Taxes on the rise, the time is soon!

[wdlove]

The lower 50% of American wage earners pay 4% of the nations taxes. The upper 50% of American wage earners pay 96% of the nations taxes, that's a combined family income of >$30,000/year, source Jay Severin.

If both parties don't do something soon it will get worse for the upper 50%.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/basics/10812.asp

[Backtothemac]

Yes, is that a fair tax system?

Sounds very democrat if you ask me.

[medea]

hmm, the only reason I clicked on this thread was because I thought it read "Texas on the rise, the time is soon!" which I thought was funny, but taxes are always on the rise when there is a republican in the office.......and that's not funny. Oh and I belive you meant to say democratic not very democrat.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by wdlove
The lower 50% of American wage earners pay 4% of the nations taxes. The upper 50% of American wage earners pay 96% of the nations taxes, that's a combined family income of >$30,000/year, source Jay Severin.

If both parties don't do something soon it will get worse for the upper 50%.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/basics/10812.asp

That's weird. That figure you quoted was not in that article, probably becasue it is wrong. But I did get a real quote from the article:

"Remember the Bush tax cuts? They made the problem worse, cutting lifetime taxes for older people but raising them for new taxpayers. The Bush tax cuts mean that newborn taxpayers will pay a lifetime rate of 18.65% (up from 17.7%)."

Or I could do a wdlove:
The Lower Class Will Eat Rich People's Babies
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=109831

[Taft]

Statistically that COULD be true, but statiistics can often be misleading.

Lets say that the richest 25% of Americans make 75% of yearly income (that figure could be under-exaggerated...I'm relaying this from a NYTimes article I read a month or two ago...I can't get to their site to find it now :( ). Lets assume thats true.

That means the bottom 75% of Americans only make 25% of the income every year. Lets assume a flat tax rate of 20% all Americans (unrealistic, I know, but go with it for a sec.). That works out to the bottom 75% of americans paying a quarter of the tax burden while only making a fifth of the income. Hmmmm.

If we assume more realistic figures (like NO flat tax), the amount the lesser-off people pay comes down. But the underlying principle remains: the people at the bottom might pay less of total taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE LESS OF THE MONEY!

Edit(BTW-This post illustrates a couple principles...First, it shows how dumb assumptions can lead to dumb conclusions. Assume a 33% flat tax rate above, and my argument is blown. Second, a majority of people in this country do make far less money than a small minority. This fact is becoming more true rather than less. Many people, such as myself think this is a problem. My writing is becoming more confusing by the second. Time for bed.)

Taft

[wwworry]

Here's a quote I found on Jay Severin

The name of Jay Severin's show, "Extreme Games," defines his politics. Jay is far right on virtually every issue not connected to getting laid. When it comes to getting laid, he is a libertarian. Jay is right-wing radio's answer to Wilt Chamberlain. No, not the basketball player, the self-aggrandizing stud.

wdlove:
Crap goes in.
Crap comes out.

[jefhatfield]

oh, how the rich suffer so

enter: violins

i feel so sorry for them:rolleyes:

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by wdlove
The lower 50% of American wage earners pay 4% of the nations taxes.

They contribute 4% of the total tax income but consume greater than 4% of the federal benefit generated by taxes (federal and state). Vise versa on the other fifty percent.

To me this seems like a problem.

I'll ask a question:

What would happen if the 50% of the population that pays the 75% of the total amount of taxes got fed up with this. Say they stopped working. Rebelled. All the lawyers, vice presidents, controllers, ceo's, cfo's...where would this country be?

How would the lower fifty benefit?

Just a question, and actually there is a book that wrote about the elite players in the american economy quiting work. Forget what it is called.

I think the country would sink like a stone...

Chad4Mac

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Chad4Mac


They contribute 4% of the total tax income but consume greater than 4% of the federal benefit generated by taxes (federal and state). Vise versa on the other fifty percent.

To me this seems like a problem.

I'll ask a question:

What would happen if the 50% of the population that pays the 75% of the total amount of taxes got fed up with this. Say they stopped working. Rebelled. All the lawyers, vice presidents, controllers, ceo's, cfo's...where would this country be?

How would the lower fifty benefit?

Just a question, and actually there is a book that wrote about the elite players in the american economy quiting work. Forget what it is called.

I think the country would sink like a stone...

Chad4Mac

interesting scenario

it kind of reminds me what i thought would happen to the former soviet union when they dropped communism

i thought, for one, their olympic team would fall apart and they would no longer get medals since i thought a lot of their earlier success was due to a soviet state funding them

as it turns out, the russians, even minus the separate nations that sprung off of them, still rock in the olympics

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by wdlove
The lower 50% of American wage earners pay 4% of the nations taxes. The upper 50% of American wage earners pay 96% of the nations taxes, that's a combined family income of >$30,000/year, source Jay Severin.


if i'm reading this correctly it states that those families with a combined income of 30k and above are in the upper 50% income bracket and pay 96% of taxes....

if so, .....are you suggesting shifting more of the tax burden to those families barely surviving on 30k? i'm just not sure what the problem is here. the people who have more income should pay more taxes...pretty simple.

the linked article really discusses any entirely different issue...nothing new, just that the government has limited financial resources to pay the expanding costs of future social programs. today's answer is to expand future tax rates..tomorrow's more practical answer will be to change the nature of the social programs and redesign the government's spending patterns. everyone who screams that social security will collapse hasn't dealt with the reality that every politician is scared ****less of the incredibly harsh reaction from the graying masses...can you imagine telling millions and millions of people that the money they paid into SS during their entire working life is no longer available to them? DC would be burned and looted within days. i'm not saying the future is pretty, i'm just saying it'll get worked out. too bad there isn't a proactive and preemptive brain in washington for things non-militery.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3rdpath



...can you imagine telling millions and millions of people that the money they paid into SS during their entire working life is no longer available to them? DC would be burned and looted within days. i'm not saying the future is pretty, i'm just saying it'll get worked out. too bad there isn't a proactive and preemptive brain in washington for things non-militery.

kind of scary that bush lost two financially related cabinet members recently

the dems will get bush in two years with the same phrase, "it's the economy, stupid"

when will the gop learn?

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Chad4Mac


They contribute 4% of the total tax income but consume greater than 4% of the federal benefit generated by taxes (federal and state). Vise versa on the other fifty percent.

To me this seems like a problem.

I'll ask a question:

What would happen if the 50% of the population that pays the 75% of the total amount of taxes got fed up with this. Say they stopped working. Rebelled. All the lawyers, vice presidents, controllers, ceo's, cfo's...where would this country be?

