Politics House GOP Tax Bill Keeps 39.6% Rate for High-Earners, Cuts Corporate Rate to 20%

[BrianFromWA]

But your kids, they earned that inheritance?

barfo

No, I said that I could see someone having that point of view, though I don't. I look at it as none of (the collective) your business who I give my money to, deserving or not.

 

[barfo]

View attachment 16840

Geez Denny, don't you realize that the top 1% are part of the top 5%? Just because the top 5% paid that amount, that doesn't mean that the lower end of the 5% paid anything at all. The estate tax cutoff is $5.5M, as I'm sure you know - so why are you arguing otherwise?

barfo

 

[barfo]

No, I said that I could see someone having that point of view, though I don't. I look at it as none of (the collective) your business who I give my money to, deserving or not.

And that's a reasonable point of view. If you'd rather pay more taxes while you are alive rather than wait until you are dead, that's a tradeoff I can get behind.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Geez Denny, don't you realize that the top 1% are part of the top 5%? Just because the top 5% paid that amount, that doesn't mean that the lower end of the 5% paid anything at all. The estate tax cutoff is $5.5M, as I'm sure you know - so why are you arguing otherwise?

barfo

You're reaching and you aren't reading the graphic correctly.

 

[Denny Crane]

Where are you quoting "size of economy" from? That has no connection to your graphic.

barfo

"My" graphic says that the $2.6T will actually be spent within the United States on making the economy bigger. Through "organic investment" and return of capital to investors (who will invest in something or spend it on goods and services).

And that the money is being held overseas, which doesn't fit your alternate facts.

 

[dviss1]

If the kids sell the business or assets in the estate, they'll pay capital gains tax. And that's how you get to rob those who were successful before they died.

They should be taxed. People should be taxed on money accumulation. What's the difference if I made that money or if it was garnered while I sat around the pool?

Those who have net worth of $1.8M or more paid $15.5B in estate taxes, according to @dviss1's table.

How about we just tax you. On your net worth, no less.

That's not what the table says. And AGAIN you know damn well we aren't taxed on net worth.. Jesus Denny...

 

[dviss1]

You know FULL WELL who the estate tax targets but you like to play stupid.

 

[BrianFromWA]

And that's a reasonable point of view. If you'd rather pay more taxes while you are alive rather than wait until you are dead, that's a tradeoff I can get behind.

barfo

And tangentially (b/c it's a you-and-Denny back-and-forth, so I'll see my way out), I'd say that the exemption (like many tax laws) carry enough loopholes so that the REALLY wealthy folks can afford to circumvent a lot of it. Not that I'm going to cry over too many non-forward-thinking millionaires losing cash, but it's probably not hitting where it's intended to hit.

Frankly, I think a compromise would be to tax capital gains on estate sales. If I leave my farm/business/property to my family and they keep using it, no tax imposed. If they sell so that they can get 10M in cash, then tax the proceeds as you would in any other investment.

 

[Denny Crane]

They should be taxed. People should be taxed on money accumulation. What's the difference if I made that money or if it was garnered while I sat around the pool?



That's not what the table says. And AGAIN you know damn well we aren't taxed on net worth.. Jesus Denny...

It's their money. If you are successful in life and build some wealth, it is yours to do with what you want. Even giving it to your kids (what a horrible thing to do!)

You keep saying the estate tax is not a tax on net worth. By definition it is.

Let me repeat, by definition it is.



Net value of the estate means just that. It's not a tax on something else that YOU conjure up.

 

[barfo]

You're reaching and you aren't reading the graphic correctly.

No Denny. People with estates of $1.8M do not pay any estate tax. That's the law, you can look it up. Your $1.8M number is pure bullshit in this context.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's their money. If you are successful in life and build some wealth, it is yours to do with what you want. Even giving it to your kids.

Except that even excluding the estate tax, current tax law doesn't support that thought process. Any transfer of consideration is subject to taxation, even gifting of previously-taxed earned wealth. If you give your child $1M the day before you die, that gift is taxed. Why shouldn't it be taxed similarly after death? It's not the giver who is taxed, but the receiver.

I would support a modification as suggested by BFW, in which the taxable basis of non-liquid assets is retained into and through the estate process, and not taxed until/unless sold. But I see no reason to eliminate the estate tax as a whole.

 

[barfo]

"My" graphic says that the $2.6T will actually be spent within the United States on making the economy bigger.

No it doesn't. It lists a number of things the money COULD be spent on, some of which do not increase GDP.

And that the money is being held overseas, which doesn't fit your alternate facts.

