@John Schafer

sigh...'none so blind as those who will not see...'

the only thing GOPs have to offer is more of the sameoldsameold...cut taxes for rich folks and cut programs for po folks, the disabled, education...that resulted in 1929 and 2008.

any GOPer care to provide the difference in romney/rand and policies of 1929/2008
FDR/DEM policies got us out of GOP 1929 and BO/DEM policies are getting us out of GOP 2008...most economic metrics trended down in 2008; now trending up...

it's big bro GOP who wants to control women's reproductive system, NOT the DEMs...big bro DEM wants to regulate the greedy WS bankers/brokers...protect the environment from polluters...and our children from big pharma.

GOP were pre '1984' with newspeak (and racist code words)...post '1984' they have perfected it...'Orwell observes political language [aka bs] serves to distort and obfuscate reality.'...eg;

newspeak advocating voterID laws to prevent non-existent voter fraud at the ballot box...

@John Schafer - The GOP hides behind a smokescreen of catch phrases like "big gov't intrusion" while they quietly work to control our love lives, our sex lives, and our reproductive choices. It doesn't get any more intrusive than that!

In 2008, Rick Santorum said “This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone.” George Orwell couldn't have said it better himself.

Gee. Citing the Super PAC operated by Karl Rove as source? That makes me give sooooooo much respect to this comment.

@John - lemme get this straight.....you support the party that is forcing Marxian economic theory.....you support the party that just voted to make it legal for your employer to require you to give them your internet passwords .... you support the party that is trying to take away your right to representation in employment ....... and yet you're calling Obama "big brother" and "totalitarian socialist"? *YOU* sound like Karl Rove - commit a crime, then blame the other side for committing that crime.

Richard,

The CrossRoads Generation is a Republican-Funded Super Pac.
Do you have any unbiased sources for your polling data?

It's pretty easy to tell people what's wrong. How about offering some solutions?

@Gunny:
Teamsters
Afl-CIO
Afscme
Weac
SEIU
Rea
Tribes
Trial lawyers
But these aren't corporations and special interests, right? (rolling eyes!)

no, gearhead, but those organizations actually represent people. Gotta problem with that? (apparently - meaning you must be like other Compublicans who favor businesses or citizens)

reg, you honestly don't see the idiocy of your own statement? Where do I start?
BTW, I favor interests and people who don't pick my pocket.
And WEAC hardly represented their members when they unilaterally endorsed Falk for Governor. They represented their oun special interests, namely keeping their own highly paid dues-supported jobs.

@reg

as usual you have a measured understanding of the issues and state facts...well you do tend to adhoms...but it is difficult not to...

an example of DEM support by special people interests is: SEIU (listed by gearhead)...it's organizing care providers of disabled children/adults...

many of these providers now work 70-80 hrs/wk at poverty wages; living (surviving) from paychk to paychk..

I challenge you to provide factual source of these "highly paid" jobs by union reps. You show me the highest ones you can find, and then I'll provide factual source that shows those highest paid union leaders receive 1/100th of what the CEOs in that same industry are paid.

reg is exactly right. @Gearhead, if you can't see the difference between the organizations you listed and the insurance and banking conglomerates that hold such tremendous power over the GOP then you must be blind. Do you really believe that they aren't taking money out of your pocket, and mine? To quote a former Republican president, Bush #41, "Who the hell is Grover Norquist?" Nobody elected him, yet he dictates the GOP policy on taxes. That isn't how this Democracy is supposed to work.

But that misses the point entirely. Note first that I said "most" Democrats, because I realize that there are some Democrats who succumb to the temptations of money and power just as there are some Republicans who don't. The point is that most Dems partner with organizations like the ones you listed to advance the cause of working Americans, whereas the vast majority of Republicans partner with the powerful corporations and wealthiest people in this country to advance their own interests.

Our young adults are in a unique situation. Many of them have come of age during this economic crisis and aren't aware of how we got here. They don't realize the damage caused by the GOP policies before Obama took office, so they're vulnerable to the hateful rhetoric of the Republicans. We need clear debates on the issues, and specific facts to debunk the GOP propaganda that dominates the media.

@GunnyHighway -

"... wouldn't it be helpful if we could also discuss the Romney plan? What little we know of it so far?"

He had his 57 point plan out there for quite some time now. Just because you're lazy and haven't looked at yet is no reason to get down on Mitt.

Hoffa will even help you out a little:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

And his VP, Paul Ryan, has a wonderful document called the Path To Prosperity:

http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/

Try actually reading both for yourself, in their entirety, instead of merely relying upon the biased third party pundit analysis, making your own analysis of the plans, and coming to your own conclusions.

That's what us big boys call thinking for yourself!

Then come back and give us your take.

Hoffa - 5
Liberal GunnyHighway - 0

Wow, accused of relying on third-party pundits from the man who quotes them in his posts! But your point is well taken and I will take a look at their documents. Thanks!

OK, so I'm only half-way through the Romney plan, but I gotta say, so far the pundits are right. Hoffa, have you actually read that thing? Interspersed among the pages and pages of Obama bashing (what place does that have in a policy paper, anyway?) are the same ideas I wrote about earlier; Repeal the Affordable Care Act (which he even refers to as Obamacare in his so-called policy paper), Pass tax cuts that will provide much more benefit to the wealthiest Americans than to the working class, and Restructure Social Security and Medicare (with Zero details provided about what that means).

