Buffett defends estate tax

Cornhusker

Cornhusker

Long Time Member
Messages
3,899
What do you guys think about the second wealthiest man in America Warren Buffett speaking before the Senate Finance Committeeand defending the estate tax. "Concentrating vast sums of money in the hands of one family runs contrary to the ideal of an American meritocracy" The estate tax at present only affects estates valued at more tan $2 million dollars. He wants to give the $24 billion each year for tax break for lower income families.
Buffet also on his CNN interview spoke out about the fact that as a multi-billionare he pays 17% taxes while his secretary pays 34%. He wants to see that reformed as well. Now you can't just shrug this guy off as an uneducated rube. Good idea or bad?
 
He's 100% right, when my dad died the exemption was lower so we set up trusts and partnerships with my mother and every other type of shelter that was legal to avoid taxes. I'm for estate tax but I'm not an idiot , I didn't want to pay it.

That said when it comes to big money families if you don't have a way of holding them back in time we would look like South America or Mexico with haves and have nots. my dad always used to say capitolism is like a game of monopoly, play long enough and one player will have everything. estate tax and taxes on the richest Americans is the way we make the game last longer, it isn't really fair but it has to be.
 
Dude I'm with you and it goes up to $3.5 million in 2009. I probably see it this way because I never inherited anything but a few bills which I took care of. I doubt very much if the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Mellons, Rockefellers and others on this site will see it that way. Let's just start issuing titles of nobility like Europe and let the wealthy families totally control the government like Latin America. We've already got a guy who thinks we did away with the republic and started a monarchy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-07 AT 04:00PM (MST)[p]I think Warren Buffet is a master at building wealth and making money. He is misguided on the estate tax. He has made Billions of dollars from companies that were distressed due to a death and having to pay estate tax.

If he is so worried about being under taxed he should open his check book and write a check to the U.S. treasury. The government will accept a donation or volutary tax payment.

When he talks about paying a lower percentage of taxes vs. his secretary is a stupid comparison. He only takes a small salary from BH and therefore does not pay into Social Security and Medicare on any money except his small $100,000 salary. In addition his giving his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the single biggest avoidance of estate taxes in the history of this country.

Furthermore he has never, ever sold one share of his Berkshire Hatahaway shares. Therefore he is avoiding paying any capital gains taxes on that astronimical gain he has had over the years. Again if he is so worried about being under taxed then capitalize some of his vast for holding in BH shares and pay the tax on the gains to Uncle Sam.

Concentrations of wealth in families has been as American as apple pie. One has to look no further then the great liberal Icons: The Kennedey family. They have lived off of what Joe was able to amass during his lifetime and have had special pieces of legislation passed to avoid estate taxes on HUGE somes of money and property.

I respect Mr. Buffet as a true genius at finding under priced companies and knowing when to buy. He is also a master at knowing when to move on a company. He should stick to that and quit on the tax talk.

Nemont
 
>What do you guys think about
>the second wealthiest man in
>America Warren Buffett speaking before
>the Senate Finance Committeeand defending
>the estate tax. "Concentrating
>vast sums of money in
>the hands of one family
>runs contrary to the ideal
>of an American meritocracy" The
>estate tax at present only
>affects estates valued at more
>tan $2 million dollars.
>He wants to give the
>$24 billion each year for
>tax break for lower income
>families.
>Buffet also on his CNN interview
>spoke out about the fact
>that as a multi-billionare he
>pays 17% taxes while his
>secretary pays 34%. He
>wants to see that reformed
>as well. Now you can't
>just shrug this guy off
>as an uneducated rube. Good
>idea or bad?


I wouldn't compare 2 million dollars to 200 million dollars. If the idea is to penalize the new money families then it's a good plan. Go after the old money if that's possible. If not how about Buffy paying the tax himself? By the way he, Buffet, can pay additional taxes if he feels so strongly about it. How about all the advocates for higher taxes step up to the plate and lead by example.
Again it's good to have you back Cornhusker. And this summer we had a guest from Nebraska come to our vacation home to visit. She was a little liberal too.LOL


Ransom
 
Nobody is advocating eliminating family wealth, just a little Robin Hood taxation. there is no history to reflect on other than our own and we're writing it every day. unless you can prove that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer over multiple generations has no adverse effects on the country what are you basing your opinion on? Americans don't deal with class structure as well as some societies so chaos would result in the end, eat cake you say?
 
