Wealthy Clintons Use Trusts to Limit Estate Tax They Back

[ivwshane]

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.

Actually they are exposed to additional harm by not taking advantage of loopholes others are using. After all money is speech and less money mean less speech, kind of important for people who dabble in the political scene.

 

[fskimospy]

Taxes are a collective action problem. It would be irrational to individually choose to pay more than you are legally obligated to pay.

He's been told this many times. He never gets it.

 

[fskimospy]

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?

If that "confused elderly widow" has an estate of more than $5.25 million (or $10.5 million with her husband), she or her late husband certainly had the means to hire someone to assist with competent estate planning.

My guess is that the average person doesn't consider the wealthiest 0.15% of estates to be representative of "the little guy". Your mileage may vary, haha.

 

[chucky2]

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.

I think I understand what's happened here. Your bad analogy aside, you're specifically referring to the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, and I'm talking in generalities. Yes, I understand Clinton accountants are going to take advantage of everything they can to get their clients the smallest tax liability. I expect the Clinton accountant(s) to do this, as I don't expect the political entity that is Clinton to do any different.

In general though, I am myself baffled how people who advocate for the Gov receiving more money through additional tax receipts and/or loophole reduction, and they themselves are affected by that policy, aren't simply ensuring they are writing the Gov a larger check than the legally owe - to ensure they are inline with their own policy and beliefs.

I think that should clear things up. If it doesn't, please explain where you are getting confused/feel I am wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

In general though, I am myself baffled how people who advocate for the Gov receiving more money through additional tax receipts and/or loophole reduction, and they themselves are affected by that policy, aren't simply ensuring they are writing the Gov a larger check than the legally owe - to ensure they are inline with their own policy and beliefs.

As has been explained to you many times, they don't support that for the same reason that people who support war with Iran do not engage in a personal, unilateral invasion of Iran in their spare time.

Once you understand that, you'll understand the tax issue. It's really simple if you apply yourself.

 

[chucky2]

He's been told this many times. He never gets it.

Yes, this excuse has been trotted out many times, and, each time, it was - and continues to be - not applicable. It very much reminds me of sky is falling AGW proponents, who then go on trips, polluting and consuming more energy on their unnnecessary trip than I do in a year. It is amazing the amount of hypocrisy that is excused...

 

[ivwshane]

This was explained to you already. Individual tax contributions don't do squat and mean nothing on their own, only collectively do they have any impact.

We are only talking about taxes, not any other "general" issues.

Taxes are a collective action problem. It would be irrational to individually choose to pay more than you are legally obligated to pay.

I think I understand what's happened here. Your bad analogy aside, you're specifically referring to the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, and I'm talking in generalities. Yes, I understand Clinton accountants are going to take advantage of everything they can to get their clients the smallest tax liability. I expect the Clinton accountant(s) to do this, as I don't expect the political entity that is Clinton to do any different.

In general though, I am myself baffled how people who advocate for the Gov receiving more money through additional tax receipts and/or loophole reduction, and they themselves are affected by that policy, aren't simply ensuring they are writing the Gov a larger check than the legally owe - to ensure they are inline with their own policy and beliefs.

I think that should clear things up. If it doesn't, please explain where you are getting confused/feel I am wrong.

 

[glenn1]

If that "confused elderly widow" has an estate of more than $5.25 million (or $10.5 million with her husband), she or her late husband certainly had the means to hire someone to assist with competent estate planning.

My guess is that the average person doesn't consider the wealthiest 0.15% of estates to be representative of "the little guy". Your mileage may vary, haha.

So is your opinion based upon the identity of the wealthy person involved? Today you seem fine with the Clintons taking these measures to pass wealth to Chelsea. In other threads and posts you've opposed this exact behavior. Are politicians you support "more equal than others"?

Back then it was:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31898438&postcount=19

I love how all the ultra capitalists on this site, those who most fervently believe in 'you make what you earn', are totally down with the perpetuation of wealth that allows vacuous and worthless people to sit on piles of money they never earned simply by virtue of who donated the sperm for them. I mean really, who were we to overthrow the monarchies? The Kings and Queens of old had amassed wealth legally, they are just passing it down to their children.

