• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Economist on Republican Tax

OpportunityCost said:
A lot of that came from the e-commerce boom.
Click to expand...

Well, that's true, but it's also always true that "A lot of that [the economic performance under President ____] came from _______________ [insert factor(s) beyond the control of the POTUS]."

So, a lot of the Reagan boom has little to do with taxes or anything else done by Reagan. Etc....
 
Oborosen said:
Crap I completely forgot about Greenspan.
Whatever happened to that guy anyway?

I remember he stuck around for a little while after, but I recall him bailing when Bill got caught with his pants down.
Click to expand...

No. Greenspan was still there to pump the housing bubble during Bush Jr's run. He had his thumb in his Ayn Rand worshipping mouth when that one popped, too. That guy may have done more damage to the U.S. than any other individual. Of course, there weren't many pointing out how wrong he was while the money was being "made".
 
JasperL said:
And under the proposed rules, the untaxed gain at death will also go poof. So if mom sells MSFT to fund her nursing home, the gain is taxed. When Bill passes his shares down to his kids, the gain disappears, and kids write the stock up to FMV when Bill dies It's just another massive tax loophole and giveaway for the Paris Hilton crowd. If you're rich enough to hold onto appreciated assets until death, you can forever avoid income tax on the gain.
Click to expand...

That pretty well nailed it.
 
TurtleDude said:
the death tax hits far more than the 5000 richest families and is nothing more than an envy based surtax on the top income tax payers.
Click to expand...
I love people that carry water for the wealthy....drinking their kool aid. I guarantee none of them care about our plight
 
JasperL said:
Not really. Any other transfer of money or items of value between two people are considered "income" for purposes of the IRC. Transfers through an estate are excluded in part because they're taxed under the estate tax. You want to keep the special exclusion from income tax, but not subject that income to the estate tax because in your view kids of rich parents deserve to receive $millions or $billions in tax free income, because something.... The actual reason is rich people are big donors and the GOP is paying them off.

And under the proposed rules, the untaxed gain at death will also go poof. So if mom sells MSFT to fund her nursing home, the gain is taxed. When Bill passes his shares down to his kids, the gain disappears, and kids write the stock up to FMV when Bill dies It's just another massive tax loophole and giveaway for the Paris Hilton crowd. If you're rich enough to hold onto appreciated assets until death, you can forever avoid income tax on the gain.
Click to expand...

and that is dishonest because you pretend that the only stuff raped by the death tax is unappreciated gains. If your grandfather had a painting worth 5 million, your father paid estate taxes on it when he inherited it even if it doesn't appreciate. And then you pay estate taxes on it again. the death tax doesn't exempt property like that after one confiscation of wealth
 
Fraggle Rock said:
I love people that carry water for the wealthy....drinking their kool aid. I guarantee none of them care about our plight
Click to expand...

ah the poor poor pitiful me nonsense. people like you are bamboozled by the uber rich lefties who pretend to care for the people like you. TO them, you and those like you, are seen as useful fools who vote them into office so they can get more and more wealth from office.
 
Fraggle Rock said:
I love people that carry water for the wealthy....drinking their kool aid. I guarantee none of them care about our plight
Click to expand...

To be fair, that person claims to be one of those affected by current estate tax rules, i.e. worth > $15 million or so, so if we believe his claims, he's carrying his own water as one of the wealthy.
 
TurtleDude said:
ah the poor poor pitiful me nonsense. people like you are bamboozled by the uber rich lefties who pretend to care for the people like you. TO them, you and those like you, are seen as useful fools who vote them into office so they can get more and more wealth from office.
Click to expand...

So we should vote in right wingers who are even more committed to being puppets for the $billionaire class?
 
JasperL said:
So we should vote in right wingers who are even more committed to being puppets for the $billionaire class?
Click to expand...

that's an assumption without any sound basis. the billionaire class-as opposed to most of us in the top one percent-tend to be fans of more government because they think that gives them more power
 
JasperL said:
To be fair, that person claims to be one of those affected by current estate tax rules, i.e. worth > $15 million or so, so if we believe his claims, he's carrying his own water as one of the wealthy.
Click to expand...

someone gets it. but confusing people like me with those who make a billion a year is silly.
 
TurtleDude said:
and that is dishonest because you pretend that the only stuff raped by the death tax is unappreciated gains. If your grandfather had a painting worth 5 million, your father paid estate taxes on it when he inherited it even if it doesn't appreciate. And then you pay estate taxes on it again. the death tax doesn't exempt property like that after one confiscation of wealth
Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. Reread that first paragraph again.

The dishonest claim inherent in that argument is you or your heirs are somehow entitled to receive that $5 million in value (and it doesn't matter if it's a painting or a suitcase full of $100 bills) tax free. It's income and all income is taxed unless specifically excluded. You're demanding 1) a special exclusion for rich kids that allows them to receive $millions or $billions tax free, and 2) the GOP plan also wipes out all unrecognized gain in the estate on date of death - it goes poof. So the rules as proposed are TWO massive loopholes for the wealthy.
 
