented facts. The government does not have the means to currently do as you previously displayed.

Of course they do, read Article one, section 8, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, We the People gave them that power.
Throw in the 16th Amendment

I am aware of who the current legislative body is. That point doesn't change any of the aforementioned opinions.

Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates have the same level of importance on the topic as you or I and that is exactly one vote regarding their respective representation. How much or how large an estate a person has doesn't dictate the level of legislative voting they are afforded.

isadore;396266 wrote:Of course they do, read Article one, section 8, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, We the People gave them that power.
Throw in the 16th Amendment

The don't currently have the means. I didn't say they didn't have the power. There's a difference.

The federal budget does not have the ability to currently fund the what is needed to prevent mass suffering, homelessness and starvation. They must borrow it from those who are willing to lend it.

I seriously doubt that anyone posting on OC...or any family member of said posters will have to worry about paying an estate tax. Well, maybe to the state of Ohio...but not the Fed boys.

If the sundown clause is allowed to take place the federal estate tax level will revert to the pre - economic growth and tax reconciliation act of 2000. That level was very low. I think it was around $1,500,000. I don't have any doubts that there are estates easily worth $1.5 million on here.

Con_Alma;396269 wrote:I am aware of who the current legislative body is. That point doesn't change any of the aforementioned opinions.

Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates have the same level of importance on the topic as you or I and that is exactly one vote regarding their respective representation. How much or how large an estate a person has doesn't dictate the level of legislative voting they are afforded.

read Federalist Paper 10# by Madison and get back to me.

Con_Alma;396271 wrote:The don't currently have the means. I didn't say they didn't have the power. There's a difference.

The federal budget does not have the ability to currently fund the what is needed to prevent mass suffering, homelessness and starvation. They must borrow it from those who are willing to lend it.

If they have the power to tax and borrow, then they have the means. It is not a question of means but of will.

To suggest that these two would resort to being a revolting faction so that their estates would be taxed is laughable.

You are leaving out a very important word in your interpretation of my offering. That word is currently. Their current means are not one of being able to supply the services discussed. I do not regard borrowing as providing the ability to do so.

Put that in context with your suggestion that it is more able than the private sector and that's whereby we disagree.

Con_Alma;396279 wrote:If the sundown clause is allowed to take place the federal estate tax level will revert to the pre - economic growth and tax reconciliation act of 2000. That level was very low. I think it was around $1,500,000. I don't have any doubts that there are estates easily worth $1.5 million on here.

That would be nice, but what did Obama offer
"The president's budget assumes the estate tax will be made permanent at a $3.5 million exemption level p'er person and a top rate of 45% on taxable estates. That's much more generous than current law, which calls for a $1 million exemption level and a 55% top rate starting in 2011.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/pf/taxes/obama_budget_tax_changes/index.htm

Con_Alma;396291 wrote:To suggest that these two would resort to being a revolting faction so that their estates would be taxed is laughable.

factions lobby, many rather successfully

isadore;396305 wrote:That would be nice, but what did Obama offer
"The president's budget assumes the estate tax will be made permanent at a $3.5 million exemption level p'er person and a top rate of 45% on taxable estates. That's much more generous than current law, which calls for a $1 million exemption level and a 55% top rate starting in 2011.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/pf/taxes/obama_budget_tax_changes/index.htm

I don't disagree with that. I made the comment in response to another's suggestion that no one on this forum would be subject to the estate tax. At the sundown clause level I believe there would be and that's the only thing in place currently. I do believe this tax reconciliation legislation sundown clause this will not happen and that a different proposal will be put into place. Until such time I am only speaking to what is.

Context my friend...context.

Suggesting that this respective lobby faction would take place is speculation...nothing more.

Con_Alma;396295 wrote:You are leaving out a very important word in your interpretation of my offering. That word is currently. Their current means are not one of being able to supply the services discussed. I do not regard borrowing as providing the ability to do so.

Put that in context with your suggestion that it is more able than the private sector and that's whereby we disagree.

the private sector has in times of extreme economic distress that it lacks the collective will to alleviate the suffering of the needy. The government of the United States as shown it has the means and the will to do it. In the 1930s and in the present.

We disagree.

The government's only means come from the private sector... meaning they do not have greater means than that which it is supplied from.

Con_Alma;396316 wrote:Suggesting that this respective lobby faction would take place is speculation...nothing more.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm

Con_Alma;396329 wrote:We disagree.

The government's only means come from the private sector... meaning they do not have greater means than that which it is supplied from.

again most importantly they have the will the private sector lacks and
they have the power to tax, borrow and generate other revenue throgh goods and services provided by the government