For 333 - Our Resident Commie Hunter

[headhuntersix]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but damn good post SAMSON!

I still want to call in a jDAMs on ur hut but great list.

U forgot the tax or fee for holding a yard sale.
The " u just moved to Texas..here's a fee" tax..I'm sure other states have that as well
There are two taxes in MO associated with "owning" a dog. I would say that I don't own the dog, we live with the dog, he's my friend and lacks the thumbs to live on his own.

[Soul Crusher]

I will throw a wrench in on the number two issue of taxes..

Here is just a partial list of the TAX americans are forced to pay...mind you I said just a PARTIAL list of taxes...and some think a heavy progressive or graduated income tax does not exist or is not a problem. At least in Canada, Europe and other nations their heavy taxes allow free medical, free education up to PhD level and a lot of other benefits

Estate Tax
capital Gains Tax
Estate Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
CDL License Tax
Auto Registration Tax
Food License Tax
Gasoline Tax (50 cents per gallon)
Inheritance tax
Fishing License Tax
Dog License Tax (this is ridiculous)
Building Permit Taxes
Hunting License Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic permit Tax
Service Charge tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle TAX
School Tax
Road Toll Booth Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
TElephon Universal Fee Tax
Telephone Federal/State/Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Tax
Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurrign and Non Recurring Tax
Telephone statae and Local Tax
Toll Bridge Tax
Toll Tunnel Tax
Traffic Fine Tax
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Water Craft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Comp Tax

And this is just a partial list...It was Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall who said " The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy"... Ya don't say..

Bang.  No. 2 is done.  On to No 3.  We are by definition taxed to death, and in fact AFTER DEATH as well. 

[Soul Crusher]

So folks we are on to No. 3.  correct? 

No. 2 is a no-brainer and we have that.  So Straw has already lost this debate. 

As for No. 3 - in 2011 - the Bush tax cuts expire bringing back a massive inheritance tax.  This tax starts at 45% and in many states has a state component as well.  However, the threshhold is very low relatively speaking and the rate goes to 55%.   

Most states also have harsh probate courts to where the govt controls the distribution of assets. 

So Straw - by definition we are at least 50% of the way on Plank No. 3 to implementation of that tenent of the Communist Manifesto No? 

[BodyProSite]

I think Straw will be MIA on this threat from now on ......  Its the easiest way to deny something, which is the first step of the liberal way. Deny, then pass blame, then hurry to change the subject.

[Soul Crusher]

I think Straw will be MIA on this threat from now on ......  Its the easiest way to deny something, which is the first step of the liberal way. Deny, then pass blame, then hurry to change the subject.

By definition he has to agree that for No. 3 we are already 50% the way there. 

What a moron to post this thread thinking he got in some trap or something.  Straw doesnt realize I have read his manifesto at least three times already and have good knowledge and understanding of the things I write about.   

Straw - do you agree that we are 50% of the way there on the inheritance issue?     

[SAMSON123]

Here is the wrench I am throwing in for number three.... So whether property is held by a citizen or an emigrant or a rebel it can and will be taken if the government so desires..."the machinery is already in place"

 CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY

"Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism upon a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation from government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment."

This famous quote was made by Ronald Reagan... former president of the US

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________________

Notice in this article how property can and is taken even when no charges have been filed and/or the person IS INNOCENT!!!! I saw on the news how in California a law to seize homes was put into place if a person was caught growing marijuana or involved in drug trafficking. The person would then be jailed on top of this. A investigation arose later over teh amount of homes being taken, revealed that LAPD were deliberately planting marijuana and/or making claims against homes in nice areas so that the home could be taken and sold to their friends, families, politicians and even themselves!!!...so once again THE CORRUPT "MACHINERY IS IN PLACE ALREADY"


Government Has Property Rights – To Your House
by M. Anthony Carr
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20021011_govtrights.htm

In the United States of America your property can be seized, condemned and turned over to another owner if the government finds a good enough reason to do so. In addition, if you are suspected of being involved in the drug market, your house could be confiscated and sold by local authorities – before you’ve even been tried or convicted of a crime.

"No criminal arrest or conviction is necessary to subject property to forfeiture," according to the American Civil Liberties Union’s web site (www.aclu.org). "Indeed, nearly 80 percent of the victims of forfeiture have never been indicted of a crime. All the police have to do is satisfy a requirement of probable cause that the property was used in an illicit activity or was purchased with funds from illicit activity."

The concept of taking your property is not a theory, but a hard cold reality. In the area of law enforcement, many crime-ridden communities have been cleaned up using this particular practice, but many innocent citizens have also been victimized by this mode of law enforcement.

An online piece by FindLaw.com "If the Government Wants Your Property," states, "If you’ve been convicted of a crime, the federal government can seize any property used in the crime, including your house. The property may then be sold and the proceeds used to further the government’s crime-fighting efforts. So if you own a crack house, your arrest and conviction may lead not only to jail time but to permanent loss of the house and your equity in it."

The above mentioned legal action can also be taken against a property owned by an investor who has a tenant suspected or convicted of illicit drug activity.