To tax the heir's of someone who died is wrong, period. To tax the money that has already been taxed is wrong, period. People should be able to pass along their land to their heir's without having to worry that they will have to sell it to pay the death taxes.

You socialists make me sick! Period!

Its fair chase, or its foul!
 
> Nobody is advocating eliminating family
>wealth, just a little Robin
>Hood taxation. there is no
>history to reflect on other
>than our own and we're
>writing it every day. unless
>you can prove that the
>rich getting richer and the
>poor getting poorer over multiple
>generations has no adverse effects
>on the country what are
>you basing your opinion on?
> Americans don't deal with
>class structure as well as
>some societies so chaos would
>result in the end, eat
>cake you say?


Dude

What? Please explain this to me. Do you use the same source as you do for climatologists numbers?
What the heck Dude there is a big difference in 2 mil and 200 mil.
How about the clowns in government spend less! Look at the total government spending percentages. Surely they could spend less instead of taking more.
473e2871119a7b54.jpg
 
The idea is to preserve our way of life, with the exeption going to 3.5 million it won't effect many family operations. if someone gives them 3.5 mil free and clear and they can't make enough money to pay some estate taxes then they desreve to go down. the estate I recieved was less than that and I've done well enough with it to pay whatever taxes I would have needed to pay. if I had chosen to sit on my butt and blow it or snort it up my nose I'd deserve to go broke. we're not talking mom and pop estates here.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-07 AT 04:41PM (MST)[p]Huntindude,

The estate tax penalizes everything America stands for. Hard work, thrift and savings. Why should accumulating a couple of a Million bucks during ones lifetime make one's death a taxable event?

If there is such virtue in paying more taxes then how come guys like Mr. Buffet don't just open their wallets and pay until their guilt is assuaged?

So show me any evidence that the current system of estate taxes has done anything to "help the poor" and even up the playing field? Show me some empirical evidence that class warfare is going on.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-07 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]Ransom who's side are you on? you do know Bush is a republican and he's run the debt up more than any president in history and he still a year left to go? you're preaching to the choir guy.

That doesn't change the need to keep a few royal families from owning the nation 100 years from now. you may be onto something though, if we keep borrowing from the Chinese as we are they'll own us before long.
 
>Ransom who's side are you on?
>you do know Bush is
>a republican and he's run
>the debt up more than
>any president in history and
>he still a year left
>to go? you're preaching
>to the choir guy.
>
> That doesn't change the need
>to keep a few royal
>families from owning the nation
>100 years from now. you
>may be onto something though,
>if we keep borrowing from
>the Chinese as we are
>they'll own before long.


What? They don't already? I think we already sold them our soul.


Ransom
 
473e2f50326e357f.jpg





"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
Just like monopoly it takes time, and we have an estate tax in place so your argument is void.

This isn't about the poor, nothing is, it's about the survival of capitolism in the long term. without some sort of leveling what do you see 100 years from now? unless the kids are total screw ups they'll get bigger at the expense of the little guy trying to get a foot in the door. that's not good for the country and it's not the American way, not the kind of America most of us want anyway. we're not talking about a wipe out of family money, just enough taxes to keep them from owning everything over time. with a 2 mil eception and all the other methods of sheltering money the first 3 or 4 mil is safe anyway, get real this isn't hurting most family busineses.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-07 AT 07:55PM (MST)[p]It is un American because it taxes assets and wealth that have already been taxed in order to build the wealth. We have had an estate tax for many many years and it has not redistributed wealth nor has done anything to level the playing field period. Corporations allow the concentration of wealth that is occuring and a corporation never dies. Trusts and other vehicles avoid the tax and the only ones who end up paying are those whose assets are not liquid and do not have the ability to capitalize those assets.

The tax only raises $24 billion annually therefore it is not even a good source of revenue nor does it tap the super rich anyway. Who do you think is going to do more harm: people who hold a couple of million bucks in wealth or guys like Buffet who hold Billions and are going to avoid all taxes on it?

Your theory is flawed that allowing wealth to build will destroy capitalism.

Nemont
 
It will destroy capitolism in time. the corporation issue is another problem but there are ways to tax and control them, plus they're owned by individuals not one person or family.

Where is it written that you can pass on your worldly posessions tax free? what about the case where the value is in capitol gains which haven't been taxed?

