Argue either in favor or against the estate tax. Then, respond to at least two other students' posts in the following manner:

Support one studentâs argument with additional information or examples.

Counter one studentâs argument with information and/or examples.

Student 1 answer : Samantha

Samantha Caterina 5 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

The estate tax is very tricky, it can be argued both ways, for and against. For arguments sake I would be in favor of the estate tax. Currently for 2017 the federal estate tax threshold is 5.49 million. This is only targeting the wealthiest of people. The estate tax will tax any amount of an estate above this. It makes up for a small portion of the total tax collected by the federal government but it is still a substantial amount. The estate tax can be different in each state therefore being taxed more if the threshold is smaller. It is argued that the successful decedent should not be penalized for being successful I would not agree this is true. They are no longer the owner of the estate and the money would just be passed to a beneficiary. The beneficiary then has the rights to do what they please with the money. This can cause the beneficiaries to become non-productive members of society. If the estate tax was taken out tax would have to be made up somewhere, therefore cause middle class taxpayers to pay more taxes. The estate tax does not target the average person only the wealthiest are affected by it. I do not think the estate tax needs to be taken out of order.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/10/06/guest-post-pros-and-cons-of-the-federal-estate-tax/#6e3c8eb975a6

Student answer Andrea:

Andrea Robinson-Parker 4 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

The estate tax was once known as the death tax, there is a pun in there somewhere. Firstly, it is associated with the inheritance of a dead relative and secondly, it can be the death of small family businesses. I believe that this tax is essential for our country to survive. Bob Rywick, in his article, Pros and Cons of the Federal Estate Tax argues both sides of the coin. I agree with his pro stance and here is why:

Revenue from the estate tax will create around $200 billion revenue in the next several years. There has been a great increase in wealth in the recent past and this number may climb.

The estate tax will help to dilute the concentration of wealth. This concentration can be damaging to our free democratic society.

Many wealthy people donate large sums to charities each year to lower their tax bracket. If there was no estate tax, these donations would most likely drop off significantly.

Small business, (making less than $5,000,000) will not be affected. There are also rules set in place to protect farms regarding the valuation of farm land.

Less than 2/10 of 1% of the descendants dying each year will be affected by this tax, based on the current exemption amount.

Lastly, I personally believe that estate planning can alleviate some of these taxes. Estate taxes should not be confused with gift taxes. This is an option that can protect inheritances.

Student Answer

Lakisha Minniefield 3 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

I am against âestate taxâ and feel that when the property value goes up, it will increase my mortgage payment each year. I agree with Justin Haskins article regarding scrapping property taxes because as a property owner, charging fees for a specific service should be allowable. Also, property owners should be able to choose where the property taxes should be allocated especially when it comes down to our public education. I have two children who are autistic and in the past it was very difficult to find a school who had the staff to supply all of their educational special needs. Even though we live in the best neighbors that were very costly, the schools zone in the area had 2 out of 10 rating so I would have to transfer my children our of the district in order to get better services. Currently, my husband is getting ready for retirement out of the military and we have looked at all 50 states within the United States to see which state would give us the most exemptions when purchasing a home. The state we chose to move back to is Texas because of the no state property taxes. Property tax for the state of Texas brings in the most money of all taxes available to local government to pay for schools, roads, police and firemen, emergency response services, libraries, parks and other services provided by local government. The state also has a variety of partial or total (absolute) exemptions from appraised property values used to determine local property taxes. A partial exemption removes a percentage or a fixed dollar amount of a property's value from taxation. A total (absolute) exemption excludes the entire property from taxation. Since we will be on a fixed income, Texas property tax exemptions for disabled veterans was the best out of all 50 states. However, we will still have to look for a county with low property tax rate. Since I am already a disabled veteran, Texas has a property tax exempt chart for qualifying disabled veterans.

The exemption amount that a qualified disabled veteran receives depends on the veteran's disability rating from the branch of the armed service.