Fortunately, Congress amended the above mentioned laws a couple of years ago to protect innocent homeowners from aggressive civil forfeitures. FindLaw.com reported: "The new law prohibits the government from confiscating property unless it can show ‘by a preponderance of the evidence’ that the property is substantially connected to the crime. This is a much higher standard of proof than 'probable cause' . . . If a property owner successfully challenges the seizure in court, the government has to pay legal fees. And if the confiscation causes substantial hardship to the owner, the government just may release the property."

If you find yourself in this type of land forfeiture situation, by all means, contact an attorney. Please don’t waste your time emailing me or any other real estate writers, for that matter. Call an attorney. Period.

Unfortunately, even people who stay away from the crime scene can have property condemned and forcibly sold to the government if a local jurisdiction decides there’s a better use for the house. Such is the case of one elderly lady in Illinois.

"In Des Plaines, Ill., Irene Angell still lives in the house where she was born more than 80 years ago," reports Castle Coalition. "The city is currently threatening to condemn her home for a Walgreens drugstore. Ironically, Ms. Angell worked for Walgreens many years ago and met her husband there."

This process of property seizure is called "eminent domain." The Internet is full of sites operated by a lot of irate people who have had their homes and property taken through the process of eminent domain. There are also many sites for eminent domain professionals – the people who use eminent domain as a means of acquiring property for transportation and commercial development. One such site is EminentDomainOnline.com.

LawInfo.com contains a clear explanation of how eminent domain works:

"Eminent domain is the right of the government to take ownership of privately-held real estate regardless of the owner's wishes. Land for schools, freeways, parks, public housing, and other social and public interests are obtained in this manner and the structures on the existing land may be condemned and destroyed. Quasi-public organizations, such as utility companies and railroads are also permitted to obtain land needed for utility lines, pipes, and tracks. The property owner must be paid the fair market value of the property taken from him or her."

To be fair, eminent domain is not entered into lightly. Most eminent domain actions are for the greater good of the larger community, however, if you find yourself at the "taking" side of the eminent domain stick, contact a lawyer first to find out your rights under the law, then get a good Realtor to help you get the best price on your property.

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________

Still another mechanism and reason to confiscate property that you "THINK" you own...

Castle Watch Daily

Official Blog of the Castle Coalition
Documentary on Eminent Domain to Air in Seattle on PBS
http://www.castlecoalition.com/

Greetings from Asbury Park will be airing on Seattle’s local PBS station January 22 at 12PM!  This compelling documentary details the effects of eminent domain abuse on a community—a familiar story to so many of you.

The film has already gained national exposure from airing on several local stations across the country.  It tells the incredible saga of 91-year-old Angie Hampilos, who learns that her seaside home of more than fifty years has been targeted for seizure by eminent domain.

The reason?  City officials and private developers thought her property could be “better utilized” by luxury condominiums.  Not only her home, but an astonishing 56 acres of private homes were slated for the wrecking ball.   By combining rare archival footage, home videos, and intimate conversations with local residents and property owners, the film documents the greed of city officials in their quest for more tax revenue.

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________________

I guess this former Army Corporal was deemed a REBEL for not going along with the plan and therefore had his property confiscated...

FBI Confiscates Personal Property Of Former U.S. Army Corporal Who Blew Whistle On 1976 Government funded "Perfect Terrorist Plan" To Topple Twin Towers
by Greg Szymanski, July 31, 2005
(Posted here by Wes Penre, August 1, 2005)

Timothy McNiven says he has been harassed by the FBI and now had DOD card taken without a warrant ever since trying to alert the American people about the government's prior knowledge of 9/11.

A former U.S. Army corporal who blew the whistle on a 1976 government funded study to topple the Twin Towers using jetliners, Arab terrorists and box cutters on July 6 had four FBI agents threaten to "tear his apartment apart" if he didn't turn over his legally obtained Department of Defense ID card.

Timothy McNiven, who said he was threatened and harassed by agents in the hallway outside his Bellingham, WA., apartment, claims to be a part of a military unit stationed in Strasbourg, Germany, during the 1970s, assigned the task to brainstorm "the perfect terrorist plan" and what turned out to be the exact same scenario that took place at the WTC on 9/11.

McNiven said his military unit's 9/11-like assignment, lasting over six months and funded by Congress under the guise of airline safety preparedness, proves the government had "plenty of foreknowledge" about possible airline attacks at the WTC.

He even suggested what seemed like a harmless military airline safety study may have been used later to perfect a way to bring down the WTC in order to create another Pearl Harbor like event to facilitate a world wide climate of war.

And since 9/11, McNiven has tried in every way possible to alert the American people about his unit's mock military assignment, creating even more suspicion of the government's hand in 9/11, by first creating a web site and then telling his story in March to The American Free Press and The Arctic Beacon news web cast.

McNiven's accusations about the hidden purpose behind the Congressional study are also included in a signed affidavit as part of a 9/11 related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against President Bush and others in 2004 by Philadelphia attorney Phil Berg.

The publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers," said McNiven. "However, the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off a terrorist attack using the exact same 9/11 scenario."

To back up his story, he passed a credible lie detector test, the same type of credible test taken by Daniel Ellsberg and other famous whistle blowers as well as providing many names of the men his unit who also participated in the mock WTC assignment.

