Novak Attacks Buffett As ‘Hypocrite’ With A ‘Phony Message’ Who ‘Should Be Ashamed Of Himself’
Novak Attacks Buffett As ‘Hypocrite’ With A ‘Phony Message’ Who ‘Should Be Ashamed Of Himself’
Last week, billionaire investor Warren Buffett urged Congress “to maintain the estate tax, saying that plans to repeal the tax would benefit a handful of the richest American families and widen income disparity in the United States.” The New York Times reported:
Mr. Buffett said that in the last 20 years, tax laws have allowed the “superrich” to become richer.
“Tax law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way,” he said. “During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: he’s been on a treadmill while the superrich have been on a spaceship.”
Less than 1 percent of the nation’s super-rich pay the estate tax. “For this year, individual estates valued at more than $2 million are taxed at a top rate of 45 percent.” Buffet — who pays the estate tax — argued, “A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy.”
This weekend on Bloomberg Television, right-wing pundit Bob Novak fumed over Buffett’s altruistic testimony, attacking him as a hypocrite who “should be ashamed of himself for putting out that phony message.” Bloomberg’s Al Hunt responded, “Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.” Watch it:
Transcript:
HUNT: Warren Buffett came out this week for keeping the estate tax. Were you impressed by that selflessness?
NOVAK: Well that’s ridiculous. He’s going to protect himself and his heirs. That is the biggest hypocrisy in the world. And people who like high taxes just latch onto him. But he should be ashamed of himself by putting out that phony message.
HUNT: Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.
NOVAK: I have a conscience?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
NOVAK: I have a conscience?
Oh the bitter irony
November 19th, 2007 at 10:50 amNOVAK: I have a conscience?
No, Mr. Grinch. You don’t.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:51 amWhat a poisonous little toad.
Bob, the fact that you deride Buffett as a “hypocrite”, in the light of your own reptilian morality, only certifies his selflessness.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am“Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.â€
i love it…
and THAT’s what is missing these days… that “conscience”…
November 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am…
He didn’t ACTUALLY think they were talking about him?!?!?!?!
November 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am“A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy.â€
“During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: he’s been on a treadmill while the superrich have been on a spaceship.â€
Why does he keep on talking about space?
November 19th, 2007 at 10:52 ammornin toasterhead,TMM,katy,raynman.
**doffs hat to all*
November 19th, 2007 at 10:52 amYou know, Republicans talk about the left hating the rich, but the second a rich guy argues for the common good? Rightwinger’s call them hypocrites.
The left doesn’t mind the rich, heck a lot of lefties ARE rich, but one can’t exactly say the same for the right.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amWhat a poisonous little toad.
Bob, the fact that you deride Buffett as a “hypocriteâ€, in the light of your own reptilian morality, only certifies his selflessness.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — November 19, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Toads are amphibians, not reptiles.
Just saying is all. :)
November 19th, 2007 at 10:57 amWhy does he keep on talking about space?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 19, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Because our current policies are out of this world and void of any universal appeal while the gravity of the situation eludes the lunar-addled brains of our leaders.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:59 amThat was pretty funny. Novak actually thought Hunt was saying he (Novak) had a conscience. Heh. Yep, the irony.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:59 amNovak refers to Buffett as someone who loves taxes. What a joke. Buffett is embarrassed that he pays less tax then anyone he employs. It’s about fairness Novak, not the love of taxes. GWB has spent more money then any president in the history of the U.S. He has amassed more debt. The minute someone tries to address this debt you accuse them of loving taxes. If you want to spend money you have to find a way to fund it. The Reps attack any plan to fund any of their spending. They give tax breaks to the wealthy while adding debt to the poor. And somehow their voters in the double-wides support them. Unreal.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:00 amtoasterhead sez:
Yes, I’m aware of that…but the phrase “amphibian morality” lacks the same punch, and Novak resembles a toad far more than any reptile.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:01 amPatrioticLiberalChristian
Because our current policies are out of this world and void of any universal appeal while the gravity of the situation eludes the lunar-addled brains of our leaders.
Well played.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:02 amTripMaster Monkey
Novak resembles a toad far more than any reptile.
Picture the eyes not quite as sunken in, and he’s a dead ringer for a bunch of different lizard breeds.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:04 am“Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.â€
Burn!
November 19th, 2007 at 11:04 amComment by O. Bigfoot — November 19, 2007 @ 11:01 am
<yawn>
November 19th, 2007 at 11:05 amhe’s a SLUG…
is that a reptile of amphibian?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:07 amor
November 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am,i>Bloomberg’s Al Hunt responded, “Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.â€
You chose him to be the godfather to your child, Al; this is just another beltway press charade.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:08 amBurn!
Comment by pellinore74
Not really…
November 19th, 2007 at 11:09 amComment by disgusting serial troll trying to take the thread off topic – November 19, 2007 @ 11:01 am
TROLL DUNG!
Please please do NOT respond to the troll. Instead, report the serial troll for abuse.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:10 amkaty
That would make him a gastropod mollusk.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:10 amAh, there’s nothing like a an old arch conservative justifying greed, selfishness, and fu-i-got-mine first thing in the morning…
November 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am“is that a reptile of amphibian?”
It’s a mollusk but I do love the analogy.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:12 amNovak resembles a toad far more than any reptile.
-Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Retarded Bullfrog comes to mind.
Novak & Libby should both be in jail. Novak’s currently trying to stir the pot, claiming Hillary has dirt on Obama, but ‘isn’t using it. Yet’.
This is the kind of piss-stained yellow journalism Novak specializes in.
Look what he did with Plame. He wants attention, money and fame by sensationalizing, but doesn’t want to be associated with any consequences.
You can’t have it both ways, blowhard. You may fool the 24%’ers, but someday you will face consequences.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:14 amNovak is a Media Putz, the equivalent of a troll/slug (thanks, katy) in here. http://mediaputz.com/07/09/putz0906.html
Nominating Novak-like Media Putzes (http://mediaputz.com/07/09/putz0906.html) for an award is the equivalent of reporting serial trolls/slugs for abuse.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:16 amBigfoot’s arguing with himself…who do you think will win?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:16 amHUNT: Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.
