Latest updates to GOP tax draft bill

[hightower]

FIREshrink wrote:

 I think the cut will help profits and redistribute money out of the non-productive sector

That government seized their property and their money whenever they felt it was important for a greater societal good. How is an estate tax any different?

Click to expand...

What evidence does anyone have that shows giving corporations handouts results in more jobs or growth?  I think we all would instead find larger bonuses being paid to CEOs and other executives is the more likely outcome

And an estate tax is a 1 time tax on someone's estate when they die.  It is not and never has been a confiscation of their entire estate.  It only affects those with very large inheritances and still leaves them with the vast majority of their wealth.  How is that anything like a communist country confiscating property?

I'm so sick and tired of people talking about the estate tax who aren't even worth enough to qualify for it (evidence that the propaganda is working I suppose).  You have to leave behind 5.49 million to even be considered for it.  It was designed to help off-set the accumulation of wealth at the very top of society.   Leaving a family inheritance of billions of dollars does society no good.  It does the world no good.  In fact, I think it can be argued that it does a lot of harm to let that happen unchecked.  Not only that but you're also doing your family no good because they're just going to become a bunch of entitled pricks.  Taxing it in a fair manner is completely reasonable in a democratic society.

[Zaphod]

FIREshrink wrote:

The corporate tax argument is debatable; there is room for differences in opinion. I think the cut will help profits and redistribute money out of the non-productive sector, and thus increase GDP faster than it would otherwise, but not nearly as much as the CEA claim. The fact that companies have cash on hand doesn’t mean a tax cut won’t lead to more spending or investment. If I were given a tax cut, i’d also spend or invest more.

On the estate tax, you are far too sanguine about the impacts of the tax. Citing a 17% average tax rate while ignoring the marginal rate is highly misleading; shame on you for trying to pull that off. The marginal rate is 40%; my state rate is 10% and goes up to 19%. And the moral argument for an estate tax is indefensible. Here I am (hypothetical me), regular guy. Work my whole life, save some money, make it big. Now I want to give it to my son. What right does the government have to any portion of that? Tax the earnings along the way, level the playing field, whatever – but seizing a portion of my life’s work to satisfy some idea of a social greater good is simply not consistent with liberty. When you add the state and marginal rates, the ‘government’ has a right to over half of my life’s work (over $10 million, or over any amount)? My relatives came from communist Vietnam. That government seized their property and their money whenever they felt it was important for a greater societal good. How is an estate tax any different?

Click to expand...

You're using state when talking federal? That wasnt allowed for consumption taxes so I though t it wouldnt be allowed here either, but I guess it furthers your argument so the rules have changed.

Im sure you know there are tons of ways to transfer that wealth that skirt the current laws. Trusts of all sorts, provisions, 'charities', 'foundations', put family in position at company, use a GRAT, etc...

Im saying its not some huge problem. Remember the current federal limit is 11M per couple that you couldnt otherwise figure out how to put into tax advantaged structures, and there are lots of them. That 17% is what the average estate that has any bill pays of the estate value, not sure what marginal matters. My marginal rate is 40+%, but I actually only pay high 20s, which one matters in reality? Any kids or relatives in these situations will be perfectly fine, its a ridiculous argument.

This bill is subsidizing very very few people by removing breaks or effectively increasing taxes on many many more. People like every single 1099 doctor that pays their own medical, benefits, etc...which is a lot. Makes no sense.

You want zero estate tax? Fine, I dont personally care, but dont take it from hard working people and give it to large estates just so Trumps family personally benefits. How is that any more moral? Im not necessarily arguing for the estate tax mind you, just that this bill is going about things wrong.

[Zaphod]

hightower wrote:

FIREshrink wrote:

 I think the cut will help profits and redistribute money out of the non-productive sector

That government seized their property and their money whenever they felt it was important for a greater societal good. How is an estate tax any different?

Click to expand…

What evidence does anyone have that shows giving corporations handouts results in more jobs or growth?  I think we all would instead find larger bonuses being paid to CEOs and other executives is the more likely outcome

And an estate tax is a 1 time tax on someone’s estate when they die.  It is not and never has been a confiscation of their entire estate.  It only affects those with very large inheritances and still leaves them with the vast majority of their wealth.  How is that anything like a communist country confiscating property?

