America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by snowwolf777. 89 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
ONCE AGAIN PRESIDENT OBAMA WINS THE LAST HAND AND TAKES HOME THE TROPHY
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
MITCH MCONNEL, A FIRST CLASS AMERICAN,
DEVOTED TO HIS COUNTRY AND HIS CONSTITUENTS,
HAS PICKED UP HIS SWORD AND PROMISED
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS THAT
HE INTENDS TO MAKE EVERYTHING THE DEMOCRATS
WANT TO DO FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, AS DIFFICULT
AS HE CAN.

WHY WOULD HE WANT TO MAKE PROGRESS .FOR THE
COUNTRY IMPOSSIBLE? WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE A
LEGISLATURE TO WORK AGAINST THE PEOPLE?

HAVING MADE A SIMPLE COMPROMISE, GIVE THE
RICH AND THE SUPER RICH THEIR TAX BREAK, BIG
F'N DEAL, CONSIDERING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE
POOR GET THEIR TAX CUTS, AND THE COUNTRY
NOW HAS THE NUCLEAR TREATY PASSED AND
SIGNED INTO LAW, , SOMETHING THE REPUBLICANS
WERE DEAD AGAINST, PREFERRING TO RETURN TO
"DUCK AND COVER."

THE REPSUBLICANS, HAVING FORGOTTEN THE
COUNTRIES PLEDGE TO THE "FIRST RESPONDERS,"
THE PEOPLE THAT WERE MISINFORMED BY THEIR
GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF WORKING
AROUND THE SITE OF THE WTC, BEING TOLD THERE
WAS NO DANGER IN BREATHING THE AIR, DECIDED
NOT TO PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH NEEDS. WHY? IS IT
BECAUSE THEY ARE A BUNCH OF HEARTSLESS BAST
ARDS, OR WHAT. LEGISLATION PASSED AND SIGNED
INTO LAW BY OBAMA AND HIS TEAM.

AND INCIDENTLY THE SITE OF THE WTC WAS A CRIME
SCENE. WHY THE RUSH TO GET RID OF ALL THE
FORENSICS SO QUICKLY BEFORE INVESTIGATORS
COULD LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT WAS
THE CAUSE OF THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING AND
WHY DID THE BUILDING THAT WASN'T HIT COLLAPSE?

THEIR WERE MANY OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION
PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW, BUT THE Coup de
grâce, THE DEATH KNELL TO THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT
TRYING TO CONVERT THE UNENLIGHTENED, JEWS,
BUDDAISTS AND ANY OTHER BELIEF SYSTEM THAT
DOESN'T CARE TAT THERE ARE HOMOSEXUALS AND
LESBIANS LIVING AMONG US, AND NEED TO BE
DESTROYED BECAUSE THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION
TO THEIR CHOICE OF GOD, THE MILITARY WILL NO
LONGER TREAT THEM AS LESS THEN EQUALS
"DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" HAS BEEN REPEALED AND
SIGNED INTO LAW.

REPUBLICAN HOMOPHOBES, SOME SECRETLY
GAY AND/OR LESBIANS, WILL CRY THEMSELVES
TO SLEEP.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND MY YOUR GOOD LORD
BLESS AND KEEP YOU AND BRING YOU PEACE.

http://www.56.com/u96/v_Mzk5NzIwNjE.html
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,213
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY
richokeeffe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 12-07-2004
Posts: 7,020
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI
DrMaddVibe Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,633
RICKIE MADE A POOPIE!!!
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,601
We should give Obama the Peace prize or somethhin..... Mellow
gringococolo Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
"THE MILITARY WILL NO
LONGER TREAT THEM AS LESS THEN EQUALS"

Most of the military will. That's just the way it is. The world is changing, I hope nobody gets hurt.
VaMtnMan Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2007
Posts: 3,743
The Rick and his foil hat Brigade continues. lol

The story of David -vs- Goliath, of rather Mitch Mcconnell -vs- The Muslim Obama

Mitch hurls a stone from his sling with all his might, and hits The Muslim Obama in the center of his forehead. The Liberal falls on his face to the ground; Mitch takes his sword and cuts off his head. The Liberals flee and are pursued by the Tea Party “as far as California and the gates of San Francisco.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath

lol
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,633
gringococolo wrote:
"THE MILITARY WILL NO LONGER TREAT THEM AS LESS THEN EQUALS"

Most of the military will. That's just the way it is. The world is changing, I hope nobody gets hurt.