But thanks for the info, Jimmy. Thinking for yourself is fun! You should try it, Big Boy.

@GunnyHighway -

The 20% cut in marginal rate will be substantial for the middle class. And the elimination of the cap gains / interest / dividends tax on anyone with an AGI of less than $200k/yr will help create the largest swing of upward mobility that the nation has seen in a long time!

And getting rid of Obamacare means getting rid of the taxes that are in Obamacare, one of the largest tax increases in modern US history, which will primarily effect the middle class the hardest as the poor are provided for without taxation and rich are already insured.

Your predisposed liberal bias is causing you to look at the plan with a very narrow and limited range of perspective. You need to look with better eyes and more open mind.

Hoffa - 8
Liberal GunnyHighway - 0

@GunnyHighway -

You just admitted that you haven't look at the plans for yourself, so you're obviously basing your erroneous conclusions on biased third party punditry.

BTW - Hoffa only used the primary source data contained within the links he previously used to support his arguments, not the analysis or conclusions.

And your debt numbers are wrong as you're using calendar year as opposed to fiscal year numbers. The federal budget operates according to a fiscal year - not a calendar year. Although given that we haven't had a federal budget since Bush's last fiscal year ran out, thanks to Obama's wonderful leadership (or lack thereof), I can understand your confusion on this point.

And Social Security doesn't make sense - the investment component of the program doesn't make any real money, it just taxes us even more via the income tax as opposed to the payroll (FICA / FUTA) taxes. Why not let people make their own investments, that actually generate a real profit, with their own money?

Why do we need the government to treat us like children? Essentially the SS program says that our government doesn't trust us to save up our money for retirement ourselves, so like a little child, they're going to forcibly take our money from us and set it aside, deciding when and how much at time we'll get it back. And their so-called investment is just more taxes.

Why can't our government just treat us like adults?

Hoffa - 7
Liberal GunnyHighway - 0

OMG, privatizing Social Security?? I thank God that moronic plan never saw the light of day! Can you imagine the devastation to people's retirement if SS had been privatized in the mid-2000's??

@GunnyHighway -

You failed to answer a single question posited by Hoffa.

In response to your questions, the people that had invested their money wisely would have done just fine. Life is about choices, and the freedom of choice is about one of the only real freedoms that anyone truly has. With choices come consequences - some good, some bad. You live with the choices you make. What's important is being treated like an adult and being able to make those choices for yourself.

If people didn't want to expose themselves to risk, they could have invested in fixed interest annuity's.

You assume that everyone would have gambled their money on high risk investments. And if that's what people want to do, then shouldn't they have the fundamental basic human right to do so?

Why do you insist on having our government treat us like children and then claim that it's for our own good?

Why can't we make our own decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions?

That's something us big boys like to call exercising personal responsibility for one's self in life.

Hoffa - 9
Liberal GunnyHighway - 0

Fixed interest annuities? That have no insured securities, and that can amount to total loss overnight? The interest rates of which are determined solely by stock market returns? That are *not* actually "fixed," and that fluctuate in annual returns after the teaser intros? That have penalty for early withdrawal, so that a person who becomes ill can't collect it without losing some of it? You don't know much about the financial spectrum, hoofer. You're also trying to twist the actual facts - it's the GOP that's taking away our rights. Just because Dems are trying to *protect* rights, you claim that's a loss of rights? Get real. You're not doing a very good trolling job, you know.

@reg -

There are several annuities that offer a fixed interest rate.

Ever hear of the Google? Try googling the term 'fixed interest annuity' and see what comes up.

Or if you don't like annuities, invest in CDs. Honestly, there are several fairly low interest, low risk investments that a person can make if they so desire.

I fail to see your point, except that you obviously don't live in the consensus reality!

Actually, I live IN THE INDUSTRY you're attempting to discuss. why do I need google to look up my own industry? I have Series 6 license, hoofer. And the fixed rate annuities you refer *still vary annually in their rates* - and which are calculated *after commissions are removed.* The only ones receiving benefits from that concept would be the companies, not the citizens. Moreover ... THEY ARE STILL NOT GUARANTEED. They ARE NOT INSURED. Even through a bank, if you take the equivalent of SS deductions and put them in CDs, ONLY $250k IS INSURED. In a 40-year career at median income, LESS THAN A QUARTER OF YOUR SAVINGS WOULD BE PROTECTED. This proposal does nothing more than take your money and give it to some well-off people to play around with. You want to invest? GOOD! Go right and do it - I'll help you, too. But do NOT think that anyone with IQ above that of a doorknob is going to let you put their retirement security in the trash - and that's what you're suggesting.

@reg -

If you don't want to invest your retirement money, that's fine. Then just save it up and set it aside under the mattress. Hoffa honestly doesn't care what people do with their nest-egg - only that the person be treated like an adult by their government and gets to make that decision for themselves!

SS does not make any money, as it invests in T-bills. T-bills are paid off by the federal government from the money generated from tax revenues. Thus the money in the SS fund doesn't actually generate any real returns for the people invested in it, it just taxes them more under a different name - income tax vs FICA/FUTA taxes.

