| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:51:28 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:02:52 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:28:53 -0400, wrote: Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never was, never will be. So, it's her dead spouce's fault, right? Come on, say it. Yes it was their fault for not doing good tax planning. Even if they were a man and woman, married, they still should be doing some tax planning when the money is over a million dollars. I'm glad we cleared that up! So, it doesn't matter if it's fair or isn't. They ****ed up because she was trying to deal with the impending death of a person she loved. Did she actually get caught by the IRS or did she offer this up to make a legal case out of it? The IRS notified her is all I know. Feel free to claim otherwise. I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government. What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert? A lawyer might have suggested a trust with a million dollars at stake but most investment vehicles can simply be held in joint tenancy. Feel free to offer everyone your thoughts given you got divoriced (once I'm assuming). That certainly confirms your expertise spanning nuclear technology and the law. I know that even with an amicable divorce and no fights over the property, I needed a lawyer, just to be sure all of the property titles and such were properly transferred and recorded. The papers all have to be filed with the court. I was also dealing with the laws of 2 states. It was $300 and a bargain at the price. Nice to know you're a hypocrite. If you think you can do all that, well what does the quote say "If you try to be your own lawyer, you have an idiot for a client" See previous comment. There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even if you are not married. Go for it. We're waiting... look up You mentioned it, so name it. I meant look up in the thread a few lines. I said you can create a trust or you can hold your securities in joint tenancy. For over a million, I would go with a trust. It gives you lots of protections. The second option is the easiest for small stake holders. I thought you said you think lawyers are ok. You sound like an expert. Oh wait, you are for all things. No it wouldn't. It's class warfare.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare This guy is talking mostly about the home interest deduction, that is class warfare too. Renters, the poorest group generally, do not have a mortgage deduction. Gee ya thunk? You do understand that rich people get the most benefit from mortgage interest deductions? They can write off a house and a yacht. Huh? Are you trying to make my case? Poor and middle class people get hit harder with a flat tax. The fact that the only interest that is deductible contributed to the housing crash because instead of taking out a car loan, they took a second on their house. People were encouraged by the government to use the equity in their home as a source of extra spending money and they could borrow 125% or more of an artificially inflated value on their home. When housing had a slight decline, they were upside down and it snowballed from there. Tell me again why this is a good thing? Where did I say it was? Flat-tax = regressive. That's what I said. You take the regressivity out with a large standard exemption. So, then it's not a flat tax. "A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant tax rate." . Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more. Stupid like you don't get it. Romney paid about 15%, so did Buffett So, you're claiming that if Romney paid 25% (say) and some guy who makes $40,000 pays 25%, that would be fair? Jesus H. ****ing Christ. The guy who makes $40k pays nothing because the exemption would be $50k or $60k for a family of 4. Thus, it is not a flat tax. It's a tiered system which is basically what we have now, except the richer you are the more you can take advantage of loopholes that are not available to anyone else. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:49:04 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:39:01 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:51:28 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:02:52 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:28:53 -0400, wrote: Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never was, never will be. So, it's her dead spouce's fault, right? Come on, say it. Yes it was their fault for not doing good tax planning. Even if they were a man and woman, married, they still should be doing some tax planning when the money is over a million dollars. I'm glad we cleared that up! So, it doesn't matter if it's fair or isn't. They ****ed up because she was trying to deal with the impending death of a person she loved. So the IRS are pricks, alert the media! If you have a million dollars and you are not doing estate planning, you are going to get screwed. They had years to do this. The bottom line is that those two people were denied the benefits that any hetero couple would have had. Feel free to blame the victim. Did she actually get caught by the IRS or did she offer this up to make a legal case out of it? The IRS notified her is all I know. Feel free to claim otherwise. You know that? cite It's been in the news. I thought you watched things besides fox. I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government. What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert? A lawyer might have suggested a trust with a million dollars at stake but most investment vehicles can simply be held in joint