Texas Debt

[Green2012]

Well that certainly clears up any questions about why George Bush would make a law granting Estates a $5,000,000 tax exemption....I mean let's face it those are the people that really need tax breaks.

Are you referencing the Inheritance Tax/Gift tax? Why should I have to fork over millions of dollars because I inherited my parents estate after they died? Do you not understand how ridiculous that is? Yeah lets tax all the dead people's estates after they are inherited. That'll fix our problems.

[KRAM1]

Well that certainly clears up any questions about why George Bush would make a law granting Estates a $5,000,000 tax exemption....I mean let's face it those are the people that really need tax breaks.

The estate tax is quite simply "double taxation" and is stupid on any level. It has caused many family businesses to close or sell, and many family farms to shut down because the heirs cannot pay the estate tax. A $5,000,000 estate tax exemption to way too SMALL, but it is better than nothing. Again we see here, someone who wants "other people" who have actually worked and built a business or family farm and who have acquired some wealth to give it to those who have not. Nice...how many ways can you figure out to redistribute wealth?

Again, your statement is ridiculous, and it indicates that you have absolutely no clue how the estate tax works, why it was enacted in the first place, and the real damage it causes to families and businesses across this great nation of ours. I am puzzled as to why you singled out this horrendous tax to mention, but I am sure it is because you have never been affected by it nor understand how it works. Just saw "$5,000,000 tax exemption and George Bush" and jumped right on it as a good wealth re-distributor should. Again...Economics 101...it "ain't" that hard, but it escapes so very many people.

[glick1980]

The estate tax is quite simply "double taxation" and is stupid on any level. It has caused many family businesses to close or sell, and many family farms to shut down because the heirs cannot pay the estate tax. A $5,000,000 estate tax exemption to way too SMALL, but it is better than nothing. Again we see here, someone who wants "other people" who have actually worked and built a business or family farm and who have acquired some wealth to give it to those who have not. Nice...how many ways can you figure out to redistribute wealth?

Again, your statement is ridiculous, and it indicates that you have absolutely no clue how the estate tax works, why it was enacted in the first place, and the real damage it causes to families and businesses across this great nation of ours. I am puzzled as to why you singled out this horrendous tax to mention, but I am sure it is because you have never been affected by it nor understand how it works. Just saw "$5,000,000 tax exemption and George Bush" and jumped right on it as a good wealth re-distributor should. Again...Economics 101...it "ain't" that hard, but it escapes so very many people.

I suppose you think lottery winners should not be taxed also, that is basically what you are saying, anyone that gets something for nothing should not be taxed. Great idea!

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Again, your statement is ridiculous, and it indicates that you have absolutely no clue how the estate tax works, why it was enacted in the first place, and the real damage it causes to families and businesses across this great nation of ours. I am puzzled as to why you singled out this horrendous tax to mention, but I am sure it is because you have never been affected by it nor understand how it works. Just saw "$5,000,000 tax exemption and George Bush" and jumped right on it as a good wealth re-distributor should. Again...Economics 101...it "ain't" that hard, but it escapes so very many people.

I, for one, would love to be in a situation where I'm affected by it.

[glick1980]

If this tax exemption applied to just property then I wouldn't have a problem with it, especially working properties like a farm or ranch. However, it doesn't and I would be willing to wager that farms and ranches account for about .1% of people affected by this. My wife works at a law firm that specializes in estate planning, and I have never heard her say anything about a farm or ranch. In fact about all she ever says is how rich these clients are and that they are saving about $2 million dollars each on taxes....If you think this exemption was created to help farmers then you are way off....It was created to help the rich get richer, primarily GW Bush's buddies save $2 million per estate....

[KRAM1]

I suppose you think lottery winners should not be taxed also, that is basically what you are saying, anyone that gets something for nothing should not be taxed. Great idea!

WOW...it gets worse every time you post. So, now you think building family wealth, building a family business and creating a family farm, etc. is getting "something for nothing". Just where do you live? On Mars???? Don't think I ever said lottery winners should not be taxed, nor did I ever say people should not pay any taxes.

But, to equate working one's entire life building a business, creating family wealth through savings and investments, running a family farm, etc. to winning the lottery is just plain ignorant of the facts of life. One spends a lifetime doing one and wakes up lucky one day in the other. Yep, that's exactly the same...nice analogy.

Those in favor of wealth redistribution generally have none to distribute. Those generally in favor of tax increases are for them as long as someone else is the one paying the higher taxes. Simply amazing how that works.