People not familiar with the UCMJ or the military don't know what they unleashed.

They think this was a win for gays and lesbians. DADT protected them. Now they don't have the "shield" so a commanding officer or NCO can come out and ask whatever they want and face the music or lie which is against the UCMJ too!
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,601
Does this mean all the gay-homos will vote for Obama now..?? Huh
chiefburg Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-31-2005
Posts: 7,384
Rick: Your tinfoil hat is cutting off the circulation to your brain. I would suggest you loosen it a touch before you have a stroke.

Bush blowing up the WTC? Are we still onto that? Even though Bin Laden admitted training the pilots and admitted he blew them up, you still think GWB did it? Obama doesn't even believe that.

Happy Hanuakka and Merry Christmas!
ZRX1200 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Merry Christmas Rick !!
daveincincy Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
"THE MILITARY WILL NO LONGER TREAT THEM AS LESS THEN EQUALS"

Please tell me this is a cut/paste, and not Rick's own thoughts/opinions. I want to believe (in a naive sort of way) that Rick is smarter than to believe this. Lincoln freed the slaves, and it was obvious, at that moment, they were treated as equals by all. HALLEJUAH!
Whistlebritches Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,131
I think we should all queue up in the oval office to puff on Obama's cigar......................................He's done so much for us.

Praise Dear Leader.........................


Ron
JadeRose Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
This made my day. Fight the power, Rick.
snowwolf777 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
"CONSIDERING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE POOR GET THEIR TAX CUTS"

Since we're into the holidays, and I have a life and all, I will ignore most of this drivel post except for asking the obvious question just one more time ...

How in the hell can "the poor" get a tax cut? Think

The poor don't pay income taxes. At least not after they file their returns. They're a zero liablity receipient class where the government is concerned. Not only do they reap numerous benefits off what real tax payers put in - real tax payers being those of us who work and pay into the system and don't get 100% of it back - but many also qualify for earned income credit, whereby they actually get back more than they paid in. I think in other countries they call that wealth redistribution, or wealth transfer.

Maybe for some real tax reform we could shut off that stupid program and trade it out in hemp or free veggies from the White House garden.
Whistlebritches Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,131
[quote=snowwolf777]
How in the hell can "the poor" get a tax cut? Think

quote]

The poor getting a tax cut just means they're going to get a larger cut of the wealth redistribution system we now use.This makes perfect sense since we all know........not one soul has ever been able to make it without GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

Rick's head is planted so firmly in his azz......he hasn't had a thought in years that didn't smell like sheet.


Ron
donutboy2000 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE ?

IMPEACH THE SERIAL KILLER OBAMA NOW !
wheelrite Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
There were no new "Tax Cuts".Tax rates remained as they have been for almost a decade.

The Libs were pushing a Tax increase which would've cost all Americans in higher taxes rates....
donutboy2000 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

JonR Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
^

That makes shorty C_Bids strongman!


LMAO!


JonR
DadZilla3 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
MITCH MCONNEL, A FIRST CLASS AMERICAN,
DEVOTED TO HIS COUNTRY AND HIS CONSTITUENTS,
HAS PICKED UP HIS SWORD AND PROMISED
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS THAT
HE INTENDS TO MAKE EVERYTHING THE DEMOCRATS
WANT TO DO FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, AS DIFFICULT
AS HE CAN.

WHY WOULD HE WANT TO MAKE PROGRESS .FOR THE
COUNTRY IMPOSSIBLE? WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE A
LEGISLATURE TO WORK AGAINST THE PEOPLE?


My guess is, because not everyone in this nation thinks that the involuntary redistribution of wealth constitutes 'progress', and not everyone in this nation subscribes to the Marxist notion of class versus class.

