• 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!

Already found the tax loopholes...

haymarket said:
I do not begrudge anyone who inherits money. I simply want the money to be treated equally as anyone else who earns the same amount.
Click to expand...

Great. Then tax every estate. Tax every gift any father gives to his child. If your old man leaves you ten bucks in his will, report it as income. I am willing to accept that. Are you?
 
Fletch said:
If the estate tax is such a good thing then tax every estate not just those who pass some arbitrary, envy based number. That would at least be fair and treat all people equally.
Click to expand...
Well, which is it? You argued that it was unfair to have an estate tax at all. Now, you argue the opposite, it should apply to my grandfather giving me his college ring.

The fact is that over the decades, Congress has debated these issues and decided that estate taxes should exempt all but the most enormous assets. Why? Because it was felt that those with $11 million in assets will still be giving their descendants a fortune, even after the tax was paid. Obviously, the GOP Congress and Trump agree, it should be ok to form inherited dynastes, just like Old Europe.

Fletch said:
Why shouldn't it? What moral claim do you have to a penny of it?
Click to expand...

With all of the worthy moral fights one could have, it's interesting that your battle is the right of the rich to keep more money because they were good at choosing the right uterus.
 
MTAtech said:
Well, which is it? You argued that it was unfair to have an estate tax at all. Now, you argue the opposite, it should apply to my grandfather giving me his college ring.

The fact is that over the decades, Congress has debated these issues and decided that estate taxes should exempt all but the most enormous assets. Why? Because it was felt that those with $11 million in assets will still be giving their descendants a fortune, even after the tax was paid. Obviously, the GOP Congress and Trump agree, it should be ok to form inherited dynastes, just like Old Europe.
Click to expand...
The estate tax should apply to everyone or no one. It applies now only to the rich for two reasons 1)envy 2) congress knows that it can single out a minority for special treatment and get away with it. There are no political consequences to feeding the envious masses with largess confiscated from Americans too small in numbers to fight it.



With all of the worthy moral fights one could have, it's interesting that your battle is the right of the rich to keep more money because they were good at choosing the right uterus.
Click to expand...
I am capable in engaging in multiple moral battles at the same time. The point here is that we are equal in our rights. What you earn is yours, by right. I have no moral claim to it. If I happen to have been sired by a wealthy tycoon, that is my good fortune. It still gives you no right to what my father earned. If he gives it to me, that is his right. If he bypasses me and gives it to you, that is his right. What you are doing is allowing your envy to guide your morality and pretending that a third party confiscating the property of others to grant you an unearned benefit is somehow moral. Its not.
 
There is so much misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies about the proposed legislation that its no wonder no one knows what they are on about. Of course...why bother...right?

Once upon a time, both parties could argue over things but actually work out legislation together. Those days are long gone. Both parties are to blame.

Hey...leftists-since you are already in kneejerk denouncement mode. Are you HAPPY with the current tax code? Are you HAPPY with the current healthcare laws? If yes...you are ****ing morons. If no...why is it that all you man mange is a constant nonstop regurgitation of the leftists politician rhetoric and why dont you demand your peice of **** politicians actually engage to fix the problems? Regarding health care, that would be especially nice considering it was the rat party that lied about it and then forced it on the country.
 
Fletch said:
Great. Then tax every estate. Tax every gift any father gives to his child. If your old man leaves you ten bucks in his will, report it as income. I am willing to accept that. Are you?
Click to expand...

We have a record of inheritance from wills and bank records and other legal documents. What record would we have of ten dollar gifts? It seems your suggestion is not well thought through.
 
haymarket said:
We have a record of inheritance from wills and bank records and other legal documents. What record would we have of ten dollar gifts? It seems your suggestion is not well thought through.
Click to expand...

You'll just have to keep a record of it to be in compliance with tax laws
 
CriticalThought said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/your-money/tax-cuts-small-business.html

I think when historians look back on this legislation, and what it promised to do (drive growth and increase wages) and what it actually will do (create massive economy stifling deficits, decrease social mobility, and further increase income inequality) they will share a collective sigh because of how predictable it all was.
Click to expand...