Oh, slap!
November 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am“He has a right to do what he wants with his own property.”
Comment by O. Bigfoot —
Plantation owners made the same argument about their slaves…
November 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am“There is…an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents…. The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy.â€
November 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am- Thomas Jefferson
Why do you feel it’s the government’s job to steal from future generations (by foisting the debt on them) and giving it to the rich?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:18 amThe government has no right to do this.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 19, 2007 @ 11:13 am
This is true. It’s not the government’s right to collect taxes from the rich, it’s the government’s duty.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:18 am29, Thanks for that link. It’s good to know others see Novak as I do.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amNovak is a typical conservative, he basically understands how to talk about money but doesn’t really understand actually making money.
Thus he argues in favour of spending $100 in insurance where he could spend $10 in taxes simply on the principle of not wanting to pay taxes.
It is no mistake that Blue States tend to have more money.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am“Oh, slap!”
Comment by wijg
A better burn would have been, “Bob, I reget having made you my son’s godfather, you sh*tstain!”
November 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amO. Bigfoot
Not much for constitutional law now are you?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:22 amO. Bigfoot
I already posted the amendment which shows you are an idiot, do you really want to continue to make a monkey of yourself?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:24 am“He has a right to do what he wants with his own property.â€
Biggie pines for the moral certitude of the ’50’s — the 1850’s.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:24 amI am sorry, where is the hypocrisy? The Republicans seem to believe that if you have wealth you must (1) agree with their political outlook or (2) be a hypocrite unless you renounce all wealth and take a vow of poverty.
Frankly, I believe that Warren is a good person who honestly wants the country to adopt policies that are not only fair but also will assist in the future development of the long term economy to the benefit of all. I do not see where it is necessary for one to hire attorneys and accountants to determine how to pay more in taxes than owed under current law. However, as we have seen with the attacks on Kerry, Gore and Edwards, the mere possession of wealth or financial success disqualifies you from carrying about the concerns of the poor or working class on pains of being a hypocrite. Why the press does not attack the foolishness of the charges is amazing. How the religious organizations can not see this stance as a direct attack on the teachings of their faith is beyond understanding.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:24 amBranding somebody a “hypocrite” is a tactic used by everyone, right or left. However, it’s only effective when you can point out irrefutable examples of the hypocrisy.
When Novak called Buffett a hypocrite, I assumed that he would claim that Buffett was supporting the estate tax while making sure that his heirs wouldn’t have to pay it. I eagerly awaited Novak’s evidence of this “hyprocrisy”.
Here’s what we got:
NOVAK: “Well that’s ridiculous. He’s going to protect himself and his heirs. That is the biggest hypocrisy in the world.”
In other words, Novak claims that Buffett is going to wiggle out some loophole, but has no real evidence of it.
Bottom line: Novak wants to see the estate tax eliminated, and he can’t stand it when someone richer than he gives legitimacy to the idea of keeping it. So he’ll throw around innuendo like buckshot.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amNovak-the phoney journalist.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amEstate taxes should be eliminated entirely.
Estate taxes work as a way of leveling the playing field along generational lines.
With out the estate tax families would be able to continue to acquire wealth along generational lines, building up a defacto ruling class in American society (something which has already happened, due to the current weakness of estate taxes(among other things) and people passing the majority of their wealth onto their children instead of charities or other organizations)
With out this re-distribution capitalism can social movement can not exist at their best. In addition to the standard benefits of rich parents (better educational chances, better initial job chances) there is also large sums of money to pass down, meaning that unless the rich make truely bad decisions on a regular basis, they will never stop being rich, as opposed to the poor who must make consistent good choices to move up to middle class, and from there, continue to make consistent good choices if they want to have any hope for themselves or their children to move up yet another level.
By keeping a high % estate tax in place, you benefit all of society by creating extra social mobility and by allowing even more ‘new players’ to enter the game, which in effect helps keep the ‘old boys club’ from being even more dominate in regards to the economy/politics and other facets.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:26 amTroll comments November 19, 2007 @ 11:21 am and at 11:22 am.
TROLL DUNG
Please report this off-topic troll for abuse. Responding to it encourages it.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:26 amHow dare a filthy rich person be a Progressive. They’re supposed to hate the Average Joe, and do everything they can to avoid paying taxes.
People like Novak can’t stand it when someone with as much money as Buffett has a conscience.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:26 amO. Bigfoot
I already posted the amendment which shows you are an idiot, do you really want to continue to make a monkey of yourself?
Comment by Bruce Gorton
Bruce, O. Bigfoot has a right to make a monkey out of himself!
November 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am“$40 billion and a conscience”
What a great line! Really great.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:29 amO. Bigfoot
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The heirs are getting money, they are recieving income, that this income is from the dead is irrelevant, it is taxable.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:29 amBob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.â€
oh, SNAP!!!
November 19th, 2007 at 11:32 amBruce makes the point of receiving income. Does Mr. Bigfoot have any evidence this is socialism?
Bruce points out Amendment XVI. Mr. Bigfoot points to……..?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amThe topic: Novak Attacks Buffett As ‘Hypocrite’ With A ‘Phony Message’ Who ‘Should Be Ashamed Of Himself’
Watch the serial troll do his little troll act. He wants us to discuss the constitutionality of the estate tax, where he can bloviate for HOURS and turn this thread into his personal TROLL DUNG PATCH!
PLEASE do not fall for this off-topic serial troll’s tricks. Report him for abuse!
On topic: People like Novak idolizes the conscience-less rich. It is the rich with a conscience that offends him!
November 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amAnd I’ve already explained to you where you are wrong. Do you need it put in simpler terms?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 19, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Yes – please link me to the Supreme Court case that ruled the estate tax unconstitutional.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:34 amAnyone notice that suddenly NOVAK is BACK? Like NOTHING happened
November 19th, 2007 at 11:36 amYep – right back in his TVChair ready for the 2008 battle to take the Dems down. How did he escape any charges related to the NYT/Judith Miller scandal is beyond me. He’s as corrupt at they come.