Judging by the November 2nd mid-term election results, I'd say quite a lot of Americans agree with Mr. McConnell.
jackconrad Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
(\ /)
(.’.’.)
(")_(" Obama eats Poopy... !
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
THE DIVERSITY OF THE IGNORANT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME
jackconrad Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
(\ /)
(.’.’.)
(")_(" HOppY HOLIDAY WICK !
DadZilla3 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
THE DIVERSITY OF THE IGNORANT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME


Me either, after the presidential election results of 2008.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
DadZilla3

too late! the redistribution of wealth has already taken
place during the last decade.

a small group of wealthy people, have bought a senate
and has courtesy of the last administration, transfered
the wealth of the nation to themselves. the robber
barons have once again cornored themarket on money
and own most of it.

there used to be an american dream, work at a job you
didn't hate in exchange for a decent life, and a retirement
after 30 years of labor, to enjoy a decent old age.

when some can earn millions of dollars, by simply
manipulating the market, others can't find work without
moving to a third world country where the wealthy have
transfered the jobs.

do you have a job or a business? a business is better
because you probably won't transfer your job to india or
china, the commute would be to long each day.

how do you feel, knowing gas will soon be $5.00 a
[size=9][color=darkred]gallon.

inflation has already begun and you money won't buy
you next year what it did this year.

you have been convinced that the current administration
is trying to steal from the rich to help the poor and that
is essentially true, with the disclaimer that the poor stole
it already and will continue to do so.

ask someone who has been without a job for a few
years, how he plans to feed his family next month.

ask one of the wealthy class what size yacht he will be
trading his 70 foot yacht for next year. the only
production taking place are industries that cater to the
money crowd, building ships and personal planes for
the select few who have so much discretionary money
they need i8ndustries making things just for them

soon you won't see any youngsters flipping burgers as
they ebter the work force, they will be replaced by
middele aged men and woman that used to earn a
decent living and will be happy to settle for a minimum
wage job just to sustain his family

you can use any cliche you want, but it doesn't tell us
anything.
snowwolf777 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
^Did you Snopes this?

Brick wall
calavera Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 01-26-2002
Posts: 1,868
From Ricks original post:

WHY WOULD HE WANT TO MAKE PROGRESS .FOR THE
COUNTRY IMPOSSIBLE? WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE A
LEGISLATURE TO WORK AGAINST THE PEOPLE?

That is a great question. Ever since FDR and the new deal, the federal government has been working against the majority of the people. The main goal of the welfare state government we have now is to do what is against the best interests of everyone (except for its members and their friends of course).

Tax and punish the middle class out of existence? Check

Keep the lower class on the dole and dependent on the government teat? Check

Punish those who work hard and try to get ahead and leave something for their descendants? Check


What we need is to bring the federal government back under control.




J

rfenst Online
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
calavera wrote:
Punish those who work hard and try to get ahead and leave something for their descendants?


The new law sets the rate at 35 percent, the lowest since 1931, and raises the exemption to $5 million. Besides, there are many ways to transfer wealth from generation to generation while minimizing or avoiding estate tax.
Some
may find this article interesting:

["If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''

In her debate in Delaware yesterday, the Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asserted that the estate tax is a "tenet of Marxism." I'm not sure how much Marx she has read, but she might want to read the works of his fellow travelers Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Herbert Hoover, and Theodore Roosevelt before her next debate."


The Economist[/size]

Some pretty interesting historical political science, huh? One could argue from this that even the founding fathers were liberal sociaists...
wheelrite Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Death Tax Fact-Check





Federal Revenue Myth
Charitable Contributions Myth
Income Inequality Myth
Small Business Impact Myth
Capital Gains Myth


Federal Revenue Myth

MYTH: The estate tax provides substantial federal revenue and repealing it would result in a larger deficit.

TRUTH: The estate tax provides very little revenue and repeal would probably increase total tax revenues, shrinking the deficit.

The estate tax historically provides roughly one percent of the federal budget. Further, research shows that the meager revenue it does provide (24.8 billion in 2008, the last year for which IRS data is available)if offset by the impact it has on the economy and tax revenues from other sources. When you consider the full economic effect of the death tax and its impact on the income, payroll and capital gains taxes, a former U.S. Treasury economist projects that repeal would increase net revenues by $23.3 billion. 1

Federal Revenue One-Page Brief









Charitable Contributions Myth


MYTH: Estate tax Repeal would reduce charitable contributions, due to the charitable exemption loophole.

TRUTH: Repeal of the estate tax would have no negative impact on giving, and would likely increase total charitable giving.