And you think foreign entities can't invest in the USA? That's what you'd have to believe to think that that money is 'trapped' overseas.

barfo

 

[barfo]

And tangentially (b/c it's a you-and-Denny back-and-forth, so I'll see my way out), I'd say that the exemption (like many tax laws) carry enough loopholes so that the REALLY wealthy folks can afford to circumvent a lot of it. Not that I'm going to cry over too many non-forward-thinking millionaires losing cash, but it's probably not hitting where it's intended to hit.

Frankly, I think a compromise would be to tax capital gains on estate sales. If I leave my farm/business/property to my family and they keep using it, no tax imposed. If they sell so that they can get 10M in cash, then tax the proceeds as you would in any other investment.

I could get behind that compromise. Might be tough to administer, but it's not like the tax laws are simple right now anyway.

barfo

 

[Shaboid]

One thing that I noticed hasn't been mentioned is that they are phasing out Student Loan Interest Deductions. I imagine that will really help the current 11.5% default rate.

 

[Denny Crane]

No Denny. People with estates of $1.8M do not pay any estate tax. That's the law, you can look it up. Your $1.8M number is pure bullshit in this context.

barfo

People who have $1.8M estates are top 5%.

 

[Denny Crane]

One thing that I noticed hasn't been mentioned is that they are phasing out Student Loan Interest Deductions. I imagine that will really help the current 11.5% default rate.

I'm not sure this is a good plan at all.

It is what it is.

 

[Denny Crane]

Except that even excluding the estate tax, current tax law doesn't support that thought process. Any transfer of consideration is subject to taxation, even gifting of previously-taxed earned wealth. If you give your child $1M the day before you die, that gift is taxed. Why shouldn't it be taxed similarly after death? It's not the giver who is taxed, but the receiver.

I would support a modification as suggested by BFW, in which the taxable basis of non-liquid assets is retained into and through the estate process, and not taxed until/unless sold. But I see no reason to eliminate the estate tax as a whole.

So would I.

The money was taxed all along. The dead person paid income tax on what he earned, capital gains on his profits.

Passing the asset along should't change its cost basis. It cost what it cost.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/smal...oyed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes



(Though I don't see it as a gift, it's an inheritance)

 

[Shaboid]

I'm not sure this is a good plan at all.

It is what it is.

Would you say that it's a bad plan? Because I think it is.

Just curious, since, "it is what it is", was your youth leveraged to overcome past mistakes by the government? Also, how did you overcome these disadvantages?

 

[dviss1]

Except that even excluding the estate tax, current tax law doesn't support that thought process. Any transfer of consideration is subject to taxation, even gifting of previously-taxed earned wealth. If you give your child $1M the day before you die, that gift is taxed. Why shouldn't it be taxed similarly after death? It's not the giver who is taxed, but the receiver.

I would support a modification as suggested by BFW, in which the taxable basis of non-liquid assets is retained into and through the estate process, and not taxed until/unless sold. But I see no reason to eliminate the estate tax as a whole.

Keeping the estate tax doesn't do anything to anyone in this forum. Mags included.

 

[dviss1]

One thing that I noticed hasn't been mentioned is that they are phasing out Student Loan Interest Deductions. I imagine that will really help the current 11.5% default rate.

Did you need green font for the bolded? Getting rid of that tax break is going to suck for the middle class.

 

[dviss1]

I'm not sure this is a good plan at all.

It is what it is.

This is Denny's way of saying that it's not a good plan.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

But why does it get rid of the Estate Tax Denny??? We know that only affects the UBER rich...

That's what sucks about the estate tax, it seems fine cuz fuck rich people. I'm cool with that in general but morally it seems wrong to tax money that should have already been

Keeping the estate tax doesn't do anything to anyone in this forum. Mags included.

I literally don't know what effect it had but my family farm sold for 20 something million in Ridgefield recently. My grandma died 10 years ago and they somehow kept the bulk of the farm and finally sold it not too long ago. I think they had to sell a large portion of it to keep it after she died to keep the bulk.

I don't really talk to that side of the family so I don't know the whole thing. I do know I'd have rather kept the land. They're probably building 250 houses on it as I type this.

My lazy good for nothing dad being a millionaire drives me crazy when I think about it....tax that fucker! Haha

 

[dviss1]

That's what sucks about the estate tax, it seems fine cuz fuck rich people. I'm cool with that in general but morally it seems wrong to tax money that should have already been

I literally don't know what effect it had but my family farm sold for 20 something million in Ridgefield recently. My grandma died 10 years ago and they somehow kept the bulk of the farm and finally sold it not too long ago. I think they had to sell a large portion of it to keep it after she died to keep the bulk.

I don't really talk to that side of the family so I don't know the whole thing. I do know I'd have rather kept the land. They're probably building 250 houses on it as I type this.