[DoubleEagle]

If this tax exemption applied to just property then I wouldn't have a problem with it, especially working properties like a farm or ranch. However, it doesn't and I would be willing to wager that farms and ranches account for about .1% of people affected by this. My wife works at a law firm that specializes in estate planning, and I have never heard her say anything about a farm or ranch. In fact about all she ever says is how rich these clients are and that they are saving about $2 million dollars each on taxes....If you think this exemption was created to help farmers then you are way off....It was created to help the rich get richer, primarily GW Bush's buddies save $2 million per estate....

My issue with the Estate tax is that it is double taxation. The earnings used to create the value of the estate were already taxed as either regular income, business income or investment income. The same would not apply in your lottery example.

[glick1980]

WOW...it gets worse every time you post. So, now you think building family wealth, building a family business and creating a family farm, etc. is getting "something for nothing". Just where do you live? On Mars???? Don't think I ever said lottery winners should not be taxed, nor did I ever say people should not pay any taxes.

But, to equate working one's entire life building a business, creating family wealth through savings and investments, running a family farm, etc. to winning the lottery is just plain ignorant of the facts of life. One spends a lifetime doing one and wakes up lucky one day in the other. Yep, that's exactly the same...nice analogy.

Those in favor of wealth redistribution generally have none to distribute. Those generally in favor of tax increases are for them as long as someone else is the one paying the higher taxes. Simply amazing how that works.

I am sorry but I do not equate inheritance as building family wealth or a family business or working their entire lives to do so, perhaps their father or grandfather did. In many ways people that inherit do win a lottery, it's sad that you do not see the corelation. I don't think I ever mentioned wealth redistribution as this weath would not be redistributed it would go to our failing government. You do realize that 99.99% of people that inherit huge estates have done absolutely nothing their entire lives right?

[UNTFan23]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

* Adrian Rogers, 1931 *

[glick1980]

My issue with the Estate tax is that it is double taxation. The earnings used to create the value of the estate were already taxed as either regular income, business income or investment income. The same would not apply in your lottery example.

Actually it would as the money used to buy the lottery tickets has already been taxed with the people who buy each ticket sharing the burden of that tax, and the winner of the lottery taking the tax burden on the winnings. While in an estate situation, the person who built the estate is taxed, and the person who inherits it is also taxed.

[UNTflyer]

Well that certainly clears up any questions about why George Bush would make a law granting Estates a $5,000,000 tax exemption....I mean let's face it those are the people that really need tax breaks.

You're right. Let's give tax breaks to the poor.

Oh, wait. They don't pay taxes. In fact, they get checks sent to them paid for by taxpayers called the Earned Income Tax Credit (trying to suppress the laughter at the irony of that title).

Let's give tax breaks to the middle class, then.

Wait... they get the child tax credit, home mortgage interest deduction, and college education credit. The effective tax rate of the middle class is 3.3%. Wow, those sure are a lot of "loopholes." We'll get to those after we eliminated the "loopholes" for the rich and corporate America.

What about the lower middle class then? Let's give them a tax break, because they do most of the hard work in this country. It's only fair!

Well, their effective tax rate is -0.4%. They basically get all of their taxes back, plus a small bonus.

What do rich people pay? The top 1% pay 29.5% in effective federal taxes (that's after they sneak around and use all those "loopholes," a.k.a. Tax Laws).

Do you really want the rich to pay their "fair share?" Fair share would imply we are all treated equally, that we all pay an even percentage of our income. Are you willing to dig deep and start paying your fair share????

Edited July 28, 2011 by UNTflyer

[UNTflyer]

You do realize that 99.99% of people that inherit huge estates have done absolutely nothing their entire lives right?

You do realize that pulling random, ridiculous statistics out your ass does not make you an expert, right?

[DoubleEagle]

Actually it would as the money used to buy the lottery tickets has already been taxed with the people who buy each ticket sharing the burden of that tax, and the winner of the lottery taking the tax burden on the winnings. While in an estate situation, the person who built the estate is taxed, and the person who inherits it is also taxed.

Nice try, but I don't think so. Here is an example:

I earn $100, of which the government gets 25%, leaving me with $75. If I die and pass that $75 on to my heirs the government takes an additional 35%, or $26, leaving my heirs with $49 (assuming the $75 is in excess of the exemption). The government taxes the same earnings twice, taking $51 of the originally earned $100.

If I earn $100 and use the after tax proceeds to buy lottery tickets the government has taken $25 of the original earnings and then taxes the INCREMENTAL earnings (lottery winnings). The original $100 is only taxed one time.