This myth is based on the simplistic assumption that tax avoidance is the only motivation for charitable giving, while ignoring the non-material motivations for philanthropy. Studies have found that the spiritual-moral-altruistic motivations for giving are the most significant factor in giving. In fact, a Boston College survey of donors found that wealthy Americans would give 10% more to charity, on average, absent the estate tax.2

Charitable Giving One-Page Brief







Income Inequality Myth


MYTH: The estate tax prevents “income inequality” by confiscating the life-earnings of the “rich” and redistributing to the “poor.”

TRUTH: Income is highly mobile in America and the estate tax is more likely to prevent the poor from moving up the economic ladder than it is to break up any “monopoly” of wealth.

This myth is the result of a failure to distinguish between economic unfairness and economic mobility. Wealth in America is highly fluid. People who are poor and middle-income are constantly moving up, while the rich rarely stay at the top for long. A recent Treasury Department found that over the last 10 years, over half of the lowest income earners have moved up into a higher income bracket.3 Inheritances, according to a Clinton administration economist, are a major source of economic mobility and help reduce inequality.4

More info









Small Business Impact Myth

MYTH: Small businesses are not impacted by the estate tax.

TRUTH: Thousands of small businesses are impacted by the estate tax.

This myth rests upon a straw man definition of “small business.” Some pundits define “small business” as an organization with less than $5 million in total assets. As defined, most small businesses are able to avoid the death tax with the 2009 estate tax exemption of $3.5 million ($7 per couple), which was the law in 2009. Yet this definition has no basis in reality. In fact, the Small Business Administration defines “small business” to be as large as $175 million in gross assets and 1,500 employees (the average small business is 500 employees).5

For many of these small businesses, the death tax is a very real threat that ties up capital, prevents growth and hiring, and often results in the sale of assets at death.

Small Business One-Page Brief









Capital Gains Myth

MYTH: The capital gains tax imposes a heavier burden than the estate tax.

TRUTH: Capital gains tax changes will never force the sale of a family business.

This myth ignores several key facts about the estate tax.

Estate tax is owed when assets are transferred from the decedent to the heir, regardless of whether there is a gain in value or whether the asset is sold. Capital gains tax is owed if and only if the heir chooses to sell an inherited and appreciated asset. The estate tax forces the sale of family business assets when the asset’s value exceeds cash-on-hand. Capital gains tax comes due only if the family chooses to sell their appreciated assets.

Furthermore, the capital gains tax rate is only 15%, whereas the 2009 estate tax rate was 45%. The estate tax rate of 45% applied to all bequeathed assets, whereas the 15% capital gains rate only applies to appreciated assets which are sold.
rfenst Online
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
What is your point?
wheelrite Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
What is your point?

My point ?

The Govt has no reason to confiscate my inheritance...
rfenst Online
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
The founding fathers would strongly disagree with that!
jackconrad Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
So Hannibal rode elephants too but that was long ago. Things change and the people strongly disagree with Death taxes.. That's why we vote to make things follow a majority view...
DrafterX Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,601
jackconrad wrote:
That's why we vote to make things follow a majority view...





LOL LOL LOL
wheelrite Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
The founding fathers would strongly disagree with that!


That's Bull sh#t too...

There is NOTHING in the original constitution allowing the Feds to tax from the founders.It was an amendment.If the founders wanted to tax income,estates etc,they would've explicity stated it in the original document. ,Tariffs and duties only...
jackconrad Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
(\ /)
(.’.’.)
(")_(")
EBRITHING IZZ REBERSABLE!
wheelrite Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
HISTORICAL TAX RATES
This page contains two timelines. The first is a narrative account to which I will continually add as more information becomes available. The second is a quick-glance chart, courtesy of Citizens for Tax Justice.

Federal taxes (general)
Income and capital gains taxes (top rate)

FEDERAL TAXES (GENERAL, MARGINAL)

1913 - Income Tax instituted. Less than 2 percent of the population had to pay it. Income up to $20,000 was taxable at 1 percent, and above $500,000 at 7 percent. It exempted the first $3,000 earned by a single person and the first $4,000 by married couples. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans supported families on less than $1,000 a year, most were exempted from the tax.

1916 - Income tax, top rate: 15 percent.

1917 - Twenty graduated steps established for the income tax. Top rate on income over $2 million: 67 percent. Under $2,000: 2 percent. Exemptions reduced. Number of returns from 1916 to 1919 will climb from 437,000 to 4.4 million. Even so, 95 percent of all Americans will pay no income tax.