As an investment guy, you must realize this. You also must realize that the only that such a system is sustainable is if your tax base is constantly increasing or the tax rates are constantly increasing.

Originally, the federal government only made debt issue to fund unexpected line-items in the budget, like the world wars. The continuous supply of debt that we've been issuing for the last 40+ years was never meant to be an infinitely occurring part of our monetary policy. Thus when we finally get our debt under control and paid down, the SS fund won't have anything to 'invest' the money it collects from the FICA/FUTA taxes in anymore. Then what?

So, why do you defend the government treating its citizens like children instead of treating them like adults and allowing them to make their own decisions?

in my license training, I was told how the falsehoods you're telling can be used as quick-sells, but that the company couldn't be held responsible when I'd be busted for providing false information to clients. And you either don't know jack about SS, or are simply reading from your handbook - your last sentence indicates the latter.

@reg -

WOW! First you claim to be Series Six licensed. Then, you deride others commenting on this board as 'embarrassing themselves' for making inaccurate claims. Then you give an erroneous example of how the death/estate tax allegedly works. And now you're incapable of disproving the OBJECTIVE FACTUAL REALITY spoken by Hoffa about the SS system, so you resort to some emotionally driven line of bs that you cannot backup and accusing Hoffa of being a part of some kind of conservative conspiracy theory.

You sir have lost all credibility and I will ignore your future posts on the Patch boards!

You say my claim is wrong? PROVE IT. Show us a factual resource that disproves it. Every time I disprove your fraudulent statements, you only respond with misdirecting tangents full of even more falsehoods. I know your trollbook handbook by heart, I know your methods ... and I know that all you'll do next is try signing in under yet another pseudonym.

@reg -

You asked Hoffa to prove that the SS Trust Fund works the way in which Hoffa claims it does. Well, you don't have to take Hoffa's word for it - it's all right in the Trustees most recent report found here:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/tr2012.pdf

Care to revise any of the crap you've spewed here or admit that you were WRONG???

Or will you double down on your brand of misinformation and accuse the SS Trust Fund Trustee of lying?

However you choose to handle this, Hoffa predicts that you will continue to discredit yourself on the Patch forum.

and *which* statement of mine, exactly, does your source disprove, hoofer? In this subthread have I repeatedly shown your suggestions of privatization of SS to be of significant risk - no guarantee, no insurance, subjectivity of fluctuation, and with your money going off into the hands of others as commission. ... and now you're trying to misdirect again? Your link offers *no* information relevant to the discussion in this subthread. Try again, hoofer - we're getting tired of your childish arguments.

@reg -

You haven't answered ANY of the questions posited by Hoffa, and yet he has directly answered all of yours. Like a typical liberal, you deflect, shift the subject, and refuse to address the tough questions.

Sorry, but Hoffa doesn't play with those who employ such juvenile and immature tactics that do no contribute to a productive discussion.

Cheers!

Again, your link offered no information relevant to this topic. After you got backed into a corner with factual data that defeated your argument, now you're trying to save face by posting things that have nothing to do with the topic? And that don't even verify your claims? And when you get questioned, your respond with even more misdirection? Bailing out of the discussion, you say? Well, be gone, trollboy. Your Karl Rove tactics aren't working here.

@reg -

Do you honestly believe that the SS Trust Fund investments actually make money for the people invested in it (anyone who pays FICA/FUTA taxes)? If so, how does it make this money?

What's so wrong with the government treating its citizens like adults and letting them decide what to do with their own money?

Why do you insist that the government treat us like irresponsible children in setting aside our own money for us, letting the government decide when and how much at a time that we'll actually get back of our own money?

No investment is completely risk adverse - including US Treasury Bills.

more huff and puff misdirection from hooofer

More avoidance of the tough questions from reg!

@GunnyHighway -

Hmmm... not sure why the Treasury and CBO show different numbers. Perhaps CBO adjusts for inflation and other variables. Hoffa honestly doesn't know.

But Hoffa does agree that the Treasury numbers are probably the best to go with, so Hoffa will give you that - congratulations!

"Romney's so-called 57 point plan is nothing more than a propaganda paper."

That has to be one of the stupidest things that Hoffa has ever read on Patch! And BO's campaign website, containing his plan, if you can call it that, would not be considered to be partisan propaganda?

How can a primary source document ever be considered to be propaganda?

Come on!!!

Hoffa - 10
Liberal GunnyHighway - 1

I think your childish self-scoring in 3rd-party attribution to yourself is the stupidest thing *I* ever read on Patch.

Wow, I GOT A POINT. You just did that to bait me, didn't you! OK, I'll bite. Let's look at the Romney tax plan.

You claim that "The 20% cut in marginal rate will be substantial for the middle class. And the elimination of the cap gains / interest / dividends tax on anyone with an AGI of less than $200k/yr will help create the largest swing of upward mobility that the nation has seen in a long time!"

Well, I'l admit that I missed the part of his Tax Plan where he said he would cut the marginal rate by 20%. So I went back and looked again. I still can't find it. Please tell me what page it's on.

The elimination of the cap gains / interest / dividends tax on anyone with an AGI of less than $200k/yr is just lip service. I'm in that group and as a percentage of my income, cap gains / interest / dividends are a miniscule part of my income. Thanks for nothing, Mitt.

