It's almost as though he's trying to makes gasoline' and 'estates of the wealthy' sound about as bad as 'sin'. And if he hates christianity so much, why is he using the word sin, anyway?

And if Gregoire and her crowd would actually MAKE the business climate better as she said she would (but didn't), the state's economy would be in better shape. At least Dino 'gets it'.

WA is SO dysfunctional and I'm really tired of that. Please, let Dino get in there and right this ship!

With Stefan watching this one, they couldn't pull the same garbage they did last time to get her in.

Slade really is one of the most capable senators we could have representing us. He has such excellent executive skills and abilities to get good things done. I miss that. All we have in his place is some woman who freaks out when America tries to be less dependent on foreign oil by drilling in a desolate place that nobody goes to. I can't see any real advantage to having Cantwell in there for WA.

Keep up the good work!

Moderate Democrat compared to who?

Thanks for the kinind words regarding Slade Gorton.

We can vouch for his influence as a US Senator. He helped my wife and I immensely. He did so without asking for anything in return.

If he ever runs for office again, I will vote for him. If I was a King County democrat, I would vote for him at least ten times, for free.

The state seems to benefit from destroying family; it makes the government role of income redistribution that much more important.

Its just terrible that the democrats are suggesting that the wealthies pay some tax.

The highest taxed people in the nation are those making between 60k and 120k. People lower and higher pay less. Those at the very extreme high and low end pay almost nothing, expecially if one inherits a mega estate or makes less than 10k per year.

Wanna back that up with specific data?

I hear that Sweden is looking for more emmigration. Now THAT's a bastion of egalitarianism. Have a nice trip. I'm sure they'd love to confiscate the money you earn with the sweat of your brow...Lord knows they can do better with it than you.

Yes, we know they don't pay any now, don't we?

Actually the very wealthy will pay almost zero tax once the federal inheritance tax is repealed.

When one inherits property, they receive it at a stepped up tax basis, which means they don't have to pay any tax on the capital gains, unlike the rest of us who buy and sell stock.

Thus, the wealthy are able to receive their money tax free and never pay a cent for capital gains.

Now, with the introduction of index and "spider" funds, there is little or no dividends. So, in the end, there is very little tax paid.

Even with the restored WA inheritance tax, one should be able to transfer at least 5 million before having heirs pay a cent in tax, and then it is only the amount over 5 million that is taxed at all.

Compare that with the self employed individual who pays around 45 percent tax on income taxes alone.

See the above and the US tax rates and the ss tax tax rates. They only apply to income.

>Wanna back that up with specific data?

The social security tax maxes out at around 90k.

You don't have to pay ss tax for money earned above this amount. The tax is 7.5 percent. If you are self employed, you have to pay both sides of the tax or 15 percent (effectively 13.5 percent).

Thus, your effective total federal income tax rate maxes out at around 90k.

Out here in the real world, the rest of us can see that it's hard to make a turd look good. King County did a very poor job of managing a very close election. And they knew that it would be close, even while they shirked their duty to verify the results.

You can't get much more partisan or deceitful. Dean Logan and the rest of his (chain)gang deserve every bit of humiliation that they are getting.

The top 20% of all wage earners in this country pay 80% of all federal income taxes.
The top 50% pay 96.03%. The top 5% pay 53.25%. The bottom 50% pay 3.97%.

The top 1% is paying more than 10 times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%.

Check out rushlimbaugh.com for more info.

Truth be told, the 60k plus crowd in Wa should love the democrats (unless of course they are a small business owner) as they are punishing the working poor with a vengence.

I'm waiting for my lesson in how to pay 'next to nothing' and I can't wait......

and can you tell me how to save thousands in WA state B&O tax (which I'll bet you don't pay, either), cuz we sure pay through the nose on that one, too. And tell me how to get out of thousands in real estate tax. I really paid big on that one, too this past April and every 6 months.

Business is holding up this state and people like Erik don't want to admit it. They just whine and complain about us.

But I digress....Erik, please give us that lesson on how to pay "next to nothing". Cuz I must be a sucker for how big a check I just wrote to the IRS

Moderate Democrat compared to who?"

Leon Trotsky.

And your poor attempt at humor at his expense is typical of the lib/soc/commie dem operative that you surely must be.

I notice that while you attack...you do not refute the numbers.....hummmm

I will. See below.

1) Have a relative sit on stock for 36 years and have their stock increase from 10 million to 80 million. (modest 6 percent increase)

2) Wait till they die and you inherit it.

3) If the relative who died held off selling, you will take the stock with a basis of 100 million, if you now sell it, you will not have to pay any capital gain tax.

4) Take 20 million on to live on for the next 36 years in a non-interest bearing account.

5) Leave the remaining 80 million in stock and let it increase to 320 million over the next 36 years of your life.

4) When you die, your heirs will take the 320 million and not have to pay cent in capital gains even if they sell the stock.

5) Repeat with your heirs.

Thus, without an estate tax, a family fortune can go forever, generation through generation, without anyone paying a cent in income, capital gain or other tax on the funds.

That's because you were unfortunate enough to likely have received the money through wages. That's the worst catagory to make money tax wise. The very worst is being self employed. Be prepared to pay around 45 percent in this category for federal income tax(es) alone.