How would the lower fifty benefit?

Just a question, and actually there is a book that wrote about the elite players in the american economy quiting work. Forget what it is called.

I think the country would sink like a stone...

Chad4Mac

of course the lower 4% consumes more of the social programs....they NEED the social programs...think about it.

the answer to your rhetorical question is...let 'em quit...they'd find out just like everyone else how easily they can be replaced...its just safer and easier to bitch and moan.

[mcrain]

Hey, a topic a know a little about...

Rather than getting into too much of a debate, let me just point out one thing. Every discussion about taxes invariably has conservatives lamenting the over-taxation of the so called "wealthy." They talk about how unfair it is that the "wealthy" pay so much more of the tax burden than the "poor."

I don't want to get into the policy behind taxation in general, but what I would like to point out is that there is one BIG BIG point that the conservative argument never points out.

They are ONLY talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Yes, when you only look at federal income tax, the wealthy pay a larger share than the poor. The federal income tax system is a tiered progressive taxation scheme. (As a side note, don't forget that when you are uber wealthy, you can control when and how much income you receive annually)

So grasshopper, do you want to know why is that important?

It is important because:

Social Security taxes, FICA, etc... all have a cap. As such, overall, those taxes are regressive.

Excise taxes are by the very nature regressive. There are only so many cigarettes or booze that a person can consume.

Sales taxes are also regressive for the same reason. Certainly, the wealthy can afford more and better tv's, cars, etc..., however, as a percentage of income, the amounts paid in sales taxes by the wealthy are a smaller percentage than the amounts paid by the poor.

Lottery tickets are a source of revenue for the various states. They are sold primarily to the poor. That's another regressive tax.

Property taxes, when the amounts paid are examined as percentage of income, are also regressive.

Finally, the poor's income is primarily wages. Wages require SS, FICA, etc... withholding, and on top of that, are taxed as ordinary income. The wealthy often have capital gains, primarily long term. These gains are taxed at lower rates. These gains can be timed and can be offset by losses, and witholding isn't required.

When you really look at the percentage of income paid in taxes paid by everyone in the US, what you find is that the amounts of taxes paid are relatively flat across the spectrum of income ranges (there are bumps and dips).

So grasshopper, whenever you hear democrats talking about how the rich need to pay more, or the republicans talking about how unfair the tax system is, just remember that the talking heads for both parties are generally idiots when it comes to taxes.

(I watched a debate between the two leading tax policy people for both parties when I was in law school. I was shocked at the things they were saying that were just patently wrong. I asked my professor the next day, and his response was that after having had one semester of tax law, I was more of a tax expert than the "professionals" on TV.)

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by 3rdpath


of course the lower 4% consumes more of the social programs....they NEED the social programs...think about it.

the answer to your rhetorical question is...let 'em quit...they'd find out just like everyone else how easily they can be replaced...its just safer and easier to bitch and moan.

Replaced by who? The working class citizen (not being negative toward a working class person, just a question)? Can you place a hard working iron worker or other working class citizens in the desk of a CPA, CEO, CFO, Wall Street Analysis, or consultant's desk. Working class citizens don't specialize in this line of work.

Where would "96%" of federal taxes come from? The social programs that the lower 50% would need could not survive. The country would be face with serious problems; replacement wouldn't be as easy as one would think.

Chad4Mac

[rainman::|:|]

thank god no one votes libertarian, we'd be in danger of having taxes done away with and replaced with per-use user fees on everything, and foreign aid would be privately funded... its almost like the government would be fair... we should stick to the same antequated parties because they're very old and we're all afraid of change...

:)
pnw

[mcrain]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
thank god no one votes libertarian, we'd be in danger of having taxes done away with and replaced with per-use user fees on everything, and foreign aid would be privately funded... its almost like the government would be fair... we should stick to the same antequated parties because they're very old and we're all afraid of change...

:)
pnw

While I'm not against the idea of taking a closer look at the per-use idea, everything I've seen so far shows that sort of proposal to be extremely regressive where the lions share of the tax burden would fall on the lower-middle classes. If there is a way to make it fair and even, then hey, I'll vote for a libertarian who can convince me of its fairness.

[peter2002]

There is a good article on this tax issue at today's Seattle Times.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134597293_taxes170.html

Peter :)

[wdlove]

Originally posted by wwworry
Here's a quote I found on Jay Severin

The name of Jay Severin's show, "Extreme Games," defines his politics. Jay is far right on virtually every issue not connected to getting laid. When it comes to getting laid, he is a libertarian. Jay is right-wing radio's answer to Wilt Chamberlain. No, not the basketball player, the self-aggrandizing stud.

wdlove:
Crap goes in.
Crap comes out.

Jay Severin believes in the Constitiution, would hope all Americans would. The perversion of the Constitiution is why we are in trouble today.

[drastik]

Sorry, this is a long one.

The problem with higher taxation on higher incme is that it creates a penalty for being rich. Working hard and thinking of the future are what get you rich in the first place. A graduted tax, as it works now, is a penalty for success.

Think of the death tax. Everyone is expempt from estate tax up to a million dollars. Therefore only the rich get hit with this tax, which is something like 49%, ectremely high anyway. But guess what, the rich have already paid taxes on this money, probably more than once. First there is income tax, then capitol gains tax, in states like Tennessee you have a local capital gaines tax that isn't deductable. So you've paid taxes on this money three times. Then you have the nerve to die. Guess what, they are going to take aou half of whats left. And of course, your children will have to pay taxes on any money you might have left.

Ridiculous.

Tax cuts are good, if they are employed wisely. I am about as liberal in most thins as they come, but I work for the government and I see misspending everywhere I turn. If we had a better run and administered system, we could cut taxes with abandon and still provide vital services ( maybe even have healthcare.)

If some one, at ae twenty-five, put two hundred dollars a month into a mutual fund that gets a paltry 4% average return over the next 40 years, they would have over two million dollars when they are sixty-five. Capital gains and income will take a chunk because you get taxed after a hundred in contribution to a mutual or an IRA. So, ou saved what was left after Fed and Fica and local income taxes, then you've paid taxes again for making money by being smart. You might live well for ten or fifteen years with the less than a million dollars you have left, but you kids aint getting squat.

[drastik]

Originally posted by wdlove


Jay Severin believes in the Constitiution, would hope all Americans would. The perversion of the Constitiution is why we are in trouble today.