Disability Exemption
Disability Rating	Exemption Amount Up To
10% to 29%	$5,000 from the property's value
30% to 49%	$7,500 from the property's value
50% to 69%	$10,000 from the property's value
70% to 100%	$12,000 from the property's value

*The Texas Comptroller website lists all of the benefits for disabled veterans regarding property tax exemptions.

Even as a disabled veteran, I would still have to pay property tax but the exemption will only exempt the amount of the disability rating off the value of property. Disabled veterans who are 100% total and permanently disable will be exempt from paying all property taxes. Financially, my family will still have to find a home affordable in a safe neighborhood, public education is rated above 7 out of 10 and choose a county that property taxes are low.

Reference:

https://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxes

WRITE a one-sentence summary of each paragraph!

The Undeserving Rich

By Paul Krugman
Published in the New York Times, Jan. 19, 2014

The reality of rising American inequality is stark. Since the late 1970s, real wages for the bottom half of the workforce have stagnated or fallen, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have nearly quadrupled (and the incomes of the top 0.1 percent have risen even more). While we can and should have a serious debate about what to do about this situation, the simple fact American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society shouldn't be up for argument.

But it is, of course. Partly this reflects Upton Sinclair's famous dictum: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But it also, I think, reflects distaste for the implications of the numbers, which seem almost like an open invitation to class warfare or, if you prefer, a demonstration that class warfare is already underway, with the plutocrats on offense.

The result has been a determined campaign of statistical obfuscation. At its cruder end, this campaign comes close to outright falsification; at its more sophisticated end, it involves using fancy footwork to propagate what I think of as the myth of the deserving rich.

For an example of de facto falsification, one need look no further than a
recent column by Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal, which first accused President Obama (wrongly) of making a factual error, then proceeded to assert that rising inequality was no big deal because everyone has been making big gains. Why, incomes for the bottom fifth of the U.S. population have risen 186 percent since 1979!

If this sounds wrong to you, it should: that's a nominal number, not corrected for inflation. You can find the inflation-corrected number in the same Census Bureau table; it shows incomes for the bottom fifth actually falling. Oh, and for the record, at the time of writing this elementary error had not been corrected on The Journal's website.

O.K., that's what crude obfuscation looks like. What about the fancier version?

I've noted before that conservatives seem fixated on the notion that poverty is basically the result of character problems among the poor. This may once have had a grain of truth to it, but for the past three decades and more the main obstacle facing the poor has been the lack of jobs paying decent wages. But the myth of the undeserving poor persists, and so does a counterpart myth, that of the deserving rich.

The story goes like this: America's affluent are affluent because they made the right lifestyle choices. They got themselves good educations, they got and stayed married, and so on. Basically, affluence is a reward for adhering to the Victorian virtues.

What's wrong with this story? Even on its own terms, it postulates opportunities that don't exist. For example, how are children of the poor, or even the working class, supposed to get a good education in an era of declining support for and sharply rising tuition at public universities? Even social indicators like family stability are, to an important extent, economic phenomena: nothing takes a toll on family values like lack of employment opportunities.

But the main thing about this myth is that it misidentifies the winners from growing inequality. White-collar professionals, even if married to each other, are only doing O.K. The big winners are a much smaller group. The Occupy movement popularized the concept of the 1 percent, which is a good shorthand for the rising elite, but if anything includes too many people: most of the gains of the top 1 percent have in fact gone to an even tinier elite, the top 0.1 percent.

And who are these lucky few? Mainly they're executives of some kind, especially, although not only, in finance. You can argue about whether these people deserve to be paid so well, but one thing is clear: They didn't get where they are simply by being prudent, clean, and sober.

So how can the myth of the deserving rich be sustained? Mainly through a strategy of distortion by dilution. You rarely see apologists for inequality willing to talk about the 1 percent, let alone the really big winners. Instead, they talk about the top 20 percent, or at best the top 5 percent. These may sound like innocent choices, but they're not, because they involve lumping in married lawyers with the wolves of Wall Street. The DiCaprio movie of that name, by the way, is wildly popular with finance types, who cheer on the title character another clue to the realities of our new Gilded Age.

