Wealthy Clintons Use Trusts to Limit Estate Tax They Back

[chucky2]

He just told you the issue and the reasoning behind it and you ignored it.

No.

 

[chucky2]

That isn't even the case here.

They aren't failing to pay the taxes they think they should be paying.

They are going out of their way to avoid paying them.

I'm speaking in generalities, not in respect to the Clintons. Everyone knows they're rich political scum, I really don't believe anyone who is not a total liberal jizz swallower believes otherwise, so this news that rich political scum is doing whatever it can to avoid paying more to the bottomless pit they so love isn't really news at all. It's expected. I'd be shocked if they weren't doing all that they could to pay the least.

I really just wish we could find a well off liberal who is actually voluntarily paying what they believe the Gov needs, and not what they're legally obligated to pay. It's like...it's like they don't actually believe what they advocate for...?

 

[PokerGuy]

Doing whatever you need to do to minimize your tax liability is fine. Campaigning for more taxes and closing loopholes is fine. Doing both is simply hypocritical.

 

[Exterous]

what happens when you're in favor of raising taxes but that's really just illusory because you know from personal experience that the taxes won't really go up because any decent financial planner is going to minimize them? i guess it's just a tax on the stupid, like the lottery. or maybe a subsidy to financial planners.

:thumbsup: Make claims to raise taxes on the rich to boost public profile while keeping the loopholes in place that you can use to sidestep said increases.

 

[glenn1]

That isn't what is happening.

They are using special tax strategies to avoid paying taxes they otherwise would have to. It seems pretty hypocritical to complain about special tax avoidance techniques while taking advantage of them.

Its basically the same as a Republican railing against the gay sex while at the same time getting gay BJs in airport restrooms.

Interesting to know that competent estate planning is now "special tax strategies".

Apparently in order to support the estate tax you need to incompetently manage your own estate. Managing your finances intelligently and completely within estate tax laws that they support is now apparently the same thing as Larry Craig.

And you wonder why I call you a dumbass.

I thought part of the Democratic platform was to stand up for the "little guy" and the ones who "get screwed by the system." Is your position now that you approve of an estate tax system, that by your own admission impacts mostly the least prepared and/or oblivious people subject to it? You're cool that people like the Clintons can mostly avoid it, while the confused elderly widow might bear its full brunt?

 

[ivwshane]

Well that really is the crux of the belief problem, is it not? If you are in favor of raising taxes, in theory you're not just blindly having that thought pop into your head just for no reason at all, you have that position for a reason. It doesn't really matter why you want the Gov to receive more money (I myself would like to see taxes raised, but I'm sure not for the reasons many liberals would want to see them raised), the important thing is that you believe the Gov needs more money.

The next logical step in this is, Who needs to pay more? So you might have cutoff points, and/or a progressively increasing tax increase scale, etc. So if you have this idea that Gov needs more money via taxes, but you say have a cutoff at $300k, where there are no tax raises underneath that, and you are making under that, then of course you wouldn't contribute more, because the policy you want to see implemented would result in no additional tax burden to yourself; the arguement that you picked that amount so you yourself would be unaffected is moot here.

But say someone making $500k a year had that same position, that at $300,001, you need to progressively start paying more in tax. Obviously by their $500/yr income, they'd be into a real tax increase amount. Now, they believe this. They want the Gov to pass this law. And, they themselves are in the bracket that is going to get the tax increase they are wanting.

When their financial planner on 4/15 says, OK, here's what you owe, should not they be doing the math and saying, OK, well, I need to tack on an extra $12k to get me to the level I myself believe I should be paying and that I believe the Gov needs?

If they don't do that, how are they not a hypocrite? If the Gov needs that money and they're the ones they believe should be paying extra, what does it matter that their anti-tax conservative neighbor isn't paying extra? Does it change their belief that the Gov needs more money? Does it change their belief they they should be paying more?

If I'm all for speed limits and the enforcement of such speed limits and yet it's advantageous that I speed because the flow of traffic is going faster than the speed limit, does that make me a hypocrite? Me adhering to my beliefs doesn't change the outcome or help achieve the goals behind my beliefs.
Now if I was for speed limits and their enforcement and I supported a law that affected everyone except people who drive the same make, model, year, and color as my car, effectively excluding me from having to follow such a law, then yeah I'd be a hypocrite.

To purposely disadvantage yourself is stupid when it comes to politics.