I think you feel I'm way more generous than I am, I spend as much time trying to figure out how to avoid taxes as I do making the money. I buy tractors, pick ups and crap I don't need for depreciation when in reality I'd be better off paying the taxes. I paid enough capitol gains to buy new Beechcraft in the last few years and why? because there's no way around it short of a 1031, all the properties I looked at were as over valued as what I was selling so that would be stupid. it gripes me no end to lose 24% but guess what, that's the law and there's enough left for me. why should estate taxes be any different? there's enough loop holes to hang on to more than the 2 mil exepemtion and if you're too cheap or too dumb to figure out how to pay taxes on a hand out then tough cookies.

This isn't a matter of rights or being fair, it's a matter of taxes. welcome to America. why is it the far right worries so much about the top 1% of Americans that most will never be in and craps on the lower 1% they could very well be in if things went bad? this is illogical to me. the rich guys will survive just fine, they've got lawyers and half the government bought so they don't need your help.
 
I agree this debate is much deeper than many of you can go. NEMont your points always make me think a time or two even change my mind at times. One of the causes most historians believed that caused the great depression was an unequal distribution of wealth with the top 5 % owning an unbelievable percentage of the wealth this in turned slowed consumer spending creating a threat to our Capitalistic society. I think its pretty closed minded or maybe just uneducated to think Buffet is only good at running BH and buying company stock that is low, their is a lot more to the man than that. I don't have any money (relatively) and won't receieve a great estate anyhow so I guess my only concern is what will this vast compilation of wealth by certain individuals do to the economy in general. My opinion is it will lead to a slowdown in the economy eventually and a volitale markets as we are seeing now. You NeMont are right he does only take $100,000 in salary from B.H. but his secretary doesn't make that much why the tax discrepancy? Corporations yes are very difficult to tax and no matter how we rewrite the tax laws we can't seem to get a hold of them. Not really a liberal but certainly can't side with the robber baron families whether its the Kennedy's or Rockefellers. I think many of you are having flashbacks to Reagan's Old trickle down theory or as latter Republicans called it priming the pump. IN rural Nebraska the water still isn't trickling down. The idle rich that will inherit hundreds of millions without the estate tax are a dredge an a disgrace on society if that makes me a socialist or liberal as some of you suggest so be it.
 
Many economist also believe that the great depression was a result of protectionist policies and retalatory tariffs between countries.

I never called anyone anything in regards to their political affiliation in this thread.

I have read all of Warren Buffet's books and in addition have gone to the shareholder's meeting in Omaha (my father in law bought 2 shares of BH in 1980).

I don't understand why people support the estate tax because it can redistribute wealth yet the tax does not even touch those with Billions (Billionaire's numbers are growing). Yet you want to tax the hell out of a guy who managed to grow a family business (usually) and is worth more then the exemption. Why is concentrated wealth in the Billions not harmful to the economy but concentrated wealth in the Millions is?

Nemont
 
Many billionaires do slide by but that's not the intent of the law, maybe that should be looked at.

What I see in Buffet is someone who's advocating doing what's best for the country. many families that stay moderatly rich is better than a few that become a filthy rich multi generational power and economic monopoly. why don't you feel this would happen in due time? unless the kids are screw ups it seems probable to me.

I wouldn't get far stacking dollars against Buffet so his opinion anything to do with economics gets my respect.
 
Dude, I don't understand this economics thing too much, but if you're looking for a nice tax write off on your '67 GTO, let me know.........j/k

Eel
 
> Many billionaires do slide by
>but that's not the intent
>of the law, maybe that
>should be looked at.
>

If the law allows Billionaires to skate then what is the point. Why are you worried about millionaires keeping wealth and being bad for the economy? Yet you are okay with Billionaires keeping their money? I am not very bright but I think a Billion is more then a million. Therefore the tax not only doesn't work, it does nothing to avoid the concentration of wealth that you contend will destroy capitalism.


Nemont
 
I didn't say I'm ok with billionaires sliding by , I just agree that it does happen. estate tax DOES NOT tax the person who built the wealth , only the one who recieves what most would call a gift, therefore it's a form of income tax if you think about it. we have an estate tax as it is , we can only speculate how it's effected business in the US, my guess is for the better. that doesn't mean it's perfect.