The same applies to eliminating the Estate Tax. Let's be honest, poor people don't have estates. Certainly not estates worth the current $500K exemption (and that increases to $1M next year). So who is this tax cut really for? It's OK, you can say it, we all know the answer.

James Hoffa, you are a worthy adversary my friend, thanks and good night.

@GunnyHighway -

Actually, Hoffa also should have deducted two points from his score. Hoffa is a very fair and honest guy!

"Well, I'l admit that I missed the part of his Tax Plan where he said he would cut the marginal rate by 20%. So I went back and looked again. I still can't find it. Please tell me what page it's on."

On page 40, Mitt states that he'll make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Obama doesn't mention anything about eliminating the sunset provision on the current extension of those cuts on his website, so when the clock runs out on the current cuts, your marginal income tax rate will increase by 20%, effective December 31, 2012. Thus if Romney wins the election, he'll be effectively cutting the marginal rates by 20% by reinstating those tax cuts and making them permanent. You're welcome!

As to investment taxes, you must not be a very active trader. And for many people in our income positions, it's directly because of the taxes that we'd have to pay every time we close a position at a gain - especially on the short term. By eliminating that tax burden on us, it will encourage more active trading by such people. As a fairly active trader myself, Hoffa can't wait for this - it will truly provide us with the opportunity to advance into the upper echelons!

Death tax is just plain stupid - work all your life just to give a big chunk of it back to the government - wealth should be able to be passed on. It keeps more wealth in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of government. You earned it - future generations in your family should get it, not Washington bureaucrats!

BTW - you never answered Hoffa's questions regarding SS.

Hoffa - 9
Liberal GunnyHighway - 1

"death tax"? you mean the taxes due on unearned income before an estate can be exchanged to a new owner? If you invest $1 million, see it reach $10 million the next day, then sell it to collect your $9 million ... YOU OWE TAXES ON THAT UNEARNED INCOME. If you get hit by a truck on your way to the bank, though ... THEN WHAT ABOUT THOSE TAXES THAT WERE NOT PAID? That is all that this so-called "death tax" is - collection of unpaid taxes on unearned income from an estate. And less than 1% of the population pays it, too. That troll handbook you're using to come up with fraudulent arguments, hoofer? That got leaked to the public a while ago...

@reg -

Hello - death tax = estate tax.

What you gave an example of is a cap gains / dividends / interest tax.

And no, the estate/death tax does not work the way in which you describe. Look it up - it starts at 26 U.S.C. § 2001(a).

It's a tax on the transfer of the already taxed estate of a decedent to a living heir, either via a will or state intestacy laws.

Using your example, and only working with federal taxation (as in reality state and local level taxation would also apply) it works like this:

The living person who made a gross $9M on the investment would pay a cap gains tax on the investment - irregardless of when the death occurs, before or after filing their individual return. If it was on an investment held longer than a year, then the federal tax rate of 15% would apply. So the person now has $7.65M. Boom, they are hit by a truck and die, leaving a sole heir, the person's brother. Before the brother gets the money, it is subject to the estate or death tax, currently 35% on amounts above $5.12M. The exempted amount is currently set to go to $1M on December 31, 2012. That's an additional $885k that the fed takes, just because you died and are passing the money on, so your brother gets $6.765M. So of the original $9M profit that the decedent realized, 25% of that amount is eaten up by federal taxes alone. Next year it would be significantly more.

Are you sure you're Series Six licensed? Couldn't pass the Series Seven, hey?

1) you're applying terms of ordinary capital gains matured and collected by the owner, and in the pretaxed circumstances of Gross Estate, not Net Estate --- apples + oranges DO NOT EQUAL grapes

2) you're hoping no one else realizes that only about 0.5% of the country (who are in the top 2% of income) is subject to estate tax

@reg -

Hoffa is working within the confines of the simple example that you gave, with only one source of investment income to work with, and that being the only transferable asset of the deceased. Under the defined terms of your example, your babble in your first enumerated response makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever!

And as Hoffa pointed out, starting in 2013, the exemption goes down to $1M, thus a lot more people will become exposed to the federal death/estate tax. For example, if you have a typical middle class home valued between $300k-$600k and a few hundred grand in liquid-able assets upon your death, the federal estate and death tax will very quickly start to effect many middle class families!

@James R Hoffa

re: As a fairly active trader myself [hoffa]...

hard to believe a 'fairly active trader' sits on money waiting on a washington tax rate decision...big institutional investors maybe...

one can make or lose money in the market regardless of tax rate...you either play the market or you dont.

as a day trader prior 2008...tax rate pre/post bush cuts was not a factor in decision to buy/sell a stock...and;

dont recall any significant change in market volume pre/post bush cuts...would be interesting to look at this...anyone have a link to a discussion re volume change due to bush tax cuts...anyhow;

back to the PATCH topic: 'Reelecting Obama Remains Priority'.

hoffa's (anyone's) questionable anecdotes/opine are not a factor in the reelection...the fact that the DJI was around 6-7,000 in 2008 and now around 12-13,000 maybe a consideration...

typical middle class homes are NOT in the 300K-600K range, hoofer. WHere do you get that information from? In the NE: $254K; MW: $158; S: $168; W: $233. How, then, does this affect middle-class Americans? .... and with the tax exemption of $1 mill ($2 mill for couples), less than 1.5% of estates are subject to it. With the previous $5 mil exemption, only 0.3% are subject to it. You're following the classic theme of the GOP, hoofer - only caring about 1.5% of the population, and lying to the other 98.5% to get their support.