McNiven claims, however, since going public and being a part of the law suit, his efforts have been met with government indifference, outright harassment and constant FBI monitoring, the July 6 FBI visit to his Bellingham home another example.

"Our commanding officer back in 1976, Lt. Michael Teague, gave our unit of about 100 a direct order and assignment to brainstorm how to bring down the Twin Towers using jetliners and even box cutters," said McNiven this week from his apartment in Bellingham about the study commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strasbourg, Germany.

"I remember Lt. Teague changed the scenario from a 100 story building to the Twin Tower, acting on specific orders from unknown superiors. He then said it was very strange to be asked to devise a plan to blow up your own home town as he was from New York.

"But as I watched the Twin Towers really collapse on the morning of September 11th, I realized I was watching the very same thing we devised in the 1976.

McNiven recalls at first Lt. Teague demanded strict silence regarding the assignment, but later took him aside, giving him a direct order to "never stop alerting the American people" about the government's obvious hand in working on a plan to bring down the Twin if it ever really happened.

"I still feel I am under this direct order and have no intention of disobeying it," said McNiven, adding he still feels his active military duty has not ended due to 9/11.  

Regarding the FBI visit to McNiven's home on July 6, a spokesperson from the Bellingham, WA., office confirmed agent Lance Boyer and three others confiscated McNiven's DOD card outside his apartment on the date mentioned, but refused to comment further about the nature, legality or purpose for taking his personal property.

The FBI spokesperson added that his  property was taken without a proper warrant, McNiven claiming he only gave it up after being "threatened and harassed" by the four agents in the hallway outside his apartment.

 "Agents did go to Mr. McNiven's home and did take his ID card, but that's all we can say right now," said the Bellingham FBI spokesman several hours after the incident occurred.

Although the FBI refused to elaborate, McNiven said he has been singled-out, intimidated and harassed for going public about the mock 1976 "perfect terrorist plan."

"This visit was not to get information but to harass me. I got a reply from the ACLU and they said that I had a legal case but they did not have the resources to take it on," he said.

"In May 2004, I wrote to several FBI offices asking them to do some research for me and to help find the members of C-Battery 2/81st FA, US Army, the men who also worked on the 1976 mock terrorist study. I have kept a copy of the email to the FBI and this is the reason why they I think they showed up."

McNiven said in the past he has tried to relocate many of his former unit members, years ago finding one member, Sgt. Riggs, who was reluctant to talk since Riggs claimed he and his family members had already experienced death threats over going public about the 1976 airline safety study.

Elaborating further on the FBI visit, McNiven recalls in detail facts indicating agents had been tracking his movements for at least a year.

"We started talking in the hallway of my apartment and they asked me if I was a federal agent and I said yes I had an ID to prove it. We walked to my room and I showed them my DOD ID card," said McNiven.

"Then we talked a little more, with one guy doing the questioning, and then two of the other guys started to make smart-ass comments, one of these guys being Agent Boyer."

He said the agents then insisted on seeing his ID card again, McNiven giving it to Agent Boyer but then ripping it out his hand after the agents questioned the validity of his identification.

"One of the Hispanic agents then began to threaten me, saying if I did not give them my ID that they would go and get a bunch of Bellingham Police and come back and tear my place apart," said McNiven.

"So I gave them the ID after, although asking for a receipt, which they gave me. It was strange, though, they knew about my trip to the Pentagon in August 2004 and the letter I sent to the personnel office, which they asked me if the Bellingham Police had come to talk to me about and I said they hadn't.

"I told them that the only people I had ever contacted about getting a new DOD card, as I used to work under cover for them but recently stopped, were lawyers like Gerry Spence, DOD personnel and Federal Judge Coughenour from the Seattle Federal Court. I also gave them the envelope and letter that came along with the ID, saying that it was a federal judge who helped me get this ID in the first place."

McNiven said the FBI has not returned his DOD card or has not contacted him since the July 6 incident, saying he believes they are "waiting for my next move" which McNiven said will be made before a court of law.

Regarding the validity of his DOD affiliation, McNiven said he went through the proper official channels, needing to renew his ID card last year in order to officially carry out his orders given to him by Lt. Teague as a result of 9/11.

McNiven added he is no stranger to DOD as he worked in the late 1980s and early 1990s as an undercover agent on several drug related government investigations.

"A DOD card is a government agency ID just like any other, in this case giving me authority for my military mission to alert the American people about the 1976 plan to topple the Twin Towers," said McNiven.

"I also have the authority to arrest on federal charges like treason or espionage and through Interpol for crimes against humanity and war crimes, which were recently expanded when the International Criminal Court went into effect."

At the time of the FBI visit, McNiven had also just sent the first installment of a proposed book about his life and participation in the 1976 mock terrorist assault on the Twin Towers to an editor of First Amendment Publishing affiliated with The American Free Press.

For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.
 

[Soul Crusher]

Notice in this article how property can and is taken even when no charges have been filed and/or the person IS INNOCENT!!!! I saw on the news how in California a law to seize homes was put into place if a person was caught growing marijuana or involved in drug trafficking. The person would then be jailed on top of this. A investigation arose later over teh amount of homes being taken, revealed that LAPD were deliberately planting marijuana and/or making claims against homes in nice areas so that the home could be taken and sold to their friends, families, politicians and even themselves!!!...so once again THE CORRUPT "MACHINERY IS IN PLACE ALREADY"

________________________ ________________________ ________

Its called civil forefeiture laws. 