Again, I know that these realities make some people, not all of them hired guns for the plutocracy, uncomfortable, and they'd prefer to paint a different picture. But even if the facts have a well-known populist bias, they're still the facts and they must be faced.

cerisechimpanzee766

WRITE a one-sentence summary of each essay and illustrate their relationship

The Undeserving Rich

By Paul Krugman
Published in the New York Times, Jan. 19, 2014

The reality of rising American inequality is stark. Since the late 1970s, real wages for the bottom half of the workforce have stagnated or fallen, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have nearly quadrupled (and the incomes of the top 0.1 percent have risen even more). While we can and should have a serious debate about what to do about this situation, the simple fact American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society shouldn't be up for argument.

But it is, of course. Partly this reflects Upton Sinclair's famous dictum: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But it also, I think, reflects distaste for the implications of the numbers, which seem almost like an open invitation to class warfare or, if you prefer, a demonstration that class warfare is already underway, with the plutocrats on offense.

The result has been a determined campaign of statistical obfuscation. At its cruder end, this campaign comes close to outright falsification; at its more sophisticated end, it involves using fancy footwork to propagate what I think of as the myth of the deserving rich.

For an example of de facto falsification, one need look no further than a
recent column by Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal, which first accused President Obama (wrongly) of making a factual error, then proceeded to assert that rising inequality was no big deal because everyone has been making big gains. Why, incomes for the bottom fifth of the U.S. population have risen 186 percent since 1979!

If this sounds wrong to you, it should: thatâs a nominal number, not corrected for inflation. You can find the inflation-corrected number in the same Census Bureau table; it shows incomes for the bottom fifth actually falling. Oh, and for the record, at the time of writing this elementary error had not been corrected on The Journalâs website.

O.K., thatâs what crude obfuscation looks like. What about the fancier version?

Iâve noted before that conservatives seem fixated on the notion that poverty is basically the result of character problems among the poor. This may once have had a grain of truth to it, but for the past three decades and more the main obstacle facing the poor has been the lack of jobs paying decent wages. But the myth of the undeserving poor persists, and so does a counterpart myth, that of the deserving rich.

The story goes like this: America's affluent are affluent because they made the right lifestyle choices. They got themselves good educations, they got and stayed married, and so on. Basically, affluence is a reward for adhering to the Victorian virtues.

Whatâs wrong with this story? Even on its own terms, it postulates opportunities that donât exist. For example, how are children of the poor, or even the working class, supposed to get a good education in an era of declining support for and sharply rising tuition at public universities? Even social indicators like family stability are, to an important extent, economic phenomena: nothing takes a toll on family values like lack of employment opportunities.

But the main thing about this myth is that it misidentifies the winners from growing inequality. White-collar professionals, even if married to each other, are only doing O.K. The big winners are a much smaller group. The Occupy movement popularized the concept of the 1 percent, which is a good shorthand for the rising elite, but if anything includes too many people: most of the gains of the top 1 percent have in fact gone to an even tinier elite, the top 0.1 percent.

And who are these lucky few? Mainly they're executives of some kind, especially, although not only, in finance. You can argue about whether these people deserve to be paid so well, but one thing is clear: They didn't get where they are simply by being prudent, clean, and sober.

So how can the myth of the deserving rich be sustained? Mainly through a strategy of distortion by dilution. You rarely see apologists for inequality willing to talk about the 1 percent, let alone the really big winners. Instead, they talk about the top 20 percent, or at best the top 5 percent. These may sound like innocent choices, but they're not, because they involve lumping in married lawyers with the wolves of Wall Street. The DiCaprio movie of that name, by the way, is wildly popular with finance types, who cheer on the title character another clue to the realities of our new Gilded Age.