Isn’t it interesting that the righties claim that taxation of inheritance takes away incentives for work, innovation, business growth, etc?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:37 amInheriting a big pile of money does the same. Look at Paris Hilton, the poster-girl du jour for why inheriting astronomical (space metaphor again) amounts of money without doing a lick of work is counterproductive.
I’m surprised Novakula didn’t drag out the discredited old saw about the family farms and small businesses being taxed away by the “Death Tax”. It’s hard to find examples of it. The tax-free inheritance limit in the code now covers most family farms and businesses.
Wealth is already concentrated at the top. We shouldn’t be concentrating it more.
“So, in effect, you support taxing a person’s income twice, regardless of the Constitutionality of the practice?”
If you would eliminate the estate tax, you must also eliminate the taxes we pay on our Social Security benefits because they are also “taxed twice,” in the sense that they are removed from our payroll checks, and we must also pay taxes on benefits when we get an SSI check.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:37 amWas Novak the guy giving Bernie Kerik blowjobs at the WTC?
Or was he doing the same with Fruity Rudy?
Either way, he really sucks.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:39 amtoasterhead
Yes – please link me to the Supreme Court case that ruled the estate tax unconstitutional.
NEW YORK TRUST CO. v. EISNER, 256 U.S. 345 (1921)
I used the google and found this case.
But it seems to support the Estate Tax, so I guess it’s not really what you asked for, sorry.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am“Look at Paris Hilton, the poster-girl du jour for why inheriting astronomical (space metaphor again) amounts of money without doing a lick of work is counterproductive.”
The same argument could be made about George W Bush.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:40 amO. Bigfoot…The heirs are getting money, they are recieving income, that this income is from the dead is irrelevant, it is taxable.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 19, 2007 @ 11:29 am
===
hmmm, Bigfoot in the bigmouth it seems.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:42 amWhat estate taxes actually do is encourage people to take their money out of the United States, and do business in nations that do not have onerous, confiscatory tax practices, and who welcome the investment and American dollars.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 19, 2007 @ 11:37 am
The super-rich will do this with or without estate taxes. This is no argument.
If they want to give up their citizenship and move to Grand Cayman or Dover or Dubai or any other offshore tax haven, they’re welcome to do so. But while the super-rich are making their money off the backs of the American middle and lower classes, they should have to pay their fair share of taxes back into the system that made them rich.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amO. Bigfoot
The governments job is provide the economic and regulatory environment in which anyone can succeed.
The best way to do this is to simply stand back, get out of the way, and let people succeed.
These two statements are incompatible. The gov’t can either stand back and get out of the way, or they can provide a regulatory environment. They can not do both.
When the gov’t does stand back, you get fraud, cheating, and predatory practices. Remember capitalism only works properly when everyone plays by the same rules.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amO. Bigfoot
It is for you to prove that the constitution forbids it, or don’t you understand the basics of law?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:46 am“I do not believe Social Security should be taxed.”
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Yet when you trotted out your estate tax assertion you said nothing about a tax that impacts us all, to cry about a tax that impacts relatively few, and not in any serious way. One could infer from the omission that you could care less about middle-class americans, your focus is on protecting billionaires. How sad.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:46 amNeither are enviable traits. And neither are productive.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 19, 2007 @ 11:37 am
And w/ a personality and mentality like this, I’d bet good money Li’l Footie is unreproductive too.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am“Sorry, not biting on that one. I’m still waiting for you to show me where estate taxes ARE Constitutional. You first attempt failed.”
Comment by O. Bigfoot
That was already provided. It’s no one else’s fault if your partisan myopia keeps you from seeing it.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amWith 74 posts on this thread ELEVEN are by the bloviator troll who has taken us OFF TOPIC (not to mention all the posts RESPONDING to the off-topic posts).
Please stop responding to the troll. Thanks!
November 19th, 2007 at 11:49 ambarfly
No, he just doesn’t understand taxes. Its depressing how few people really do, and possibly a sign of something that needs remedying in the world’s school systems.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amO. Bigfoot
Sorry, not biting on that one. I’m still waiting for you to show me where estate taxes ARE Constitutional. You first attempt failed.
Allow me to repost my linky goodness:
November 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amNEW YORK TRUST CO. v. EISNER, 256 U.S. 345 (1921)
Al Hunt hit it right on the nose.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t Novak’s nose.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:50 am#78:
You cannot reason with trolls. Facts will not sway them.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:53 am“OK, then using that logic all property inherited should be taxed again when it is given to another person.”
We have a gift tax, why not an estate tax? Is inheritance not a gift?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:54 amI love watching a troll make a fool out of itself.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:54 amThe constitutionality is not the topic of this thread. Socialism is not the topic of this thread.
“Novak Attacks Buffett As ‘Hypocrite’ With A ‘Phony Message’ Who ‘Should Be Ashamed Of Himself’” is the topic of this thread.
Please do not let the bloviating troll take us off topic. Report him for off-topic abuse.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:54 amPlease stop responding to the troll. Thanks!
Comment by hterrya — November 19, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Ordinarily I’d agree, but this is actually a pretty good and somewhat civil discussion about political and economic theory. I know Bigfoot’s history, but let’s not set the troll radar so high that any disagreement is reflexively labelled “trolling.”
November 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am“Al Hunt hit it right on the nose.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t Novak’s nose.”
Comment by RUCerious
And the fact that Novak is Hunt’s son’s godfather doesn’t make it seem like theater?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:55 amBack on topic: Novak is a liar and a traitor. He really doesn’t have a conscience.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:55 amO. Bigfoot
Tax the autos and homes willed to another person at the fair market value when the heir recieved it
Um, that’s part of the estate tax? But see, it has to be over a certain amount before the tax is applied. So if you will someone 1 3 bedroom house and a 8 year old honda, odds are it doesn’t get taxed. If you will someone a mansion on 30 acres and the 4 classic automobiles in the garage for a total value of 6 million dollars, then it gets taxed.
Or at least that’s my understanding. Perhaps I’m wrong here?
