# Inheritance



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

I have noticed that among people around the internet these days, there seems to be a sort of negative opinion about inheritance, and some even go so far as to say that there should be no such thing.

I'm wondering what some of the opinions are here about it. Here I have built this piece of raw land into an income producing home for my wife and son. These days everything I do is with the hope of building it into more so that my son can have a better life and not have to go through some of the tough things that I did. Otherwise, why would I bother doing more than is absolutely necessary to just get by? Whats the point of building something if I can't pass it on?

Why is that wrong? And why the negativity toward inheritance?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Oldshep said:


> I have noticed that among people around the internet these days, there seems to be a sort of negative opinion about inheritance, and some even go so far as to say that there should be no such thing.
> 
> I'm wondering what some of the opinions are here about it. Here I have built this piece of raw land into an income producing home for my wife and son. These days everything I do is with the hope of building it into more so that my son can have a better life and not have to go through some of the tough things that I did. Otherwise, why would I bother doing more than is absolutely necessary to just get by? Whats the point of building something if I can't pass it on?
> 
> Why is that wrong? And why the negativity toward inheritance?


The green eyed monster eep: Now I won't be mad if you leave it to me :cowboy:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

IMO it is no bodies business what anyone does with their money or possessions, unless it is illegal. When people start whining about someones inheritance it just comes off as sour grapes.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Beats me
Most of us work our whole lives so we have something to pass on.
I suspect those against inheritance are those who have nothing to inherit.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I agree with all of the above. No one else's business what you should do with your belongings when you pass or how other people acquire what they do as long as it's legal.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

My dad recently sat down with my sister and I and discussed the fact that he wanted to sell a certain parcel of land to a certain neighbor. Both of us assumed that there was no need for discussion since it was his land, he's clearly mentally capable of making such a decision and his reasons were sound. 

I thought it intrusive and insulting that several other neighbors had the nerve to contact myself and my son to offer their opinions on this matter, one going so far as to contact my youngest and tell him that his grandfather was 'selling his legacy.' 

Regardless what a person decides to do with their belongings, it is nobody else's business.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Considering what the government helps themselves to when you die I don't worry about it. What gives them the right to what someone worked for? 

Isn't there an estate tax in Obamacare?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

The two big negatives I see repeatedly with inheritance.

1. The govt taking stuff from families. Profiting from someone's death turns my stomach.

2. Sometimes it really tears the heirs apart fighting over stuff.

Inheriting is a natural, normal part of life.

It's been very perverted by those twos things for many people sadly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gibbsgirl said:


> The two big negatives I see repeatedly with inheritance.
> 
> 1. The govt taking stuff from families. Profiting from someone's death turns my stomach.
> 
> ...


I have noticed that the less there is to fight over the harder some will fight. Good freind of mine has vowed to never speak to his sister again after the way she behaved when their mother passed. Mom didn't have much, just the household furnishings, but it seems sister marched in and took anything remotely valuable, left my friend to clean up the mess.

Me? My Yvonne gets everything when I croak.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I'm seeing inheritance going full circle.

People that skimped, invested and saved, during lean times, left a relatively meager inheritance, to children who didn't really even need it, since they were doing great on their own, during the fat times.

Now the lean times are here again and it is known, the fat times are not coming back, so many will need the inheritance, because they wont have their own retirement, as pensions are gone, pay is low, early retirement is hard and everything is expensive.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I received a totally surprise inheritence and have had trouble finding something worthy of spending it on LOL. My sibs all spent theirs in a couple of days and I still have mine after a year. I did get my eyes fixed as I thought that might make the giver happy as her eyes were as bad as mine and we often complained about it. I do not know if inheritance is good or bad, i think it depends on who is giving, what strings are attached and who is getting and there are at least a zillion combinations of those factors.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Inheritance is a sore subject to me. Two of my step siblings are lawyers and managed to steal my inheritance from my father. They got away with it through statute of limitations expiration. By the time we found out what was going on it was too late.

They were disciplined for my complaint to the state Bar because they lied in court documents to pose as my father's children, and failing to mention his real children. But the ethics convictions didn't really help me collect anything.

I'm not opposed to inheritance, it's just not something I ever benefited from.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I'm seeing inheritance going full circle.
> 
> People that skimped, invested and saved, during lean times, left a relatively meager inheritance, to children who didn't really even need it, since they were doing great on their own, during the fat times.
> 
> Now the lean times are here again and it is known, the fat times are not coming back, so many will need the inheritance, because they wont have their own retirement, as pensions are gone, pay is low, early retirement is hard and everything is expensive.


These are pretty fat times too. Even here in Podunkville Ky you don't see many old hung together with baling wire vehicles, and haven't heard any of the women complaining about how scratchy flour sacks are when made into undergarments. I don't hear many talking about darning socks either.
Just the other day I was sitting in the parking lot thinking about how many duely trucks with all the bright chrome wheels there were. How much truck do you really need to carry a sack of groceries home. How many of those fancy 4wheel drive SUVs ever get off the pavement? Yeppers these are the fat times else the majority would not have all that money to waste.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Inheritance is a sore subject to me. Two of my step siblings are lawyers and managed to steal my inheritance from my father. They got away with it through statute of limitations expiration. By the time we found out what was going on it was too late.
> 
> They were disciplined for my complaint to the state Bar because they lied in court documents to pose as my father's children, and failing to mention his real children. But the ethics convictions didn't really help me collect anything.
> 
> I'm not opposed to inheritance, it's just not something I ever benefited from.


Inheritance isn't always about family or wills. Seems to me you benefited fairly well when alma passed.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> These are pretty fat times too. Even here in Podunkville Ky you don't see many old hung together with baling wire vehicles, and haven't heard any of the women complaining about how scratchy flour sacks are when made into undergarments. I don't hear many talking about darning socks either.
> Just the other day I was sitting in the parking lot thinking about how many duely trucks with all the bright chrome wheels there were. How much truck do you really need to carry a sack of groceries home. How many of those fancy 4wheel drive SUVs ever get off the pavement? Yeppers these are the fat times else the majority would not have all that money to waste.


Yeah and about one out of 20 actually own those duely's the rest are borrowed, and the second they cant pay they'll be taken back.

You may never see darned socks and vehicles held together with baling twine because those skills are lost, and the goods themselves are not made to be repaired, just worn-out fast and thrown away.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

All I ever inherit when someone dies is bills. Lol


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I inherited from my Mom twice, once when we were building our house in town and again when she passed away. She helped each of her kids while she was alive, $30,000.00 each. She knew there would be problems at her death, she thought she had taken care of everything, and sure enough there was. Tore the family apart. Haven't talked to my little brother since, he tried to steal it all, took everything he could before the dividing up, even before she had passed (3 days after massive stroke). She had everything written down. He then tried to steal part of the proceeds from her car and property after they sold. There had been bad blood between he and older brother for years. When it went to the judge, I just submitted the will and her paperwork and asked that her wishes be granted. Little brother was stopped dead in his tracks. He even had to pay "his" own lawyer fees, even though "he" had written her will. He started the mess, he had to pay. Some things were lost to the designated receiver because of his lies but I did the best I could. I didn't care who got what, as long as Moms wishes were followed. 

We have given as much as legally possible from the time the kids were small. Yes, we worked hard. But we could have had a lot more money if we worked more but we have things that are worth a lot more than money. We retired early so we could do more with the kids. We get to spend a lot more time with them because THEY don't have to work as much. This summer DS took his summer off from school and we worked together on more income producing properties for him and DD. We also took time do things and go see things together. Everything has been done AS a family, even after they left home. What we did is/was for all of us....James


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

My grandmother is 103 years old this year. She has stories that harken back to much simpler times and I've grown up hearing about them. Once, as a side note, she mentioned that when her parents passed away there was a house that they sold for 30k ( now keep in mind this was back in the early 1940's ). She had three brothers. One had financial troubles and was hurting for money, all the siblings decided that he should get the money because he needed it the most. She said this to me in an off-handed way not to really make a point but just as a matter-of-fact.

Now I wonder when the heck that ever happens in todays world, and why not? Have people changed? Have the circumstances changed? Maybe both, IDK


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

What I don't understand is parents slaving their life away and in retirement not doing much or doing without in order to have an inheritance to pass on to their children - whether they deserve it or not.. 

Just a touch of martyrdom is it?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Inheritance is rooted in Scripture (though I think God is talking about passing down good character, morals, etc) 

I want to leave something for my kids.
Even if they sell it, split the money and buy .02 bubble gum w /it.
I would like to leave them something, not because they deserve it, but because God said do it, and I want too!!

I really don't care what anyone else thinks!!!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Vahomesteaders said:


> All I ever inherit when someone dies is bills. Lol


I know that feeling. When DMIL died, DH went to the bank to close her account and it was overdrawn $250. He had to pay it to close it. Then we discovered her life insurance was not paid up and we had to come up with money for a funeral, fast. 3 out of 5 siblings split the tab. She robbed Peter to pay Paul right up until the last. I don't resent her for it or anything, she was a wonderful person in a lot of ways. Managing her money wasn't one of them, unfortunately.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> These are pretty fat times too. Even here in Podunkville Ky you don't see many old hung together with baling wire vehicles, and haven't heard any of the women complaining about how scratchy flour sacks are when made into undergarments. I don't hear many talking about darning socks either.
> Just the other day I was sitting in the parking lot thinking about how many duely trucks with all the bright chrome wheels there were. How much truck do you really need to carry a sack of groceries home. How many of those fancy 4wheel drive SUVs ever get off the pavement? Yeppers these are the fat times else the majority would not have all that money to waste.


I disagree. Are times really that fat, since real wages have been in decline for 30 years?

Should we again living like paupers, be the key to our long term success, in America today? How about pay and benefits?

I know many who had great jobs, pay benefits, side business, some now getting $3500 mo in pensions. One retired from IBM - 30 years ago, with great pensions and bennies. back in the day, cars were cheap, houses were cheap, taxes were low. A retried friend worked in power plants - back in the early 1980, making $35/hrs straight time .

None of them, wore flour sacks or wired their cars together. They had new cars, race cars, boats, one had their own airplane. they invested on gold, stocks and real estate, collector cars. The went on real vacations. Their kids had teeth braces and mini bikes.

They say now it takes having $700,000, to retire in relative comfort. Shopping at Good Will or driving that old junker (never mind a new fuel pump job will costs $800), will certainly save money, it's still going to be along way to any type of real retirement, let alone have something to leave others.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Wolf mom said:


> What I don't understand is parents slaving their life away and in retirement not doing much or doing without in order to have an inheritance to pass on to their children - whether they deserve it or not..
> 
> Just a touch of martyrdom is it?


I'm with you there .I know some that are mean to their self saving for the children or the nursing home to get it .:sob:

When I go there won't be a dry eye in the whole house I'll owe everyone of em:hysterical:


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I do not want to die with my wealth intact. I plan to give all that I do not need at a point in my childrens lives when it will actually do some good, like when they are in their 30's with young kids and other financial needs. I think it would be so rewarding to not have them scrap over it in the end, and rewarding to not have them have to struggle through that era of their lives like we have had to.

Just my personal opinion.

Now, if only my mom and in laws felt the same! lol. 

Seriously though, what is the point of holding it to death? So that your 65 year old kids can finally cash in when generally they are at a low need stage of their lives? I would rather make it easier for them earlier so they can have some comfort and some independence at the high need age, set themselves up for their own retirement earlier in life, and keep enough for my lover and I to get by in our golden years, watching with pleasure as our kids reap the rewards while we can see results and be pleased to have helped at that time.

It also will take away from the "waiting on us to die" scenario, and keep relationships real, if you will. So many kids become enamoured with what their parents have, that they practically wait for the "phone call".

I do not intend to keep my kids waiting for my death.

Again, while I am in my thirties, I do wish my ancestors felt the same way! We could use it NOW, not when we are 65 and have no use for it. lol


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

The issue with inheritance is not with the piddling amounts that many people "inherit" rightly or wrongly, but the millions gifted to the few who had the luck to squirt from the loins of the ultra-rich in the lottery of life.

There is a tendency of societies to become increasingly classist and dogmatic over time. The inheritances of the upper class in England during Edwardian and previous times were simply outrageous. They were also an integral part of keeping servants and peasants "in their place." England had to respnd with equally Draconian measures to become a more modern and functional society. 

When I was about ten years old, I posited "What would happen if a government could not levy ANY taxes whatsoever, but in return for that interdiction ALL personal monies and properties except one year's average wage had to be surrendered to the government upon death?" Offspring of the wealthy would have to prove their own worth and offspring of the poor would start on a more level playing field. Wealth would be an automatic recognition of intelligence and good money management skills, and dynasties of power would be truncated at the first sign of idiots.

In reality, such an idea would never work, because people are sneaky, liars, and would invent ways of passing wealth to circumvent the idea. There is also the protective shell that parents naturally want (for a while) to protect their children.

The few things I inherited were photos, and a couple thousand dollars from a childless aunt who was a true egalitarian dividing her money equally across dozens of nephews and nieces. Inheritances are rarely fair and even more rarely just. The hope of getting a windfall keeps most people on the hook. The hope of being magnanimous without pain and sticking it to those in disfavor motivate most of the rest of the proponents.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I disagree. Are times really that fat, since real wages have been in decline for 30 years?
> 
> Should we again living like paupers, be the key to our long term success, in America today? How about pay and benefits?
> 
> ...


And I know many current retirees that enjoy the good life today. People today can be just as prosperous as any other generation. It's a matter of making choices that lead to that goal. The number of new millionaires grow every year. Yes beaver, Wally can get rich if he wants to in today's world. 
I also think your numbers are wrong on having 700,000 dollars for a comfortable retirement. I am quite comfortably retired on less than half that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmerDale said:


> I do not want to die with my wealth intact. I plan to give all that I do not need at a point in my childrens lives when it will actually do some good, like when they are in their 30's with young kids and other financial needs. I think it would be so rewarding to not have them scrap over it in the end, and rewarding to not have them have to struggle through that era of their lives like we have had to.
> 
> Just my personal opinion.
> 
> ...


You will "need it" much more when you get to be sixty five than you do now. You can easily work and earn money when you are young and healthy, not so much after Father Time and Mother Nature get through destroying you health.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Inheritance is scriptural.

IMO, the current opposition is rooted in the modern Marxist movement. From the Communist Manifesto:


> 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
> 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
> *3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. *
> 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
> ...


Hope that answers your question.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

"Inheritance is scriptural."
In the New Testament it refers to spiritual inheritance and the only reference to physical inheritance is that it is a cause for a person to be set upon by thieves and robbers.

http://www.artbible.info/concordance/i/1726-2.html

Even the old testament may not say what you think it does:

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GodsWelfareSystem/Inheritance.php


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You will "need it" much more when you get to be sixty five than you do now. You can easily work and earn money when you are young and healthy, not so much after Father Time and Mother Nature get through destroying you health.


I guess that depends on how one has planned for their future. We have planned so we have no retirement age financial concerns... A living inheritance would only fast forward our future goals.

I know many seniors who pass on seniors discounts, and wish the folks with families would get discounts. But these again, are seniors who planned well. there is no doubt many have not. I also realize some simply have had worse life fortune, and have found it impossible to retire well. But I believe in North America, for the most part, one should be able to retire well if they plan well with saving all along and having diversified investments.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I forget who said it, but I agree wholeheartedly with the idea "I want my first bounced check to be to the funeral home".

I really don't care who inherits what from whom, it wasn't mine, so why should I care?

I don't have any children, but my wife has 3. None of them care a thing about our place here, so we've set it up where when the time comes it goes up for sale at auction, and they split everything equally. Like the saying goes "you can stuff that coffin full of $100 bills, and you won't be one bit warmer".

I've always like the joke about uncle Ernie dying, and at the reading of the will the lawyer reads - and to my nephew Jake, who said I'd never remember him in my will, Hello Jake!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Wolf mom said:


> What I don't understand is parents slaving their life away and in retirement not doing much or doing without in order to have an inheritance to pass on to their children - whether they deserve it or not..
> 
> Just a touch of martyrdom is it?


I don't think so.
Most people do for those they love, just because they love them


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And I know many current retirees that enjoy the good life today. People today can be just as prosperous as any other generation. It's a matter of making choices that lead to that goal. The number of new millionaires grow every year. Yes beaver, Wally can get rich if he wants to in today's world.
> I also think your numbers are wrong on having 700,000 dollars for a comfortable retirement. I am quite comfortably retired on less than half that.


On the other end of the spectrum there are people who are afraid to retire, for fear that they won't be financially comfortable enough. They argue that they want enough so they can take a cruise to Alaska or fly to Europe when they want to. I argue that they were never able to do that before, so why is it so important to them now?

The problem with that is that I've seen a lot of coworkers work themselves into a grave, leaving virtually no healthy years for retirement. They retire and never leave the house except for the doctor, pharmacy or supermarket. Then one day I look in the company newsletter and he's passed away. I always thought that was a shame to see. Is that what they worked all those years for?

Don't retire into poverty, but you can live well on a modest income.

By the way, I know a lot of people today who will never be able to retire. I hate to see that also.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Harry Chickpea said:


> The issue with inheritance is not with the piddling amounts that many people "inherit" rightly or wrongly, but the millions gifted to the few who had the luck to squirt from the loins of the ultra-rich in the lottery of life.
> 
> There is a tendency of societies to become increasingly classist and dogmatic over time. The inheritances of the upper class in England during Edwardian and previous times were simply outrageous. They were also an integral part of keeping servants and peasants "in their place." England had to respnd with equally Draconian measures to become a more modern and functional society.
> 
> ...


All inheritances are fair.
It's mine, I pick who to give it to


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I see several things wrong with inheritance. 
First it probably comes to late to help your kids much. 
Second I've seen it used as a weapon to keep the inheritors "in line" 
Third it's used as a way to transfer business and that way often fails. 
How much better it would be not to have taxes during your life so you could build unencumbered. At a point in their lives when they could use it you would have funds to help your kids build their own lives. 

Better yet the dynasty tax is the ultimate flat tax.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmerDale said:


> I guess that depends on how one has planned for their future. We have planned so we have no retirement age financial concerns... A living inheritance would only fast forward our future goals.
> 
> I know many seniors who pass on seniors discounts, and wish the folks with families would get discounts. But these again, are seniors who planned well. there is no doubt many have not. I also realize some simply have had worse life fortune, and have found it impossible to retire well. But I believe in North America, for the most part, one should be able to retire well if they plan well with saving all along and having diversified investments.


Yep, it all depends upon how the individual plans, earns, invests. Ther is no reason for anyone to make poor choices, but a lot of them do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I see several things wrong with inheritance.
> First it probably comes to late to help your kids much.
> Second I've seen it used as a weapon to keep the inheritors "in line"
> Third it's used as a way to transfer business and that way often fails.
> ...


what would be the point of "building" unencumbered or not if Uncle Sam is going to take everything you build?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Harry Chickpea said:


> "Inheritance is scriptural."
> In the New Testament it refers to spiritual inheritance and the only reference to physical inheritance is that it is a cause for a person to be set upon by thieves and robbers.
> 
> http://www.artbible.info/concordance/i/1726-2.html
> ...


_A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just. _Proverbs 13:22
_
_I agree that in the NT, Jesus places the emphasis on spiritual inheritance.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> what would be the point of "building" unencumbered or not if Uncle Sam is going to take everything you build?


There'd be no point that I can see :shrug: Do these people actually believe that we would spend our lives acquiring assets for the state?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oldshep said:


> There'd be no point that I can see :shrug: Do these people actually believe that we would spend our lives acquiring assets for the state?


I am pretty certain those with that approach stand to never inherit, nor have the desire to work, save, and accumulate anything to pass along to their upcoming generations. The term legacy is not part of their vocabulary.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

"Uncle Sam", does not "take everything", actually he takes nothing, in inheritance, unless it's over $5.5 million. If so, maybe that's the price to pay to join the "one percenters". 

States vary. IN first $100K is tax free.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> "Uncle Sam", does not "take everything", actually he takes nothing, in inheritance, unless it's over $5.5 million. If so, maybe that's the price to pay to join the "one percenters".
> 
> States vary. IN first $100K is tax free.


They would take all in that hypothetical death tax plan being promoted on the previous page.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> "Uncle Sam", does not "take everything", actually he takes nothing, in inheritance, unless it's over $5.5 million. If so, maybe that's the price to pay to join the "one percenters".
> 
> States vary. IN first $100K is tax free.


And it's not always been anywhere near that $5.5 million figure. It has been much lower in the past. In fact, in the early 90's, it took very little real estate to break the threshold.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

http://www.wcax.com/story/29966307/in-will-nyc-millionaire-bequeaths-100000-to-32-cockatiels


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> what would be the point of "building" unencumbered or not if Uncle Sam is going to take everything you build?



Well you will never miss it!
But you do miss the taxes you pay during your life. 
I had $50,000 stolen from me when I was 19 it took me 4 years to recover that money. 4 years of my life . 
Taxes work the same. 
What's the point of building under the present system ? You are dead and gone before the transfer , you can't even be sure it accomplished what you wanted.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Well you will never miss it!
> But you do miss the taxes you pay during your life.
> I had $50,000 stolen from me when I was 19 it took me 4 years to recover that money. 4 years of my life .
> Taxes work the same.
> What's the point of building under the present system ? You are dead and gone before the transfer , you can't even be sure it accomplished what you wanted.


So I'm going to accumulate assets throughout my life for the government to inherit?

Whats the point of building under the present system? You ask? To leave my son better off than I had it. Thats the motivation. If you've never had kids then I guess I understand your point but when you have them ( at least it worked this way for me ) life became more about him then me. If it was just me, and I knew the government would inherit everything I built, why would I bother? I wouldn't.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Inheritance is a sore subject to me. Two of my step siblings are lawyers and managed to steal my inheritance from my father. They got away with it through statute of limitations expiration. By the time we found out what was going on it was too late.
> 
> They were disciplined for my complaint to the state Bar because they lied in court documents to pose as my father's children, and failing to mention his real children. But the ethics convictions didn't really help me collect anything.
> 
> I'm not opposed to inheritance, it's just not something I ever benefited from.


Why am I not surprised you are sore at something that didn't benefit you?:cowboy:


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> what would be the point of "building" unencumbered or not if Uncle Sam is going to take everything you build?


But But But, you didn't make that!!!!!!! Good ole' Uncle Al (Gore) did that, don't cha' know. The Messiahs faithful know that!!!!! Now, they will pay the Man for his services. Can't believe they have taken that one, hook line and sinker!!!!! 

You need to keep up. smile. I'll step down now....James


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Assets earned in my family seem to be for our common good.

I have listed my boy since he was three as a co-owner with all major assets I have acquired. Yes, I had weird looks when his name was on a check book, car and truck title. It is legal it just made sense to me to insure he was provided for.

If this issue is important how many have cared enough to get your will done.. made funeral arrangements or plans, notified the hospital locally... easy for me got just one of my health wished,and carry copies in your car and wallet. It's just a laminated card with info on it.

Don't wait... I have heard of death surprizes in wills ...they must of had their reasons.

I liked what mom did.
She photographed her possessions. Made three albums sent one to each we picked what we wanted.. had to write why we wanted it. She then made an album for each person with where we might find it.

The writing was in case more than one wished to claim something she while of known sound mind made her choice from our story of why it was important.

Yes, like many parents property can divide sibs. Funny this was mom was alive when red showed her blue eyes were green. Mom's house and land and cars were off the 
table. That was to go to my brother. We all knew that and the reason was he lived with her, (I am the oldest and she was 40when she had me) brother stayed with her while in med school ..he faced a long commute and he did so to aid in caring for a very large house that was unmanageable for mom with out us. In time he paid for all major repairs .... New roof,New heating system, New Windows, foundation work, kept the asphalt drives cared for.. note it's a long one and has space for six cars plus abreast in the parking area.

Sis connected with me over him making decisions to re carpet mom's wing and remodel her kitchen ... he in passing had said mom had picked the carpet and cabinets.. She went ballistic and ....about the remodel.. I said it's his money and if the two agree what scream at me of the injustice..I knew about it his money, a house that we all new he was to inherent and mom had health reasons to make life easier.

She, claims that she was thinking of me and that we ...her and I needed to get mom to change the will so that the house, cars etc would be part we all shared... now, was broke at the time but those plans of mom were made when I was the successful child. I was involved with those plans.. I had Been the one helping her. I understand why brother faired so well, he choose to care for her for life not knowing if she would need a lot of care.(which she did in the end...he kept his word...I had faith he would for he has kept his word before)

Sis called mom... blew up at her. Next sh called bro blew up at him..I was warned via mom and bro of the call to come... and I worked outside..no answering machine.. so she emailed... still got it... it's a beauty...

Sis had one year to pick up the items or they would revert back to the house.....bro collected everyone of her items. That was in the will so that there would be and end date to finalize her assists.

She got her third of the cash her dream of liquidating mom's stuff for cash and dividing never happened.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Well you will never miss it!
> But you do miss the taxes you pay during your life.
> I had $50,000 stolen from me when I was 19 it took me 4 years to recover that money. 4 years of my life .
> Taxes work the same.
> What's the point of building under the present system ? You are dead and gone before the transfer , you can't even be sure it accomplished what you wanted.


Sorry to hear about your loss, that had to suck peanut butter through a straw. Building assets under our current system works well because in most cases your wealth does get properly transferred to whomever you wish to give it to. Under your system it would all go to the government, so in one generation the government would own everything. How has that worked out in the communist countries?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> What's the point of building under the present system ?


