Clinton's new 'tax the rich plan'

[fskimospy]

I don't think parents giving money to children should be taxed at all. Now what the govt does or doesn't do is something totally different and trying to explain why they do something can get even more confusing. But most people will support taxing the rich because it doesn't effect them personally. The govt knows this and that's why they do it. They want your votes.

It also makes sense for the rich to be taxed more due to the declining marginal value of money.

 

[elitejp]

So that's where we disagree. I don't see the reasoning behind taxing someone more because they are more fiscally responsible. As I wrote earlier I personally think flat tax is a better option than what we have now. The percentage stays the same but the monetary amount can vary greatly.

 

[IronWing]

So that's where we disagree. I don't see the reasoning behind taxing someone more because they are more fiscally responsible.

Who's to say the rich are more fiscally responsible? They might have just had the good sense to be born into wealth.

 

[ivwshane]

Who's to say the rich are more fiscally responsible? They might have just had the good sense to be born into wealth.

Clearly, according to this idiot, if they are rich then they earned their money via hard work and gumption because life is fair and everyone has equal opportunities, that's why he's for a flat tax because it's fair.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Who's to say the rich are more fiscally responsible? They might have just had the good sense to be born into wealth.

Because people that are "rich" stay rich.

People that currently have a large abundance of cash and will quickly lose it the moment it stops coming in.... aren't rich. They are completely retarded and it's only a matter of time before they lose it all to stupid shit. See: Lottery Winners, Football players, etc.. etc..

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not the same thing. If I don't want to pay the tax, I don't buy the item.

We are selling 2 houses and emptying bank accounts to pay this tax. We aren't rich and what we will be left with is some investment property and her 401k.



We have all three in California. We don't have an inheritance tax thankfully though. Only the Federal government taxes estates.

You will still end up with considerably more than you started with, right?

And you did what to earn it, exactly?

 

[elitejp]

It reminds me of the no child left behind policy. Who did that actually make smarter? You didnt put in the work to begin with but now you get to go on to the next grade level because we dont want you to feel like a failure. But once real life comes around your un-hireable because you dont have skills or a work ethic.
People who are poor and are hard workers wont stay poor. Generally the worst that happens to them is that their living situation will improve. Go out into any poor area in your city and tell me if you would want to hire these people to do a job for you. Most of the time its not because they cant do the job or even that they cant do it well but they as a person dont want to do it. Poverty didnt occur to you because someone else went out and worked hard. Ive worked with of mexicans and a good portion of them very good workers. The ones I knew were working two jobs, living in a house with 9 other mexicans and sending just about all their earned salary back to mexico to help raise their family of 10.These are poor people making something for themselves. But we have people crying im poor here in america that are upset because they dont have a 60inch flat screen tv to drink beer and watch the game with their friends.

 

[ivwshane]

It reminds me of the no child left behind policy. Who did that actually make smarter? You didnt put in the work to begin with but now you get to go on to the next grade level because we dont want you to feel like a failure. But once real life comes around your un-hireable because you dont have skills or a work ethic.
People who are poor and are hard workers wont stay poor. Generally the worst that happens to them is that their living situation will improve. Go out into any poor area in your city and tell me if you would want to hire these people to do a job for you. Most of the time its not because they cant do the job or even that they cant do it well but they as a person dont want to do it. Poverty didnt occur to you because someone else went out and worked hard. Ive worked with of mexicans and a good portion of them very good workers. The ones I knew were working two jobs, living in a house with 9 other mexicans and sending just about all their earned salary back to mexico to help raise their family of 10.These are poor people making something for themselves. But we have people crying im poor here in america that are upset because they dont have a 60inch flat screen tv to drink beer and watch the game with their friends.

What the hell are you talking about?

Those hard working Mexicans you admire so much have the second highest poverty rate in the US. That doesn't exactly support your assertions.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/

Have you seen this thread and did you read the study? Because you seem really intent on trolling and spreading bullshit:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2460751

 

[elitejp]

And how many of those have improved their living standard. Compared to living in Mexico their living standards have increased dramatically. Give these guys a few more generations in the states and if they continue to work hard they won't be poor anymore. Handouts given to the poor will not change their lifestyle behavior.