[KRAM1]

Actually it would as the money used to buy the lottery tickets has already been taxed with the people who buy each ticket sharing the burden of that tax, and the winner of the lottery taking the tax burden on the winnings. While in an estate situation, the person who built the estate is taxed, and the person who inherits it is also taxed.

Yep, that $1.00 lottery ticket is just the same as building an estate through a lifetime of hard work. And, sine you don't realize it, many families (some spanning generations) work in these businesses and on these farms for many many years...not just the founding member. Estate tax is simply a big money grab the folks in DC thought they could get away with because they would be taxing those "rich" people again, and you know, everyone who is rich never worked a day in their lives for all that money, never built a business, never employed anyone, never paid any taxes and never risked any of their own capital...they just inherited it or won the lottery. GET REAL.

Someone sold you a pile of crap and you bought it! I have a friend whose family had to sell a business the family had owned for over 75 years just to pay the estate tax as all their resources were tied up in the business they started from scratch...and employed over 50 people (not all family members). This scenario is not rare as many small business owners have all their "wealth" (as do many family farms) tied up in their businesses and do not have the required cash to pay the estate tax when due...so, the business and farm goes to get the cash. Nice...this after paying taxes on the money used to build the business and on the earnings the business made all through the years.

I really don't know what part of that you see as "fair" when it comes to the estate tax. The estate tax is simply hideous!

[Green2012]

Actually it would as the money used to buy the lottery tickets has already been taxed with the people who buy each ticket sharing the burden of that tax, and the winner of the lottery taking the tax burden on the winnings. While in an estate situation, the person who built the estate is taxed, and the person who inherits it is also taxed.

Kram is right. It gets worse and worse with every reply he makes.

[meangreenacct]

Nice try, but I don't think so. Here is an example:

I earn $100, of which the government gets 25%, leaving me with $75. If I die and pass that $75 on to my heirs the government takes an additional 35%, or $26, leaving my heirs with $49 (assuming the $75 is in excess of the exemption). The government taxes the same earnings twice, taking $51 of the originally earned $100.

If I earn $100 and use the after tax proceeds to buy lottery tickets the government has taken $25 of the original earnings and then taxes the INCREMENTAL earnings (lottery winnings). The original $100 is only taxed one time.

I think your second paragraph might misunderstand his point. I think he is saying everyone who bought the lottery tickets payed tax. I.E. every person who had $100 spent on lottery tickets paid tax on them, their already taxed money makes up the prize pool he wins and he subsequently pays tax on the winnings, making the proceeds double taxed.

The fallacy in the arguement is that you could apply the double tax standard to every single transaction in the economy (basically). I pay taxes on my income when I earn it, I go out and spend it, which eventually becomes either a corporate profit or goes on to pay part of someones salary, which in turn is taxed again.

I can see both sides to the debate on the estate tax. The only thing the bothers me is the inference that way more people are subject to the tax than really are. I have no problem if a politician is against the estate tax, but at least have an honest discourse about who the tax really effects.

[KRAM1]

I can see both sides to the debate on the estate tax. The only thing the bothers me is the inference that way more people are subject to the tax than really are. I have no problem if a politician is against the estate tax, but at least have an honest discourse about who the tax really effects.

I think we all know who it effects...every single person in this great nation of ours who has worked, saved, taken capital risks, etc. to the extent that they have amassed a net worth above the estate tax threshold. That's why the "let's redistribute the wealth" folks love the tax so...they think it only applies to folks who are so rich that it doesn't matter. There is simply no, let me repeat that...NO...good argument for an estate tax...NONE!

[glick1980]

I think we all know who it effects...every single person in this great nation of ours who has worked, saved, taken capital risks, etc. to the extent that they have amassed a net worth above the estate tax threshold. That's why the "let's redistribute the wealth" folks love the tax so...they think it only applies to folks who are so rich that it doesn't matter. There is simply no, let me repeat that...NO...good argument for an estate tax...NONE!

Let's not forget all those that have lied, cheated, commited fraud, hell even murdered to amass that wealth. You have those great American's that have bought companies, let every single employee go and sold the assets for a huge profit. Great indeed. I don't think you have read one single thing I have even typed, hell at this point I am not sure you can even read. I actually agree that farms and working properties should not be taxed and have said that at least a couple of times, yet you still bring it up like I am arguing it with you. Not once have I mentioned a redistribution of wealth, yet you can't seem to get off that point either. Everything in this country is double taxed or more if you really look at it, but you sir are blind. You may be the most naive person in the history of the world to think that all of these rich people are such hard working great americans. Sure some of them are, but every rich person is not a great american, in fact most probably aren't. How about the hundreds of millions of American's that have paid social security tax and medicare tax? Do they not deserve to receive the benefit of the money they have actually paid in for these services? If I have a choice of removing the GW Bush "I am a rich man's best friend" tax cuts, or giving the millions of american's that worked until retirement social security and medicare, I choose the latter without question.