Ransom we've beat farm subsidies to death around here, it's saved you more money than it's cost you. you're now begining to pay a fair price for your food so you'll understand why market manipulation has been a good investment. now that farm prices are where they belong you can shove your subsidies and pay up at the supermarket, even in spite of government managed over production. I love it.
 
Your not a farmer are you? Just kidding. It seems that the feds take alot already. I'll sound like a commie but old money, gilded age money, in trust funds hasn't been taxed yet. Up the capital gains on that money and lower it on new money which has already been taxed repeatedly. Just an idea.


Ransom
 
> I didn't say I'm ok
>with billionaires sliding by ,
therefore it's a
>form of income tax if
>you think about it. we
>have an estate tax as
>it is , we can
>only speculate how it's effected
>business in the US, my
>guess is for the better.
>that doesn't mean it's perfect.

The problem is that most of the money built into an estate large enough to hit the estate tax exemption was already taxed in one form or another: Either income tax, property tax, or any number of other federal, state and local taxes were paid upon those assets. I have no problem paying my "fair" share of taxes and I am paying enough that every quarter I am crying about how big I write the check.

An easier way to avoid that concentration of wealth would be a consumption tax on all the items wealthy people consume that ordinary American can only dream about: Yachts, private jets, high end clothing, luxury properties, extreme carbon emissions etc. Rather then letting billionaires skate and thinking it is okay to tax millionaires. It doesn't take much of an estate to hit the exemption limit and then the entire estate is subject to the tax. Death should not be a taxable event.

Nemont
 
Death isn't taxable, the taxes are to the ones who recieve the money, therefore it's a form of income tax to the recipient.
Your idea of taxing extreme luxury is a good one , problem is those items are deductable, a plane is always for business and a yacht is a second home, and everything is an investment that never seems to get turned. only the amount over the exeption or can't be protected is taxable, so we're talking about the top cats being effected by the estate tax. I still say give me a few mil and I'll figure out how to deal with the taxes.

Ransom, yes I'm a 3rd generatin farmer/rancher. I like the idea of estate tax much better han a capitol gains increase, I'm done with my estate taxes but capitol gains are killing me. thinking of yourself first is the American way, I wish I could say I'm different.
 
There is an easy way to avoid capital gains tax, don't capitalize any asset until after your death. Your heirs will get those assets on a stepped up basis ie. the value of the asset on the date of your death is the new basis for figuring capital gains. Of course then the entire amount could be subject to estate tax then but who cares your estate is a gift to the heirs.

Nemont
 
"Many economist also believe that the great depression was a result of protectionist policies and retalatory tariffs between countries.
I never called anyone anything in regards to their political affiliation in this thread."

Sorry I kind of abandoned this thread it was a busy weekend. Your first statement is very true Protectionist policies,retalitory tariffs, Concentrations of wealth and poor judgement on stock market investments buying on margin are all listed. I wasn't referring to you on the second part I was referring to the post where it said liberals and socialist make him sick, not your post. I'm neither a socialist or a liberal. I wasn't aware that billionares weren't paying estate tax, my bad I am still searching for where the cutoff is on estate tax on the upper end NE.Mont probably knows. I understand one thing NeMont has a much greater understanding of federal tax policy than I do. I'm trying to catch up with some research. I still believe vast accumulations of wealth are a threat to the capitalistic system in this country and so did many of past presidents such as Roosevelt. He felt that the holdings of many of the immensley wealthy families was similiar to the trusts and holding companies and posed a threat to the middle class. A republic can only survive with a strong middle class weaken that an the republic will fall. On another area yep farm subsidies deffinitely help the farmers but not me. They usually joke about having received their welfare check and some then go on a nice vacation. The subsidies allow the consumer to have among the cheapest food in the world.
 
You're 100% correct, in families with enough wealth they would do just that and therefore amass unlimited wealth and power if there were no estate tax in place. it's like compounding interest in a tax free acount, it goes on for generations and eventually you're either royalty or a pee on. I don't have that kind of horsepower or any heirs so it doesn't work for me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-07 AT 10:39AM (MST)[p]In this qusi-capitalistic system we have created, it makes possible the accumulation of massive amounts of wealth for doing very little. The fact of the matter is that THE WAY to really make money is with money, and money making money takes very little effort.

Most money is now made on the backs of cheap labor, speculation, unreal pricing, offshore accounts, all products of our system but the true costs are paid by consumers, who get little in return.