Severin would do away with half the Bill of Rights if he had his way. Man it steams me when Conservatives start saying that they love the constitution, then they drop it when it doesn't go their way.

Severin doesn't know what hes talking about anymore than you do, or me for that matter. Have you ever actually met a talk radio host? For the most part they are crass, sexist men with no education in the subjects they lectutre on about.

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by drastik
Sorry, this is a long one.

Think of the death tax. Everyone is expempt from estate tax up to a million dollars. Therefore only the rich get hit with this tax, which is something like 49%, ectremely high anyway. But guess what, the rich have already paid taxes on this money, probably more than once.

This is especially true if you own a small business. Having a million in assets is pretty easy to do in a small business.I probably have $40 to $50k in assets in my small biz, and I have gross reciepts of over $100k anually. Really small potatoes in the world of business. After I pay my employees, and my expenses there is a little left for me. However, I hope to slowly grow my business, and by the time I die, (hopefully 40 years from now) I will have substancial assets in the business.

Her comes the kicker. Lets say that I have 30 employees, have 1.1 Mil in assets and I kick the bucket. (And me and My accountant didn't prepare for me dying) Current plan has my kids paying $500k. They don't have $500k. (remember, most of the income in my Biz goes to the employees, and capital improvements) So they sell off the assets of the company to pay the $500k and put 30 people of out work.

According to the plan the Gov made money, however they just lost the income tax from 30 people, who are now on unemployement. Depending on how much they were getting paid, this could easily eat up the $500k the gov recieved from the death of me.

There is/was an effort to exclude Small Businesses from the tax, however I am not sure where this stands. :(

[SPG]

mcRain, thanks for the informative and realistic post. It's nice to have someone around who actually works in the field weigh in.
McRain, what about this "death tax"? How much is true. I've heard the spin on both sides and the one that I tend to believe a little more is that the vast majority of people are excluded from this tax, even the wealthy.

I guess what's really going on here is that the republican party is trying to get this ridiculous idea that the poor are undertaxed repeated so many times that eventually it will be accepted. Then we will see another shift of the taxes away from the rich and on to the backs of the poor, and the future generations that will also be poor because of it.

Chad, you ask what would happen if the CEO's quit? Let them. They've been moving all the jobs overseas, they've been getting cozy deals and handouts from Washington, and now who is going to pay the bill? Not the CEO's anymore, nope it's going to be those greedy tax dodging poor people!

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by SPG
Chad, you ask what would happen if the CEO's quit? Let them. They've been moving all the jobs overseas, they've been getting cozy deals and handouts from Washington, and now who is going to pay the bill? Not the CEO's anymore, nope it's going to be those greedy tax dodging poor people!

I'm not quite sure if you are serious or not? Are you?

Well, anyway, the CEOs haven't moved the jobs overseas, economics has. Private and public owned companies benefiting from capitalism in the United States, plus the fact that you have a open world economy (in the majority of the world's countries), push unskilled, labor-intensive jobs overseas -- where the cost per unit of production is lowest. For the end-user or consumer, we benefit my observing lower prices at the check-out stand. For the workers (who potentially lost their job to the overseas worker), they benefit in the long run -- by specialing in skilled labor which provides a larger wage. The economy as a whole is better off, here, and abroad.

Cozy deals and handouts from Washington, aye. What ever happened to working hard, and getting compensated for it. You think that these CEOs get cozy deals because they don't work hard and have been slacking off. If this were the case, they would have been fired a long time ago -- way before they could see the cozy deal. The shareholders of the company would have him on a stick.

Not stoked when Washington bails out companies -- except when the consumer would really get impacted , like with energy supply.

It's very simple to blame everything on rich and the hard working.

YOu still haven't answered the question, or even though about the implications of my first question (see about post). What would happen to the US economy if all the CEO type people quit, or got fed up?


Chad4Mac

[SPG]

I haven't answered because it's a ludicrous question to begin with!
What would happen if all the machinists quit? the nurses? the janitors? The used car salesmen? Traffic cops? DEA agents? Veterinarians? Electricians?
Come up with a real scenario please.
Ahh fuggit, I'll indulge your nightmare/my utopia for a moment...
An alien ship flies in and vaporizes every CEO of every company, poof! gone.
The factories would stil run, the workers would still work as long as middle management was there. Without CEO's there would be a lack of long term planning and strategic investment opportunity evaluation and pro-active decision making principles implemented in retaining highest benefit valuations of the global market capitalization....yada yada yada. In other words, there would be less major moves by companies that affect there stock valuations, but the day to day routines would go on. Now that you mention it, I think it's a great thing! No more seeking out which factory to close and how to move jobs overseas to save money, no more accounting shenanigans to boost stock prices, and think of the money saved in bloated CEO bonuses and salaries. In the long run perhaps less growth of the biggest and unwieldliest of the corps, but there would still be innovation and new discoveries.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Chad4Mac


I'm not quite sure if you are serious or not? Are you?

snip...
For the end-user or consumer, we benefit my observing lower prices at the check-out stand. For the workers (who potentially lost their job to the overseas worker), they benefit in the long run -- by specialing in skilled labor which provides a larger wage. The economy as a whole is better off, here, and abroad.

Cozy deals and handouts from Washington, aye. What ever happened to working hard, and getting compensated for it. You think that these CEOs get cozy deals because they don't work hard and have been slacking off. If this were the case, they would have been fired a long time ago -- way before they could see the cozy deal. The shareholders of the company would have him on a stick.
snip...

Chad4Mac

Go to Flint MI, or any of the (former) steel towns and tell them this. I'm sure they'll be stoked to realize how much better off they are now.

F--- you and your hard work! You don't think that anyone else is working hard? Ever work manual labor for minimum wage? Ever live where your net worth was in the negative and the only job opportunities are low paying with no future and even then, there aren't too many of them?
Go down to Mexico and check out the living conditions of the average family working at a maquilladora.

[wdlove]

I have met Jay Severin, highly intelligent, feminist (humanist), & very approachable. He has a masters in communication from BU. The last time I checked the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, the 1st 10 amendments. Jay Severin is for the Constitution. Give examples of conservatives who have dropped the Constitution?