November 19th, 2007 at 11:56 amFrom Wikipedia:
In August 2004, after other journalists had reported on it, Novak admitted that his son, Alex Novak, is the Director of Marketing for the Swift Boat Veterans’ publisher, Regnery Publishing. At the time he said that he didn’t “think it relevant.” Two months later Salon.com reported that Regnery’s owner is also the publisher of Novak’s own US$297 (annual rate) newsletter and that Novak is on the board of a foundation whose chief holdings are the stock of Regnery’s parent company
November 19th, 2007 at 11:57 amthis is actually a pretty good and somewhat civil discussion about political and economic theory. Comment by toasterhead — November 19, 2007 @ 11:54 am
You just MADE the bloviating troll’s day and DOOMED the rest of us to his troll dung.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pmO. Bigfoot
That is already all figured in as part of the estate.
Wanna try again?
November 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pmThe whole double-taxation line is just a canard. It is virtually impossible to construct a practical tax system that doesn’t have double, triple, and quadruple taxation. Republicans talk all the time about the evils of double taxation, but only with respect to rich guy taxes like estate and dividend taxes. Most Americans are subject to a huge scheme of double taxation: paying income taxes on FICA. This is a painfully regressive double tax.
Preemption: trolls, don’t tell me that FICA isn’t a tax. It is. It is used to transfer money to other people (an inter-generational transfer), and to fund ordinary government operations. The “insurance” interpretation of FICA is a bunch of bunk.
Another double-tax: all the regressive fees paid by average Americans out of income that has already been taxed. You’ll never hear rich Republican crybabies talk about that, either.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pmWhy do you feel it’s the government’s job to steal from the rich and give to the poor? Comment by O. Bigfoot
Way to support the poor troops Big(O)
November 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pmSquegeeboo
Nope, you’ve got it. Bigfoot is just exposing how little he really knows about how taxes work.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pmEstate Taxes are horrid. They wreck family farms for one. $2 million dollars is a big deal when you only asset is land on a family farm. There children can’t farm even if they want to because the our socialist government forces them against their will to sell the farm to pay the taxes. Everyone in America should be ashamed of this.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pm@ 11:59 am – FOURTEEN off-topic troll dungs!
November 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pm@ 12:02 pm and a little troll dung from a little troll.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pmRoger_Roger
If you inherit $3m, and the minimum cap is $2m, you only pay taxes on the $1m above the minimum cap.
This hardly counts as impoverishing anyone.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:06 pmOr at least that’s my understanding. Perhaps I’m wrong here?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 19, 2007 @ 11:56 am
You are correct. The estate tax exemption is quite large, I think around $2 million for a married couple. Also, there are a number of estate planning tools that allow people to shelter even more of their estate from taxes.
Another frequent lie told by Republicans is the story of the family business lost to estate taxes. This simply does not happen. The law allows up to $2 million in equity to be sheltered from taxes. For businesses valued above that, the heirs always have the option of borrowing to pay the taxes. The service on the loan can easily be covered by the ongoing profits of the business.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:06 pmYeah, like ol’ Liver Lips Novak has room to point the finger at ANYONE for hypocrisy….
Take a look at yourself in the mirror, asshat.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:06 pmNovak is a racist as well as the succker of rich peoples teets. His columns with Evans were reprint in KKK newsletters all over the South in the sixties. Listening to him is like “discussing” troll dung with the trolls in here.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:07 pm@ 11:59 am – FOURTEEN off-topic troll dungs!
Comment by hterrya — November 19, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Your eight posts about off-topic troll dung aren’t exactly contributing to the discussion either.
Just saying is all.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pmEstate Taxes are horrid. They wreck family farms for one.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 19, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
False, idiot. Family farms have a special exemption (I think $5 million). There is not a single documented instance of a family farm lost to the estate tax. You just lap up the koolaid, don’t you?
November 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 19, 2007
As the ‘Paris Hiltons’, or her children, could ever farm or do much of anything.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pm“They wreck family farms for one. $2 million dollars is a big deal when you only asset is land on a family farm.”
Roger Wrongagain
That canard sunk, long ago. How’s life on the conservative dingy?
But wait! Is that Fred Thompson steaming this way!
Start flapping your arms; maybe he’ll see you…
November 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pmActually, as far as I can tell, what’s being called the “Fair Tax†would fix every problem with taxation on the Federal level.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 19, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
The Treasury department under Paul O’Neill studied five different major tax reform plans, several of which were some version of the “flat tax” or “fair tax”. The conclusion was that every one of these plans would result in a huge tax cut for the wealthy. Now whose pocket do you think is going to make up for that? Yours.
How is it that Republicans can convince so many people to vote against their personal interest?
November 19th, 2007 at 12:12 pmO. Bigfoot
The “Fair Tax” also known as VAT would hit your smaller start-up businesses that currently aren’t in a taxable position – and thus reduce competition in America’s markets.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm“Estate Taxes are horrid. They wreck family farms for one.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 19, 2007″
the families who want to kill the estate tax wouldn’t pee on you if you were on fire.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pmShift change:
From the self-absorbed, bloviating troll, to the ignorant, wrong again troll. If the RNC doesn’t pay them by the hour, it SHOULD.
Topic: Novak Attacks Buffett As ‘Hypocrite’ With A ‘Phony Message’ Who ‘Should Be Ashamed Of Himself’
November 19th, 2007 at 12:16 pm“Yes – please link me to the Supreme Court case that ruled the estate tax unconstitutional.
Comment by toasterhead — November 19, 2007 @ 11:34 amâ€
Sorry, not biting on that one. I’m still waiting for you to show me where estate taxes ARE Constitutional. You first attempt failed.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Sounds like a dodge to me.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI have seen the impacts of inherited wealth up close and personal.
If you want to make sure talented people don’t work and raise dysfunctional families, by all means repeal the estate tax!
BTW I myself have inherited some money, and stand to inherit a bit more down the way. I think the current estate tax is about right.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:16 pmFalse, idiot. Family farms have a special exemption (I think $5 million). There is not a single documented instance of a family farm lost to the estate tax. You just lap up the koolaid, don’t you?