[UNTFan23]

If I have a choice of removing the GW Bush "I am a rich man's best friend" tax cuts, or giving the millions of american's that worked until retirement social security and medicare, I choose the latter without question.

Are you in favor of repealing ALL of the GWB tax cuts or just the tax brackets above the one you are currently in now?

Edited July 28, 2011 by UNTFan23

[glick1980]

Are you in favor of repealing ALL of the GWB tax cuts or just the tax brackets above the one you are currently in now?

Whatever keeps social security and medicare in place while reducing the national debt. I know that certain services have to be reduced, but the country also has to find additional revenue. We deal with this in local government all the time. I would be fine if they modified the Estate Tax law to exclude taxing working properties and businesses and include only the inheritance of personal property, land, and money. The thing I would most like to see is it made illegal for political candidates to accept donations from businesses. I think when government officials are allowed to accept campaign funds from businesses, they have to cater to their interests rather that those of the general population.

[UNTflyer]

Whatever keeps social security and medicare in place while reducing the national debt. I know that certain services have to be reduced, but the country also has to find additional revenue.

You are free to send a check to the Treasury. As for me, I pay enough damn taxes.

Wealthy people and corporations carry the rest of the country and you want to bleed them for even more?

What you really want is for others to give more while you contribute little to nothing.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You are free to send a check to the Treasury. As for me, I pay enough damn taxes.

Wealthy people and corporations carry the rest of the country and you want to bleed them for even more?

What you really want is for others to give more while you contribute little to nothing.

----Well not exactly... I hate taxes and I hate my electric bill but I have to pay both... The "working wealthy" are getting beat up a lot (maybe paying up to 33% or 35%) The Warren Buffet types of guys and investment bankers that make their income from Wall Street pay only 15% of their earnings and they are often making millions. In short a doctor/lawyer /engineer may pay $3500 on $10,000 earned while the super wealthy pays $1500.. I don't think you understand what I have been saying... I would not even have a problem with keeping the first $100,000 in capitol gains at 15% but not those earning millions (or billions). Why should they pay a lesser percent than I do.....?? These are the people that really went -"KA-CHING"- when those tax cuts went into place about 2003. Those who needed the tax breaks the least ..got the most.

Likely you and I do pay enough damn taxes (your term) .... PS.. General Electric managed to structure theirs this year in a way to pay zero taxes..... zero.... I paid more than they did. I don't think I paid little to nothing...... A lot of cars cost less than what I paid.

..

Edited July 29, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Cr1028]

People, please understand that debts and deficits are not the same thing. Texas cannot constitutionally run a deficit, they have to do a supplemental appropriations bill when they come back every other year to fill any shortfalls. This is why they had to pull $3 billion out of the Economic Stabilization "Rainy Day" Fund. The reason Texas' debt grew from 2001 to 2009 is that our revenues also grew from 2001 to 2009 by 57%. The debt goes up because we can afford to service it.

Also, that shiny new $78 million dollar gem we are all excited about? $49 million of that is principal adding to that state debt that some of you get fired up about. Another $46 million will be spent on interest for that bond.

Also, for you anti-sports types, $35 million of that principal debt is the new business building. The state needs debt just like you need a mortgage. Such is life.

[Green2012]

People, please understand that debts and deficits are not the same thing. Texas cannot constitutionally run a deficit, they have to do a supplemental appropriations bill when they come back every other year to fill any shortfalls. This is why they had to pull $3 billion out of the Economic Stabilization "Rainy Day" Fund. The reason Texas' debt grew from 2001 to 2009 is that our revenues also grew from 2001 to 2009 by 57%. The debt goes up because we can afford to service it.

Also, that shiny new $78 million dollar gem we are all excited about? $49 million of that is principal adding to that state debt that some of you get fired up about. Another $46 million will be spent on interest for that bond.

Also, for you anti-sports types, $35 million of that principal debt is the new business building. The state needs debt just like you need a mortgage. Such is life.

Thanks for breaking it down. My question is (if I'm understanding your breakdown correctly) if 49 million is principal adding to that state debt does this mean the state is acting as an "investor" by backing up the bond?? Does this mean we are paying back the state (like an investor of a bond) at roughly 6% interest rate hence the $46 million?

[KRAM1]

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and go on down the road...case in point, glick1980.