I dunno, a 50% tax on a _million dollars_, still leaves $500,000.

Maybe those pining to live off welfare, have the right idea.

Why bother?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> So I'm going to accumulate assets throughout my life for the government to inherit?
> 
> Whats the point of building under the present system? You ask? To leave my son better off than I had it. Thats the motivation. If you've never had kids then I guess I understand your point but when you have them ( at least it worked this way for me ) life became more about him then me. If it was just me, and I knew the government would inherit everything I built, why would I bother? I wouldn't.



Ok I get it I've made a few investments in my kids. 
But if it means that much why not give it to them when you are alive ? Why not give it to them while they are young enough to put it to good use. 
Letting you have full use of your money all your life would result in much more wealth for you to share with your kids. 
Not making choices based on taxes would result in a much more honest productive economy. 
Best yet it limits taxes to what you accumulate , very likly a lot less than 35% times 50 or 60 working years.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> I dunno, a 50% tax on a _million dollars_, still leaves $500,000.
> 
> Maybe those pining to live off welfare, have the right idea.
> 
> Why bother?


Actually, they might not. I pay a shade over 60% of my income in Fed., state, local, property, and fees just to continue to "own" or use what I have. Then comes healthcare. The tipping point could be near for quite a few. Add on that inheritance tax after I die for anything I might get over those expenses mentioned. Go ahead and keep taxing, more and more will quit.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok I get it I've made a few investments in my kids.
> But if it means that much why not give it to them when you are alive ? Why not give it to them while they are young enough to put it to good use.
> Letting you have full use of your money all your life would result in much more wealth for you to share with your kids.
> Not making choices based on taxes would result in a much more honest productive economy.
> Best yet it limits taxes to what you accumulate , very likly a lot less than 35% times 50 or 60 working years.


There is a limit of about $14K per year you can give anyone, including kids, without paying the gift tax. Unless you have over $5 million in your estate, they can inherit it without being taxed. Some things, like a 401K plan will be taxed if inherited by your kids.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The best inheritance that parents can leave their children is an example of how to live a self sufficient life on their own terms. So far my parent's example of independence has served me well. 
I did receive some money at my mother's death. My father had arranged that everything was for my mother at his death, which was also a gift for his children as it left her independent, it was naturally the best thing to do. 
I was grateful for that as it came at a point that it allowed me flexibilty I was not have had otherwise. But I am much more grateful that my parents were independent while living.
In both times when an inheritance was at issue, I refused to let myself decide what I was due, feeling it was not worth the bad feelings that it woukd create. And it worked out fine in the end. But of course, I had decided already that I was fine before the inheritance so would be fine without it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Actually, they might not. I pay a shade over 60% of my income in Fed., state, local, property, and fees just to continue to "own" or use what I have. Then comes healthcare. The tipping point could be near for quite a few. Add on that inheritance tax after I die for anything I might get over those expenses mentioned. Go ahead and keep taxing, more and more will quit.



Just think where you would be with out the annual %60 tax.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

poppy said:


> There is a limit of about $14K per year you can give anyone, including kids, without paying the gift tax. Unless you have over $5 million in your estate, they can inherit it without being taxed. Some things, like a 401K plan will be taxed if inherited by your kids.



Tax rules change.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok I get it I've made a few investments in my kids.
> But if it means that much why not give it to them when you are alive ? Why not give it to them while they are young enough to put it to good use.
> Letting you have full use of your money all your life would result in much more wealth for you to share with your kids.
> Not making choices based on taxes would result in a much more honest productive economy.
> Best yet it limits taxes to what you accumulate , very likly a lot less than 35% times 50 or 60 working years.


So your saying I would pay no taxes throughout my life, and then at the end of my life I could put everything under my son's name and he would get it all tax free?

I dont know how that would work. But I'm very concerned about the idea of having the citizens essentially working their whole lives to accumulate wealth for the government to inherit. It seems to fundamentally change the role of the citizen and might result in way too much wealth and power for the government. Sounds dangerous. I also feel that the motivation to produce past a certain point wouldn't really exist. We are motivated by a kind of natural, inherent drive to care for our children and see them succeed. I don't think you can just replace the child with the government and get the same motivation and productivity.

Example; Read this sentence; *"I am going to work an extra five years to finish paying for the house so my child can have it free and clear when I die." *Sounds reasonable and I'm sure many people have done this.

Now read this sentence *"I am going to work an extra five years to finish paying for the house so the government can have it free and clear when I die."* Said nobody, ever.

Everyone would just rack up as much debt as possible and stick the government with bill.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The dynasty tax wouldn't allow you to give things away after your death. 
And I suppose there might be some limits while alive. 
I think most people are motivated to accumulate wealth for themselves and passing it on to their kids is secondary.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> The dynasty tax wouldn't allow you to give things away after your death.
> And I suppose there might be some limits while alive.
> I think most people are motivated to accumulate wealth for themselves and passing it on to their kids is secondary.


I am not most people then. My goal is to pass on to the next generation the legacy that my grandfather started and my father added to. I hope to add to it as well before handing it over. It's not all about me, it's a family thing.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not most people then. My goal is to pass on to the next generation the legacy that my grandfather started and my father added to. I hope to add to it as well before handing it over. It's not all about me, it's a family thing.


My grand father told me it takes 2 generations to make it and 1 to lose it. I'm the 3rd generation and hadn't let him down yet....


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

What, other than force, gives the government the right to steal 50% of your property from your heirs? It doesn't matter if you are the farmer who, through the generations, has amassed 1000's of acres of land and other property, or, you are Bill Gates. The Death tax is theft and shows the Government for what it is, a vulture waiting to pick the bones of the dead.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Inheritances do seem to bring out the worst and most passionate feelings. I watched a tv documentary where one relative felt he was treated unfairly in a will and he ended up killing another relative. 
And, although it can be bitter over large estates, I have seen people hold onto hate over junk they didn't even want.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not most people then. My goal is to pass on to the next generation the legacy that my grandfather started and my father added to. I hope to add to it as well before handing it over. It's not all about me, it's a family thing.



I think that's a fine thing. 
But why wait till you die ?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> The dynasty tax wouldn't allow you to give things away after your death.
> And I suppose there might be some limits while alive.
> I think most people are motivated to accumulate wealth for themselves and passing it on to their kids is secondary.


Not true at all. I paid into my 401K solely to be able to leave my kids something. Been retired 10 years and it's all still in there. I know many people who bought land as something to leave their kids. Even knew one guy who planted 4000 walnut trees who told me they never would be worth anything in his lifetime but they would be to his kids or grandkids. He's dead now but the walnut trees are growing well. Does the government deserve those trees?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Not true at all. I paid into my 401K solely to be able to leave my kids something. Been retired 10 years and it's all still in there.


Aren't you required to start drawing that down at 70 1/2?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

poppy said:


> Does the government deserve those trees?



No but neither did it deserve the property taxes on the land they are on or the income tax paid on the income that paid for the land and trees. 

Yes taxes are to high. 
The question is what's the fairest way to collect them ?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> I have noticed that among people around the internet these days, there seems to be a sort of negative opinion about inheritance, and some even go so far as to say that there should be no such thing.
> 
> I'm wondering what some of the opinions are here about it. Here I have built this piece of raw land into an income producing home for my wife and son. These days everything I do is with the hope of building it into more so that my son can have a better life and not have to go through some of the tough things that I did. Otherwise, why would I bother doing more than is absolutely necessary to just get by? Whats the point of building something if I can't pass it on?
> 
> Why is that wrong? And why the negativity toward inheritance?


I've always felt some negativity toward massive accumulation of wealth and power handed down to the next generation whether they're capable or not. But I just think that inheritance should be reasonably taxed. I'm not even going to say 50%, because that just seems ludicrous. It just needs to be based on total wealth/assets received as soon as they receive it. Passing on financial stability to ones children is not a bad thing. It's why some people strive for success. And if we're going to be free, we can't tell people that they can't leave their wealth to their children. It should just be taxed at a bit higher a rate. Because you've done nothing to earn that money, your parents did all the work. Or in some cases, your great great grandfather did.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Maybe everybody should just go on welfare.

Then you don't have to worry about estate taxes, at all.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I'm not a financial genius, but cannot farms, business, etc, be put in trusts, Corporations, etc, to avoid many tax bites, including estate taxes?

Hopefully money and knowledge, goes hand-in-hand.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> Because you've done nothing to earn that money, your parents did all the work. Or in some cases, your great great grandfather did.


The government hasn't done anything to earn that money either, and they've been paid a portion of it all along the way. I guess it comes down to ownership. As you say if the parent did all the work, and I'm the parent, shouldn't I be able to give my property to whomever I want??


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wiscto said:


> It should just be taxed at a bit higher a rate. *Because you've done nothing to earn that money*, your parents did all the work. Or in some cases, your great great grandfather did.


The government didn't do anything to earn that money either, did they?

Precisely because they did work for it, shouldn't the parents/grandparents have the right to say what happens to their possessions after their passing?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> The government hasn't done anything to earn that money either, and they've been paid a portion of it all along the way. I guess it comes down to ownership. As you say if the parent did all the work, and I'm the parent, shouldn't I be able to give my property to whomever I want??


I said it should be taxed, not burned, buried, stolen, given away for free... If you're not going to reply to my opinion as a whole, why bother?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> The government didn't do anything to earn that money either, did they?
> 
> Precisely because they did work for it, shouldn't the parents/grandparents have the right to say what happens to their possessions after their passing?


Nope. But the roads into those beautiful Hampton Hills helped. The bridges, the infrastructure, the foreign policy, the massive army that rich kids rarely feel the need to join, all the things that made this country that supports their business ventures great.... I said taxed, not given away. And I said I don't want it taxed at an insane rate. I just think it should be assessed and fairly taxed.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Aren't you required to start drawing that down at 70 1/2?


Yep, but that doesn't mean I have to spend it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> No but neither did it deserve the property taxes on the land they are on or the income tax paid on the income that paid for the land and trees.
> 
> Yes taxes are to high.
> The question is what's the fairest way to collect them ?


How about we make EVERYONE pay SOMETHING? I prefer the fair tax or a flat tax proposed by Trump.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> Nope. But the roads into those beautiful Hampton Hills helped. The bridges, the infrastructure, the foreign policy, the massive army that rich kids rarely feel the need to join, all the things that made this country that supports their business ventures great.... I said taxed, not given away. And I said I don't want it taxed at an insane rate. I just think it should be assessed and fairly taxed.


The money has already been taxed, over and over. The people earning the money have paid the lions share of it to the government. What we leave behind is the portion thats left, after taxes. At what point is any of it ours?


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Nope. But the roads into those beautiful Hampton Hills helped. The bridges, the infrastructure, the foreign policy, the massive army that rich kids rarely feel the need to join, all the things that made this country that supports their business ventures great.... I said taxed, not given away. And I said I don't want it taxed at an insane rate. I just think it should be assessed and fairly taxed.


But wasn't that property taxed all along for all those things? Double taxation don't you think. Now if there are taxes owed, yes they should be paid up....James


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> No but neither did it deserve the property taxes on the land they are on or the income tax paid on the income that paid for the land and trees.
> 
> Yes taxes are to high.
> The question is what's the fairest way to collect them ?


I think most people would rather pay a portion of their money throughout their lives and have at least SOMETHING left at the end. I don't think its "fair" for all the assets that I have acquired throughout my life to be sucked up by the government when I die.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

LOL you guys still think they pay taxes? And by the way, they WANT those property taxes to be as high as they are. Keeps the degenerate riff-raff who can't afford a good tax accountant out of their neighborhoods.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Nope. But the roads into those beautiful Hampton Hills helped. The bridges, the infrastructure, the foreign policy, the massive army that rich kids rarely feel the need to join, all the things that made this country that supports their business ventures great.... I said taxed, not given away. And I said I don't want it taxed at an insane rate. I just think it should be assessed and fairly taxed.


So, should only the poor untaxed pay tolls so they too can share in the support of those roads? If the wealthy paid for those roads and bridges have they not paid their share?

What about bike trails a bike lanes .... bikes don't pay registration fees or inspection fees or road taxes.... how about they start with a fee or tax ...some skin in the game versus just benefiting by the wealthy efforts. 


The inheritance passed down was taxes as it was earned right. IS in her taxes double jeopardy on earnings?


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> LOL you guys still think they pay taxes? And by the way, they WANT those property taxes to be as high as they are. Keeps the degenerate riff-raff who can't afford a good tax accountant out of their neighborhoods.


Whose "they"?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> Whose "they"?


Don't play dumb.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> Don't play dumb.


I lost you. I thought we were talking about inheritance.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Nope. But the roads into those beautiful Hampton Hills helped. The bridges, the infrastructure, the foreign policy, the massive army that rich kids rarely feel the need to join, all the things that made this country that supports their business ventures great.... I said taxed, not given away. And I said I don't want it taxed at an insane rate. I just think it should be assessed and fairly taxed.


Wasn't it was already taxed when it was initially earned? Why should it be taxed again by the person who inherits it?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> So, should only the poor untaxed pay tolls so they too can share in the support of those roads? If the wealthy paid for those roads and bridges have they not paid their share?
> 
> What about bike trails a bike lanes .... bikes don't pay registration fees or inspection fees or road taxes.... how about they start with a fee or tax ...some skin in the game versus just benefiting by the wealthy efforts.
> 
> ...


First of all. How many toll roads do you actually believe there are in this country. Second of all, have you actually seen how much of the tax burden is on the lower and middle class? Third of all, I really don't care if people pay a special bike tax to pay for bike trails or not, I really don't, because it is a tiny, pointless amount of money compared to the amount wealthy people avoid paying every year. 

I mean do you all really not know any of this? You should ask a rich person, a truly rich individual, like multiple millions of dollars, what their effective tax rate is. It will make you very angry. 

Or maybe all you defensive fellas and ladies are rich, and you just haven't thought to find yourselves a good tax guy?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> Wasn't it was already taxed when it was initially earned? Why should it be taxed again by the person who inherits it?


How is an inheritance different than anything else. You are receiving that money. It is income. If it isn't taxed, somebody just received free income. And they sure as hell won't be paying it out of their tax shelters once they have it in their hands.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> First of all. How many toll roads do you actually believe there are in this country. Second of all, have you actually seen how much of the tax burden is on the lower and middle class? Third of all, I really don't care if people pay a special bike tax to pay for bike trails or not, I really don't, because it is a tiny, pointless amount of money compared to the amount wealthy people avoid paying every year.
> 
> I mean do you all really not know any of this? You should ask a rich person, a truly rich individual, like multiple millions of dollars, what their effective tax rate is. It will make you very angry.
> 
> Or maybe all you defensive fellas and ladies are rich, and you just haven't thought to find yourselves a good tax guy?





As a former 30 year new york resident ..LOTS


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> First of all. How many toll roads do you actually believe there are in this country. Second of all, have you actually seen how much of the tax burden is on the lower and middle class? Third of all, I really don't care if people pay a special bike tax to pay for bike trails or not, I really don't, because it is a tiny, pointless amount of money compared to the amount wealthy people avoid paying every year.
> 
> I mean do you all really not know any of this? You should ask a rich person, a truly rich individual, like multiple millions of dollars, what their effective tax rate is. It will make you very angry.
> 
> Or maybe all you defensive fellas and ladies are rich, and you just haven't thought to find yourselves a good tax guy?


I dont think it would make me angry to hear what another person's "tax rate" is. I'm not a socialist, I don't go in for class warfare or any of that rhetoric. Wealthy people pay alot of money in taxes, we have a progressive tax rate, we have a capital gains tax, property tax, luxury tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, income tax, inheritance tax etc, etc, etc.

The majority of wealthy people pay alot more in taxes than you or me. IMO, the problem is not that the government isnt getting enough of people's hard earned money. It's that they are spending too much. I hope everybody gets to earn and keep most of their money, and pass it on to whomever they want whether they are millionaires, billionaires, or just middle class Joe's like me.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wiscto said:


> How is an inheritance different than anything else. You are receiving that money. It is income. If it isn't taxed, somebody just received free income. And they sure as hell won't be paying it out of their tax shelters once they have it in their hands.


Are you speaking strictly about monetary inheritances? What about material goods? Should granddad's acreage be taxed when inherited? Dad's gun collection? Crazy Uncle Joe's art collection?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> First of all. How many toll roads do you actually believe there are in this country. Second of all, have you actually seen how much of the tax burden is on the lower and middle class? Third of all, I really don't care if people pay a special bike tax to pay for bike trails or not, I really don't, because it is a tiny, pointless amount of money compared to the amount wealthy people avoid paying every year.
> 
> I mean do you all really not know any of this? You should ask a rich person, a truly rich individual, like multiple millions of dollars, what their effective tax rate is. It will make you very angry.
> 
> Or maybe all you defensive fellas and ladies are rich, and you just haven't thought to find yourselves a good tax guy?



NO, I am not jealous and I am very proud of those who have worked hard and done well...

The amount on money they donate to say storm called Sandy, or the Gilda foundation, or boy's and girls club, or the Christmas party for family's going thru hard times.. it's nice to see someone just write a check for ten grand so kids can get a winter coat...
Guess you don't know folks who are doing very well. Thoses I know still are just living life as the same people they were be for they became quite successful.

They are no different from me or anyone. They face and have to deal with hardships and broken hearts, they loose big too. 

why do you see wealthy as inhuman...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Expecting everyone to pay the same tax rate on what amounts to income is not socialism. The current tax rates aren't even close to what they were 50 years ago. I used the Hamptons as an example, there are rich people everywhere in this country who don't need to pay tolls for their roads so take a deep whiff of reality, and most of the industries making them rich are using the interstates WE pay for and sheltering their taxes "overseas." And I said "fairly assessed." I'm not required to give you all examples just because you're paranoid and you believe that when I say a "fair inheritance tax" that is somehow socialism. As of right now, the .01% pay less of a percentage of their real income in taxes than I do. They have more loopholes, deductions and shelters than any of the rest of us. And that includes inheritance. 

As for what is taxed... No, I don't think Crazy Uncle Joe's art collection should be taxed, give me a break. If we shore up the loopholes, it hardly matters anyway. Just tax the cash value they receive as any other income and call it a day. Right now they avoid that pretty easily.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> NO, I am not jealous and I am very proud of those who have worked hard and done well...
> 
> The amount on money they donate to say storm called Sandy, or the Gilda foundation, or boy's and girls club, or the Christmas party for family's going thru hard times.. it's nice to see someone just write a check for ten grand so kids can get a winter coat...
> Guess you don't know folks who are doing very well. Thoses I know still are just living life as the same people they were be for they became quite successful.
> ...


You know what.... You're just making assumptions about the feelings behind my words. I don't like it, and I don't appreciate it. Yes, I actually do know people who "do very well." And I know people who make people who "do very well" look like the janitor.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Oldshep said:


> The money has already been taxed, over and over. The people earning the money have paid the lions share of it to the government. What we leave behind is the portion thats left, after taxes. At what point is any of it ours?


Exactly.

How many bites out of the same apple does to government want? As many as it can get...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Could the low taxes be because of all the donations to so many charities that they support and make the time to support?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

No. That's why they shelter their money in many, many other ways.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> Expecting everyone to pay the same tax rate on what amounts to income is not socialism. The current tax rates aren't even close to what they were 50 years ago. I used the Hamptons as an example, there are rich people everywhere in this country who don't need to pay tolls for their roads so take a deep whiff of reality, and most of the industries making them rich are using the interstates WE pay for and sheltering their taxes "overseas." And I said "fairly assessed." I'm not required to give you all examples just because you're paranoid and you believe that when I say a "fair inheritance tax" that is somehow socialism. As of right now, the .01% pay less of a percentage of their real income in taxes than I do. They have more loopholes, deductions and shelters than any of the rest of us. And that includes inheritance.
> 
> As for what is taxed... No, I don't think Crazy Uncle Joe's art collection should be taxed, give me a break. If we shore up the loopholes, it hardly matters anyway. Just tax the cash value they receive as any other income and call it a day. Right now they avoid that pretty easily.


The vast majority of people (about 99.9% ) who gain money through inheritance are not billionaires. I don't want to interrupt your rant against people who have more than you, but we are really just discussing basic inheritance, not global domination by evil uber rich tax dodgers.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, you are stating for a fact that never is there a wealthy person who gives simply because they can and the know just how blessed they are? I am sorry if you think that..


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> So, you are stating for a fact that never is there a wealthy person who gives simply because they can and the know just how blessed they are? I am sorry if you think that..


No, actually, I'm not. We were talking about tax rates and I responded. I still haven't said anything...anything at all...about why people donate. Tell you what. Go back and find a quote of mine that proves your theory that I believe rich people are inhuman. This should be fun, since I said absolutely no such thing. I did say that I've always had strong feelings about people who do nothing getting millions of dollars, partly because that side of the political aisle will then tell everyone else to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." But I also said that I don't believe we can really fairly stop them from inheriting. And yes, I was speaking generally, but I was not speaking as if they are all the same. Just because y'all like to do that, doesn't mean the rest of us do.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> The vast majority of people (about 99.9% ) who gain money through inheritance are not billionaires. I don't want to interrupt your rant against people who have more than you, but we are really just discussing basic inheritance, not global domination by evil uber rich tax dodgers.


And all I said, originally, is that I think people should pay taxes on inheritance because it's income. You were the ones who apparently required me to prove that some people do not really pay taxes on their inheritance. It's income. We should all pay for the infrastructure. We should all pay for the military. But yes, I find it kind of insulting when people who benefit more from all of that because they have more power over our politicians, pay less of a % of their income than I do. I didn't say all people who inherit are the same. Like I said before. Don't play dumb. You know I didn't say that. You just don't like that I said anything at all, and you're looking to vilify me. Go back to my first post. What did I say? Did I say that we should take all their money, or did I say that I think people should be able to hand wealth down to their children, but that it should be taxed? And yes, I do believe it should be taxed at a slightly higher rate. Being born lucky means you can afford to help us out a little more with our debt. And again, I'm not even saying 50%. Just pay the actual value of the assets you receive at slightly higher % than someone making 25,000 a year, and we're done with this conversation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> I'm not a financial genius, but cannot farms, business, etc, be put in trusts, Corporations, etc, to avoid many tax bites, including estate taxes?
> 
> Hopefully money and knowledge, goes hand-in-hand.



The dynasty tax would outlaw most of these.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> And all I said, originally, is that I think people should pay taxes on inheritance because it's income. You were the ones who apparently required me to prove that some people do not really pay taxes on their inheritance. It's income. We should all pay for the infrastructure. We should all pay for the military. But yes, I find it kind of insulting when people who benefit more from all of that because they have more power over our politicians, pay less of a % of their income than I do. I didn't say all people who inherit are the same. Like I said before. Don't play dumb. You know I didn't say that. You just don't like that I said anything at all, and you're looking to vilify me. Go back to my first post. What did I say? Did I say that we should take all their money, or did I say that I think people should be able to hand wealth down to their children, but that it should be taxed?


I'm not looking to "vilify" you, LOL. I'm just wondering how we got onto this rant against the wealthy. 

FYI inheritance is NOT INCOME it is property ownership transferred from one person to another in the event of the first person's death. Thats why it is not counted in the income tax. Even the IRS doesn't agree with you on that one.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> No, actually, I'm not. We were talking about tax rates and I responded. I still haven't said anything...anything at all...about why people donate. Tell you what. Go back and find a quote of mine that proves your theory that I believe rich people are inhuman. This should be fun, since I said absolutely no such thing. I did say that I've always had strong feelings about people who do nothing getting millions of dollars, partly because that side of the political aisle will then tell everyone else to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps."


Could the low taxes be because of all the donations to so many charities that they support and make the time to support?
Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
#96 Report Post 
Old Today, 04:32 PM
wiscto wiscto is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 994
No. That's why they shelter their money in many, many other ways.

seems that you might be saying that they don't care about those in need... that is very inhuman... in my eye and others too.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

It isn't a rant against the wealthy. It's a rant against people receiving something for nothing, then not paying any taxes on it at all when I feel they should be paying more than those of us making less than 50k a year. I don't even really give a crap if you make them pay the same rate as a person making 75k a year. I really don't. Just don't let them inherit their way into a life of luxury and then let them loophole their way to a tax rate lower than mine. They can pay a little more than me. They can afford it, they just got something for nothing.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Could the low taxes be because of all the donations to so many charities that they support and make the time to support?
> Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
> #96 Report Post
> Old Today, 04:32 PM
> ...


You and I must have a different understanding of English. Kasil asked me if their lower tax rates could be because they donate. I said no. I said that because we're speaking generally, and most people who have that much money are not donating enough to effect their tax rate to that point. If donating could bring their tax rate down to a low enough level, what need could they possibly have to shelter their taxes? And yet they do... 

I said nothing about IF they donate, WHY they donate, or anything related at all. You guys see what you want to see, and that's all there is to it. My being angry about their effective tax rate after being given wealth and riches for doing nothing, is not the same thing as having an opinion about WHO THEY ARE AS PEOPLE. If you yourselves could open your minds a little bit, you might understand what people are actually trying to say.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

kasilofhome said:


> Could the low taxes be because of all the donations to so many charities that they support and make the time to support?
> Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
> #96 Report Post
> Old Today, 04:32 PM
> ...