Again, I know that these realities make some people, not all of them hired guns for the plutocracy, uncomfortable, and they'd prefer to paint a different picture. But even if the facts have a well-known populist bias, they're still the facts and they must be faced.

The False Income-Inequality Narrative

BY JASON L. RILEY

Published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 29, 2015

An enduring theme of the Democratic presidential race has been income inequality, coupled with an enduring belief that Americaâs affluent reached their status at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

Bernie Sanders speaks of little else on the stump. And when not busy dissembling on her handling of email correspondence at the State Department, Hillary Clinton will tell you that the âdeck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.â If Joe Biden gets in, expect more of the same. The vice president is said to be contemplating a 2016 bid in large part because struggling middle-income families may have trouble relating to Mrs. Clinton on inequality given her high living since leaving the White House.

This theme, in any case, seems to resonate with voters, which is no huge shock in the sixth year of an economic recovery. Envy and resentment fuel class warfare and lackluster economic growth throughout the Obama presidency have made people less optimistic and more inclined to fault others for their circumstances. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this week reports that four-in-five Americans âwere either angry because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power or anxious and uncertain. After all, the economy still feels rocky and unpredictable or both.

Liberals want to address income disparities through wealth redistributionby taking money from more productive people and giving it to the less productive in the name of fairness as the left defines it. They want to raise income taxes, expand the welfare state, lift minimum wages, and strengthen the bargaining power of unions. Mr. Sanders has been the most explicit about this, even going so far as to propose a wealth tax. Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1%, the senator said in July.

In reality, the left has overstated the problem. And all the focus on divvying up existing wealth instead of creating more risks making matters far worse for the people they are trying to help and the country in general. to the extent that the expanding welfare state allows more people to live without working and therefore without earning income or developing their own human capital supporters of the welfare state are contributing to the very income disparities they so much decry, writes economist Thomas Sowell in his new book, âWealth, Poverty and Politics.â

Mr. Sowell is the author of more than 30 books over the past four decades, many having to do with what drives different social and economic outcomes among different groups in the U.S. and elsewhere. In his latest tome, he draws from this well of research to do what he has done so well for so long: question basic assumptions behind public policy and follow the facts where they lead him.

One common assumption is that proportionate or random outcomes are the natural order of things and that gaps or disparities are evidence of something wrong. In fact, huge disparities are the norm, not the exception, because the demographic, cultural, and political factors that influence the development of the human capital that makes people productive also tend to be unequal.

In 2013, only 9% of U.S. women with college degrees who gave birth were unmarried, versus 61% of women who were high-school dropouts and unmarried. Harvard's Robert Putnam reports that children from professional families will hear 19 million more words than their working-class peers before the first day of kindergarten.

These children don't have the same prospects. Equal opportunity, in the sense of being judged and rewarded by the same standards as others, cannot possibly mean equal life chances for children born and raised in these very different settings, writes Mr. Sowell. The fact that life is unfair is not the same as saying that a particular institution, or a particular society, is unfair.

The argument that social mobility is a thing of the past in the U.S. also is disputable. Longitudinal studies by the IRS and others that measure the progress of individuals over time show that the American dream is alive and well. One such paper, published by the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012, measured âwhether a person has more or less income, earnings, or wealth than his or her parents did at the same age and concluded that âthe vast majority of Americans had higher incomes, while 50% had greater wealth.

In other studies, Pew has found generational stagnation but the authors have noted that it didn't apply to immigrants. If low-income immigrants can rise even when the native-born don't, writes Mr. Sowell, that strongly suggests that American society continues to offer opportunities to move up economically, but that not all groups make the same use of these opportunities.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed (Encounter Books, 2014).

raspberrycrocodile828

EDUC 101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: International Wheelchair And Amputee Sports Federation, Variety Store, Spring-8

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ENGL 102 Lecture 11: Final Reflection

ENGL 1001 Chapter : Best Days Of Fourth Grade English 1001

HREQ 1900 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Racialization, Presentation Of A Group, Moodle

Related Questions