Already found the tax loopholes...

[CriticalThought]

Mr. Reitmeyer is working on creating a structure for a lending company that would allow bonuses for its senior executives to be taxed at the much lower 25 percent rate.

This would be done by dividing the assets of the firm between the existing corporation and a new pass-through company. The senior executives would be passive investors in that new company, which could then pay them “distributions” — or bonuses — at the 25 percent rate. Other employees, however, would still pay regular tax rates on their income.

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.

 

[HowardBThiname]

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.

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?

 

[joG]

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?

A social program for the victim class.

 

[notquiteright]

You really think you're entitled to take more than a quarter of a person's bonus?

Actually the term bonus has been bastardized beyond recognition. Remember back when the 'invisible hand' of the free market drove the economic bus over the cliff??? Remember the outrage over all those executives (who we had been assured by BushII wouldn't wreck their corporations for short term gains) got millions in 'bonuses'???

The Feds called them a contractual obligation, not merit based at all. These bonuses were a tax dodge to protect what for the working stiff would be a wage but 'deferred' for a year were capital gains and taxed at a lower rate for the executive.

So looking at it that way, you really think a rather blatant tax dodge should be allowed??? eace

 

[CletusWilbury]

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?

The question I have is why one form of income should be taxed at a different rate than another.
From the article

...
The reason is that the proposals for taxing small-business owners — whose companies are called pass-through entities, because the income passes through to their personal tax returns — hinge on the ownership of those entities.

Those who make money passively — by owning part of a pass-through entity they do not run or receiving endorsements and licensing agreements through a passive vehicle — could structure their payments to achieve a lower tax rate. Those who are actively running a business that is structured as a pass-through — for instance, a limited liability company, an S corporation or a partnership — will not see as great a reduction in taxes and may even see an increase in certain states.

“It’s not how much you make,” said Edward Reitmeyer, partner at Marcum, a national accounting firm. “It’s how you make it.”

...And some professions, like consultants, lawyers, doctors and other professional services companies, are not even eligible for the lower pass-through rate.
...
This week, it lost one Republican vote, when Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin opposed the different treatment for corporations and pass-through entities.

It seems Senator Johnson has the same question.

 

[haymarket]

The question I have is why one form of income should be taxed at a different rate than another.
From the article


It seems Senator Johnson has the same question.

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.

 

[holbritter]

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.

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.

 

[Fletch]

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.

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.

 

[CletusWilbury]

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.

Only on the amount over a very large value. I'd agree with increasing that value and indexing it to inflation, but not doing away with it altogether.
Teddy Roosevelt Betrayed

When Theodore Roosevelt demanded that Congress pass a steeply graduated inheritance tax in 1906, he was proposing the one bill that members of his own patrician class feared most. In attacking what they cherished -- not just their money but also their sense of entitlement and superiority -- he was challenging the class system, not the capitalist system, turning the upper-class world upside down. As far as these plutocrats were concerned, T. R. had betrayed his own class to the point of no return.
...
''If ever our people become so sordid as to feel that all that counts is moneyed prosperity, ignoble well-being, effortless ease and comfort,'' he warned, ''then this nation shall perish, as it will deserve to perish, from the earth.'' Wealth, he declared, should only be ''the foundation on which to build the real life, the life of spiritual and moral effort and achievement.''

T. R.'s proposals met with no immediate success. But in hammering out his message in sermonizing speech after speech, he provoked a debate on inherited wealth and power and helped create a climate in which reform would eventually become possible. An inheritance tax became law in 1916, eight years after Roosevelt left office.

In 1935, Franklin Roosevelt took up the same crusade, striking out at great fortunes, again for moral as well as economic reasons. ''The transmission from generation to generation of vast fortunes by will, inheritance or gift,'' declared F. D. R., ''is not consistent with the ideals and sentiments of the American people.

''Inherited economic power,'' he continued, ''is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.''

 

[haymarket]

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.

First - My money is taxed twice all the time right now. So thats an argument which goes nowhere.

Second - the people you gave your money to have NOT paid taxes on it. Its new income to them. What you paid when the money came to you is your obligation. Now they have theirs and its a completely separate obligation.

 

[holbritter]

First - My money is taxed twice all the time right now. So thats an argument which goes nowhere.

Second - the people you gave your money to have NOT paid taxes on it. Its new income to them. What you paid when the money came to you is your obligation. Now they have theirs and its a completely separate obligation.

Why do you begrudge someone who inherits money? You've posted about this issues several times.

