BoatShoes;780106 wrote: Furthermore, the existence of the estate tax encourages charity and social solidarity.

And this is the role of the federal government because? (rhetorical - it isn't).

LJ;780112 wrote:I'm not fully versed on the estate tax, but is the tax on the full estate or on each inheritance? Like, if each inheritance is under the threshold, the whole estate is taxed as 1 right? I think 1 good fix is to treat each inheritance seperately. There is no reason to tax the estate as a whole, because in that cause it IS a double tax. You are not taxing the people who are inheriting, you are taxing the estate before it is even broken up.

Some states use inheritance taxes as opposed to estate taxes but the Feds tax the whole estate. I don't agree that it is a double tax for reasons stated above and because by definition it cannot be as the person is dead. If we're to respect estates and trusts in all other contexts as legal persons and separate taxpayers, I believe it fair to hold to that principle in this instance.

But to make it cleaner for philosophical reasons and not leave it open at all for people to claim it was a double-tax or "death tax" I tend to agree that it might be better to levy federal inheritance taxes as opposed to a federal estate tax. But, as it stands now, consistent with the perplexing treatment of gifts, the estate pays the taxes on the realization of any gains and the heirs get to exclude any property received via bequest from income and take a stepped up basis in the property.

Realistically, we would probably have an inheritance tax system were it not for the Supreme Court originally creating an incorrect definition of income for income tax purposes in the early days of the income tax that has allowed gifts to be excluded from gross income even though they would be included under pure income tax norms.

queencitybuckeye;780117 wrote:And this is the role of the federal government because? (rhetorical - it isn't).

Oh really, well I suppose you support the repeal of s501(c) then correct because the philosophical justifications underlying the creation of that provision were that if government creates incentives for private charity it helps ease the burdens of government, mediates the free rider problem and allows for a more efficient and smaller government. If rich people are donating to private charities to avoid the estate tax, it eases the burdens of government in the future as private actors can more efficiently meet gratuitous needs that the populace might otherwise try to demand from its government.

BoatShoes;780130 wrote: If rich people are donating to private charities to avoid the estate tax,

They aren't. There's no provable relation between the two.

queencitybuckeye;780181 wrote:They aren't. There's no provable relation between the two.

I mean how can you make this statement? What evidence do you have for such a proposition when anyone who's heard of estate planning might intuitively think otherwise? Under s2055 taxpayers have an unlimited deduction from estate tax liability for transfers of property made to charitable organizations. Additionally s2522 offers an unlimited deduction for inter vivos transfers to charities. Hence, taxpayers can reduce their estate tax liability incredibly by giving to charities that they support. Certainly you would agree that taxpayers by and large would seek to minimize their tax burden all things being equal would you not? What do you think estate planners do?

Here is a link to an organization solely devoted on the premise of encouraging taxpayers to give to charity as a method of avoiding the unified estate and gift taxes.

http://www.pppnet.org/

More of my estate would go to charities if it were not taxed at all.

BoatShoes;780269 wrote:I mean how can you make this statement?

Pretty simple, the estate tax rates have been all over the map from over 50% to zero, and the rate of charitable giving remained basically unchanged.

LJ;780102 wrote:I find your backpeddling extremely hilarious.

You DID ask for the paycheck, twice even.

Also, how is it "worked up" to repost 2 pictures that had been posted a while ago?

You trying to explain your way out of being made to look foolish is making it even worse on yourself. Not only does everyone already shake their head at some of your posts and your short temper, but now they know that you can't even accept facts and eat crow when you are proven a fool.

Also,
Seriously? Criticizing someone saying "do you work" has nothing to do with proving that not only do they work, but are quite successful is ridculous. I think sometimes you just post things either without realizing what you are saying or you just don't remember what you post. This is not the first time you have done something like this

You said " I promise you my paycheck is a lot more than you could ever wish for." (post #769) I asked for you to PROVE something I already knew was impossible to do. I wanted to see if you actually would do something as stupid as posting personal information on an internet discussion board, and you did not disappoint. You showed a statement that may or may not be yours. How is that proving anything? How the FUCK do you know what I wish for? You don't know jack about me, and I can tell you that I do not wish or need to show my bank account (fake or not) to you or any of your lackeys on here. One last time so maybe you can understand. YOU CANT PROVE WHAT I WISH FOR NO MATER WHAT YOU THINK. Showing your bank statement is not what I asked. For the record my account is plenty healthy.