JasperL said:
No, that's wrong. Reread that first paragraph again.

The dishonest claim inherent in that argument is you or your heirs are somehow entitled to receive that $5 million in value (and it doesn't matter if it's a painting or a suitcase full of $100 bills) tax free. It's income and all income is taxed unless specifically excluded. You're demanding 1) a special exclusion for rich kids that allows them to receive $millions or $billions tax free, and 2) the GOP plan also wipes out all unrecognized gain in the estate on date of death - it goes poof. So the rules as proposed are TWO massive loopholes for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

stop lying. Its gift not income. Income is value that comes from an exchange of value. You're just spewing envy. The people who are hit by the death tax are already paying massive amounts of income tax. BTW I don't see you screaming for this tax on "income" as you dishonestly call it-for those with less assets.

you can weasel all you want-the fact is you just want people who are better off than you to pay more to the government. Its wealth vandalism
 
TurtleDude said:
that's an assumption without any sound basis. the billionaire class-as opposed to most of us in the top one percent-tend to be fans of more government because they think that gives them more power
Click to expand...

People vote their interests and I don't see how you can make an evidence-based argument that a poor person's interests are best served by the modern GOP.

It's kind of like the arguments about race. The GOP position is that blacks and the poor are too stupid to recognize that their REAL allies are in the GOP.
 
JasperL said:
Well, that's true, but it's also always true that "A lot of that [the economic performance under President ____] came from _______________ [insert factor(s) beyond the control of the POTUS]."

So, a lot of the Reagan boom has little to do with taxes or anything else done by Reagan. Etc....
Click to expand...

Find a good economic indicator in what Reagan inherited. I'll wait.

Its undeniable that ecommerce soared and Clinton had little to do with that, he did do very well with what he was handed and forging a middle ground on fiscal issues.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, that's funny. He did it, but for the wrong reasons! And it also took Congress - lots of Democrats. And voting for the tax increase cost many of them their jobs, which is why the GOP took over in 1994 in a huge GOP wave, so if they thought it was good for getting reelected, they got it wrong.

Speaking only for myself, I don't really give a damn what motivates politicians when they do the right thing, and almost all of them take almost all their votes with an eye to getting reelected. So blaming them for THAT means we don't even credit politicians for anything, ever.
Click to expand...

NAFTA, Gun control policy, healthcare reform, AND the tax increase contributed to the GOP wave. They went after too much, too fast.

Sound familiar?
 
JasperL said:
People vote their interests and I don't see how you can make an evidence-based argument that a poor person's interests are best served by the modern GOP.

It's kind of like the arguments about race. The GOP position is that blacks and the poor are too stupid to recognize that their REAL allies are in the GOP.
Click to expand...

what party's best interest is having lots of people dependent on big government?
 
JasperL said:
People vote their interests and I don't see how you can make an evidence-based argument that a poor person's interests are best served by the modern GOP.

It's kind of like the arguments about race. The GOP position is that blacks and the poor are too stupid to recognize that their REAL allies are in the GOP.
Click to expand...

What makes you take that position? You are right that reducing public spending on private goods more would be much better than letting it go on. But the democrates are worse in that respect.
 
joG said:
That is exactly why it is poor thinking to take a c.p. approach to economic matters to judge in stead as guide to policies. Here the judgement should not be "Bad!". It should be "How do we reduce spending?".
Click to expand...
The subject was the tax plan. That's revenue, not spending. So, why isn't the operative question:
Why not "leave revenue alone and why do we need this plan at all?"
 
MrWonka said:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/11/bill-two-halves

What does a magazine dedicated entirely to economics and widely considered one of if not the most trustworthy news sources on the planet think about the economic impact of the Republican Tax plan? Well, generally they think it's bad.

"In the long run, the addition to the national debt will crowd out private investment and inhibit economic growth. The Tax Policy Center modelled the earlier sketch plan put out by Republicans and found that after four decades, GDP would be 0.4% lower, because of the increased debt burden. "

"The House Republicans’ tax bill has plenty of good features. But its lack of fiscal prudence is its undoing."

So the one thing fiscal conservatives claim to be all about...fiscal prudence...and their tax plan doesn't have it.
Click to expand...

Republicans at the national level have not been about fiscal responsibility since maybe Ike. Borrow and Spend is what they do. Then when the dems are in power they whine about the debt their policies created.
 
JasperL said:
People vote their interests and I don't see how you can make an evidence-based argument that a poor person's interests are best served by the modern GOP.

It's kind of like the arguments about race. The GOP position is that blacks and the poor are too stupid to recognize that their REAL allies are in the GOP.
joG said:
What makes you take that position? You are right that reducing public spending on private goods more would be much better than letting it go on. But the democrates are worse in that respect.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's quite easy to arrive at the conclusion that a poor (or middle class) person's interests are ill served by the modern GOP. The GOP has three main policy objectives:

Cut taxes (and primarily on the upper-income taxpayers) and pay for the tax-cuts on the backs of the poor and middle-class:

We see this time and time again. Tax-cuts on the rich, under the fantasy that it creates economic expansion and jobs, that reduce taxes on the rich and widen income inequality. Then, GOP legislators discover that there are deficits and then respond by cutting Medicaid, SNAP, health care, etc.