 

[ivwshane]

And how many of those have improved their living standard. Compared to living in Mexico their living standards have increased dramatically. Give these guys a few more generations in the states and if they continue to work hard they won't be poor anymore. Handouts given to the poor will not change their lifestyle behavior.

So when you said "hard workers don't remain poor" what you really meant was that hard workers childrens children don't remain poor. So by your own admission hard work doesn't get people out of poverty.

Btw, Mr authoritarian, "Handouts" aren't used to change people's life style behavior, they are used to give people a helping hand and to keep people from ending up in poverty. They also work quite well:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...cial-safety-net-significantly-reduces-poverty

It also appears that benefits spending is typically a net fiscal multiplier.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ow-claims-spending-more-stimulative-tax-cuts/

(sorry, you'll actually have to read the article instead of the title to find the information I am referring to)

 

[elitejp]

Maybe it will happen in their lifetime maybe it will take a while. I'm sorry that results don't come instantly. Poverty didn't come instantly and neither does wealth. But taxing someone because they have more than someone else is nothing more than punishing those who have done well and rewarding those who didn't.

 

[Mai72]

And how many of those have improved their living standard. Compared to living in Mexico their living standards have increased dramatically. Give these guys a few more generations in the states and if they continue to work hard they won't be poor anymore. Handouts given to the poor will not change their lifestyle behavior.

Good point. Foreigners who come to America normally do well. Why is that? It's because they are here to work and they don't take this great country for granted.

When you ask many foreigners why they are in America their eyes light up, and they will tell you how great America is. Ask the same question to someone who was born in America and they'll look at you like you're crazy. It's the reason why foreigners are 8X more likely than native born Americans to become wealthy. While many Americans are playing the lottery, foreigners are putting in the dirt so they can obtain wealth and success.

Look at the Asian students who migrate to America. Why do they find success in American colleges and beyond? It's because they work their asses off in their home country. When they come to America it's a cake walk. I taught in South Korea for over two years. The education system in Korea is relentless. It will spit you out if you aren't able to produce results. So, when they attend our colleges they are like "this is easy." They dominate students in America. Many of our students aren't on the same level. Not even close. Real life works the same way.

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe it will happen in their lifetime maybe it will take a while. I'm sorry that results don't come instantly. Poverty didn't come instantly and neither does wealth. But taxing someone because they have more than someone else is nothing more than punishing those who have done well and rewarding those who didn't.

Holy shit! Are you serious? Clearly for certain folks they were born into poverty or did you think when you said it could take Mexicans generations to get out of poverty you some how thought that while they were in poverty and remained in poverty that their kids were magically not in poverty.

You are an idiot and every damn post of yours proves it.

 

[Mai72]

The wealthy are too smart and will find the loopholes anyway. The middle and upper middle class will be left with the bill.

What most people don't understand is wealth is hardly taxed. But income is taxed. The bigger the paycheck, the more taxes you'll pay. This is why the wealthy are rarely taxed.

 

[First]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/u...t-earners-tax-rates-rose-sharply-in-2013.html

Data released by the I.R.S. on Wednesday shows that tax rates on the income of America’s 400 wealthiest taxpayers rose sharply to 22.9 percent in 2013, erasing a majority of the last two decades’ decline in their effective tax rate.

As described in an article in The New York Times on Wednesday, tax rates on America’s 400 wealthiest taxpayers fell sharply from the late 1990s through 2012, when their average effective income tax rate fell to 16.7 percent from 26.4 percent.

The reason behind the reversal is instructive. Broadly, if tax shelters are a problem, there are two ways to fix it. One is to outlaw them. The other way is to change the tax rate rules, so money inside the shelter is not treated so differently from money outside the shelter.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Buying Power: For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions
The spike in the wealthiest people’s tax rates was mostly achieved the second way, and mostly through initiatives from President Obama. Two laws that he championed became effective in 2013, raising tax rates on high earners and limiting the value of tax deductions they are entitled to take.

Photo

President Obama after signing the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010. One effect of the law was to impose new taxes on higher earners. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
One was the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which extended the so-called Bush tax cuts for most taxpayers, but allowed certain breaks for people making over $500,000 to expire. The other was the Affordable Care Act, which imposed new taxes on high earners, applying to both regular income and income from capital gains, like the profit from appreciated stock.

