Re:Occupy MacJams
Saturday, October 29 2011 @ 11:19 PM CDT

Quote by: Sigmund Quote by: michael2 Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: Corporal Beef Except that in the case of a bonus, you haven't already been taxed on it. With an inheritance tax, the money has already been taxed. If I get a bonus, my boss has been taxed on the money he gives me. If I get an inheritance my father has been taxed on the money he gives me. Or to put it the other way around, in the case of a bonus you haven't already been taxed on the money you get. In the case of an inheritance you haven't already been taxed on the money you get. You're using sloppy sentence structure to make it sound like there is a difference. I don't think there is. Victor. Victor beat me to it. Sorry guys but that's not entirely accurate. As a business owner I can tell you that if I pay an employee a bonus, I'm including it on my schedule C as business write off, under salaries and wages paid, and therefore I'm not being taxed for it - that tax is passed along to the employee - so that income is NOT taxed twice, as you suggest. Even if the bonus is a portion of "profits", to me it is still an expense against my net profit. I only pay tax on my net profit, which is revenue less all expenses, including wages, salaries and bonuses.

It's hard for some who haven't gone out on a limb to start businesses and employ people to understand taxation and the value of hard work. From some of the comments I've read, some feel that if you become successful at business, working countless hours to support your family, that you should be taxed twice in the case of your death.

Thank you for your contribution to the economic health of our society.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Saturday, October 29 2011 @ 11:30 PM CDT

Quote by: Corporal Beef Quote by: Sigmund Quote by: michael2 Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: Corporal Beef Except that in the case of a bonus, you haven't already been taxed on it. With an inheritance tax, the money has already been taxed. If I get a bonus, my boss has been taxed on the money he gives me. If I get an inheritance my father has been taxed on the money he gives me. Or to put it the other way around, in the case of a bonus you haven't already been taxed on the money you get. In the case of an inheritance you haven't already been taxed on the money you get. You're using sloppy sentence structure to make it sound like there is a difference. I don't think there is. Victor. Victor beat me to it. Sorry guys but that's not entirely accurate. As a business owner I can tell you that if I pay an employee a bonus, I'm including it on my schedule C as business write off, under salaries and wages paid, and therefore I'm not being taxed for it - that tax is passed along to the employee - so that income is NOT taxed twice, as you suggest. Even if the bonus is a portion of "profits", to me it is still an expense against my net profit. I only pay tax on my net profit, which is revenue less all expenses, including wages, salaries and bonuses. It's hard for some who haven't gone out on a limb to start businesses and employ people to understand taxation and the value of hard work. From some of the comments I've read, some feel that if you become successful at business, working countless hours to support your family, that you should be taxed twice in the case of your death. Thank you for your contribution to the economic health of our society.

maybe you didn't read my last comment; i hope I haven't given that impression as I believe that it's the small business owners that keep this country afloat most of the time. it's the big corporations and the enormous sway they have over our system that gets my goat.

if the American dream was alive and well, there would be an equal playing field for all, but we don't even have an equal starting point in this country and that concerns me.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Saturday, October 29 2011 @ 11:35 PM CDT

Quote by: michael2 but anyways: I don't even have an opinion on this. was just thinking aloud.most of the people I know will not really be effected by this as they will never leave that much to their kids. which is why I sort of feel like we should have an inheritance tax: if it's not there, it will primarily be another perk that the rich get to enjoy. one more thing to ensure that their wealth is untouched. but as I said in all but 1 of my other posts, I don't have a solid opinion on this and am just thinking it through.

So, since you're still thinking it through, may I ask a couple of questions?

If someone works hard, takes financial risks, employs others, and manages their money well, should they not be entitled to some perks? And if they manage to generate some wealth after paying lots of taxes, why should the remainder of their wealth be touched? I mean, they've contributed a lot to society via revenue and job creation. Is it really evil that they should see some sort of benefit from that?

Re:Occupy MacJams
Saturday, October 29 2011 @ 11:40 PM CDT

Quote by: michael2 maybe you didn't read my last comment; i hope I haven't given that impression as I believe that it's the small business owners that keep this country afloat most of the time. it's the big corporations and the enormous sway they have over our system that gets my goat. if the American dream was alive and well, there would be an equal playing field for all, but we don't even have an equal starting point in this country and that concerns me.

