🚀 go-pugleaf

Let's turn the question around just a bit. If the GOP is so much in love
with the so-called balanced budget, why is it that the last president to
even submit a balanced budget PROPOSAL to Congress was Lyndon Johnson?

Yeah, democrats tax and spend. Republicans generally borrow and spend.

Big difference, huh?

NOT!

"Tracey-Levin" <tracey12@hotbot.com> wrote in message
news:39B59997.CDCE212F@hotbot.com...
> Some Democrats are so in love with the concept of taxation. Why?
>
> Is the Democrat below a recipient of welfare, or some other government
hand out?
> Is that why he is so eager to defend confiscatory taxation?
>
>
> Tracey
>
>
>
> Jim Riley wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:55:42 +0200, "Steve Slatin"
> > <sslatin@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In fact, much of the wealth in most large estates has NOT been taxed.
> > >stock, which has appreciated.  The appreciated element has not been
> > >taxed.
> >
> > But if the stock had been sold, its appreciation would have been
> > taxed.  So whether or not it is also hit with an estate tax is
> > arbitrary and capricious.
> >
> > >            If you buy land for $1000 an acre and two decades later
sell it
> > >for $20,000 an acre, it's profit and it's taxed.  If you hold it, no
tax until
> > >death.
> >
> > If you sell it the year before you die, it's taxed twice.  Arbitrary
> > and capricious.
> >
> > >The other point is that your father's million is not taxed under estate
> > >taxes.   There's an exemption that is escalating under current
legislation that
> > >puts the tax-free estate limit at over a million.
> >
> > An arbitrary and capricious amount.
> >
> > >Of course, the politicians grandstand all over this issue, and conceal
the
> > >facts -- which they know well.  Estate taxes only touch a percent or so
of
> > >all estates,
> >
> > An arbitary and capricious level.
> >
> > >and the average rate is way below the 55 percent figure even
> > >for those -- they toss that around to frighten the ill-educated.
> >
> > The income tax rates have been nowhere 55% since the Reagan-era tax
> > reforms.  What justification is there for taxing one $1 at that rate
> > even if it is "income"?
>