So many Kentuckiana businesses are joining the no-tolls list at http://www.no2bridgetolls.org/ that the group soon will need a stenographer just to keep up.
The stunning rapidity with which Southern Indiana businesses are signing on to the no-tolls movement strikes me as slightly ironic, given that so many of them remain members of One Southern Indiana, which supports any measure necessary (that's right, any -- including tolls, auctions of first-born male children and foreign aid handshakes with Kim Jong Il) to construct the $4 billion bridges boondoggle.
And yet, as 1Si continues to insist that it represents the interests of area businesses, those same area businesses openly and profoundly differ by organizing a no-tolls voice elsewhere, pooling money and expending valuable time in fighting an involuntary tax on business (and on working commuters) enacted by an unelected body ... all of which 1Si enthusiastically supports because they'll benefit the right kind of people.
Obviously, when it comes to espousing the best interests of Southern Indiana business, someone's lying.
Has Michael Dalby's nose reached Peoria yet?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
Guys it's been awhile since we've had a decent debate, and so I'll bring back up a topic we talked about several months ago that I think definitely relates to this subject.
Roger I read your column two weeks ago that basically said tolls would cut the lifeline between Indiana and Louisville, causing major business loss for small businesses especially in Southern Indiana. At least that's how I took it.
That same week on this blog, you touted the latest effort to galvanize support for shopping local.
I'm no expert on bridges but I do know no one wants to pay to drive across a bridge, but it seems these messages are somewhat contradictory to each other. Basically, a toll that keeps people from driving to another city/state to make purchases would by its very essence increase business locally.
I would be much less likely to drive to Louisville to hang out with friends on a Friday night if I had to pay $7 just to get there, but I wouldn't stay at home either. This might not be good for Louisville businesses, but it would be great for New Albany because that's where I would spend my money.
If anything, it seems tolls would help local businesses because the vast majority of businesses on this side of the river are supported more by Hoosiers than Kentuckians. Sure, there are some that can draw good numbers from Louisville, but that's more of an exception than a rule of thumb.
Tolls could actually force Southern Indiana businesses to market more to local people. Regardless of how many Louisville customers spend money on this side of the river, per capita I'm sure it doesn't even begin to stack up to the amount of hoosiers that go to Louisville for their entertainment and purchases.
Stopping that leakage, in my opinion, would result in bigger profits for Southern Indiana businesses than simply retaining the small percentage of Louisville residents that spend money in Southern Indiana.
I guess what I'm saying is I can see several ways that tolls would be damaging to business, but more so for Louisville than us. Wasn't New albany at its peak when getting to Louisville was cumbersome?
And for the record I haven't fully formed an opinion on tolls yet. I think the argument on both sides is pretty much being driven by emotion at this point, but it's not something I cover so I haven't attended all the bridge meetings. But honestly if we were all shopping and spending locally, how important would the issue really be?
Just some food for thought.
Only speaking for myself, but I think that you are taking a too narrow of a view pertaining to buy local. I don't think anyone is saying to never buy anything outside of New Albany but that most items can be bought in the metro area and from locally owned(where the profits stay)outlets. I think there is pretty much broad acceptance that the metro region is "local". Again, just speaking for myself.
You're right Mark, definitions are very important. What is buying local? I've seen so many ways of describing it. In the end it comes down to profit, and there's nothing wrong with that. Let me ask you this. Say I I'm a lifelong New Albany resident and I own a shoe store. Sure I'm a native, but 90 percent of the shoes I sell are made from materials produced out of town. When you buy shoes from me, your money supports me and the local employees I hire. But it also goes into the pockets of those out of town producers who I must buy my material from or there would be no shoe store. How much of a local merchant am I?
As I said, you can stretch the word local in many directions, but in the end it basically comes down to profit. I can see how you could say Louisville Metro is local, but I can also see it the other way. If you buy products in Louisville, you're supporting that city's tax base as well as Kentucky's. Unless you live in Louisville, those "local profits" aren't really going to help you much.
But this isn't really my point. My main beef, pretty much since I've moved here, is that Southern Indiana doesn't realize its potential. It seems that instead of trying to constantly associate itself with Louisville, Southern Indiana should do more to stand on its own. From a business standpoint, I think many establishments — the ones I've seen open and close in a short period of time — fail to market to Southern Indiana residents which are most likely to support their businesses. But instead there's so much attention paid to getting people from Louisville that in some ways it seems Southern Indiana residents are devalued. That's just my observation though, as an outsider not originally from here. But I know I'm not alone in that opinion.