He's got you there Wistco. It seemed to me that the discussion regarding inheritance was going and you launched into a whole anti-rich, class warfare thing that seemed a little off topic and there seemed to be a alot of vehemence against people with alot of money..."they"..."they"..."their" kids don't join the army. "They" have tax "loopholes" ( legal deductions ) and schemes to shelter their money. "They" benefit more but don't pay as much.

There's definitely some anger coloring the discussion imo.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

But.... are you maintaining that you are not jealous of those in that situation. 

Look at this say a boy at nine has to work running the farm and getting wood he has not already earned per his parents who choose to give every thing he aided without pay in the child's life .... thus has the child not earned it even if forty years later he inherent everything..

If the parent feel he did who are you to complain.... did you help them as a unit to have the lovely farm.... are you looking to in reality to get something for nothing


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> He's got you there Wistco. It seemed to me that the discussion regarding inheritance was going and you launched into a whole anti-rich, class warfare thing that seemed a little off topic and there seemed to be a alot of vehemence against people with alot of money..."they"..."they"..."their" kids don't join the army. "They" have tax "loopholes" ( legal deductions ) and schemes to shelter their money. "They" benefit more but don't pay as much.
> 
> There's definitely some anger coloring the discussion imo.


No. He doesn't. See above. You all can't handle it when other people have differing opinions which they feel strongly about. You read the word "angry" and you believe that because I'm "angry" about tax rates, I must be angry AT wealthy people. Like I said. I know "wealthy" people. Some of them are family members who are truly good people. Will they hand their wealth down? I have no idea. None of my business. Do they donate? Yup. You're the ones having a problem speaking in general terms without lumping everyone into the same category. I spoke honestly about my feelings, and then I spoke objectively on what I think should be done despite those feelings. And it wasn't about the people. It was about "people" getting something for nothing. I don't really like that. But I don't think they should be all that heavily taxed. I just think they should be paying more than me rather than less. And really not all that significantly more. Just more. It really didn't need to be any more dramatic than that.

I'm out.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> But.... are you maintaining that you are not jealous of those in that situation.
> 
> Look at this say a boy at nine has to work running the farm and getting wood he has not already earned per his parents who choose to give every thing he aided without pay in the child's life .... thus has the child not earned it even if forty years later he inherent everything..
> 
> If the parent feel he did who are you to complain.... did you help them as a unit to have the lovely farm.... are you looking to in reality to get something for nothing


You're the one saying that I'm lumping everybody into one category. I'm not. I spoke GENERALLY about people who get something for nothing. I also qualified A LONG TIME AGO that despite my general feelings about inheriting wealth for nothing, that I don't think we should tax inheritance at a ridiculous rate, and that I believe people should have the freedom to pass it down to their children if that's what they want to do. I am fully aware that a lot of people succeed at that level to take care of their families.
*
You're the ones making assumptions about me based on the very few words I wrote in this thread.*


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

They wealthy seem to pay more than me... 

Ten men go out for beer. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

By some poor sole not even known


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

kasilofhome said:


> They wealthy seem to pay more than me...
> 
> Ten men go out for beer. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
> ...


Worse than that, the tenth guy would be demonized because the $59 dollars was a smaller "percent" of his income


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You're the one saying that I'm lumping everybody into one category. I'm not. I spoke GENERALLY about people who get something for nothing. I also qualified A LONG TIME AGO that despite my general feelings about inheriting wealth for nothing, that I don't think we should tax inheritance at a ridiculous rate, and that I believe people should have the freedom to pass it down to their children if that's what they want to do. I am fully aware that a lot of people succeed at that level to take care of their families.
> *
> You're the ones making assumptions about me based on the very few words I wrote in this thread.*


Seems to me that you want dead folks to lower what they can pass on to their loved ones so you get lower taxes at the expense of a dead persons beloved ones

Why should strangers who don't care about you in a positive way when you are are earning suddenly get some of your wealth to lower their tax liabilities.

Who wants something for not earning it...be it better schools roads etc.

Go out make more money so you can afford higher taxes and higher spending money... and get to be verified for your effort if you dare think of your family.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

wiscto said:


> I just think they should be paying more than me rather than less. And really not all that significantly more. Just more. It really didn't need to be any more dramatic than that.
> 
> I'm out.


They are paying more than you. But that's not good enough for you. You want them to pay a higher _percentage_ too.

The communist manifesto has taken root in our nation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> I'm not looking to "vilify" you, LOL. I'm just wondering how we got onto this rant against the wealthy.
> 
> FYI inheritance is NOT INCOME it is property ownership transferred from one person to another in the event of the first person's death. Thats why it is not counted in the income tax. Even the IRS doesn't agree with you on that one.



Lol it's not income because irs defined it that way at the request of the rich. 
Any normal person views additions to their wealth as income. 
It's something that comes in.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

tarbe said:


> They are paying more than you. But that's not good enough for you. You want them to pay a higher _percentage_ too.
> 
> *The communist manifesto has taken root in our nation*.


Communism in this country died a long time ago. The day everyone agrees to stop buying politicians, bribing the government, buying out media outlets for their own private propaganda, manipulating our foreign policy, sheltering their income so as to avoid taxes..........I'll be happy with a flat tax.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol it's not income because irs defined it that way at the request of the rich.
> Any normal person views additions to their wealth as income.
> It's something that comes in.


No income is not just anything that "comes in'. Some additions to wealth are capital gains, some are inheritances. These things are not part of your income stream.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> It isn't a rant against the wealthy. It's a rant against people receiving something for nothing, then not paying any taxes on it at all when I feel they should be paying more than those of us making less than 50k a year. I don't even really give a crap if you make them pay the same rate as a person making 75k a year. I really don't. Just don't let them inherit their way into a life of luxury and then let them loophole their way to a tax rate lower than mine. They can pay a little more than me. They can afford it, they just got something for nothing.


Thanks. My brother and I are in the process of "getting something for nothing" right now. Our father checked out a little over a year ago and we still haven't been able to close out his estate. Why? Because the tax man can't seem to get his poop in a group. Anything we stand to inherit has already been taxed! As to it being something for nothing.......My fathers life was not "nothing" you really should have seen it in color! Daddy wasn't rich by any stretch but he worked his tail off to get what little he had and paid his taxes on every dime he ever got. Now you want the government to tax him for dying so you can get your share? That's just rude!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol it's not income because irs defined it that way at the request of the rich.
> Any normal person views additions to their wealth as income.
> It's something that comes in.


Well, our educational standards have been going down compared to other nations so I don't doubt what you are saying.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JJ Grandits said:


> Considering what the government helps themselves to when you die I don't worry about it. What gives them the right to what someone worked for?
> 
> Isn't there an estate tax in Obamacare?


Just do what I did. My father told me he wanted me to have the old home place after he was gone. So I told him that I would buy it from him for what the taxes would be instead. That way he got the money to use in his golden years and I got a house that I paid something for instead of nothing and use it accordingly. 

Uncle Sam got NADA!!!! 

well except capital gains tax and property tax and .........But he got one less tax for it than he woulda got.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Inheritance is a sore subject to me. Two of my step siblings are lawyers and managed to steal my inheritance from my father. They got away with it through statute of limitations expiration. By the time we found out what was going on it was too late.
> 
> They were disciplined for my complaint to the state Bar because they lied in court documents to pose as my father's children, and failing to mention his real children. But the ethics convictions didn't really help me collect anything.
> 
> I'm not opposed to inheritance, it's just not something I ever benefited from.


Understood. I once built a house for a lawyer on inherited land. After it all panned out I found out he used the money for the timber off the siblings land and dug holes for gravel and sand on the other siblings property and built his house with the proceeds. 

Last job I did for a lawyer too.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and haven't heard any of the women complaining about how scratchy flour sacks are when made into undergarments.



OMG. Just remembered a story my father told me once after I became an adult. He said he went to a baptism when he was a kid and back then flour sack drawers were the norm. There was one woman that had on a white dress that got baptized. After she got out of the water on her bottom were the words _"fifty pounds of the very finest."_


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks. My brother and I are in the process of "getting something for nothing" right now. Our father checked out a little over a year ago and we still haven't been able to close out his estate. Why? Because the tax man can't seem to get his poop in a group. Anything we stand to inherit has already been taxed! As to it being something for nothing.......My fathers life was not "nothing" you really should have seen it in color! Daddy wasn't rich by any stretch but he worked his tail off to get what little he had and paid his taxes on every dime he ever got. Now you want the government to tax him for dying so you can get your share? That's just rude!


Again, that's a little dramatic. It's income to you whether you think of it that way or not. Taxes are about as technical as it gets. But since we're taking it personally. The state acted like callous bastards when my fiance's father died, when she filled out her tax returns she ended up having to cut a check because they didn't just withhold the right amount the first time. She didn't have a problem with the taxes being collected, because it was income to her, she had a problem with writing out the check as if she wanted that income instead of her father. She shouldn't have had to deal with it.

You can all pretend I'm a heartless bastard, but the simple fact is, if someone leaves a person 3.5 million dollars, that is income to that person. If you think wealthy people who inherited all agree with you, you're wrong. And I can say that with absolute certainty as someone who will inherit property and money. I would rather that money be treated the same as anything else, to be honest, because if it wasn't, I would feel like I was cashing in on someone who I wish could live forever.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Again, that's a little dramatic. It's income to you whether you think of it that way or not. Taxes are about as technical as it gets. But since we're taking it personally. The state acted like callous bastards when my fiance's father died, when she filled out her tax returns she ended up having to cut a check because they didn't just withhold the right amount the first time. She didn't have a problem with the taxes being collected, because it was income to her, she had a problem with writing out the check as if she wanted that income instead of her father. She shouldn't have had to deal with it.
> 
> You can all pretend I'm a heartless bastard, but the simple fact is, if someone leaves a person 3.5 million dollars, that is income to that person. If you think wealthy people who inherited all agree with you, you're wrong. And I can say that with absolute certainty as someone who will inherit property and money. I would rather that money be treated the same as anything else, to be honest, because if it wasn't, I would feel like I was cashing in on someone who I wish could live forever.


No worries, I don't have to pretend anything about you. You make your feelings perfectly clear. For whatever reason you seem to think you are due a cut of whatever my father worked and earned, scrimped and saved to accumulate during his lifetime and has already paid every nickel due in taxes as he did it. Now if you don't mind I will ask you to kindly get your grubby mitts out of my brother and my pockets. I don't care if it's $3.50 or 3.5 billion.... The taxes have been paid and you are not entitled to one more dime of it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is exactly what you are saying. Any tax collected from my fathers (along with every one else) estate beyond what he already paid as he earned it would come directly off the top of needed revenue relieving you along with others by that amount. My inheritance, large or small has already been taxed! Keep your paws off. Is that so much to ask?


You're vilifying me and you know it. Because as always you can't just agree to disagree, and you can't find a logical way to prove that it isn't INCOME because it's just a matter of perspective, so you take the road most traveled and take cheap shots.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You're vilifying me and you know it. Because as always you can't just agree to disagree, and you can't find a logical way to prove that it isn't INCOME because it's just a matter of perspective, so you take the road most traveled and take cheap shots.


If I take money that I have paid my income tax on out of one bank account and put it in another bank, should I be taxed on it again? I am not vilifying you, you are doing a fine job of that all by yourself, I am simply stating that all the taxes due are already paid by the deceased, and you have no right to propose taxing it again.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I take money that I have paid my income tax on out of one bank account and put it in another bank, should I be taxed on it again? I am not vilifying you, you are doing a fine job of that all by yourself, I am simply stating that all the taxes due are already paid by the deceased, and you have no right to propose taxing it again.


You didn't pay taxes on your father's money. And yea, actually, I do have the right to propose it...drama queen.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You didn't pay taxes on your father's money. And yea, actually, I do have the right to propose it...drama queen.


why double tax my fathers money? He already paid the tax when he earned it. Even payed property tax on it while he owned it and sales tax on the part he didn't save.
As to your comment about drama queens... I don't play those games... Would vastly prefer discussing the issue. What makes you think you (via the government) should be entitled to one more dime of what my father worked earned and payed all taxes due on?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> OMG. Just remembered a story my father told me once after I became an adult. He said he went to a baptism when he was a kid and back then flour sack drawers were the norm. There was one woman that had on a white dress that got baptized. After she got out of the water on her bottom were the words _"fifty pounds of the very finest."_


That is just classic! I may steal that and share with my freinds. :hysterical:
On that happy note I am off to grab my allotted forty winks.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I take money that I have paid my income tax on out of one bank account and put it in another bank, should I be taxed on it again? I am not vilifying you, you are doing a fine job of that all by yourself, I am simply stating that all the taxes due are already paid by the deceased, and you have no right to propose taxing it again.



Just to be clear the dynasty tax isn't to be added to other taxes it's to replace them.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Just to be clear the dynasty tax isn't to be added to other taxes it's to replace them.


How many times in your life have you seen a tax replaced? They don't replace them, they just keep adding new ones. They may tell you they will be replaced but they are lying to you.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Just to be clear the dynasty tax isn't to be added to other taxes it's to replace them.


Just to be clear the Government is like a crack addict . They will beg ,borrow and steal to get their fix. They choose not to go to rehab..........


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Still, what, other than force, gives the government the right to the property already taxed?

Our convoluted tax system is another very big problem we face as a people. Taxes are supposed to be for paying for valid functions of the Government. Taxes are not supposed to be used to modify behavior, or, make things "fair", or, huge vote buying schemes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

poppy said:


> How many times in your life have you seen a tax replaced? They don't replace them, they just keep adding new ones. They may tell you they will be replaced but they are lying to you.



Sadly I agree but when the argument is about how to fix the tax system I think the dynasty tax would be a lot fairer than the flat tax.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Sadly I agree but when the argument is about how to fix the tax system I think the dynasty tax would be a lot fairer than the flat tax.



I just don't get the thinking that government deserves something that has already been taxed. Using your logic, government owns everything and is only responsible to give you what it thinks you deserve. Where does freedom enter into that equation? You are promoting class envy and wealth redistribution. Both are hideous concepts conceived by socialists/communists and evidence of how they work has been seen over and over around the world.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Sadly I agree but when the argument is about how to fix the tax system I think the dynasty tax would be a lot fairer than the flat tax.


temporarily perhaps but what happens when family's no longer get an inheritance because the dynasty was taken by the government. End of game.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

poppy said:


> I just don't get the thinking that government deserves something that has already been taxed. Using your logic, government owns everything and is only responsible to give you what it thinks you deserve. Where does freedom enter into that equation? You are promoting class envy and wealth redistribution. Both are hideous concepts conceived by socialists/communists and evidence of how they work has been seen over and over around the world.


 I just don't understand the thinking that tax free means taxed ?
The dynasty tax is to replace the income tax. 
I doubt it will happen but I believe it would be a better way. 

Why do you belive in inheritance ? History tells us it is either squandered or concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. 
We live in a nation founded on denying the rights of inheritance. The founding fathers even used the words "all men are created equal ". 

But I'm always open to new ideas. How would you replace the tax on work and bring in enough to run the government ?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> I just don't understand the thinking that tax free means taxed ?
> The dynasty tax is to replace the income tax.
> I doubt it will happen but I believe it would be a better way.
> 
> ...


Watch out AA. Here comes the emotional "Keep your hands off my daddy's money he's gonna die" outburst, and the implication that you have money grubbing paws and you are trying to personally hurt these people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> But I'm always open to new ideas. How would you replace the tax on work and bring in enough to run the government ?


Most see a national sales tax as an alternative to income tax. I don't know that a sales tax would be any more popular. But a consumption tax sends a better message than an income tax, since an income tax seems to discourage work and productivity.

The best way to fund the government is to allow it to operate businesses and make their own money, which could conceivably eliminate all taxes. But the corporate lobby won't allow the government to compete with private business heat to head, so we'll never see it.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I just don't understand the thinking that tax free means taxed ?
> The dynasty tax is to replace the income tax.
> I doubt it will happen but I believe it would be a better way.
> 
> ...


One of the many problems I see with a "dynasty tax" the way you describe it is with debt. If such a law were ever to be passed my first reaction would be to take out a second mortgage, max out my credit cards and take all my money in cash and/or gold. Stick the government with all the debt and the worthless house, and leave the cash and gold to my rightful airs. I ran the idea passed several people and they all, instinctively responded the same way.

As far as believing in inheritance, I believe in it because I believe in property rights. Having rights doesnt always mean they will be used in a way that I necessarily approve of. And as far as the evils of wealth concentration, nothing compares to the concentrations of wealth and power that result when the government controls all the wealth, rather than the people.

As far as replacing the income tax and still bring in enough to run the government? The first thing that I would do would be to cut the role of government way back to its constitutional level. Spending can comfortably be cut 50% or more. I know alot of people wont like this but I would cut the military way back. We spend too much on it and, frankly it has caused more security issues than it has solved in the past 20 years or so. Not to mention the security issues that an overgrown government poses to it's people. next would be entitlements, foreign aid, so on and so forth. I would broaden state powers in many of those areas.

I would fund it with a flat tax, a consumption tax, and/or tariffs on imported goods. No income tax, no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Most see a national sales tax as an alternative to income tax. I don't know that a sales tax would be any more popular. But a consumption tax sends a better message than an income tax, since an income tax seems to discourage work and productivity.
> 
> The best way to fund the government is to allow it to operate businesses and make their own money, which could conceivably eliminate all taxes. But the corporate lobby won't allow the government to compete with private business heat to head, so we'll never see it.


The problem with having the government operate businesses is that #1, everything the government does runs at a loss. And #2, how can anyone compete in business against a government that is funded by your own taxes? They wouldn't have to make a profit, they can undercut everybody. Pretty soon the price discovery system no longer operates through supply and demand, and the whole thing collapses.

I do like the idea of a national sales tax or 'consumption tax'. I think its a great idea.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I just don't understand the thinking that tax free means taxed ?
> The dynasty tax is to replace the income tax.
> I doubt it will happen but I believe it would be a better way.
> 
> ...


I take it that you will never inherit anything ? Family farmers and family businesses means for the most part that the receivers have been working toward a common goal.....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I just don't understand the thinking that tax free means taxed ?
> The dynasty tax is to replace the income tax.
> I doubt it will happen but I believe it would be a better way.
> 
> ...


And what is so evil about allowing people to keep the rewards of their labors, spend it on whatever their heart desires or give it away to whomever they want to? 

What are you referring to as tax free? Any money left in an estate has already been taxed.... Numerous times! That happened when the deceased earned it, spent it or bought real property with it

Now to that last part.... How to fund the government? (Speaking of squandering money!) There is no possible way to tax the people enough to keep up with governments ability to throw money away. No matter how much they take in they will spend twice that amount. The fairest tax would be figure out how much they need to operate on. I think that's currently something like 1.8 trillion per year, then divide that number by the number of citizens, about 300 million. Send everyone a tax bill for their fair share. We all enjoy the same security provided by our government, we should all pay the same in taxes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oldshep said:


> The problem with having the government operate businesses is that #1, everything the government does runs at a loss.


It doesn't have to be that way. The businesses the government operates today are not operated with a profit motive. They operate to provide a necessary service.

Saudi Arabia has such a system. They also operate businesses without a profit motive, Saudia Airlines for example. But they also operate profitable businesses, such as the Saudi Aramco oil company and several mining companies. Say what you will about Saudi Arabia, but the tax-free system they have works remarkably well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't have to be that way. The businesses the government operates today are not operated with a profit motive. They operate to provide a necessary service.
> 
> Saudi Arabia has such a system. They also operate businesses without a profit motive, Saudia Airlines for example. But they also operate profitable businesses, such as the Saudi Aramco oil company and several mining companies. Say what you will about Saudi Arabia, but the tax-free system they have works remarkably well.


It doesn't hurt that they are sitting atop one of the worlds richest resource commodities. "Ahab, we need a couple trillion bucks this month.... Go out and turn the faucet on."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It doesn't hurt that they are sitting atop one of the worlds richest resource commodities. "Ahab, we need a couple trillion bucks this month.... Go out and turn the faucet on."


I won't deny that Saudi Arabia has more than it's share of natural resources, but we have natural resources also. But the reason that there is no tax collected in Saudi is not that the resources exist, but that the government exploits those resources to raise revenue. There's no reason why we can't do the same.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Oh, you mean like Alaska. Oh but the .gov messes with that....James


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It doesn't hurt that they are sitting atop one of the worlds richest resource commodities. "Ahab, we need a couple trillion bucks this month.... Go out and turn the faucet on."


And the royal family do very well, live quite the lifestyle.:hysterical:


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Oldshep said:


> One of the many problems I see with a "dynasty tax" the way you describe it is with debt. If such a law were ever to be passed my first reaction would be to take out a second mortgage, max out my credit cards and take all my money in cash and/or gold. Stick the government with all the debt and the worthless house, and leave the cash and gold to my rightful airs. I ran the idea passed several people and they all, instinctively responded the same way.
> 
> As far as believing in inheritance, I believe in it because I believe in property rights. Having rights doesnt always mean they will be used in a way that I necessarily approve of. And as far as the evils of wealth concentration, nothing compares to the concentrations of wealth and power that result when the government controls all the wealth, rather than the people.
> 
> ...


You have my vote.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't have to be that way. The businesses the government operates today are not operated with a profit motive. They operate to provide a necessary service.
> 
> Saudi Arabia has such a system. They also operate businesses without a profit motive, Saudia Airlines for example. But they also operate profitable businesses, such as the Saudi Aramco oil company and several mining companies. Say what you will about Saudi Arabia, but the tax-free system they have works remarkably well.


Right and in Saudi Arabia the people running the government have all the wealth and power and the rest of the people are living in abject poverty. This is usually the problem when you concentrate power at the top. Pretty obvious.

The "tax free" system there works great for those in power, not so good for everybody else. What those businesses amount to are monopolies for the .01% and nobody else can ever compete. Horrible example.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Too many wondering HOW to pay for government. Too few wondering why we must pay for so much of it.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I believe in inheritance. I do not believe in inheritance tax. I do not believe that a court should be able to change a person's will no matter who contests it. If I choose to disinherit my kids or if I choose to leave all of my estate to the Smithsonian then that is my business, my last wish and should be respected. 

I do believe that there should be a lot more over site (advocates) for the elderly in their financial matters as there are a lot of people (including their nearest and dearest) who are financially abusing the elderly.

Many people create something with the intention of passing it on to the next generation. Unfortunately they often don't ask the next generation what they want. Our friend just inherited his father's wheat farm. He has no intention of farming - never did have - but Dad just would not listen. Everything was left to our friend (the only child) and it has been sold or is being sold and our friend will end up with a few million$ for himself and his kids ( who have no interest in farming either). I am sure his Dad is spinning but you cannot force your life on others. He should have faced the reality of the situation and made other plans if he wanted the farm to stay in the family. There are several cousins who ARE wheat farmers in the same area.

One thing that I do detest is when children think that their parent's money and assets already belong to them. In other words they don't want Mom and Dad to spend their money but keep it accumulating for the inheritance or even for early access. If you are an adult and your parents have millions of dollars and don't give you a dime while they are alive that is their right. If they spend all of it but enough to pay for their funerals that is also none of your business. If they leave you out of the will - even if you have been the best children in the world - that is also their choice. No expectations.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A flat tax just won't work most don't make enough to pay their share and the rich can hide what they make.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Government spending burns a hole in every persons pocket.....
The job of government was not set up to seek out ways to spend.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> A flat tax just won't work most don't make enough to pay their share and the rich can hide what they make.


They must not be very good at hiding it, tradionally the richest 15% are paying 85% of all income tax collected by the federal government. It varies somewhat depending on several factors but that is a close average.

For what it's worth, a flat fair tax to provide the 1.8 trillion they currently spend is only about 6,000 per person, family of four... 24K a year.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oldshep said:


> Right and in Saudi Arabia the people running the government have all the wealth and power and the rest of the people are living in abject poverty. This is usually the problem when you concentrate power at the top. Pretty obvious.
> 
> The "tax free" system there works great for those in power, not so good for everybody else. What those businesses amount to are monopolies for the .01% and nobody else can ever compete. Horrible example.


I'm not suggesting that we consider Saudi Arabia's form of government for America, I'm just saying that the way they fund government works remarkably well. But you are correct that government run businesses can introduce unfair competition to certain private industry sectors. That's the price we would have to pay for a tax-free system.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> A flat tax just won't work most don't make enough to pay their share and the rich can hide what they make.


 Let's face it, our taxes aren't paying for government spending anymore, they are financing themselves through debt. That kind of makes the whole idea of "paying your fair share" rather a moot point.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I'm not suggesting that we consider Saudi Arabia's form of government for America, I'm just saying that the way they fund government works remarkably well. But you are correct that government run businesses can introduce unfair competition to certain private industry sectors. That's the price we would have to pay for a tax-free system.


I think thats too high a price to pay for a tax free system. Spoiling the market, creating government monopolies, and financial oppression aren't suitable alternatives to paying taxes in my book, lol.

I like the flat tax, that always has seemed fair to me. As others have brought up though, we first should take a hard look at whether we should be financing certain aspects of government at all.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Government spending burns a hole in every persons pocket.....
> The job of government was not set up to seek out ways to spend.