I’m so sick and tired of people talking about the estate tax who aren’t even worth enough to qualify for it (evidence that the propaganda is working I suppose).  You have to leave behind 5.49 million to even be considered for it.  It was designed to help off-set the accumulation of wealth at the very top of society.   Leaving a family inheritance of billions of dollars does society no good.  It does the world no good.  In fact, I think it can be argued that it does a lot of harm to let that happen unchecked.  Not only that but you’re also doing your family no good because they’re just going to become a bunch of entitled pricks.  Taxing it in a fair manner is completely reasonable in a democratic society.

Click to expand...

11M if married.

[FIREshrink]

You think the government spends money more efficiently than the private sector? If I leave my kids one billion dollars they will employ drivers, auto and plane manufacturers, housekeepers and home builders, clothes designers and artists, blah blah blah. That money drives society. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. If shareholders earn more money, won't they spend it and invest it? If you earned more money wouldn't you? Or do you think your tax rate should be higher, so that the government can distribute your money more efficiently than you would?

It's not your business if I want my family to be a bunch of entitled pricks. That's my business.

How is the federal plus state take of 60% of my last dollar NOT confiscation?

You will never persuade me that an estate tax is moral. I can be persuaded it's a necessary evil but not that it's moral.

[childay]

FIREshrink wrote:

I can be persuaded it’s a necessary evil but not that it’s moral.

Click to expand...

And any other tax?

[Rando]

hightower wrote:

FIREshrink wrote:

 I think the cut will help profits and redistribute money out of the non-productive sector

That government seized their property and their money whenever they felt it was important for a greater societal good. How is an estate tax any different?

Click to expand…

What evidence does anyone have that shows giving corporations handouts results in more jobs or growth?

Click to expand...

i disagree with characterizing the government taking less taxes as a handout.  By and large the government lowers taxes or gives tax credits to businesses in order to encourage desired behavior.  If the lower, more competitive corporate rate results in more companies staying or returning to the US, that will benefit us all and in my view possibly increase wages.

[The White Coat Investor]

Rotish wrote:

And why is it ok to spend 1 trillion dollars on giving billionaires more wealth , but it’s not ok to give joe shmoe truck driver the best medical care there is?

Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment, but it's couched in terms that aren't accurate. You should write it like this:

"And why is it okay to let billionaires keep more of what they earn, but it's not okay to give..."

I don't know why people keep characterizing a tax cut as a gift. It isn't a gift. It's simply less of a punishment.

[Rotish]

I respectfully disagree.

For one: This isn’t money coming a surplus, this is spending our kids futures so that Apple and google can pay half the half the tax rate that I do.

And when groups are proportionally benefiting more than other groups, it is a gift. It’s not like everyone gets a 1% tax cut, in which case I’d agree with you. Some of us are paying more. Others are paying less. So, yes, it is a gift. And it’s coming from my pocket.

[ENT Doc]

MPMD wrote:

ENT Doc wrote:

Wow.  People have gone political cuckoo here.  There is no basis for impeachment at this point, and all evidence at this point does not point to this as a likely event.  Regarding this being a plan for the ultra rich, that is preposterous.  What was posted in the OP was a segment of the overall tax plan, was it not?  If you’re going to say it only benefits the ultra wealthy then you’ve seemingly purposely neglected the other aspects of the plan.  The estate tax is immoral, regardless of who it benefits.  Repealing that can be justified on those grounds alone.  As for repealing the deductions, I’m fully in favor of all deductions going away.  All they do is create market distortions that don’t make people realize the full cost of whatever is being deducted. Think this had nothing to do with the housing crisis?  People living in high tax states that want to provide any and all services under the sun are being subsidized by all Americans in the form of foregone revenue, which essentially translates into our national debt.  These deductions account for hundreds of billions in foregone revenue.  And repealing them is by no means immoral.  In fact it brings things back to more normal market function.

Click to expand…

It’s not cuckoo dude. Zaphod and I were both clearly up last night and start talking a little politics.

We’re not saying it only benefits the ultra wealthy, we’re saying it’s tilted towards them in a way that is telling.

From prior discussions you sound like a pretty conservative guy. Were you happy when Obama briefly proposed shutting down the 529?

Click to expand...

It's cuckoo when things are wildly speculative.  There is more evidence, for example, that the DNC engaged in campaign finance violations with the dossier they funded.  For the record I have stances that land on both sides of the political aisle but find myself more libertarian than anything else (with important caveats).  Anything that makes people accountable for their actions, charges people for the negative externalities they create, and supports the free market I tend to support heavily.  As for the Obamacare 529 thing, of course I had a problem with it.  Why?  Because he failed to understand that the wealthy, who preferentially benefit from the 529 program, subsidize other students when universities engage in price discrimination.  So the parents not only pay a higher marginal tax rate on the money they put away for education, but they have to pay the full sticker price for their children's education so other kids can learn on the cheap.  That's effectively getting taxed twice (and at a substantially higher rate), so anything that corrects that absurdity tends to be ok in my book, including the 529.  Government loans have created this student loan mess.  The less they're involved the better.

[ENT Doc]

Rotish wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

For one: This isn’t money coming a surplus, this is spending our kids futures so that Apple and google can pay half the half the tax rate that I do.

And when groups are proportionally benefiting more than other groups, it is a gift. It’s not like everyone gets a 1% tax cut, in which case I’d agree with you. Some of us are paying more. Others are paying less. So, yes, it is a gift. And it’s coming from my pocket.

Click to expand...

That is a bit absurd.  You do realize that the money that Apple and Google get to keep gets taxed again, right?  And you do realize that by dropping the corporate rate this will bring taxes in line with their effective rates listed now without all the off-shore nonsense?  And you do realize that by investing in these companies that you benefit from this tax cut?  If you are paying more under this plan because of losing your deductions, I have no problem with that.  You were proportionally benefiting more than other groups, something you seem to be vehemently opposed to.  If you're paying more because of your income brackets shifting I suggest you look to the benefits you receive from owning companies who can now pay you a higher dividend.

[ENT Doc]

hightower wrote:

FIREshrink wrote:

 I think the cut will help profits and redistribute money out of the non-productive sector

That government seized their property and their money whenever they felt it was important for a greater societal good. How is an estate tax any different?

Click to expand…

What evidence does anyone have that shows giving corporations handouts results in more jobs or growth?  I think we all would instead find larger bonuses being paid to CEOs and other executives is the more likely outcome

And an estate tax is a 1 time tax on someone’s estate when they die.  It is not and never has been a confiscation of their entire estate.  It only affects those with very large inheritances and still leaves them with the vast majority of their wealth.  How is that anything like a communist country confiscating property?

I’m so sick and tired of people talking about the estate tax who aren’t even worth enough to qualify for it (evidence that the propaganda is working I suppose).  You have to leave behind 5.49 million to even be considered for it.  It was designed to help off-set the accumulation of wealth at the very top of society.   Leaving a family inheritance of billions of dollars does society no good.  It does the world no good.  In fact, I think it can be argued that it does a lot of harm to let that happen unchecked.  Not only that but you’re also doing your family no good because they’re just going to become a bunch of entitled pricks.  Taxing it in a fair manner is completely reasonable in a democratic society.

Click to expand...

Do you have even the remotest idea about the kinds of charitable organizations, funds, donations, schools, etc. that have been set up as a result of large inheritances?  It is flat out ignorant to say that it does society no good.  Sounds like bias talking.  And please define "fair" in your last sentence so we can discuss specifics and not something that is a moving target to pay for more "free" stuff.

[G]

ENT Doc wrote:

the wealthy, who preferentially benefit from the 529 program, subsidize other students when universities engage in price discrimination.  So the parents not only pay a higher marginal tax rate on the money they put away for education, but they have to pay the full sticker price for their children’s education so other kids can learn on the cheap.  That’s effectively getting taxed twice (and at a substantially higher rate)

Click to expand...

You're right, of course, but I never thought of it that way.

Thanks for spoiling my evening.