I have dealt with this a few times in my practice and it sucks! 

I represented a young black guy who has a full carry permit and opened a small wing joint near me. 

The cops accused him of drug dealing with no evidence.  He had to surrender his CCW and the $5,000 cash he had on him. 

I had to go to court to get his permit back, which took a few months and the cops only let him have back $4,000 of the money back because in the law it said that he was responsible for the associated costs of actiuon.  He did not want to deal with more legal proceedings etc, so he just took it.

This was all with no conviction of a crime! 

Straw is absolutely brain dead. 

Civil forefeiture laws are extremely dangerous and when the govt says that your property "is used in the instrumentality of the crime" they can seize your home! 

Most people are absolutely clueless of how far reaching these civil forfeiture laws are. 

[Soul Crusher]

Now that are are dealing with the inheritance tax - its obvious why the marxists want it.  That includes you Straw Man since I have never seen you once EVER argue or advocate getting rid of any tax whatsoever.   

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __________

Kill the Death Tax


What is the Death Tax -- Death Tax History -- Current Fight -- Repeal the Death Tax
 
The outdated death tax has been found to destroy roughly 1.5 million jobs. It impacts thousands of family business owners, and costs America’s economy billions in valuable capital.

The articles below explain how permanent Death Tax repeal will help family business owners recover, create new jobs, and restart America’s economy.

 The Death Tax:


Destroys Jobs and Economic Growth

Ruins Family Business Owners and Farmers

Redistributes Private Property

Handicaps America

Punishes Those Who Save and Invest

Impedes Upward Mobility

Is Double Taxation

Destroys Jobs and Economic Growth

1.5 million. That’s how many jobs would be created if Congress made Death Tax repeal permanent, according to a study by economist Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

The Death Tax destroys jobs by reducing the stock of capital – the funds which businesses use to open new operations and create jobs. The Joint Economic Committee found that the Death Tax reduced overall capital in the economy by $847 billion over a 10-year period.[ii]

The Death Tax reduces capital in two ways. It directly destroys capital by confiscating it from the businesses when the owner dies, and indirectly destroys capital by forcing business owners to use complex tax planning strategies to reduce their Death Tax liability. These tax planning strategies may help a family business to survive the Death Tax, but the resulting compliance costs (such as paying for an accountant or attorney, purchasing life-insurance, and otherwise misallocating capital) impose a heavy financial burden.

A leading economist formerly with the Clinton administration, Alicia Munnell, found that the compliance costs of the Death Tax is nearly the same as the federal revenue it raises – an amount equal to roughly $18 billion annually.[iii] This makes the Death Tax proportionally the most costly tax in existence.

When businesses lose capital, they are less likely to expand and often must cut existing operations. The employees are the first to feel this cut.

Ruins Family-Owned Businesses

The Death Tax falls hardest on those who maintain a family business, often forcing family business owners to sell the business in order to pay the tax.

Family-business owners and farmers are typically described by tax planners and accountants as “asset rich but cash poor.” That is to say, they often have considerable assets in the form of property, inventory, business equipment, productive land, crops and livestock, but little or no cash. This means that their “wealth” (on-paper) may be very large, making them liable for a hefty Death Tax bill. However, without cash, they are forced to sell some of their property to pay the tax. For many family-business owners and farmers, selling even a fraction of their business or farm makes it less competitive and unprofitable, forcing the ultimate sale of the entire operation.

AFBI's Death Tax testimonies document examples of family businesses and farms impacted by the Death Tax. Consider Victor Mavar of Louisiana, who sold his seafood processing and pet-food manufacturing business due to the Death Tax. Another is farmer Gary McCall of Iowa, who nearly lost his farm when his father died, and who is unsure as to how he can save it for his son. These stories give just a glimpse of the social and economic havoc of the Death Tax on family owned businesses.

When asked about the Death Tax, family businesses say that the Death Tax is one of the leading causes of failure. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of respondents in one survey of family businesses reported that the estate tax makes survival of the business more difficult.[iv] In another survey, 98 percent of heirs cited “needed to raise funds to pay estate taxes” when asked why family businesses fail.[v]

Family-owned businesses are the pillars in small communities throughout the country. The owners and managers have personal ties the community and a direct stake in its existence. It is in the interest of small communities for family-businesses to thrive and grow, not to be destroyed by the Death Tax.

Redistributes Private Property

As defined by the IRS, the Death Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property. The Death Tax mocks the idea of fundamental property rights. By its intrinsic operation, the Death Tax confiscates life-earnings and prevents families from passing a legacy of hard-work and delayed gratification down to the next generation.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the “The laws of civil society….give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases.”[vi] Jefferson understood that government must protect – not inhibit – the right to acquire and dispose of property as one chooses. One of Jefferson’s acts as President was to repeal America’s first Death Tax.[vii]

As it turns out, the idea behind the Death Tax was first proposed by the Communist theorist Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx recommended that the government “abolish all rights of inheritance.”[viii]

Marx did not believe in property rights, and he advocated that government should forcibly break apart family property. It should come as no surprise that Marx is the ideological predecessor to the Death Tax.