According to many that is exactly their role. They have to keep the nations wealth redistributed. If they don't there will be riots in the streets with the masses bellyaching about the rich getting richer, no middle class, the evil one percent, robber Barron's, level the playing field..... I'm sure you are familiar.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Nobody likes taxes. Nobody likes the budget. We're all stuck with it, and spending is unfortunately going to have to be a separate issue, because until we're not spending it we're all going to have to pay for it (now or later). This conversation got out of control, as far as I'm concerned. The dramatic reaction to one persons opinion has driven us down this conversation of "taxes." 

It's a complicated mess, but I don't really believe in the family farm or the family business being taxed when inherited, and I do think there should be a minimum amount that has to be there before inheritance is taxed. 

I think anything that more or less behaves like cash should be taxed, though, depending on the amount being received. So... Liquid assets. Because I just think we have to be honest in this country. We're a class based society that tries to pretend we're not. Inheriting instant wealth, especially liquid cash or liquid assets, instantly puts some people in a class that can afford the best healthcare, live in the safest neighborhoods, and politicians and government officials will protect them for as long as they can. We accepted that upward mobility a long time ago, but that isn't upward mobility...that's inheritance...it's bloodline. I think most people who "do very well" have the attitude that they "still put their pants on one leg at a time" so to speak. But regardless of their individual personalities or feelings, a cash or liquid asset inheritance is income. 

And as far as the tax structure goes... We all agreed to this upward mobility class system. We want some people to make it, and make it big. We want our kids to have that same opportunity. We want to be equal. That equality has to be shaped by the % of our income we are taxed, not a dollar amount. Because $6,000 is double what I paid last year, and that $6,000 hits me harder than it does my parents for example, because it was 1/4 of my income. 

I thought we also all agreed that we're all Americans. And that regardless of income and class, we were going to take care of each other. Maybe I'm the only one who would say, *as an American*... "Yea this budget is ridiculous, but don't worry *fellow Americans*, I'm willing to pay a slightly greater percentage of my TOTAL INCOME to help keep you all out of the hole. That 3 grand means something to you, and I want you to have it. Besides, some of you buy my stuff and I like that. Some of you make my stuff, and I like that too." If I am the only one, none of you have anything to worry about.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Nobody likes taxes. Nobody likes the budget. We're all stuck with it, and spending is unfortunately going to have to be a separate issue, because until we're not spending it we're all going to have to pay for it (now or later). This conversation got out of control, as far as I'm concerned. The dramatic reaction to one persons opinion has driven us down this conversation of "taxes."
> 
> It's a complicated mess, but I don't really believe in the family farm or the family business being taxed when inherited, and I do think there should be a minimum amount that has to be there before inheritance is taxed.
> 
> ...


Lemme see if I have this straight.... You are in favor of taxing the dead, (grave robbing) and at the same time you don't think you should have to pay your equal portion of our nations expenses (six grand). Is that correct?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lemme see if I have this straight.... You are in favor of taxing the dead, (grave robbing) and at the same time you don't think you should have to pay your equal portion of our nations expenses (six grand). Is that correct?


Lemme see if I can get this straight... You think that you should be able to profit from someone's death without paying a cent in taxes while everyone else pays 6,000 no matter what their total income is? But you think you're on the moral high ground because I don't think I should have to pay 25% of my income to the government and go broke while a person who makes 1 million a year pays .006% of their income? And you think that a family of four people making a total of 24k a year should have to pay the same? I guess they'll eat rice and nothing but rice. Maybe some rat stew? 

Lemme see if I can get this straight... You're saying you feel absolutely no responsibility to your fellow Americans whatsoever? Because I also said; and you chose to ignore this part because you are who you are and you do what you do, that I would gladly pay 25% of my income as a millionaire if it meant someone making 24k a year only paid half that %. I call it being a good American and taking care of my people. I call it a down payment on that social mobility we love to brag about in this country.

Lemme see if I can get something else straight... In your universe, Person A dies, Person B gets 2 million in liquid assets, the government taxes that as income, therefore they are taxing person A...who is dead...not person B. Interesting theory, Jeeves.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> For what it's worth, a flat fair tax to provide the 1.8 trillion they currently spend is only about 6,000 per person, family of four... 24K a year.



How's that going to work for the families that don't make $6000 let alone $24,000?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They must not be very good at hiding it, tradionally the richest 15% are paying 85% of all income tax collected by the federal government. It varies somewhat depending on several factors but that is a close average.
> .



Lol totally meaningless statistics. 
I have a good friend whose wealth is in the millions. At least a million worth of cars in his garage a nice jet and a nicer boat. 
Most years his "income" according to most people would be his pocket money Probably around a grand a week but according to IRS it $0 nada , zip zero. 
Personally I throw away thousands in deductions most Years so I can show some income and pay some taxes.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> How's that going to work for the families that don't make $6000 let alone $24,000?


I can pretty much summarize what this country would look like if YH had his way. Not only would someone making 5,999 dollars a year be required to pay 6,000 in taxes, but the government would not be allowed to cut that person a check because Congress is only allowed to levy taxes to promote what YH personally considers to be an effort to improve the "general welfare." 

Some day down the road, we'll be faced with an emergency. Maybe a war. We'll need to raise taxes or multiply the "national" debt by magnitudes we can't possibly handle. So we raise the tax rate, but we raise it the exact same amount for everyone so as to NEVER redistribute wealth under any circumstances. Everyone owes 25,000 three years in a row, because among other things we need new lasers for our satellite gunboats or China will have us by the throat. We drive most of our own people into personal debt (to their own government), and then we allow banks to offer them loans to pay their taxes (because the private markets are self regulating saints)...essentially buying their debt and owning their lives the way they pretty much already own them through the government's debt. Nobody would have money for health insurance, but hey, maybe some of those charities will open their doors and the average American will finally run into the arms of their feudal lords (some of whom probably told the government to just raise taxes on the rich). Because Congress will not have the right to raise taxes to build government run hospitals. That would be unconstitutional, because YH says so. 

All so that we never redistribute wealth. Under ANY circumstances. It's unconstitutional ya know...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> How's that going to work for the families that don't make $6000 let alone $24,000?


It would work much better for all involved, those poor folks would start voting to reduce spending, therefore decreasing their fair share of the tax burden. Under our current system they will vote for anyone who promises them freebies at other peoples expense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol totally meaningless statistics.
> I have a good friend whose wealth is in the millions. At least a million worth of cars in his garage a nice jet and a nicer boat.
> Most years his "income" according to most people would be his pocket money Probably around a grand a week but according to IRS it $0 nada , zip zero.
> Personally I throw away thousands in deductions most Years so I can show some income and pay some taxes.


Not meaningless statistics.... Just plain facts. In spite of what many believe it's those in the top group that pay the lions share of our income tax.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Lemme see if I can get this straight... You think that you should be able to profit from someone's death without paying a cent in taxes while everyone else pays 6,000 no matter what their total income is? But you think you're on the moral high ground because I don't think I should have to pay 25% of my income to the government and go broke while a person who makes 1 million a year pays .006% of their income? And you think that a family of four people making a total of 24k a year should have to pay the same? I guess they'll eat rice and nothing but rice. Maybe some rat stew?
> 
> Lemme see if I can get this straight... You're saying you feel absolutely no responsibility to your fellow Americans whatsoever? Because I also said; and you chose to ignore this part because you are who you are and you do what you do, that I would gladly pay 25% of my income as a millionaire if it meant someone making 24k a year only paid half that %. I call it being a good American and taking care of my people. I call it a down payment on that social mobility we love to brag about in this country.
> 
> Lemme see if I can get something else straight... In your universe, Person A dies, Person B gets 2 million in liquid assets, the government taxes that as income, therefore they are taxing person A...who is dead...not person B. Interesting theory, Jeeves.


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It would work much better for all involved, those poor folks would start voting to reduce spending, therefore decreasing their fair share of the tax burden. Under our current system they will vote for anyone who promises them freebies at other peoples expense.


Like who? The three biggest pieces of the pie, by far, are defense/social security-welfare/healthcare. The only large piece (actually it really isn't large) you might get people interested in cutting is pensions, and then you have a huge public sector who sure as hell won't vote to cut social security, because this 6,000 dollar whiplash you think they're going to suffer under is really only hurting the people who can't afford it at all. If everyone is paying 6,000 in taxes, including the growing number of 22-40 year olds in the 19k-37k tax bracket, there is no way in hell they're going to vote to reduce any of the social programs. With everything going on in the world, and the fact that more and more people are dependent on the defense industry for jobs, no one is going to accept cuts to defense either.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> How's that going to work for the families that don't make $6000 let alone $24,000?


That's taken care of in the fair tax. Everyone, rich and poor, gets a check from the government at the beginning of every month called a "prebate" that covers the taxes a family (depending on size) would pay that month for necessities. Those earning little money wouldn't spend enough beyond necessities to pay any tax. However, the guy buying a yacht or jet is going to pay a boatload of taxes. Isn't that what you want?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wiscto Wait a second !
If we take 100 percent of one mans wealth and one percent of an others isn't that redistributing wealth ?
In fact if we take ANYTHING from those making less that $ 75,000 a year isn't it redistributing wealth ?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The death tax is double dipping in the worst way. When they tax the transfer of assets from the dead person to their heirs, they are taxing the same thing all over again that they taxed already while the income was being earned, as the wealth was built. The only real income in an inheritance situation is a life insurance payout, that's the only "new money". 

We are double-taxed in many ways. I never thought we would take it sitting down when last year's tax refund became this year's additional income. They are taxing us on the same money twice and all us sheep just took it. Real estate tax and personal property tax are paid every year, over and over again for the same thing. The old RV, we've paid personal property tax on it 20 times now! Even sales tax is collected more times than it should be. When Enterprise originally bought my car, they paid sales tax on it. Then when I bought it from Enterprise, I paid sales tax on it again. And when I sell it, the buyer will be paying sales tax again, and so on. So the state could be getting sales tax on $50k by the time it is said and done, on a $20k car. The more often it is sold, the better for them. 

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when you need a lawyer and accountant to be able to die properly!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

poppy said:


> That's taken care of in the fair tax. Everyone, rich and poor, gets a check from the government at the beginning of every month called a "prebate" that covers the taxes a family (depending on size) would pay that month for necessities. Those earning little money wouldn't spend enough beyond necessities to pay any tax. However, the guy buying a yacht or jet is going to pay a boatload of taxes. Isn't that what you want?



Nope I don't wanna pay any taxes at all. 
So the fair tax plan is to pay every bodies taxes ?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Wiscto Wait a second !
> If we take 100 percent of one mans wealth and one percent of an others isn't that redistributing wealth ?
> In fact if we take ANYTHING from those making less that $ 75,000 a year isn't it redistributing wealth ?


No no no. Money doesn't really belong to us. It belongs to the magical self regulating free market. Just turn your personal debt over to the banks and pay the interest on the taxes you couldn't pay when you were 18 for the next 50 years of your life, lumped right in with the student loans you had to take out because you went into debt just trying to pay your taxes when you were in high-school. We can't call it wealth redistribution if it was never ours. ;-)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I can pretty much summarize what this country would look like if YH had his way. Not only would someone making 5,999 dollars a year be required to pay 6,000 in taxes, but the government would not be allowed to cut that person a check because Congress is only allowed to levy taxes to promote what YH personally considers to be an effort to improve the "general welfare."
> 
> Some day down the road, we'll be faced with an emergency. Maybe a war. We'll need to raise taxes or multiply the "national" debt by magnitudes we can't possibly handle. So we raise the tax rate, but we raise it the exact same amount for everyone so as to NEVER redistribute wealth under any circumstances. 25,000 three years in a row, because among other things we need new lasers for our satellite gunboats or China will have us by the throat. We drive most of our own people into personal debt (to their own government), and then we allow banks to offer them loans to pay their taxes (because the private markets are self regulating saints)...essentially buying their debt and owning their lives the way they pretty much already own them through the government's debt. Nobody would have money for health insurance, but hey, maybe some of those charities will open their doors and the average American will finally run into the arms of their feudal lords (some of whom probably told the government to just raise taxes on the rich). Because Congress will not have the right to raise taxes to build government run hospitals. That would be unconstitutional, because YH says so.
> 
> All so that we never redistribute wealth. Under ANY circumstances. It's unconstitutional ya know...


my my, you seem to have such a grasp of my thinking. Let's take this elephant one bite at a time ok? Let's start with that "improve the general welfare" thing. Congress has the power to levy taxes for basically two things, to "promote the general welfare and to provide the common defense of the United States. I have no quarrel with how the founders outlined the basic power to tax and established the parameters of how it can be used in that statement. Especially when they went on to list exactly which powers could be used by congress to accomplish those goals, and limited congress to those powers and those powers alone. 

There is a big difference between promote and provide. Ther is also a big difference between individuals and the United States. Ther may be some difference in being 18trillion and climbing in debt and what some would call promoting the general welfare too.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> my my, you seem to have such a grasp of my thinking. Let's take this elephant one bite at a time ok? Let's start with that "improve the general welfare" thing. Congress has the power to levy taxes for basically two things, to "promote the general welfare and to provide the common defense of the United States. I have no quarrel with how the founders outlined the basic power to tax and established the parameters of how it can be used in that statement. Especially when they went on to list exactly which powers could be used by congress to accomplish those goals, and limited congress to those powers and those powers alone.
> 
> There is a big difference between promote and provide. Ther is also a big difference between individuals and the United States. Ther may be some difference in being 18trillion and climbing in debt and what some would call promoting the general welfare too.


You still think that the first listed item was not actually on the list. Not one of the other clauses provided any kind of parameter for general welfare at all...but you keep saying it does. Amazing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Like who? The three biggest pieces of the pie, by far, are defense/social security-welfare/healthcare. The only large piece you might get people interested in cutting is pensions, and then you have a huge public sector who sure as hell won't vote to cut social security, because this 6,000 dollar whiplash you think they're going to suffer under is really only hurting the people who can't afford it at all. If everyone is paying 6,000 in taxes, including the growing number of 22-40 year olds in the 19k-37k tax bracket, there is no way in hell they're going to vote to reduce any of the social programs. With everything going on in the world, and the fact that more and more people are dependent on the defense industry for jobs, no one is going to accept cuts to defense either.


The biggest slice of the pie is social programs, coming in at roughly 2/3 of our annual expenditures, followed up by defense accounting for about 1/4 with the remaining 1/6th going to all the other misc items needed to run the government.

I am pretty sure that a great many would vote to cut social programs if they were asked to pay for them. Some how those programs sound great when they are paid for with someone else's money. When paid for with ones own money??? Not so good anymore. I noticed that even you get a bit balky about paying your fair share of the total bill. Or did I misread that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The biggest slice of the pie is social programs, coming in at roughly 2/3 of our annual expenditures


That's simply not true. The national budget looks like the pie chart below. You can't logically include Social Security & Medicare in the national budget because it's supported by subscriber contributions. SS & Medicare are self-sustaining programs. They are only administrated by the government. Without SS & Medicare the budget looks very different.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You still think that the first listed item was not actually on the list. Not one of the other clauses provided any kind of parameter for general welfare at all...but you keep saying it does. Amazing.


Regulating commerce between the states and other countries is on that list... Post roads was too, along with establishing standards for weights and measure, protecting a mans right to profit by his own creativity through patents, then ther is that whole monetary thing and other items that the founders understood would be necessary to promote the general welfare of the United States. Our economy could thrive with those things in place. As I think Jefferson wrote, had they meant to grant congress with the unbridled powers that would apply with your interpretation they would have done so. Your interpretation grants congress the right to do anything they please withou restrictions at all. Amazing that some can't understand the very simple language of the constitution. Sometimes I think they really don't want to.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why do you suppose veterans benefits are not included in defense spending


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's simply not true. The national budget looks like the pie chart below. You can't logically include Social Security & Medicare in the national budget because it's supported by subscriber contributions. SS & Medicare are self-sustaining programs. They are only administrated by the government. Without SS & Medicare the budget looks very different.


What is income security?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That's simply not true. The national budget looks like the pie chart below. You can't logically include Social Security & Medicare in the national budget because it's supported by subscriber contributions. SS & Medicare are self-sustaining programs. They are only administrated by the government. Without SS & Medicare the budget looks very different.


without all the other unconstitutional programs our budget would look different too.... Almost manageable.... But those expenses are there and we are now 18 trillion in debt because of them. I had heard some noise about SS being privatized but wasn't aware that had actually taken place, my direct deposits are still coming from the U.S. Treasury.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Regulating commerce between the states and other countries is on that list... Post roads was too, along with establishing standards for weights and measure, protecting a mans right to profit by his own creativity through patents, then ther is that whole monetary thing and other items that the founders understood would be necessary to promote the general welfare of the United States. Our economy could thrive with those things in place. As I think Jefferson wrote, had they meant to grant congress with the unbridled powers that would apply with your interpretation they would have done so. Your interpretation grants congress the right to do anything they please withou restrictions at all. Amazing that some can't understand the very simple language of the constitution. Sometimes I think they really don't want to.


Wow. That is a massive reach, and your interpretation of the grammatical structure of the Constitution is total horse crap to begin with. We've already established that you don't even know what you're talking about. You keep quoting people as if their words are gospel when they were in a DEBATE with other founders from the very beginning. Remember when you admitted that you haven't read the Federalist Papers in their entirety? Remember that? You keep using one quote or another to support YOUR version of what the Constitution was intended to accomplish, because you're ignorant to the fact that other founders disagreed with you. Go read it. Find everything you can on the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Go read the Federalist Papers. And then get back to me.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

no really said:


> What is income security?


No idea. These guys provide a better chart and an explanation. This is just 2015 I believe.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...art-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...tution-has-led-to-serious-erosion-of-freedom/

Short simple presentation on how we got to where are with our government.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

LOL 

The Blaze...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

no really said:


> What is income security?


Welfare and disability unemployment etc.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> No idea. These guys provide a better chart and an explanation. This is just 2015 I believe.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...art-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/


It always cracks me up, mandatory and discretionary... Discretionary is those expenses actually defined in the constitution while mandatory is all the garbage prohibited by it. :hysterical:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It always cracks me up, mandatory and discretionary... Discretionary is those expenses actually defined in the constitution while mandatory is all the garbage prohibited by it. :hysterical:


Might as well laugh at your own jokes. It's still just a pie chart, Jeeves. I would have thought you'd ask where they got the "remainder" from, but I guess you're busy right now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Wow. That is a massive reach, and your interpretation of the grammatical structure of the Constitution is total horse crap to begin with. We've already established that you don't even know what you're talking about. You keep quoting people as if their words are gospel when they were in a DEBATE with other founders from the very beginning. Remember when you admitted that you haven't read the Federalist Papers in their entirety? Remember that? You keep using one quote or another to support YOUR version of what the Constitution was intended to accomplish, because you're ignorant to the fact that other founders disagreed with you. Go read it. Find everything you can on the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Go read the Federalist Papers. And then get back to me.


true, I have not read the federalist papers, and there are some other things I haven't read either, I hear war and peace is good reading and mien kamp is also interesting. They are both on my todo list. I have however read the constitution and have a very good grasp of what it says. I do recall bringing forward bits and pieces of the constitution but I think you have me confused with others who brought forward quotes contained in other sources. I. Also recall asking you for quotes that support your interpretation numerous times and basically got crickets chirping. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Might as well laugh at your own jokes. It's still just a pie chart, Jeeves. I would have thought you'd ask where they got the "remainder" from, but I guess you're busy right now.


I presume "other" would be interest on the debt since it sounds about 
right and is not listed separately.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> true, I have not read the federalist papers, and there are some other things I haven't read either, I hear war and peace is good reading and mien kamp is also interesting. They are both on my todo list. I have however read the constitution and have a very good grasp of what it says. I do recall bringing forward bits and pieces of the constitution but I think you have me confused with others who brought forward quotes contained in other sources. I.
> 
> Also recall asking you for quotes that support your interpretation numerous times and basically got crickets chirping. :shrug:


That first part of your post would be real clever if it didn't reveal the fact that you've quoted the Federalist Papers several times over the last month without even knowing where your quotes came from. Context is important. If you knew the context, you wouldn't be so sure that you "stand with the founders." Because you wouldn't be so sure that they stand with you. 

"My interpretation" is not my interpretation. I've told you that before. You're the one slamming more than 200 years of government while cherry picking quotes. I've told you exactly where your quotes came from and who disagreed with them. You don't have to educate yourself, but don't ask me to do the work for you when we're talking about that much history.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> the rich can hide what they make.


Yet "the rich" pay almost all the taxes


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Nobody likes taxes. Nobody likes the budget. We're all stuck with it, and spending is unfortunately going to have to be a separate issue, because until we're not spending it we're all going to have to pay for it (now or later). This conversation got out of control, as far as I'm concerned. The dramatic reaction to one persons opinion has driven us down this conversation of "taxes."
> 
> It's a complicated mess, but I don't really believe in the family farm or the family business being taxed when inherited, and I do think there should be a minimum amount that has to be there before inheritance is taxed.
> 
> ...


Exactly when did we agree to this taking care of each other? And who exactly is we?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Exactly when did we agree to this taking care of each other? And who exactly is we?


I musta been out the day this agreement took place because I don't recomember it either. As near as I have been able to figure out "we" would be those of us who work scrimp and save and "they" have put us in charge of taking care of "them" since "they" can't seem to get their own poop in a group enough to take care of themselves. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> That first part of your post would be real clever if it didn't reveal the fact that you've quoted the Federalist Papers several times over the last month without even knowing where your quotes came from. Context is important. If you knew the context, you wouldn't be so sure that you "stand with the founders." Because you wouldn't be so sure that they stand with you.
> 
> "My interpretation" is not my interpretation. I've told you that before. You're the one slamming more than 200 years of government while cherry picking quotes. I've told you exactly where your quotes came from and who disagreed with them. You don't have to educate yourself, but don't ask me to do the work for you when we're talking about that much history.


Ahhh cmon, don't be like that.... Share a link with us poor uneducated bumpkins. Tell us all about how Thomas Paine begged whined and pleaded for social programs, but sadly his pleas were rejected when the boys put together their great compromise. If I recomember right he is buried in a paupers grave not far from the house given to him to live out his last broke and penniless years. Source: Stan Elsworth, American ride on BYU.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

wr said:


> I thought it intrusive and insulting that several other neighbors had the nerve to contact myself and my son to offer their opinions on this matter, one going so far as to contact my youngest and tell him that his grandfather was 'selling his legacy.'
> 
> Regardless what a person decides to do with their belongings, it is nobody else's business.


Well, perhaps the neighbors just wanted to make sure that you knew what your Dad was doing? My Grandmother had ended up with the family farm even though she had 11 other siblings. I'm not quite certain how that ever came about - if Grandma actually paid for the farm - or maybe it was because some of the other siblings didn't want to farm, or maybe no one wanted to care for their father in his older age. 

At any rate, my Grandmother had married my Grandfather and somehow they ended up with the farm. After Grandfather died, she got remarried to . . . . . well . . . . . he seemed to be good for her, but Grandma did make sure to keep her assets apart from her new husband. Not sure if it was her doing - or something to do he was married twice before and had his own kids to the first wife.

So, they kept separate accounts but at one point I am fairly certain he influenced her to sell some land. The farm had been divided by a major highway in the 60's, and the majority of the land they sold was wooded, but the thing is they sold the land first and then they told my Father that it had been sold.

Dad never said much about it, but I always thought it was strange that Grandma would sell it without even discussing it with her only son. And truth be told, I always assumed the farm would go to my Dad and then would be passed on to me with me paying my siblings for their share.

That didn't happen though. My Mother had died and my Dad had got remarried to a lady with two adult daughters. The one daughter and her husband certainly seemed to take to my Dad's "farming". Raising beef cattle and making hay. They seemed to have all kinds of ideas and Dad provided the money.

A deal was struck where my Dad filled out paperwork that upon his death the farm immediately went to the step-daughter and her husband and they paid myself and my 3 siblings $15,000.00 each. That's $60,000.00 for a farm with over 100 acres and several gas wells and free gas. Of course, the "deal" wasn't even mentioned to me or my siblings. We weren't told about it until about a year later on a "Oh, by the way . . . . . ." Not sure why the Step-sister was left out of the deal - I would guess because the farm was Dad's family land.

Although oddly enough, another parcel of property that my Mother and Dad had owned for years almost since they first got married, had to be split evenly among all 4 of us blood kids, plus the 2 Step-sisters.

My advise for anyone getting remarried where both people have adult children is to know ahead of time how things are to be split upon the death of one - and if all children - blood or step are to get the estate after the surviving spouse passes, or if the money and assets will be kept separate and the children of the deceased spouse gets their share upon the death.

I'm quite certain my Dad had married a "gold digger" and her plan was to survive my Dad and pass everything on to her precious 2 daughters, leaving us step children out of the mix. Unfortunately, for her, her plan didn't work, as she died after a very sudden illness - but her one daughter was just as conniving as the the mother.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Oldshep said:


> I have noticed that among people around the internet these days, there seems to be a sort of negative opinion about inheritance, and some even go so far as to say that there should be no such thing.
> 
> I'm wondering what some of the opinions are here about it. Here I have built this piece of raw land into an income producing home for my wife and son. These days everything I do is with the hope of building it into more so that my son can have a better life and not have to go through some of the tough things that I did. Otherwise, why would I bother doing more than is absolutely necessary to just get by? Whats the point of building something if I can't pass it on?
> 
> Why is that wrong? And why the negativity toward inheritance?