@reg -

Having a net worth of $1M or more, including the equity in a home, puts you somewhere in the top 23% of all Americans, from a financial perspective, according to the New York Times research anyway, and not in the top 1.5%, as you've erroneously claimed and failed to back up with any kind of factual citation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/business/retirementspecial/how-to-make-a-measly-1-million-retirement-nest-egg-last.html

Thus, just as Hoffa stated earlier, when the estate/death tax exemption revises to $1M this December 31, it will impact many middle class people. The average retirement goal for many middle class families with dual incomes is currently around $1M, excluding the equity in a home, according to many financial planning houses.

And you still claim to be an investment guy? Hoffa thinks you're nothing more than a foul mouthed extreme partisan hack that perpetuates a bunch of liberal lies and spin!

Care to try again?

@stanley seigler -

As far as short term trades are concerned, it is really prohibitive when many are looking at close to a 45% effective tax rate on such trades between the combined fed and state taxation on such profits. Add in brokerage fees and the time you have invested in calculating such trades and for the amount of profit that most middle class people would be looking at realizing from the money they have available to invest, it quickly becomes discouraging and quite frankly not worth it to most.

So yeah, elimination of the short term cap gains tax for the middle class will most definitely be awesome!

there you go again .... your mathematical skills are just as bad as fartin bob's. You say that 23% of americans are in this class of net worth millionaires. YET your source doesn't say that. In fact, it says it's only 7 percent. And that's millionaires *who are alive* - when they go into retirement, and begin depleting those assets, and then pass away ..... THEY AREN'T MILLIONAIRES ANY LONGER. Go on...try to find a source that says otherwise. Then you say "average retirement goal for many middle class families with dual incomes is currently around $1M, excluding the equity in a home" .... that's a *goal.* How many achieve it? ONLY 7% of *all* Americans, not just the middle class - I'll let your own source prove that fact, too. You also still keep trying to misdirect the fact that only 0.3% of estates are subject to such taxation, and that to remove this tax would allow decades of unearned income to go UNtaxed.

@reg -

Apparently you didn't read the source closely enough. The 7% figure was exclusive of equity in real estate. When one factors in the number of homes with a median assessed value of $300k or more in the country today, according to the National Association of Realtors, that number quickly jumps to 23%, as many middle class people have considerable holdings in real estate, including their homestead property and many have either an investment property(ies) and even a second or vacation home.

Did Hoffa really have to explain this to a self-declared finance guy?

"... and that to remove this tax would allow decades of unearned income to go UNtaxed."

All income is taxed, one way or another. Either via income or the cap gains/dividends/interest tax. The estate/death tax is a form of multiple taxation - it taxes money that has already been taxed several times before the decedents death.

You're attempting to spin the OBJECTIVE FACTS more than records do at a disco club just to meet your hyper-partisan views.

now you've dug yourself deeper into a hole, hoofer. You say "All income is taxed, one way or another." You *ignore* the fact, though, that it doesn't get taxed until its claimed. Buy stock at $10 a share....hold it for 20 years ..... it's value keeps increasing....YOU HAVEN'T PAID TAXES ON IT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY REALIZE THAT GAIN. In your opinion, then, the stock that now has value of $50/share can be transferred to someone else without collection of the taxes on that $40 of unearned income. Meaning, after i inherit, I can sell it for $51 - and the govt only gets to tax that $1? Or sell it for $49 and claim it as deductible loss? you also hope that no one here knows that there's a $5 million exemption (and in the case of the deceased being married, the exemption applied after that spouse's death increases to $7 million). You hope we don't know that property taxes paid on any real estate are pre-accredited and deducted. You also hope we don't know that, in that $5 million exemption, ONLY 0.3 PERCENT OF ALL ESTATES ARE ACTUALLY TAXABLE. you don't know this subject. What's worse, you're hoping that *we* don't know this subject, and that we'll take your word for it. Give it up, anony- hoofer.

@reg -

That's not what Hoffa is saying at all - thus proving that your reading comprehension skills are abysmally weak!

Hoffa realizes that you do not realize a taxable burden until you close the position, or liquidate the securities.

Under your example, someone who inherits equities pays the estate tax first, at the value that such equities have at the time they are transferred to the decedent's heir. The basis of the equity investment transfers with the transfer of ownership. When the heir finally liquidates the position in the equity, they will be responsible for the full cap gains tax due on the profit realized, from the basis that was transferred from the decedent to the heir.

And Hoffa fully disclosed the current exemptionable amount in the estate/death tax - he was never trying to hide it as you claim. He also correctly cited that on Dec 31 of this year, the exemption goes down to $1M.

For a self-declared finance guy, you're actually quite mis-informed as to how federal taxes work.

This is the last time that Hoffa waste's his time on someone with such poor reading and factual comprehension.