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by SPG
I haven't answered because it's a ludicrous question to begin with!
What would happen if all the machinists quit? the nurses? the janitors? The used car salesmen? Traffic cops? DEA agents? Veterinarians? Electricians?
Come up with a real scenario please.
Ahh fuggit, I'll indulge your nightmare/my utopia for a moment...
An alien ship flies in and vaporizes every CEO of every company, poof! gone.
The factories would stil run, the workers would still work as long as middle management was there. Without CEO's there would be a lack of long term planning and strategic investment opportunity evaluation and pro-active decision making principles implemented in retaining highest benefit valuations of the global market capitalization....yada yada yada. In other words, there would be less major moves by companies that affect there stock valuations, but the day to day routines would go on. Now that you mention it, I think it's a great thing! No more seeking out which factory to close and how to move jobs overseas to save money, no more accounting shenanigans to boost stock prices, and think of the money saved in bloated CEO bonuses and salaries. In the long run perhaps less growth of the biggest and unwieldliest of the corps, but there would still be innovation and new discoveries.

I love a good pessimist! Everything is corrupt! Poor everyone!

You are right. All the CEOs are corrupt, they don't and never have worked hard . They don't care about anything.

All accounts are corrupt too. What a bunch non-Americans.

Innovation and new discoveries...good one!

I only mention my question because it was the premise behind a book that I am trying to find. Once I find it, maybe I'll send it to...

Maybe the answer I was looking for was: The world would be worse off without the "CEO types", and all the people working under a "CEO-type" company would be worse off as well. We have to work together was the point.

Ludicrous...

Chad4Mac

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by SPG


Go to Flint MI, or any of the (former) steel towns and tell them this. I'm sure they'll be stoked to realize how much better off they are now.

F--- you and your hard work! You don't think that anyone else is working hard? Ever work manual labor for minimum wage? Ever live where your net worth was in the negative and the only job opportunities are low paying with no future and even then, there aren't too many of them?
Go down to Mexico and check out the living conditions of the average family working at a maquilladora.

Steel? Subsidies? Oh God, please. What? Do you want to hide from the problem. That's always good! America can't produce cheap steel anymore! Our wages are too high, and our ore reserves aren't as plentiful as they used to be. That's life. But then again, we could always have the Trusty government pay the steel workers to live.

"You don't think that anyone else is working hard for minimum wage." I personally don't think that a bloated American citizen truely works hard a minimum wage job. Illegals, yes, but Americans, no. Not for minimum wage.

No, haven't worked manual labor for minimum wage. Delivered pizzas for four years for it though (got good tips though).

Negative "net worth"? After what? After costs. Sure. Some people make choices that increase thier cost of living; therefore, the profit that they take in from working becomes negative.

This is America. If you have a negative "net worth" someone has made some seriously wrong life-chioces (thought there are certain circumstances).

Been to Mexico? Sure. Been to parts of Mexico when there were no commerce around in a small town. Sure. After commerce comes in, some of the people have more income now. They buy a better roof over their head and maybe even a car. Los Barrilles, Baja Sur.

I'm sorry to touch such a sensitive subject with you. I for one don't think that all the CEO's, Accountants, others are corrupt and bad for America. I think that it is too easy to plaim these people, when, after all, they are trying to provide for their family just like anyone else.

Have a good day.

Chad4Mac

[mcrain]

Originally posted by SPG
mcRain, thanks for the informative and realistic post. It's nice to have someone around who actually works in the field weigh in.
McRain, what about this "death tax"? How much is true. I've heard the spin on both sides and the one that I tend to believe a little more is that the vast majority of people are excluded from this tax, even the wealthy.

I guess what's really going on here is that the republican party is trying to get this ridiculous idea that the poor are undertaxed repeated so many times that eventually it will be accepted. Then we will see another shift of the taxes away from the rich and on to the backs of the poor, and the future generations that will also be poor because of it.

Chad, you ask what would happen if the CEO's quit? Let them. They've been moving all the jobs overseas, they've been getting cozy deals and handouts from Washington, and now who is going to pay the bill? Not the CEO's anymore, nope it's going to be those greedy tax dodging poor people!

Well, the discussion about death taxes is for the most part wrong on all sides. The "death tax" (even the name is a form of propaganda) is rarely, if ever, described without talking about how unfairly it hits farmers and small businesspeople.

The fact of the matter is this: If your heirs get hit with an estate tax one of two things happened. 1. You are extremely wealthy, or 2. You didn't hire an attorney.

People always talk about farmers and businesspeople whose heirs have to sell the business to pay the taxes. Ok, I'll tell you what, for $1000+ in billable hours, I can guarantee you that won't happen.

Ok, why is it fair to tax these wealthy people who have already paid taxes on their money? Well, first, that's not what's happening. The estate tax is a tax on the transfer of wealth. What that means is, you are taxing the "income" being received by the heirs.

Basically, the estate tax system is set up so that your heirs can receive over a million dollars of income tax free (way more if you talk to someone like me before you kick the bucket). In excess of that, they will owe a tax. In order to simplify things, and so that the IRS isn't pestering grieving heirs, they collect the tax from the estate of the deceased prior to distribution (oh, and if you hire someone like me, it's possible to keep the valuation of the estate low, which further minimizes taxes).

Anytime anyone talks about eliminating the estate tax, I want you to ask yourself whether you would think it was fair to work 60 hour weeks to earn 100,000, but had to pay 33% taxes on that (plus all the other taxes) while your neighbor got the same amount of money, but didn't have to pay taxes?

The answer is that it isn't fair. The estate tax is a compromise between the old system that allowed families like the rockefellers and vanderbilts to transfer huge fortunes to their family members (thus creating a permanent upper class) and the people who thought that upon death, every penny should be taxes at huge rates to discourage that sort of permanent bougois upper class.

The hard truth is that the Republicans want to eliminate the estate tax because many of their constituants' estates will have to pay estate taxes (not because they have small businesses/farms or didnt' hire good lawyers, but because they are very, very wealthy - by the way, many of these people were clients before I came here). The way the get popular support for a move like that is to generate a fear that this tax applies to us all. Strangely enough, the tax does apply to a good number of farmers and small business owners, not because it has to, but because they don't hire a good lawyer. (As we sharks like to secretly say to each other as we circle the reef, pay us now, or pay us more later!)

[jefhatfield]

the former chair of the gop in my county is a friend of mine and mentioned the most common millionaire in ca is a restaurant owner

[Chad4Mac]

God dam! There is nothing better than a good lawyer. And I don't say that sarcastically.

I've always thought about going to law school...

...maybe in a few years...

Chad4Mac

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Chad4Mac
God dam! There is nothing better than a good lawyer. And I don't say that sarcastically.

I've always thought about going to law school...

...maybe in a few years...

Chad4Mac

If your serious, I'd be happy to talk with you.