Nothing wrong if that is your choice and many multigenerational family farms and businesses have done it and some still do.

My parents began with nothing and built into a 47 acre farm while at the same time launching me into education for me to pursue my professional career and build my own foundation for my future.

In my teens and early 20s my parents took establishing me to inherit their farm if my own future plans drew up short just in case.

As I progressed into my life and got married my parents gave me the down payment for my house and first three acres.

As they aged I asked them both to not consider me to inherit their 47 acres and instead keep it as security to cash in if they need to for health reasons or whatever and reminded them that the wedding present down payment had already made my life better than what they had started with. 

Of course my attitude didn't sit well with my ex wife which probably added to the circumstances that led to her becoming my ex wife.

Over the years I have expanded my house and acreage to over 20 acres, was able to help my father live out his years on his acreage without them having to cash it in for his end life care and now I help my mother to augment her income by selling hay and timber from her property and leasing pasture while she has it still available to cash out for her end of life care if it becomes necessary.

As her health is better than mine I suspect her to outlive me and she is the primary beneficiary of my estate to do with it as she chooses with it.

She apparently has reverted back to the inheritance situation she and my father held when I was in school.

If I do outlive her I will probably continue leasing the pastures as we have for 25 years and hope I get to curl my toes in my own home.

Inheritance to me is not a big issue as my parents and grandparents both started without a window or pot and my parents launched me in a similar fashion but with a small seed to start my future and although I probably could have done better, I didn't do too bad having to pay a woman part of what I saved to not live with me anymore during the decades of my trek that have passed so far.

To me money and land are just things and the true inheritance I got was the perspective to be happy with my own accomplishments as I age and increasingly hear my father's voice come out when I open my mouth to say something. :shrug:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ahhh cmon, don't be like that.... Share a link with us poor uneducated bumpkins. Tell us all about how Thomas Paine begged whined and pleaded for social programs, but sadly his pleas were rejected when the boys put together their great compromise. If I recomember right he is buried in a paupers grave not far from the house given to him to live out his last broke and penniless years. Source: Stan Elsworth, American ride on BYU.


See... While you look things up on the fly and try to impress everyone, I already know American history. For example, I know that Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams all believed that general taxes "for general welfare" were okay for Congress as long as they were general taxes and not limited to specific states or regions. I know they disagreed completely with Jefferson's "narrow definition." I know that Thomas Jefferson was so intent on undermining Hamilton that Washington never spoke to him again after Jefferson left his cabinet.

I know that you've completely misread Jefferson in the first place. While Jefferson distrusted the banks and a central national government, he also did not say what you think he said. You think he's saying that they can't just tax anything they want. What he's actually saying is that they can't DO whatever they want, they may only TAX for the general welfare.



> &#8220;*[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.* They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or *provide for the welfare of the Union*. In like manner, *they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.&#8221;*


I also know that in order to pay for the Louisiana purchase, Jefferson borrowed money from two banks and drove us deeper into debt, and that *eventually we raised taxes to help pay off that debt.* Jefferson himself claimed that he stretched the Constitution. James Madison, one of your other favorites, told him not to worry...it was well within the interpretation of the Constitution. The Federalists (who sided with Washington, Adams, and Hamilton on General Welfare) pointed out that the government didn't actually have the authority to purchase land without the states ratifying the treaty. We did it anyway. 

I know that your two favorite founders trashed the Constitution when it suited them, and one of their buddies killed Hamilton because what he believed did not suit them. I know that you would know that if you knew _enough_.

I know that you think every time I refuse to post a quote that you think you're winning. And I don't care. Because I can tell by your posts how much you don't know.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wiscto said:


> > &#8220;*[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.* They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or *provide for the welfare of the Union*. In like manner, *they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.&#8221;*
> 
> 
> I know that you've completely misread Jefferson in the first place. While Jefferson distrusted the banks and a central national government, he also did not say what you think he said. You think he's saying that they can't just tax anything they want. *What he's actually saying is that they can't DO whatever they want, they may only TAX for the general welfare.*


What exactly does that mean......that they can't DO whatever they want?

If they are not to DO anything they please to provide for the general welfare, doesn't that sort of blow the healthcare issue apart??


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Wow. I walk away from this thread for a day and we're 4 more pages in and debating Thomas Jefferson?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet "the rich" pay almost all the taxes



Why do you rob banks ?
" cause that's where the money is "
It's totally meaningless statistic. 
How wealthy do you have to be ?
Do you mean those with lots of wealth or lots of income ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They must not be very good at hiding it, tradionally the richest 15% are paying 85% of all income tax collected by the federal government. It varies somewhat depending on several factors but that is a close average.
> .



Totally meaningless
IRS doesn't even keep track of wealth. 
Does anybody ?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Totally meaningless
> IRS doesn't even keep track of wealth.
> Does anybody ?


The property tax collector keeps track if its titled or tagged...


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Totally meaningless
> IRS doesn't even keep track of wealth.
> Does anybody ?


Upon death, every estate must declare the wealth of the estate. So while they don't track annually, they do establish wealth at least once for everyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Why do you rob banks ?
> " cause that's where the money is "
> It's totally meaningless statistic.
> How wealthy do you have to be ?
> Do you mean those with lots of wealth or lots of income ?


The figures I have seen were based upon income tax returns, those in the top 15% group accounted for about 85% of revenue taken in by the IRS. One can logically deduce that those with the highest incomes are likely to have more accumulated wealth than those in low income brackets.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Why do you rob banks ?
> " cause that's where the money is "
> It's totally meaningless statistic.
> How wealthy do you have to be ?
> Do you mean those with lots of wealth or lots of income ?


How wealthy do you have to be?
As wealthy as you can be :cowboy:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> See... While you look things up on the fly and try to impress everyone, I already know American history. For example, I know that Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams all believed that general taxes "for general welfare" were okay for Congress as long as they were general taxes and not limited to specific states or regions. I know they disagreed completely with Jefferson's "narrow definition." I know that Thomas Jefferson was so intent on undermining Hamilton that Washington never spoke to him again after Jefferson left his cabinet.
> 
> I know that you've completely misread Jefferson in the first place. While Jefferson distrusted the banks and a central national government, he also did not say what you think he said. You think he's saying that they can't just tax anything they want. What he's actually saying is that they can't DO whatever they want, they may only TAX for the general welfare.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the quote, context being important can you give us a link? I would like to see how it fits into what ever the rest had to say since the part you quoted supports my thinking on this subject. The Louisiana purchase was a treaty, well within the boundaries laid out in constitution.... It was also a pretty good deal from a real estate view point.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

According to one source a income of about $115,000 put you in the top 15% but a income of over twice that is needed to get into the top 2%


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One can logically deduce that those with the highest incomes are likely to have more accumulated wealth than those in low income brackets.



Nope there isn't any logic in that. 
Remember income as defined for tax purposes is essentially wages.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> The property tax collector keeps track if its titled or tagged...


Good point and the assessor keeps track off real estate. 
But these are just parts of wealth. 



nchobbyfarm said:


> Upon death, every estate must declare the wealth of the estate. So while they don't track annually, they do establish wealth at least once for everyone.



Good point but estates don't contain much of the wealth of the rich.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Nope there isn't any logic in that.
> Remember income as defined for tax purposes is essentially wages.


I would make a calculated guess that would be correct if you go by the number of tax returns filed, but if you go by dollar amounts we might see the scales tipping towards "unearned income" being the tax generator. Stock dividends, capital gains, other return on investments, interest charges, rents, business profits. I am thinking those income figures will outrun the wage earners that file w2s.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Good point and the assessor keeps track off real estate.
> But these are just parts of wealth.
> 
> 
> ...


Estates contain all of the wealth of the dead rich. And I am pretty sure even the wealthiest die at some point.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> What exactly does that mean......that they can't DO whatever they want?
> 
> If they are not to DO anything they please to provide for the general welfare, doesn't that sort of blow the healthcare issue apart??


All it means is that their power was to tax. They couldn't reorganize the state boundaries and call it general welfare. All they could do was raise taxes intended to promote the general welfare. That's all Jefferson was saying. And he wasn't the end all authority on the matter anyway. 



Oldshep said:


> Wow. I walk away from this thread for a day and we're 4 more pages in and debating Thomas Jefferson?


Excellent contribution. I agree. Constantly quoting Thomas Jefferson and then pretending that's enough to legitimize one view of the Constitution is asinine. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the quote, context being important can you give us a link? I would like to see how it fits into what ever the rest had to say since the part you quoted supports my thinking on this subject. The Louisiana purchase was a treaty, well within the boundaries laid out in constitution.... It was also a pretty good deal from a real estate view point.


Yea. I can give you a link, even though I'm positive you thought I wouldn't be able to. And no, it doesn't support your thinking, because he's saying the opposite of what you think. He's legitimizing Congress' ability to lay taxes for the purpose of promoting the general welfare. And you seem to be avoiding the rest of my post again. Or maybe you've finally decided to stop asking me to hold your hand through American history and now you've decided to actually read up on the debate which occurred between the founding fathers as the country was forced to actually govern itself.

LOL look at you rewriting history. 

1. But... But... YH. The power to acquire new territory is not specifically listed in the Constitution! I thought you said that the Constitution was simple to read! I thought you said the government only has the power to do what it specifically documented in the Constitution! Where's the language, Jeeves? Where does the Constitution list the power to acquire new territory? It doesn't. And according to you (and Jefferson...well...Jefferson before he was president) that means the power to acquire new territory belonged to the states....what a mess that would have been. But don't worry. Just like the Supreme Court legitimized social security, the Supreme Court legitimized the power to purchase new territory with the American Insurance Co. vs 356 Bales of Cotton (Cantor) decision. 

2. Speaking of the Constitution. The Louisiana Purchase contained language stating that French and Spanish shipping would be able to pay cheaper taxes in the port of New Orleans...but not the rest of the country. How is that a violation? Article 1 Section 9...."No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." 

Now now. You wouldn't be supporting the power of treaties to violate the Constitution, would you? Especially considering Congress is required to ratify such treaties? That would be an awfully powerful central government... 

Face it man. Jefferson stopped being a "constructionist" the day he was sworn into office. He sent Marines to Tripoli without a declaration of war. He enhanced the power of the treaty to the point where the government could pretty much do whatever it wanted as long as it was an international treaty....something you folks around here love to be paranoid about, ironically enough. His entire presidency flies in the face of everything you believe, which you falsely attributed to "standing with the founders."

I know you'll get all the "likes" from everyone who wants to believe that everything and anything they don't like about our government is just "unconstitutional". I don't care. Anyone who actually knows the evolution of this country knows that you're just flat wrong. *The fact that you didn't think the Louisiana Purchase would be unconstitutional according to your own interpretation says everything about your interpretation of the Constitution that really needs to be said.*

Oh yea. Here's your links. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Robert George: Has the Federal Government Crossed a Line?
07:58


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/federal-government-crossed-line-14436205

Princeton professor who moderated at a presidential debate in 2011 
A educator on the constitution. Exploring the over growth on the federal powers


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Good point and the assessor keeps track off real estate.
> But these are just parts of wealth.
> 
> 
> ...


Real estate is the majority of my wealth but they cant tax knowledge yet...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Thanks for the links, that once again support my arguments that the general welfare clause is not a power granted, but rather a limitation of taxing power, reinforced by the enumerated powers granted immediately following. They also confirm my opinion that was how our federal government was ran up until 1936 when FDR pulled his shenanigans with the Supreme Court.

None of this has anything to do with likes my posts. My sole purpose here is to educate and to be educated. I have learned a lot from these discussions on this board over the past decade, hopefully so have others.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Estates contain all of the wealth of the dead rich. And I am pretty sure even the wealthiest die at some point.



Um 

No 

You are forgetting lots of things. 
Like trusts and uninventoried art. 
And anything hidden from the tax man.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Um
> 
> No
> 
> ...


Trusts are hidden? :hysterical:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the links, that once again support my arguments that the general welfare clause is not a power granted, but rather a limitation of taxing power, reinforced by the enumerated powers granted immediately following. They also confirm my opinion that was how our federal government was ran up until 1936 when FDR pulled his shenanigans with the Supreme Court.


Again. Everything you think is according to one interpretation of the Constitution. One MAN'S interpretation of the Constitution in particular, it seems. One man who crapped all over his own constructionist views as soon as he was in office and was forced to actually govern. Your goal isn't to be educated. Your goal is to believe what you want to believe and ignore any details which might complicate your beliefs. You are willfully ignorant. You're a dodge ball champion. But hey, at least your good at ducking well thrown balls all while pretending you didn't even see them. That's a metaphor, in case you were wondering.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Trusts are hidden? :hysterical:


Do you really not understand the function of the word "and" in the English language? He said nothing of the sort, Jeeves.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wiscto said:


> Do you really not understand the function of the word "and" in the English language? He said nothing of the sort, Jeeves.


Be honest now, his posts are hard to follow, and you are guessing at whatever he was rambling about :hysterical:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Be honest now, his posts are hard to follow, and you are guessing at whatever he was rambling about :hysterical:


If you use a few more emotes I might believe that you didn't just fail first grade reading.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the links, that once again support my arguments that the general welfare clause is not a power granted, but rather a limitation of power, reinforced by the enumerated powers granted immediately following. They also confirm my opinion that was how our federal government was ran up until 1936 when FDR pulled his shenanigans with the Supreme Court.



Yep, but I think the teaching of the constitution has truly changed over the years to adapt and nudge the next generation of people into a direction that our views matched with our increasing age will justify the label of dementia when we talk of limited government...Yep pro gun rights.... dementia.. work for what you need and want.... dementia .... private property rights....dementia.

Yes,I am hopeing that in the future us sarcastic.... but the future is untold.

I can say this because in.order for my son to get extra credit he sometimes drove with his learners permit in the dark to his school to attend Skype seminars on such topics at 4 am and 5 am. I can't drive in the dark in the winter time it meant I was stranded at the school so I got to attend his Skype stuff.. I learned America was set up and still is a democracy... news to me..there were 3 of the extra credit classes and each on did cover the role of big government to the rescue... very low logically..


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wiscto said:


> If you use a few more emotes I might believe that you didn't just fail first grade reading.


I guess being a member of the mod squad, you can get away with being insulting and calling names.
I didn't realize there was a rule limiting the funny little faces
thanks for pointing that out boss man 
(oops, sorry, that one slipped)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Robert George: Has the Federal Government Crossed a Line?
> 07:58
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting this. He seems to be knowledgable enough but I was always taught our "bill of rights" consisted of the first ten amendments, not the first eight. :shrug:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Be honest now, his posts are hard to follow, and you are guessing at whatever he was rambling about :hysterical:



They are ?
How would you have worded it ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Honest kasilofhome the said it was a democracy ?
Wow


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> I guess being a member of the mod squad, you can get away with being insulting and calling names.
> I didn't realize there was a rule limiting the funny little faces
> thanks for pointing that out boss man
> (oops, sorry, that one slipped)


Oh I'm on the mod squad? I didn't even know. Maybe I can remove that infraction I got yesterday. 

I didn't realize that you didn't realize that I was not realizing any such rule limiting funny little faces. I also didn't realize that I was saying you shouldn't use them. I do realize that I was making a bold assumption about why you use them. I suspect you'll use a few more now, but that suspicion may not be realized.

I also didn't realize that you did not realize that you were insulting AS when I decided to step in. 

I also didn't realize that I was your boss.

I also didn't realize that Jeeves was an insult. Jeeves is a fictional character who is a real gentlemen of sorts, and you are nothing if not a gentleman. You and YH both. 

:bash: (oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops, oops,... ... etc.) Don't worry, I used copy and paste.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Again. Everything you think is according to one interpretation of the Constitution. One MAN'S interpretation of the Constitution in particular, it seems. One man who crapped all over his own constructionist views as soon as he was in office and was forced to actually govern. Your goal isn't to be educated. Your goal is to believe what you want to believe and ignore any details which might complicate your beliefs. You are willfully ignorant. You're a dodge ball champion. But hey, at least your good at ducking well thrown balls all while pretending you didn't even see them. That's a metaphor, in case you were wondering.


I read all three of the links you provided, all three said pretty much the same things I have been saying all along, and not one had anything to support your notion of an "anything goes" granting of power prior to 1936, well over a century after the founders put our nation together. I also picked up on the fact that more than one man held the same interpretation on It as I do. They were called Supreme Court justices in at least four cases that made it to their court... Pre 1937 of course. It's pretty easy to dodge non existent balls. Do you by chance have other links that support your arguments? You know the kind, something that even remotely suggests that the founders granted congress unlimited powers to do whatever they pleased if it might be good for the country.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I read all three of the links you provided, all three said pretty much the same things I have been saying all along, and not one had anything to support your notion of an anything goes granting of power prior to 1936, well over a century after the founders put our nation together. It's pretty easy to dodge non existent balls. Do you by chance have other links that support your arguments? You know the kind, something that even remotely suggests that the founders granted congress unlimited powers to do whatever they pleased if it might be good for the country.


You asked me to provide links of where I got the Thomas Jefferson quote, and that's all I did... It isn't my fault that you can't hold onto the context of the conversation long enough to understand that I wasn't trying to provide you links supporting my interpretation. It also isn't my fault that you still haven't correctly read what Thomas Jefferson was saying. 

I also didn't hold a gun to your head and say, "Hey. Hey. Don't read ANYTHING Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, or John Adams said during their dispute with Thomas Jefferson over the power and authority of the central government...or anyone else who disagreed with his interpretation. Just keep asking me to provide quotes for you even though this is American History 101 for anyone who actually studied the founding fathers."

And if you had actually read any of those links, you would have been aware of the divergence of views between the principal authors of the welfare clause...suggesting that your point of view isn't "the same as the founders." Which would suggest to any logical person that their point of view wasn't standing on such solid ground after all.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Honest kasilofhome the said it was a democracy ?
> Wow


Yes, three times a few kids turned to their teacher and attempted to question the remark and where told no talking.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> They are ?
> How would you have worded it ?


I'm not sure, maybe I just read it wrong (notice the complete absence of an emoticon here)


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm not sure, maybe I just read it wrong (notice the complete absence of an emoticon here)


:clap:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You asked me to provide links of where I got the Thomas Jefferson quote, and that's all I did... It isn't my fault that you can't hold onto the context of the conversation long enough to understand that I wasn't trying to provide you links supporting my interpretation. It also isn't my fault that you still haven't correctly read what Thomas Jefferson was saying.
> 
> I also didn't hold a gun to your head and say, "Hey. Hey. Don't read ANYTHING Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, or John Adams said during their dispute with Thomas Jefferson over the power and authority of the central government...or anyone else who disagreed with his interpretation. Just keep asking me to provide quotes for you even though this is American History 101 for anyone who actually studied the founding fathers."
> 
> And if you had actually read any of those links, you would have been aware of the divergence of views between the principal authors of the welfare clause...suggesting that your point of view isn't "the same as the founders." Which would suggest to any logical person that their point of view wasn't standing on such solid ground after all.


I did read the links, and have been fully aware that Hamilton in particular, along with others, wanted a stronger central government... And even revealed that fact after signing off on the great compromise. Another thing I picked up on was the fact that none of those early presidents set up any social programs or promoted an all powerful congress, they followed the principles of a limited congress, so did congress and the Supreme Court. At least up until 1936. In other words they stuck to their agreement in spite of their personal views.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I did read the links, and have been fully aware that Hamilton in particular, along with others, wanted a stronger central government... And even revealed that fact after signing off on the great compromise. Another thing I picked up on was the fact that none of those early presidents set up any social programs or promoted an all powerful congress, they followed the principles of a limited congress, so did congress and the Supreme Court. At least up until 1936. In other words they stuck to their agreement in spite of their personal views.


Another interpretation of an interpretation. It doesn't matter that they didn't start social programs. Like any typical propagandist, you're leaving out the question WHY they didn't want those programs, because you don't want that question answered, you would rather we all just go along with what you've decided to imply. But the unfortunate reality for you is... What matters is that *they didn't believe it was unconstitutional to do so*, and they said as much. Hamilton, by the way, WAS one of the two people who co-authored the welfare clause. So if Madison's opinion after the fact matters, then so does Hamilton's. If Jefferson's opinion matters, then so does Washington's. And yet you just keep right on quoting one and only one side of the argument, because you know that the existence of the other side...the mere existence...is a paradox that your views cannot be reconciled with. You have no moral authority. You have no historical authority. You only have an opinion. And in our system, in our representative democracy, that only matters when you vote. 

Your reasoning is unsound. The very first thing you said, the premise you've been clinging to obstinately for something like three weeks now, was that it's unconstitutional because the framers didn't intend for the clause to be taken literally, but the framers never agreed on that. And Jefferson, your hero, went against his constructionist views as soon as he was president. Madison clapped his hands, unwittingly undermining his own views of the Constitution.

They didn't agree, so it went to the courts, and the courts ruled. That's how our system works. That's the system they created. Jefferson's theories didn't even survive his own presidency. Madison contradicted himself, at once proposing roads and other infrastructure be built under the national authority, and somehow vetoing a bill to do just that. Their views didn't work in practice once we actually had to put the Constitution and our new government to the test. Washington, Hamilton, and Adams all knew this. As did the courts who eventually sided with them. So as I've said before... It isn't unconstitutional because it isn't unconstitutional. You can tell me I'm wrong, but you are proven wrong by the disunity of the founders whom you thought you could base your entire interpretation on.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Another interpretation of an interpretation. It doesn't matter that they didn't start social programs. Like any typical propagandist, you're leaving out the question WHY they didn't want those programs, because you don't want that question answered, you would rather we all just go along with what you've decided to imply. But the unfortunate reality for you is... What matters is that *they didn't believe it was unconstitutional to do so*, and they said as much. Hamilton, by the way, WAS one of the two people who co-authored the welfare clause. So if Madison's opinion after the fact matters, then so does Hamilton's. If Jefferson's opinion matters, then so does Washington's. And yet you just keep right on quoting one and only one side of the argument, because you know that the existence of the other side...the mere existence...is a paradox that your views cannot be reconciled with. You have no moral authority. You have no historical authority. You only have an opinion. And in our system, in our representative democracy, that only matters when you vote.
> 
> Your reasoning is unsound. The very first thing you said, the premise you've been clinging to obstinately for something like three weeks now, was that it's unconstitutional because the framers didn't intend for the clause to be taken literally, but the framers never agreed on that. And Jefferson, your hero, went against his constructionist views as soon as he was president. Madison clapped his hands, unwittingly undermining his own views of the Constitution.
> 
> They didn't agree, so it went to the courts, and the courts ruled. That's how our system works. That's the system they created. Jefferson's theories didn't even survive his own presidency. Madison contradicted himself, at once proposing roads and other infrastructure be built under the national authority, and somehow vetoing a bill to do just that. Their views didn't work in practice once we actually had to put the Constitution and our new government to the test. Washington, Hamilton, and Adams all knew this. As did the courts who eventually sided with them. So as I've said before... It isn't unconstitutional because it isn't unconstitutional. You can tell me I'm wrong, but you are proven wrong by the disunity of the founders whom you thought you could base your entire interpretation on.


More opinions? So far you have brought forward three links that contradict your opinion, and zero to support it. Oh, and their veiws seemed to have worked just fine up until 1936. Our nation grew from coast to coast, businesses thrived, we became a power to be reckoned with on a world wide scale.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> More opinions? So far you have brought forward three links that contradict your opinion, and zero to support it. Oh, and their veiws seemed to have worked just fine up until 1936. Our nation grew from coast to coast, businesses thrived, we became a power to be reckoned with on a world wide scale.


My argument was that the founders never agreed that what you said was true. My argument was that your claim that you stand with them was false BECAUSE they never agreed. The evidence of that actually is in those links, even though I merely provided those links to prove to you that Jefferson actually did say what I said he did; which you still fail to read correctly. 

Their views didn't work fine. You only think they did because you have a rather mild sampling of American history to work off of. The "only what is enumerated" interpretation of the Constitution was blatantly destroyed on multiple occasions. Your entire premise is a joke. And I'm done repeating myself. You have nothing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Yep, but I think the teaching of the constitution has truly changed over the years to adapt and nudge the next generation of people into a direction that our views matched with our increasing age will justify the label of dementia when we talk of limited government...Yep pro gun rights.... dementia.. work for what you need and want.... dementia .... private property rights....dementia.
> 
> Yes,I am hopeing that in the future us sarcastic.... but the future is untold.
> 
> I can say this because in.order for my son to get extra credit he sometimes drove with his learners permit in the dark to his school to attend Skype seminars on such topics at 4 am and 5 am. I can't drive in the dark in the winter time it meant I was stranded at the school so I got to attend his Skype stuff.. I learned America was set up and still is a democracy... news to me..there were 3 of the extra credit classes and each on did cover the role of big government to the rescue... very low logically..


there is no doubt in my mind that there are those who will keep chipping away until they get what they want.... A totally government controlled communist country. They are getting there, slowly perhaps, but it's the road we are on. We have come to the point now that there are those wanting to have the government seize our assets upon our demise.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> My argument was that the founders never agreed that what you said was true. My argument was that your claim that you stand with them was false BECAUSE they never agreed. The evidence of that actually is in those links, even though I merely provided those links to prove to you that Jefferson actually did say what I said he did; which you still fail to read correctly.
> 
> Their views didn't work fine. You only think they did because you have a rather mild sampling of American history to work off of. The "only what is enumerated" interpretation of the Constitution was blatantly destroyed on multiple occasions. Your entire premise is a joke. And I'm done repeating myself. * You have nothing*.