Comment by VerbalKint — November 19, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
I’d add that industrial agribusiness has done far more to kill the family farm than the estate tax ever could.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pmThese are the (2008) guidelines for taxes on Social Security. These income levels don’t include the Social Security benefits received. I, personally, think the levels are too low and would like to see them doubled (especially since the purchasing power of the dollar has significantly declined) before they can be taxed. However, taxation of SS is only fair, and I’ll give you a personal example of why SS should be taxed for appropriate people. My sister has a net worth of over $2 million. This was largely inherited money and is investment-based, not salary. She has not worked for a salary for at least 25 years. She filed for SS when she turned 62, several years ago. I believe she pulls out somewhere between $5,000-$10,000 per month income (judging by her lifestyle).
“Some people who get Social Security will have to pay taxes on their benefits. Less than one-third of our current beneficiaries pay taxes on their benefits.
You will have to pay federal taxes on your benefits if you file a federal tax return as an “individual” and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income that is more than $32,000.”
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=493&p_created=975936428&p_sid=fUSN38Ri&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0yNiwyNiZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9MS43JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1
November 19th, 2007 at 12:20 pm“There is…an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents…. The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy.â€
- Thomas Jefferson
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — November 19, 2007 @ 11:17 am
And the provision I support is a true “death tax.” After modestly providing for the deceased’s spouse and children, we take all remaining assests and liquidate them for public use. The United States should not allow dynastic wealth.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWell, we’re way off topic now:
But I believe subsidies have done more to kill the “family farm”, not taxes.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pmNovak is another Fascist NeoCon no conscience scum sucking pig.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
November 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmNovak is doing his “conservative” thing on the cable network owned by Bloomberg, another conscience-less oligarch, who hates Buffet for showing how lacking in conscience Bloomberg truly is.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBuffet sounds rational and sane. Novak sounds like his pimps.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.â€
Priceless.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pmFrom the Huffington Post:
Novak disclosed that his source for the story about Clinton having dirt on Obama was not anyone close to Clinton but rather, someone who was “told by an agent of the Clinton campaign” about the alleged dirt.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pmPlantation owners made the same argument about their slaves…
Comment by barfly
The serial troll would have agreed with the plantation owners if he was alive back then. He’s part of the ‘I got mine now screw you’ crowd.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pmBuffett = Billionaire genius
Novak = Bloviating windbag
November 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm“So, in effect, you support taxing a person’s income twice, regardless of the Constitutionality of the practice?â€
The sad part is that a large portion of the “income” that the very rich make wasn’t ever taxed in the first place. That’s why there are 14,000 US corporations (many just one or two people) incorporated in the Caymen Islands, and all with the same address (a small house).
November 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pmWell, we’re way off topic now:
But I believe subsidies have done more to kill the “family farmâ€, not taxes.
Comment by DieNowForPeace
You are right. The giant subsidies that corporate farmers have received, as opposed to any subsidies received by the small family farms. This is why so many small family farms have sold out to the corporate farms, they can’t compete, it isn’t a level playing field.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAnd the provision I support is a true “death tax.†After modestly providing for the deceased’s spouse and children, we take all remaining assests and liquidate them for public use. The United States should not allow dynastic wealth.
Comment by crassus
Excuse me. You consider 2 million dollars to be “modest”? Because that’s the threshold for the cutoff for owing estate taxes. If your estate is worth less than 2 million, there are no so-called “death” taxes.
Looks like we have a new troll folks.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pmI would not piss on Roger-Roger if he/she/it were on fire. :-)
November 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI would not piss on Roger-Roger if he/she/it were on fire. :-)
Comment by Uncle Ho — November 19, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Where did I put that can of gas and my lighter…?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pmOk Bigfoot… let’s agree to get rid of the estate tax & tax. Now fund it. Where’s the taxes that used to be collected going to come from? They have to be made up. God knows your govt is already running the country in the red to the tune of hundreds of billions a year. So how do you propose funding this? Should the money come from companies, individuals? If from individuals should it come from the wealthy, the poor or the middle class? If it should come from all classes then what you’re doing is lessening the tax on the wealthy (estate tax) and transferring it to those poorer then they are. How is that fair?
You say that the wealthy shouldn’t be taxed in favor of the poor. If the country needs $X to pay its bills (unlike the GWB administration it should be a mandate to pay the bills, run a surplus even) then it has to come from somewhere. No matter what taxation system you prefer you have to tax people to pay the bills of the govt. You seem to think that the wealthy pay too much in taxes. That must mean that you believe the middle class/poor should pay more tax. Is that correct?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pmthere children can’t farm even if they want to because the our socialist government forces them against their will to sell the farm to pay the taxes. Everyone in America should be ashamed of this.
Comment by Roger_Roger
I knew sooner or later a resident troll would come up with that old canard. R2 – read this article and educate yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300741.html
Small family farms are more likely to go belly up because of the predatory practices of the corporate farms and the fact that a bulk of the farm subsidies go to the corporate farms and not to the family farms. They family farms can’t compete and are forced to sell out to the corporate farms. This happens with much more frequency than a ffamily losing a farm to estate taxes.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pmComment by bilbobaggins — November 19, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
It’s funny that you think I’m a troll. I think you misunderstand me. I do not think $2M is modest at all. I propose to take 100% of whatever a person leaves, regardless of its net value. I would employ the IRS to enforce very strict limits on gifts and joint ownerships and to determine some sort of reasonable standard to provide for spouses and minor children. After those responsibilities are fulfilled, 100% goes back into the kitty. The object would be to abolish loopholes and threshholds and destroy the “artificial aristocracy” of which Jefferson warned and the plutocracy of which Buffet warns. The United States should not allow dynastic wealth.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pmHow is it that Republicans can convince so many people to vote against their personal interest?