Here's another hypothetical situation to ponder. How busy would New Albany be if there were no bridges into Louisville?
Agreed, Mark. And to slide the footwear over one appendage, how is it that those who've been preaching regionalism for years are advocating splitting the region?
The debate here at least partially hinges on locally owned, very small businesses (for conversational sake, I'll define that as 25 or fewer employees, since that figure represents a little over 90% of all businesses in Indiana) versus catering to very large, outside interests who seek only to utilize the region's resources at the lowest cost possible with otherwise very little actually invested in the region or its quality of life.
The bridges project as currently proposed, tolls, and most 1Si policy seek to serve the latter. As was pointed out long ago, though, even with that as a primary goal, ORBP and tolls fail the test of best practice.
The counter to the tolls-will-increase-Southern-Indiana-business argument is that if my family has to pay money merely for the privilege of driving across a long-paid-for bridge to get to work, then we have that much less discretionary income to spend at any business, no matter where it's located. If tolls are $3 per crossing, my family will be out a minimum of $1500 a year just to get to work. Even if they're "only" a dollar, it's still $500. That may not sound like much to some folks, but to others of us, that's a lot. And it's ridiculous to have to pay that to cross a bridge that was built and paid for before I was even born just so some fat cat developer build an unneeded bridge downtown rather than give serious consideration to building infrastructure that has demonstrated need and pledged funds available.
I also personally see the "buy local" movement similarly to Iamhoosier--Louisville counts as "local" to me, and ultimately it really boils down to independent vs national chain.
Definitions can be beat to death. They are great for those who want all things black and white. Yes and no. Which is why I am not a conservative.(said gently, with a smile, but seriously)
Buy local is an attitude. Tolls would be a mandate. Actually, I think that could be conservative thought!!!
Sure I'm a native, but 90 percent of the shoes I sell are made from materials produced out of town. When you buy shoes from me, your money supports me and the local employees I hire. But it also goes into the pockets of those out of town producers who I must buy my material from or there would be no shoe store. How much of a local merchant am I?
This is a legitimate point that can only be addressed in the long-term by encouraging local shoe (or other commonly-used product) manufacturing. Even though it's perhaps more difficult in the short-term, I'm on board with that.
The trouble is, that's not how we have historically (past few decades) used our economic development tools. From Wall Street to local decision making, our system is currently geared toward giving away that market to outside interests for tiny bits of perceived short-term gain with little thought given to long-term consequences. We reward people for selling and buying us out and call it development.
As I typed on FB recently:
The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials from which we build our homes, and most other items typically travel hundreds if not thousands of miles before we ever use them. The stuff we make here is usually made not for the use of local people but to travel the same paths in reverse. We blindly accept that and then ignorantly scratch our heads, trying to figure out what to build to solve our traffic problems.
Karen-Your point is very well understood. As tight as money is, a toll could force many hoosiers that work in Louisville to quit their jobs. I think that's a real issue. But this could also work to Indiana's advantage, kind of like what Jeff referenced, in that you could see more businesses springing up here to service local needs. Businesses that could bring jobs.
Jeff-There's no way I'm going to argue bridges with you, I saw your name on wikipedia under the ORB reference. I would say most businesses seek to use the region's resources while incurring as little expense as possible, local or national.
Mark-I couldn't disagree more. I think definitions are huge, especially when you're using them as a profit tool. If something isn't clearly and widely defined, then it can be stretched to the benefit of a select industry or person. And definitions change. The invention of vehicles has changed our perception of what is local. I'm sure in 1822, New Albany residents didn't feel Corydon was too local. Now it's a 15 minute drive.
In the global market we have, I don't think there's too many businesses that can claim to be totally local. I would think you'd be hard pressed to find any business that doesn't depend on out of town interests to support and sustain it. I realize this is where we differ, cos to me the definition here is of great importance. If you're appealing to customers that they should shop with you because you're local, yet you depend on outside companies in some fashion for your supplies, staffing or maybe even something like accounting, your message wouldn't really seem to be entirely accurate.
Was not my intention to imply that definitions are unimportant, just not the end all. As much as the lack of proper definitions can be stretched for personal benefit, the opposite is also quite true. Most "things" in life are fluid and, as you pointed out, the definitions change. Or should. My comment about the "conservative" is aimed at that point.