We also tax the transfer of assets in every other aspect of our society, in fact conservatives LOVE transaction taxes generally, just not when a transaction involves giving tens of millions of dollars to your kids..

Today it's

Threads like this baffle me. For some reason you think that if people support a tax they have to pay above and beyond what they are legally obligated to under that tax. Why?

 

[chucky2]

As has been explained to you many times, they don't support that for the same reason that people who support war with Iran do not engage in a personal, unilateral invasion of Iran in their spare time.

I had no idea that sending in more of your personal money to the Gov was the same as somehow traveling overseas and 'going to war with Iran'. I mean, one is writing a check to an entity you believe you need to pay more money to, and the other is attacking a country.

Once you understand that, you'll understand the tax issue. It's really simple if you apply yourself.

Hmmm...no, still don't understand it. Is it like AGW proponents blowing massive amounts of energy (that is, polluting) by going on unnessessary trips? Nick it out for me...

 

[fskimospy]

So is your opinion based upon the identity of the wealthy person involved? Today you seem fine with the Clintons taking these measures to pass wealth to Chelsea. In other threads and posts you've opposed this exact behavior. Are politicians you support "more equal than others"?


http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31898438&postcount=19

I'm not sure how you would possibly get that from what I wrote. I support the estate tax generally and would personally choose to expand it significantly. Until that day happens however, I have no problem with people acting personally within the law.

 

[Anarchist420]

no voter is going to care in 2016 as long as they get to keep the executive State. and this isnt going to effect the clintons in any way because it was proven a long-ass time ago that more voters would rather have the Executive State and the sense of security it gives them than to be ethical.

i mean, the clintons are just trying to be the head of the State and doing hypocritical selfish shit like they do is the easiest way to get there. in other words, you cant be head of State if you're honest and if you dont want to serve yourself. remember ron paul?

 

[shira]

OH!

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

Please let us all know if you want to continue debating the meaning of "hypocrisy." Or is this jump to a new topic (morality) tacit admission that you lost the previous debate?

 

[chucky2]

This was explained to you already. Individual tax contributions don't do squat and mean nothing on their own, only collectively do they have any impact.

We are only talking about taxes, not any other "general" issues.

The best part once you realize how insane this position is, is that if 40% of the country is in support of more money for the Gov, then they can simply donate that extra amount to the Gov individually, which all adds up to...

...the 'collective taxation'. Look at that, individuals engaging in the policy they feel individuals should be required to do, voluntarily, and having it add up to the impact they so desire (or, at least, a good long way towards it).

Amazing...

 

[fskimospy]

I had no idea that sending in more of your personal money to the Gov was the same as somehow traveling overseas and 'going to war with Iran'. I mean, one is writing a check to an entity you believe you need to pay more money to, and the other is attacking a country.

According to you if someone believes that taxes should be higher, they should unilaterally take action to provide government with that revenue despite no other individuals engaging in that action. To not do so is hypocritical.

Therefore by your logic if someone believes that Iran should be invaded by the United States they should unilaterally take action to invade Iran despite no other individuals engaging in that action. To not do so is hypocritical.

Your answer to the Iran hypothetical should be "but that would be really stupid and pointless." To which my answer would be: "Exactly." Apparently only liberals need to make useless dramatic gestures to support causes they believe in. Color me shocked at your double standard.

 

[glenn1]

The best part once you realize how insane this position is, is that if 40% of the country is in support of more money for the Gov, then they can simply donate that extra amount to the Gov individually, which all adds up to...

...the 'collective taxation'. Look at that, individuals engaging in the policy they feel individuals should be required to do, voluntarily, and having it add up to the impact they so desire (or, at least, a good long way towards it).

Amazing...

We've had this discussion too many times before. To progressives, increasing taxes are only a means to an ends of making some particular person pay, not just collecting revenue. That's why they say it's a "collective action problem" and they say their individual payments wouldn't matter.