Oh, I dunno about all that.... I think the truth is something.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wisco.... is the abc news site a source acceptable to your standards...
Princeton constitution professor?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I dunno about all that.... I think the truth is something.


You've been refuted by the history you thought you knew. What the hell would you know about the truth when you are willing to quote people who were speaking in the context of something you admitted to have little knowledge of? The very existence of Alexander Hamilton, one half of the team that wrote the common welfare clause, refutes your entire argument. Just by existing. Just by the TRUTH we know about him and those who sided with him, your opinion that you stand with the founders is proven to be broken, uninformed, and ignorant of the TRUTH.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Wisco.... is the abc news site a source acceptable to your standards...
> Princeton constitution professor?


Yea it is. It just isn't relevant. He's talking about the tenth amendment, which applies to powers not granted to the federal government. Common welfare was granted to the federal government.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well he has another video that deals with just the welfare.... By the very same person. Would you like a link to that as it is relevant to the government and welfare?

Or is he not a person with some knowledge? Would you like to see and here him explain the welfare clause?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Yea it is. It just isn't relevant. He's talking about the tenth amendment, which applies to powers not granted to the federal government. Common welfare was granted to the federal government.


You do realize that if general welfare as you see it was granted there would be no point to the tenth amendment... Rendering it irrevelant for sure and for certain. That has been the crux of the discussion all along. I find it highly unlikely the founders would bothered with not only the tenth amendment, but with listing the very relevant enumerated powers in constitution. Les look at it another way. You give the boys several chores to do today, go over the list very carefully so they know exactly what is to be done.... Then tell them it ok if they go fishing instead. Why would you go to all the trouble to set up the rules if you have no intention they should follow them?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Well he has another video that deals with just the welfare.... By the very same person. Would you like a link to that as it is relevant to the government and welfare?
> 
> Or is he not a person a th some knowledge?


I really don't need it. I know what he's going to say. I know the debate. I know that other people "of knowledge" disagree with him. I know that you will hold him above the others because he agrees with you. I doubt very seriously that you would watch any videos I offer in counter, and even if you do I doubt very seriously that you or someone else won't sit there mocking all us "re9999d liberals." And I see absolutely no point in carrying on with this.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You do realize that if general welfare as you see it was granted there would be no point to the tenth amendment... Rendering it irrevelant for sure and for certain. That has been the crux of the discussion all along. I find it highly unlikely the founders would bothered with not only the tenth amendment, but with listing the very relevant enumerated powers in constitution. Les look at it another way. You give the boys several chores to do today, go over the list very carefully so they know exactly what is to be done.... Then tell them it ok if they go fishing instead. Why would you go to all the trouble to set up the rules if you have no intention they should follow them?


The general welfare clause has to do with taxes, it was a tax power granted to Congress. The tenth amendment is nothing more than a statement that anything not granted to the federal government or prohibited to it by the states belongs to the state or the people.... So again... You're making a correlation that doesn't exist. If you think that was the crux of the argument, you're arguing in a completely different universe.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> The general welfare clause has to do with taxes, it was a tax power granted to Congress. The tenth amendment is nothing more than a statement that anything not granted to the federal government or prohibited to it by the states belongs to the state or the people.... So again... You're making a correlation that doesn't exist. If you think that was the crux of the argument, you're arguing in a completely different universe.


Well you got me there, one of us must be from a different universe, mine operates on logic.... Has lots of plants and animals, sunny when not rainy or nighttime. What's yours like?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I really don't need it. I know what he's going to say. I know the debate. I know that other people "of knowledge" disagree with him. I know that you will hold him above the others because he agrees with you. I doubt very seriously that you would watch any videos I offer in counter, and even if you do I doubt very seriously that you or someone else won't sit there mocking all us "re9999d liberals." And I see absolutely no point in carrying on with this.


You know what he will say?
Fyi.. since you watch one of his and the ABC source that carried his interview was acceptable....but the same man that did that was posted on the blaze that simply copied a link... is worthless....per You.

That is a bias...discrimination.

You know.... what I think?
No..you are wrong.. I do watch and read from many sources..

Your loss. Your choice. ...now, you have shown and written that you not I censor sources.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Wisco, I am curious as to what age group you're in (20-30, 30-40 etc.), if you wouldn't mind sharing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> *The general welfare clause has to do with taxes, it was a tax power granted to Congress. *The tenth amendment is nothing more than a statement that anything not granted to the federal government or prohibited to it by the states belongs to the state or the people.... So again... You're making a correlation that doesn't exist. If you think that was the crux of the argument, you're arguing in a completely different universe.


I agree completely with you on this... It is what grants congress the power to levy taxes. And that is the only power it grants, period, end of story, fini!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> You know what he will say?
> Fyi.. since you watch one of his and the ABC source that carried his interview was acceptable....but the same man that did that was posted on the blaze that simply copied a link... is worthless....per You.
> 
> That is a bias...discrimination.
> ...


So there you are qualifying that you read from many sources, meanwhile you assume that I never have. Okay. Good for you... You're wrong. I do know what he's going to say. I've been in this debate many, many times. I've actually heard this guy's views before, because, see, some of us aren't really new to this argument. I don't know if that should really surprise you, considering he's a Princeton professor, and as you yourself witnessed he has been on ABC, but whatever.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree completely with you on this... It is what grants congress the power to levy taxes. And that is the only power it grants, period, end of story.


And Social Security is a tax. Oh uh... Guess what? So is an inheritance tax. Also a tax. You should work on your correlations.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> And Social Security is a tax. Oh uh... Guess what? So is an inheritance tax. Also a tax. You should work on your correlations.


Yep those are both taxes, no denying that. Now can you show me where the federal government is granted the power to give that money to any citizen other than as compensation for goods and or services provided? Where do they derive the power to hand anyone a check for any reason beyond just compensation?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> So there you are qualifying that you read from many sources, meanwhile you assume that I never have. Okay. Good for you... You're wrong. I do know what he's going to say. *I've been in this debate many, many times. * I've actually heard this guy's views before, because, see, some of us aren't really new to this argument. I don't know if that should really surprise you, considering he's a Princeton professor, and as you yourself witnessed he has been on ABC, but whatever.


and yet you still can't see the glaring problem with you argument.... Amazing! I spotted it right off.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yesterday, 03:41 PM
kasilofhome kasilofhome is online now


Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alaska- Kenai Pen- Kasilof
Posts: 9,661
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...on-of-freedom/

Short simple presentation on how we got to where are with our government.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
#185 Report Post 
Old Yesterday, 03:44 PM
wiscto wiscto is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,039
*LOL 

The Blaze...*



Same guy different link source

Kinda shows source of link mattered to you.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep those are both taxes, no denying that. Now can you show me where the federal government is granted the power to give that money to any citizen other than as compensation for goods and or services provided?


You're hilarious. Show me where its says in the Constitution that they can only give money to citizens for goods and services. Show me where it even says that they can purchase goods and services. Even that isn't enumerated. Maybe you should keep a copy clipped to your monitor...

Again. This is where the whole "only the enumerated powers" principal ran into a wall the second this country ratified the Constitution. And again. You're operating on the assumption that only your personal favorite theory, the limited definition of general welfare theory, is Constitutional. We're right back at the beginning. Now is when you try to defend your position by saying that you stand with the founders. After that is when I point out to you that you ARE NOT. You'll try to claim the historical authority and run smack into one of the authors of the general welfare clause, but you'll pretend he doesn't exist. It's a big circle. You're just a dog chasing his tail.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Yesterday, 03:41 PM
> kasilofhome kasilofhome is online now
> 
> 
> ...


I really never said that the source didn't matter, did I? Nope. You're arguing with your own imagination. Even ABC is more objective than The Blaze. I laugh at The Blaze because it's a joke of a source. But there are other places to hear conservative philosophy. If you were so worldly in your sources, you wouldn't have assumed that just because I hate The Blaze, I don't broaden my horizons. Hint.... You, my friend, are the presumptuous one here.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, prof Robert George doesn't change his position when teaching the subject of it is from abc or a link from the blaze... or Princeton.

The blaze and abc are both just the vehicle to the information... if it is information what does Lol mean..I thought it meant laughing out loud as it is a joke... silly me.

Well, regardless I stand with those that welfare... is not meant to be hand outs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You're hilarious.
> *Show me where its says in the Constitution that they can only give money to citizens for goods and services. *Show me where it even says that they can purchase goods and services. Even that isn't enumerated. Maybe you should keep a copy clipped to your monitor...
> 
> Again. This is where the whole "only the enumerated powers" principal ran into a wall the second this country ratified the Constitution. And again. You're operating on the assumption that only your personal favorite theory, the limited definition of general welfare theory, is Constitutional. We're right back at the beginning. Now is when you try to defend your position by saying that you stand with the founders. After that is when I point out to you that you ARE NOT. You'll try to claim the historical authority and run smack into one of the authors of the general welfare clause, but you'll pretend he doesn't exist. It's a big circle. You're just a dog chasing his tail.


I think that's in there, something about appropriating funds to pay debts. It really shouldn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out if one is to build and maintain post roads someone is going to want paid to provide that service. Those things were authorized. Social programs were not. So what have you come up with to justify Obama care? Or any of those other giveaway programs?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think that's in there, something about appropriating funds to pay debts. It really shouldn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out if one is to build and maintain post roads someone is going to want paid to provide that service. Those things were authorized. Social programs were not. So what have you come up with to justify Obama care? Or any of those other giveaway programs?


Don't look at me. You're the one who said we're to read the Constitution and only apply the enumerated powers. Where does it say Congress can pay for roads? Why the loose definition for debts?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Don't look at me. You're the one who said we're to read the Constitution and only apply the enumerated powers. Where does it say Congress can pay for roads? Why the loose definition for debts?


Try glancing down just a wee bit below your catch all general welfare phrase. It's in that list of enumerated powers granted to congress. What is loose about paying a debt. Seems pretty straight forward to me. A feller works for me I figure that's a debt so I pay him. I pay my bills figure the next feller should do the same.... It keeps me in good standing with the people I do business with. How do you handle debts in your universe?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Try glancing down just a wee bit below your catch all general welfare phrase. It's in that list of enumerated powers granted to congress. What is loose about paying a debt. Seems pretty straight forward to me. A feller works for me I figure that's a debt so I pay him. I pay my bills figure the next feller should do the same.... It keeps me in good standing with the people I do business with. How do you handle debts in your universe?


If the intent was for Congress to lay taxes for the construction of roads, why isn't it a specifically enumerated power? Who said they could go into debt building roads? Where is that authority in the Constitution? Since you're having a hard time understanding the question, I'll ask it again. Which enumerated power says, "Congress shall have the power to lay taxes or borrow money for the construction of roads..." ? What clause provides that power? 

If you're going to apply your rule to general welfare, you have to apply it to debt. Otherwise any old debt will do. We won't lay taxes for social security then, I guess we'll just borrow all of that money and pay it off as a debt. Get it now?

Don't worry. James Madison reduced himself to nonsense with his "only the enumerated powers" theory, too. He spent the better part of his retirement doctoring letters and documents to avoid the egg on his face. He even forged Jefferson's handwriting at least once.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Robert Morris...was in favor of the government paying for roads in the beginning.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Robert Morris...was in favor of the government paying for roads in the beginning.


Neat. I'm in favor of the government paying for roads now. Actually pretty much everyone was in favor of paying for roads. But it isn't a specifically enumerated power, so according to YH's theory, it is unconstitutional and we've been breaking the law for the better part of two centuries.


----------



## CircleStarRanch (Dec 24, 2010)

If you want to avoid government intervention when you pass-on, you can look into a "Living Trust". You are the Trustee and you put everything of worth into the name of the trust - mortgage, vehicles, etc. Then you designate your beneficiaries. My mother did this a number of years back, and when she passed on there was no probate. The Benificiary(s) decides if they want to keep some things in the trust name, other things can sold off, as it is the benificiarys' decision - no one elses. The government can't touch it.

Not sure at all how much it costs to set it up, but is certainly worth it in "the end"

My $0.02 worth

-Dutch


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wiscto said:


> If the intent was for Congress to lay taxes for the construction of roads, why isn't it a specifically enumerated power?


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> If the intent was for Congress to lay taxes for the construction of roads, why isn't it a specifically enumerated power? Who said they could go into debt building roads? Where is that authority in the Constitution? Since you're having a hard time understanding the question, I'll ask it again. Which enumerated power says, "Congress shall have the power to lay taxes or borrow money for the construction of roads..." ? What clause provides that power?
> 
> If you're going to apply your rule to general welfare, you have to apply it to debt. Otherwise any old debt will do. We won't lay taxes for social security then, I guess we'll just borrow all of that money and pay it off as a debt. Get it now?
> 
> Don't worry. James Madison reduced himself to nonsense with his "only the enumerated powers" theory, too. He spent the better part of his retirement doctoring letters and documents to avoid the egg on his face. He even forged Jefferson's handwriting at least once.


like I said, those are enumerated powers granted in Article one, section eight:
"to borrow money on the credit of the United States";
"To establish post offices and post roads";

Ok there is your answer as requested, perhaps you will now be so kind as to show us where congress is granted the power to set up and operate any kind of retirement program, welfare or other social program.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> like I said, those are enumerated powers granted in Article one, section eight:
> "to borrow money on the credit of the United States";
> "To establish post offices and post roads";
> 
> Ok there is your answer as requested, perhaps you will now be so kind as to show us where congress is granted the power to set up and operate any kind of retirement program, welfare or other social program.


Oh you mean "post offices and *post* roads?" Sorry. We only granted Congress the power to lay taxes for post roads. Who gave them the authority to pay for any other sort of road? You said "roads," not "post roads." Is that why you tried to cover it under "paying debts?"


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7.


Post roads. Read carefully.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

delete


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Post roads. Read carefully.


How many roads can you name that AREN'T used when delivering mail?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Oh you mean "post offices and *post* roads?" Sorry. We only granted Congress the power to lay taxes for post roads. Who gave them the authority to pay for any other sort of road? You said "roads," not "post roads." Is that why you tried to cover it under "paying debts?"


Nope I didn't try to hide it anywhere... Congress was granted the power to establish post offices as well as roads to connect them in order to "promote the general welfare of the nation". Now again please pray tell which of the enumerated powers do you think authorizes social programs as we know them today? SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> How many roads can you name that AREN'T used when delivering mail?


Prezacalutely.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

In the spirit of getting a derailed thread back on track.......wouldn't it suck if that inheritance check from your dear uncle couldn't be delivered because the mailman didn't have a road to drive his little jeep on?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You said "roads," not "post roads."


Actually I said nothing about any kind of roads.... You did. As you say... Read carefully.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> How many roads can you name that AREN'T used when delivering mail?


How many roads can you name that were ONLY built for the post office. This is what I'm getting at. Try to keep in mind that I'm not the one who things everything must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That'd be your buddy YH.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope I didn't try to hide it anywhere... Congress was granted the power to establish post offices as well as roads to connect them in order to "promote the general welfare of the nation". Now again please pray tell which of the enumerated powers do you think authorizes social programs as we know them today? SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc.


Oh we're back full circle again so soon? You know it's the general welfare clause. And now is when you say, "I stand with the founders," because you don't know that one of the two authors of the welfare clause was Alexander Hamilton...who would tell you that you're wrong. 

I thought maybe you'd try to stick to your guns on the whole "goods and services" thing. Still waiting for you to point that out to me in the Constitution. Remember, you're a literalist, so it has to be written in those words. Show me. Wait, don't go back and edit.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

It all comes back to this.

"The *Code of Laws of the United States of America*[1] (variously abbreviated to *Code of Laws of the United States*, *United States Code*, *U.S. Code*, or *U.S.C.*) is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States. It contains 52 titles,[2][3] and a further two titles have been proposed.["

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code

and the various legal codes of the individual states.

For those unhappy with how it is, consider getting away from this ether playground called internet and introduce bills to the appropriate legislative bodies and hope your bill grows into a law as those who came before and successfully altered the applicable legal codes did.

For those who may not fully understand how bills are introduced to the legislative bodies, the Schoolhouse Rock video from the 1970s entitled "I'm just a Bill" can be found in a search of youtube and still applies to the steps that have to be taken to change Legal Code.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Very little mail delivery here, lots of roads that never saw a mail man. Just saying.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> How many roads can you name that were ONLY built for the post office. This is what I'm getting at. Try to keep in mind that I'm not the one who things everything must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That'd be your buddy YH.


Only for the post office?
None.
Used by the post office to deliver and transport mail?
Nearly all of them, even the dirt roads through National forests. I know people that live there too.




painterswife said:


> Very little mail delivery here, lots of roads that never saw a mail man. Just saying.


Lots of roads that never saw one?
I guess that's possible, but I'd like to verify that no mail or packages were ever transported on them.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Oldshep said:


> I have noticed that among people around the internet these days, there seems to be a sort of negative opinion about inheritance, and some even go so far as to say that there should be no such thing.
> 
> I'm wondering what some of the opinions are here about it. Here I have built this piece of raw land into an income producing home for my wife and son. These days everything I do is with the hope of building it into more so that my son can have a better life and not have to go through some of the tough things that I did. Otherwise, why would I bother doing more than is absolutely necessary to just get by? Whats the point of building something if I can't pass it on?
> 
> Why is that wrong? And why the negativity toward inheritance?


I have nothing against you being able to pass your land on. Where I get conflicted on this comes to the nursing home situation. The other side of "Why should I lose everything I worked for my entire life" is "Why should someone else have to pay for your nursing home care so your kid can get a house they didn't work for?"


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Wisco, I am curious as to what age group you're in (20-30, 30-40 etc.), if you wouldn't mind sharing.


Wisco late 30's

Works in a cubicle 

Makes $25000 per year and pay $6000 in taxes.

Thinks he will have to work till he's 75 to draw SS.

That's what I'm pretty sure he's said but I'm getting older....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> How many roads can you name that AREN'T used when delivering mail?



I don't know about him but I can think of some.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Very little mail delivery here, * lots of roads that never saw a mail man*. Just saying.


Were they built by the state?

All roads aren't built by the federal government. In fact, I think the fed builds mostly interstate highways these days.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> How many roads can you name that were ONLY built for the post office. This is what I'm getting at. Try to keep in mind that I'm not the one who things everything must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That'd be your buddy YH.


Any road built by the federal government along with the vast majority of state and county roads carry the U.S. Mail. Other people use many of them too.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Declan said:


> I have nothing against you being able to pass your land on. Where I get conflicted on this comes to the nursing home situation. The other side of "Why should I lose everything I worked for my entire life" is "Why should someone else have to pay for your nursing home care so your kid can get a house they didn't work for?"


To answer the nursing home and why should someone lose everything they worked for.... No one is forcing anyone into a nursing home. If one wishes to utilize their services one should expect to pay for those services. If that means selling assets so be it. Would you walk into a restaraunt, order up your meal, eat your fill and expect someone else to pay for it?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> The general welfare clause has to do with taxes, it was a tax power granted to Congress.





wiscto said:


> Oh we're back full circle again so soon? You know it's the general welfare clause. And now is when you say, "I stand with the founders


Nope, now is when I point out that the general welfare clause grants the power to tax. At least that's how you interpreted it. And I think most will agree that you got that part right. There was no circle, I asked a question, you contradicted yourself. Now for the umpteenth time, where can we find the power to run charities aka social programs granted to congress. We know it cannot be the general welfare clause because that one grants power to tax.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> Wisco late 30's
> 
> Works in a cubicle
> 
> ...


Sounds to me like he needs to find a new tax man to get him a break on those taxes.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

TripleD said:


> Wisco late 30's
> 
> Works in a cubicle
> 
> ...


Just for the record.

Not sure on the rest but in post 159 wiscto states "because $6,000 is double what I paid last year". Goes on the say that is 1/4 of annual salary.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Late 30's can't be right. He sounds a lot like a college kid, maybe grad school, spouting ideas just learned from profs who have never done much of anything outside of academia. I remember being like that when I was in my early to mid 20's, so sure I had everything figured out.

It's amazing how real life, like getting married and having kids and building a career and paying tens of thousands in taxes every year, gives you a different perspective on things. I can't imagine being like that still in my late 30's. By my early 30's I was already quite embarrassed by the arrogant young punk I had been fresh out of law school and ready to save the world with my brilliance.

I suppose he could be one of those profs that's in his late 30's that has never done anything substantial in the real world. The often sound like stupid kids until they die.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, now is when I point out that the general welfare clause grants the power to tax. At least that's how you interpreted it. And I think most will agree that you got that part right. There was no circle, I asked a question, you contradicted yourself. Now for the umpteenth time, where can we find the power to run charities aka social programs granted to congress. We know it cannot be the general welfare clause because that one grants power to tax.


It absolutely is a circle. Now it's my turn to say "umpteenth time." It's a circle because the CRUX of this argument is your assertion that YOUR interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is the only Constitutional one. You tried to use the founders to back you up, and then you found out that one of the authors of the general welfare clause disagrees with you. You didn't know the history. You don't know the Constitution. You tried to behave as though you had the historical, constructionist, moral authority...and you were educated. The power to create a tax for Social Security or anything to PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE was provided by the Constitution. Your interpretation is nothing more than an opinion. Mine has the weight of history AND court decisions.

You base your opinions on Jefferson...whose entire presidency contradicted his earlier "only the enumerated powers" view. And your other guy is Madison...who was so concerned about his legacy of hypocrisy that he altered letters and documents in his possession, to the point of actually forging Thomas Jefferson's handwriting at one point. 

I have George Washington, John Adams, and one half of the welfare clause...Alexander Hamilton. I have the FACT that the general welfare clause has been open to the interpretation of the system from the beginning. I have the FACT that the courts ruled that social security was constitutional. I have the FACT that FDR's bullying wasn't working, because even his own party was preparing to abandon him on the court packing proposal. 

You have... "My interpretation was working just fine before 1936..." Which is *highly debatable* due to the actual history of our country.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Any road built by the federal government along with the vast majority of state and county roads carry the U.S. Mail. Other people use many of them too.


No kidding? The post offices use roads? This isn't hard. "It shouldn't take a Rhodes Scholar." They didn't build those roads for the Post Office, and you know it. We don't pay billions of dollars in taxes to keep up roads for the Post Office, and you know it. But according to your view of the Constitution...those taxes are unconstitutional. You may not like it, but that's what your view amounts to. Unless you can show me where, in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to tax for the upkeep of four to eight lane highways when it's abundantly clear that the Post Office would need no such thing. They were not given the enumerated power to tax for the upkeep of highways for the general population...

Unless of course it was for the general welfare.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kuriakos said:


> Late 30's can't be right. He sounds a lot like a college kid, maybe grad school, spouting ideas just learned from profs who have never done much of anything outside of academia. I remember being like that when I was in my early to mid 20's, so sure I had everything figured out.
> 
> It's amazing how real life, like getting married and having kids and building a career and paying tens of thousands in taxes every year, gives you a different perspective on things. I can't imagine being like that still in my late 30's. By my early 30's I was already quite embarrassed by the arrogant young punk I had been fresh out of law school and ready to save the world with my brilliance.
> 
> I suppose he could be one of those profs that's in his late 30's that has never done anything substantial in the real world. The often sound like stupid kids until they die.


I love people like you. Just by opening your mouth to spout off a bunch of false assumptions about a person you can't really know anything about, you show everyone that you're the sort of person who thinks he/she can actually know a person from their posts on a message board. This is one of those times. I can't prove it, _because this is a message board_, but just so _you_ know, this is one of those times when people would have listened to your BS, looked at me, listened to me talk about my life, then looked at you and wondered how far a stick has to be shoved up into a person before they have the arrogance to be so wrong about people and yet be so certain. They might start wondering what sort of person you really are on the inside.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> It absolutely is a circle. Now it's my turn to say "umpteenth time." It's a circle because the CRUX of this argument is your assertion that YOUR interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is the only Constitutional one. You tried to use the founders to back you up, and then you found out that one of the authors of the general welfare clause disagrees with you. You didn't know the history. You don't know the Constitution. You tried to behave as though you had the historical, constructionist, moral authority...and you were educated. The power to create a tax for Social Security or anything to PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE was provided by the Constitution. Your interpretation is nothing more than an opinion. Mine has the weight of history AND court decisions.
> 
> You base your opinions on Jefferson...whose entire presidency contradicted his earlier "only the enumerated powers" view. And your other guy is Madison...who was so concerned about his legacy of hypocrisy that he altered letters and documents in his possession, to the point of actually forging Thomas Jefferson's handwriting at one point.
> 
> ...


well I have several things on my side too. 
1. Common sense and the ability to read and coprehend the words I read.
2. A hundred and fifty years of history that presidents, congress, and Supreme Court justices shared my interpretations.
3. I have the fact that the Supreme Court slaughtered FDRs alphabet soup programs citing them to be unconstitutional until he pulled his "pack the court" shenanigans. 
4. I have the fact that our nation grew prospered and flourished prior to FDRs nonsense.
You have..... Failed to explain the purpose of the other 17 enumerated powers granted congress, or that of the tenth amendment, if in fact your misinterpretation of the general welfare clause is accurate.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> No kidding? The post offices use roads? This isn't hard. "It shouldn't take a Rhodes Scholar." They didn't build those roads for the Post Office, and you know it. We don't pay billions of dollars in taxes to keep up roads for the Post Office, and you know it. But according to your view of the Constitution...those taxes are unconstitutional. You may not like it, but that's what your view amounts to. Unless you can show me where, in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to tax for the upkeep of four to eight lane highways when it's abundantly clear that the Post Office would need no such thing. They were not given the enumerated power to tax for the upkeep of highways for the general population...
> 
> Unless of course it was for the general welfare.


nope they weren't, but since they needed roads for the post carriers there is nothing says others shouldn't be able to use them too. Four and eight lane hi ways did not emerge until well after FDRs destruction of the constitution. Ike started those because the mail trucks were having trouble making timely deliveries. Hey, that's not nearly as tough to believe as your interpretation of the general welfare clause.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> No kidding? The post offices use roads? This isn't hard. "It shouldn't take a Rhodes Scholar." They didn't build those roads for the Post Office, and you know it. We don't pay billions of dollars in taxes to keep up roads for the Post Office, and you know it. But according to your view of the Constitution...those taxes are unconstitutional. You may not like it, but that's what your view amounts to. * Unless you can show me where, in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to tax for the upkeep of four to eight lane highways when it's abundantly clear that the Post Office would need no such thing. * They were not given the enumerated power to tax for the upkeep of highways for the general population...
> 
> Unless of course it was for the general welfare.