By the way, as most of you know, I argue the liberal side of politics most of the time, but when it comes to taxes, my democrat family and I completely disagree. Then again, most republicans don't like my views either. I've been doing this long enough to understand what the system does, and neither side ever, and I mean ever, really explains it completely. It's always slanted or spinned. Don't ever forget that when you listen to the suits on TV.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Chad4Mac
God dam! There is nothing better than a good lawyer. And I don't say that sarcastically.

I've always thought about going to law school...

...maybe in a few years...

Chad4Mac

are you a conservative?

i am a democrat but even i get tired of the percentage of lawyers who are left or far left...it must be something over 90 percent...and i went to grad school in business (opposite ratio politically than law school) at a school which had a very conservative law school...which is a rarity these days...they even had a law frat on campus called the federalist society which were ultra right wing

but then again when i hear conservative legislators hollering about trying to severely limit the amount of money lawyers make, then i could see why a lawyer would not want to side with those pols

newt gingrich, bob dole, and others have suggested that lawyers should have a small fixed rate or income...no matter how big the case

also the conservatives yell about almost any case affecting or suing business as frivolous

but still, we need conservative lawyers, even if they are doomed to make 20-40k a year, to be hard on criminals

mcrain...any thoughts?:confused:

[Chad4Mac]

Prior to working for my company, I had never dealt with lawyers. Now it seems like I deal with them everyday. We look into a lot of venture cap deals. Whether it's documentation write up, meetings with potential partners, etc. our lawyers are always with us.

Extremely important in business.

I've got a couple of good friends studying for the LSAT coming up in, I think, February. I'm hoping that they pass (well, hopefully, get a good score) and go to a good law school. Only after those two graduate can I build a empire.

I'm so busy these days (not now because of the Christmas slowdown) that LSAT plus Law school seems unattainable. I might have to look you up in a couple of years though!

Chad4Mac

There is only one thing better than good, cheap legal advise....wait, nothing is better than good, cheap legal advise!

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
are you a conservative?

i am a democrat but even i get tired of the percentage of lawyers who are left or far left...it must be something over 90 percent...and i went to grad school in business (opposite ratio politically than law school) at a school which had a very conservative law school...which is a rarity these days...they even had a law frat on campus called the federalist society which were ultra right wing

but then again when i hear conservative legislators hollering about trying to severely limit the amount of money lawyers make, then i could see why a lawyer would not want to side with those pols

newt gingrich, bob dole, and others have suggested that lawyers should have a small fixed rate or income...no matter how big the case

also the conservatives yell about almost any case affecting or suing business as frivolous

but still, we need conservative lawyers, even if they are doomed to make 20-40k a year, to be hard on criminals

mcrain...any thoughts?:confused:

Hmmmm... during law school, a lot of students are very idealistic (and thus liberal) because of all the exposure to the constitutional law cases, criminal law cases, etc... We tend to get a right vs. wrong feeling, and in those law school cases, it's pretty clear cut.

Then, you get out. After you're in the real world, the liberal vs. conservative lawyers are similar in number to the general population, however, lawyers really do have a different way of thinking about situations (they don't teach you the law in law school, they teach you a new way of thinking). That way of thinking often makes the most conservative people sound sort of liberal (because they examine both sides of an argument, and often acknowledge the other sides' strengths)

Civil rights, personal injury, and family law attorneys are generally liberal. Corporate/business attorneys are generally conservative. Tax attorneys are generally conservative. Criminal defense attorneys are generally liberal. Prosecutors are generally conservative. Judges are usually trial attorneys, therefore, the former plaintiff's attorneys are typically liberal, while the former state's attorneys are usually conservative.

Of course, I'm a tax attorney, and I'm pretty liberal, so there are exceptions. (Like doctors are generally conservative... that's not always true either).

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


Hmmmm... during law school, a lot of students are very idealistic (and thus liberal) because of all the exposure to the constitutional law cases, criminal law cases, etc... We tend to get a right vs. wrong feeling, and in those law school cases, it's pretty clear cut.


tha explains it then...because while i was in school, the people i talked to were law students

the mba students were idealistic in the way they all wanted to either be ceo or an entrepreneur, and thus had right wing views to fuel their dreams

i guess the real world of business will make some of those conservative mba students more moderate or liberal when they get out in the real world just like the real world will make some liberal law students go more towards the middle of the spectrum instead of just the left

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


are you a conservative?

i am a democrat but even i get tired of the percentage of lawyers who are left or far left...it must be something over 90 percent...and i went to grad school in business (opposite ratio politically than law school) at a school which had a very conservative law school...which is a rarity these days...they even had a law frat on campus called the federalist society which were ultra right wing

but then again when i hear conservative legislators hollering about trying to severely limit the amount of money lawyers make, then i could see why a lawyer would not want to side with those pols

newt gingrich, bob dole, and others have suggested that lawyers should have a small fixed rate or income...no matter how big the case

also the conservatives yell about almost any case affecting or suing business as frivolous

but still, we need conservative lawyers, even if they are doomed to make 20-40k a year, to be hard on criminals

mcrain...any thoughts?:confused:


I tend to think of myself as a Conservative. I just feel that the government should have a minimal amount of influence on a person's life (to be overly simplistic).

You know, I really don't know a hole lot about a concervatives view on how lawyers get paid. I will definetly do some reading on that. But, I do feel that their service to certain business practice is about as important as butter is to bread.

They should be compensated for their contribution to the topic at hand. Sometimes their compensation needs to very high.

I don't care if the lawyer is liberal or conservative. As long as he/she can perform a service that is benefitial to the his/her employer, then there is no distinction.

As far as I know, our lawyers are left, but it never gets in the way of my EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE boss.

Chad4Mac

[jefhatfield]

the trial lawyers are "the" big liberal lobby group in dc...along with the educators and various minority groups

...like the nra and christian right are the big conservative lobby groups in the capital

robert novak and george f will, conservative commentators and very well thought out, are great sources of info...rush is an entertainer and thus i am not surprised that you have not heard a lot on this most important issue affecting both sides...anything that is one iota difficult or takes some thinking is something rush avoids:p

[wwworry]

Originally posted by drastik
Sorry, this is a long one.

The problem with higher taxation on higher incme is that it creates a penalty for being rich. Working hard and thinking of the future are what get you rich in the first place. A graduted tax, as it works now, is a penalty for success.


I agree with mcrain's post on this. The estate tax is not taxing the person who died, it's taxing the inheritors.

Thomas Paine recognized that weath should be based on achievement, rejecting the English style aristocracy based on birth.