tenancy. Feel free to offer everyone your thoughts given you got divoriced (once I'm assuming). That certainly confirms your expertise spanning nuclear technology and the law. I know that even with an amicable divorce and no fights over the property, I needed a lawyer, just to be sure all of the property titles and such were properly transferred and recorded. The papers all have to be filed with the court. I was also dealing with the laws of 2 states. It was $300 and a bargain at the price. Nice to know you're a hypocrite. How is that? You hate lawyers and you think SS is a fraud, but you use both. If you think you can do all that, well what does the quote say "If you try to be your own lawyer, you have an idiot for a client" See previous comment. Again why? See previous comment. There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even if you are not married. Go for it. We're waiting... look up You mentioned it, so name it. I meant look up in the thread a few lines. I said you can create a trust or you can hold your securities in joint tenancy. For over a million, I would go with a trust. It gives you lots of protections. The second option is the easiest for small stake holders. I thought you said you think lawyers are ok. You sound like an expert. Oh wait, you are for all things. I think lawyers are the scum of the earth but they set up the rules of the game and we have to play by those rules. There are times when you really need a lawyer or at least a tax professional. That is certainly true when you are talking about a million bucks.. If you think lawyers are scum and you use them, then you're a hypocritical scum. No it wouldn't. It's class warfare.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare This guy is talking mostly about the home interest deduction, that is class warfare too. Renters, the poorest group generally, do not have a mortgage deduction. Gee ya thunk? You do understand that rich people get the most benefit from mortgage interest deductions? They can write off a house and a yacht. Huh? Are you trying to make my case? Poor and middle class people get hit harder with a flat tax. Poor and middle class people don't pay anything with a flat tax if you put the standard exemption high enough. (50-60k) Really? For a family of say four? You think that's adequate? Why not 80K? Oh yeah, because then it wouldn't be so regressive. And, it wouldn't really be a flat tax because they wouldn't be paying a flat rate. A guy making $300k may take a beating if he has been flogging the deductions but I am not sure I care about that. Do you? We would just see fewer tax deductible boats and Hummers. Or, we could just go back to 50% for the upper tax bracket. Oh yeah, that wouldn't hit the middle class, so you're not for it. The fact that the only interest that is deductible contributed to the housing crash because instead of taking out a car loan, they took a second on their house. People were encouraged by the government to use the equity in their home as a source of extra spending money and they could borrow 125% or more of an artificially inflated value on their home. When housing had a slight decline, they were upside down and it snowballed from there. Tell me again why this is a good thing? Where did I say it was? Flat-tax = regressive. That's what I said. You take the regressivity out with a large standard exemption. So, then it's not a flat tax. "A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant tax rate." It is not a "first dollar" flat tax. Have you ever actually looked at one of the proposals? Well, you're the expert I guess. Have you actually looked at the definition of a flat tax? Better yet, why not just fix the problems with the current tax structure. You have to look at FICA taxes to see the tax you are thinking of and that seems to be your favorite government program,. Huh? If you want an example of a regressive tax Social Security/Medicare is it. The more money you make, the lower percentage you pay. As I said, remove the cap on SS. Thanks for making my point. That was a big part of Buffett's gripe. He pays the same $13k as his secretary. And your point? . Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more. Stupid like you don't get it. Romney paid about 15%, so did Buffett So, you're claiming that if Romney paid 25% (say) and some guy who makes $40,000 pays 25%, that would be fair? Jesus H. ****ing Christ. The guy who makes $40k pays nothing because the exemption would be $50k or $60k for a family of 4. Thus, it is not a flat tax. It's a tiered system which is basically what we have now, except the richer you are the more you can take advantage of loopholes that are not available to anyone else. That is why the flat tax is better, there are no loopholes for the rich to take and virtually all of the loopholes are for rich people. I bet you didn't get to write off a million dollar yacht mortgage and I am sure you don't have a carried interest deduction or a forward contract on a buttload of stock. It's not a matter for the rich, it's a matter for the middle. They won't have any "loopholes" either and they and the poor will be hurt. The rich always find a way to shelter income. Anyway, I thought you said taxing the rich won't help, so where's the beef? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The hypocritical right wingers, or how to be narrow minded | General | |||
| A good case against being narrow minded. | General | |||
| Right Wing loses, Left Wing Wins Big | General | |||
| New Narrow boat | General | |||
| OT here go the narrow minded Republcans....again. | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
