Democrats don't even want to talk about Tax Bill

[bluerules009]

2 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

Everyone knows how to make SS and Medicare solvent indefinitely. But no one has the political will to do it.

Any attempt to actually discuss the issue and democrats start running commercials with you throwing granny off a cliff in a wheelchair.

The DNC and their politics of jealousy and division elected Trump and insure we can never fix SS and medicare.

[thelawlorfaithful]

3 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

Everyone knows how to make SS and Medicare solvent indefinitely. But no one has the political will to do it.

By cutting the hell out of them I hope you mean.

[NMpackalum]

7 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s not dead money at all. The heirs don’t handle it well, but it doesn’t just evaporate. It gets spent in free exchanges and finds its way into the hands of more frugal, adventurous people. These people find ways to innovate. It is a much more efficient way to allocate resources than to have it taken and thrown into a big government bureaucracy where it is leached over and over before finding its way into the hands of those who might innovate, and even then its often the wrong people.

My opposition to the estate tax is ideological, admittedly. I find it to be a particularly gross way for the government to take money from people. From a strictly mathematical standpoint it doesn’t make much of a dent at all, but I could swallow my bile a bit if the exemption would be raised but the tax not eliminated. You do have a point with regards to the Uber wealthy, who don’t really concern me that much. There is no helping a Fredo type heir in any case, they’re screwed no matter the amount. But there is a definite advantage between two Sonny’s, one the heir to 15 million and the other 150 million. They both might be below competent, but one will not have the leighway the other does to improve their family’s fortune after some setbacks. 

I agree with you. Philosophically for me, you pay taxes on your income once, you shouldn't have to pay 40% on it again when you die. I already pay an effective rate of 40% not including all my business taxes. Hopefully I can get to the over 5 million mark some day when I retire but I couldn't care less if Jeff Bezos keeps every dollar of his 100 Billion. It's not a zero sum economy.  He's done more to improve the lives of millions of people than any politician ever will. As has been mentioned, the estate tax has negligible effect on the overall budget. It's class warfare again.

All these tax arguments are stupid. Start with the revenue you want, work backwards and exempt the first 55K, have 2 tiers at whatever is politically expedient and you would have a top rate of less than 30 percent and have a little left over for debt reduction and health care catastrophic insurance. Keep charitable and a limited mortgage deduction and exclude everything else. Done. Obviously not going to happen.

[sactowndog]

8 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s not dead money at all. The heirs don’t handle it well, but it doesn’t just evaporate. It gets spent in free exchanges and finds its way into the hands of more frugal, adventurous people. These people find ways to innovate. It is a much more efficient way to allocate resources than to have it taken and thrown into a big government bureaucracy where it is leached over and over before finding its way into the hands of those who might innovate, and even then its often the wrong people.

Right except in a global economy where the US runs an annual 500B dollar trade deficit that money is as likely to end up in Prague, Singapore or Shanghai as the US. So the tax cut does nothing for the US at all and the US small businessperson continues to struggle.  

Which of course is exactly what happened to Kansas who gave a huge tax cut to their wealthy donors only to see them use that money everywhere but Kansas.  The result Kansas schools started failing.   Amazingly, the Republican Party is doing the same thing at the national level showing their allegiances are to the wealthy not the country.

[sactowndog]

9 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

 

My opposition to the estate tax is ideological, admittedly. I find it to be a particularly gross way for the government to take money from people. From a strictly mathematical standpoint it doesn’t make much of a dent at all, but I could swallow my bile a bit if the exemption would be raised but the tax not eliminated. You do have a point with regards to the Uber wealthy, who don’t really concern me that much. There is no helping a Fredo type heir in any case, they’re screwed no matter the amount. But there is a definite advantage between two Sonny’s, one the heir to 15 million and the other 150 million. They both might be below competent, but one will not have the leighway the other does to improve their family’s fortune after some setbacks. 