Put together, these two laws raised the maximum tax rate on regular income by more than five points, and on capital income (like capital gains and dividends) by almost nine points. The Relief Act also led to the restoration of rules, repealed under President George W. Bush, that limit the value of tax deductions (like those for mortgage interest and state income taxes paid) for people with high incomes.

The nature of this approach is important. When lawmakers seek to disallow specific kinds of tax shelters, they must chase the lawyers and accountants who are creatively thinking up new ones. The 2013 approach simply raised the effective tax rate on income inside many shelters, without anyone needing to argue about their validity.

Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS

Sugar Charlie December 31, 2015
Everyone is entitled to act with a knowledge of, and regard to, the law, and not the less so that the law in question happens to be tax law....
njglea December 31, 2015
The loopholes that really need to be slammed shut are the ones that allow the wealthiest to buy sports teams then write off the cost of...
SEB December 31, 2015
Well no wonder mild mannered and centrist Obama is portrayed as a rabid communist foaming at the mouth by Fox News.
SEE ALL COMMENTS
For example, even if a taxpayer used a strategy to turn ordinary income into capital income, such as the Bermuda insurance approaches discussed in Wednesday’s article, the 2013 changes raised the tax rate on such income to 23.8 percent, from 15 percent. So it’s no surprise the tax bills of the top 400 taxpayers rose so much.

There was also a one-time issue that suppressed top earners’ tax rates in 2012. Recognizing that higher tax rates would arrive in 2013, many wealthy people sold stock or other assets to take any accrued capital gains in 2012. That meant top earners’ income in 2012 was more weighed toward tax-preferred gains than usual, pushing down their overall average tax rate. This suppression in 2012 was a partial contributor to the pop in 2013, though the 2013 rate was also much higher than in the several years preceding 2012.

It’s likely that high earners will seek new ways to avoid their newly higher tax rates. But not all of those strategies are created equal, from a public policy perspective.

For example, as other tax shelters become less effective, wealthy people may respond by giving more income away to charity. The resulting decline in tax revenue may not be desired, but as tax shelters go, charitable giving is more likely to align with the public interest than other options.

Great article from a few weeks ago.

Basically, anytime you can add tens of billions to gov't income with no discernible effect on economic growth or jobs is certainly a good thing, as predicted by basically everyone paying attention. Add to that the positive impact it has on the public interest (not perpetuating unearned dynastic wealth) and not so much trying to plug loopholes as to just tax them at higher rates, you can really see what wonders it does for funding gov't programs and keeping deficits from exploding further.

 

[ElFenix]

It reminds me of the no child left behind policy. Who did that actually make smarter? You didnt put in the work to begin with but now you get to go on to the next grade level because we dont want you to feel like a failure. But once real life comes around your un-hireable because you dont have skills or a work ethic.
People who are poor and are hard workers wont stay poor. Generally the worst that happens to them is that their living situation will improve. Go out into any poor area in your city and tell me if you would want to hire these people to do a job for you. Most of the time its not because they cant do the job or even that they cant do it well but they as a person dont want to do it. Poverty didnt occur to you because someone else went out and worked hard. Ive worked with of mexicans and a good portion of them very good workers. The ones I knew were working two jobs, living in a house with 9 other mexicans and sending just about all their earned salary back to mexico to help raise their family of 10.These are poor people making something for themselves. But we have people crying im poor here in america that are upset because they dont have a 60inch flat screen tv to drink beer and watch the game with their friends.

*you're

 

[JulesMaximus]

You will still end up with considerably more than you started with, right?

And you did what to earn it, exactly?

And what did the government do to earn it, exactly? It was her will that my wife and I have it. She earned it and paid tax on the income that generated this wealth.

BTW-It killed her to think of the amount of tax we would have to pay upon her death. :'(

 

[Brainonska511]

And what did the government do to earn it, exactly? It was her will that my wife and I have it. She earned it and paid tax on the income that generated this wealth.

BTW-It killed her to think of the amount of tax we would have to pay upon her death. :'(

I'm sorry to hear about your mother.