Comment by VerbalKint
That is something I have always wondered about. It doesn’t matter that the Republiscum party ruins them financially, as long as they keep talking about abortion and gay’s, they will keep voting for them. The thing they are too stupid to realize is that the Republiscums really don’t want to outlaw abortion or stop gays from marrying. If they did that, they would no longer have a wedge issue to recruit the uneducated voters.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pmComment by crassus — November 19, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
You are one of the new breed of RNC trolls. These trolls are told to go out there and pretend that they are a progressive and then post really outlandish things so that the talking heads can quote them as evidence of how “far out” the progressives really are. What you are proposing is so outlandish there isn’t a person on this blog who would agree with you. And it has nothing to do with doing away with inherited wealth. True progressives don’t envy people who are wealthy, they simply want them to pay their fair share of taxes. They also want the same from Corporations. Corporations today pay 90% less in taxes than they did when Eisenhower was president. And remember how robust the economy was then? So why would it not be robust now if the corporations paid their fair share?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pmIn other words: Socialism.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 19, 2007 @ 11:50 am
That’s right, and it’s about time. Enough of the government enabling the rich to steal from the poor, and send them to illegal wars for more profits. Enough. that is not the Amercan way, and must be stopped, now.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pmbilbobaggins
Corporations today pay 90% less in taxes than they did when Eisenhower was president. And remember how robust the economy was then? So why would it not be robust now if the corporations paid their fair share?
Because now there are other places for the corporations to go. Back then, Western Europe and Japan were still rebuilding, Eastern Europe was under the Soviet umbrella, and the rest of the world didn’t have the tech background or necessary infrastructure to support most of the corporations.
America was their only choice.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pmThat Treasonous person should not be allowed on the TV anymore… musch less talking about the tax code… time te old prune shriveled up and blew away like an autumn leaf.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pmThere’s another big difference between Novak and Warren Buffet. It’s the overpowering smell of decomposing flesh.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI have to add this to the discussion.
On one hand, a parent should have the right to gift his or her children with his or her material possessions in a will. Even money should be given like this. However, the biggest problem I see is when someone who wouldn’t be able to acquire fabulous riches of his own skills, such as George Walker Bush, is given money and fame through the power of his parents and grandparents. In many ways, Dubya has benefited from work done over 50 years ago and THIS I find wrong.
There have been quotes on this thread about Jefferson’s call against an inherited wealth aristocracy. Bush and Cheney are two perfect examples of an aristocracy gone wrong. Incidently, so are many of the political candidates for 2008, and no, this does not exclude the democratic side. If history is any indication, regardless of who gets in, R or D, if they are part of the aristocracy, which is very likely, then it’ll be more of the same.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pmRoger_Roger: WE WILL WAIT FOR YOU TO POST VERIFIABLE INFORMATION OF THREE DIFFERENT FAMILIES THAT HAVE HAD TO SELL THEIR FARM IN ORDER TO PAY AN ESTATE TAX LIABILITY. IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, IT WILL BE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU ARE NOTHING BUT AN IGNORANT FOOL AND A LIAR.
Of course, roger cannot provide such names. The IRS, business publications and Republican operatives have been queried for years to find a poster boy for the movement. They have not found a single example. Roger_Roger and Bigfoot merely prove their ignorance. They are nothing but mindless trolls receiving their knowledge from FOX News and the Republican directorate of propaganda.
No country that has seen a concentration of wealth such as isd now seen in the United States will succeed for long on an economic basis. Indeed, a number of studies have been done of the European countries. They have less concentration of wealth, better health and a higher degree of satisfaction with their lives. The United States, on the other hand, is headed towards a third world status.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pmComment by Dave C — November 19, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
While I can’t speak for O. Bigfoot, it’s been my experience that most conservatives just say “cut spending” whenever they are asked how to make up any shortfall from cutting any taxes, estate or otherwise.
Yet, whenever they are asked WHERE to cut the spending, they answers generally range from “cut it across the board” to “get rid of liberal social programs”.
The four biggest spending areas in the U.S. budget are Social Security, Defense, Health and Human Services, and interest on the national debt. Let’s examine the possibilities of cuts in each of these areas.
1) Social Security. Good luck if you want to make any cuts here. Any legislation reducing benefits is political poison.
2) Defense. Probably the biggest spending area right now due to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without those wars, we could make sizeable spending cuts here, but even that wouldn’t be enough to keep spending in line with revenue.
3) Health and Human Services. This is the catch-all basket of all the entitlements conservatives rail against. And it’s no surprise that this is the area where fiscal conservatives want to make deep, deep cuts. But there’s a problem with cutting off funds to people who depend on them. It’s like nailing jello to a tree. If you cut off somebody’s vocational training, for example, keeping them from getting a job, then you have to pay to feed and shelter them. If you cut off somebody’s health care, then you will probably have to pay them for the disability they get when they don’t get the medical attention they need. If you choose not to pay anybody anything, then you just wind up with streets filled with homeless, sick, starving, disabled people — and you wind up having to pay more in law enforcement to deal with them (as well as those who have turned to crime out of desperation). Furthermore, the economy will suffer since you took a lot of people out of the spending loop. No — you can make slight changes to HHS, but dramatic changes will throw a whole lot of things out of balance.
4) Interest on the national debt. You can’t touch this one. Even if you have an “across the board” spending cut, this category can’t be touched.
To sum it up — it’s not easy to cut spending. But I invite the conservatives here to try. If you eliminate the estate tax, where do you plan to absorb the revenue shortfall?
November 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pmThat Treasonous person should not be allowed on the TV anymore… musch less talking about the tax code… time te old prune shriveled up and blew away like an autumn leaf.
Comment by LibertyLover — November 19, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Which one are you calling the treasonous old prune? Bob Novak? Al Hunt? Or Warren Buffett?
November 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pmHas anyone ever been able to find even one person who’s ever had to sell land in order to pay for the inheritance/estate tax?
I remember politicians saying that people had to do so, but nobody has ever provided proof that this has ever happened.
Why do the rich never have to pay taxes, but the middle class has to pay taxes for everything?
Why don’t the ultra-rich ever want to give back to the country that provided them with the opportunity to amass multi-milion dollar estates??? Let them get harassed by one pan-handler and they’ll call the cops in a heartbeat, but ask them to pay a tax to support the government that protects them, and they cry like little girls.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pmTHIS IS THE ‘FSA’, THE FACIST STATES OF AMERICA, FROMER KNOWN AS THE USA…
November 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pmBuffett is a super rich liar. He does not pay any federal income tax. He ONLY pays capital gains taxes. And he only pays about 15% on those taxes. Even lower in some instances. He should shut up and open his check book to the IRS if he has such a hard time with the way the tax codes are written.
Comment by Southern Man
Um… doesn’t this just prove his point?