It would have been much better if the money would have come through royalties, dividends or capital gains. Here, you are looking at around half the rate of income tax.

Once the estate tax is eliminated, you will want to receive your money through inheritance then you can avoid all income or capital gain tax. See above.

The basic reason is that inheriting money is a loophole in the capital gain tax which allows you and your heirs to escape this tax in its entirety.

The only problem with your analysis is that someone has to die to get the money. If you have the money now, how does that help you. You can't spend it when you are dead.

As to the self-employed, since they are the ones most likely to create jobs, then they should be the ones who get hit the least if you want jobs created. If, however, you are a typical dem, then to you those are the people you call wealthy and they are the ones you hit the hardest. That way you can end up with a socialist utopia sooner.

Second, investing is still a risk. If we are to encourage economic growth by participation of ordinary citizens in the economy through their investing in various income-generating instruments, there must be some reasonable financial reward for taking on risk. Sure, we can speculate that an investor might realize an average 6% gain over a period of time. But, depending on circumstances, they also might see less gain. Or none. Or more. Taxing gains and inheritance at punitive rates tends to discourage investment and thus economic growth can be adversely affected.

Third, you mentioned selling a portion of the realized gains to live on while investing the rest, with no tax liability for the realized gains. But remember, by withdrawing some of those gains, even if the tax liability is zeroed out, presumably those funds are then re-introduced to the economy, which will then, more than likely, result in some forms of tax revenues being generated. People will be buying things with those funds, perhaps upgrading their home, traveling, engaging in leisure activities. Some of that will generate tax revenue, as well as stimulating economic activity. It may not result in as much revenue going to the government as you would like or could gather by direct taxation at high rates, but it is not the wholly zero-tax scenario you envision.

Finally, and more fundamentally, if an individual, or family, takes the time and trouble and has the patience and foresight to make financial investments with the goal of providing some measure of financial comfort and security for their heirs, why should the government step in with some punitive taxation policy which in effect penalizes the individual and his/her heirs for them taking the time and trouble and risk to do that? Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should pay their share of the reasonable costs for beneficial and necessary government functions, but targeting specific individuals and families for their own honest efforts to build wealth (as long as they are doing it by honest means) seems somewhat harsh and unfair.

What I am saying is that it isn't a zero-sum game. Long-term investment income is important to a growing economy. You have to be careful that you don't implement such punitive tax policies that a disincentive to investment and risk-taking results. At the same time, you don't want to have a situation where individuals and groups who can certainly afford to bear a reasonable portion of the overall tax liability get off scot-free. Myself, I favor tax policies that allow the productive class to keep as much of their earnings as possible but still provides for necessary and beneficial government services, as long as those are justified by real need and are performed efficiently.

WOW! Hard to believe this guy could pen THAT with straight face!!

Step one: Get a million dollars.

Step two:............

How did this thread get hijacked onto taxes anyway?

Since January, she's been paying off her markers with the taxpayer's money.

Re: Erik. You're not just hijacking the thread, you're also falling into the typical liberal class warfare pit of assuming that "rich" people get most of their money in the form of estates. To the contrary, there is much more earned income among the affluent than you are giving them credit for. Earned income eventuates into a significant amount of taxes paid. And, as others said, people who EARN a lot of money spend a lot of money and hire a lot of people, so there is a multiplier effect that lefties conveniently ignore in making their case.

Besides, rich people actually produce goods and services, or they wouldn't make money...unlike the government that you're so fond of that has no concept of competition or efficacy.

This is why when libs talk about the rich, they keep creeping the numbers down in the mid-reaches of normal wage slaves...like Clinton/Gore calling people that make 200k/yr millionaires. These are the real producers, and pay a huge percentage of all taxes paid.

If the new math doesn't work, just make it up...

Of course the state deserves some. If the state didn't fight for a working wage for your working parents, they wouldn't have been able to afford property out in the middle of nowhere (at the time). Come on be reasonable!

It really is enough to make you sick isn't it?

And Erik, like the talking points, it is NOT the heirs that pay the tax. The person that dies pays the tax, as it is the amount of the estate that determines the tax not the amount inherited. But I guess facts never were the strong point when rationalizing why more money should be taken from people to fund a socialist government.

That's what happened this time around and it will keep happening until there is a revolt. After all, we are in a country that cannot have taxation without representation.

Erik,

A few points:

1. your first posting menitioned that the people who are in the 60k to 120k income range pay the most in taxes and the very rich pay almost nothing. You have not demonstrated this yet. The reference to the tax data on Limbaughs site is accurate in that the more one makes the higher their taxes. You do not have to trust Rush. That very same data can be found on the IRS web page. I've looked. What you did reference is the relatively rare case in which someone inherits shares in a company. Most inheritances don't work out so neatly for the benificiaries, but even if they did, I have a real hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that the government desrves ANY portion of an inheritance. If you build wealth, it is YOUR property. To whom you distribute it is YOUR right. I do not want a country where the government feels it can confiscate property as if it had a right to it. So a few people "win the inheritance lottery", is it really our right as citizens of this country to demand they "share with us"? Inheritance isn't income, its the transfer of property from the owner to his/her heirs, and shouldn't we have the right to do with OUR property what we wish? Locke (John) must be spinning in his grave.

