Who wins and loses in Trump's tax plan?

[Lafayette]

Where is any child living below the poverty-threshold going to obtain $20K a year to obtain a post-secondary education!?! Where?

Do you understand why (here in Europe where I live) since WW2, the tuition-fee of a post-secondary education costs less than $1000 a year (or $80 a month).

I'll answer my own question.

They will join one of the Armed Services, and if they come out of the service alive, the government will FINALLY subsidize a tertiary-level education.

What a helluva-way to do things. With America's penchant for going to war over practically nothing, who in their right mind would never ever dare take that option ... ?

 

[ludin]

If ignorance were bliss, you'd be in heaven.

More one-liner nonsense from the Rabid Right ...

typical non-response from you as usual but why expect anything other than one-liners.
that is your MO when challenged on any topic.

 

[ludin]

Yes, there is a good reason - but it must be done in moderation.

Frankly, I don't see why the US does not adopt the European-system of Value-added-tax (VAT) on goods/services. Which would avoid the taxation-competition amongst states that has no good reason to exist. One collected tax on all sales countrywide would require minimal upkeep, and the states could share in the tax-bounty with no expense.

From a group of people that cry's when we want to drop the income tax for a sale tax are you kidding me? you want to add a vat tax on top of our income tax? lunacy at it's finest here folks.

Then the states could each decide what taxes (property, liquor, etc.) apply uniquely to transactions internal to each state.
The EU collects a VAT of between 20/24%, and it works like this:


There is no real competition amongst EU-states because a minimum VAT-rate is applied to all of Europe, and all taxation is uniform in its application. There is no real interstate-competition on Taxation, since it applies inevitably to only consumers who buy the final product/service.

I know how vat taxes work. a vat tax on top of an income tax will crush working people. no thank you.
if you feel the need to send the government more of your money you may do so right now.

you are free to cut a check straight to the US treasury.

 

[DaveFagan]

The tax plan doubles the amount of the personal exemption. Explain how "everyone else losses" when it is people with lowers incomes who benefit proportionally with said benefit. Let me guess...you haven't thought this through correct?

My post is a sentence of simple math. You haven't thought it through.
/

 

[Lafayette]

From a group of people that cry's when we want to drop the income tax for a sale tax are you kidding me? you want to add a vat tax on top of our income tax? lunacy at it's finest here folks.
.

Only an idiot would understand that I meant to institute both.

The sales-tax is always better. For two reasons: First, it is immediate revenue for the state; and second it OFFSETS revenue taken from Income Taxation (once such a tax is relegated to secondary importance).

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh ....

 

[Lafayette]

typical non-response from you as usual but why expect anything other than one-liners.
that is your MO when challenged on any topic.

More drivel.

M_R_A ...

Three lines! :roll:

 

[ludin]

Only an idiot would understand that I meant to institute both.

The sales-tax is always better. For two reasons: First, it is immediate revenue for the state; and second it OFFSETS revenue taken from Income Taxation (once such a tax is relegated to secondary importance).

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh ....

It is not my job to articulate your argument that is yours. You evidently do not know how a vat tax works.
Vat taxes are on top of any income taxes that are done. So please spare calling other people names when you don't know what you are
talking about and for someone that supposedly lives in france you should know how a VAT tax works.

 

[ludin]

More drivel. MRA ...

yes that is what you keep doing when you can't support your argument.
that is pretty much your MO right here on every topic.

 

[Lafayette]

Are those workers willing to lose everything if the company goes bust? And what happens when an employee leaves, does the company owe him more than a final paycheck?

What happens happens. You are missing the point of it all.

The point is that we need to do everything we can to prevent that sad fact from occuring. And what's THAT then?

High post-secondary qualifications that gives the worker the opportunity to go after jobs in their category. But that aint-gonna-happin for as long as even at public-schools of advance-learning (vocational, 2 & 4-year) the cost of education is (from here):

Where is any child living below the poverty-threshold going to obtain $20K a year to obtain a post-secondary education!?! Where?

Do you understand why (here in Europe where I live) since WW2, the tuition-fee of a post-secondary education costs less than $1000 a year (or $80 a month).

Do you ... ?

 

[reinoe]

My post is a sentence of simple math. You haven't thought it through.
/

I think it's you who is having trouble with simple math.

 

[Absentglare]

You would be taken far more seriously if you could find a way to not call the POTUS Donald Dork. Bet you aced debate at Harvard, yes?

Let's not pretend that our president has any moral high ground with regards to name-calling.

 

[brothern]

I'd love for you to explain how the estate tax protects our "democratic state a democracy".

For estates greater than $5m in assets, the estate tax limits the amount of wealth that is passed to the next generation. (It does not kick-in if the assets are being passed to a spouse.)

The importance of this intent may be traced back to the Revolutionary War and to the customs enforced by the English aristocracy that which the the founding fathers were fighting. The American Colonies inherited the practices of entails (contracts that forbid land, assets from being sold to a non-heir) and primogeniture (right of succession goes to the firstborn male child).

At the time of the war the Revolutionary governments abolished these practices, with Thomas Jefferson stating this in his autobiographic,

The transmission of this property from generation to generation in the same name raised up a distinct set of families who, being privileged by law in the perpetuation of their wealth were thus formed into a Patrician order, distinguished by the splendor and luxury of their establishments. From this order too the king habitually selected his Counsellors of State, the hope of which distinction devoted the whole corps to the interests & will of the crown. To annul this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger, than benefit, to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, & scattered with equal hand through all it's conditions, was deemed essential to a well ordered republic. To effect it no violence was necessary, no deprivation of natural right, but rather an enlargement of it by a repeal of the law.

In other words, allowing aristocrats to inherit wealth unhindered is a threat to the United States as a republic as evidenced by the English. To rescind this privilege benefits the USA as it pushes us to have a meritorious system that values virtue and talent rather than fortune by birthright.

 

[MaggieD]

Let's not pretend that our president has any moral high ground with regards to name-calling.

I’m not. But he’s a social idiot. So what does that make the name-callers? Hahahaha! That was sorta’ funny.

 

[cpwill]

What happens happens. You are missing the point of it all.

The point is that we need to do everything we can to prevent that sad fact from occuring. And what's THAT then?

High post-secondary qualifications that gives the worker the opportunity to go after jobs in their category. But that aint-gonna-happin for as long as even at public-schools of advance-learning (vocational, 2 & 4-year) the cost of education is (from here):

Where is any child living below the poverty-threshold going to obtain $20K a year to obtain a post-secondary education!?! Where?

Well, I got mine from the Marine Corps .

And my degree's set me up alright - I got a good job, making an above-average single income. It let's me buy a vehicle so I can take my family on vacation to the 4-story lakehouse owned by my uncle.

THAT loser went in for technical and trade training, he doesn't even have a full bachelors degree! What a chump. Anyway, so he apparently built his company up to where his personal net worth is in something like the tens of millions..... but he doesn't even know who Chaucer is (whatta maroon, eh? good thing I know how to be successful, unlike him).

 

[cpwill]

Anywho, updated analysis on the OP

 

[Nickyjo]

I think it’s also important to remember that, with careful estate planning, which the wealthy can easily afford, most, if not all inheritance tax can be avoided anyway. It’s done through annuities, trusts, life insurance and, I’m sure, many other vehicles of which I’m not aware.

Family farms are something else again. A farm that’s been in a family for, quite literally, many generations suddenly finds the farmland valued at highest and best use estimates generating an inheritance tax bill so enormous that the property itself must be sold to pay Uncle Sam. Not like ANOTHER farmer buys it... it’s bought up by the food conglomerates. Is that a good thing in and of itself? I’m not at all sure.

The double taxation that inheritance tax represents is, in my opinion, simply a gvmt confiscation of wealth.

Can understand the farm thing an we can make allowances for that. But otherwise how is it double taxation? I guy works every day and makes $80k and has to pay taxes. His wealth is confiscated, in part. Some kid never works a day in his life and is handed $20 million and doesn't pay a dime? It's income. Money he didn't used to have and now does. He should light a candle for his dead aunt and pay up. He pays once, not twice. My mom left me $50k. The amount was not taxable, obviously, perhaps with good reason. But if it were $50 mil I am supposed to object if the government wants a bit?

 

[backpacker]

Nothing complicated about the "tax deal." The .01% win and everybody else loses. What the .01% don't pay in taxes will have to be made up from the rest of the taxpayers because the bills/debts/deficits continue to require some service.
/

Doubling the standard deduction is not a loss for most people.

 

[backpacker]

I think it’s also important to remember that, with careful estate planning, which the wealthy can easily afford, most, if not all inheritance tax can be avoided anyway. It’s done through annuities, trusts, life insurance and, I’m sure, many other vehicles of which I’m not aware.

Family farms are something else again. A farm that’s been in a family for, quite literally, many generations suddenly finds the farmland valued at highest and best use estimates generating an inheritance tax bill so enormous that the property itself must be sold to pay Uncle Sam. Not like ANOTHER farmer buys it... it’s bought up by the food conglomerates. Is that a good thing in and of itself? I’m not at all sure.

The double taxation that inheritance tax represents is, in my opinion, simply a gvmt confiscation of wealth.

From what I have read, the farm thing only comes into play 50 times a year and doubling the exemption knocks almost all those out of the picture without the elimination of the estate tax in 6 years.

 

[MaggieD]

Can understand the farm thing an we can make allowances for that. But otherwise how is it double taxation? I guy works every day and makes $80k and has to pay taxes. His wealth is confiscated, in part. Some kid never works a day in his life and is handed $20 million and doesn't pay a dime? It's income. Money he didn't used to have and now does. He should light a candle for his dead aunt and pay up. He pays once, not twice. My mom left me $50k. The amount was not taxable, obviously, perhaps with good reason. But if it were $50 mil I am supposed to object if the government wants a bit?

Well, the inheritance tax has NEVER been on the receiver. The estate itself pays the tax, if any, before distribution. It is double taxation because, let’s say it’s my estate, I earned the money I managed to save fair and square. Paid all the taxes due on it as I went along. And then I die. Why should that same money, mine, be taxed again because I die?

 

[Nickyjo]

Well, the inheritance tax has NEVER been on the receiver. The estate itself pays the tax, if any, before distribution. It is double taxation because, let’s say it’s my estate, I earned the money I managed to save fair and square. Paid all the taxes due on it as I went along. And then I die. Why should that same money, mine, be taxed again because I die?

You are dead. So let's not tax the estate in memory of your hard work. Let's not tax money. When it's distributed, then we tax recipients. It's no longer your money. Or do I have this wrong: are the recipients taxed once again following the taxes the estate pays? Then it would be double.

 

[MaggieD]

You are dead. So let's not tax the estate in memory of your hard work. Let's not tax money. When it's distributed, then we tax recipients. It's no longer your money. Or do I have this wrong: are the recipients taxed once again following the taxes the estate pays? Then it would be double.

Then the law would need to be changed. Recipients are only taxed if the money came from a tax-deferred account. That kind of asset is never left to an estate anyway.

Let’s look at something. Let’s say you are a married mom with three kids under eight years old. Your husband’s company, as part of their compensation package, buys a $100,000 life insurance policy on him. Her husband dies. Do you think she should have to give 25% of it to Uncle Sam? She doesn’t. And, in that particular example, the COMPANY didn’t have to pay any Federal income tax on the PREMIUM it paid for it as it is a tax-deductible expense.

Any, by the way, life insurance is a way the Uber rich avoid going over any caps we put on estate sizes. Mr. Got Rocks buys a life insurance policy for $20 million for which he pays a one-time premium payment of $$19.5 million.

There is much more than meets the eye in estate planning. And the Uber rich have all the money they need to legally avoid the confiscatory taxes imposed by our gvmt.

To get this all straightened out, Congress would have to be truly working together in the best interests of the American people. And that’s simply not how they roll.

 

[Lafayette]

THAT loser went in for technical and trade training, he doesn't even have a full bachelors degree! What a chump.

How many others who wanted to do the same came back in body-bags?

Anyway, so he apparently built his company up to where his personal net worth is in something like the tens of millions..... but he doesn't even know who Chaucer is (whatta maroon, eh? good thing I know how to be successful, unlike him).

Thanks for showing exactly the way it works for dorks like you. Your pride is always denominated by the quantity of dollars, isn't it? As if that was the ONLY measure.

Pathetic asininity ...

 

[cpwill]

How many others who wanted to do the same came back in body-bags?

From trade school? Precious few, I'd imagine.

But I imagine you were actually trying (though you were responding to something else) to somehow degrade serving in the military?

Thanks for showing exactly the way it works for dorks like you. Your pride is always denominated by the quantity of dollars, isn't it? As if that was the ONLY measure...

LOL.

Complains that one needs money to go to college so you can get a decent paying job.

Complains that people are talking about money and incone when it's pointed out that people can do just fine without college degrees.

 

[Nickyjo]

Then the law would need to be changed. Recipients are only taxed if the money came from a tax-deferred account. That kind of asset is never left to an estate anyway.

Let’s look at something. Let’s say you are a married mom with three kids under eight years old. Your husband’s company, as part of their compensation package, buys a $100,000 life insurance policy on him. Her husband dies. Do you think she should have to give 25% of it to Uncle Sam? She doesn’t. And, in that particular example, the COMPANY didn’t have to pay any Federal income tax on the PREMIUM it paid for it as it is a tax-deductible expense.

Any, by the way, life insurance is a way the Uber rich avoid going over any caps we put on estate sizes. Mr. Got Rocks buys a life insurance policy for $20 million for which he pays a one-time premium payment of $$19.5 million.

There is much more than meets the eye in estate planning. And the Uber rich have all the money they need to legally avoid the confiscatory taxes imposed by our gvmt.

To get this all straightened out, Congress would have to be truly working together in the best interests of the American people. And that’s simply not how they roll.

Not sure I completely understand, esp. the part about paying $19.5mil for a $20mil policy. I suppose Got Rocks assumes he will live a while. It seems to me the easiest formula is to charge the same staggered rate regardless of the source of the income. You want to buy and sell stocks for a living, fine. Pay the same rate on capital gains as I pay on my salary at the steel mill, depending on the total. Don't like it, get a job.

 

[Lafayette]

THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY

From trade school? Precious few, I'd imagine.

But I imagine you were actually trying (though you were responding to something else) to somehow degrade serving in the military.

Complains that one needs money to go to college so you can get a decent paying job.

Complains that people are talking about money and incone when it's pointed out that people can do just fine without college degrees.

Perhaps that's the way you "read" what I said through warped-reasoning.

I said this:
*A postsecondary-level educational degree is necessary nowadays for a decent job at decent pay.
*Said education at the very least costs around $10K per year. Even at a vocational-school (less than year) some cannot afford the lesser cost. At a two-year associates-degree, it is beyond question for most of the poor.
*"Oh, but they can get scholarships!" Some do. But, nope, not enough to go around.
*Eight percent of high-schoolers do not graduate! Of those who do graduate, only about 45/50% are obtaining any post-graduate degree. That's somewhere less than half the kids in HighSchool who go on to complete their educational training.
*There are alternatives. The most tempting of which is duty in a military-service with the promise of degree-cost reimbusements once duty is completed. (And if one does not come home in a bodybag!)
*Which is the height of hypocrisy for many of us. Nobody, but nobody, should be obliged to risk their lives simply to obtain a Tertiary-level Education necessary to have a relative good middle-class existence for them and their families.

So, no, I was simply stating the factual evidence - which, once again, you fail to understand.

So you come back with just another useless comment of no relevance ...