His point is that the rich are taxed less and the poor and middle-class are taxed more. You’re just proving his point.
He could open his wallet to the IRS but that isn’t going to fix the problem. One rich man paying more taxes isn’t going to fix the problem.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmTo sum it up — it’s not easy to cut spending. But I invite the conservatives here to try. If you eliminate the estate tax, where do you plan to absorb the revenue shortfall?
Comment by missmolly — November 19, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
From what I’ve seen Republicans don’t seem too worried about where the money comes from when they cut taxes. They believe that by cutting taxes people will spend more and that will benefit the economy which will pay for the tax cut. The problem is that it doesn’t work, especially if it’s wealthy people that you cut taxes on. Wealthy people get a tax break of $100k and they toss it on the pile. They don’t live paycheck to paycheck, they have money to save, money to invest. So a tax break to a wealthy dude may never come back to the market in terms of money being spent. Now cut the taxes of someone who can barely make ends meet and that will hit the streets immediately. But the Reps aren’t interested in helping the less fortunate. They get enough help & should be happy they get anything.
Warren Buffet said that he pays 16-17% income tax on his earnings. He asked his staff and on average they pay 35%. He’s one of the wealthiest men in the world. If a middle class dude pays 35% then a millionaire should pay 35%. That would be a fair tax.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmSothernman, you are both a fool and an idiot. But that is common for conservatives with little brains such as you. Studies have already been conducted showing that there is a greater chance of a person in one economic class rising to the next in his/her life time in most European countries than in the United States. But then you are ignorant and stupid (it is centuries dumbo). European countries started out with wealth based on landed aristocracies. However, it changed. They also learned from the threat of socialism and communism that arose in the wake industrialism and the Great Depression. There are obviously some Euopean families with great wealth. But the spread from the poorest to the richest is not as great as it is in the United States. It is obvious that you have little international experience. You should look up the facts yourself, but I doubt you can read.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pmAt least here, you can have an idea, market it, and make money because of it, and the goverment stays out of the way. The American dream.
Comment by Southern Man
You can also do that in most Europian countries. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm#149 – “Please explain to me why the goverment is owed half of what I leave behind for my children.” Comment by Southern Man — November 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Do you have an estate worth over 2 million dollars? If you answer “no” then you own NO ESTATE TAX AT ALL!
If you answer “yes”, then do you think you accumulated that money all by your lonesome with no assistance by the government? You know, the one that makes sure you are protected by the police and the military, and that keep competition from illegally ruining your business.
Don’t you think you might owe something for all that protection? Does 30% of anything over 2 million seem like you’re going to go broke just paying for the estate tax?
If you answer “yes” to this last question then you don’t know math very well at all, and would probably end up trying to send money to the next e-mail asking for donations from some other country, and you don’t deserve the money you’ve already got.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pmLets tax everything. Why don’t I just pay 75% of what Ie make to local, state, and federal goverment. Wait, I already do that. That leaves me just enough to pay the bills and keep working to strive for more? I’m tired of working endless hours and spending litle time with family because I am needed to pay the taxes for other people. It gets old fast. I should just quit, claim disability and live off of someone like me?
And since there are more of them than the rich, (2% of the top wage earners pay 75% of income taxes collected in this country) let them pay their share.
Comment by Southern Man
So… you are earning in the top 2% nationwide(since you said you’re paying 75% in taxes–yeah right) and you’re having a hard time making ends meet?
I don’t make that much, or pay that much in taxes, and I live in california(one of the most exspensive places to live) and I’m living quite comfortably. I suspect you’re not being honest about any of these numbers.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pmI didn’t say I was in the top two percent. But when it’s all said and done, I pay right around seventy five percent of my income to taxes. Between federal income tax, state tax, local tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, car tax, boat tax, fishing license tax….. Throw in private schools for the kids(you wouldn’t let your kids go to the public schools around here if you had the means to do so, really bad) and a few others, and thats where some of us are because of the amount of taxes that are there.
Comment by Southern Man — November 19, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Bullshit.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pmI didn’t say I was in the top two percent. But when it’s all said and done, I pay right around seventy five percent of my income to taxes. Between federal income tax, state tax, local tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, car tax, boat tax, fishing license tax….. Throw in private schools for the kids(you wouldn’t let your kids go to the public schools around here if you had the means to do so, really bad) and a few others, and thats where some of us are because of the amount of taxes that are there.
Comment by Southern Man
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
If your taxable income is between… your tax bracket is:
174,850 and above = 35%
I make about 100k+ a year and I pay about 35%
There is no way you pay 75%
November 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pmIf you found out tomorrow you had a rich relative you didn’t know about, and they left you four million dollars, and after the federal and state took their cut, you have less than two million. That leaves you enough money to live on fifty thousand dollars a year over the next forty years. And you still have to pay taxes on that fifty thousand a year. That’s fair in your opinion?
Comment by Southern Man — November 19, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Ok, now all of your numbers are suspect. The estate tax is 30% on everything over $2m. So on a $4m estate the tax would be $600k leaving you $3.4m. Hardly less then $2m. If you were left with $3.4m you could invest it. Let’s say you invest it in equities and they grow 7% a year. If you don’t sell any you pay no tax since there is no capital gain until you sell. If you sell enough to generate $50k in living expenses you would pay next to nothing in tax since the bulk of the $50k is your original principal, which is tax paid. So if your estate grew 7% and you took out $50k you’d be paying tax on a capital gain tax on $3,271 of the $50k. Chump change. Less then a grand. I think you’d be ok.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:35 pmSouthern Man
If you found out tomorrow you had a rich relative you didn’t know about, and they left you four million dollars, and after the federal and state took their cut, you have less than two million. That leaves you enough money to live on fifty thousand dollars a year over the next forty years. And you still have to pay taxes on that fifty thousand a year. That’s fair in your opinion?
I think my eyes would have glazed over after finding out I was getting nearly 2 million dollars.
Also, oh darn, I only have roughly 50k a year to live off of. That’s more than enough to live off of. Especially if you invest it, and/or don’t quite your current job for a few years to build up more investment/retirement funds. Think about it, you could put your entire current paycheck into investments for 10 years, and retire on 100k a year instead of 50.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pmgah, quit, not quite. Hooray proof reading.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pmComment by Dave C
Yes, all SouthernMan’s numbers are very suspect. Infact, I think he’s simply making them up.
