Post by: Manedwolf on October 09, 2007, 09:02:20 AM
Quote
WEBSTER CITY, Iowa (AP) Every citizen could get a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.
At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.
Because the rich entrepreneurs are bad! Punish them!
(Gee, why are they all moving to other countries all of a sudden? Hey, all the rich people are going to Dubai! Why'd that happen?)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwh1yWEEzXGeI2MmaJbGPANgGVwwD8S5R2AG0
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 09, 2007, 09:28:42 AM
Of course privatized Social Security is not an option.
Well Bill may not have inhaled but I am pretty sure that his wife still is.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 09, 2007, 09:52:13 AM
Never met a tax she didn't like.
Of course privatized Social Security is not an option.
Well Bill may not have inhaled but I am pretty sure that his wife still is.
Of course privatized Social Security is not an option.
Well Bill may not have inhaled but I am pretty sure that his wife still is.
Quote
"We have to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security," she said.
Taxxxxxesss....Precciouss....
Post by: MechAg94 on October 09, 2007, 10:02:24 AM
Maybe instead of this, she could propose that 1% of SS be put in a 401K account so people can better save for retirement. Oh wait, that has been proposed already by someone......
Post by: HankB on October 09, 2007, 10:29:35 AM
Quote
. . . taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple . . .
So Hillary wants to increase the death tax and reduce the amount people pass on to their own heirs? I'm running out of words other than <expletive>, <expletive>, and <expletive> to describe what I think of her . . . words like "odious," "grotesque," and "despicable" are so inadequate . . .
(BTW, sadly, estates in my family are well under $7,000,000 . . . )
Post by: charby on October 09, 2007, 10:36:54 AM
-C
Post by: Manedwolf on October 09, 2007, 10:37:00 AM
Quote
. . . taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple . . .
So Hillary wants to increase the death tax and reduce the amount people pass on to their own heirs? I'm running out of words other than <expletive>, <expletive>, and <expletive> to describe what I think of her . . . words like "odious," "grotesque," and "despicable" are so inadequate . . .
(BTW, sadly, estates in my family are well under $7,000,000 . . . )
That also pretty much kills old-money families which may be land-rich but investment-poor. They can't afford the additional tax burden, so tend to lose the home that's been in their family for generations...or are forced to sell off what's left of the land, leaving the now-familiar vista of a grand old manor home or Victorian absolutely surrounded by bland subdivisions covering former rolling hils, orchards and meadows. And then they're taxed on the home's square footage, so they can't even afford to maintain it...and it eventually gets owned by the state and has tourists tromping through it, the original family having faded from the scene.
New money will just pack it in and move to places like Dubai and invest there and in the Pacific Rim, places more conducive to the rich doing their business.
Being rich is bad, y'know, to her sort. Unless you're her. Then it's okay.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 09, 2007, 01:27:35 PM
Five bucks and a hamburger says her "family estate" is worth somewhere in the 5-6 mil range.
Brad
Post by: Patriot on October 09, 2007, 01:52:40 PM
Think about it for a sec... Doesn't it make you wonder why the number is 7 million and not something nice and round like 5 or 10 million?
Five bucks and a hamburger says her "family estate" is worth somewhere in the 5-6 mil range.
Brad
Five bucks and a hamburger says her "family estate" is worth somewhere in the 5-6 mil range.
Brad
What if I'm a creepy vegan?
I think it more likely that the number was chosen on the basis of coverage vs outcry (a.k.a. How many people can we ensnare without raising holy heck?)
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 09, 2007, 01:58:47 PM
Quote
I think it more likely that the number was chosen on the basis of coverage vs outcry (a.k.a. How many people can we ensnare without raising holy heck?)
You presume she actually cares about something or someone other than herself. Fat chance on that.
Quote
What if I'm a creepy vegan?
Then make it five bucks and a stick of celery.
Brad
Post by: Paddy on October 09, 2007, 02:20:08 PM
Post by: El Tejon on October 09, 2007, 02:22:49 PM
If you have 7 mil or over in your estate, you already have a tax attorney on retainer who is advising you one how to get around the estate tax. How would yet another avoidable tax help her socialistic dreams?