Re: Ideological is exactly the problem with both party extremes at this point.  On the right every tax is equally bad and on the left every tax is equally good.   No discussion can be had with either side which tax might be better or worse for the long term health of the United States.  

The extreme right opposes every tax increase and the extreme left opposes every tax decrease.   Since they are all ideologically the same might as we just give the cuts to those who donate to our campaign.  And there you have the Republican tax cut plan. 

[Akkula]

28 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Re: Ideological is exactly the problem with both party extremes at this point.  On the right every tax is equally bad and on the left every tax is equally good.   No discussion can be had with either side which tax might be better or worse for the long term health of the United States.  

The extreme right opposes every tax increase and the extreme left opposes every tax decrease.   Since they are all ideologically the same might as we just give the cuts to those who donate to our campaign.  And there you have the Republican tax cut plan. 

Careful of the "both sides" logical fallacy. It doesn't make people seem more unbiased if they always feel like they have to excuse lies and evil deeds by right wing alt-righters by saying "both sides" do it.  They don't...

[renoskier]

2 hours ago, NMpackalum said:

I agree with you. Philosophically for me, you pay taxes on your income once, you shouldn't have to pay 40% on it again when you die. I already pay an effective rate of 40% not including all my business taxes. Hopefully I can get to the over 5 million mark some day when I retire but I couldn't care less if Jeff Bezos keeps every dollar of his 100 Billion. It's not a zero sum economy.  He's done more to improve the lives of millions of people than any politician ever will. As has been mentioned, the estate tax has negligible effect on the overall budget. It's class warfare again.

All these tax arguments are stupid. Start with the revenue you want, work backwards and exempt the first 55K, have 2 tiers at whatever is politically expedient and you would have a top rate of less than 30 percent and have a little left over for debt reduction and health care catastrophic insurance. Keep charitable and a limited mortgage deduction and exclude everything else. Done. Obviously not going to happen.

Why keep these? They should phased out also, just more social engineering.

[renoskier]

10 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s not dead money at all. The heirs don’t handle it well, but it doesn’t just evaporate. It gets spent in free exchanges and finds its way into the hands of more frugal, adventurous people. These people find ways to innovate. It is a much more efficient way to allocate resources than to have it taken and thrown into a big government bureaucracy where it is leached over and over before finding its way into the hands of those who might innovate, and even then its often the wrong people.

My opposition to the estate tax is ideological, admittedly. I find it to be a particularly gross way for the government to take money from people. From a strictly mathematical standpoint it doesn’t make much of a dent at all, but I could swallow my bile a bit if the exemption would be raised but the tax not eliminated. You do have a point with regards to the Uber wealthy, who don’t really concern me that much. There is no helping a Fredo type heir in any case, they’re screwed no matter the amount. But there is a definite advantage between two Sonny’s, one the heir to 15 million and the other 150 million. They both might be below competent, but one will not have the leighway the other does to improve their family’s fortune after some setbacks. 

Ya know, the same can be said of welfare dollars.

[thelawlorfaithful]

6 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Ya know, the same can be said of welfare dollars.

No it can’t, the rest of the paragraph lays out why.

[thelawlorfaithful]

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Right except in a global economy where the US runs an annual 500B dollar trade deficit that money is as likely to end up in Prague, Singapore or Shanghai as the US. So the tax cut does nothing for the US at all and the US small businessperson continues to struggle.  

Which of course is exactly what happened to Kansas who gave a huge tax cut to their wealthy donors only to see them use that money everywhere but Kansas.  The result Kansas schools started failing.   Amazingly, the Republican Party is doing the same thing at the national level showing their allegiances are to the wealthy not the country.

We’ve been through both of these before. The trade deficit is nonsense. Dollar bills are basically worthless in Prague, Singapore, and Shanghai. For a short time loan of some useless paper we get products, then immediately or eventually that paper, all of it, is reinvested in America. There is nothing else for it to do.