If you win the lottery you have to pay taxes on that. Having a rich old man is just like winning the lottery.

& Find me one true story of the farm that was lost because of the "death tax". You will not find one because lost farm story is a myth, cooked up by wealthy bankers to cover their assests.

As for the tax system penalizing the rich, it seems like they are doing better than ever. Try looking at the actual evidence before spouting off talk radio ************.

[mcrain]

Just a couple of side comments...

Again, if you own a small business or a farm, and the vast majority of the value of your estate will be that business or farm, you MUST [unless you are an idiot] seek out qualified estate planning counsel (assuming you think you might die before the phasing out of the estate tax). If you do that, your heirs will not lose the business/farm. In addition, if you seek that counsel out now, you may be able to transfer a large portion of the value of your estate prior to your death (without giving up control of the business/farm) and perhaps even bring the value of your estate down below the tax threshold.

As for the capital gains tax and estate tax arguments, people love to argue that the money has already been taxed or that it punishes people who have worked hard or invested in the economy. Those arguments are both hollow. Why? Because the estate tax is a tax only on a portion of the wealth transferred in excess of a threshold amount. From the heirs' point of view, they are receiving a huge windfall of "income," often tax free. Even if they are taxed, they take any hard assets with a new, stepped up basis. Don't underestimate the tax advantages of that! As for capital gains taxes, there isn't a double taxation, it's only a tax on the gain. Gain is profit. Gain is income. Why is that income taxed differently than the income you or I make at our jobs? People love to argue that it is because investments spur on the economy. All I know is that the vast, vast majority of investments aren't in initial public offerings of stock (the money that goes to a company that makes all those jobs). Rather, the vast majority of those capital gains come from buying and selling stock on the secondary markets. Those investments do nothing more than transfer money from one investor to another. The only companies that benefit from that are the brokerage firms.

One more side point. The periods of greatest economic growth in this country happen to coinside with the highest tax rates. The theory behind that (as explained by my tax professor) [by the way, I don't really agree with this theory] is that if you increase the tax rates, very wealthy people who were used to living on say a million of expendible wealth per year, suddenly have to invest more or work harder or start more businesses to get that million of expendible wealth if they are taxed more. Remember, it is a lot easier to make a million if you have 50 million in the bank, than it is if you don't have anything in the bank. If you have 50M in the bank, and your lifestyle income goes down because of taxes, you can either eat into your bank accounts, or you can start a new business. You can invest in a few new stocks. Maybe invest in some real estate. If you're perfectly happy with your income, you just let it sit, but if you're not, you make the money "work for you."

One of the keys to effective tax/fiscal policy on a national scale is to balance incentives to invest (such as lower tax rates, tax breaks, low interest rates, etc) with policies that force people with wealth to invest (higher tax rates, bond policy, etc...)

Again, I don't agree with either political party on tax policy, so please don't assume that I'm trying to bash the current administration for its efforts to end the estate tax or lower tax rates. I also thought the prior administration scre*ed the pooch on tax policy. All I'm trying to do is give y'all something else to think about that isn't necessarily free of "spin," but is at least not "spun" by the political parties.

[drastik]

Mcrain:

I understand your points on tax policy, but I still feel as though estate taxes are double taxation, sometimes triple. There is a transfer of wealth, certainly, but wealth within a family is different from wages or salary. If someone leaves you a vase, it becomes yours, you do not have to pay the sales tax again. Wealth should be the same way. Until there is a change in rules regaurding inheritance, the money is still being taxed. Think of it this way. if a family of four has a computer, and then the father, who paid for the computer, dies, there will not be a legal dispute over the computer. It in essence belongs to the family, not the father. I feel that wealth should be the same way.

I understand theat estate taxes are meant to discourage family empires, but I think that this is a penalty for success. You have worked hard and built a family that has money and power. So to discourage that, we'll take some of it away. Having one class isn't part of the free enterprise system.

The reason I think of the estate tax as double taxation is simple. The money was taxed as income when it was made. IF that money grew and made more money and became wealth, then it was taxed again on capital gaines (yes, I understand that these taxes can be manipulated to some extent, but not entirely). Then they are taxed again on death.

Before anyone asks, yes I am from a wealthy family. As a real life example, take this: my father built a fortune for himself and for us, his family. He came from nothing, dirt poor.

Last year, he paid almost a million dollars in taxes. That money could have fed and clothed my children for a lifetime. But that is just the income tax. when my father dies, the money he made last year will be taxed again, estate tax. So, for the two million dollars or so my father's hard work and ingenuity Earned him, there will only be arounf 500,000 left. Now half a million bucks is a lot of money, but to lose 75% of what you have worked for because you are good at what you do and successful, that just sucks.

[edit] As an interesting side note, the tax situation will be oddly different for my family this year as my father is retired and nolonger draws a salary, and making oney in this market is not very easy. But then again, sometimes a loss is good.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by drastik
Mccrain:

Iunderstand your points on tax policy, but I still feel as though estate taxes are double taxation, sometimes triple. There is a transfer of wealth, certainly, but wealth within a family is different from wages or salary. If someone leaves you a vase, it becomes yours, you do not have to pay he sales tax again. Wealth should be the same way. Until there is a change in rules regaurding inheritance, the money is still being taxed. Think of it this way. if a family of four has a computer, and then the father, who paid for the computer, dies, there will not be a legal dispute over the computer. It in essence belongs to the family, not the father. I feel that wealth should be the same way.

I understand theat estate taxes are meant to discourage family empires, but I think that this is a penalty for success. You have worked hard and built a family that has money and power. So to discourage that, we'll take it away. Having one class isn't part of the free enterprise system.

The reason I think of the estate tax as double taxation is simple. The money was taxed as income when it was made. IF that money grew and made more money and became wealth, then it was taxed again on capital gaines (yes, I understand that these taxes can be manipulated to some extent, but not entirely). Then they are taxed again on death.

Before anyone asks, yes I am from a wealthy family. As a real life example, take this: my father built a fortune for himself and for us, his family. He came from nothing, dirt poor.

Last year, he paid almost a million dollars in taxes. That oney could have feed and lothed my children fro a lifetime. But that is just the income tax. when my father dies, the money he mae last year will be taxed again, estate tax. So, for the two million dollars or so my fathers hard work and ingenuity Earned him, there will only be arounf 500,000 left. Now half a million bucks is a lot of money, but to lose 75% of what you have worked for because you are good at what you do and successful, that just sucks.