Like your post, but I thought this quote from the link would put things in a slightly different perspective...

The House bill says that up to 30 percent of business income can be taxed at the lower 25 percent rate, with the rest at the personal income tax rate. At the highest level, this is a blended tax rate of 35.22 percent, at least for businesses that qualify. That is a far cry from the 20 percent proposed for corporations
Click to expand...

Remember, this isn’t true tax reform. There is simply no time left. This is strictly, as I understand it, a tax cut.

However, these kinds of loopholes (perfectly legal) are all OVER the damned place. And until Congress is really REALLY to address them, nothing will change. And neither side obviously has any inclination to do so.

I owned my own business for 20 years. During that period of time, we were what’s called a Subchapter S corporation which meant that all monies earned pass through to the owners as ordinary income. Perhaps what they’re saying here without giving it a name.

Regardless, though, Sub S corps could declare dividends with no restriction for many of those years, so we took all of our income out as dividends rather than salary, this exempting our income from the Social Security tax. Then the Law changed to where we couldn’t do that anymore. We had to take a “reasonable salary” before calling distributions dividends. What’s reasonable? In our world, we decided minimum wage was reasonable... thus exempting the vast majority of our earnings from Social Security taxes.

Was that fair? No. But it was perfectly legal. Hell, I know people who set up their real estate businesses as Sub S’s, took minimum normal salaries that kept them below the Social Security max earnings figure, took the rest as dividends and then collected full boat SS. Perfectly legal, at least at that time.

Until BOTH PARTIES are ready to address the inequities in our tax codes, the rich will continue to get richer. Guess who the rich are? The very ones responsible for solving the problem. And, don’t forget! They’re the jakes who caused it in the first place.

“If “we the people”.don’t stop being led around by partisan nose rings and insist our congressmen become the bipartisan body they were meant to be? And govern us inOUR best interests instead of theirs? Nothing is EVER going to change.

Rant off.
 
Napoleon said:
Do you believe lottery winnings should be taxed? Do you hate lottery winners?
Click to expand...

The money won by the lottery have not already been taxed when it was originally earned. Big difference.
 
KevinKohler said:
All money is taxed multiple times.
Click to expand...

Not for the same thing. The money you earn is taxed for income. When you spend it, there's sales tax, then there are other taxes, but they are not double taxed as income.
 
MTAtech said:
First, YOU wouldn't have to pay ANY estate tax unless your family left you $5.5 million dollars ($11 for a couple.) Second, estate taxes are not taxed twice. Much of the value in the estate is unrealized gain. It works like this: Let's say Mom and Dad bought Apple stock in 1990, for $10 a share. That stock is now worth, after stock splits, $5,000 a share. The original $10 was paid via after-tax money but the $4,990 gain was never, ever taxed. So, why should anyone inherit that money tax free?

The same is true for Bill Gates. I just don't understand the objection to having ultra-rich people pay estate taxes. If Bill Gates didn't already decide to give most of his money away, why should his $50 billion in Microsoft stock -- the vast amount was never taxed, go to the Gates' kids free of taxation?
Click to expand...

Estate tax is not the same as inheritance tax.
 
MTAtech said:
First, YOU wouldn't have to pay ANY estate tax unless your family left you $5.5 million dollars ($11 for a couple.) Second, estate taxes are not taxed twice. Much of the value in the estate is unrealized gain. It works like this: Let's say Mom and Dad bought Apple stock in 1990, for $10 a share. That stock is now worth, after stock splits, $5,000 a share. The original $10 was paid via after-tax money but the $4,990 gain was never, ever taxed. So, why should anyone inherit that money tax free?

The same is true for Bill Gates. I just don't understand the objection to having ultra-rich people pay estate taxes. If Bill Gates didn't already decide to give most of his money away, why should his $50 billion in Microsoft stock -- the vast amount was never taxed, go to the Gates' kids free of taxation?
Click to expand...

First, that 50 billion of stock was paid for by money earned or given as part of his income. So it's already been taxed. Any earning on that stock is taxed as dividends, and if his kids inherit the stock, when dividends is paid out it will also be taxed. If they sell the stock, the profit portion will be taxed. So it will not be free of taxation.
 
haymarket said:
I do not begrudge anyone who inherits money. I simply want the money to be treated equally as anyone else who earns the same amount.
Click to expand...

It is. By the person who had it to give to someone. You get a cash gift for your wedding, graduation, birthday, etc....do you claim it as income? I doubt it. Why not then? The amount of the gift shouldn't matter unless you feel that people who are lucky enough to get more should be punished.
 
holbritter said:
Estate tax is not the same as inheritance tax.
Click to expand...
The federal bill that we are discussing is referring to the estate tax, which is paid by the deceased's estate. An inheritance tax is a state tax that you pay when you receive money or property from the estate of a deceased person.
 
holbritter said:
But the people they inherited it from did :doh
Click to expand...
I dealt with that earlier. Most of the deceased's assets were unrealized gains. In the example that I gave, Mom and Dad bought Apple stock in 1990 for $10/share. That $10/share was paid from after-tax earnings. Today, adjusting for stock splits and appreciation, that $10, is worth $5,000. When was tax paid on the $5,000? Never. It still was paid only on the original $10. The $4,990 is untaxed unrealized gains.
 
MTAtech said:
The federal bill that we are discussing is referring to the estate tax, which is paid by the deceased's estate. An inheritance tax is a state tax that you pay when you receive money or property from the estate of a deceased person.
Click to expand...

I know that. Another poster brought up inheritance tax, to which is what I was replying to.
 
holbritter said:
First, that 50 billion of stock was paid for by money earned or given as part of his income. So it's already been taxed. Any earning on that stock is taxed as dividends, and if his kids inherit the stock, when dividends is paid out it will also be taxed. If they sell the stock, the profit portion will be taxed. So it will not be free of taxation.
Click to expand...
Gates never paid tax on it. Upon creation of Microsoft, Gates was given millions of shares, worth a small fraction of what is today. He paid taxes on that price. Since then, Microsoft's stock price rose a million times. One doesn't pay taxes on stock until it is sold.

Dividends are a different issue and not part of this discussion, since we're talking about the estate tax.
 
MTAtech said:
Gates never paid tax on it. Upon creation of Microsoft, Gates was given millions of shares, worth a small fraction of what is today. He paid taxes on that price. Since then, Microsoft's stock price rose a million times. One doesn't pay taxes on stock until it is sold.

Dividends are a different issue and not part of this discussion, since we're talking about the estate tax.
Click to expand...

You know, YOU might be discussing 'estate tax' but since you don't rule the forum, and the OP is about taxes on a bonus loophole, I can discuss what I want.
 
CriticalThought said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/your-money/tax-cuts-small-business.html

I think when historians look back on this legislation, and what it promised to do (drive growth and increase wages) and what it actually will do (create massive economy stifling deficits, decrease social mobility, and further increase income inequality) they will share a collective sigh because of how predictable it all was.
Click to expand...

This is why we need one rate schedule for all types of income. It would stop a lot of the "games".
 
Fletch said:
You'll just have to keep a record of it to be in compliance with tax laws
Click to expand...

And you know what that will be worth towards your ten dollar suggestion. Its not at all practical and I bet you know it.
 
holbritter said:
It is. By the person who had it to give to someone. You get a cash gift for your wedding, graduation, birthday, etc....do you claim it as income? I doubt it. Why not then? The amount of the gift shouldn't matter unless you feel that people who are lucky enough to get more should be punished.
Click to expand...

We are also talking about what is practical and what it known and what is then collectable. Like it or not - that is a real consideration here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom