W1TEF wrote:


The tax burden will have to be extended to the Middle Class because,
and this might cause you to have a stroke, that is where most of the
wealth is and is the widest, deepest money pool from which taxes can
be obtained.

Obama should backtrack on that no higher taxes for $200k deal.
Higher taxes on about $90k would get the deficit down a lot quicker.
And eliminate the cap on SS contributions to get that right side up on
current income/outgo, and means test for benefits.
The best option would be higher taxes down to just above my level and
means testing the same, but I don't want to get too close.
Capital gains should be heavily taxed because I don't have any.
And get some fraud squads out there to eliminate fraud with Medicare,
SS disability and defense contracts.
Gov pensions are too rich and should be cut.
Lots of cuts could be made.
Farmers still being paid to not produce?
Ethanol subsidies?
The list goes on.

Here's where the wealth is
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

You decide what's "middle class."
But those charts give a good idea where the money is.
I think bpuharic is rich, because he's got a bigger boat.

Jim - Sure is hard figuring if I'm middle class or poor folk. One other
thing - lettuce should be kept below 99 cents a head. That's my biggest
demand.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.

On 7/26/10 2:59 PM, W1TEF wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff& Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.


Hehehe...what a tired old bull**** quote that is, Tom. I mean, it's been
everywhere. You're hitting on this awfully hard...afraid your estate
might have to pay a few bucks in taxes?

W1TEF wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.

Well, I didn't even read that part or any of the text, until you
mentioned it just now.
Just looked at the charts, which seemed reasonable.
If you've got something better, post it.
But even that inheritance bit doesn't seem unreasonable.
Especially if they mean inheritance in terms of paying inheritance tax.
I know plenty who "inherited" homes and other assets worth +$500k and
they didn't pay a dime in inheritance taxes.
Even when the current law sunsets it won't start until a million bucks.
And there's more than one way to come into old folks money even when
it's in the millions.
I don't keep up with the inheritance tax because it never affected me
and it won't affect my kids.
That's rich people stuff. Means nothing to non-millionaires.
You in that crowd, or just really, really concerned about their welfare?
Not even a big deal to kids of millionaires.
Mom or dad leaves $10 million to a bum kid.
The kid sells half of it off to pay the taxes. That leaves $5 million.
The kid is still a millionaire and still a bum who didn't earn his own
money.
Probably too stupid to even know he lost $5 million, or he would have
had the folks take measures in advance. If they're on talking terms.
Anybody so damned worried about that inheritance tax should give their
money away before they kick off or transfer it to family at lesser tax
rates. Most probably already do.
Easiest way to delay it almost endlessly is the surviving spouse marries
an 18-year-old when he/she is 80, then when that 18-year-old reaches 80
he/she marries another 18-year-old.
Using great-great nieces and nephews you can keep that money in the
family and not even mess up the gene pool. Maybe.
Some call that a tax dodge, others call it dancing with genes.
But maybe you can't do all that within the law.
Inheritance tax is as old as the hills. You deal with it.
Just more political bull****.

Jim - I leave the rich alone if they don't get on my wrong side. Same
with skunks.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:59:00 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)."

and yet the GOP sweats blood over the 'death tax'