The guys amassing huge wealth, beyond 5 million should pay about 80% in taxes since it's really the system in which they live, the USA, and the people who live here that even make it possible to generate the income in the first place.

Moreover, if not for the protection from the USA government from competition, the trade negotiations that OUR USA does (paid for by the tax payers) and rich mans tax code huge amounts of wealth would not be possible.

80% on everything over $5mil no matter how it was generated or stored, land, capital or cash. . . .
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-07 AT 11:10AM (MST)[p]Cornhusker brings up a good point with TR. he started the Bull Moose party because of what he called " the unholy alliance " between big money and politics in the republican party. today big money effects the democrats as well but it shows even back then too much money in the wrong places was a problem for the nation. most rich and powerful families seem to self destruct, estate tax may be the nations way of controlling those who don't.
 
T,

Explain how you got to the 80% figure for taxes?

Why after $5 mil?

Are you saying a guy like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates just got lucky? Warren Buffet the most talented investor ever. He had the stones to buy when everyone was selling and hold when everyone was buying.

Bill Gates and his company have led to a revolution in not only communications but in the very way we live.

Concentrations of capital is what make it possible for consumers to have low cost goods and to be driving the latest SUV's. The consumer get alot of bang for his or her buck.

"cheap labor, speculation, unreal pricing, offshore accounts"

Can you expand on the unreal pricing and offshore accounting?

Nemont
 
nemont, youre a smart guy, I always respect your opinion and always will. Here's a fact, successful people are successful, youre not going to be more successful or do a better job at 5 million than you are at 8, especially when MONEY MAKES MONEY. . . Take that away and successful people still will be successful and still will work very hard.

Where did I get 80% and $5 mil, pulled it out of ars just like the politicians .
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-07 AT 11:38AM (MST)[p]Wanting tax on the "other guy" is a slippery slope. 5 million today seem like a huge sum but who's to say with runaway inflation in say 20 years what it would be like. Politicians of both parties have a huge hunger for tax money. We should all be carefull of what we wish for as it might come back to bite us.


Ransom
 
Unreal pricing, for example, oil prices are as much or more controlled by the speculation and futures traders than supply and demand. . .
 
Just one final thought from me. Most will disagree when, 1% or 5% of the population holds a huge part of the nations wealth you no longer have a Republic you have an Oligarchy. Don't believe it look at Latin America. Still don't believe it who has most of the wealth and thus controls any somewhat stable country in the Middle East or Asia the people with huge resources of money. It isn't even possible to get a democratically elected government in power in those countries. As far as $5 million being an arbitrary amount that could change, well duh you change the tax laws its done all the time. I'm not advocating something as Radical as the Share the Wealth program of the 1930's.I'm simply saying the Federal Government to keep the playing field somewhat fair.
 
>Just one final thought from me.
>Most will disagree when, 1%
>or 5% of the population
>holds a huge part of
>the nations wealth you no
>longer have a Republic you
>have an Oligarchy. Don't
>believe it look at Latin
>America. Still don't believe
>it who has most of
>the wealth and thus controls
>any somewhat stable country in
>the Middle East or Asia
>the people with huge resources
>of money. It isn't even
>possible to get a democratically
>elected government in power in
>those countries. As far
>as $5 million being an
>arbitrary amount that could change,
>well duh you change the
>tax laws its done all
>the time. I'm not
>advocating something as Radical as
>the Share the Wealth program
>of the 1930's.I'm simply saying
>the Federal Government to keep
>the playing field somewhat fair.
>


Cornhusker

I'll seem selfish but I do not want to pay more tax's myself. I'm afraid with congress' hunger for tax money we're next after the the elite class. They only have so much money and soon the wolves will turn on us. This is my fear. Groundless? I think not.


Ransom
 
the fact that money makes money is at the root of the problem. For without it, we all would be more or less equal. . . I'm not saying take it away, but i do believe that massive amounts of accumulated wealth is only possible for a few elite who can make their money makes massive amounts more. For the rest of us, well be lucky to have enough to retire on . . .
 
The Estate Tax, as currently set, is BS. Try this example on for size:

A rancher who has had a ranch in the family dies. The land is appraised at $10 million. The family wants to continue ranching, but of course can not afford the $4 million in taxes to keep the property. So it is then sold, developed and of course the lawyer gets their 12%.