But if you guys want to have a hypocrisy pissing contest to see which political side is more hypocritical, let me know, I like sure things

 

[ivwshane]

I thought part of the Democratic platform was to stand up for the "little guy" and the ones who "get screwed by the system." Is your position now that you approve of an estate tax system, that by your own admission impacts mostly the least prepared and/or oblivious people subject to it? You're cool that people like the Clintons can mostly avoid it, while the confused elderly widow might bear its full brunt?

I prefer no one be able to avoid it. Now what?

Should I be mad at people who take advantage of broken laws? Or should I be mad at the broken laws and those who refuse to fix them or those who purposely write broken laws?

 

[glenn1]

I prefer no one be able to avoid it. Now what?

That's fine. I think it's a stupid tax but if you're going to have it, at least make it consistent.

 

[shira]

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

It seems pretty hypocritical to rail against special tax shelters for the rich, while using those same special tax shelters.

You don't understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy is criticizing behavior in another which you yourself engage in.

The Clintons want the law changed to remove certain tax shelters, and continue to use all tax shelters available to them until the law is changed. If Clintons criticized other rich people for also using all tax shelters available to themselves while the existing law is still in place they would indeed be hypocrites, but the Clintons do NOT engage in such criticisms. They merely advocate that the law be changed. And once the law is changed, the Clintons and all other rich people will modify their behavior to be compliant with the updated law.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding simple concepts?

 

[DCal430]

You should realize these are irrevocable trusts in Chelsea name. So there is a downside as the assets are no longer owned by them.

 

[senseamp]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...use-trusts-to-limit-estate-tax-they-back.html


I don't blame them because I would do the same thing if I am in their shoes but isn't that "do we we say and not as we do"? I thought Democrats are for the poor and working folks and stick it to them stinking rich, eh? (sarcastic)

The Clintons have always been Republican Light, all the corporatism without the crazy dogma. Kind of like Mitt Romney before he started pandering to the teabags.
Progressives and populists should support Brian Schweitzer instead.

 

[chucky2]

If I'm all for speed limits and the enforcement of such speed limits and yet it's advantageous that I speed because the flow of traffic is going faster than the speed limit, does that make me a hypocrite? Me adhering to my beliefs doesn't change the outcome or help achieve the goals behind my beliefs.
Now if I was for speed limits and their enforcement and I supported a law that affected everyone except people who drive the same make, model, year, and color as my car, effectively excluding me from having to follow such a law, then yeah I'd be a hypocrite.

To purposely disadvantage yourself is stupid when it comes to politics.

But if you guys want to have a hypocrisy pissing contest to see which political side is more hypocritical, let me know, I like sure things

Bad analogy, as it costs you nothing to speed unless you get caught...your analogy would be better for something like tax evasion.

 

[ivwshane]

Bad analogy, as it costs you nothing to speed unless you get caught...your analogy would be better for something like tax evasion.

Not true at all, it costs me more money in gas to speed, not to mention potential safety issues.

 

[chucky2]

Not true at all, it costs me more money in gas to speed, not to mention potential safety issues.

What does that have to do with the law, EDIT: or others driving their cars and paying for their own fuel?

 

[ivwshane]

What does that have to do with the law?

I was responding to your post that responded to my post.

Would you like to try again?

 

[nehalem256]

You don't understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy is criticizing behavior in another which you yourself engage in.

The Clintons want the law changed to remove certain tax shelters, and continue to use all tax shelters available to them until the law is changed. If Clintons criticized other rich people for also using all tax shelters available to themselves while the existing law is still in place they would indeed be hypocrites, but the Clintons do NOT engage in such criticisms. They merely advocate that the law be changed. And once the law is changed, the Clintons and all other rich people will modify their behavior to be compliant with the updated law.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding simple concepts?

OH!

So its basically the same thing as being an abolitionist who still owns slaves. Because hey other people do.

 

[glenn1]

You don't understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy is criticizing behavior in another which you yourself engage in.

The Clintons want the law changed to remove certain tax shelters, and continue to use all tax shelters available to them until the law is changed. If Clintons criticized other rich people for also using all tax shelters available to themselves while the existing law is still in place they would indeed be hypocrites, but the Clintons do NOT engage in such criticisms. They merely advocate that the law be changed. And once the law is changed, the Clintons and all other rich people will modify their behavior to be compliant with the updated law.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding simple concepts?

