 |
| |
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
I read in one of those communist books like "Lies and the Liars who tell them" that after a Democrat senator offered a provision that exempted every one with an estate under $100 million from the tax Republicans still voted down that provision opting for a full elimination. Someone who is smarter than me probably has the whole story.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
ever since the Great Depression the Rich have been buying off the Poor...
the alternative is revolution
Jon miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
if action was not taken, there would have been a revolution
have you looked at the votes of people at that time?
it would have either been a communist one, or a fascist one to block a communist one..
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Patty it's equally the same for me when I see a Republican try to pass off greed and utter contempt for the poor as "fairness" or "democracy".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
quote:
They eliminate a t tax which only effects the wealthest 1% of Americans. |
Oddly enough, it affected me too a couple of years ago and I'm not even in the wealthiest 1% of Americans! 
How'd that happen?
I'm one of the recipients who got screwed out of 50+% of their inheritance!
|
Wait. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that, even under the old laws, there was no inheritant tax on any estate under $1,000,000. Are you saying you inherited over $500,000??  
quote:
It doesn't effect the dead, it only effects the living. Oerdin. Think about it. |
Well, it's a tax on the dead person's estate so, sure, there's going to be less to leave to the heirs.
I always thought it was wise for politicians to tax dead people rather than live ones because the dead people can't vote against yor in future elections. At most, the dead can merely climb out of their graves and bite your throat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Wait. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that, even under the old laws, there was no inheritant tax on any estate under $1,000,000. Are you saying you inherited over $500,000?? |
I'll be glad to correct you. 
The tax is valued on the value of the entire estate, not upon what each individual beneficiary received. The first ~$600,000 is deducted, then the tax is levied on the remainder. The estate was large enough to pay $3,000,000 in Fed taxes and $2,500,000 in Florida taxes (FL doesn't get all its income from tourists, Che), a percentage that came to (iir) 50% of the estate) Regardless of whether I inherited $5.5 million or $20,000, the amount of potential income for me, my wife, and my daughter was slashed by 50%.
All to make people like you feel good and morally superior. Happy now?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
I'll be glad to correct you.
The tax is valued on the value of the entire estate, not upon what each individual beneficiary received. The first ~$600,000 is deducted, then the tax is levied on the remainder. The estate was large enough to pay $3,000,000 in Fed taxes and $2,500,000 in Florida taxes (FL doesn't get all its income from tourists, Che), a percentage that came to (iir) 50% of the estate) Regardless of whether I inherited $5.5 million or $20,000, the amount of potential income for me, my wife, and my daughter was slashed by 50%.
All to make people like you feel good and morally superior. Happy now? |
You'd only have spent the money buying part of a small Third World country, enslaving its populace and forcing them to manufacture useless consumer items for sale to gullible Americans.
Really, you know you're better off without it- you can only turn on so many gold plated bathroom taps on your luxury yacht at once, you know. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
Oerdin, the lefts most elite political shock trooper 
quote:
Um... since we are talking about IF Roosevelt hadn't acted, everything is speculation. Though you'd be insane if you thought that 25% unemployment with no action by the government would have been tolerated without revolution. |
You might think that, but you were proven wrong by history. Coincidently Roosevelts reforms hardly even touched that number, and again before any really had an effect the ramp up for the war started.
I know this "revolution" think and having hammers in sickles in your dorm room was cool in college, but you need to let your fantacies go.
quote:
In 1932, the Socialist Candidate got 2.2% of the Popular Vote (The Communist candidate got 0.3%). That is even with Roosevelt promising socialist reform. |
Wow, it sure looks like the populous was about to storm the white house and set up guilitines. That of course is after three years of depression, NO government action taken whatsoever. 2%. Numbers speak for themselves. Which cities did the rebels take over again?
quote:
*cough* Russia 1917. |
Yeah, because we were definetly living in an archaic fuedal society with an absolute monarch at its head
Go ahead though, state your case as to why 1917 Russia and 1932 America are the same
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
You might think that, but you were proven wrong by history. Coincidently Roosevelts reforms hardly even touched that number, and again before any really had an effect the ramp up for the war started. |
Hardly even touched the number? By 1937, the unemployment rate was down to 14.3%!!
Take a look at the "recession" that occured when Roosevelt tried to cut some of his New Deal policies in 1937 because the economy was doing better at the time. It failed and unemployment shot back up to 19%. He reinstated some of the cut programs again to get the economy back to where it was.
Do you actually think Roosevelt was unpopular before WW2? Where do you think his popularity stemed from seeing as he won a 3rd term in 1940, before the US even entered the war?
quote:
I know this "revolution" think and having hammers in sickles in your dorm room was cool in college, but you need to let your fantacies go. |
Hey I've been called a commie again! Newsmax move over!
quote:
Wow, it sure looks like the populous was about to storm the white house and set up guilitines. That of course is after three years of depression, NO government action taken whatsoever. 2%. Numbers speak for themselves. Which cities did the rebels take over again? |
When you have a quasi-socalist on the ballot of one of the two major parties, how much do you think the radicals are going to get? In contract, in the 1924 election, Progressive candidate Robert La Follette got about 17% of the popular vote and won 1 state.
If Roosevelt was akin to say, John William Davis or Al Smith, we would have seen a great deal more from the progressive and socialist voters out there. FDR, however, turned to the left.
And don't forget, there was a HUGE threat to FDR from Governor Huey Long. An assasins bullet may have saved the country from a full on socialist becoming President (if he could have found a way to beat FDR in the Dem primaries in 1936).
quote:
because we were definetly living in an archaic fuedal society with an absolute monarch at its head |
 Do you know ANYTHING about the October revolution in 1917? Back in February of 1917, a bourgeois revolution led by Prince Lvov and Alexander Karenksy took control of Russia. From May until October, Russia was led by a republic.
As for 'archaic fuedal society', you do realize the feudalism was abolished in 1863 by Tsar Alexander, right? And the reason WW1 happened in 1914 was because if they waited, even 5 years more, the German consensus was that Russia would have been too powerful for Germany too take. Look at the production of the Russian state during the early 1900s.
quote:
Go ahead though, state your case as to why 1917 Russia and 1932 America are the same |
Massive unrest. Large segments of the population tired by their government's refusal to listen to them.
It was ripe for revolution... or at least a coup led by someone like the Kingfish, Huey Long.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2005 22:36
|