Slow down and think it thru before making hasty and incorrect answers.
The next time you pass a UPS semi pulling doubles or a Post office box truck or semi with the city routes abbreviated on the back, realize what you see.
And for the authorization, look to the commerce clause and interstate actions.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Slow down and think it thru before making hasty and incorrect answers.
> The next time you pass a UPS semi pulling doubles or a Post office box truck or semi with the city routes abbreviated on the back, realize what you see.
> And for the authorization, look to the commerce clause and interstate actions.


First of all, try to catch up to the debate. I'm the one who actually believes the roads are within Congress' power. Because I'm not the one who is saying that Congress only has the power to tax based on the specifically enumerated rights.

According to YH's theory that Congress ONLY has the power to tax based on what is specifically enumerated AFTER the defense/welfare clause, Congress does not have the authority to tax in order to provide roads for the general public. Unless you're using a pretty loose definition of the word "regulate." Which you can't. Because if you use a loose definition of the word regulate, then YH's argument that we can't use loose definitions for constitutional clauses is once again broken. According to him the Constitution is plain, obvious. According to him it says only what it means and means only what it says, word for word. 

And your point is so off the mark... That's ridiculous. If we cut everything off the road except semis, we wouldn't require nearly the infrastructure we currently pay for every year. And that's semis in general. If we cut everything but postal carriers....we wouldn't even need a quarter of the budget we currently need for roads. If you can't see that, God help you. There is no way in hell you can take any 1 mile stretch of road and tell me you need a 4 laner just for the postal freight. I would have to be a complete moron to believe that.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> nope they weren't, but since they needed roads for the post carriers there is nothing says others shouldn't be able to use them too. Four and eight lane hi ways did not emerge until well after FDRs destruction of the constitution. Ike started those because the mail trucks were having trouble making timely deliveries. Hey, that's not nearly as tough to believe as your interpretation of the general welfare clause.


By using them and wearing them down, clogging the roads, and causing the need for taxes to keep up the roads or build new ones.... We are forcing Congress to tax us all for the upkeep of roads for the general public. If only the postal carriers were on the roads, there would be no congestion and there would be less wear and tear. Therefore the taxes are not being levied for the postal carriers, they are being levied for the general public...and you know it, so just give it up. We just keep adding and adding. New byways, new on ramps and off ramps. Oh yea, no, maybe y'all are right, there's no way the postal freight could possibly do their jobs without all that. ound: 

Don't look now, but you're getting pretty loose with Constitutional verbiage...which is what you are saying we can't do. It doesn't say in the Constitution, "And the general public will be allowed to use the postal roads, and Congress shall be allowed to tax for the upkeep of roads used by the general public." Nope.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> First of all, try to catch up to the debate. I'm the one who actually believes the roads are within Congress' power. Because I'm not the one who is saying that Congress only has the power to tax based on the enumerated rights.
> 
> According to YH's theory that Congress ONLY has the power to tax based on what is specifically enumerated AFTER the defense/welfare clause, Congress does not have the authority to tax in order to provide roads for the general public. Unless you're losing a pretty loose definition of the word "regulate." Which you can't. Because if you use a loose definition of the word regulate, then YH's argument that we can't use loose definitions for constitutional clauses is once again broken. According to him the Constitution is plain, obvious. According to him it says only what it means and means only what it says, word for word.
> 
> And your point is so off the mark... That's ridiculous. If we cut everything off the road except semis, we wouldn't require nearly the infrastructure we currently pay for every year. And that's semis in general. If we cut everything but postal carriers....we wouldn't even need a quarter of the budget we currently need for roads. If you can't see that, God help you. There is no way in hell you can take any 1 mile stretch of road and tell me you need a 4 laner just for the postal freight. I would have to be a complete moron to believe that.


Um, I have been following and am up to date. I DO believe the constitutional authority is there under postal roads AND the commerce clause. I also have a narrow, but realistic view of interpreting the words written in the constitution.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause

However, if you're only response is to insult, demean or ridicule me, rather than discuss it without twisting my words to conform to those of an idiot, you're on your own.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> First of all, try to catch up to the debate. I'm the one who actually believes the roads are within Congress' power. Because I'm not the one who is saying that Congress only has the power to tax based on the enumerated rights.
> 
> According to YH's theory that Congress ONLY has the power to tax based on what is specifically enumerated AFTER the defense/welfare clause, Congress does not have the authority to tax in order to provide roads for the general public. Unless you're losing a pretty loose definition of the word "regulate." Which you can't. Because if you use a loose definition of the word regulate, then YH's argument that we can't use loose definitions for constitutional clauses is once again broken. According to him the Constitution is plain, obvious. According to him it says only what it means and means only what it says, word for word.
> 
> And your point is so off the mark... That's ridiculous. If we cut everything off the road except semis, we wouldn't require nearly the infrastructure we currently pay for every year. And that's semis in general. If we cut everything but postal carriers....we wouldn't even need a quarter of the budget we currently need for roads. If you can't see that, God help you. There is no way in hell you can take any 1 mile stretch of road and tell me you need a 4 laner just for the postal freight. I would have to be a complete moron to believe that.


Ok you seem to be somewhat confused about my thinking. The clause that general welfare appears in, along with common defense is the clause that grants congress the power to tax. Most any kind of tax they want as along as it's fair and equal and not based on income. It has since been amended to include income tax. Now hope that helps there, let's look at the road thing again. Congress was granted the power to establish post roads and that's exactly what they did. I have zero problem with the Feds building roads everywhere mail needs to go. Building roads for private citizens that will not be used to deliver mail? Nope, these roads need to carry mail or be paid for by state, county, or private funds. As I posted before..... Four and eight lane interstate hi ways never came along until well after FDRs reign and the disembowelment of our constitution.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> By using them and wearing them down, clogging the roads, and causing the need for taxes to keep up the roads or build new ones.... We are forcing Congress to tax us all for the upkeep of roads for the general public. If only the postal carriers were on the roads, there would be no congestion and there would be less wear and tear. Therefore the taxes are not being levied for the postal carriers, they are being levied for the general public...and you know it, so just give it up. We just keep adding and adding. New byways, new on ramps and off ramps. Oh yea, no, maybe y'all are right, there's no way the postal freight could possibly do their jobs without all that. ound:
> 
> *Don't look now, but you're getting pretty loose with Constitutional verbiage...which is what you are saying we can't do. * It doesn't say in the Constitution, "And the general public will be allowed to use the postal roads, and Congress shall be allowed to tax for the upkeep of roads used by the general public." Nope.


This is true.... Every word....except it is you that is playing fast and loose, not me. And that is exactly my point and has been ever since we began this debate in the other thread. When did Ike set up the interstate highways? Well after FDRs destruction of the constitution!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> well I have several things on my side too.
> 1. Common sense and the ability to read and coprehend the words I read.
> 2. A hundred and fifty years of history that presidents, congress, and Supreme Court justices shared my interpretations.
> 3. I have the fact that the Supreme Court slaughtered FDRs alphabet soup programs citing them to be unconstitutional until he pulled his "pack the court" shenanigans.
> ...


1. By definition, common sense actually isn't on your side. The common sense today is that the general welfare is a GENERAL purpose for the power of taxation. If you could read and comprehend at a higher level than me (which you just implied...but no that's not insulting at all), you would know that your sense would be the uncommon sense, not the common.

2. Name one case that came anywhere close to dealing with general welfare the way social security did. And you're leaving out Story. But, you go ahead and keep talking like you actually know our history. And if you actually read the court cases, they are quite a bit more specific than just, "We don't think general welfare was a general purpose."

3. You don't have that. Because it is a well known fact that the Democrats did not support court packing and were not going to go along with it. It's also a well known fact, to those who do even the basic research, that Owen Roberts (the justice who flipped) was changing his mind throughout the process of the New Deal. He himself said two days after the Adkins decision that he wished he could overturn it; meaning he wished he would have voted the other way. Hughes and the other three liberal judges convinced him to stop voting based on politics. He was the only one who flipped, and he demonstrated before the court packing idea that he was considering flipping. The justices do not agree with you that they voted based on fear of FDR's court packing plan. * It's just a convenient thing for you to believe.* And it's obvious that you haven't even done a cursory investigation into the actual history of it. I doubt you even knew the names Owen Roberts or Charles Evans Hughes.

4. 150 years of people who didn't live very long, therefore making the entire concept of social security an unnecessary one UNTIL 1936. 150 years of the elites controlling the government and poor people rarely showing up to vote until the progressives gave them something to vote for. 150 years of poor Americans living in conditions that can't be considered anything but squalor. 150 years of bank crashes, economic scares, market collapses, recessions, snake oil salesmen, and.........THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Sure we were prospering before FDR. Maybe it's just a coincidence that we prospered more after he was gone. Maybe it isn't. 


And as always, you fail to understand that the founders disagreed on whether or not the enumerated powers which were listed after the defense/welfare clauses were actually restrictions on the previous clause or not. Some claimed that it did, some claimed that it didn't. Their dispute meant that, by default, future generations would have to draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> However, if you're only response is to insult, demean or ridicule me, rather than discuss it without twisting my words to conform to those of an idiot, you're on your own.


ummmm before you get feeling all special about his insulting and demeaning of you, you are not alone. :buds:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is true.... Every word....except it is you that is playing fast and loose, not me. And that is exactly my point and has been ever since we began this debate in the other thread. When did Ike set up the interstate highways? Well after FDRs destruction of the constitution!


If every word of what you bolded is true, you just contradicted yourself. But I'll take you literally. Every word of that is true...and you're playing fast and loose.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok you seem to be somewhat confused about my thinking. The clause that general welfare appears in, along with common defense is the clause that grants congress the power to tax. Most any kind of tax they want as along as it's fair and equal and not based on income. It has since been amended to include income tax. Now hope that helps there, let's look at the road thing again. Congress was granted the power to establish post roads and that's exactly what they did. I have zero problem with the Feds building roads everywhere mail needs to go. Building roads for private citizens that will not be used to deliver mail? Nope, these roads need to carry mail or be paid for by state, county, or private funds. As I posted before..... Four and eight lane interstate hi ways never came along until well after FDRs reign and the disembowelment of our constitution.


I really don't believe you that you can read and comprehend better than I do, which apparently do believe. The man YOU quote regularly said that taxing was the power, and common defense and general welfare were the purpose for that power....he didn't say it was the other way around...and that wouldn't make sense anyway. They are to tax for the common defense and general welfare, and many or most of them do not agree that they are limited to the enumerated powers. You're just wrong, YH. You don't "stand with the founders." You don't know the history. You don't know the Constitution or the words the founders used during its construction, you're just making it what you want it to be.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok you seem to be somewhat confused about my thinking. The clause that general welfare appears in, along with common defense is the clause that grants congress the power to tax. Most any kind of tax they want as along as it's fair and equal and not based on income. It has since been amended to include income tax. Now hope that helps there, let's look at the road thing again. Congress was granted the power to establish post roads and that's exactly what they did. I have zero problem with the Feds building roads everywhere mail needs to go. Building roads for private citizens that will not be used to deliver mail? Nope, these roads need to carry mail or be paid for by state, county, or private funds. As I posted before..... Four and eight lane interstate hi ways never came along until well after FDRs reign and the disembowelment of our constitution.


ound:

I don't even know what to say to you anymore. It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that we should be able to use postal roads but to also believe that we wouldn't then inevitably become the VAST majority of the tax burden over postal freight, whether FDR was ever president or not. I'm serious. It would be ludicrous to believe that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> ummmm before you get feeling all special about his insulting and demeaning of you, you are not alone. :buds:


How 'bout that?

I know it's _possible_ to have a difference of opinion on something and discuss it without calling each other idiots that are 100% wrong.
You and I and others have done it.
:bash::buds:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Solution if you find that others have more money... and you want more money earn it.
There are jobs... and if you want to share what you have with your family it's yours.

Seems to me too many are jealous if someone has anything they don't....look at inheritance as participation awards for loved ones... if you did not join up you don't even get a chance for it...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The Commerce clause, General Welfare clause and all the others are related, not separate.
We may see the narrowness or broadness differently as others do, including the 3 branches of gov't.
I think Ike and FDR saw the real need for interstate construction and transport, particularly since they went thru WWII and all that was needed to win it.
Good things can be abused and bad things can be turned into good.
That's just life.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> *Slow down and think it thru before making hasty and incorrect answers.*
> The next time you pass a UPS semi pulling doubles or a Post office box truck or semi with the city routes abbreviated on the back, realize what you see.
> And for the authorization, look to the commerce clause and interstate actions.





farmrbrown said:


> Um, I have been following and am up to date. I DO believe the constitutional authority is there under postal roads AND the commerce clause. I also have a narrow, but realistic view of interpreting the words written in the constitution.
> 
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause
> 
> However, if you're only response is to insult, *demean* or *ridicule* me, rather than discuss it without twisting my words to conform to those of an idiot, you're on your own.


:buds:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> 1. By definition, common sense actually isn't on your side. The common sense today is that the general welfare is a GENERAL power. If you could read and comprehend at a high level, you would know that your sense would be the uncommon sense, not the common.
> 
> 2. Name one case that came anywhere close to dealing with general welfare the way social security did. And you're leaving out Story. But, you go ahead and keep talking like you actually know our history. And if you actually read the court cases, they are quite a bit more specific than just, "We don't think general welfare was a general clause."
> 
> ...


In that 150 years we went from a hand full of poor folks living under a kings rule to a world class nation to be reckoned with both economically and militarily with no hint of your precious social programs. I am well aware of how we progressed without the "progressives" ideology, and every bit as aware of how we are losing our place in the world with their ideology. Do you have the foggiest notion what 18 trillion dollars looks like? Can you sit there and claim that debt is beneficial to the general welfare?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Solution if you find that others have more money... and you want more money earn it.
> There are jobs... and if you want to share what you have with your family it's yours.
> 
> Seems to me too many are jealous if someone has anything they don't....look at inheritance as participation awards for loved ones... if you did not join up you don't even get a chance for it...


You can think that all applies to me, and I'm sure you do. But you'd be wrong. I'm not jealous of Bill Gates. I'm not jealous of Warren Buffet. And they didn't inherit, they did what you said they should do. Warren Buffet told his kids they wouldn't inherit a thing, *that if they wanted more money they should earn it.* I think that guy is awesome.

Now me, personally, I would have left them at least a cushion. Something to guarantee they would be taken care of if they were smart enough to make it last, but not necessarily guarantee they'd have everything they wanted. But I'd want it to be taxed as income when it passes into their hands. And I'd leave enough for them to be comfortable after taxes. Those who can't do that... Well. *If they wanted more money they should have earned it*.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In that 150 years we went from a hand full of poor folks living under a kings rule to a world class nation to be reckoned with both economically and militarily with no hint of your precious social programs. I am well aware of how we progressed without the "progressives" ideology, and every bit as aware of how we are losing our place in the world with their ideology. Do you have the foggiest notion what 18 trillion dollars looks like? Can you sit there and claim that debt is beneficial to the general welfare?


The existence of social security did not guarantee debt. I'm the first one to agree with you that all of the social programs were greatly abused. And you can leave out the destitution that existed in this country and all over the world during those 150 years if you want, before progressiveness changed all that, but that would be a severe disservice.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You can think that all applies to me, and I'm sure you do. But you'd be wrong. I'm not jealous of Bill Gates. I'm not jealous of Warren Buffet. And they didn't inherit, they did what you said they should do. Warren Buffet told his kids they wouldn't inherit a thing, *that if they wanted more money they should earn it.* I think that guy is awesome.
> 
> Now me, personally, I would have left them at least a cushion. Something to guarantee they would be taken care of if they were smart enough to make it last, but not necessarily guarantee they'd have everything they wanted. But I'd want it to be taxed as income when it passes into their hands. And I'd leave enough for them to be comfortable after taxes. Those who can't do that... Well. *If they wanted more money they should have earned it*.


FYI..... SURPRIZE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU:hysterical:

I just see a pattern.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> FYI..... SURPRIZE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU:hysterical:
> 
> I just see a pattern.


Well I was pretty sure you already tried implying that I was just jealous once, so it wasn't really a stretch. Maybe that was someone else, though. There were several people who took my opinion personally and decided to make this thread about their feelings and how evil I am.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I really don't believe you that you can read and comprehend better than I do, which apparently do believe. The man YOU quote regularly said that taxing was the power, and common defense and general welfare were the purpose for that power....he didn't say it was the other way around...and that wouldn't make sense anyway. *They are to tax for the common defense and general welfare, and many or most of them do not agree that they are limited to the enumerated powers.* You're just wrong, YH. You don't "stand with the founders." You don't know the history. You don't know the Constitution or the words the founders used during its construction, you're just making it what you want it to be.


I agree that the clause grants congress the power to tax, and I understand that the reason for those taxes are to be used for the common defense of the states and to promote the general welfare of the United States. I also understand that there were 17 other specific powers granted directly below that clause along with the tenth amendment a few years later. My question to you has been danced around but not answered. Let's try again... Tell me, what purpose was served by enumerating all the rest of those powers (which are directly linked to the general welfare clause) if the general welfare clause was meant to encompass any and all powers that congress considered to be good for the general welfare? Without all the hoopla and razzmatazz just a straight answer. Again what purpose was served by enumerating these 17 powers?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Well I was pretty sure you already tried implying that I was just jealous once, so it wasn't really a stretch. Maybe that was someone else, though. There were several people who took my opinion personally and decided to make this thread about their feelings and how evil I am.


Ok.... guess you are the only one in favour of steal the fruit of someone else... sorry I thought there was more than just you.....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Well I was pretty sure you already tried implying that I was just jealous once, so it wasn't really a stretch. Maybe that was someone else, though. There were several people who took my opinion personally and decided to make this thread about their feelings and how evil I am.


Odd I don't recall anyone saying you were evil, not in this thread or any other. I do recall it being said that an inheritance tax was akin to grave robbing, which it is. Pretty sure grave robbing is even a crime in most states and several foreign country's. If not a crime a vile and disgusting sorta thing at best.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Ok.... guess you are the only one in favour of steal the fruit of someone else... sorry I thought there was more than just you.....


Without going back and searching through all the posts I am guessing there were others that were all good with double taxing and grave robbing too.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that the clause grants congress the power to tax, and I understand that the reason for those taxes are to be used for the common defense of the states and to promote the general welfare of the United States. I also understand that there were 17 other specific powers granted directly below that clause along with the tenth amendment a few years later. My question to you has been danced around but not answered. Let's try again... Tell me, what purpose was served by enumerating all the rest of those powers (which are directly linked to the general welfare clause) if the general welfare clause was meant to encompass any and all powers that congress considered to be good for the general welfare? Without all the hoopla and razzmatazz just a straight answer. Again what purpose was served by enumerating these 17 powers?


I already answered that. I really did. I gave you a reason for those enumerated powers, because every single one of them was added for specific reasons that either could not have been covered by the general TAX powers provided by the first clause. Some of them go well beyond taxation, which makes your theory that they correlated directly to, and restrict the TAX POWERS granted by the defense/welfare clause seem really, really far fetched. 

I can't believe you can actually read the other clauses and believe that they would be covered by a general tax power. Most of them have nothing to do with taxation. I already explained that in the other thread. I went over the only of the 17 that you could possibly believe were powers of taxation. 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/politics/542476-shooting-ourselves-foot-8.html#post7536140



wiscto said:


> Also, none of the other clauses are predicated on the first. They actually each have their own reasons for existing.
> 
> The two year budget restriction was because they didn't like standing armies and they wanted funding of any army to come back to the table after two years.
> 
> ...



Bottom line is, Article 1 Section 8 is ONE list. Period. The power to lay taxes for the common defense and to promote the general welfare is not restricted in any way by the rest of the list. Most of the rest of the list doesn't even relate to taxes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I already answered that. I really did. I gave you a reason for those enumerated powers, because every single one of them was added for specific reasons that either could not have been covered by the general TAX powers provided by the first clause. Some of them go well beyond taxation, which makes your theory that they correlated directly to, and restrict the TAX POWERS granted by the defense/welfare clause seem really, really far fetched.
> 
> I can't believe you can actually read the other clauses and believe that they would be covered by a general tax power. Most of them have nothing to do with taxation. I already explained that in the other thread. I went over the only of the 17 that you could possibly believe were powers of taxation.
> 
> ...


Ok are you saying then that the general welfare clause is only granting the power to tax? If so we are in complete agreement. If not a simple no is sufficient.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok are you saying then that the general welfare clause is only granting the power to tax? If so we are in complete agreement. If not a simple no is sufficient.


Yea we've said this about a million times. Social Security is a tax. A tax raised to provide the general welfare.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Yea we've said this about a million times. Social Security is a tax. A tax raised to promote the general welfare.


Good, then we are on the same page. Will you also agree that the power to tax does not grant power to spend?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Good, then we are on the same page. Will you also agree that the power to tax does not grant power to spend?


Social Security is a tax to PROVIDE the general welfare.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Read a little more carefully.



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to *pay* the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yer busted.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Social Security is a tax to PROVIDE the general welfare.


You do see the problem then.... A tax takes money in, spending it is a separate power. Unless you are saying that the power to spend it for general welfare is included in the tax clause?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

So you're saying you don't understand the words "pay" and "provide..." Wow.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Yer busted.


Perhaps, bear with me just a few more questions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You do see the problem then.... A tax takes money in, spending it is a separate power. Unless you are saying that the power to spend it for general welfare is included in the tax clause?





wiscto said:


> So you're saying you don't understand the words "pay" and "provide..." Wow.


I understand the words perfectly, I have paid many debts and have provided for the needs and general welfare of four families. That is neither here nor there. Please try to stay with me here. Are you saying the general welfare clause is both a taxing and spending clause?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I am absolutely not going to repeat myself. You know exactly what I'm saying, you're just being dramatic about it now. Drop the Perry Mason act and make your point, if you have one.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I am absolutely not going to repeat myself. You know exactly what I'm saying, you're just being dramatic about it now. Drop the Perry Mason act and make your point, if you have one.


I have tried to do that several times but like this time you bounce dodge an run.just like in the other thread when I was about to prove my point all at once crickets chirping. I think we may have gotten closer this time.
Once more just for you...

If congress is granted the power to spend as well as tax in the first enumerated power (general welfare clause) there is no purpose for the remaining enumerated powers granted in article one section eight. It would also eliminate any purpose for the tenth amendment. 
On the flip side if the general welfare clause only grants the power of taxation then the other 17 powers come into play as well as the tenth amendment which limits congresses power to only those enumerated in the constitution. One way makes little to no sense at all, the other way everything fits together perfectly. It also trashes SS and renders it unconstitutional.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have tried to do that several times but like this time you bounce dodge an run.just like in the other thread when I was about to prove my point all at once crickets chirping. I think we may have gotten closer this time.
> Once more just for you...
> 
> If congress is granted the power to spend as well as tax in the first enumerated power (general welfare clause) there is no purpose for the remaining enumerated powers granted in article one section eight. It would also eliminate any purpose for the tenth amendment.
> On the flip side if the general welfare clause only grants the power of taxation then the other 17 powers come into play as well as the tenth amendment which limits congresses power to only those enumerated in the constitution.


Blah blah blah blah blah. This is hilarious. You accuse me of not listening, even though I have directly argued against every single one of your points. Your view is simply in line with one half of the debate. The mere fact that the founders did not agree upon the intent BEHIND the common defense and general welfare clauses leaves EVERYTHING up to the system. Whether you like it or not, the system has decided. Whether you like it or not, you can't go back in time and make all of the founders agree with Madison and Jefferson. Whether you like it or not, your own logic can be turned against you. If the Congress' powers were to be limited to those specifically enumerated AFTER the tax/spend clause, why wouldn't Hamilton and Madison written it as.... "Congress shall have the power to lay taxes for the enumerated powers listed in this section..." ? No? Nothing? Why would they say for the common defense and general welfare if they knew exactly which powers Congress was going to have? Like it or not, they didn't write into the Constitution that the first clause was contingent on the others, because Madison couldn't get everyone to agree to his views.