You're still getting nearly $5.5 million before taxes kick in, which will only take a part of the amount exceeding the exemption. Having to pay taxes puts it in the top 0.2% of estates.

 

[fskimospy]

And what did the government do to earn it, exactly? It was her will that my wife and I have it. She earned it and paid tax on the income that generated this wealth.

BTW-It killed her to think of the amount of tax we would have to pay upon her death. :'(

What makes you sad that you will only inherit more than 98% of the wealthiest people on the entire planet?

My thought is that once taxes cost you money you're against them.

 

[JulesMaximus]

What makes you sad that you will only inherit more than 98% of the wealthiest people on the entire planet?

My thought is that once taxes cost you money you're against them.

I've paid taxes all my life. I just think it's unfair to tax wealth just because it is being passed on to heirs. We don't tax wealth passed between husband and wife so why tax wealth passed from parents to children?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So that's where we disagree. I don't see the reasoning behind taxing someone more because they are more fiscally responsible. As I wrote earlier I personally think flat tax is a better option than what we have now. The percentage stays the same but the monetary amount can vary greatly.

more fiscally responsible.....

rofl. wow u r an idiot

You have to be trolling....How can you be that disconnected from reality?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I've paid taxes all my life. I just think it's unfair to tax wealth just because it is being passed on to heirs. We don't tax wealth passed between husband and wife so why tax wealth passed from parents to children?

Because it belongs to both of them.......

 

[shady28]

And what did the government do to earn it, exactly? It was her will that my wife and I have it. She earned it and paid tax on the income that generated this wealth.

BTW-It killed her to think of the amount of tax we would have to pay upon her death. :'(

What did the Government do to earn anything it taxes?

You do realize that, had your mother died in say 2008, you would have been taxed on anything over $2 Million, right? And in 2005 it would have been anything over 1.5 Million.

Financially, you couldn't have planned it any better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States#The_.22gross_estate.22

There are several credits against the tentative tax, the most important of which is a "unified credit" which can be thought of as providing for an "exemption equivalent" or exempted value with respect to the sum of the taxable estate and the taxable gifts during lifetime.

For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, so if the sum of the taxable estate plus the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime equals $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion increased to $3,500,000 in 2009, and the estate tax was repealed for estates of decedents dying in 2010, but then the Act was to "sunset" in 2011 and the estate tax was to reappear with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000.

On December 16, 2010, Congress passed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 17, 2010. The 2010 Act changed, among other things, the rate structure for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2009, subject to certain exceptions. It also served to reunify the estate tax credit (aka exemption equivalent) with the federal gift tax credit (aka exemption equivalent). The gift tax exemption is equal to $5,250,000[26] for estates of decedents dying in 2013, and $5,340,000 for estates of decedents dying in 2014.[27]

 

[Hugo Drax]

Red meat for those inclined to support this sort of thing. You progressive folks out there happy with this - not enough, too much, just right?

1. A 4% surtax over $5MM
2. "Buffett Rule" where income over $1MM pays at least a 30 percent tax rate.
3. Estate tax exemption from $5.5MM to $3.5MMM

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/13/462944798/hillary-clinton-s-new-tax-proposal-likely-wont-affect-you?

think its a good plan but its BS she will not do it.

What she will do is tax any family making 250K and more higher taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

I've paid taxes all my life. I just think it's unfair to tax wealth just because it is being passed on to heirs. We don't tax wealth passed between husband and wife so why tax wealth passed from parents to children?

Why is it unfair? Husbands and wives often act as a single financial unit and there are a number of states that basically entirely treat them as such. (In these states you can be held responsible for your spouse's debts, for example) Parents and adult children rarely function in this way, so it makes perfect sense to treat transferring property the same way as anyone else.

If your mom had transferred that wealth to you while she was alive it would have been taxed as income for you. I still haven't heard a good reason as to why because she is dead it is no longer income to you. If anything you're getting an enormous tax break as compared to normal transfers but it still isn't enough?

Again, why is income through inheritance special? Why should you pay 28% in income taxes on money that you worked for and earned yourself but pay nothing in taxes on income that you didn't lift a finger for?

I understand you don't want to pay taxes. Nobody does.