The modern American Death Tax was born out of the “progressive” political ideology which held that government should use tax policy to redistribute property. The Death Tax was intended to “equalize” wealth by confiscating the life-earnings of “property owners.”[ix]

The Death Tax stands in stark contrast to the promise of America’s founding that government exists to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
 
Handicaps America

What do Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, and Israel have in common? None of them have a Death Tax. In fact, they are among more than 25 nations that do not have a Death Tax. Among the 25 nations that do have a Death Tax, the average rate is 24% - slightly more than half the 2009 U.S. rate (45%).

Prior to repeal on January 1, 2010, the U.S. Death Tax was the third highest in the world. The Death Tax imposed a heavy penalty on American business owners and discouraged entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.

While many countries have eliminated their Death Tax and others such as France, Finland, Hungary, and Jamaica are considering repeal or significant reduction, Congress threatens to shackle American companies with a reinstated Death Tax.

Punishes Those Who Save and Invest

The Death Tax effectively punishes those who save and invest, while exempting those who spend their money away.

Even liberal conomists Joseph Stiglitz and David Bern admit that the Death Tax encourages consumerist behaviour. They explain: "Of course, prohibitively high inheritance tax rates generate no revenue; they simply force the individual to consume his income during his lifetime."[xi]

Economist Art Laffer aptly described the perverse incentives of the Death Tax in a recent Wall Street Journal article: “Today in America you can take your after-tax income and go to Las Vegas and carouse, gamble, drink and smoke, and as far as our government is concerned that's just fine. But if you take that same after-tax income and leave it to your children and grandchildren, the government will tax that after-tax income one additional time at rates up to 55%.”[xii]

Impedes Upward Mobility

Inheritances can be one of the primary means for a family to improve their economic condition.[xiii] By confiscating inheritances, the Death Tax is an obstacle to improved living standards and the promise of the American dream.

The Death Tax poses particular trouble for minorities. According to one study, 87 percent of black-owned businesses said that the Death Tax is a major impediment to survival.[xiv] A survey of Hispanic business owners found that two out of three respondents said that the Death Tax affects their ability to meet company goals by distracting their attention and wasting resources. Half of all respondents in that survey report knowing of a Hispanic small business that has experienced hardship because of the estate tax liability, including “selling off” equipment or the business.[xv]

The Death Tax is bad for everyone, but particularly for those who are trying to move up the economic ladder.

America is the land of opportunity. Making Death Tax repeal permanent is one of the best ways to make sure it stays that way for everyone.

Is Double Taxation

The Death Tax is a form of double taxation, which means that it taxes assets which have already been subject to the federal payroll, income and/or capital gains taxes. The Death Tax is an additional burden on top of other federal taxes. Consider the example of “Joe” who manages to get taxed three separate times due to the Death Tax.

Joe is an electrician who recently started his own business. He takes home earnings of roughly $60,000 per year. All of his income is subject to the income tax (1st tax layer).

Joe wants to improve his family’s standard of living, and so he is frugal and saves his money and invests it in diversified mutual funds. Over the course of his life, he invests $500,000 of his income, where it grows to over $1,000,000. Upon selling his stock, Joe owes capital gains taxes on the profit above his original $500,000 (2nd tax layer).

Joe dies after enjoying a good life and nice retirement. Joe leaves his investment returns – along with his house, boat, and other belongings – as an inheritance for his son and daughter. Joe’s business, savings, and other belongings are valued at $11.5 million. Any inheritance that he leaves in excess of $7 million ($3.5 million if he is single) is subject to the Death Tax (3rd tax).

Hence, Joe has been taxed three separate times on the same dollar: once when he earned it, again when he invested it and later sold the investment, and again when he died. Is it right for Uncle Sam to nail Joe three separate times on the same dollar? Shouldn’t Joe pay taxes once and then be done with his obligations to the taxman?

Are you confused by arguments against repeal? See our "Common Misconceptions" page for a brief explanation of the most common misconceptions about the Death Tax.
 
Citations
 
Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron T. Smith, “Changing Views of the Estate Tax: Implications for Legislative Options,” American Family Business Foundation, February 2009.

[ii] “Cost and Consequences of the Federal Estate Tax,” Joint Economic Committee, May 2006.

[iii] Alicia H. Munnell, “Wealth Transfer Taxation: The Relative Role for Estate and Income Taxes,” New Englad Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (November/December 1988): 19.

[iv] Joseph H. Astrachan and Roger Tutterow, “The Effect of Estate Taxes on Family Business: Survey Results,”Family Business Review 9, no. 3 (Fall 1996): 303-314.

[v] Russ Alan Prince and Karen Maru File, Marketing to Family Business Owners (Cincinnati, OH: National Underwriter, 1995), 35

[vi] Thomas Jefferson, “letter to Thomas Earle, 1823,” in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh, (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. 15, p. 470.

[vii] “Fact Sheet: History of the U.S. Tax System,” U.S. Department of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml.

[viii] Karl Marx, “The Communist Manifesto,” 1848, http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html.

• “New International Survey Shows U.S. Death Tax Among Highest,” American Council for Capital Formation, August 1, 2007.