@James R Hoffa

dont think i ever paid 45% on day trades...but whatever...the point is and if "$Y" available cash and can make "$X" trading...and 0.55$X after tax...i and most friends will take $Y+.55$X vice $Y+0...may settle for 0.30$X...ie;

it's orders of magnitude more about what "$X" (risk/reward) is than tax rates...

possible, but hard to believe a 'fairly active trader' would settle for $Y+$0.0 or money market profit...

would i prefer $X vice .55$X...sure...but dont think i could live with my conscience knowing folks needed food stamps to feed their children...or programs for the disabled children provided benign neglect and abuse at best due to program cuts...so rich folks could get tax cuts...

course if you had mitt's beancounters you could get .85$X...maybe even $X.

hoofer, you can keep trying your finger-pointing but your hooves aren't doing the job for you. Every time you're proven wrong, you try to misdirect *or* (as in this case) try to change the terms of your argument. Now you're claiming a double-tax ... and you're wrong. To everyone else: here's what GOP Marxists like hoofer keep trying to misinform - they claim that the taxes due by millionaires on their unearned income, and to which are only a handful subject, shouldn't be collected. Those poor millionaires can't afford to pay their taxes, gosh darnit! And to get public support, those very poor millionaires try dispensing misinformation like this (..even in expensive TV ads sometimes, those poor folks...). Just like in every other circumstance involving the GOP over the last half-century, they misinform the general public, and instigate everyone else to take action towards changes that only benefit very, very few - and that everyone else will wind up paying for.

@reg -

Hoffa hasn't misdirected or changed his argument at all. And Hoffa actually cited to the tax code. You've cited to nothing supporting your unique interpretation of the tax law.

Enough said - Hoffa is done engaging with such bullheaded arrogance.

Bwah! On this page, you cited Mitt Romney’s site; you cited the Ryan Budget; you cited a NYT article that squished your argument on inheritance tax; and in response to debate over handing SS over to Wall Street, you cited a SS page that had nothing to do with SS regarding Wall Street.

So exactly WHEN and WHERE, then, did you provide citation of the tax code? ALERT TO HOOFER: *people will actually read other comments on this page, and not just your last one above.*

To top it off you’ve made ….four? five? …. claims that you weren’t going to post anymore on this page.

Don’t go shooting yourself in your own hoof.

@stanley seigler -

Hoffa understands your point and it is a valid one.

But you cannot deny the human psychological factor. Whenever one is permitted to keep more money, they're more apt to become engaged.

Here's an example:

If people are so desperate for work, then how come there are thousands of openings with this one employer alone?

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/careers.html

The psychology of offering people more money causes more people to become engaged.

That's Hoffa's point.

lemme get this straight - you're posting a part-time job at minimum wage and no benefits as "employment"? You really *are* a plutocratic Marxist, ain't ya?

@reg -

You've already proven that you're little more than an extreme partisan egotistical bloviating fool, but if I really have to embarrass you, so be it! I refer to Hoffa's 12:23 am on Friday, September 7, 2012, post in this very thread, wherein Hoffa specifically referenced the US Tax Code:

"And no, the estate/death tax does not work the way in which you describe. Look it up - it starts at 26 U.S.C. § 2001(a)."

See that reference with all the numbers and the letters 'USC' - that's called a statutory cite. Hoffa's guess is that you still won't admit that you're wrong. You'll just continue to portray yourself as the idiot that you've already proven yourself to be!

and you've already proven yourself to have no working intellect, but here you go again -- a STATUTORY CITATION requires more specific information than you provided. For it to be of the caliber you claim, it would have appeared as - 26 U.S.C. §§ 2001(a)(1)-(g) (2006). In the case of Internet publications, an actual link is to be included, too, otherwise it's just regarded a GENERAL REFERENCE.

@reg -

Honestly?!?!

And you expect that level of detail from everyone in an informal public forum such as this? This isn't a legal brief or professional research paper.

Come on, let's be real here!

re: Hoffa's point...they're more apt to become engaged [due to lower tax rate]

not when it comes to 'fairly active investors'...and i have no experience with large institutional investor tactics...

but believe the same principle applies: they will invest in the market (depending on risk) to get ROI greater than money market or saving account (cash) return...REGARDLESS of tax rate.

wanta make a mitt $10,000 bet, market volume will change if bush cuts are not extended...or over the 2-3 months following the tax increase market will tank...oror DJI will drop 1000 points...

hey, you're the one who introduced the term "statutory cite" - and which you apparently just found in some wild google search, too, since you don't have it right in your use of it. And if you think my response was unneeded, then why did you introduce the term? See, every time you're proven wrong, you try to switch the subject! Here you go again.

If you want to be real, then own up to the fact that privatizing SS actually takes money from it to give to companies, and leaves it subject to consistent fluctuation that can ruin a senior's retirement years. You want to be real? Then start telling the truth about inheritance taxes - how it prevents transfer of untaxed assets held by a handful of just the wealthiest Americans (who already pay lowest taxes of all developed nations). Reality, you call for? Then how about your misdirection of NAFTA, K FTA and C FTA, and you're decision to ignore the refutations I've made multiple times on this page? Reality? Then how about a REAL NAME, hoofer? How about real 1st-person reference to yourself? If it's reality you want, then when are you going to start acknowledging one of the many, many times you've said on this page that your more recent post was your last? Because, in all reality .... no one here regards you with any reality, due to your consistent postings of utter falsehoods, followed by silly attempts to change the subject after you're proven wrong.