Your on here all the fucking time. I get on here between break for a total of a few minutes a day. Makes you wonder what a person dose for a living, especially one the makes as many claims as you. You are the one making a fool of yourself and you just can't stop. Carry this on of you want but it's getting beyond stupid.

Same guy as Belly? Writing quality matches.

Nah, Belly has more common sense and knows when to walk away.

Writerbuckeye;780453 wrote:Nah, Belly has more common sense and knows when to walk away.

And he's really a pretty good guy.

believer;780466 wrote:And he's really a pretty good guy.

Seems to be, apologies to Belly for the comparison.

Bigdogg;780394 wrote:You said " I promise you my paycheck is a lot more than you could ever wish for." (post #769)

As you keep forgetting after you already inferred that I do not work. Comprehend? No I doubt it.

I asked for you to PROVE something I already knew was impossible to do.

Just because you refuse to believe reality does not make reality impossible

I wanted to see if you actually would do something as stupid as posting personal information on an internet discussion board, and you did not disappoint.

As stupid as posting some numbers? yeah, what are you going to do with those :rolleyes:

You showed a statement that may or may not be yours. How is that proving anything?

How did I get those statements?

How the FUCK do you know what I wish for? You don't know jack about me, and I can tell you that I do not wish or need to show my bank account (fake or not) to you or any of your lackeys on here. One last time so maybe you can understand. YOU CANT PROVE WHAT I WISH FOR NO MATER WHAT YOU THINK.

Why are you now arguing what no one ever debated. Do you know what a figure of speech is?

Showing your bank statement is not what I asked. For the record my account is plenty healthy.

I don't get paychecks, I get draws on profits.

Your on here all the fucking time. I get on here between break for a total of a few minutes a day. Makes you wonder what a person dose for a living, especially one the makes as many claims as you. You are the one making a fool of yourself and you just can't stop. Carry this on of you want but it's getting beyond stupid.

There you go attacking my success again. Which lead to this whole thing. Why can't you just eat crow and GTFO? And if you can't do that, you may have more problems than anyone knows

LJ;780739 wrote:There you go attacking my success again. Which lead to this whole thing. Why can't you just eat crow and GTFO? And if you can't do that, you may have more problems than anyone knows

Toss in the towel LJ. It ain't worth the effort.

There's no towel to toss: doggie has all but been waving it for about 10 pages now; he's just not bright enough to figure it out.

But walking away is probably a good idea, LJ. If for no other reason than it gives your brain a break. Trying to process all those inconsistencies can be quite tiring.

Well, he hasn't melted down and physically threatened anyone yet....that's a plus.

fish82;781818 wrote:Well, he hasn't melted down and physically threatened anyone yet....that's a plus.

Really? Who sent who a PM with their home address John?

Back on topic. another poll has Kasich as the least popular governor in the US. Also some very interesting stuff on there about Jim Tressel, and SB 5 vote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0525.pdf

Bigdogg;783264 wrote:Really? Who sent who a PM with their home address John?

Back on topic. another poll has Kasich as the least popular governor in the US. Also some very interesting stuff on there about Jim Tressel, and SB 5 vote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0525.pdf

You actually just gave me a thread idea

Bigdogg;783264 wrote:
Back on topic. another poll has Kasich as the least popular governor in the US.

Good. Popularity is a sure sign of incompetence.

Leadership -- true leadership -- requires doing unpopular things.

It's nice to have someone in office who is looking at the broad picture and not making moves based solely on polls or politics. He did what he felt was necessary for the state's overall health and well being economically, both short and long-term.

I believe he did the right thing.

One thing is certain: he is a LEADER. You may not like how he's leading, but you can't say he isn't doing it.

That's a wonderful change from Strickland, who was too scared of his own shadow to do shit when it was needed.

Bigdogg;783264 wrote:Really? Who sent who a PM with their home address John?

Back on topic. another poll has Kasich as the least popular governor in the US. Also some very interesting stuff on there about Jim Tressel, and SB 5 vote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0525.pdf

Good idea...probably your best one in the past 48 hours.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/27/bill-could-make-schools-suit-moot.html?sid=101

Just a couple little blurbs from that story that stand out! "But Gov. John Kasich and GOP leaders in the General Assembly might resolve the year-old lawsuit sooner.