[xii] Art Laffer, “Spent it in Vegas or Die Paying Taxes,” Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123863067877680693.html.

[xiii] “Cost and Consequences of the Federal Estate Tax,” Joint Economic Committee, May 2006, 22.

[xiv] Joseph H. Astrachan and Craig E. Aronoff, “A Report on the Impact of the Federal Estate Tax: A Study of Two Industry Groups,” (Marietta, GA: Kennesaw State college, Family Enterprise Center, 1995).

[xv] “Five-State Executive Interview Study of 100+ Hispanic Family-Owned Businesses on Federal Estate Taxes,” Impacto Group LLC, (Washington, DC: Impacto Group LLC, 7/14/2004).Take Action:
     
________________________ ________________________ ________________

Straw - where are you? 

We proved No 1 and 2 to you and No 3 is at least 50% there.   

[Straw Man]

Straw dont want to go near No. 2.  You know that.   

I'll be glad to talk about #2 as soon as we finish #1.

I want to address your personal definition of ownership but first I want to confirm that, other than your personal definition of the word own as it relates to real property, that you agree that private ownership of real property in land has not been abolished and that private ownership* has actually increased over the past 40 years and that the government has actually done many things to increase private ownership

*again - we'll get back to the word own but let's isolate that since it seems the only area on the first point that we have yet to agree on.

[Soul Crusher]

I'll be glad to talk about #2 as soon as we finish #1.

I want to address your personal definition of ownership but first I want to confirm that, other than your personal definition of the word own as it relates to real property, that you agree that private ownership of real property in land has not been abolished and that private ownership* has actually increased over the past 40 years and that the government has actually done many things to increase private ownership

*again - we'll get back to the word own but let's isolate that since it seems the only area on the first point that we have yet to agree on.

Bro - you lost the argument - deal with it.  I know having to accept you lost a debate to me is horrible to you, but you did, deal with it. 

You are creating a bogus STRAW MAN argument and no one buys it.  You are denser than a brick and dont grasp anything beyond your ill-conceived notions. 

Everyone on this board has proved you wrong.  Just read Samsons' post.  No one argued that we are in fact already a communist nation.  The argument is that:

1.  We are approaching that, which we are via increasing govt control over your property and what you can do with it. 

2.  That you dont really own your property even after you have paid the mortgage in full, which you dont.  You merely have the illusion of ownership and something more akin to a leasehold interest. 

3.  Property Taxes give the govt a partial ownership interest in your property since they can foreclose on the property if you dont pay, not merely have a lien attaching to the property. 


Bro - you lost this argument, deal with it.   

[Straw Man]

Bro - you lost this argument, deal with it.   

again - isolating our dispute over the definition of the word "own" as it relates to real property do you agree that

private ownership still exists

private ownership has grown substantially

the government has enhanced private ownership through "free money" (your claim) and things like FHA mortgages, Making Home Affordable etc..


if we can agree on that then all we have left is your personal definition of the word own as it relates to real property

[Soul Crusher]

again - isolating our dispute over the definition of the word "own" as it relates to real property do you agree that

private ownership still exists

private ownership has grown substantially

the government has enhanced private ownership through "free money" (your claim) and things like FHA mortgages, Making Home Affordable etc..


if we can agree on that then all we have left is your personal definition of the word own as it relates to real property

You have an ownership interest in the property with the government, that is ever increasing.  One day you will wake up and say - how did we get here when you have no control whatsoever over your property. 

Your question originally to me was  - NAME ONE THING THAT COMES EVEN CLOSE AT OUT OF THE 10 LISTED. 

No 1. is perhaps one of the least close, and even at that many including myself have presented evidence that we are moving in that direction via increased zoning, increased taxation, increased regulation, and increased govt involvement in what you can and cant do with your property. 

Like we have all said, after you pay your mortgage and home off, dont pay your taxes for one year and tell me what you own. 

Now for No 2. - that is a done deal.  There is no reason to argue over that. 

[Soul Crusher]

Your Home is Your Cottage
Mises Daily: Thursday, September 08, 2005 by Adam Summers
www.mises.org
________________________ ________________________ _____________________


Property rights are in trouble just about everywhere. The latest trend hits an economic right Americans have traditionally taken for granted: the right to build or buy the biggest home you can afford.

The L.A. City Council recently approved, on an 11-0 vote, an "anti-mansionization" ordinance prohibiting smaller homes from being torn down and replaced by larger houses in the Sunland-Tujunga area. The ordinance limits houses on 8,000-square-foot lots or less to 2,400 square feet or 40 percent of the lot size, whichever is greater. Burbank and Glendale have similar laws, and other San Fernando Valley communities such as Valley Village and Valley Glen are lobbying for such restrictions.

This all begs the question: If "activist" neighbors, politicians, and bureaucrats can place restrictions on what you can do with your property, do you really own your property?

According to anti-mansionization proponents such as Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who made the motion for the ordinance, "Homes are being built larger than is necessary."

But who is Ms. Greuel to judge how large someone's home may be or what is best for the homeowner? Different people have different wants and needs, and they should be free to pursue their happiness as they see fit, provided they do not violate the rights of others in the process. No third party — government official or not — has the capacity to determine what is right for everyone else, much less dictate how everyone else must use their private property.Next, you will have to trade in your Hummer for a Mini Cooper because a nosy neighbor or heavy-handed bureaucrat thinks your vehicle is "larger than necessary."