2. There are a couple of things I feel the need to say about the Social Security. Of primary importance is the fact that what you pay INTO the system almost diretly impacts what you will receive in benefits. You don't pay, you don't get. That has three implications. One, the inheritor is wealthy and thus pays no SS. They will also GET no SS later in life. Nothing unfair about that. Two, the poor person might not pay SS, they too will not get any back. That's not so good for them since they will more likely need it later in life. Third, the amount you PAY IN is capped (income above about 90k is no longer taxed), but then the amount of BENEFITS are also capped. Thus, it is deceptive to measure one's tax burden in the upper income levels based on SS taxes because the SS system funds benefits based on contributions. The rich aren't getting any breaks by the income cap becuase their benefits are likewise capped.
3. There is no free lunch on SS taxes as implied by your comment regarding the self employed paying twice that of the wage earner. The full 12.4% is paid by the wage earner. When a company determines their payroll budget, they INCLUDE all taxes, and benifits into the cost of all employees. If the company didn't have to pay 6.2% of the employee's wages as SS taxes, those could be paid to the employee instead. The only thing this slight of hand accomplishes is to hide the full impact of the tax from the employee who sees only HALF the bite of the SS tax and thus is not as "bothered" by it. The very fact that you reference that the employee only pays half what the self-employed pays shows that the deception is very effective.
4. When it comes to income and capital gains taxes, the rich pay far more than others in total dollars AND as a percentage of income. However, when it comes to such taxes as gas taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, most sales taxes and other such things, the poorer one is, the greater the percentage of one's income is taxed. So, for those who really DO care about the plight of the poor and their tax burden, things like the recent sin tax and gas tax laws that were passed should be strongly opposed as being unfair to the poor.

We are republicans BECAUSE we are self-employed. Democrats want to punish self-employed people because they know we won't depend on them. republicans at least GET IT (like Dino). Small business people are the heroes of America. they pay your freight while you complain.

The satisfaction for Erik is – because no facts are ever necessary –he can blame whatever he likes and claim whatever feels good at any given moment. What a life; perpetual childhood!

Nothing more need be said.

While I agree in principle with your comments about inheritance taxes, you need to re-check your facts respecting Social Security. An inheritor may be wealthy, but whatever income they earn is taxed for Social Security. How this works with inheritance taxes I am not sure, but I presume that in your comments you meant Social Security would not be drawn from the inheritance itself. I don’t honestly know. The inequity for the rich is that despite the fact that they pay toward Social Security on their income, they cannot draw benefits because their post retirement income is too high. Nevertheless, your comments about Social Security are incorrect.

You said: [w]hat you pay INTO the system almost diretly impacts what you will receive in benefits. You don't pay, you don't get.
This is not true.

Many, many, many people are drawing Social Security that either did not pay into it, or paid very little compared to what they drew from it. You appear to be laboring under a common and fundamental misapprehension of the way the Social Security system works. It is a transfer payment system that takes money from one group and gives it to another without strict regard to credit for payments.

Any payer can obtain an accounting of their cumulative contributions to the system, and the size of the contribution generally affects the amount of your monthly benefit check, but no one is forced to fall below a minimum benefit check irrespective of their contribution or lack of same. Age is the only real limit. This is a fundamental part of the impending failure of the system that is currently hotly at issue.

My Grandfather and Grandmother like MILLIONS of their contemporaries paid nearly nothing into Social Security and collected benefits for years. Many millions of the first beneficiaries paid nothing into the system.

Further for example, if a doctor signs a form that says you are a chronic alcoholic, drug addicted, physically or mentally disabled, or orphaned (among many other things) you can collect Social Security disability benefits without having paid a plug nickle into the Social Security system. Strict *entitlement* to benefits are not tied in any meaningful way to contributions. Unfortunately, much to the contrary, especially with illegals running around everywhere.
Spouses of workers are paid Social Security that never earned money or paid social security taxes. Linked by marriage alone – this is probably the main reason why there is such an upsurge of desire for homosexual marriage; the desire to collect “free money” based on marital status.

The ratio of payers to payees in this system combined with nearly complete unaccountability of entitlements to it have threatened this system to a point where it needs to be completely revamped and/or replaced with a different system.

WHEN PEOPLE MAKE THESE TYPES OF COMPLETELY INACCURATE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY, IT HURTS EVERYONE
This transfer payment system is a leviathan of monumental proportions. Imagine millions of seniors with no checks, because the source has dried up. Who’s going to pay for that? Unless Social Security is replaced with a different system, it will cause an economic disaster worse than the Great Depression of the 1920’s 30’s and 40’s, or worse an emergence of leftist National Socialism (Nazism) heretofore unseen in America.

Please re-check your facts and make an attempt to be accurate about this because such incorrect understandings of the Social Security system are a central feature of the resistance to the Bush administration’s attempts to fix the system, and forestall future tragedy.

I agree with you about inheritance taxes, but Social Security is another story.

Thanks for your comments.