Many times the family is instrumental in building the wealth and yet they do not figure in the equation. I agree with previous posts about the old money and the new money.

-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-07 AT 01:07PM (MST)[p]T,

I respect your opinion as well. I guess I see setting a limit on wealth as taking away the reward for someone risking their capital and hitting it big.

Most guys I know that have a big wallet are usually very, very smart and go getters. Many have taken HUGE risks in order to build their wealth and yes money makes money.

Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-07 AT 01:55PM (MST)[p]
Most guys I know that have a big wallet are usually very, very smart and go getters, they would be no matter what they pay. I dont know too many men that work harder than ranchers and farmers. If hard work qualifies you for being rich, montana would be one of the richest states in the union - why is it that ranchers and farmers work so hard but make so little? By your philosphy they should have quit long ago, or they dont work hard, or they think they are going to become rich so they keep working hard, which is it Nemont? Most guys I know work their buts off but are not rich and never will be but that dont stop them from working hard, and I'll bet you that they would work just as hard for 50k and they would for 100k. That said, when does a guy work harder for more and more money? It happens but where are the lines? BTW, how many guys do you know that have more than 5 million bucks?

Nemont, as far as a job from a poor guy, i'm from ranching and wheat farming country, we all were and still are poor. I rode for 4 different brands and not one of them guys was ritch. . . What a silly question. . . I'll let you clarify, retract it, or rephrase it if you like, but as it stands, knowing where youre from, I cant even believe you asked it the way you did.

I only know a couple rich wheat farmers (none has 5 mil), most have gone bust or just are getting by. . .

So you think the only reason people are successful is for money? There's people all over the world that work for much less than money. . .
 
I don't think the only reason people are successful is for money but I do think money is a reward and a motivational factor. If money doesn't help motivate people to be successful then why would a guy like Warren Buffet be so motivated to increase his wealth and that of his shareholders in BH?

He has more money then he or his heirs 5 generations from now spend yet he continues to seek above average returns on his holdings.

There are those who do things soley for altruistic reasons but the vast majority of people if given the chance would make more money if they could.

Nemont
 
Nemont, I agree with you, but youre losing focus. This is not about the average or even above average earner, it's about the rich and taxes. Of course your right, most people would like to make more, but I thought the discussion was about the supper rich and taxes?

at some point, making more money IS the goal, the value in not in the value of the money, but in how much you can accumulate over your life. The goal for the rich it to get more rich not give you and me jobs. So where's the line when does a guys start working less when do successful people becomes slouches, at what price is that and when does it happen? Youre saying that people would choose to fail if they had to pay taxes, no me, i'm a hard worker, i work hard because I want to be successful, I wont let the government take that away from me no matter what the tax laws say. . .
 
T,


Does anyone have any evidence that the Super Rich and Idle rich even have to pay the estate tax? There are many many estates where the people live poor their entire lives but the assets they accumlated surpass the exeption. It does not take much of an estate to hit the number.

Let's say your 80% of all assets over $5 million would come to pass. What would the government do with those funds?

Your question about where the line is can be asked in the reverse as well. At what point does welfare and other payment programs become enough to zap the ambition from people who want to do nothing.

Nemont
 
it took us 250 years to get into this mess, it's going to take a bit of planning and development to get us out. Not saying it hits tomorrow, but we could start by paying for this war that, if not payed for NOW, will cost MY children their economic future. . .
 
Unfortunately the war is going to be small potatoes for our children to pay for vs. the off budget debt and the current accounted for debt.

The economic future of this country has little to do with concentration of wealth and everything to do with getting our government to stop printing money and borrowing it by the tanker load. In addition our trade policy has sucked and we continue to be played for the class clown.

The estate tax will do nothing to help either of our children.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-07 AT 04:28PM (MST)[p]nemont, youre the captain of avoid the issues and dodge the questions for today. . . AND i'm surprised that in this day and age, and where youre from you support an oligarchy. . . I still like you though!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_5422.jpeg
Wasatch Trophy Bull
First whitetail 2018
Extras Buck and His Buddy
20221210_103016_resized.jpg
IMG_3010.jpeg
Screenshot_20211109-150949_Messages.jpg
IMG_3143.JPG
Good Looking Velvet Buck
Utah Muzzleloader Muley
242.JPG
Bookcliffs 1978
Back
Top Bottom