SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bruce L who wrote (336993)12/2/2009 12:50:07 PM
From: DMaA13 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793956
 
You could just read the posts with 3 or more recommendations. That would cut down a lot. That's what I do when I have catching up to do.



To: Bruce L who wrote (336993)12/2/2009 3:25:54 PM
From: LindyBill1 Recommendation  Respond to of 793956
 
Thanks, Bruce. I don't like to police the thread. Most of my posts are grouped, so they are easy for you to follow and avoid the clutter.

Right now it is out of hand due to Tiger and other minor things. Hope everybody keeps that in mind.



To: Bruce L who wrote (336993)12/2/2009 8:25:42 PM
From: ManyMoose9 Recommendations  Respond to of 793956
 
I would humbly encourage the readers of this Board to think twice before they type out their one-liners; that they consider private posts to posters they admire and to avoid "clutter" that adds nothing to the understanding of this community as a whole.

Welcome to the thread. I disagree with your recommendation about one-liners, except when they do not communicate any information. (LOL! I Agree! and so forth)

One liners often reveal more about a person than a lengthy post, or a clip and paste from some outside source. I have trouble plowing through some of the voluminous cut and paste jobs. I'm a fast reader, but can't hold a candle to LindyBill.

We know each other here. We know each other's bias and our like and dislikes. We get that from one-liners.

Personally I am sick and tired of posts about Tiger Woods. He's just a man with extraordinary skills--that's all. It's OK with me if people run on and on about Tiger as long as it's OK for me to say "I don't care."

And I did just that.



To: Bruce L who wrote (336993)12/2/2009 9:24:39 PM
From: unclewest3 Recommendations  Respond to of 793956
 
I am an enthusiastic newcomer to your thread; for me, it is an invaluable resource for one who has spent nearly 50 years fighting the ideological and political wars.

But this morning, I was stunned to see I needed to read 360 posts just to catch up. And for me, it was annoying to read through dozens of one line posts on "People" Magazine subjects. And many of these were back-and-forth colloquies that could only interest the posters involved. EGO POSTS, I would call them.


Bruce I wonder if we met. I see where you are from. I used to live in a wonderful mountain chalet we owned on Jennifer St, just off Mt Rose, just below the fire station and near the 8,000 foot level.

This is a great thread...but it isn't for all. LB does a wonderful job and has for a long time. 337,000 posts attests to that.

A newby won't change the tone with one critical post.



To: Bruce L who wrote (336993)12/2/2009 10:48:59 PM
From: KLP5 Recommendations  Respond to of 793956
 
Hi Bruce...Glad to see you are posting here. You'll bring a lot to the table I feel sure from reading some of your past posts. As some of the other posters here have noted, LB does an excellent job overseeing this board, and it is a respected as well as a respectable place.

Personally, I think there are several reasons for our weaving in and out of various issues lately and hyperventilating
about some others....The Thanksgiving Holiday, some of us away with family and friends, the everyday since Jan 20th the unrelenting pressure on everyone that we feel from DC and our Congress and Adm, and just in the last few weeks, the murders of our Military and our Police...

So don't worry...we all respect this abode too much to turn it into a trash dump to which some of the other threads have descended...

I personally don't think we would have as much info and commentary presented here, if we didn't get to know a bit about each other's brains first...some of us have met in 3D and some haven't. We don't always agree, but always are respectful of another's opinion.

Grab a comfortable chair and stay whenever you can....



To: Bruce L who wrote (336993)12/3/2009 5:12:48 PM
From: KLP4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793956
 
These Dems are simply insane! House votes to extend tax on wealthy estates

[KLP Note: This is the kind of thing I wrote about last night...everyone who pays taxes in this nation, and helps to make jobs for others, has got to be incensed about this type of thing. We ourselves won't be effected...BUT what about small business people who create jobs for some people, or have farm land, and all the etc's....BY WHAT RIGHT does the Government, and the Congress like Waxman, Pelosi, Reid, etc think they have a RIGHT to steal MORE money from people? The dead have already paid taxes on every piece of money they have been able to save over the years....So precisely WHAT RIGHT do they have to take even more...? The comment below seems to be how most of the Dems think, and to me it is like scratching fingernails on the blackboard all day long....