Anti-mansionists also argue that by limiting how large one can build his own house on his own land they are, as Greuel said, "preserving the unique character of the community." But homeowners do not own all of the homes in a community. They only control the one they live in.

What? You don't remember the old lady down the street with all the cats signing the deed to your house? Too bad. According to anti-mansionization activists, she has just as much right to decide what you do with your property as you do.

There is no basis on which to believe that the "character" of a community should remain unchanged in perpetuity. Housing demands are not the same as they were in the 1970s or the 1950s. Community make-ups often change drastically over time. Why should communities be rigidly "preserved" as though they were stuck in time?

This is not to say that a group of homeowners who each choose to establish and maintain a certain community character should not be free to do so. Indeed, many people join homeowners associations for just this reason. These groups may self-regulate the size, shape, and color of homes, as well as numerous other things, in order to preserve a certain community look and feel. Those not bound by such voluntary restrictions, however, should not be forced, through the power of government, to comport with the whims of an overzealous politician, bureaucrat, or neighbor.

Large-house supply is merely meeting large-house demand. The increase in housing size is a long-term trend. According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, the average house size more than doubled from 1950 to 1999. As interest rates rise, savings levels approach zero, personal debt skyrockets, and adjustable and interest-only home loans continue to flourish, the inevitable bursting of the housing bubble in California markets may reverse this trend, however.

At the heart of the debate is whether we should embrace individual rights or "community rights." Councilman Greig Smith offered the chilling assertion that "while we have personal rights to property, we also have community rights to property."

The problem is that individual property rights and communal rights are mutually exclusive: either you have the right to control your property or political entity does. You do not really own something if you have to put anything you do with it up to a public vote. If everyone "owns" something, no one owns it.

Murray Rothbard dealt effectively with the notion of communal rights, the "rights of society," in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto:

We have talked at length of individual rights; but what, it may be asked, of the "rights of society"? Don't they supersede the rights of the mere individual? The libertarian, however, is an individualist; he believes that one of the prime errors in social theory is to treat "society" as if it were an actually existing entity. "Society" is sometimes treated as a superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding "rights" of its own; at other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose, and act; and that "society" is not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. Treating society as a thing that chooses and acts, then, serves to obscure the real forces at work. If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public. (p. 37)

It has been said: "'Society' is everyone but you." A "society" — or "community" — is nothing but the sum of the interactions of a group of individuals. It is a label. It does not possess its own special rights or privileges. In short, not only do "community rights" not supersede individual rights, there are no "community rights" to private property, only individual rights. The deed to your house does not give you a partial interest in mine as well.
Everyone has the right not to like what their neighbors do to their homes. You do not, however, have the right to impose your preferences on another's property. As much as you are repulsed by your neighbor's pink flamingo lawn ornaments or garden gnome collection, you do not have the right to prevent him from displaying them any more than you have the right to go over to his yard and steal or destroy them. You just have to suck it up and deal with it; it's not your property!

Ironically, unlike prolific garden gnomes, larger houses may even increase the value of surrounding homes because they are more desirable these days. This leads to higher resale values for homeowners and higher property tax revenues (which governments normally prefer) for local governments. It thus appears that local officials are shooting themselves in the foot by denying themselves funding for needed services in order to maintain a community's stagnant character. (Note: This should not be construed as an endorsement of property taxes, merely an observation of the consequences of restricting home size under the current tax system.)

A man's home is his castle, even if he decides to build it next door to you. Individuals should be less concerned with their neighbors' lack of respect for a perceived "community character" or their tacky lawn displays and more concerned with the way government is whittling away their fundamental property rights. Remember John Locke's natural rights of life, liberty, and property, upon which the Declaration of Independence was based? That shadow looming over you is not that of the large mansion your neighbor just built, it is the shadow of government enveloping your property rights.

-------

Adam Summers is a policy analyst for the Reason Foundation (asummer1@san.rr.com). Comment on the blog.

[Straw Man]

Your Home is Your Cottage

just so you know - I don't even read stuff like this

I'm asking the question

pay attention - aside from our disagreement about the word own (which is the crux of your whole argument) doess private ownership still exist

yes or no

once we can agree on that we'll move on to the word own and we'll get this one wrapped up

[Soul Crusher]

just so you know - I don't even read stuff like this

I'm asking the question

pay attention - aside from our disagreement about the word own (which is the crux of your whole argument) doess private ownership still exist

yes or no

once we can agree on that we'll move on to the word own and we'll get this one wrapped up?

Private Ownership IN REAL PROPERTY exists to the extent that you do what the government tells you. 

You NEVER asked me to prove or disprove this.  You asked me to pick any of the ten that "even comes close".  If you want re-phrase your question, fine, the question, as written by you, is what it is. 

So yes, the government on every level is moving closer to abolishing private property via the things myself and everyone else has listed in the past 13 pages. 