No offense, but you're wrong on one major, major point. If I work hard, and make $10, I am taxed on my receipt of that money. If I then transfer that money to someone else (regardless of who it is), that is a taxable transfer unless there is an exception. Now, there is no difference between an employee and a family member. You just want there to be so the estate tax will go away.

By the way, your father and his family didn't make $2,000,000, he did.

Oh, and if he has $2,000,000 in the bank at his death, and there is only $500,000 after taxes, then you need a better lawyer and a better CPA.

Oh, by the way, those numbers are impossible. The first million is exempt. If he's married, all of it can be transferred to his kids tax free. So how can 75% of the money be taken away by the government? It CAN'T!!! You've been brainwashed! Sucker.

[drastik]

Originally posted by mcrain


No offense, but you're wrong on one major, major point. If I work hard, and make $10, I am taxed on my receipt of that money. If I then transfer that money to someone else (regardless of who it is), that is a taxable transfer unless there is an exception. Now, there is no difference between an employee and a family member. You just want there to be so the estate tax will go away.

By the way, your father and his family didn't make $2,000,000, he did.

Oh, and if he has $2,000,000 in the bank at his death, and there is only $500,000 after taxes, then you need a better lawyer and a better CPA.

Oh, by the way, those numbers are impossible. The first million is exempt. If he's married, all of it can be transferred to his kids tax free. So how can 75% of the money be taken away by the government? It CAN'T!!! You've been brainwashed! Sucker.

How can all of it be transfered tax free? I'm really asking here. If that money can be transfered without taxation, why would anyone care about the estate tax? The only thing that comes to mind would be something along the lines of rights of joint survivorship, but then the money really belong to everyone involved.

The numbers: You missunderstand, take a start of to million dollars as income. tax it (-800,000 or so) 1200000 left. Now apply estate taxes (say 550,000 if you have already gone over the first million.) now you've got 650,000 left. I was using round numbers to speed things up. So, you have made maybe 30% of what you earned. Consider that someone who makes over a million a year, is probably going to die with more than a million dollars.

The family/employee: You are absolutely right, families do not own wealth jointly. I think they should. You got it backwards. I don't want it to happen so the tax ends, I want the tax to end because I think familiesd should operate that way.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by drastik
How can all of it be transfered tax free? I'm really asking here. If that money can be transfered without taxation, why would anyone care about the estate tax? The only thing that comes to mind would be something along the lines of rights of joint survivorship, but then the money really belong to everyone involved.

The numbers: You missunderstand, take a start of to million dollars as income. tax it (-800,000 or so) 1200000 left. Now apply estate taxes (say 550,000 if you have already gone over the first million.) now you've got 650,000 left. I was using round numbers to speed things up. So, you have made maybe 30% of what you earned. Consider that someone who makes over a million a year, is probably going to die with more than a million dollars.

The family/employee: You are absolutely right, families do not own wealth jointly. I think they should. You got it backwards. I don't want it to happen so the tax ends, I want the tax to end because I think familiesd should operate that way.

Ok, two million in assets is small potatoes. To transfer that to heirs without any tax at all is easy. How? If you really want to know, I'd be happy to set up an appointment.

As for your example, if you have 2 Mil in annual income, you should be taxed at the 33% or whatever rate. That's personal income tax. If you, on the other hand, die with 2 Mil in your estate, the first mil you transfer to your kids (tax free). The second mil, you transfer to your wife (tax free). If you're not married, you go see a lawyer before you die, and you accomplish the same thing, but you do it more cleverly.

The only time you have large estate tax problems is if you have large estates. I once had a 6 million dollar check in my grubby paws to pay the first 1/3 of one client's estate tax liability. Yes, 18Mil in estate taxes. BUT, that wasn't 75% of his estate. It wasn't 1/2 of his estate. It was far, far less.

Good lawyers.... pay us now, or pay us more later.

[wwworry]

It's all been said better than I could

I found the following at:
http://www.pgtoday.com/PGT/Articles/the_estate_of_the_union.htm


Thomas Paine’s patriotic argument. Arguments in favor of the estate tax originate in Thomas Paine’s attack on the British monarchy in Common Sense. No one has outdone Paine in his withering sarcasm regarding inherited power. For Paine, hereditary rule is “as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet.”

Warren Buffet’s fairness argument. Buffett’s critique of inherited wealth echoes Paine’s appeal to simple common sense: “The DuPonts might believe themselves perceptive in observing the debilitating effects of food stamps for the poor, but were themselves living off a boundless supply of privately funded food stamps . . . The idea that you get a lifetime of food stamps based on coming out of the right womb strikes at my idea of fairness.”

FDR’s democracy argument. Franklin Roosevelt cemented the connection between inherited economic and inherited political power in a speech to Congress on June 19, 1935. “In the last analysis such accumulations [of inherited wealth] amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals . . . Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.”

Warren Buffet’s meritocracy argument. Not only does concentrated wealth undermine democracy, Buffet argues that inherited wealth undermines the free market system itself! “Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit.” In other words, inheritance destroys competition and free enterprise.

Buffet wins the prize for best estate tax sound bite with his now famous sports analogy. He argues that repealing the estate tax would be a terrible mistake equivalent to “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics” (New York Times, February 13, 2001). If this is folly in terms of athletic competition, then why not in terms of economic competition?

Andrew Carnegie’s productivity argument. Andrew Carnegie worried that inherited wealth would ultimately destroy the work ethic of its recipients. In The Gospel of Wealth, he asks: “Why should men leave great fortunes to their children?” If it is from affection, then it is a misguided affection because “great sums bequeathed often work more for the injury than the good of the recipients . . . It is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these legacies.”

According to Carnegie, parents who leave enormous wealth to their children deaden the talents and energies of their children. If giving a single mother $10,000 in welfare stifles her initiative, why doesn’t the same principle apply to someone who inherits many times that much?

Carnegie’s apprehension is confirmed by researchers Stanley and Danko in their best-selling book The Millionaire Next Door. They conclude that lifetime and testamentary family gifts are both a disincentive to work as well as a disincentive to save. Their findings show that the more dollars adult children receive, the fewer they accumulate, while those who are given fewer dollars accumulate more.

Teddy Roosevelt’s debt to society argument. Roosevelt formally proposed a federal inheritance tax in a message to Congress on December 4, 1906, where he argued that “the man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.”

The wealthy individual needs to pay for the “protection” that the State provides for his or her property ─ a military force that defends private property from foreign threat and a legal system/police force that protects private property from domestic theft. As Adam Smith observed in the Wealth of Nations: “It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of valuable property can sleep a single night in security.”