"This bill gives our nation's wealthiest families the ability to know exactly what their obligation to the nation that fostered their wealth will be, and it is fair and it is just."


House votes to extend tax on wealthy estates

Dec 3 04:15 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer

breitbart.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted Thursday to permanently extend a 45 percent inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million, canceling a one-year repeal of the tax set to begin next month.

A similar effort is afoot in the Senate, but the health care debate there could preclude action on the estate tax before Congress breaks later this month for holidays. There are also disagreements among senators over the tax rate and the size of estates that should be exempt, further clouding the bill's prospects.

Lawmakers, however, don't want to delay action until next year because they are wary of enacting retroactive tax changes.
Under the House bill, estates smaller than $3.5 million would continue to be exempt from the tax. Married couples, with a little estate planning, could exempt a total of $7 million. That leaves less than 1 percent of all estates subject to the tax.

The bill passed by a 225-200 vote, with all Republicans opposed. Majority Democrats argued that a permanent tax rate makes it easier for families and small business owners to do estate planning, noting that fewer than 1 percent of all estates are subject to the tax.

"In America, it's not a sin to be rich nor is it a crime to die rich," said Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo. "This bill gives our nation's wealthiest families the ability to know exactly what their obligation to the nation that fostered their wealth will be, and it is fair and it is just."

The bill follows the federal budget proposed by President Barack Obama. But many Republicans called for permanent repeal of the estate tax, arguing it hurts families that pass down farms and small businesses to their children.

"The majority claims to be offering certainty to taxpayers and I suppose in a way they are—they are certainly repealing the hope of ever eliminating the death tax," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Under current law, the federal estate tax is scheduled to temporarily disappear next year before returning in 2011 at an even higher 55 percent rate. During the year without an estate tax, all estates would be subject to a 15 percent capital gains tax that they now avoid.

"If Congress does not act on this issue this month, you would have a wildly fluctuating scenario of different estate tax levels, making it impossible for families to plan," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., chief sponsor of the House bill.

Some liberals have complained that the bill is a giveaway to the rich because it would result in lower rates in future years than what current law provides. Conservatives have labeled the estate tax a "death tax" and argue it should be repealed permanently.

"We're trying to forge a compromise that resolves this issue once and for all," Pomeroy said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, likened the estate tax to stealing from the dead.

"After someone dies and someone comes in and steals from them, we consider that in most society reprehensible," said Gohmert, a former judge. "I have sentenced people personally to prison for doing that."

The quirk in the law, in which the estate tax would disappear for only a year, came out of a series of tax cuts enacted in 2001. Many Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time, wanted to permanently repeal the estate tax then. But they settled on a gradual reduction, with a one-year repeal, to reduce the impact on the federal budget deficit.

Under current law, the estate tax would return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and top rate of 55 percent, unless Congress acts.

Permanently extending the tax with a top rate of 45 percent on estates larger than $3.5 million would raise about $14 billion a year. However, it would raise less tax revenue than current law over the next 10 years—an estimated $234 billion less—because the tax rate would be lower in future years. The lost revenue would be covered with increased borrowing.

Under current law, if someone inherits a $5 million estate in 2009, they would pay $675,000 in federal estate taxes, according to an analysis by Deloitte Tax. In 2010, they would pay no estate tax but the estate would be subject to a 15 percent capital gains tax. If they inherit the $5 million estate in 2011, they would pay $2,045,000 in estate taxes, according to the analysis.

Under the House bill, they would pay $675,000 in estate taxes, regardless of which year the estate is inherited.
Currently, the tax affects few estates. In 2009, about 5,500 estates will be subject to the tax, according to projections from the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. That's 0.23 percent of all estates.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.