You haven't given me that impression. I'm in total agreement with you; the playing field is more skewed than ever. I think this a different issue entirely from the inheritance tax, however.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Saturday, October 29 2011 @ 11:48 PM CDT

Quote by: Corporal Beef Quote by: michael2 but anyways: I don't even have an opinion on this. was just thinking aloud.most of the people I know will not really be effected by this as they will never leave that much to their kids. which is why I sort of feel like we should have an inheritance tax: if it's not there, it will primarily be another perk that the rich get to enjoy. one more thing to ensure that their wealth is untouched. but as I said in all but 1 of my other posts, I don't have a solid opinion on this and am just thinking it through. So, since you're still thinking it through, may I ask a couple of questions? If someone works hard, takes financial risks, employs others, and manages their money well, should they not be entitled to some perks? And if they manage to generate some wealth after paying lots of taxes, why should the remainder of their wealth be touched? I mean, they've contributed a lot to society via revenue and job creation. Is it really evil that they should see some sort of benefit from that?

you make some good points there, but it is not as if the perks are reciprocal. they get benefits the rest of us don't (not the least of which is access to lawmakers to pass laws in their favor). I do not begrudge someone doing well at all. I do feel anger when bank of america pays less taxes than my retired grandma. i get irritated when corporations get their lobbyists to sneak things in bills that allow them to dump chemicals in our water. that's not fair and it borders on predatory.

I have been self employed: what did it get me? debt, long work hours, no health insurance for long stretches of time, i got to pay city taxes as well as fed and state. it wasn't easy and I got out before it did me in. you as a business owner don't have the access to resources that a big corporation has, you pay more taxes and put up with a lot of red tape. and the messed up thing is: you actually employ people. you're most likely not sending all of your work to another country where you can pay people $2 a day. that's what doesn't add up to me. you are actually contributing, but where are the perks going? to JP Chase and their ilk.

you and i have different views on lots of things, but we share a lot of the same frustration. i'm tired of funding someones lavish lifestyle. and i suspect you are as well.

as for the inheritance tax: the jury is still out with me, not as if I gathered a whole lot of info from this thread.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Sunday, October 30 2011 @ 12:09 AM CDT

Quote by: michael2 you make some good points there, but it is not as if the perks are reciprocal. they get benefits the rest of us don't (not the least of which is access to lawmakers to pass laws in their favor). I do not begrudge someone doing well at all. I do feel anger when bank of america pays less taxes than my retired grandma. i get irritated when corporations get their lobbyists to sneak things in bills that allow them to dump chemicals in our water. that's not fair and it borders on predatory. I have been self employed: what did it get me? debt, long work hours, no health insurance for long stretches of time, i got to pay city taxes as well as fed and state. it wasn't easy and I got out before it did me in. you as a business owner don't have the access to resources that a big corporation has, you pay more taxes and put up with a lot of red tape. and the messed up thing is: you actually employ people. you're most likely not sending all of your work to another country where you can pay people $2 a day. that's what doesn't add up to me. you are actually contributing, but where are the perks going? to JP Chase and their ilk. you and i have different views on lots of things, but we share a lot of the same frustration. i'm tired of funding someones lavish lifestyle. and i suspect you are as well. as for the inheritance tax: the jury is still out with me, not as if I gathered a whole lot of info from this thread.

Yes, the corporations that are in bed with the government are problematic, and this needs to be address by us all. Paying no taxes because of loop holes, or being granted health care waivers is not acceptable, especially when those same policies are putting small to medium sized businesses out of business. Selective enforcement is just evil. And giving our tax money via bailouts to these entities is also unacceptable.

I don't believe people should benefit financially on the backs of others who are not willing participants, but an inheritance tax on those who have done everything right and have already paid their share is robbery, in my opinion.

Have a good night. We should really find a way to have a beer together one of these days.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Sunday, October 30 2011 @ 12:10 AM CDT

The original reason behind estate taxes was to fragment dangerously large pools of private capital; in a situation not dissimilar to today, in the late 19th century, industry was calling way too many of the shots that were government concern. A whole raft of taxes and regulations prejudicial to the very rich were brought in, basically to impose some semblance of law and order in the governance of the countries concerned.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Sunday, October 30 2011 @ 06:02 AM CDT

I am too big to fail and need a bailout!

Re:Occupy MacJams
Sunday, October 30 2011 @ 08:21 AM CDT

Quote by: BigSkyRumble The original reason behind estate taxes was to fragment dangerously large pools of private capital; in a situation not dissimilar to today, in the late 19th century, industry was calling way too many of the shots that were government concern. A whole raft of taxes and regulations prejudicial to the very rich were brought in, basically to impose some semblance of law and order in the governance of the countries concerned.

How about the dangerously large bloated government? The last thing they need are more revenue streams to draw from. The government collects over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. More than almost every economy on planet earth. They can't even come close to staying within that huge boated budget. It is ridiculous, why people are wanting to give the beast even more money to give to their cronies is beyond me.

* Post Removed *
Sunday, October 30 2011 @ 08:59 AM CDT

* This message has been removed *