@reg -

Hoffa has never shifted the subject, thank you very much. And the original example you offered did not include using a step-up basis. Even if you now want to use an example where a step-up basis would be appropriate, the estate/death tax would charge a higher tax rate on the day of valuation (day of death) on sums above the exempted amount, than if a liquidation had occurred on the day of death and a regular cap gains basis and tax rate used. Given that the death/estate tax rate is more than double the current long term cap gain tax rate, it's more than fair to say that the death/estate tax is using a double or multiple taxation standard to 'catch' such untaxed equity assets that held and transferred upon a decedents death.

If Romney eliminates the death/estate tax, as his tax plan suggests, I'm sure he'll do away with using a step-up basis for computing the cap gains tax owed on the transferred equity securities whenever the heir decides to liquidate such holdings, thus the full 15% of cap gains tax would be collected on the actual profit realized from the investment, and the elimination of the death/estate tax would not allow such investment income to go completely un-taxed, as you apparently ASSUME. In fact according to Romney's tax plan, there would be an exemption only for those with an AGI of less than $200k/yr on all cap gains taxes. So the middle class guys would get a pass while the rich would have to pay.

As far as the FTA's are concerned, Hoffa doesn't care who negotiated them. What counts is the pen stroke that made them effective. And free trade is fine so long as it's fair. NAFTA, as Clinton originally signed it, was not fair. The deal with China that Clinton originally signed, was not fair. And it's not fair to blame Bush for failing to clean up Clinton's mess. Also, Obama hasn't done anything proactive about the situation either, has he? And Obama is the one who effectuated the Korean and Colombian FTAs - he was even bragging about both in his speech last night!

*completely false information* from hoofer yet again - here's the transcript of Obama's address - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57507985/transcript-president-obamas-address-to-the-democratic-convention/ show us where you find any mention of any FTA in there. Go on.....we're waiting.

oh, quit your hoof-pointing, hoofer. you've got too much cheese on your head to think straight. Reagan admin starts the NAFTA talk; Bush signs it; GOP-led Congress under Gingrich approves it .... and you blame Clinton because he didn't veto it? So if you come into my house, secretly unlock some windows, then go to known burglars providing them with my address and a map of my home, complete with listing of all its valuables .... it'll be MY fault for not being there to stop them? SHEESH! dumb argument you're making. YOu're just trying to blame one guy for what generation of another party did.

@reg -

"I've signed trade agreements that are helping our companies sell more goods to millions of new customers - goods that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America."

reg is once again proving that his reading comprehension skills are worth crap!

But if that's not enough, here's more from Obama's joint-session address to Congress on jobs:

"Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea -– while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/us/politics/09text-obama-jobs-speech.html?pagewanted=all

Clearly, those are the FTA's that he was referencing in last night's speech.

Once again, Hoffa doesn't expect that you'll admit that you were WRONG, as you've already proven yourself to be of low character and integrity, which kind of explains why you like Obama so much!

Cherio!

bwah! *insert hoof in mouth,* hoofer
You say "those are the FTA's that he was referencing in last night's speech" ... but did you notice the date on the source you just pulled out of your ear? *2011*

Again, he didn't say anything about any FTAs last night, even though you've already claimed *twice* that he did. And before you try one of those "but still..." kind of arguments, you should quit trying to overlook my other entries on this subject. Both K FTA and C FTA were passed by majority GOP congresses and a GOP prez - Obama held them up and made sure that the terms were equal to prevent losing more jobs. Like he said in that same quote you posted here - "Made in America"!

now do yourself a favor, head off to the stall and hit the hay, hoofer. You're making a fool of yourself here.

@reg -

Are you denying that Obama said this last night, because he did, it's right in the transcript:

"I've signed trade agreements that are helping our companies sell more goods to millions of new customers - goods that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America."

If he wasn't talking about the Colombian and Korean FTA's, then what trade agreements was he talking about?

You're such a jackhole that you can't even admit when you're WRONG!!!

Why, yes! I *am* denying that quote of original reference, which you are now attempting to divert away from, was made last night. Because, as the link address itself says, it *was made a year ago.*

So now you’re stuck in another corner you painted yourself into – and now you’re trying to claim that the quote he made yesterday somehow indicates he did something wrong for US trade? That quote verifies he *saved* that agreement from what it was originally intended to be!

K-FTA was pushed by Bush, and cleared house and senate in ’06 – GOP dominant throughout. Obama delayed and delayed it with his demands – again came up under GOP dom House; this time, it didn’t get signed until other conditions were met. Free trade or no, SK had other restrictions in its own commerce that affected US trade there, even with no tariffs – purchasing any non-SK made vehicle in SK came with automatic individual audit, for example. Now? NO MORE.

And as the president said last night, the only applicability is to US-MADE GOODS. Not anything a US company had made in China.

You're a fact-twister - a bad story-teller - and an overpaid troll, hoofer. Head back to the stall!

@reg -

You're an idiot. Hoffa used the jobs speech to show that the reference in last night's speech to "trade agreements" was to the Korean, Panamanian, and Colombian Trade agreements.

And you've offered no other trade agreements that Obama signed that he could have been referencing in last night's speech, have you?

In fact, you're now denying that Obama even said what he said!!! Honestly - where do you get off?