I am having great difficulty in understanding why it has to be the people that live in S. Indiana and work in Louisville as well as those few Louisvillians who do the opposite are the ones that will foot the bill on these bridges.
My husband works at Ft. Knox and I’m at the University of Louisville. Our families are all in Louisville, which necessitates crossing the bridge multiple times on top of our daily commute and that’s at .75 a pop with a built-in 2.5% increase each year. I’ve not had a raise in a good number of years, yet my costs continue to go up - soon I’ll have even less disposable income for local businesses.
I moved over to Indiana in 1995 and before that, can’t remember a time that wasn’t field-trip to Huber’s related that I’d managed the trek across the bridge. We’d use the Sherman-Minton to head to St. Louis, but even then we never stopped in Indiana. So, to think that Louisvillians will be paying their fair share is a crock. There is nothing, short of boutique businesses, that isn’t duplicated in Louisville. There are things in Louisville that we need - jobs, theaters, concerts and the like and the reverse is not true.
My personal opinion is that this project will destroy the gains of the metro area and reduce us to the us/them we once were.
I would say most businesses seek to use the region's resources while incurring as little expense as possible, local or national.
In principle, yes. But there's a difference in how that plays out in reality. If I'm a business owner locally producing a product for local consumption, then whether or not local employees (both mine and others) are paid well enough to buy my product matters. It means the life and death of my business.
But if I'm just here producing a product that's not marketed or sold locally as cheaply as possible and don't have to answer to my neighbors as a member of the community, it doesn't really matter what local people can or can't afford. They're not my customers. They're just a resource like electricity.
Daniel S: "Karen-Your point is very well understood. As tight as money is, a toll could force many hoosiers that work in Louisville to quit their jobs. I think that's a real issue. But this could also work to Indiana's advantage, kind of like what Jeff referenced, in that you could see more businesses springing up here to service local needs. Businesses that could bring jobs."
In this economy, those jobs on the Indiana side of the river aren't going to be springing up over night. In the mean time, those who have some semblance of discretionary income yet can't afford to quit or can't find a job in Indiana will simply stop spending the discretionary income they no longer have since it's going to tolls. People will no discretionary income will be hurting even more if they can't afford to quit and can't find a job on this side of the river. You may well understand my point, but it also seems like you brush it aside as if it's not going to impact much.
Jeff also referenced regionalism. Right now people who have been banging the drum for regionalism and tying Southern Indiana together more closely (and ostensibly promoting freer commerce) are, out of the other side of their mouths, now banging the drum for tolls which will effectively split the region and destroy any cross-river regionalism gains of the past 15 years.
That should have read "Tying Southern Indiana more closely into greater Louisville Metro"
Where the dominant-1Si-"it's the only way" economic model has gotten us during soaring unemployment, foreclosures, and personal bankruptcies:
Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter
Sorry to put it so bluntly, but anyone who's still clinging to trickle-down, subsidize the already financially wealthy economic theory as touted by 1Si policy makers and others is foolhardy. Likewise, anyone depending on GDP as an accurate measure of development success is in the same sinking boat.
Another wonderful topic for discussion that Ed Clere would delete if he had the chance.
Except that this isn't Facebook.
I want to take the argument a step further.
Daniel S sadly and strangely I thought about the same point of localism and regionalism and NAC's apparent contradiction today. I came to the same conclusion as Mark.
But NAC has made other arguments of “community” and “working and living near home”, so at times “local” is used liberally to suit NAC contradictory arguments.
If Louisville Metro is to strengthen its regional cohesion the ORBP as it now stands will, in the long run, help facilitate that.
Karen's argument, and other’s, only looks at it through the short term, but if hypothetically Louisville Metro could build several bridges we would be better off in the future as a more united region thereby helping businesses like Roger’s.
Many Hoosiers work in Louisville and many have to pay outrageous fees to park their vehicles. These fees are no different than paying a toll and tolls will just be another cost to working in Louisville. Let’s not forget, there are other income taxes not discussed that Hoosiers pay to work in Louisville. Where is the out cry for these costs?
NAC calls the bridge project a "boondoggle"
This of course is opinion
Yes, arguments can be made that in fifty years Louisville won't need the added bridge capacity, because as some have advocated, everyone will be using public transportation or that we should be. Therefore the 4.1 billion will be better spent building light rail.
Most of the "factual" evidence to support this opinion comes from ideological sources that simple reasoning draws doubt.