George Soros’ benefit to charity argument. Almost a year before the recent protest of the billionaires, George Soros warned: “Abolishing the estate tax would remove one of the main incentives for charitable giving. It is no exaggeration to say that the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000 would seriously fray our social fabric" (Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2000).

Soros emphasizes the price effect as opposed to the income effect of taxation. According to the price effect, if it costs you more to give you will give less to charity. If it costs you less to give, then you will give more. For example, with an estate facing the 55 percent marginal estate tax rate, every dollar given to charity only costs 45 cents, because 55 cents of each dollar are saved in taxes.

[jefhatfield]

heredity might have controlled the uk in 1776 and not the usa so much

but we are in 2002

but as time goes on, an upper class emerges and the wealth gets passed on thru money, marriage most likely within the same social strata, social clubs, graduating from private high schools and colleges where one can form alliances, and even dress

the offspring are more likely to work in a good position for the family business/empire after hs or college than have to become a civil servant, military, or work at the bottom of the rung for someone else

look at stanford university magazine...they have an ad with arranged dating there

i think many of the wealthy are scared that their kids will marry someone who is middle class and dilute the family wealth

but at least we are not in a stratification as lock step as some other countries of the world

the death tax will not break up the bond of the rich from generation to generation because they have the sense to hire a good tax lawyer...he he...like mcrain on macrumors;)

[wdlove]

Boston Globe 12/21/02

"Consumers face prescription tax"

The new tax to begin Jan. 1st, 2003, when pharmacies ar to begin collecting from consumers a new state tax of $1.30 per prescription.

Pharmacies plan to collect the tax directly from consumers. They are expecting a backlash from consumers, and are preparing in store signs to inform about the new tax.

Most prescriptions filled in the Bay State will be taxed, the only exceptions being those covered by Medicaid and Medicare. State officials estimate that 55 million prescriptions a year will be subject to the new tax, which will be $1.30 for the 1st 6 months of the year before dropping to 65 cents on July 1st.

The prescription tax is expected to raise $36 million a year, which will be used to finance the state's rising bill for Medicaid, the state administered health insurance for the poor and disabled. The federal government, us, will match state expenditures on Medicaid, so it will eventually yield $72 million in funding.

Insurance companies refuse to pay any of this, big surprise.

Our Republican Acting Governor Swift, "No new tax pledge," is supporting this. Again showing NE Republicans are not conservative as a general rule.
Wants to call it an assessment, but if it looks like a tax its a tax!

Not fair to make just the sick pay for this, hiting minorities again!

Also our Socialist/Communist run state government, our governor has no veto power.

A legislative committee wants to urge universal health care in MA to the legislature. The cost would be $3 to $6b extra annually. We already spend ~$41b per year on health care from all sources public and private. Because of our current budget crisis, the plan is to do further study. Our new governor elect Mitt Romney is opposed to a single payer system.

[wwworry]

Well everyone knows that single payer systems have dramatically lower administrative costs. In the US 35 cents of every (private) health care dollar goes towards administrative costs.

.... and now a typical fight about Canadieans waiting, excess executive compensation, the morality of profit based medical care, malpractice-insurance costs etc. etc. etc.

try not to be greedy

[synergy]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


are you a conservative?

i am a democrat but even i get tired of the percentage of lawyers who are left or far left...it must be something over 90 percent...and i went to grad school in business (opposite ratio politically than law school) at a school which had a very conservative law school...which is a rarity these days...they even had a law frat on campus called the federalist society which were ultra right wing

but then again when i hear conservative legislators hollering about trying to severely limit the amount of money lawyers make, then i could see why a lawyer would not want to side with those pols

newt gingrich, bob dole, and others have suggested that lawyers should have a small fixed rate or income...no matter how big the case

also the conservatives yell about almost any case affecting or suing business as frivolous

but still, we need conservative lawyers, even if they are doomed to make 20-40k a year, to be hard on criminals

mcrain...any thoughts?:confused:


While this wasn't aimed at me, I wish to answer anyways.
I would say I am a conservative. As well I am an attorney.
But I do agree that litigation tendencies have run amok. Do I think damage amounts should be reduced to discourage it? No.
Instead I think we should have the rule of loser pays. Lets not cap the damage award for people with legitimate claims. Instead to discourage frivolous law suits make the loser pay. Of course the attorney won't pay, the client will end up with the bill. But that will make both sides think twice before pursuing the ambulance chaser type of claims.

My conservatism stems more based on reality as opposed to thinking Republicans are correct in their views. I don't like the infrigements on privacy. I don't like any restrictions on the Bill of Rights. I don't think the government should be sticking their nose into people's private lives with some exceptions (i.e. abusive relationships etc. etc). Both republicans and democrats are vey blurred towards the center. Most people are too stupid to realize what they are voting for. They just vote straight ticket.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by synergy
While this wasn't aimed at me, I wish to answer anyways.
I would say I am a conservative. As well I am an attorney.
But I do agree that litigation tendencies have run amok. Do I think damage amounts should be reduced to discourage it? No.
Instead I think we should have the rule of loser pays. Lets not cap the damage award for people with legitimate claims. Instead to discourage frivolous law suits make the loser pay. Of course the attorney won't pay, the client will end up with the bill. But that will make both sides think twice before pursuing the ambulance chaser type of claims.

My conservatism stems more based on reality as opposed to thinking Republicans are correct in their views.

My problem with that would be that the way things work now, you have a lot of litigation that doesn't require the litigants ending up in court. What I mean is that now, if I file suit against a company for injuries I sustained at their store, there is a strong liklihood that the company and I will reach an agreement as to the damages and settle the case. The reason I believe that occurs is that the companies are afraid to proceed due to the risk of losing, and the risk of an exceedingly high judgment. If you start shifting the equation towards the company, and placing liability on the damaged party in the event of a loss, the insurance companies will change their "formulas" and will decide to go to court far more often. As it is, the reason I believe everyone gets so upset about the personal injury/tort field is because of the astronomical verdicts they read about in the papers. What the papers never say is that the parties could not/would not settle prior to suit, and they forced it to a jury, and took their chances. If McDonalds didn't want to pay a 60Million dollar (or whatever) judgment for coffee that was too hot, it could have settled.

It's funny you should say where your conservatism stems from, because I also believe my liberal tendancies stem more from reality as opposed to thinking Democrats are correct in their views.

By the way Synergy, where do you practice? What sort of law do you focus on? I've always focused on corporate/tax/transactions, but now, I'm only doing tax b/c I'm working at my state's department of revenue.