Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Mollohan, Jefferson Cases Hamper Democrats' Attacks Over Ethics

May 16 (Bloomberg) -- House Democrats' efforts to capitalize on what they call a Republican-created ``culture of corruption'' in Washington are being complicated by ethical allegations against two of their own members.
Representative Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, until April the ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee, said yesterday he's reviewing his financial disclosures after being accused of misstating personal assets. Fellow Democrat William Jefferson of Louisiana vowed to stay in office and fight allegations that he accepted bribes.
Democrats have focused on Republican scandals as they try to regain control of Congress amid sagging approval ratings for President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans.
The ethics problem ``seems to transcend party affiliation,'' said Amy Walter, House editor of the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan Washington newsletter. ``An overwhelming focus on this corruption issue feeds into the negative stereotype that voters have about Congress, which is that it's just one side trying to score points off the other.''
A statement issued by Mollohan, 63, said he's ``confident in the fundamental accuracy'' of his financial statements. Jefferson, 59, declared his innocence at a news conference in New Orleans yesterday, almost two weeks after an associate pleaded guilty to bribing him.
Jack Abramoff
A prime example cited by Democrats is Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiring to corrupt public officials. Abramoff is cooperating with federal prosecutors in Washington who have won three other guilty pleas from former aides to Republican Representatives Bob Ney of Ohio and Tom DeLay of Texas. DeLay, who's resigning from Congress, and Ney, who gave up a committee chairmanship, both deny wrongdoing.
Another Republican scandal involves Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, a former representative from California who was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison in March after admitting he took $2.4 million in defense contractors' bribes.
The investigation has expanded. Prosecutors are looking at the relationship between former Central Intelligence Agency Executive Director Kyle ``Dusty'' Foggo and the contractors. Also, the Los Angeles Times reported a related inquiry into U.S. Representative Jerry Lewis, a California Republican who chairs the House Appropriations Committee. Lewis has said he's unaware of any investigation.
Republicans say such scandals won't affect other candidates around the country.
Individual Allegations
``We don't know of any member who lost because of something another member did or didn't do,'' said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Even so, individual allegations affect individual races and Mollohan's district is now a target for Republicans, he said.
Former House Democratic Leader Tony Coelho said Republicans will be hurt by any public outrage about congressional ethics because they are in control. Coelho, who resigned in 1989 rather than face an extended ethics investigation over an investment he made, likened today's atmosphere to 1994, when a banking scandal helped Republicans reclaim the House.
``It doesn't make any difference how many Democrats are involved,'' Coelho said. ``If the public turns off because of `corruption,' they will blame the party in power.''
Republican pollster Ed Goeas said a survey he conducted with Democrat Celinda Lake shows that Americans aren't holding only the GOP responsible. Asked who was more to blame for ethics issues in Congress such as the Abramoff scandal, 64 percent said both parties equally, while 20 percent picked Republicans and 11 percent said Democrats.
`Basic Distrust'
``There's kind of a basic distrust of government,'' Goeas said. ``When you have things popping up on both sides of the aisle, all that does is reinforce the basic instinct of the people, which is it's on both sides.''
Mollohan temporarily stepped down from the ethics committee on April 21. The U.S. attorney's office in Washington is examining his financial disclosures after an outside group, the National Legal and Policy Center, turned over results of an investigation it said shows the lawmaker misreported assets on his House financial disclosure statements from 1996 to 2004.
Mollohan in 2000 listed ``income-producing'' assets of $179,012 to $562,000, the group found. In 2004, he listed such assets of $6.3 million to $24.9 million, including a beach house.
``It's quite clear that he became rich in a very short period of time in a way that he has failed to explain properly,'' said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
The group said its investigation showed that Mollohan didn't disclose some assets or underreported their value.
Real Estate Investments
Boehm's group, which is based in Falls Church, Virginia, also said that Mollohan and his wife own more than $2 million in real estate investments with a former aide, Laura Kuhns, and her husband. Kuhns worked with nonprofit foundations that benefited from millions of dollars in special projects that Mollohan added to spending bills between 2000 and 2005, using his post as a member of the appropriations committee, the group said.
Mollohan wrote in a letter to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi last month that he is the victim of a ``concerted, politically motivated attack on my ethics.''
Yesterday, Mollohan said he will release the findings of his review as soon as it's completed, as well as an early copy of his 2005 disclosure. He said he was ``eager to fully respond to the questions that have been asked.''
Jefferson told reporters in New Orleans that he ``certainly did not sell my office.''
`Representative A'
Prosecutors, in court papers that referred to Jefferson as ``Representative A,'' have alleged that the lawmaker asked a Kentucky businessman to make regular payments to a company he controlled. The businessman, Vernon Jackson, on May 3 pleaded guilty to bribing ``Representative A'' by paying him more than $400,000 to help win telecommunications deals in Africa.
``Over the past nine months, my family and I have had to endure the hell of a federal criminal investigation,'' Jefferson said. ``I have hoped that the government would come to understand that the actions under scrutiny were not illegal.''
The ethics questions facing the two Democrats may have helped dilute Republican concerns about scandals. Early this year, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and others promised a package of new ethics rules, such as a ban on travel by lawmakers financed by private groups. The Senate and House instead passed measures that mainly focused on greater disclosure of lobbyists' activities and rejected most efforts to curb lawmaker perks.
``The out party always uses whatever arrows it has in its quiver, so it isn't surprising that they would try to paint Republicans with the `culture of corruption' tag,'' said Karlyn Bowman, a public-opinion analyst at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, a policy research group.
``The problem for them is that the public believes -- and poll after poll shows this -- that both parties have serious corruption issues,'' Bowman said.

To contact the reporters on this story:Kristin Jensen in Washington [email protected];Laura Litvan in Washington [email protected] Updated: May 16, 2006 00:06 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=al8N5W9kMSBk&refer=us#
Any thoughts? :)
 

·
Never forgets
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
People with an actual code of ethics don't get elected to federal office. The smart ones are just ones that don't get caught.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Anyone willing to engage in this 'your side, my side' debate is nothing more than a shill for the larger machine. Each person should be held accountable for their individual ethics, platform and record. The two party system is broken and if you can't see it open your eyes. Anyone capable of getting elected to Federal office has demonstrated their corruption by the very fact that they were elected. It's simply a matter of to what degree they are corrupt.
So come voting time you are voting for a pile of elephant shit or a pile of donkey shit! WHOOPPPEEEE!!! Everyone pick a side and decide which party you want shitting on you!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Spirare said:
Anyone willing to engage in this 'your side, my side' debate is nothing more than a shill for the larger machine. Each person should be held accountable for their individual ethics, platform and record. The two party system is broken and if you can't see it open your eyes. Anyone capable of getting elected to Federal office has demonstrated their corruption by the very fact that they were elected. It's simply a matter of to what degree they are corrupt.
So come voting time you are voting for a pile of elephant shit or a pile of donkey shit! WHOOPPPEEEE!!! Everyone pick a side and decide which party you want shitting on you!!!
I have to agree. It is too bad that our choices are limited and that any attempt by an independent is pretty much squished by the two party machine. At the same time, I am not too sure what I would want another party or parties to look like?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,829 Posts
I already pointed out, in another thread, that most of this attack on Mollohan is led by a conservative organization funded by a Republican family out of Pittsburg. The organization refuses to reveal any facts, instead going around the country holding rallies, I mean press conferences, spreading "news" and claiming they can't reveal their info but that they've turned the stuff over to the Justice Department.

During the period stated, Mollohan inherited a bunch of real estate from his dad, prime property which went up fast. He leveraged that to buy beachfront property. (guess what, his wife is in real estate) His value increased but so did his debt. What's funny is the one thing they might actually have on him, not mentioned in the article, is that he had the bad judgement to do business dealings with someone who also happened to be running a couple of non-profits which received some government funding. Unfortunately it really is a small community and you really do tend to do business with the same people all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
Harvey Wallbanger said:
I already pointed out, in another thread, that most of this attack on Mollohan is led by a conservative organization funded by a Republican family out of Pittsburg. The organization refuses to reveal any facts, instead going around the country holding rallies, I mean press conferences, spreading "news" and claiming they can't reveal their info but that they've turned the stuff over to the Justice Department.

During the period stated, Mollohan inherited a bunch of real estate from his dad, prime property which went up fast. He leveraged that to buy beachfront property. (guess what, his wife is in real estate) His value increased but so did his debt. What's funny is the one thing they might actually have on him, not mentioned in the article, is that he had the bad judgement to do business dealings with someone who also happened to be running a couple of non-profits which received some government funding. Unfortunately it really is a small community and you really do tend to do business with the same people all the time.
Pretty much.... and the republicans hire these groups so they don't have to take responsibility for the information, what is said, etc.....

Seems facts, logic, honest debate do not seem to cross the paths of Republicans these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Creeper said:
Pretty much.... and the republicans hire these groups so they don't have to take responsibility for the information, what is said, etc.....

Seems facts, logic, honest debate do not seem to cross the paths of Republicans these days.
Give me a break! :puke:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Spirare said:
Ok so the groups aren't 'hired'... they are just misinformation bag men for the fun of it.
A more accurate description might be that these groups are hiring Congressman. Kind of like the 18 estate tax families:


Report Identifies 18 Families Behind Multimillion-Dollar
Deceptive Lobbying Campaign

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.

It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.

The report, available at www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/EstateTaxFinal.pdf, profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell’s soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world’s largest retailer.

These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind – the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.

In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
raven said:
A more accurate description might be that these groups are hiring Congressman. Kind of like the 18 estate tax families:


Report Identifies 18 Families Behind Multimillion-Dollar
Deceptive Lobbying Campaign

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.

It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.

The report, available at www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/EstateTaxFinal.pdf, profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell’s soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world’s largest retailer.

These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind – the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.

In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.


That is because the estate tax exemption has been raised by the Republicans and will be repealed in 2010, only to rise from the dead if not permanently repealed. Anyhow, why should someone's estate have to pay double taxation. This is a perfect example of class warfare. Punish people who have done well. Families have worked hard to build wealth and property and then when the person dies, the government/people want to jump in there and get another bite. It is wrong, plain and simple. With a due respect, nobody has to "hire" anyone to know that this tax law needs to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Sciteach said:
That is because the estate tax exemption has been raised by the Republicans and will be repealed in 2010, only to rise from the dead if not permanently repealed. Anyhow, why should someone's estate have to pay double taxation. This is a perfect example of class warfare. Punish people who have done well. Families have worked hard to build wealth and property and then when the person dies, the government/people want to jump in there and get another bite. It is wrong, plain and simple. With a due respect, nobody has to "hire" anyone to know that this tax law needs to go.
In the eyes of the IRS families do not work to build wealth. INDIVIDUALS do. The individual is taxed at the time of income. When an individual dies and the estate transfers that wealth to another individual the IRS then taxes that individuals income. It's not that hard to figure out. The recipient of an estate did not earn ANYTHING. The post mortem spousal transfer of wealth should not be taxed agreed.

This is just another ploy by the wealthy in this country to protect themselves from fair taxation. If you give a monetary GIFT to someone it is taxed and as such an estate IS a monetary gift from beyond the grave.

Say a sole heir marries. This sole heir is estranged from his family. He gets divorced, he dies of a heart attack and shortly thereafter his father dies. The wills were not ammeneded to exclude the divorcee spouse. What did the divorced woman do to EARN that money. Should she be tax exempt? I realize that this illustrative scenario is extreme. I'm trying demonstrate however that the concept of 'earning' does not apply to an estate.

You are right that this is a perfect example of class warfare. The wealthy are conducting warfare on the people without the funds to legislate their tax exemption and thereby shifting the tax burden onto the poor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Spirare said:
In the eyes of the IRS families do not work to build wealth. INDIVIDUALS do. The individual is taxed at the time of income. When an individual dies and the estate transfers that wealth to another individual the IRS then taxes that individuals income. It's not that hard to figure out. The recipient of an estate did not earn ANYTHING. The post mortem spousal transfer of wealth should not be taxed agreed.

This is just another ploy by the wealthy in this country to protect themselves from fair taxation. If you give a monetary GIFT to someone it is taxed and as such an estate IS a monetary gift from beyond the grave.

Say a sole heir marries. This sole heir is estranged from his family. He gets divorced, he dies of a heart attack and shortly thereafter his father dies. The wills were not ammeneded to exclude the divorcee spouse. What did the divorced woman do to EARN that money. Should she be tax exempt? I realize that this illustrative scenario is extreme. I'm trying demonstrate however that the concept of 'earning' does not apply to an estate.

You are right that this is a perfect example of class warfare. The wealthy are conducting warfare on the people without the funds to legislate their tax exemption and thereby shifting the tax burden onto the poor.
So you would think this is fair:

A mother and my father start from nothing and build a small company. Their daughter works in it and the father plans on passing it on to her. Both parents die and leave the company to her. The value of the company is over the "death" tax exemption. The government say that she owes X number of dollar in "death" taxes. The company is worth more than that, but she don't have the cash to pay the tax. She must sell the company in order to pay the taxes that she has to pay when she inherited it. Sound fair doesn't it. :crazy: Now apply that to property, saving, collections, anything. BTW...a 1.5 million dollar "death" exemption is not much. Trust me I am going through this right now and I and my parents are far from rich. It doesn't take much accumulated over a life time to reach that much. You are correct about this being class warfare. It is a war by people who think that the correct path is massive govt. income redistribution. Why do you feel the need to steal from someone who has worked hard, paid their taxes (multiple time in our silly tax system), and wants to leave something to their family. Why do you think the govt. should get another bit of the apple. I worked hard and paid for property where I live. I have paid all the taxes on the property and the income I bought it with. I own it. Why do you get any of my bought and paid for property that I want to give to my son.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,829 Posts
If the company is worth that much, it should have been incorporated (there are plenty of ways for very small businesses to incorporate to protect the business and the individuals involved).

BTW, if I inherited $1.5M from my parents I would think I was rich. Not sure where you are, but the idea that it is "easy" to accumulate that over a lifetime doesn't fly here. Maybe if you never buy food, never have kids...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Sciteach said:
So you would think this is fair:

A mother and my father start from nothing and build a small company. Their daughter works in it and the father plans on passing it on to her. Both parents die and leave the company to her. The value of the company is over the "death" tax exemption. The government say that she owes X number of dollar in "death" taxes. The company is worth more than that, but she don't have the cash to pay the tax. She must sell the company in order to pay the taxes that she has to pay when she inherited it. Sound fair doesn't it. :crazy: Now apply that to property, saving, collections, anything. BTW...a 1.5 million dollar "death" exemption is not much.
Hey, how about a real example instead of an imaginary one? Better yet, how about a couple? How many familty business have had to be sold as a result of the estate tax? I'm not sure how much the estate in your made up example is worth, but chances are, the effective estate tax would be very low:

The effective rate was far less for smaller estates. Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million.Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid at an average effective rate of just over 22 percent, a hefty tax bite but well short of "everything."

Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses already receive special treatment under current law. Heirs who agree to keep the farm or business assets within the family for 10 years after death can reduce the taxable amount of the estate by 40 percent to 70 percent. And if the farm or business is at least 35 percent of the gross value of the estate, payments can be spread out over 14 years.


http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html


Sciteach said:
Anyhow, why should someone's estate have to pay double taxation.
Sciteach said:
I have paid all the taxes on the property and the income I bought it with.
The double taxation shtick is a bit of a red herring. First of all, we all pay double taxes whenever we pay sales tax with money that has been subject to income or capital gains tax. What's important is effective overall tax rate. You can tax me 10 times if it's only one percent each time.

Beyond that, the issue is that much of the money in estates has never been taxed at all. In your fake example above, if the business was worth $2 million and had been build from scratch with a $100K initial investment, it would be sitting on $1.9 million in capital gains on which taxes have never been paid. In fact:

Their study estimated that unrealized capital gains made up 36.3 percent of the value of all estates in 1998. That would make the "double tax" claim 63.7 percent true, and just over one-third false.
For very large estates it is mostly false. The study also found that estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
raven said:
Hey, how about a real example instead of an imaginary one? Better yet, how about a couple? How many familty business have had to be sold as a result of the estate tax? I'm not sure how much the estate in your made up example is worth, but chances are, the effective estate tax would be very low:

The effective rate was far less for smaller estates. Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million.Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid at an average effective rate of just over 22 percent, a hefty tax bite but well short of "everything."

Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses already receive special treatment under current law. Heirs who agree to keep the farm or business assets within the family for 10 years after death can reduce the taxable amount of the estate by 40 percent to 70 percent. And if the farm or business is at least 35 percent of the gross value of the estate, payments can be spread out over 14 years.


http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html






The double taxation shtick is a bit of a red herring. First of all, we all pay double taxes whenever we pay sales tax with money that has been subject to income or capital gains tax. What's important is effective overall tax rate. You can tax me 10 times if it's only one percent each time.