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 09, 2007, 03:59:31 PM
Post by: Waitone on October 09, 2007, 04:06:34 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on October 09, 2007, 06:09:40 PM
The lady (sic) will say anything to any group. Her objective is power and she will do/say whatever is necessary to accrete power. I fully expect her to throw some kind of bone to the Second Amendment crowd just to cover her bases.
And some fool gun owners will eat it up. Hell, it worked for Bill and his middle class tax cut BS. It will work for Hillary.
Did anyone else notice that in that campaign, Bill Clinton never once said he would get a middle class tax cut passed without qualifying it with all sorts of BS. It was obvious to me yet a lot of people ate it up and were upset when he backed out on it.
Post by: StopTheGrays on October 10, 2007, 12:05:11 PM
The lady (sic) will say anything to any group. Her objective is power and she will do/say whatever is necessary to accrete power. I fully expect her to throw some kind of bone to the Second Amendment crowd just to cover her bases.
And some fool gun owners will eat it up. Hell, it worked for Bill and his middle class tax cut BS. It will work for Hillary.
Did anyone else notice that in that campaign, Bill Clinton never once said he would get a middle class tax cut passed without qualifying it with all sorts of BS. It was obvious to me yet a lot of people ate it up and were upset when he backed out on it.
Post by: Tallpine on October 10, 2007, 12:37:32 PM
Quote
That also pretty much kills old-money families which may be land-rich but investment-poor. They can't afford the additional tax burden, so tend to lose the home that's been in their family for generations...or are forced to sell off what's left of the land, leaving the now-familiar vista of a grand old manor home or Victorian absolutely surrounded by bland subdivisions covering former rolling hils, orchards and meadows.
Even worse ii what it does to family farms/ranches. Especially when the govt values their land at "subdivision" prices ten times higher than what's it's worth for agricultural use.
Practically guarantees that the land will be subdivided then ...
Post by: Manedwolf on October 10, 2007, 12:39:12 PM
Quote
That also pretty much kills old-money families which may be land-rich but investment-poor. They can't afford the additional tax burden, so tend to lose the home that's been in their family for generations...or are forced to sell off what's left of the land, leaving the now-familiar vista of a grand old manor home or Victorian absolutely surrounded by bland subdivisions covering former rolling hils, orchards and meadows.
Even worse ii what it does to family farms/ranches. Especially when the govt values their land at "subdivision" prices ten times higher than what's it's worth for agricultural use.
Practically guarantees that the land will be subdivided then ...
That's been happening a lot here, since the old farms and orchards tend to have really nice views, and are thus high-valued land. The farmhouse even moreso, since that was built on the highest point to avoid flooding and to give a good view of the farm.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 10, 2007, 02:35:46 PM
Quote
That also pretty much kills old-money families which may be land-rich but investment-poor. They can't afford the additional tax burden, so tend to lose the home that's been in their family for generations...or are forced to sell off what's left of the land, leaving the now-familiar vista of a grand old manor home or Victorian absolutely surrounded by bland subdivisions covering former rolling hils, orchards and meadows.
Even worse ii what it does to family farms/ranches. Especially when the govt values their land at "subdivision" prices ten times higher than what's it's worth for agricultural use.
Practically guarantees that the land will be subdivided then ...
Consider that the nation's largest purchaser of corn fields is Wal Mart. There may be crops on the ground when the Wally World execs sign the deed, but that doesn't mean the property is worth farmland prices.
Post by: Tallpine on October 10, 2007, 03:12:30 PM
Quote
The government (and the real estate market in general) values "subdivision" ground higher because it's worth more.
That's not really true, at least around here.
Nobody is going to buy 10-30 square miles of remote land for say, $2000 an acre. Not all at once anyway. Now, if you built a bunch of roads (in rough country) and filed for easements to access every 80 acre parcel (any smaller and you have to go through a whole bunch of other govt hoops), then eventually you could get that price for the whole thing. (after several years, minus all your development and marketing expenses)
As range land, it's worth maybe $250 acre. Still, that's a lot of money to pay for a place that might support one family at say $30-50K net/yr. That's on a good year, when beef prices are up and you don't lose too many animals to disease, calf mortality, coyotes, wolves, cougars, lightning, flood, drought, and numerous other ways that a cow finds to commit suicide.