The Senate will decide next week whether to keep several charter-school provisions added to the budget by House Republicans at Brennan's request."

At Brennans request! LOL

"Many involve issues at the center of the lawsuit against his White Hat Management Co., including one that would allow the for-profit company to keep secret how it spends tax dollars it receives to operate charter schools."

Isnt that a major sticking point for some of you?

"House Speaker William G. Batchelder, who had repeatedly insisted that he did not know where the amendments came from, acknowledged yesterday that House Republicans acted at the request of Brennan. The charter-school operator has been Ohio's second-biggest campaign contributor, almost exclusively to Republicans, in the past decade."

He and the others are leading alright, but I guess it depends on which way you face if the crap hits you in the face or not!

"The lawmakers also agreed: to ban the state from suspending or putting on probation charter schools with poor student performance, fiscal mismanagement or a law violation; not to require charter schools to comply with any education law that doesn't also apply to private schools; and to make the renewal of a contract between a community school and its sponsor subject to the operator's approval."

I left the 2nd bolded part in there, that is one of the few amendments I agree with! lol

May 27th article, now lets look at what someone from Kasichs office said on May 11th. http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/11/kasich-balks-at-house-changes-to-charter-plan.html?sid=101&adsec=politics

"Last-minute charter-school provisions that House Republicans added to the budget should come out, Gov. John Kasich's top education adviser said yesterday.Robert Sommers, director of the Governor's Office of 21st Century Education, told the State Board of Education that the administration supports expanding school choice, but not at the expense of strong oversight and accountability"

What a big difference 16 days makes I guess! lol

Writerbuckeye;783299 wrote:Leadership -- true leadership -- requires doing unpopular things.

It's nice to have someone in office who is looking at the broad picture and not making moves based solely on polls or politics. He did what he felt was necessary for the state's overall health and well being economically, both short and long-term.

Yet you apply the exact opposite reasoning to President Obama and democratic policies.

BoatShoes;783407 wrote:Yet you apply the exact opposite reasoning to President Obama and democratic policies.

No I don't.

I just happen to totally disagree with his approach to things -- primarily expanding government and creating huge deficits in the process.

He may have done what he thought was right with his health care legislation, but it's very obvious by now that it's not something the country can afford at this point, even if we wanted to do it.

And I'd question his REAL commitment to his own laws by the number of waivers the administration is handing out. If you truly believe your way is best, why are you allowing hundreds of companies and organizations to opt out?

redstreak one;783365 wrote:http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/27/bill-could-make-schools-suit-moot.html?sid=101

Just a couple little blurbs from that story that stand out! "But Gov. John Kasich and GOP leaders in the General Assembly might resolve the year-old lawsuit sooner.

The Senate will decide next week whether to keep several charter-school provisions added to the budget by House Republicans at Brennan's request."

At Brennans request! LOL

"Many involve issues at the center of the lawsuit against his White Hat Management Co., including one that would allow the for-profit company to keep secret how it spends tax dollars it receives to operate charter schools."

Isnt that a major sticking point for some of you?

"House Speaker William G. Batchelder, who had repeatedly insisted that he did not know where the amendments came from, acknowledged yesterday that House Republicans acted at the request of Brennan. The charter-school operator has been Ohio's second-biggest campaign contributor, almost exclusively to Republicans, in the past decade."

He and the others are leading alright, but I guess it depends on which way you face if the crap hits you in the face or not!

"The lawmakers also agreed: to ban the state from suspending or putting on probation charter schools with poor student performance, fiscal mismanagement or a law violation; not to require charter schools to comply with any education law that doesn't also apply to private schools; and to make the renewal of a contract between a community school and its sponsor subject to the operator's approval."

I left the 2nd bolded part in there, that is one of the few amendments I agree with! lol

May 27th article, now lets look at what someone from Kasichs office said on May 11th. http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/11/kasich-balks-at-house-changes-to-charter-plan.html?sid=101&adsec=politics

"Last-minute charter-school provisions that House Republicans added to the budget should come out, Gov. John Kasich's top education adviser said yesterday.Robert Sommers, director of the Governor's Office of 21st Century Education, told the State Board of Education that the administration supports expanding school choice, but not at the expense of strong oversight and accountability"

What a big difference 16 days makes I guess! lol

Follow the money!