And yet you claim that Hoffa is trying to spin the facts - yeah, I don't think so! You're pretty sick if your partisan bias runs so deep that you'll just ignore and deny the objective factual reality when it doesn't suit your desired outcome. But hey, Hoffa realizes that you can't help it, as that's what unhinged liberals such as yourself do!

And if Obama fixed those FTA's to our advantage, as you claim he did, then why did the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Project VoteSmart, CitizensTrade, and other so-called progressive and pro-labor organizations stand so adamantly opposed to Obama signing them?

In fact, it would appear that the Teamsters don't believe that the Korean FTA is working very well in our favor:

http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2012/06/s-korea-trade-gap-triples-after-job.html

And yet you continue to bloviate and perpetuate your Obama can do no wrong spin!

You may want to seek some professional mental help before it's too late!

And here you go backpedaling again (right into another corner). You’re twisting the truth yet again.

As for the Teamsters (chapters of which I’ve represented, and a new unit at another company I helped form) – the complaint is that it didn’t aid trade deficit. But that’s not what you were first talking about – shoot, here you go again! Changing the direction when you yet again get proven wrong!

(On that subject of Teamsters – how dare you fraudulently use that name and picture? Do the editors in your area store that much cheese in their heads that they can’t see the trick you’re trying to play?)

And I did not at any point make the “spin” you’re now claiming. But I simply can’t resist to disprove goofy troll entries – which is all you’ve made. You try to misdirect info on my father in law, for pete’s sake, I’ll correct you.

And on to the next correction(s) – project Vote Smart is data collection agency that does not offer any conclusions or opinions of any kind. It collects info – it reports info – it does not offer its own opinions on any info, though. If you think the people reading this don’t know that, shame on you!

@reg -

Hoffa stands corrected on his reference to Project VoteSmart.

As far as everything else goes though, Hoffa isn't spinning, or painting himself into a corner, or backpedaling, or twisting the truth, or any other colorful metaphors that you wish to use to cover the fact that Hoffa has been proving you wrong or irrelevant at every turn!

"And I did not at any point make the “spin” you’re now claiming."

How quickly you forgot about your previous comment wherein you stated:

" Obama held them up and made sure that the terms were equal to prevent losing more jobs."

"...and now you’re trying to claim that the quote he made yesterday somehow indicates he did something wrong for US trade? That quote verifies he *saved* that agreement from what it was originally intended to be!"

Well, Obama didn't do a very good job, did he???

Hoffa got you time and again and you just won't admit it because you're not a very honest person - this time Hoffa really is washing his hands of you!

But go and pat yourself on the back, convinced of your own 'victory,' because Hoffa knows that's exactly what you will do.

Luckily, the record is preserved here for all to see and other readers can independently judge for themselves.

My parting remark is that you had better get used to saying "President Romney," as that will be the reality in the fairly near future!

You embarrassed yourself on:
1) now changing your claim from "23 million unemployed" to a new definition (only after I repeatedly proved your comment to be false)
2) repeating a dumb claim, this time with yet more after-the-fact modifications
3) continuing a childish claim pertaining to bed bugs (the epidemic of which has been on the central Atlantic coast for the past two years .... guess you really ARE a troll here, since you're on a coast SC news site with no knowledge of this area)
4) madly adding sources (after initial ones are proven false), including one that forced you to acknowledge your initial false claims, another that made another false claim more evidently biased in its issuance, and another in which you continue your silly tangent that somehow the party was responsible for what those private companies did. (and they actually could have and did do something, you'd then be whining "socialism!".... what a hypocrite)

For you people out there with intelligence level superior to a doorknob, look at the silly claims fartin bob's made here, his consistent backpedaling in fruitless attempts to correct the errors I've had fun pointing out, and his later attempts to completely change his arguments (as if you simply couldn't read this thread to verify what I'm telling you now).

@reg -

Hoffa never claimed to be a fan of either Bush, did he?

Hoffa is not a rigid partisan, as you appear to be.

@reg -

First you rip on martin.bob for citing to wikipedia, calling it a "cheesy source," and then you go and cite to it yourself!

You apparently have no shame, thus Hoffa feels it appropriate to convey this most appropriate of awards unto you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h0rSTRrQeQ

Congratulations - the title serves you well!

How many feet can a hoofer have, and can he fit them all in his mouth at the same time? ...you *do* know the that wikipedia.org and wiki.answers.com are two completely different entities, don't you? Or are you just posting falsehoods hoping that anyone else reading this page is too dumb to know that? (Do you even know what "wiki" means?)

@reg -

Where in martin.bob's 12:39 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012 post did he cite to wiki answers exactly? And the reason you discredited wiki answers, because "anyone and their grammaw can provide answers to without any foundation," also applies to wikipedia, as according to their own about page "[a]nyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles...," so Hoffa fails to see how that same standard wouldn't be universally applied, thereby discrediting wikipedia as a credible source.

Once again proving your horrible reading comprehension and use of double standards!

Burned again by Hoffa, and as usual, you probably won't admit to it, but will instead continue to spin your way into oblivion, like a good little liberal!

you *do* realize that you just embarrassed yourself again in yet another idiotic interpretation you're applying, don't you? And false reference, even? And on wikipedia.org, you *do* know that those entries/additional info get approved? That there are even gb of discussion and debate on changes to pages before they're approved? (as a contributing wikipedia editor, I know the procedure quite well)