[MPMD]

ENT Doc wrote:

 

Click to expand…

It’s cuckoo when things are wildly speculative.  There is more evidence, for example, that the DNC engaged in campaign finance violations with the dossier they funded.  For the record I have stances that land on both sides of the political aisle but find myself more libertarian than anything else (with important caveats).  Anything that makes people accountable for their actions, charges people for the negative externalities they create, and supports the free market I tend to support heavily.  As for the Obamacare 529 thing, of course I had a problem with it.  Why?  Because he failed to understand that the wealthy, who preferentially benefit from the 529 program, subsidize other students when universities engage in price discrimination.  So the parents not only pay a higher marginal tax rate on the money they put away for education, but they have to pay the full sticker price for their children’s education so other kids can learn on the cheap.  That’s effectively getting taxed twice (and at a substantially higher rate), so anything that corrects that absurdity tends to be ok in my book, including the 529.  Government loans have created this student loan mess.  The less they’re involved the better.

Click to expand...

If you are comparing this to the rapidly escalating story of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia + the now innumerable connections between the two that were systematically lied about by everyone including the President, then you are simply incorrect.

For every action by someone you kind of like, there is simply not automatically an equal and opposite reaction by someone you don't.

 

[Rotish]

“You were proportionally benefiting more than other groups, something you seem to be vehemently opposed To”

How was i proportionally benefitting more?

I live in a place where a 100 year old 2500 sq foot house costs a million dollars and my state taxes are outrageous. I wasn’t benefitting proportionally more, the state and county were.

And doctors already make less than the national average where I live.

So please, go ahead and tell me how I’m freeloading off the government because I chose to live near my chronically ill parents

[Zaphod]

ENT Doc wrote:

MPMD wrote:

ENT Doc wrote:

Wow.  People have gone political cuckoo here.  There is no basis for impeachment at this point, and all evidence at this point does not point to this as a likely event.  Regarding this being a plan for the ultra rich, that is preposterous.  What was posted in the OP was a segment of the overall tax plan, was it not?  If you’re going to say it only benefits the ultra wealthy then you’ve seemingly purposely neglected the other aspects of the plan.  The estate tax is immoral, regardless of who it benefits.  Repealing that can be justified on those grounds alone.  As for repealing the deductions, I’m fully in favor of all deductions going away.  All they do is create market distortions that don’t make people realize the full cost of whatever is being deducted. Think this had nothing to do with the housing crisis?  People living in high tax states that want to provide any and all services under the sun are being subsidized by all Americans in the form of foregone revenue, which essentially translates into our national debt.  These deductions account for hundreds of billions in foregone revenue.  And repealing them is by no means immoral.  In fact it brings things back to more normal market function.

Click to expand…

It’s not cuckoo dude. Zaphod and I were both clearly up last night and start talking a little politics.

We’re not saying it only benefits the ultra wealthy, we’re saying it’s tilted towards them in a way that is telling.

From prior discussions you sound like a pretty conservative guy. Were you happy when Obama briefly proposed shutting down the 529?

Click to expand…

It’s cuckoo when things are wildly speculative.  There is more evidence, for example, that the DNC engaged in campaign finance violations with the dossier they funded.  For the record I have stances that land on both sides of the political aisle but find myself more libertarian than anything else (with important caveats).  Anything that makes people accountable for their actions, charges people for the negative externalities they create, and supports the free market I tend to support heavily.  As for the Obamacare 529 thing, of course I had a problem with it.  Why?  Because he failed to understand that the wealthy, who preferentially benefit from the 529 program, subsidize other students when universities engage in price discrimination.  So the parents not only pay a higher marginal tax rate on the money they put away for education, but they have to pay the full sticker price for their children’s education so other kids can learn on the cheap.  That’s effectively getting taxed twice (and at a substantially higher rate), so anything that corrects that absurdity tends to be ok in my book, including the 529.  Government loans have created this student loan mess.  The less they’re involved the better.

Click to expand...

I dont get what that has to do with anything. They can all and should go to jail if any wrongdoing was done. Its ideological to think anything otherwise. Just because person A commits a crime it does not lessen person B's crime, its ridiculous. They should all get in trouble. I'd love a clean sweep of all these corrupt people.

Its not that speculative, lets see where this goes.