Hypocrisy can also come into play when considering the reasons why they support the estate tax (or changes to it). The reason many progressives give is because they want to "prevent creation of economic dynasties" where money is passed down through generations. In that case, Eskimospy and his like should hold firm that what the Clintons are doing is wrong. To them, it should be fine for Bill and Hillary to get rich, but Chelsea should have to earn her own and it's immoral for the Clintons to abandon that principle and skirt the rules to enrich their offspring.

 

[ivwshane]

What does that have to do with the law, EDIT: or others driving their cars and paying for their own fuel?

Is this really a difficult analogy for you to understand?

I'm for a law and its enforcement and yet I break the law, I do so for my safety and for the safety of others around me (ie it's advantageous for me to do so).

The difference between my analogy and the Clinton tax rant is that the Clinton's aren't breaking any laws.

 

[mrjminer]

Is this really a difficult analogy for you to understand?

I'm for a law and its enforcement and yet I break the law, I do so for my safety and for the safety of others around me (ie it's advantageous for me to do so).

The difference between my analogy and the Clinton tax rant is that the Clinton's aren't breaking any laws.

Right. Can't really blame people for circumventing laws for their benefit. If I had millions of dollars, I sure would be.

 

[ivwshane]

Right. Can't really blame people for circumventing laws for their benefit. If I had millions of dollars, I sure would be.

They aren't circumventing the law, they are taking advantage of the law. There is a difference, one is illegal, the other is not.

 

[DrPizza]

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

It seems pretty hypocritical to rail against special tax shelters for the rich, while using those same special tax shelters.

It's not hypocritical at all. You'd have to be retarded to pay more tax than you're legally required to. There's nothing wrong with saying, "hey, look what we're doing. You really should close this loophole" - I find that to be far more ethical than someone who sees it as being something that should be changed, but says nothing. And again, in either case, you'd have to be retarded not to use every possible loophole to limit your overall tax.

 

[JockoJohnson]

That isn't what is happening.

They are using special tax strategies to avoid paying taxes they otherwise would have to. It seems pretty hypocritical to complain about special tax avoidance techniques while taking advantage of them.

Its basically the same as a Republican railing against the gay sex while at the same time getting gay BJs in airport restrooms.

Special tax strategies? If there are loopholes (if you want to call them that) in the law, then people will take advantage of them. If they didn't take advantage of them, they would look stupid. Nobody wants to give the gov't any more in taxes than they have to. If they are doing something illegal, let's see them brought up on charges.

 

[Cozarkian]

Not true at all, it costs me more money in gas to speed, not to mention potential safety issues.

Your speeding scenario presumes three possibilities:

1. Safest - everyone obeys speed limits
2. Safer - nobody obeys speed limits
3. Least safe - only those that support speed limits obey them.

That isn't the cases with taxes, because the Clinton's aren't exposed to additional harm if they choose to pay taxes that other wealthy individuals aren't. A better analogy, would be:

There should be a law prohibiting eating while driving, because it is dangerous. As long as no such law exists, I will choose to eat while I drive because it is convenient. Here, the road would be safer if you chose not to eat while driving even if other drivers continued to eat while driving. Thus, it is hypocritical for you to eat while driving.

Similarly, it is hypocritical for those that believe their tax bracket should pay higher taxes to claim allowable deductions and exemptions that enable them to pay less taxes than they believe they ought to owe.

I understand why they choose to be hypocrites, because they don't want to pay more if others aren't going to, but frankly, that is the mentality of a spoiled child who is more concerned with what is fair than what is right. You know, the classic "but so-and-so gets to do it" argument followed by the "if so-and-so jumped off a cliff, would you?" retort.

 

[nehalem256]

It's not hypocritical at all. You'd have to be retarded to pay more tax than you're legally required to. There's nothing wrong with saying, "hey, look what we're doing. You really should close this loophole" - I find that to be far more ethical than someone who sees it as being something that should be changed, but says nothing. And again, in either case, you'd have to be retarded not to use every possible loophole to limit your overall tax.

How is it any different than

Someone advocating for anti-sodomy laws while engaging in gay sex? After all you would be stupid not to engage in every form of legal sexual pleasure.

Someone advocating for ending slavery while owning slaves themselves? After all you would be stupid not to avail yourself to free labor.

Pretty sure in both cases such people would be called massive hypocrites.

 

[mrjminer]

They aren't circumventing the law, they are taking advantage of the law. There is a difference, one is illegal, the other is not.

Didn't know there was a difference; I meant working within a legal capacity to reap benefits the laws didn't take into consideration.