The Kansas statement is bunkum as well. Kansas barely did any cutting to their overall tax load, not even enough to give themselves any kind of comparative advantage to their neighboring states. It was no surprise they didn’t see growth that could offset their spending, they barely scraped the surface on taxes. They were foolish to think a small tax cut could make up for big spending, and the people who point to Kansas as some sort of failure of conservatism are even bigger fools. 

[thelawlorfaithful]

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Re: Ideological is exactly the problem with both party extremes at this point.  On the right every tax is equally bad and on the left every tax is equally good.   No discussion can be had with either side which tax might be better or worse for the long term health of the United States.  

The extreme right opposes every tax increase and the extreme left opposes every tax decrease.   Since they are all ideologically the same might as we just give the cuts to those who donate to our campaign.  And there you have the Republican tax cut plan. 

Sorry, I just find robbing people who are grieving the loss of their dead loved one to be distasteful. Democrats don’t apparently, but that’s no surprise (see how easy stupid generalizations are).

[renoskier]

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No it can’t, the rest of the paragraph lays out why.

Yeah, I happen to disagree. I think money is like matter, can't really be destroyed, just moved around.

IMO, the main problem with the growing wealth inequality is that at a certain point, whether at an age or a $$$ amount, an individual's mind set will change over from "growth" to "preservation". At that point a tremendous amount of our nations total wealth is not being "innovative".

[thelawlorfaithful]

41 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Yeah, I happen to disagree. I think money is like matter, can't really be destroyed, just moved around.

IMO, the main problem with the growing wealth inequality is that at a certain point, whether at an age or a $$$ amount, an individual's mind set will change over from "growth" to "preservation". At that point a tremendous amount of our nations total wealth is not being "innovative".

Invest in Akkula, then tell me money can’t be destroyed.

 

[NVGiant]

46 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Why keep these? They should phased out also, just more social engineering.

I agree on the mortgage deduction. I don't know if you're serious, but charitable deductions should remain. It would be devastating to the nonprofit world to lose those tax incentives. 

[pokebball]

56 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Yeah, I happen to disagree. I think money is like matter, can't really be destroyed, just moved around.

May I recommend you put everything you own into the Iranian Rial!

[renoskier]

33 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I agree on the mortgage deduction. I don't know if you're serious, but charitable deductions should remain. It would be devastating to the nonprofit world to lose those tax incentives. 

Yes, I am serious. First of all, I believe there's just way too much opportunity for abuse under our current system.

I also believe the primary reason for charitable giving is, ya know, charity. Folks might not give as much but they will still give. I think it the short term, many non-profits would take a hit, but would be okay in the long term as our overall tax system became simpler and more efficient.

[renoskier]

9 minutes ago, pokebball said:

May I recommend you put everything you own into the Iranian Rial!

BitCoin baby!

[pokebball]

31 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I agree on the mortgage deduction. I don't know if you're serious, but charitable deductions should remain. It would be devastating to the nonprofit world to lose those tax incentives. 

While I agree with you, think about this though. I give a charity $100 and effectively make the US Govt fund that charity for $30 of my $100 donation.  My cost is the net of $70.  The US Govt is then, effectively, matching my $70 contribution at just under 50% to a charity of my choice.  This pretty much funds those charities, many of which are churches, chosen by our middle class taxpayers (itemized deductions are phased out for high AGIs).

Do we want the US Govt to be matching contributions to charities chosen by taxpayers?  Even churches?

[sactowndog]

1 hour ago, Akkula said:

Careful of the "both sides" logical fallacy. It doesn't make people seem more unbiased if they always feel like they have to excuse lies and evil deeds by right wing alt-righters by saying "both sides" do it.  They don't...

Yeah except I think in this case it true.  Hard to find many are the far left who support cutting the corporate income tax. You may be the exception.

[sactowndog]

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Sorry, I just find robbing people who are grieving the loss of their dead loved one to be distasteful. Democrats don’t apparently, but that’s no surprise (see how easy stupid generalizations are).

I don’t think I put anyone particular person on the extreme right or left.  But if you feel the shoe fits....