World War I - Income tax, top rate at 73 percent. Capital gains, top rate: 77 percent.

1921 - Capital gains, top rate: 12.5 percent. Income tax, top rate: 56 percent.

1924 - Income tax, top rate: 46 percent.

1926 - Income, top rate: 25 percent. Income tax on first $4,000 lowered from 2.0 to 1.5 percent. Estate tax, top rate, lowered from 40 to 20 percent. Abolished gift taxes.

1930s - Increased capital gains tax rates in the 1930s. For a short period, realized gains were taxed under a complicated schedule that taxed gains from very short-term investments in full, but excluded as much as 70% of gains from sales of assets held for more than 10 years. This system was widely criticized as unwieldy and complex, and in the early 1940s it was scrapped.

1932 - Income, top rate: 63 percent

1936 - Income tax, top rate: 79 percent. Roosevelt also institutes an inheritance tax, estate tax, gift taxes, dividend tax and progressive corporate tax.

Early 40s - capital gains taxed at half the regular rate or 25 percent, whichever is lower.

World War II - the bottom income tax rate climbs from 4 to 19 percent between 1940 and 1943. Top income tax rate climbs to 88 percent by 1943. By 1945 it hits 91 percent, where it remains until 1964.

1964 - Income tax, top rate: 77 percent.

1965 - Income tax, top rate: 70 percent.

1950s - Corporate tax: 52 percent.

Late 60s - cap gains start rising from 25 percent.

Mid 70s - cap gains reaches 39 percent.

1977 - Social Security Act Amendment of 1977 passed. With Social Security in trouble, Congress passed a schedule of Social Security tax increases, ending in the year 2030, that would gradually raise the combined amount paid by employers and employees from 11.7 to 15.3 percent. Also raised the maximum taxable income from $16,500 in 1977 to $42,000 in 1987. This schedule would be accelerated in 1983.

1978 - Revenue Act of 1978 makes unemployment benefits taxable for first time. Capital gains, top rate: 28 percent (enacted November, 1978).

1981 - The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) passes. Otherwise known as Reagan's supply-side tax cuts. They included: An across-the-board reduction in individual income tax rates of approximately 23 percent, phased in over 33 months. A reduction in the maximum top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, beginning in 1982. (Only unearned income - from interest and dividends - had been taxed at 70 percent. Wage and salary income was already taxed at 50 percent.) Inflation-indexing for the individual income tax brackets, the zero bracket amount and the personal exemption, beginning in 1985. The accelerated cost recovery system (ACRS), which provided depreciation write-off periods ranging from 3 years for equipment to 15 years for structures. Reduction of the maximum tax rate on capital gains to 20 percent.

1982 - Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) passes. Institutes a half-basis adjustment for investment tax credits in calculating depreciation. Repeals the acceleration of depreciation scheduled in 1985 and 1986 by ERTA. Raises the federal unemployment tax (FUTA) wage base from $6,000 to $7,000 and the FUTA tax rate from 0.7 percent to 0.8 percent. Increases airport, airway, cigarette and telephone excise taxes. Reduces tax-free contributions to a defined-contribution pension plan from $45,475 to $30,000 and reduced limits on benefits from a defined-benefit plan from $136,425 to $90,000.

1983 - Social Security Amendment Act of 1983 passes. This drastically accelerates the schedule of tax hikes in Social Security originally passed in 1977. The schedule is to be completed by 1990 instead of the year 2030.

1984 - The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA) passes. A repeal, beginning in 1985, of the provision that allowed an exclusion from income tax of 15 percent of up to $3,000 in interest income for a single taxpayer ($6,000 for couples). A $2 per gallon increase in the excise tax on alcohol and a one-year extension of the 3 percent telephone excise tax. An increase in the minimum recovery period for real property from 15 to 18 years. A reduction in the holding period for long-term capital gains from one year to six months for assets acquired between June 1984 and January 1988.

1986 - The Tax Reform Act of 1986 passes. A reduction in the number of individual income tax brackets to two - 15 percent and 28 percent. Increases in the zero bracket amount and personal exemptions. Repeal of the two-earner deduction, income averaging, and the state and local sales tax deduction. Repeal of the 60 percent capital gains exclusion for individuals. Reduction in the maximum corporate income tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent. Broadening of the corporate tax base through repeal of the investment tax credit, limiting depreciation deductions, restricting the use of net operating losses, etc. Capital gains, top rate: 28 percent. Corporate tax: from 46 to 34 percent.