 

[CriticalThought]

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 you tax bonuses differently, then all that means is rich people will take a $1 a year salary and a multimillion dollar bonus. It isn't like bonuses are even tied to merit when it comes to the rich, when you can claim them even when your business is losing millions. My offer is that every executive of every publicaly traded corporation face a retention vote at least once a year and if they are kicked out because they cannot perform then no golden parachute.

 

[HowardBThiname]

If you tax bonuses differently, then all that means is rich people will take a $1 a year salary and a multimillion dollar bonus. It isn't like bonuses are even tied to merit when it comes to the rich, when you can claim them even when your business is losing millions. My offer is that every executive of every publicaly traded corporation face a retention vote at least once a year and if they are kicked out because they cannot perform then no golden parachute.

Then I would say -- to be fair -- all bonuses across the board should be taxed at the same rate. The poor person who gets a $1,000 bonus should pay the same percentage in tax as does the CEO who gets a million-dollar bonus. That way, both have some skin in the game.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Why do you begrudge someone who inherits money? You've posted about this issues several times.

I find it so odd that some want to insert themselves between parents and their children and grab some of the money that passes upon the parents' death. Isn't that one of the main reasons people make money to begin with -- for their children?

I think that some people either didn't have parents who cared enough to save for them, or they, themselves, are spendthrifts and can't seem to save anything for their own children. At any rate, they sure seem to want to grab the money others have earned to pass on to their children.

Envy? Greed? Sour grapes?

Maybe a bit of all three.

 

[CriticalThought]

Then I would say -- to be fair -- all bonuses across the board should be taxed at the same rate. The poor person who gets a $1,000 bonus should pay the same percentage in tax as does the CEO who gets a million-dollar bonus. That way, both have some skin in the game.

Sure. As it stands a good share of CEOs are paying a lower effective tax than their secretaries.As regressive as your position would be, it actually would probably more fair than the status quo or what the GOP are proposing with their tax policy.

 

[Napoleon]

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.

Why? Because it is income.

 

[KevinKohler]

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?

It's not about entitlement, or fairness.

 

[Napoleon]

Why do you begrudge someone who inherits money? You've posted about this issues several times.

Do you believe lottery winnings should be taxed? Do you hate lottery winners?

 

[MTAtech]

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?

Listen, we have a government to run. Running that government requires money raised by taxes. The question is: Do we pay for the government from money raised through a progressive tax system, in which the higher income Americans pay a higher marginal rate than those in lower brackets; or, do we tax everyone the same, even though the richer Americans have far more disposable income; or, do we tax the rich lower because they're the 'job creators?'

The question should be answered the same way that Milkyway decides how much to charge for candy bars -- how much can rates rise before work effort and investment decrease and result in lower revenue. Economists have studied this and determined that the optimal upper bracket is between 73% and 80%, depending upon economist. Our current top rate is about half that.

What the Republican Trump plan is offering is to lower taxes on the rich, while raising them on the middle class. It's been estimated that Trump will get a billion dollar tax cut. Does anyone here think that Trump's lifestyle really needs a billion dollar cut?

Let us go far, far back in the past -- just over one year. Trump said he wanted to be president to help those struggling Americans in the heartland. Now, his tax plan will raise taxes on those Americans, cut many of them off of health insurance while giving himself a billion dollar break.

 

[KevinKohler]

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.

All money is taxed multiple times.

 

[KevinKohler]

Then I would say -- to be fair -- all bonuses across the board should be taxed at the same rate. The poor person who gets a $1,000 bonus should pay the same percentage in tax as does the CEO who gets a million-dollar bonus. That way, both have some skin in the game.

I would welcome that, as I already pay I higher rate on my bonus (actual bonus, tied to the success of the business) than the executive class who use loopholes to pay next to no taxes on their "bonuses" which aren't tied to the success of their companies in any meaningful way.

 

[KevinKohler]

I find it so odd that some want to insert themselves between parents and their children and grab some of the money that passes upon the parents' death. Isn't that one of the main reasons people make money to begin with -- for their children?

I think that some people either didn't have parents who cared enough to save for them, or they, themselves, are spendthrifts and can't seem to save anything for their own children. At any rate, they sure seem to want to grab the money others have earned to pass on to their children.

Envy? Greed? Sour grapes?

Maybe a bit of all three.

Utilitarianism.

 

[MTAtech]

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.

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?

 

[haymarket]

Why do you begrudge someone who inherits money? You've posted about this issues several times.

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.

 

[Fletch]

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?

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.

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?

Why shouldn't it? What moral claim do you have to a penny of it?