Beyond that, the issue is that much of the money in estates has never been taxed at all. In your fake example above, if the business was worth $2 million and had been build from scratch with a $100K initial investment, it would be sitting on $1.9 million in capital gains on which taxes have never been paid. In fact:

Their study estimated that unrealized capital gains made up 36.3 percent of the value of all estates in 1998. That would make the "double tax" claim 63.7 percent true, and just over one-third false.
For very large estates it is mostly false. The study also found that estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains.
Nice! Well played.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Harvey Wallbanger said:
If the company is worth that much, it should have been incorporated (there are plenty of ways for very small businesses to incorporate to protect the business and the individuals involved).

BTW, if I inherited $1.5M from my parents I would think I was rich. Not sure where you are, but the idea that it is "easy" to accumulate that over a lifetime doesn't fly here. Maybe if you never buy food, never have kids...
Notice I didn't say cash! When you take into account family property and a business, 1.5 is not that much. BTW...my parent had nothing when they married. For housing they had an apartment, partially paid for by my mother serving as a landlord. My father worked at a gas station. They saved up everthing they had and then bought the gas station. From there my father sold the gas station and opened a very small sporting goods store. He sold that (never made much) and went into the autoparts business which did very well. He and my mother worked so hard and so many hours that at the end of his life he actually apologized to us for how hard he worked and the depths he went to save money. He never wasted a dollar on himself and my mother. At the end they were comfortable, but never wasteful. My mother still only wore the small wedding band (never bought a diamond) she received when they had nothing. Now they have passed and they have passed on his earning from his hard work to his children and grandchildren, and the govt. thinks they deserve a cut. Sorry, but in my mind, he paid outrageoustaxes on this sweet equity and the govt. has no business try to get some more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
raven said:
Hey, how about a real example instead of an imaginary one? Better yet, how about a couple? How many familty business have had to be sold as a result of the estate tax? I'm not sure how much the estate in your made up example is worth, but chances are, the effective estate tax would be very low:

The effective rate was far less for smaller estates. Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million.Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid at an average effective rate of just over 22 percent, a hefty tax bite but well short of "everything."

Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses already receive special treatment under current law. Heirs who agree to keep the farm or business assets within the family for 10 years after death can reduce the taxable amount of the estate by 40 percent to 70 percent. And if the farm or business is at least 35 percent of the gross value of the estate, payments can be spread out over 14 years.


http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html






The double taxation shtick is a bit of a red herring. First of all, we all pay double taxes whenever we pay sales tax with money that has been subject to income or capital gains tax. What's important is effective overall tax rate. You can tax me 10 times if it's only one percent each time.

Beyond that, the issue is that much of the money in estates has never been taxed at all. In your fake example above, if the business was worth $2 million and had been build from scratch with a $100K initial investment, it would be sitting on $1.9 million in capital gains on which taxes have never been paid. In fact:

Their study estimated that unrealized capital gains made up 36.3 percent of the value of all estates in 1998. That would make the "double tax" claim 63.7 percent true, and just over one-third false.
For very large estates it is mostly false. The study also found that estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains.
Actually while the example's number was made up, the situation is somewhat true. Here is the problem: In your description a person pays capital gains when they are sold. In my example, we don't plan on selling to make a capital gains. You may say that by my inheriting it, we have a capital gains. I say that should be wrong. You can choose to allow the govt. to steal people money more than once, but we will continue to support(with vote and contributions) candidates who will stop this theft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Sciteach said:
Actually while the example's number was made up, the situation is somewhat true. Here is the problem: In your description a person pays capital gains when they are sold. In my example, we don't plan on selling to make a capital gains. You may say that by my inheriting it, we have a capital gains. I say that should be wrong. You can choose to allow the govt. to steal people money more than once, but we will continue to support(with vote and contributions) candidates who will stop this theft.
Oh I see politics driven by personal interest and greed. Fair enough...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Spirare said:
Oh I see politics driven by personal interest and greed. Fair enough...
You're right, the greed of the government and you. If you feel that they don't have enough, or that they don't get their share, pony up big boy. In my mind YOU don't deserve one penny of what was earned(and already taxed) by my family. That is what makes us different. You are resentful of success. You think I owe you something, and are willing to use to government to take it. Who sounds greedy now?
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top