Because there was a debate that was never settled. Which means, as I said before, the constitutionality of social security could only be determined when it was proposed in 1936. 

I'll say it ONE last time. The debate between the founders regarding the intention behind the words "common defense" and "general welfare" means that YOU don't get to decide. It has to be decided by the means provided us by the rest of the Constitution. Which means it isn't unconstitutional. And that is what I said to you in the first place. You tried to prove me wrong by taking one side in the debate when the DEBATE ITSELF is why it was left to the courts. Which is why I keep telling you that all you have is an opinion, one that is not congruent with the law as it stands right now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> *Blah blah blah blah blah. *This is hilarious. You accuse me of not listening, even though I have directly argued against every single one of your points. Your view is simply in line with one half of the debate. The mere fact that the founders did not agree upon the intent BEHIND the common defense and general welfare clauses leaves EVERYTHING up to the system. Whether you like it or not, the system has decided. Whether you like it or not, you can't go back in time and make all of the founders agree with Madison and Jefferson. Whether you like it or not, your own logic can be turned against you. If the Congress' powers were to be limited to those specifically enumerated AFTER the tax/spend clause, why wouldn't Hamilton and Madison written it as.... "Congress shall have the power to lay taxes for the enumerated powers listed in this section..." ? No? Nothing? Why would they say for the common defense and general welfare if they knew exactly which powers Congress was going to have? Like it or not, they didn't write into the Constitution that the first clause was contingent on the others, because Madison couldn't get everyone to agree to his views.
> 
> Because there was a debate that was never settled. Which means, as I said before, the constitutionality of social security could only be determined when it was proposed in 1936.
> 
> I'll say it ONE last time. The debate between the founders regarding the intention behind the words "common defense" and "general welfare" means that YOU don't get to decide. It has to be decided by the means provided us by the rest of the Constitution. Which means it isn't unconstitutional. And that is what I said to you in the first place. You tried to prove me wrong by taking one side in the debate when the DEBATE ITSELF is why it was left to the courts. Which is why I keep telling you that all you have is an opinion, one that is not congruent with the law as it stands right now.


i think you explain yourself quite well with the part I bolded... Which is a lot like the welfare clause itself.... A brief description of things to follow.  thanks for playing and by all means stop in again.

It hasn't been up for question how the law reads now.... The only thing that was up for question was whether or not the founders granted congress the power to make these laws.... Which they obviously did not. That was done by the Supreme Court a hundred fifty years after the founders limited congress upon ratifying our constitution.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Without going back and searching through all the posts I am guessing there were others that were all good with double taxing and grave robbing too.



Lol you and others seem to have a problem with things being double taxed. 
Wake up your money is taxed way more than that. 
Say you buy a gallon of gas first your income is taxed by the Feds then the state and sometimes the county gets their shot then it's taxed again with a highway tax then again with a sales tax. 
Then of courses a huge part of the price goes to paying those income taxes to the producers and sellers of that gas. And the store also pays it's property taxes on the Kant the station is on and you may pay a property tax on your car. 
But no taxing it after you are dead and gone that's. Offensive ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol you and others seem to have a problem with things being double taxed.
> Wake up your money is taxed way more than that.
> Say you buy a gallon of gas first your income is taxed by the Feds then the state and sometimes the county gets their shot then it's taxed again with a highway tax then again with a sales tax.
> Then of courses a huge part of the price goes to paying those income taxes to the producers and sellers of that gas. And the store also pays it's property taxes on the Kant the station is on and you may pay a property tax on your car.
> But no taxing it after you are dead and gone that's. Offensive ?


Most taxes while offensive are at least understandable.... Picking a dead mans pockets..... That just ain't right, I don't care how ya flavor it.:yuck:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol you and others seem to have a problem with things being double taxed.
> Wake up your money is taxed way more than that.
> Say you buy a gallon of gas first your income is taxed by the Feds then the state and sometimes the county gets their shot then it's taxed again with a highway tax then again with a sales tax.
> Then of courses a huge part of the price goes to paying those income taxes to the producers and sellers of that gas. And the store also pays it's property taxes on the Kant the station is on and you may pay a property tax on your car.
> But no taxing it after you are dead and gone that's. Offensive ?


To what benefit do dead folks get from the tax?....it is the prior income for which the same dead person still has one more tax bill due to uncle Sam to account for income received till death..yea.. it has to be done... yea the sucker you put in charge gets that fun.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i think you explain yourself quite well with the part I bolded... Which is a lot like the welfare clause itself.... A brief description of things to follow.  thanks for playing and by all means stop in again.
> 
> It hasn't been up for question how the law reads now.... The only thing that was up for question was whether or not the founders granted congress the power to make these laws.... *Which they obviously did not*. That was done by the Supreme Court a hundred fifty years after the founders limited congress upon ratifying our constitution.


LOL

You just go ahead and live in your alternate reality. You can go ahead and have the last word, too, since you're willing to sacrifice reality to feel like you've won. You know the truth, though. If enough of the founders had wanted the "narrow definition" of the clause, it wouldn't even have been written the way it was. They were forced to compromise, and so it was written the way it was written. The system works. The courts make their rulings when the world turns and new problems require new solutions. You don't like it, and that doesn't make you right.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> LOL
> 
> You just go ahead and live in your alternate reality. You can go ahead and have the last word, too, since you're willing to sacrifice reality to feel like you've won. You know the truth, though. If enough of the founders had wanted the "narrow definition" of the clause, it wouldn't even have been written the way it was. They were forced to compromise, and so it was written the way it was written. The system works. The courts make their rulings when the world turns and new problems require new solutions. You don't like it, and that doesn't make you right.


My part in this discussion has never been about winning or changing your mind. It's been about presenting the facts to others who may not have yet been hypnotized by the progressives point of view. I honestly thank you for bringing that side of the debate forward so eloquently. It has been enjoyable for me, and it just may have given someone somewhere a chance to increase their knowledge a little. At this point it's time for me to attend to other matters.:knitting:


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> Wisco late 30's
> 
> Works in a cubicle
> 
> ...


I hate to quote myself but you been jumping back and forth. How close was what I said...?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> I hate to quote myself but you been jumping back and forth. How close was what I said...?


Maybe a pool is in order? I'll take 23, works in the fast food industry (Pizza Hut), voted for Obama, was bottle fed, parents made all the grateful dead concerts and voted for Clinton... Twice.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe a pool is in order? I'll take 23, works in the fast food industry (Pizza Hut)


I say 37 and works in a cubicle. I bet he wont say how close I am.....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> I say 37 and works in a cubicle. I bet he wont say how close I am.....


Cubicle maybe but the income level is a little lite, and SS at 75 puts the age at under twenty five. Also matches the overall "tude" displayed throughout his posts. He does play with his cards close to his chest.... We may never find out.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Cubicle maybe but the income level is a little lite, and SS at 75 puts the age at under twenty five. Also matches the overall "tude" displayed throughout his posts. He does play with his cards close to his chest.... We may never find out.


If I remember right he said 37. Something about people living longer that he may have to work till 75. We'll see I hope.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> If I remember right he said 37. Something about people living longer that he may have to work till 75. We'll see I hope.


Shouldn't have to work that long, life expectancy today is around seventy five to eighty which on average would put him around fifty five to sixty when he cashes in on their estate. Assuming of course the government doesn't rip him off.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Ya'll go first. I figure that's just polite. Unless, you know, you think you're taking a shot at somebody like any grown adult would. ;-)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Ya'll go first. I figure that's just polite. Unless, you know, you think you're taking a shot at somebody like any grown adult would. ;-)


No problem, 64, retired (disabled) jack of many trades, voted against Clinton twice, Obama twice, peanut once, voted for bush 4 times so far. Reagan three times, Nixon once. Went to skynards last concert before the crash, (bocephus opened, outlaws next with skynard closing) missed Woodstock both times. I've ridden motorcycles thru most of the lower 48, married three times, raised up 4 kids, put a muffler on Bob Hopes Mercedes, and serviced James Garners Ferrari, (nice ride, even nicer guy.) I also say grace and ma'am, open doors for ladies. If you hang around this forum you'll get to know me better. I'm not a bad sort so I've been told, just take a little getting used too. :buds:

P.s. I've begun work on those federalist papers. Guess I just needed a prod.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

63 year old homemaker & grandma, married to the same man 40+ years. Have worked as administrative assistant in hospital setting, fitness instructor, retail associate. Dreamy-eyed liberal in my youth (voted for Carter ), grew more wise, realistic & conservative with age. Would describe myself today as a laissez-faire capitalist libertarian conservative.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm 51 and am in the rental business. Got a small family farm I play on when I'm not sitting at the office . I do most of my repairs on the houses except electrical or HVAC.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I'm 36. Grew up in a small town/city, spent every second I could at family's and friends' places outside of town until my parents finally moved. I went to high-school and college and competed athletically, worked on a farm part time in the summers chucking rocks and pollinating for a while, but mainly I worked at the pool. Graduated. Began working on a masters program, worked in a mental health facility and a juvenile detention facility in the meantime. It wasn't the violent (also usually gross) acting out and the fact that we were understaffed and not really equipped to deal with it. I was tired of watching the system fail kid after kid after kid. I was tired of feeling like no matter what we did, we couldn't help. So I quit, and that part of my life was a long time ago but it's kind of hard to forget how messed up the world really is and how badly we're failing those in need.

I guess I worked in a cubicle for a total of 4 months as a temp between layoffs. I've worked with all kinds of chemicals, and worn every PPE known to man. Operated heavy machinery of all kinds including pressure washers, power sanders, little handheld jackhammers I still can't correctly name (but I loved those things because it was an awesome forearm/grip workout), computerized winders, presses. Boxed, shipped, picked orders, drove forklift, soldered, assembled computer boxes and other end product by hand. Got into quality control and started spending half my day translating engineer jibberish to save our engineers' butts from the fire. The production supervisors didn't appreciate that of course. As of right now I'm on involuntary-voluntary furlow due to budget issues along with about 20 other people, but I will be putting my CDL to use shortly. I am also working on my own startup, which would take a little while to explain, though I've talked to some people here about it. It's been pushed back probably another 6 months at least, probably 2 years away from having a comfortable amount saved again, to be honest.

My parents are perennial conservative Republican voters. I believe they did like The Eagles, but in general they're more the Kenny Rogers/Celine Dion types, so you guys were about as far off as possible on that one. I share a lot in common with them, but probably more so with my uncle who currently hunts/fishes/grows his own food and lives miles from any other human being. My parents have a lot of money, a lot as in 7 figures, and I told them a long time ago to give that money to my nephews and nieces. So no. I won't be cashing in on anything. At most, my own kids, if I ever have them, will get a share of what the rest of the grand-kids get.

Let's see, what else... I am radically opposed to any and all political extremes most of the time. I don't think "realism" and "ideology" are compatible very often, and I think history proves that fact indisputably. I vote Democrat and Republican on the same ballot for different reasons, but when it comes to the courts I vote strictly Libertarian or nothing at all. That isn't because of any long term ideological goals, but more of a necessity brought on by the current state of our justice system.

Oh... I believe someone around here implied at some point (in another thread) that my abortion beliefs are related to guilt. Nope. No one I've been with has ever been pregnant from my own efforts. I once met a girl shortly after she found out that she was pregnant. She considered abortion because of family genetics, but didn't follow through. She ended up miscarrying, and I was the one who was there to hold her while she cried, so we connected and eventually dated...didn't work out. I told part of that story here and I think someone jumped to a pretty bold conclusion. I knew this was the internet, but some people still manage to get under my skin.

I too like driving and I've seen every state except Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. I've seen Metallica in concert. Next summer I'll probably be buying a Honda Valkyrie, because while I love my heavy metal loud...I like my pipes quiet and stealthy. Also because the name Valkyrie is bad as hell. 

*Also, I can type 90 words a minute when I really focus, because that's the world I grew up in, and as a result I can go on...and on...and on...and on... Which is why you shouldn't ask me questions like this.* 

Anything else you want to know? Too bad, I'm done. :buds: 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> No problem, 64, retired (disabled) jack of many trades, voted against Clinton twice, Obama twice, peanut once, voted for bush 4 times so far. Reagan three times, Nixon once. Went to skynards last concert before the crash, (bocephus opened, outlaws next with skynard closing) missed Woodstock both times. I've ridden motorcycles thru most of the lower 48, married three times, raised up 4 kids, put a muffler on Bob Hopes Mercedes, and serviced James Garners Ferrari, (nice ride, even nicer guy.) I also say grace and ma'am, open doors for ladies. If you hang around this forum you'll get to know me better. I'm not a bad sort so I've been told, just take a little getting used too. :buds:
> 
> P.s. I've begun work on those federalist papers. Guess I just needed a prod.


Good luck on the Federalist Papers. There's some dry reading in there. One pretty strong theory out there is that Hamilton, Washington, and other federalists let Madison and Jefferson do all the talking on the general welfare clause...because it was the path of least resistance in getting the Constitution ratified. It was no secret to Madison and Jefferson that their version of "general welfare" was not the only construction, but because of the politics of ratification, they were the ones who were probably most influential in ratification. Founders' intent isn't your strongest argument. Ratifiers' intent would be stronger, considering the concerns over a loose definition during the ratification process. But then of course there's the issue of the actual wording and...one half of the Founders' intent. 



Txsteader said:


> 63 year old homemaker & grandma, married to the same man 40+ years. Have worked as administrative assistant in hospital setting, fitness instructor, retail associate. Dreamy-eyed liberal in my youth (voted for Carter ), grew more wise, realistic & conservative with age. Would describe myself today as a laissez-faire capitalist libertarian conservative.


Carter was probably the best human being to ever run for president. He just wasn't the best president. Just my opinion, though. 



TripleD said:


> I'm 51 and am in the rental business. Got a small family farm I play on when I'm not sitting at the office . I do most of my repairs on the houses except *electrical or HVAC*.


Codes probably change too often to keep up with anyway, if you don't do it all the time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I can type 90 words a minute when I really focus.
> 
> Founders' intent isn't your strongest argument. Ratifiers' intent would be stronger, considering the concerns over a loose definition during the ratification process. But then of course there's the issue of the actual wording and...one half of the Founders' intent.


Typing ninety wpm is one thing, but when dealing with the Internet it's not always how fast you type.... It's if you can type one handed,,,, or with your toes!

Founders or ratifiers intent are not the strongest arguments per se when discussing the general welfare clause. The strongest argument is the words themselves combined with simple logic. As I pointed out earlier, one interpretation fits smoothly with the rest of the constitution, as well as how congress, the various presidents and the Supreme Court applied it for right at 150 years, while the other interpretation nullifies the constitutional limits by giving congress unlimited powers. Hamilton/Madison noted and warned us about that in federalist paper 50. Or was it 49? Something about a couple hundreds of despots (congress) being no better than one. (A king)


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Typing ninety wpm is one thing, but when dealing with the Internet it's not always how fast you type.... It's if you can type one handed,,,, or with your toes!
> 
> Founders or ratifiers intent are not the strongest arguments per se when discussing the general welfare clause. The strongest argument is the words themselves combined with simple logic. As I pointed out earlier, one interpretation fits smoothly with the rest of the constitution, as well as how congress, the various presidents and the Supreme Court applied it for right at 150 years, while the other interpretation nullifies the constitutional limits by giving congress unlimited powers. Hamilton/Madison noted and warned us about that in federalist paper 50. Or was it 49? Something about a couple hundreds of despots (congress) being no better than one. (A king)


It's too frustrating to handle you jumping around from argument to argument. You originally made the blanket statement that you stand with the founders. That was wrong. At some point you said that your opinion was based on the literal interpretation, that isn't true either. Because the literal interpretation means that Congress has the power to tax for the general welfare. 

Federal power is not unlimited. It has to be an interstate issue. Which it is. You also have to at some point accept that the democratic elections are a part of the process of restricting power.

If what came previously is so important, as you keep trying to imply with that 150 years stuff, then those 150 years were unconstitutional. Because the first two presidents, the first dominant political party, and one of the co-authors of the general welfare clause all held the belief that the clause was only restricted to general/national issues. Their opinion was that the general welfare clause was independent from the others. 

And FYI... The courts in 1936 were not beholden to what previous courts decided. 

And everything... Absolutely everything... Comes down to the actual wording. Nothing in the Constitution says that the first clause is dependent on the others. Nothing. And one half of the authorship said that it wasn't. That means that the 1824 Gibbons vs. Ogden decision would apply to every single clause. As long as it is an interstate issue, Congress has the power to promote the general welfare....just as it has the power to regulate commerce.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> It's too frustrating to handle you jumping around from argument to argument. You originally made the blanket statement that you stand with the founders. That was wrong. At some point you said that your opinion was based on the literal interpretation, that isn't true either. Because the literal interpretation means that Congress has the power to tax for the general welfare.
> 
> Federal power is not unlimited. It has to be an interstate issue. Which it is. You also have to at some point accept that the democratic elections are a part of the process of restricting power.
> 
> ...


:yawn:

:knitting:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I'm 36. Grew up in a small town/city, spent every second I could at family's and friends' places outside of town until my parents finally moved. I went to high-school and college and competed athletically, worked on a farm part time in the summers chucking rocks and pollinating for a while, but mainly I worked at the pool. Graduated. Began working on a masters program, worked in a mental health facility and a juvenile detention facility in the meantime. It wasn't the violent (also usually gross) acting out and the fact that we were understaffed and not really equipped to deal with it. I was tired of watching the system fail kid after kid after kid. I was tired of feeling like no matter what we did, we couldn't help. So I quit, and that part of my life was a long time ago but it's kind of hard to forget how messed up the world really is and how badly we're failing those in need.
> 
> I guess I worked in a cubicle for a total of 4 months as a temp between layoffs. I've worked with all kinds of chemicals, and worn every PPE known to man. Operated heavy machinery of all kinds including pressure washers, power sanders, little handheld jackhammers I still can't correctly name (but I loved those things because it was an awesome forearm/grip workout), computerized winders, presses. Boxed, shipped, picked orders, drove forklift, soldered, assembled computer boxes and other end product by hand. Got into quality control and started spending half my day translating engineer jibberish to save our engineers' butts from the fire. The production supervisors didn't appreciate that of course. As of right now I'm on involuntary-voluntary furlow due to budget issues along with about 20 other people, but I will be putting my CDL to use shortly. I am also working on my own startup, which would take a little while to explain, though I've talked to some people here about it. It's been pushed back probably another 6 months at least, probably 2 years away from having a comfortable amount saved again, to be honest.
> 
> ...


Thanks for answering the question re: your age group. I asked it, and used my own history, to make the point that we tend to be more liberal/idealistic in our youth and become more conservative/pragmatic as we age, marry, have/raise children. I suspected, based on your posts, that you were in the 20-30 age group. That's not a criticism, but merely an observation. 

I agree that Carter is, fundamentally, a good person. He was one of the worst presidents, however, because IMO, he's too much of an idealist and idealists tend to either fail to see or completely ignore the evil side of human nature. Hence, his foreign and domestic policies were utter failures.

It is that evil side of human nature that causes leaders to become despots and tyrants. World history is full of them; as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Any time leaders of a central government start talking about taking from the population (in the case of this conversation, taxes), it is wise to be cautious and even resistant. 

I find it ironic that you support the Federalists view of taxation, when they were viewed as elitists who included the bankers, manufacturers & wealthy merchants....who felt that the common man was too ignorant & incapable of self-governing.

So, while the Court had/has ultimately supported Hamilton's view re: taxation and general welfare, it is wise for the governed to be on guard that that power not get out of control. Beginning w/ our Declaration of Independence, the phrase 'consent of the governed' is vital to maintaining what is left of our *individual *freedoms. Again, see world history.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> Thanks for answering the question re: your age group. I asked it, and used my own history, to make the point that we tend to be more liberal/idealistic in our youth and become more conservative/pragmatic as we age, marry, have/raise children. I suspected, based on your posts, that you were in the 20-30 age group. That's not a criticism, but merely an observation.


You're making a big assumption. My views are rarely liberal. In this thread we talked about inheritance taxes and social security. The oldest people in this country show no sign of abandoning social security. There seems to be a pretty even split down the middle of your generation on that issue...other than the fact that the vast majority of you (left and right) will be collecting it even when you don't need it, so I doubt my views will change. I also gave more information about my family than I normally would, and it is highly doubtful that when I am in my 50s, that I will change my mind on not inheriting a dime of my parents money.

Other than that I believe in gun ownership. I believe welfare should expire after 1 year. I do believe in cutting government spending. And I don't think that believing in a social responsibility to those who work their entire lives and end up falling on hard times is really a "liberal" point of view. You might think trusting the government is naive. I think trusting any institution is naive. I get tired of hearing about "faith based initiatives" and then finding out that some church just bought their pastor a pimped out Cadillac Escalade. The Wounded Warriors project has even been investigated, so I just don't trust charities in general. We can work on the spending without turning it into a political blood bath. Social Security isn't evil. It just isn't being done correctly. 

In short. I don't think you've really learned much about my political beliefs at all. I think you wanted to categorize me so you could dismiss my views as transient and paint yours as "experienced." And my question to you on that is... What have you done? What did you do? I tried to make a difference. I went to college to learn what there was to learn. I tried to save people who were long shots at best. I stood up to known enforcers in the gang community with two kids hiding behind me. I got my hands dirty. What have you all done for your communities? How involved have you been in our social issues? And I don't mean working at the local soup kitchen... I've done that too. And I think it's a great thing to do, but I'm pretty confident in my experience. I'm compassionate about the people in this country who really are stuck. That's all it is.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

returning to the subject of inheritance

wiscto - you wrote "My parents have a lot of money, a lot as in 7 figures, and I told them a long time ago to give that money to my nephews and nieces. So no. I won't be cashing in on anything. At most, my own kids, if I ever have them, will get a share of what the rest of the grand-kids get.

I wonder if you considered that your parents may die before you have kids thus leaving theses unknowns out of any inheritance that could be theirs? I don't think any parent is obligated to leave anything to kids or grandkids but if your parents plan on doing so I would ask them to make provision for this thus if you do have kids they will benefit equally with the nieces and nephews (education is sooooo expensive and getting ever more so). If you end up not having kids you can pass this inheritance on to the nieces and nephews at a later date thus following your own principles.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

emdeengee said:


> returning to the subject of inheritance
> 
> wiscto - you wrote "My parents have a lot of money, a lot as in 7 figures, and I told them a long time ago to give that money to my nephews and nieces. So no. I won't be cashing in on anything. At most, my own kids, if I ever have them, will get a share of what the rest of the grand-kids get.
> 
> I wonder if you considered that your parents may die before you have kids thus leaving theses unknowns out of any inheritance that could be theirs? I don't think any parent is obligated to leave anything to kids or grandkids but if your parents plan on doing so I would ask them to make provision for this thus if you do have kids they will benefit equally with the nieces and nephews (education is sooooo expensive and getting ever more so). If you end up not having kids you can pass this inheritance on to the nieces and nephews at a later date thus following your own principles.


That's a good point, and I honestly hadn't really considered it. Like a lot of people, I guess I get through my day by assuming that my parents will be that lucky 90 year old couple that still "has it". I'm sure they've considered what you said here. It may be that they didn't listen to me. I wasn't even supposed to know about it, but it came up during a political debate...hah. My dad doesn't like to talk about it, and more power to him. He does his own carpentry, repairs, landscaping, and still works 70 hour weeks, including from the chair in the living room when we're trying to talk to him sometimes; "Dad I drove all the way here, give me five minutes, lol." They just traded in their 13 year old Chrysler finally. I'm mostly just proud of him, when I do think about it. Although it is really nice to have that hope that the grand kids will be will taken care of. 

I just hope they don't act like the Kardashians. There has to be something better to do. Luckily I think they're all going to be a lot smarter and more talented than I am. So far they all have their grandfather's and their dads' focus.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

wiscto said:


> That's a good point, and I honestly hadn't really considered it. Like a lot of people, I guess I get through my day by assuming that my parents will be that lucky 90 year old couple that still "has it". I'm sure they've considered what you said here. It may be that they didn't listen to me. I wasn't even supposed to know about it, but it came up during a political debate...hah. My dad doesn't like to talk about it, and more power to him. He does his own carpentry, repairs, landscaping, and still works 70 hour weeks, including from the chair in the living room when we're trying to talk to him sometimes; "Dad I drove all the way here, give me five minutes, lol." They just traded in their 13 year old Chrysler finally. I'm mostly just proud of him, when I do think about it. Although it is really nice to have that hope that the grand kids will be will taken care of.
> 
> I just hope they don't act like the Kardashians. There has to be something better to do. Luckily I think they're all going to be a lot smarter and more talented than I am. So far they all have their grandfather's and their dads' focus.


We (most) all hope that our parent will live until they break the Guinness world record but sadly that often does not happen. I just thought I would mention it because something similar happened to a friend's family. 

His parents raised their sons and daughters to understand that a paid for University education was all that they were going to get in way of an inheritance and that they were leaving their money for the education of the grandkids. Both were academics so education was very important to them. 

However, they messed up the documents so that it only covered the grandkids living at the time of their deaths. Five grandkids were born after their deaths (Mom and Dad passed within 2 years of each other in their early 60s) and they did not benefit from the will. Of course a court case followed but they did not win.

Undoubtedly some may end up as Kardashian types but I have been greatly impressed by the young people that I have come to know so I think there is hope. And believe me my parents generation did not think much of my generation but we fooled them.


----------