I’m waiting for him to explain how he pays 75% of his income in taxes.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pmI’m waiting for him to explain how he pays 75% of his income in taxes.
Comment by DigDug — November 19, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Let’s say he does pay 75% in taxes, though I don’t believe he knows what he pays. It’s still not enough tax. The Bush govt is still pissing away so much money that they’re not taxing the people enough to pay their bills. Now SouthernMan doesn’t sound like this $4m inheritance is coming anytime soon. Nor does he sound like he’s making millions. So why would he fight the repeal of the estate tax when the alternative is to increase his personal taxes?
The vast majority of Republican voters aren’t millionaires. Yet they support a govt that doesn’t give a shit about them. I believe they do because they hold onto this American dream that someday they’ll be a millionaire and they don’t want to have to pay taxes when they get to that place. It’s laughable that people can vote for a party that turns around and screws them.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pm“Less than 1 percent of the nation’s super-rich pay the estate tax.”
Pretty sure that’s worded incorrectly. “Less than 1 percent of the nation’s taxpayers pay the estate tax.”, maybe?
This is pretty basic copy-editor stuff.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:06 pmSothernman is nothing but filthy, disgusting liar. There is no way that anyone pays 75% of their annual income in taxes. No combination of federal, state and local taxes would give even a marginal rate approaching that percentage on marginal income. I am an attorney, I have handled tax matters and I know you are lying. You are just filth.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:30 pmOf course Novakula dreads Buffet-the-vampire-slayer.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pmSothernman is nothing but filthy, disgusting liar. There is no way that anyone pays 75% of their annual income in taxes. No combination of federal, state and local taxes would give even a marginal rate approaching that percentage on marginal income. I am an attorney, I have handled tax matters and I know you are lying. You are just filth.
Comment by JMOHR
Yes, and having been finally caught out in his lies he has promptly disappeared.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pmIf you found out tomorrow you had a rich relative you didn’t know about, and they left you four million dollars, and after the federal and state took their cut, you have less than two million. That leaves you enough money to live on fifty thousand dollars a year over the next forty years. And you still have to pay taxes on that fifty thousand a year. That’s fair in your opinion?
Comment by Southern Man — November 19, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
You lost me at the “and you still have to pay taxes on that fifty thousand a year.” If you inherit four million dollars, once you pay the inheritance tax on it, the rest is yours. You don’t have to pay further taxes on it every year.
You DO have to pay taxes on any interest you earn from investing that money, and you DO have to pay sales tax on anything you buy with that money.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pmOne thing I noticed missing in this (lengthy) discussion was any IRS data.
For the 2006 tax year, 49,050 estate tax returns were filed and of those 22,798 were taxable. Total estate tax due (all figures are estimates based on sample) was $24.6 billion.
The exclusion isn’t necessarily fixed at $2 million; for 2006, 819 estates valued under $1.5 million paid $89 million in net estate taxes.
I’d agree with the evil guy from earlier who doubted the “less than 1%” of the super-rich pay the estate tax line. I suspect that it was just a mistake.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:10 pmand of course if the rich person transfers his or her assets to his or her heirs during his or her lifetime, then there’s no estate tax. If the assets are put in a suitably prepared trust for the heirs there’s no estate tax. It’s only those souls that hold on to their glittering prizes to the bitter end who make their heirs subject to the estate tax.
I have a solution: a wealthy person is buried with all their wealth. The stuff that won’t fit in the pyramid is auctioned off and the proceeds lining the sarcophagus.
Then the passageway is sealed and thousands of asps (very dangerous) are put in the central chamber.
Thus the rich have their reward. And if, later, the Federal Reserve sees fit to print more money to offset the reduction in the money supply, why, that’s only prudent monetary policy.
And the heirs? They have all the largesse the wealthy person gave them when they were alive and able to act on their intentions.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:30 pmHere, I’ll help you correct your LIES, poor little ‘tard
Lies? You must have missed that this was 2006 IRS Tax Data taken directly from the Tax Stats link on the IRS site. It’s an Excel file. You could find it yourself. But I guess you want to rely on an (unattributed I notice) article you had someone read to you.
Nice try. Play again sometime.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:32 pmThe IRS data are for estate returns filed in 2006, they are not for individuals filing because they received an inheritance. There are still states for which that is true but the Federal tax is on the assets of the estate, not on the people who inherit the money. The IRS says:The taxable estate is calculated as gross estate less allowable deductions. You can find it on this page which has the links to the various files.
What you’re referring to I can’t know because you appear to quote something or someone w/o attribution. I realize somebody like Victor Davis Hanson is your idea of an historian but don’t emulate him by leaving out who gave you the information that you parrot. Oh, and simply repeating something you”heard” doesn’t make it true the second time anymore than the first.
As you know, I’m sure, the deceased has someone, either the executor of the estate or the surviving spouse, fill out and file a Form 1040 and write deceased at the top. See. it’s almost as if the dead person may have to pay tax even though they’re dead! Now, follow that logic, I know it’s hard for you, and you’ll see that the estate of the dead person (like a corporation, sort of) has to pay a tax on the assets owned by the estate.
No points for even trying since you just said the same thing a second time.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:24 amThis weekend on Bloomberg Television, right-wing pundit Bob Novak fumed over Buffett’s altruistic testimony, attacking him as a hypocrite who “should be ashamed of himself for putting out that phony message.†Bloomberg’s Al Hunt responded, “Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.â€
*******************************
Oooo…SMACKDOWN! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Novakula! Buffett is a far better man than Novak could ever aspire to be, because he understands that money should be considered a means to an end — a tool to be used, preferably for the enrichment of others and not just oneself — not an end in itself.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:30 am“40 Billion and a conscience” …no, there are other differences. Buffett did not have to visit the wizard of Oz to learn that he had a heart, a brain, and courage … and unlike Dorothy’s pals, Novak’s request for the same would have the wizard shrugging his shoulders at the hopeless request.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:05 pm