So what happens is some fairly poor (by modern standards) family that has owned a ranch for 80-100 years has to sell it to pay the taxes on $12.8 million, rather than maybe the $2 million that it's worth for land and improvements as a ranch. (unless they have made some arrangements like incorporation prior to the elders' demise)
Post by: wooderson on October 10, 2007, 05:16:18 PM
Let's not pretend that anyone with "$2mn" worth of land anywhere is a "fairly poor" family by any stretch of the imagination - that places them well within the 95th percentile of estates.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 10, 2007, 05:29:30 PM
Strangely, these 'death tax'-mandated sales of 'family farms' are never located when evidence is demanded.
Let's not pretend that anyone with "$2mn" worth of land anywhere is a "fairly poor" family by any stretch of the imagination - that places them well within the 95th percentile of estates.
Let's not pretend that anyone with "$2mn" worth of land anywhere is a "fairly poor" family by any stretch of the imagination - that places them well within the 95th percentile of estates.
Yes, punish those darned rich people!
Post by: Tallpine on October 11, 2007, 03:47:45 AM
Quote
Let's not pretend that anyone with "$2mn" worth of land anywhere is a "fairly poor" family by any stretch of the imagination - that places them well within the 95th percentile of estates.
Tell that to my neighbors who live in a little old house and drive old cars.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 05:00:47 AM
Quote
Called "Connect America," Clinton's broadband network would give businesses incentives to go into underserved areas, support state- and local-based initiatives and change the Federal Communication Commission rules to more accurately measure Internet access.
"I see this problem in New York. A lot of the utilities don't want to connect up our isolated, rural areas. And they also don't want particularly to go into our underserved, poor, urban areas because there's so much money that can be made in Manhattan and our suburban areas," Clinton said.
"I see this problem in New York. A lot of the utilities don't want to connect up our isolated, rural areas. And they also don't want particularly to go into our underserved, poor, urban areas because there's so much money that can be made in Manhattan and our suburban areas," Clinton said.
Imagine what she would do if she actually got into office!!!!
Post by: charby on October 11, 2007, 05:03:58 AM
Quote
Let's not pretend that anyone with "$2mn" worth of land anywhere is a "fairly poor" family by any stretch of the imagination - that places them well within the 95th percentile of estates.
Tell that to my neighbors who live in a little old house and drive old cars.
Ditto on the family farmer here in Iowa, you might own 4-5 million worth of land (1000 acres currently selling for $4-5k an acre) but you are only netting less than 40k take home pay.
Probably making payments on the land so if you had to liquidate you won't have a 4-5 million dollar check in your hand.
Post by: Tallpine on October 11, 2007, 06:33:45 AM
Quote
I see this problem in New York. A lot of the utilities don't want to connect up our isolated, rural areas.
Funny, I have DSL out here in the Montana hinterlands - thanks to a subscriber owned telephone co-op.
If there is a problem in New York, maybe she should fix that first
Post by: grislyatoms on October 12, 2007, 09:25:55 AM
That's disconcerting. Seriously.
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 13, 2007, 03:02:59 AM
AAAARG! Now she wants to f-up the INTERNET with government bureaucracy, too!
Imagine what she would do if she actually got into office!!!!
Quote
Called "Connect America," Clinton's broadband network would give businesses incentives to go into underserved areas, support state- and local-based initiatives and change the Federal Communication Commission rules to more accurately measure Internet access.
"I see this problem in New York. A lot of the utilities don't want to connect up our isolated, rural areas. And they also don't want particularly to go into our underserved, poor, urban areas because there's so much money that can be made in Manhattan and our suburban areas," Clinton said.
"I see this problem in New York. A lot of the utilities don't want to connect up our isolated, rural areas. And they also don't want particularly to go into our underserved, poor, urban areas because there's so much money that can be made in Manhattan and our suburban areas," Clinton said.
Imagine what she would do if she actually got into office!!!!
I only agree because its hillary. The idea of giving internet companies incentives such as tax breaks to get rurual areas connected isn't a bad one. But she'll probably mandate that they do it or face summary execution....
Post by: brimic on October 14, 2007, 06:12:15 PM
Quote
Let's not pretend that anyone with "$2mn" worth of land anywhere is a "fairly poor" family by any stretch of the imagination - that places them well within the 95th percentile of estates.