American history tells us that at one time we had greater public transportation options, but as the standard of living increased American's chose their automobiles over those transportation options at that time and are choosing automobiles now. Now most public transportation is heavily subsided for those who can’t afford the standard of having a vehicle or you find it in heavily urbanized areas that can sustain those options. Louisville is not there yet and won’t be for generations to come.
Simple reasoning tells us the mass majority of Americans will not give up the valued freedom and standard of the automobile unless they are forced to via high gas prices or something else.
Let's say that gas prices do go up and American's are forced to abandon the automobile as we now know it. That doesn't necessarily mean automobiles will be gone. GM and Nissan are now offering eclectic hybrids; the volt, with a 60 miles range and the Leaf at 100 miles, all electric. Innovation has made the automobile a thing of the future and Louisville will need new bridges if it decides it wants to compete in an ever competitive global market. Boondoggle? No one ever said progress is painless. Southern Indiana standing alone has merit if we don’t fear fear itself.
Just a perspective for sake of argument
As for me I will refuse to pay any toll. I will use the Jeff Ferry at 15$ or buy one of those amphibious cars maybe a hover craft.
Jeff said.
"anyone who's still clinging to trickle-down, subsidize the already financially wealthy economic theory as touted by 1Si policy makers and others is foolhardy. "
Your right Jeff, tax the hell out of everyone and give it to people that don't have a job or don't want to work. That's better for the economy right. (said with a smirk).
The best news I heard today is the people that have been on unemployment for 99wks where not going to get and extension unless we made cuts in spending. I know that's hard at this time of year but come on.
They don't want to give a take break for those who pay taxes because they say it increases the debit but they say out of the other side of there mouth. Its ok to borrow more to give unemployment for over 2+ years.
They forget it's our money not the Goverment.
As far as the Bridges.
Build the EE bridge and charge a $2 toll each way and those like me will pay it to save time. Make all thru truck traffic use it and make them pay, but leave the current bridges alone. If a second downtown bridge is in deed needed in a few years after the EE bridge is done then we can look at it then. It's only taken 40 years to get to this point. What's a few more to make sure we need the entire stool. (that's for you Roger)
Daniel, I agree with what you said in your first post. The problem is this issue is a all or nothing for both sides of this issue and neather party will step back and look for middle ground. (EE bridge only and tolls on that EE bridge is ok)
It's wrong to ever toll 2nd street or I-64 bridges no matter what they build. I also dought the Federal Highway dept. will ever approve that any way.
RememberCharlemagne what you just said is 100% dead on.
If we just build the East End Bridge, there's no need for tolls. In just the past six years of its transportation funding, the state of Kentucky has allocated more than half the money necessary to build the East End bridge itself and the needed approaches on both sides of the river.
The only reason we're talking about tolls at all is the staunch refusal to concentrate the already available funding in the East End.
Mitch Daniels told us for years that Indiana had it's money for the entire project in the bank. Now he says tolls are necessary and that other Hoosiers shouldn't have to pay
for a southern project that most in the state will never use. He says that, though, while the same pool of supposedly set aside money is actively being used to fund the I-69 extension that most of us and other Hoosiers will never use.
A portion of that money, in conjunction with the contributions from Kentucky, could pay for the East End Bridge with no tolls, no new taxes, no new revenue streams at all.
Why are 1Si/Bridges Coalition/other supporters not calling him out?
Hey at least everyone on here has agreed that they want to see the EE bridge built yesterday.
To keep with the "positive" yes we can atitude of NAC maybe instead of no 2 tolls there needs to be yes to EE. Wouldn't it be great if all those businesses and NAC came out to support something positive.
Do you think this is the type of compermise Obama is trying to reach with Mcconnell
RememberCharlemagne: "Many Hoosiers work in Louisville and many have to pay outrageous fees to park their vehicles. These fees are no different than paying a toll and tolls will just be another cost to working in Louisville. Let’s not forget, there are other income taxes not discussed that Hoosiers pay to work in Louisville. Where is the out cry for these costs?"
Actually, I cited the Jeff County income taxes in a letter to the editor of the Tribune as another reason we should not be saddled with tolls (least of all on paid-for existing infrastructure). My husband pays nothing to park, but we pay over $2,000 a year to Jeff County, and the reason they soak Hoosier workers for that money (which isn't subject to refund, mind you) is specifically because we use their infrastructure when we drive over there. So we're paying not just federal and two states' gas taxes, but federal, state, and two counties' income taxes, one of which is specifically supposed to pay for our use of their roads. I think we've pay our share already.
I also am less opposed to tolling the East End bridge only, while I am staunchly 500% opposed to tolling existing bridges. However, as Jeff pointed out, if we build only the East End bridge, we shouldn't need tolls. Not only are we paying for an I-69 extension most of us will never use, but also the Madison-Milton bridge which Governor Daniels managed to find a way to get it done faster and cheaper than projected. Why he won't bother with that kind of leadership for us is beyond me, given he could score a lot of political points in the process if he were to do so.
Also, regarding the Federal Highway Dept not approving tolls on existing infrastructure, I really really hope they don't. However, the Build the Bridges Now people who are running the propaganda commercials about "all three legs of the stool" have suggested that what should happen with the Sherman Minton (which they want to toll specifically to keep anyone from avoiding tolls) is that the money from its tolls will be set aside for maintenance on the bridge. Look for ORBP folks to co-opt that argument. I'm deeply concerned the Feds will buy into this scheme since then the money isn't being diverted to other roads/bridges, which is where they otherwise run afoul. I really need to send my protest letter to Secretary LaHood....
VetteMan,
Yeah, you win. All liberals want is to give your money to people too lazy to work. I'm convinced. Pour me some tea.
On the other hand, I do agree with you on the EE bridge.
VM,
Just one more thought. Speaking of not working, sure is nice to see that the Bridges Authority members(mainly your brethren)don't have to have jobs that require them to actually show up for work. I mean, considering they never seem to hold a meeting when the working public can attend.
Oh wait, there is one coming up.
It's starts at 4:00. Gee, thanks.
Iamhoosier said...the Bridges Authority members(mainly your brethren).
I'm sorry I don't think I no anyone on the BA. If I did I would try to get a meeting later just for you. Hey here's a thought send Jeff.
Iamhoosier said...
Yeah, you win. All liberals want is to give your money to people too lazy to work.
You tell me. Don't you think you could find a job making at least $400 a week in 2 years. Unemployment only gets you $300 a week.
VM,
Your brethren in "thought". You don't believe that the meetings should be held when people could attend them?
I believe that people should work and provide for themselves if they are able. I also believe that there is more lost in unpaid taxes(by many means including under reporting income)by those with money(including corporations)than is ever "lost" by cheaters on "welfare". Not even close.
Iamhoosier said... You don't believe that the meetings should be held when people could attend them?
(Yes there should be meetings at different times and locations to meet everyones needs. But not everyone works 9 to 5.)
" I also believe that there is more lost in unpaid taxes(by many means including under reporting income)by those with money(including corporations)than is ever "lost" by cheaters on "welfare". Not even close."
The fact you call money not taken by the Goverment in the form of Taxes as lost means you are LOST.
It's our money, I would love you to prove your statement. Not going to happen though.
VM,
Cheating on taxes is not wrong? And you call me lost? Surely you don't believe that.
No I can't prove it. Just think of this though. Where is the vast bulk of the money? In just a few hands. It just stands to reason that even a small "leak" will be huge losses of taxes OWED.
Your are correct, cheating on your taxes is wrong. Finding leagel ways to keep your money is American. I say taking 55% or more of my or anyone elses income is a tragedy.
The highest federal tax rate is around 39% and set to go higher. Then add on state, local, gas etc.
You are telling me that is right?
Why hate people for be successful. Why hate people because the make over $250,000 a year.
I say make all you can and find all the loopholes in the system. Here's wishing for the flat tax.
Maybe we should base tax rates on IQ scores. Those scoring under 70 wouldn't be required to participate as they have a documented disability. Otherwise, the higher the score, the lower the taxes. Those scoring at genius level, generally considered 140 and above, wouldn't have to pay any taxes at all. Considering that they have the most potential to affect economic development, burdening them with taxes would be counterproductive.
/sarcasm
Where did I say anything about hating people who make over a certain amount? You talk about flat tax. There are many in that over 250k bracket that pay a far smaller percentage than many in the, say, 40k bracket.
What do you think of the estate tax?
VM,
Don't bother answering. I'm pretty sure that I know your answer.
You don't even realize that people who think like you do are the reason laws have to be as long, detailed, and complicated as they are. Too many testing the edges instead of trying to do what the original intent was. To me, there is a difference between legal and ethical. Yes, I've been guilty.
Thank you, Jeff, for that idea, but nah. Reading some of these posts might put me into a higher tax bracket.
The death tax is terrible. I don't care who you are why should anyone have to pay taxes on what someone else has payed taxes on when they where alive. I guess you think it's fair.
What I ment by the comment why do you hate people over $250,000 per year. Is most people on the left are in favor of raising taxes on the rich. I.e. People making over $250k. The increase would cost someone making $250k almost $23,000 per year. That's a lot of lost local shopping.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the over $250K set (ignoring deductions, etc. toward adjusted gross income, further limiting the WHO), would cost NOT $23,000, but $300 for every $10,000 in additional income reported. You would have to report over $1 million for it to cost you $23,000.
It's only a 3% bump on the incremental income OVER $250K.
I told you not to answer.
You sir, either don't know what the hell you are talking about or are a liar. You pick.
Taxes have not paid on huge, huge, and I mean huge amounts of assets transfered at death--if you eliminate the estate tax. Or keep it eliminated as it stands now.
Forgetting exemptions to keep this simple, you inherit $1 million of stock. That stock was bought 20 years ago for $100,000. That's a $900,000 difference. If you sell that stock for 1 million, you owe nothing. Your cost basis is the $1million it was worth on the day the deceased passed. There has never been tax paid on the $900,000and never will be.
Calling it the death tax is maybe the biggest fraud pulled on the American public by the uber wealthy.
Now you know why I don't trust you and your kind. And don't feel a bit sorry for you.
Are you sure that you aren't on the board of 1SI? I mean, you make about as much sense as they do. The board, not the employees. I understand that the employees are a fine group of people.
The Bookseller said: "Thank you, Jeff, for that idea, but nah. Reading some of these posts might put me into a higher tax bracket."
Don't worry Randy, Jeff said people with an IQ of under 70 wouldn't have to pay.
And note, of course, that if $23K were the correct number, that's not enough to hire a single person at a living wage, even by Southern Indiana standards where the cost of living is relatively low.
Hmm, "dumb ass," "Ass holes," "damned" this, "damn" that and "big ass" to boot.
The whiskey makes him both mean and even less literate than usual.
VM wrote:
... on what someone else has payed taxes on when they where alive...
That statement is false and I proved it. If you want to talk about making the old estate tax more fair, I'm open to that. But saying that the taxes have already been once is a damn lie. About the only thing that would be true on would be cash(and there were exemptions in place) and most of the wealth passed is in the form of other assets than cash.
Maybe you ought to think about what you write first. You either didn't know what you were talking about or you were lying. I asked you to pick. You just chose to ignore. Does that mean I get to pick?
What is the Death Tax?
The death tax (a.k.a., the federal estate tax) is a tax applied to the transfer of a person’s assets at death. It is defined by the Internal Revenue Service as “a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.”[1]
Under current law, the estate tax was repealed for one year on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2011 the estate tax is set to return at a top marginal rate of 55 percent (with an additional 5% surtax for certain estates) on all assets above a $1 million exemption amount.[2] See “The Current Fight” for more information.
The estate tax is imposed on any and all life-savings. This includes:
personal property (such as a home, cars, furniture, artwork)
business assets (property, machinery and inventory)
investments (stocks, bonds and real estate)
The estate tax is paid by the recipients of an inheritance – most often family heirs – and is due within 9 months of the decedent’s death. If the heirs do not have sufficient cash, personal property and business assets must be sold to pay the tax.
In the case of family business owners and farmers, the tax often exceeds the ability of the family to pay. These heirs are consequently forced to sell off part, if not all, of their enterprise in order to pay the tax.
Iam,
Time to learn something, so shut up and read.
Estate tax to return in 2011, and it could hurt ordinary folks ...
Jul 21, 2010 … 1, 2011, imposing a levy of up to 55% on estates valued at more than $1 million .... Life-or-death tax implications …
www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/ta... - Options
Time to read.
VM,
What don't you understand? You said that it was assets that already had taxes payed(sic)on them. I proved it's not true. Then you go into name calling and frothing at the mouth about something else. Can't you stick to the point or have the facts got your tongue?
VM,
And for arguments sake, I did say that if you want to talk about making a fairer estate tax, I was open to that. Which means, that I do not consider the old system fair. Does that help?
Sorry Daniel for getting off the original post topic.
Ian,
I'm done with you. You proved nothing. Assets under $1 mil. are not taxed. If you have a estate over 1mil you will pay a very large and unfair tax. You kind beleave money and wealth belone to the Goverment and re people.
If I build a business and pay my taxes an make a food living. When I die, why should my children own the Goverment a (insert expletive here) thing.
I worked for it I took the risk, it's mine.
Come on Roger, you have got to see this point.
With no estate tax, when is a tax paid on the $900,000 capital gain? I'm trying to be civil here. If the person sold that stock(or business, etc)the day before he died there would have been capital gains tax paid on the $900k. Correct?
My question is, why should that $900k be exempt from EVER being taxed just because someone died?
Honestly and sincerely, where am I wrong? I know all the emotional stuff. I know how it used to be. One of our major suppliers had to sell out due to estate problems several years ago. I've said that there are changes that need to be made. Surely, there can be some middle ground between NO taxes and double taxes.
Come on Roger, you have got to see this point.
I've been so busy helping in the effort to prevent a supposedly pro-business, anti-tax Republican governor from destroying small business and taxing working commuters that time has been fleeting, but today, perhaps, there'll be time to catch up.
Identify a specific point amid the cacaphony, and I'll take a stab at seeing it.
Seriously.
Meanwhile, Daniel, would you mind terribly if I lifted your topic starter to the marquee this weekend and tried to start a another thread based on it?
For anyone still paying attention, the 9:22 deleted comment was mine. After re-reading it, I decided that it added nothing to the debate and could have been construed as "fighting"(especially one sentence) which was not my intent.
Middle ground is a thought, one day maybe more then just us could find middle ground.
maybe more then just us
Who is "us" in this context?
FYI.
Unless Congress acts, the federal estate tax, which was repealed this year, will return in 2011 with a lower exemption and a higher tax rate. This table shows the tax liability for a $5 million taxable estate, based on the year of death:
Year
2009 Unless Congress acts, the federal estate tax, which was repealed this year, will return in 2011 with a lower exemption and a higher tax rate. This table shows the tax liability for a $5 million taxable estate, based on the year of death:
Year Tax liability
2009 $675,000
2010 $0
2011 $2.0 million
Source: Deloitte Taxty
No hidden meaning Roger. I was talking in general.
I.E. Bridges (EE), Death & Taxes and (insert your cause here)
It's not always Right or Wrong, Black or White, Republican or Liberal.
I can see other points of view. Some others no so much.
Still no answer to my IQ-based tax plan? Bummer.
I guess some people are just too darned lazy to improve their minds and advance their financial position. If 26 weeks is enough time to find a living wage job, surely a decade or three is sufficient to garner some IQ points.
Jeff Gillenwater said...
Still no answer to my IQ-based tax plan? Bummer.
Not sure who you where asking. But I take a swing at it.
You plan would have 3 groups not paying taxes.
(IQ under 70, over 140 and people out of work.
So those of us who do have a job and fall between 70 & 140 would pay based on some % not laid out in your plan.
I would fall in that group, well above the 70 group level and not a genius by far.
I will have to vote No on your plan.
FYI.
Unemployment is 26 weeks but has had several extensions now upto 99weeks. (23 months). How long do you keep paying them?
Sorry for all the typos, fat fingers small keys on my IPhone.
Roger said:
"Identify a specific point amid the cacaphony, and I'll take a stab at seeing it."
The question was to your opinion on the Death Tax.
You have a business that you started with money you earned and payed taxes on. You bought a house and cars. You bought a building and misc. for you company.
All along you pay your taxes. You total estate is worth $2million. The tax rate after 1/1/11 will start at 41% over 1mil to a top rate of 55%.
You die on January 2nd 2011. You leave everything to you children that are 20 and 21.
Should they be made to pay a tax bill of $435,000 just because you died. If so they may have to sell your company just to pay the bill.
My point to Jeff was, you paid your taxes. You took the risk and built a future for your family just to have them come in and take 22% of it.
As a business person, Roger do you thank this is fair?
VM,
I really don't want to continue this but since you actually asked Roger while we were discussing...
You keep saying that you have paid your taxes. With no estate tax of any kind, that's not true. The 900k, in my example, has never had a penny of tax on it and won't. You have changed the parameters from where you started. Nobody here has argued for double taxation. All I want is the tax paid on the 900k just like it would have been if it had been cashed out the day before he died. Nothing more.
Iam said
All I want is the tax paid on the 900k just like it would have been if it had been cashed out the day before he died.
The point is he did not cash out and untill his family does cash it out and spend it, they should not have to pay a dime.
To that point. They cash it out and the Goverment takes let's say 30% just because you think it's owed and is unfair someone has more than you. (rolling my eyes)
They go out buy a new car and a new house and enjoy several nights out at there local buniness. All the time they then pay tax on the money they have again.
They invest $100,000 into a start up business and in 10 years it grows to $2 mil. They took the risk and payed taxes every year.
You think there kids should pay taxs on the 2mil after you die? At what point is the moneybypu make yours and not the Goverment.
Do you work for the IRS.
Roger-Please do, have a good weekend all.
Btw
You asked me what I thought of the Death Tax.
I said I hate it and I think its wrong and a family member should not have to pay a estate tax on cash, property etc.
I said the dead person has payed taxes and why should the family member have to pay more just becaused someone died.
I never changed the example, you came up with the 1mil example after me.
.
Again Daniel,
Sorry.
Here is to building EE bridge (tolls ok) but no tolls on any other bridge.
Iamhoosier,
After looking back over a earlier post, I have removed it. It's not my way to let things get personal with someone I have never met. My apologies for the comments.
I may not agree with you but the discussion is fun.
Good weekend to you.
VM,
My husband is unemployed. He will get 26 weeks and not a day more. He's been looking daily- going through complex computer programs (since companies rarely take plain old resumes anymore, and they all have their own format) to retype the same information over. And over. And over. Most won't even accept copy and paste options from your computer- they've disabled it in the html scripts.
He needs something that will pay 15 an hour or more to help support our family of four, as I work full time as well.
These jobs are scarce, and we will more than likely have to take something that will necessitate going onto my health insurance plan, which is high cost and high deductible. Of course, that will eat more out of MY paycheck, and we'll be making less than when he was laid off, and we were tight then with medical expenses for the kids.
Not only that, when he's not working on finding work, he's researching places he'd like to work and offering to volunteer in hopes that if something comes open, he's considered.
We have thirteen weeks to find something for him, and at that time, one of two things happens. One, he finds employment that can replace what he lost, and we move on with a big sigh of relief. Two, he finds nothing and that weekly unemployment check is gone. At that point, we default on bills. We've cut back to nothing- got rid of cable, quit eating out at all, trimmed our cell phone bills back, and started buying the kids clothes second hand or on deep discount. So, at that point, he'll have to take a full time job at 8-10 an hour, and another part time job. I'll pick up the insurance and we'll be making effectively less, and likely go into more medical debt.
We are NOT the exception. Most of the people on unemployment that you so easily talk down to are like us- through no fault of their own, they were laid off and cannot find work.
To your second point, on estate taxes: I'm not sure what the letter of the law is, but I would ask you why your children should get something for nothing. YOU worked hard. We as a nation have an income tax. That is income for your children, whether you like it or not.
Kate said,
"My husband is unemployed. He will get 26 weeks and not a day more"
Kate, you don't need my hopes that your husband will find a job, but you have them none the less. I have been on unemployment twice in my life. The first for 3 weeks and the second for 4 months. I know how scary it feels.
There are people that are not trying as hard as your husband. I also know of someone in my own family that has been on unemployment for over a year. He is taking the time to go back to school instead of working hard to find a job.
I'm not sure why you don't beleave that you can get a extension if the 26 weeks expire. I hope your husband will not need it but it is available to my knowledge.
My point was not to extend unemployment, I want the Goverment to cut spending to allow for extensions of unemployment past 99wks. not increase the debt or take it out of pocket of working people.
The death tax is to complex to rehash. I would suggest you research the issue. Double taxation is wrong. If you die your kids should not loose up to half of what you worked for. They should be able to keep the family home, cars etc. If they sell these things they will pay taxes if not reinvested but why pay a addationl tax just because you die.
No, VM, the extensions are done. There are no extensions available because Congress did not feel that it's necessary. That's what the big discussion's been about.
Unemployment laws vary from state to state- Indiana is one of the toughest states in which to be unemployed. Other states provide 52 weeks- but not us. Any federal extensions are applied to the state's basic unemployment laws- so we're one of the states hit hardest by the failure to extend.
But hey, we're cutting the deficit, right? Who cares who's affected, so long as we're not spending?
I appreciate the well wishes. Truly.
Kate,
If you email me your husbands resume, I will pass it along to people I know that may be able to help.
No promises, just a shot.
Take care.
Post a Comment