Ahead of the blueberry pancakes

[havenne]

Actually, I haven't had my second cup of coffee, yet, which reminds me: I truly hate Equal 'cupful' as a sweetener.  [gag]  But weighing less than 170 pounds (the 30 pounds lost mark) continues to get closer.  [sigh]  I'll put a Splenda packet in the next cup

Comments

[havenne]

I managed to find the analysis you've sent me posted on Agweb, with lots of awful conversation after it, complete with name-calling. I then found it very difficult to find any stats to prove, one way or the other, that people lose businesses and farms to Estate Tax. There is a lot of invective back and forth on the internet but very little real, complete information - someone may be able to cite a case but then don't supply enough detail to adequately assess what really happened. Here are some facts from a good source:
http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/estatetax.htm
It's still not very exact but it's better than believing unreferenced scary stuff.

The unfortunate part of a lot of this analysis is that it doesn't match my experience, past or present, and leaves out certain points, such as the one-time residence exclusion on capital gains and the minimum dollar figure on both capital gains and inheritance tax. I would love to know where some of his high figures are coming from as they don't match anyone's proposals. The Dems are talking about reinstating a tax bracket that is well above any income level you or I could ever dream of, not raising everyone's rates across the board, and are proposing making more income subject to payroll tax. This latter also affects people making much more money than you or I.

I know that my mom doesn't want to pay any tax at all on her dividends but, then, who wants to pay taxes? Does this analysis take into account the proposed $50,000 senior income exclusion? That covers a lot of dividends and income from Bonds, another favorite for relatively safe return on investment. And what took the place of Inheritance Tax? I've read scary things about the current state of probate court fees, irregardless of whether a will is involved - you don't dare stumble or make an error. There's no free lunch unless you can pay some high-priced lawyer to manipulate the system for you - but then you're out his fees rather than the taxes and the taxes might have been lower! My family has been down this road and Mr. Bush was president while we went through it - there may not be an "Inheritance Tax" but that's only because they changed the name of it and there isn't any multi-million dollar line below which you get away free. Okay, so maybe we had more money to worry about than most folks but it wasn't cheap and easy.

I kid you not, there were no "Bush tax cuts" - at my house our tax load went up through shifts in what type of tax was paid and by changes in Schedule A. No extra several thousand dollars magically appeared because of his "tax cuts" at my house. We got nothing from Mr. Bush but a tax increase which is why I'm not swallowing any more of it. Maybe my household falls into some grey total income area that signals "come and take our money" but, believe me, the last eight years have not been kind to us as more and more of our income became taxable through rule changes. It isn't the rates that get you - it is manipulations in the exemptions, deductables and dissection of every last separate category of income and outgo. I have a good accountant that I really wish I didn't need but his fees come out of our family trust.

A good example of how McCain is going to raise my taxes is through making our employer-paid health insurance benefit taxable. That'll be good for at least another two grand of tax per year, just an example of what is left out of this happy little analysis above. I looked over on
http://www.factcheck.org/
and there's an essay dated August 8th that pretty much debunks a lot of the figures on tax bills above.

I'm sorry but this is internet apocrypha, sort of like the email that went around saying that Obama is a closet Muslim. I would like McCain more if he went back to the proposals he made back when he was running against Bush for the nomination eight years ago. I would like Obama more if he had written a book about the sacrifices his mother made rather than hungering after a father who abandoned his family. But I try to stay with the household bottom line rather than worrying about image - they are all politicians, after all, and you know darn well that they have all had to sell their souls several times over to get where they are.

[dragonmyass]

I don't know where Stephen got his figures but usually he's pretty accurate about what he reports. He doesn't say much unless he has something important to say. He did list a bunch of references, but the list was almost triple the length of what LG lets you post.

I don't pay that much attention to politics as it's all the usual same old on every side. Politicians aren't for the people, they're out for themselves. I think if they added a nomination category to this year's ballot of "None of the above", they'd be suprised at the response they'd get.

Perhaps we can think of a way to take all of the lawyers, politicians, media and most of Hollywood, grind them up and make some type of fuel out of them. It would take care of a lot of pollution too.

[havenne]

You have a good point. Up close and personal politicians are a self-serving, self-important bunch - I have one next door and he's an asshole. We had a lawn sign out last year for a competitor of his own party for a seat on the town board (the competitor was a personal friend). I kid you not, the only time good things happen at the local level is when it lines the pocket of somebody important and the label on the politician doesn't matter - they're all the same. Well, yes, we have a friend who has been running for office (believe me, he's a real smooth talker....) and another friend who sits on some county board for zoning and development. You hear things.

I like the "none of the above." It might make a point, but would they listen?