[Straw Man]

Private Ownership IN REAL PROPERTY exists to the extent that you do what the government tells you.  You NEVER asked me to prove or disprove this.  You asked me to pick any of the ten that "even comes close".  If you want re-phrase your question, fine, the question, as written by you, is what it is. So yes, the government on every level is moving closer to abolishing private property via the things myself and everyone else has listed in the past 13 pages.  

Finally - we agree that private ownership still exists

Of course I would argue against your last point that the government is moving closing to abolishing it and in fact quite the opposite is actually true:
1. private ownership has increased steadily over the years (undeniable fact)
2. government has promoted homeownership by making highly leveraged mortgages available  via FHA (undeniable fact)
3. Government incentivizes home ownership by making mortgage interest and property tax deductible. (undeniable fact)
4. Governmant is trying to actually help people underwater on their home but who have been makign the payments to refinance via Making Home Affordable (now up to 125% ltv via Freddie Mac) (undeniable fact)

there is simply no evidence that  "the government on every level is moving closer to abolishing private property" and in fact an abundance of evidence that quite teh opposite is true.


do you want to address your personal definition of the word own or more precisely owner as it relates to real property?

That definition and the fact that property tax exists is pretty much all we have left that we haven't yet come to agreement on......right?

[BodyProSite]

You own things IF you do what the government tells you, lol that isnt ownership straw and there are being more and more laws, rules and regulations being put in place that the government tells you YOU HAVE to do or they will take the property they are letting you think is yours, once again nobody said we are communist now, however the adding of all these taxes for this and that and rules for this and laws for that is evolution towards communism. Like i said, make your car payment but without the tax added in, bank will take it, dont pay your property taxes, government takes it, dont pay the tax for you boat, and the slip you keep it in, it gets confenscated, That is not ownership straw that is lending you something with a lil bit of blackmale in there so that the government is sure to get their cut and keep their tabs on you and what you have access to, piss them off and it is swipped out from under you.

[Straw Man]

You own things IF you do what the government tells you, lol that isnt ownership straw and there are being more and more laws, rules and regulations being put in place that the government tells you YOU HAVE to do or they will take the property they are letting you think is yours, once again nobody said we are communist now, however the adding of all these taxes for this and that and rules for this and laws for that is evolution towards communism. Like i said, make your car payment but without the tax added in, bank will take it, dont pay your property taxes, government takes it, dont pay the tax for you boat, and the slip you keep it in, it gets confenscated, That is not ownership straw that is lending you something with a lil bit of blackmale in there so that the government is sure to get their cut and keep their tabs on you and what you have access to, piss them off and it is swipped out from under you.

are you 333?

[BodyProSite]

NO but we are both business owners, I live in Texas. I have seen first hand people get their shit taken from them for not doing what the government tells them, and boy, dont screw with the IRS they will have your ass on the curb, so to say that you really own and control something is obserd, bro the government will clean your slate, even if you have a deed, title , sales recipt, it dont matter, they dont care and will get what they want from you. Like i said, dont pay property taxes man they will show you just indeed how little you really own, dont pay your income taxes and they will show you exactly what you dont own, and the laws that enable them to do this to americans are growing.   EVOLUTION not a REVOLUTION, that way the american people dont notce until its too late.  Just like if you drop a frog into boiling water it will jump out cause it notices it,  put a frog in cold water and slowly warm it to a boil and its too late before it notices it and its dead

[Straw Man]

NO but we are both business owners, I live in Texas. I have seen first hand people get their shit taken from them for not doing what the government tells them, and boy, dont screw with the IRS they will have your ass on the curb, so to say that you really own and control something is obserd, bro the government will clean your slate, even if you have a deed, title , sales recipt, it dont matter, they dont care and will get what they want from you. Like i said, dont pay property taxes man they will show you just indeed how little you really own, dont pay your income taxes and they will show you exactly what you dont own, and the laws that enable them to do this to americans are growing.   EVOLUTION not a REVOLUTION, that way the american people dont notce until its too late.  Just like if you drop a frog into boiling water it will jump out cause it notices it,  put a frog in cold water and slowly warm it to a boil and its too late before it notices it and its dead

I don't have time to deal with both of you

btw - your frog story is an urban myth but it doesn't suprise me at all that you believe it to be true

[BodyProSite]

I wave done it before just to prove apoint ,  so you better check before you make a claim.  lol  I didnt believe it either until I did it myself

[BodyProSite]

dont have time to deal with us both,  straw us 2 along with everyone else who has posted is telling you the same thing lol

[Straw Man]

I wave done it before just to prove apoint ,  so you better check before you make a claim.  lol  I didnt believe it either until I did it myself

you've slowly boiled a live frog to prove this point?

who were you trying to prove it to?

I think you're lying but if you'd like to make a video to prove it I'll be happy to retract my statement

you could also just check snopes

[Straw Man]

dont have time to deal with us both,  straw us 2 along with everyone else who has posted is telling you the same thing lol

you're like 333's retarded brother

and this thread was directed at him not you

[BodyProSite]

bro my brother and i did this probably 12 years ago when we were teenagers after seeing it on t.v. i dont have to make a vid,  are you not capable of this?  But straw dont let this distract you from the point, of evolution slowly so americans dont see it until its too late, rather than revolution which obammer knows wouldnt fly, I know you dont think obammer would lie but just let me say c-span