1990 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 passes. Income tax, top rate: 31 percent.

1993 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 passes. Income tax, top rate: 39.6 percent. Corporate tax: 35 percent.

1997 - Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 passes. Capital gains taxes are slashed in a complicated schedule. After July 29, 1997, assets that have been held for a year are taxed at 28 percent. For assets held over a year and a half, the rate is 20 percent (10 percent for individuals that were earlier taxed at the 15 percent rate). After the year 2000, assets that have been held for 5 years will be taxed at 18 percent (or 8 percent). The Alternative Minimum Tax is removed for C Corporations that earn less than $7.5 million in receipts after 1997. Also included: a $500 per child tax credit, tax breaks for college expenses and tuition, a higher exemption for estate taxes and expanded Individual Retirement Accounts.
rfenst Online
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473

Nobody said that an inherenance tax of any sort is enumeratedhe constitution. The point is that the founding fathers were opposed to inherited wealth. In fact, many even thought inherited wealth was anti-capitalistic and un-democratic! Moreover, many even thought that inherited wealth should be disbursed amomgst society for the general good of all. By not enumerating anything about inherited wealth in the constitution, it would appear that the issue was reserved for the states. What does that sound like to you. huh?

rfenst Online
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
jackconrad wrote:
So Hannibal rode elephants too but that was long ago. Things change and the people strongly disagree with Death taxes.. That's why we vote to make things follow a majority view...


But, our founding fathers strongly felt otherwise!
wheelrite Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
Nobody said that an inherenance tax of any sort is enumeratedhe constitution. The point is that the founding fathers were opposed to inherited wealth. In fact, many even thought inherited wealth was anti-capitalistic and un-democratic! Moreover, many even thought that inherited wealth should be disbursed amomgst society for the general good of all. By not enumerating anything about inherited wealth in the constitution, it would appear that the issue was reserved for the states. What does that sound like to you. huh?



More Bull Sh%T...
rfenst Online
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
wheelrite wrote:
More Bull Sh%T...


Warren Buffet and Bill Gates beleive in inheritance tax.
wheelrite Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates beleive in inheritance tax.


Dude,,

you're smarter than that,,,

They have ALL the heirs taken care of in Trusts etc,,,

You're being contrary,,,
snowwolf777 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
Buffet does believe in the tax. In no small part because he owns several insurance companies that write mega policies to mega rich folks to help them dodge said tax. And he also owns some companies that buy up family farms and small businesses when they can't swallow the tax.

So yes, he "believes" in it. Follow the money. These guys don't get rich handing it all over to the government.

And I'm well aware of that stupid list where about 20 millionaires signed on to say they'd like to pay more taxes. Which means about 1.8 million millionaires didn't sign on to pay more taxes.

Beyond being stoned or stupid, I don't know why anyone would want a larger annual tax hit codified for eterinity. If anyone is jonesing to pay more taxes than what they owe, the IRS has a whole sector of folks who will take care of that for you without writing any new tax tables.

jackconrad Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
rfenst wrote:
But, our founding fathers strongly felt otherwise!



Yes and they used bleeding as medical treatment and had slaves and treated women like inferior beings and wore wigs and wooden teeth after they bathed once every six months..
rfenst Online
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
jackconrad wrote:
Yes and they used bleeding as medical treatment and had slaves and treated women like inferior beings and wore wigs and wooden teeth after they bathed once every six months..



So what. What's your point?
rfenst Online
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
wheelrite wrote:
You're being contrary,,,



LOL. Just playing "Devil's Advocate" with true facts...
jackconrad Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
rfenst wrote:
So what. What's your point?



Point is who wants to live by rules of men who lived in relativley Primitive times. Things change and so must the Laws..
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

WHERE DOES THAT SUGGEST OR IMPLY THAT YOU CAN GO TO A PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH CARRYING A 15 SHOT AUTOMATIC PISTOL AND AND A MACHINE GUN ON YOUR SHOULDER
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL PARKING AT THE AIRPORTS IN AND NEAR DC, FOR CONGRESSPEOPLE AND SENATORS?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>