Cut regulations:
Republicans speak about regulations as if they are evil. The reality is that regulations are protections for people -- workers, consumers, investors, people who breathe air and drink water, etc. Republicans aren't doing people any favors for opposing regulations.

Cut the safety net:
Republicans have always been against the social safety net, provides economic security for people and Republicans are against them because it costs rich people money.
 
TurtleDude said:
stop lying. Its gift not income. Income is value that comes from an exchange of value. You're just spewing envy. The people who are hit by the death tax are already paying massive amounts of income tax. BTW I don't see you screaming for this tax on "income" as you dishonestly call it-for those with less assets.

you can weasel all you want-the fact is you just want people who are better off than you to pay more to the government. Its wealth vandalism
Click to expand...

It's not a lie - it's Federal Income Tax 101. IRC Sec. 62 defines income: "gross income means all income from whatever source derived." The Supreme Court has interpreted that very broadly to include any accession to wealth, and any accession to wealth is taxable as income unless the IRC explicitly excludes that source of income from tax. Gifts and bequests are not includible in income because of the exception contained in IRC Sec. 102. Repeal that and every court in the country would conclude that a transfer from an estate to an heir is income and taxable under Sec. 62.

And your definition, " value that comes from an exchange of value" is self serving and wrong. There is no basis in the law for that and many exceptions in the law that disprove your theory. The most obvious is debt forgiveness. When homeowners left the keys on the counter and walked away from their underwater homes, the debt write-off in excess of the amount the lender rec'd from the sale of the home was/is taxable income to the homeowner. There is no "exchange of value there" but when someone is relieved of debt, there IS an accession to wealth, which is taxable as income unless specifically excluded. In fact Congress did write exclusions into the law for a while for those homeowners, and there are others - essentially if the taxpayer is insolvent, the income isn't taxable, the rationale being blood from a turnip kind of thing.

So you're ignorant about Federal income taxes, and calling me a liar for accurately describing how our system works. Interesting defense, but not very effective.
 
JasperL said:
It's not a lie - it's Federal Income Tax 101. IRC Sec. 62 defines income: "gross income means all income from whatever source derived." The Supreme Court has interpreted that very broadly to include any accession to wealth, and any accession to wealth is taxable as income unless the IRC explicitly excludes that source of income from tax. Gifts and bequests are not includible in income because of the exception contained in IRC Sec. 102. Repeal that and every court in the country would conclude that a transfer from an estate to an heir is income and taxable under Sec. 62.

And your definition, " value that comes from an exchange of value" is self serving and wrong. There is no basis in the law for that and many exceptions in the law that disprove your theory. The most obvious is debt forgiveness. When homeowners left the keys on the counter and walked away from their underwater homes, the debt write-off in excess of the amount the lender rec'd from the sale of the home was/is taxable income to the homeowner. There is no "exchange of value there" but when someone is relieved of debt, there IS an accession to wealth, which is taxable as income unless specifically excluded. In fact Congress did write exclusions into the law for a while for those homeowners, and there are others - essentially if the taxpayer is insolvent, the income isn't taxable, the rationale being blood from a turnip kind of thing.

So you're ignorant about Federal income taxes, and calling me a liar for accurately describing how our system works. Interesting defense, but not very effective.
Click to expand...

gifts are not income. try again
 
OpportunityCost said:
Find a good economic indicator in what Reagan inherited. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand your question. If you want to claim Reagan caused the boom, the burden is on you, but I don't think you'll be able to do it.

But the obvious macro development Reagan benefitted from is Carter appointed Volcker who sent the economy into a deep recession, on purpose, with sky high Fed rates to crush fears of inflation. Also too, gas lines, OPEC, etc. All that eased after Reagan was elected. Reagan had nothing to do with that, but the economy benefitted immensely from those actions by the Fed. We could have elected a trained dog as POTUS and we'd have seen above average economic growth emerging from that high interest rate environment.

If Reagan contributed to that, it's because he engaged in a policy of massive Keynesian stimulus with his deficit financed tax cuts in the early years.

Its undeniable that ecommerce soared and Clinton had little to do with that, he did do very well with what he was handed and forging a middle ground on fiscal issues.
Click to expand...

Right, but you're not actually arguing against my main point. Presidents of any era have little to do with the macro factors that really drive the economy. You can say the same about Reagan as what you're saying about Clinton. If you want to argue otherwise, the burden is on you to demonstrate that but for Reagan as POTUS, growth would have been significantly slower.
 
TurtleDude said:
gifts are not income. try again
Click to expand...

And baseless assertions do not represent a compelling argument.

Fact is my summary of the law is correct, and your definition has no basis in the law or the courts. If you think I'm wrong, you're a lawyer, supposedly, and so you know how to document your assertions by citing the law and applicable court cases. I know you can't which is why you're going this route - the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and screaming, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU. YOU'RE WRONG!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom