• 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...

But the people they inherited it from did :doh

So what? That is the way of the world. I get money and pay tax on it and then I get take that money and it goes to somebody else and they pay tax on it since it is now theirs and so on down the line. Same money - taxed again and again and again and again. People who inherit are not special in this regard and its time we stopped treating them differently than other folks who pay tax on the money they acquire. .
 
why should that be taxed twice? If the money I already paid tax on is left to my family, why should they be taxed again? **** that.

They were not taxed on the money they inherited so it is not taxing them twice. It is new income for them regardless of any previous taxation.
 
You seem to be upset by the fact that under the new law, a wealthy tycoon will only pay a 25% tax on his bonus rather than the 39% he pays now or the 100% that you wish it would be. Perhaps you might write your democratic representative and ask him to get involved in the legislation rather than sitting on the sidelines in lock-step opposition to any form of tax relief. But it is good to see you liberals finally worrying about the deficit now that Obamas $10 trillion debt spree is over. I guess deficits matter again and can stifle the economy after all. But you would have to explain how your 'social mobility' is decreased simply because I pay a little less in taxes or where it was determined to be the role of the federal government to control income inequality.

The truth is, the left hates tax cuts because it limits their ability to transfer wealth from one American to another. Period. Its not about funding roads or paying police, its about the left robbing Peter to pay Paul simply because they think Peter has too much and Paul not enough.

No the truth is that cutting taxes on those that don't need it is the cause of most of our deficits. When the top 5% can quintuple their net worth to over $40 TRILLION in 30 years mostly due to low tax rates while we run up $20 trillion in deficits you know Republicans are responsible. Progressive tax rates are what keep capitalism functioning to benefit all classes and we have lost that control because of Republicans who care only about their wealthy contributors. It is a recipe for disaster.
 
They were not taxed on the money they inherited so it is not taxing them twice. It is new income for them regardless of any previous taxation.

The definition of income is money earned through work or investment.

However, according to the IRS, they define it differently, so I will have to concede on the point that to the IRS it is considered new income.

So all that money people get as wedding presents should be declared on their income tax.
 
We need to stop discriminating on the source of the money one places in their pocket and simply tax ALL money according to the same tax schedule.

A couple getting $10 million in inheritance pays ZERO on that money.
A couple getting $10 million in capital gains through investments pays 15% on that money.
A couple getting $10 million through salary pays 39% on that money.

That is inherently wrong and should stop with everyone paying from the same schedule on the same amount.

I agree. 39% is rediculous.
 
No the truth is that cutting taxes on those that don't need it is the cause of most of our deficits. When the top 5% can quintuple their net worth to over $40 TRILLION in 30 years mostly due to low tax rates while we run up $20 trillion in deficits you know Republicans are responsible. Progressive tax rates are what keep capitalism functioning to benefit all classes and we have lost that control because of Republicans who care only about their wealthy contributors. It is a recipe for disaster.

We ran up 20 Trillion in debt because we spent more money than we had coming in. Its that simple.
 
We ran up 20 Trillion in debt because we spent more money than we had coming in. Its that simple.

That is what I said. We spent like we had the money of the wealthiest nation in the world and taxed the wealthy at record low rates resulting in the debt.
 
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.

The money you earn was earned by someone else prior, and taxed.
 
No the truth is that cutting taxes on those that don't need it is the cause of most of our deficits. When the top 5% can quintuple their net worth to over $40 TRILLION in 30 years mostly due to low tax rates while we run up $20 trillion in deficits you know Republicans are responsible. Progressive tax rates are what keep capitalism functioning to benefit all classes and we have lost that control because of Republicans who care only about their wealthy contributors. It is a recipe for disaster.

Sorry, but that post is just utter nonsense. $10 trillion of that $20 trillion deficit you complain about were rung up by Obama and we still have progressive tax rates. So, you just don't know what you are talking about.
 
Sorry, but that post is just utter nonsense. $10 trillion of that $20 trillion deficit you complain about were rung up by Obama and we still have progressive tax rates. So, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Obama's deficit were "baked in the cake" before he even took office. Obama grew the budget far less than any Republican and left office with a deficit less than half what he was handed by Bush. No Republican Pres. has EVER left office with the deficit lower than when he came in. Starving the beast is their aim and they don't
care who suffers because of it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#21f6dbeb25cf
 
Obama's deficit were "baked in the cake" before he even took office. Obama grew the budget far less than any Republican and left office with a deficit less than half what he was handed by Bush. No Republican Pres. has EVER left office with the deficit lower than when he came in. Starving the beast is their aim and they don't
care who suffers because of it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#21f6dbeb25cf

If only Obama had acted like he felt a little guilty about the generational warfare we are conducting, perhaps that would have helped.
 
If only Obama had acted like he felt a little guilty about the generational warfare we are conducting, perhaps that would have helped.

You do know you are speaking in memes now. Is that all the brain power you have left? The only internal warfare I have seen in the last 40 years is the one on the middle class. It is relentless. As long as we keep letting the robber barons keep most of their ill gotten gains we will never recover what we lost.

It used to be that when the U.S. economy grew, workers up and down the economic ladder saw their incomes increase, too. But over the past 25 years, the economy has grown 83 percent, after adjusting for inflation — and the typical family’s income hasn’t budged. In that time, corporate profits doubled as a share of the economy. Workers today produce nearly twice as many goods and services per hour on the job as they did in 1989, but as a group, they get less of the nation’s economic pie.

Why America’s middle class is lost | The Washington Post
 
Last edited:
You do know you are speaking in memes now. Is that all the brain power you have left? The only internal warfare I have seen in the last 40 years is the one on the middle class. It is relentless. As long as we keep letting the robber barons keep most of their ill gotten gains we will never recover what we lost.



Why America’s middle class is lost | The Washington Post

The problem for you is that I am one of the primary promoters on DP of the idea that America is and has long been ripped off by the thieves who corrupted Washington and who dont at the end of the day care about what is best for America.

So when you call me stupid what are you saying?
 
The problem for you is that I am one of the primary promoters on DP of the idea that America is and has long been ripped off by the thieves who corrupted Washington and who dont at the end of the day care about what is best for America.

So when you call me stupid what are you saying?

So you agree that the first step to a recovery of the middle class is to raise taxes on the top brackets until they realize they cannot keep all the profits for themselves and start sharing the wealth with their employees? That's how we made it work so well in the postwar period. A CEO was a dunce back then for taking huge wages because nearly all of it was taxed away. They are still short sighted dunces but now we call them the "job creators" and they get to keep more and more of the profits their workers produce..so that is exactly what they do.
 
Last edited:
So you agree that the first step to a recovery of the middle class is to raise taxes on the top brackets until they realize they cannot keep all the profits for themselves and start sharing the wealth with their employees? That's how we made it work so well in the postwar period. A CEO was a dunce for taking huge wages because nearly all of it was taxed away. They are still short sighted dunces but now we call them the "job creators" and they get to keep more and more of the profits their workers produce.

No, the first step is to understand how broken and corrupt Washington is.

The second step is to decide to do something about it.

The third step is to fix Washington.

The forth step is for these new better people who are working in a reformed system to triage the patient, to decide the order of priority.

The fifth step is for these new better leaders who are working together for America to bring their ideas and plans to the people for ratification.

The SIXTH step MIGHT be what you say.
 
Last edited:
why should that be taxed twice? If the money I already paid tax on is left to my family, why should they be taxed again? **** that.

Because they are different people than you. You already paid taxes on that money once. They did not. ALL money is taxed more than once, each time it's paid to someone as income. Why should inheritance be special?
 
Because they are different people than you. You already paid taxes on that money once. They did not. ALL money is taxed more than once, each time it's paid to someone as income. Why should inheritance be special?

Because it doesn't meet the definition of income. The IRS added it to their list of taxable income to suit their purpose. All money may be taxed more than once, but not for the same type of tax.
 
Because it doesn't meet the definition of income. The IRS added it to their list of taxable income to suit their purpose. All money may be taxed more than once, but not for the same type of tax.

I am wrong. States that have income tax will become double taxation if the new tax plan goes through disallowing itemizing that tax.
 
Because it doesn't meet the definition of income. The IRS added it to their list of taxable income to suit their purpose. All money may be taxed more than once, but not for the same type of tax.

Thats half the problem. We need to STOP discriminating based on the source of the income and simply treat all monies going into a persons pocket or account according to the same tax schedules.
 
You really think you're entitled to take more than a quarter of a person's bonus?

Fascinating.

What do you have to offer in return?

If that's the principle, then put the top tax rate at 25% for everyone, take the revenue hit, then deal with the projected deficits somehow, either by telling us where they're going to find the big spending cuts or what the new annual deficits are going to look like.

But they don't want to do that so they wrote a bill anyone could see would be abused. That's deceptive and dishonest and I'm not sure why you'd want to defend that approach.
 
No the truth is that cutting taxes on those that don't need it is the cause of most of our deficits. When the top 5% can quintuple their net worth to over $40 TRILLION in 30 years mostly due to low tax rates while we run up $20 trillion in deficits you know Republicans are responsible. Progressive tax rates are what keep capitalism functioning to benefit all classes and we have lost that control because of Republicans who care only about their wealthy contributors. It is a recipe for disaster.

their net worth increase is not due to tax cuts.
 
why should that be taxed twice? If the money I already paid tax on is left to my family, why should they be taxed again? **** that.

Because it's income. If you paid that already-taxed money to someone painting your house, they'd include it in income. As a matter of principle, money paid to heirs is no different. It's an accession to wealth and the tax code doesn't normally care why someone was made wealthier, just that any accession to wealth is taxable as income, "from whatever source derived."

We've made a policy choice to exclude income going to heirs of an estate, but only for the non-wealthy. But that's all it is - a decision to exempt that "income" from tax. Now the policy choice is to exclude nearly ALL transfers through an estate from any tax.

And the thing is, to me at least, it might be defensible if it was part of a bigger 'reform' of the IRC. So, for example, if your employer transferred you from NY to CA, they'd often pay your moving expenses for that long move and you could exclude that from "income" because you weren't made better off - your employer forced you to move and reimbursed that expense. Well, the rules now will subject that to income tax, and so broadened the definition of income, for regular people. If they did that throughout the code, that might make sense - it would allow for lower rates!

But instead of doing that in a principled way, they narrowed the definition of income, carved out HUGE new exceptions to the rules, but only for the wealthiest 0.2% with the estate tax provisions. Wonder why........?
 
So you agree that the frst step to a recovery of the middle class is to raise taxes on the top brackets until they realize they cannot keep all the profits for themselves and start sharing the wealth with their employees? That's how we made it work so well in the postwar period. A CEO was a dunce back then for taking huge wages because nearly all of it was taxed away. They are still short sighted dunces but now we call them the "job creators" and they get to keep more and more of the profits their workers produce..so that is exactly what they do.

Yeah.. that makes no sense what so ever. You are as bad as the "conservatives" that think that lowering my taxes will cause me to expand my business and pay my workers more.

Raising my taxes is not going to make me pay my workers more..

but you please explain it to me.. why when my taxes go up.. I am going to pay my workers more (which by the way increases my overall taxes EVEN MORE).. regardless of competition, demand, etc.
 
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.

When I pay Joe The Plumber with my after-tax dollar, it gets taxed again. For the same reason, because it is income (i.e. a "transaction")

The gov't taxes transactions. A transaction occurs when money transfers from one person's ownership to another's.

"Income" and "inheritance" are just two different names for transactions. They should both be taxed.
 
When I pay Joe The Plumber with my after-tax dollar, it gets taxed again. For the same reason, because it is income (i.e. a "transaction")

The gov't taxes transactions. A transaction occurs when money transfers from one person's ownership to another's.

"Income" and "inheritance" are just two different names for transactions. They should both be taxed.

The problem is that when you tax those transactions.. it makes it harder for the poor and the middle class to gain wealth. It decreases upward mobility.

the reason that we tax inheritances etc for the rich.. is really to help stabilized the economy.. It encourages the rich to do estate planning and to divest themselves of their business assets etc earlier.. and that makes less blips in the economy. Its much better for a business to have it pass from father to son.. or to some other entity well before the owner dies. It affords a smooth transition.
 
Back
Top Bottom