How should Paul have voted on the Obama-Congressional Tax Compromise?

[2young2vote]

They plan these bills so that no matter what way you vote you are going against one or more of your principals and values. You just have to weigh which ones are more important than the others.

 

[Jordan]

That's insane. It's not like the estate was a mansion or anything, but if we didn't have the cash in liquid form, we would have lost the property. I'm sure that happens a lot.

Aha. If it wasn't a bunch of stuff/cash/whatever (like..more than a million) you didn't get touched Federally. I bet your state just has some awful inheritance tax or capital gains tax. Some use gift tax guidelines, etc.

But yeah, I agree, death should not be a taxable event. A lot of "middle class" people become exceptionally wealthy at death from life insurance policies, annuities with death benefit riders, etc. To take a cut of that when it transfers to the next generation is bonkers.

Hide that stuff.

 

[sailingaway]

I didn't answer. He should vote his conscience. Unlike in the Senate, they have no clout in the House and the GOP there were just posturing. Ron will vote for the tax cuts unless they load so much stuff on he thinks it is no longer in the tax payer's best interest. As he puts it, he wants perfection, but votes to make things better. No one is going to give him the tax vote he wants -- to repeal the 16th amendment.

On this one, I'm not going to try to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, so to speak.

Personally, I'd prefer if they just bumped it to January and let the new congress deal with it, it would be a better bill. However, Ron can't write the bill, and I trust he will vote the right way on it.

 

[Chieppa1]

The Judge is against it. Stossel was to. For what that's worth.

 

[MichelleHeart]

Other reasons to vote AGAINST

• $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol
• An extended protective tariff against ethanol imports
• Grants to developers of renewable energy

 

[nobody's_hero]

They plan these bills so that no matter what way you vote you are going against one or more of your principals and values. You just have to weigh which ones are more important than the others.

This.

No matter what happens, it's going to be a redistribution of wealth. I don't expect ANYTHING to change after this bill passes (with the exception of a few new regulations or some such nonsense).

 

[cswake]

Other reasons to vote AGAINST

• $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol
• An extended protective tariff against ethanol imports
• Grants to developers of renewable energy

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B74PU20101211​

Michelle, they are starting to make additional "compromises" to get more votes on-board, so we'll have to see how many they lose. (Including RPs) The poll will have to be redone once we have the final bill components. The basic way I see it is:

FOR: keep taxes about the same and increase spending by some unknown amount
AGAINST: raise taxes and keep spending relatively the same

*edit* Seems there is a print version circulating and the modifications are ... interesting: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/12/10/the-tax-compromise-must-now-die/

But the deal must now die. It must now be opposed by Republicans. Released now in print, the legislation is loaded up with budget busting pork of ridiculously absurd levels. The attachments to the compromise represent everything wrong with Washington. Many of them mirror the same porkulus spending in TARP.