2 million worth of land that's mortgaged to the hilt. A farmer has to buy seed, fertilizer, pesticides, tractors, deisel fuel, combines, trucks, insurance, etc. Have you priced a new combine lately? They cost a bit more than an urbanite's prius that is used to drive to Starbucks.
Heck, I know families that have excavation businesses. They might have a million$$ worth of machinery to pass down to the next generation in the business, but they are far from 'rich.'
If you want to know what a rich person is, take a look at Ted Kennedy. He's a trust fund baby who's never done an honest days work in his entire life yet has the nerve to demagogue about who's 'rich' and who's not.
Post by: Paddy on October 14, 2007, 09:07:37 PM
Quote
2 million worth of land that's mortgaged to the hilt. A farmer has to buy seed, fertilizer, pesticides, tractors, deisel fuel, combines, trucks, insurance, etc. Have you priced a new combine lately? They cost a bit more than an urbanite's prius that is used to drive to Starbucks.
Is that before or after the millions they get for not growing certain crops? Gimme a break. Federal farm subsidies long ago retired the American farmer. They're now just a bunch of welfare queens.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 16, 2007, 07:39:44 AM
Quote
2 million worth of land that's mortgaged to the hilt. A farmer has to buy seed, fertilizer, pesticides, tractors, deisel fuel, combines, trucks, insurance, etc. Have you priced a new combine lately? They cost a bit more than an urbanite's prius that is used to drive to Starbucks.
Is that before or after the millions they get for not growing certain crops? Gimme a break. Federal farm subsidies long ago retired the American farmer. They're now just a bunch of welfare queens.
And you think people paint California with a broad brush.
Care to show us something that proves "The American Farmer" is retired and a welfare queen?
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 16, 2007, 08:48:06 AM
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on October 16, 2007, 10:50:15 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 19, 2007, 11:28:39 AM
This business about taxing the rich is silly in the extreme. Those that are rich enough also have enough money for lawyers and tax evasion schemes. They set up a trust and pay themselves a small annuity out of it, for "living expenses", or they incorporate and do the same in different ways. And these are just the tricks I know about... There are plenty of people that would pay significantly more in taxes if their real income decreased. In reality, the tax increases end up hitting the middle class the worst, relatively speaking, because they are not rich enough to play a lot of the above games.
What we need is a real tax reform, wherein at the least, people or legal entities are NOT taxed for things they already own. Also, many of the services of gov that are currently covered by general taxes should instead be offered as a directly paid individual service.
Post by: Paddy on October 19, 2007, 02:18:27 PM
How Farm Subsidies Became America's Largest Corporate Welfare
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm
Federal Subsidies Turn Farms Into Big Business
Still at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich and Famous Shattered Records in 2001
waste & abuse - federal agriculture programs and policies
Harvesting Cash
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 19, 2007, 05:49:36 PM
Sorry. I should have said corporate globalists long age retired the American farmer. It was not my intention to insult the little guy.
I can't argue with you there. I know quite a few farmers who are struggling to make a go of it and the subsidies have done nothing to help them. But I'm sure they have helped ADM , Monsanto, Con Agra and some of the other big corp's.
It has more than likely hurt the small farmer by keeping commodity prices artificially low while increasing the profits for the big guys.
Anecdotally, the price of Grade A milk (last I knew) has been about $0.14 to $0.16 per hundred weight (one hundred pounds of milk) and has barely risen at all in years while the price of milk has probably doubled.
Post by: Tallpine on October 20, 2007, 01:05:03 PM
) So in a sense, they sort of are rich, because they don't owe anything on their old junky tractors, swathers, baler, and pickups, etc. I guess back in the sixties there were some good years on the wheat, too - though it's been so dry the last ten years that they've given up on wheat.A lot of family farms/ranches are incorporated, precisely for the reason of avoiding the death tax which means death to family ownership of the ranch.
Post by: Art Eatman on October 20, 2007, 06:30:17 PM
Not too long back, one of the Terlinguoid's father died. A lot of land, a couple of houses, not all that much livestock. The cash that IRS required meant a bank loan whose payments are hurting the heir. There he is, "rich", but hurting for net cash money. "The power to tax is the power to destroy".
The Hildabeast gave a talk to an Indian tribe, who honored her with the name, "Walking Eagle".
They didn't tell her that "Walking Eagle" meant a bird that was too full of *expletive deleted*it to fly.
Art