My lazy good for nothing dad being q millionaire drives me crazy when I think about it....tax that fucker! Haha

Think about this for a minute:

What are speeding tickets for?

They are for deterring speeders from participating in reckless behavior and endangering the lives of families on the road. Safety.

So, when you get a ticket you incur an expense. With that expense, you also have to go to court and you lose the most valuable commodity, time. This is supposed to teach you not to speed by penalizing you monetarily and inconveniencing you by taking time away.

It started out at $800, but I once got a $1600 speeding ticket in Lane County before. I had to work and couldn't get to court so the judge doubled the ticket. Did I deserve the $800? I was going 120... so yeah... Needless to say, I only drive 5 miles over the limit now with my 41 year old ass.

If the average speeding ticket is $300-400 maybe, how do you deter the rich man from speeding?

In some countries like Finland the amount of your ticket is based upon the amount you earn.

Progressive taxes and Progressive fees.

Yes the rich should pay more.

 

[barfo]

Keeping the estate tax doesn't do anything to anyone in this forum. Mags included.

I'm pretty sure Mags is actually a troll on a bed in St. Petersburg.

But I'm not so sure that no one here has an estate over $5.5M.

barfo

 

[barfo]

People who have $1.8M estates are top 5%.

That may be true, but it isn't particularly relevant to a discussion of estate taxes.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Think about this for a minute:

What are speeding tickets for?

They are for deterring speeders from participating in reckless behavior and endangering the lives of families on the road. Safety.

So, when you get a ticket you incur an expense. With that expense, you also have to go to court and you lose the most valuable commodity, time. This is supposed to teach you not to speed by penalizing you monetarily and inconveniencing you by taking time away.

It started out at $800, but I once got a $1600 speeding ticket in Lane County before. I had to work and couldn't get to court so the judge doubled the ticket. Did I deserve the $800? I was going 120... so yeah... Needless to say, I only drive 5 miles over the limit now with my 41 year old ass.

If the average speeding ticket is $300-400 maybe, how do you deter the rich man from speeding?

In some countries like Finland the amount of your ticket is based upon the amount you earn.

Progressive taxes and Progressive fees.

Yes the rich should pay more.

I agree wi

Drunk,. reply tomorrow

 

[Denny Crane]

Would you say that it's a bad plan? Because I think it is.

Just curious, since, "it is what it is", was your youth leveraged to overcome past mistakes by the government? Also, how did you overcome these disadvantages?

I worked 30 hour days for most of my youth. That's 22 hours (straight) of work, 8 hours of sleep.

Whatever the government is doing now, it's spending far more than it's taking in. Something has to give and some changes have to be made.

The overall tax rate, the amount government at all levels TAKES from everyone, has never been higher (or at least we're right up there with the highest).

If government taxes 20% of GDP and GDP is $100, it takes in $20. If it takes in 20% of GDP and GDP is $200, it takes in $40. Or you can try to take 40% of the $100 GDP and take in that same $40.

That is what the debate is. Democrats think you should take 40% and stifle GDP. Republicans think you should grow GDP and spending accordingly. In reality, both parties will spend more than we take in.

We're living large on a massive amount of borrowed money and those who borrow can't see (or won't admit) that the ever increasing interest payments on the debt are going to squeeze out spending on programs everyone seems to care about or are going to require awfully high taxes that aren't buying anything more/new.

Consider the democrats are complaining about $1.5T over 10 years in supposed increase to the debt (remains to be seen, though). Consider we're paying $400B (and growing) each year, or $4T over 10 years on interest on the debt. Who owns the debt? The rich, and foreigners. So direct payments, massive, to the rich.

Whenever there's a tax cut, in terms of $$$ the rich will get a lot. Is that really an issue? If the rich get a 1% break and the lowest earners get a 10% break, who's getting the big break?

If it grows GDP, it's good (nobody needs to pay higher taxes to get that $40).

If you measure standard of living by how big government is, by all means take it all (and then some, because there's never enough). If you measure standard of living by how free people get to spend their money on things that make them happy, then government needs to live up to its means.

 

[Denny Crane]

That may be true, but it isn't particularly relevant to a discussion of estate taxes.

barfo

Sure it is. You'd tax everyone's net worth, right?

 

[Denny Crane]

This is Denny's way of saying that it's not a good plan.

It's my way of saying I'd want to see more Reasoned discussion about its merits before deciding for myself.

 

[dviss1]

It's my way of saying I'd want to see more Reasoned discussion about its merits before deciding for myself.

But yeah, let's just get rid of the estate tax without having that same "Reasoned discussion"?