 

[fskimospy]

We've had this discussion too many times before. To progressives, increasing taxes are only a means to an ends of making some particular person pay, not just collecting revenue. That's why they say it's a "collective action problem" and they say their individual payments wouldn't matter.

This is completely divorced from reality. If either of you guys took even a Public Policy 101 class they would tell you exactly what we're all trying to tell you.

There's a reason why taxes are compulsory.

 

[nehalem256]

Please let us all know if you want to continue debating the meaning of "hypocrisy." Or is this jump to a new topic (morality) tacit admission that you lost the previous debate?

I am not jumping to another topic. I was giving an example that should make clear that what they are doing is hypocrisy.

Someone advocating for the end of slavery while owning slaves at the same time. I think its pretty clear they would be called a hypocrite. When really they are just taking advantage of LEGAL cheap labor.

And apparently if you are LEGALLY able to do something then you cannot be a hypocrite for doing it.

 

[shira]

According to you if someone believes that taxes should be higher, they should unilaterally take action to provide government with that revenue despite no other individuals engaging in that action. To not do so is hypocritical.

Therefore by your logic if someone believes that Iran should be invaded by the United States they should unilaterally take action to invade Iran despite no other individuals engaging in that action. To not do so is hypocritical.

Your answer to the Iran hypothetical should be "but that would be really stupid and pointless." To which my answer would be: "Exactly." Apparently only liberals need to make useless dramatic gestures to support causes they believe in. Color me shocked at your double standard.

Conservatives continually make the same absurd argument: If you advocate that a law be changed, you're a hypocrite if you don't hold yourself to the strictures of the proposed law before the law takes effect.

Not only is that interpretation of the word "hypocrite" clearly incorrect, but to follow this right-wing principle (which they only pretend to believe) would be in many cases self-destructive. For example, a chemical company that advocated that the EPA enforce new, ultra-stringent anti-pollution standards against chemical companies would be committing financial suicide if it held itself to those standards before the new regulations went into effect, as the playing field wouldn't be level.

Would conservatives think that a runner was a hypocrite if he advocated that some new high-tech, friction-reducing running suit be outlawed but continued to use the high-tech suit while it was still legal, rather than competing at a huge disadvantage?

 

[glenn1]

This is completely divorced from reality. If either of you guys took even a Public Policy 101 class they would tell you exactly what we're all trying to tell you.

There's a reason why taxes are compulsory.

Yes, because progressives only want other people to pay them.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/daniel...n_did_not_pay_voluntary_higher_tax_rate_in_ma

 

[chucky2]

According to you if someone believes that taxes should be higher, they should unilaterally take action to provide government with that revenue despite no other individuals engaging in that action. To not do so is hypocritical.

Not quite. If they believe that the Gov needs more revenue, and that that extra revenue is going to come from increased taxation, and that they fall into the brackets/scheme which they believe needs to be enacted to get the Gov the extra money (via taxation), then absolutely, they should be making sure they meet what they feel their invidiual tax contribution should be.

Do they not feel that Gov needs that money? Do they not fall into the category they feel needs to pay more to get the Gov that extra money? I'm not sure why they need to wait for the Gov to mandate they pay that money...they feel the Gov needs it, they believe they should be providing it, and the Gov has a means for them to pay more than they legally need to pay. What is the problem here again?

Therefore by your logic if someone believes that Iran should be invaded by the United States they should unilaterally take action to invade Iran despite no other individuals engaging in that action. To not do so is hypocritical.

Well, that would hold true if somehow US citizens, sans the Military we already have, could write a check and say they attacked Iran. I mean, everything has a context, so I'm sorta having a hard time seeing how traveling halfway around the world to 'attack Iran' would actually contribute in any way to 'attacking Iran'. If one provides the Gov more than you legally needed to, absolutely the Gov gets more money. If enough people who believe in this do it, the Gov will have measurable tax receipt increase. Contrasting that to your 'attack Iran' analogy, if one tries to 'attack Iran' they will probably not make any dent in 'attacking Iran'. If one could somehow mass fly/ship all the people in favor of that over to Iran, which is basically the exact opposite of the ease of writing a check for the amount you feel you owe, I guess one could argue you could have some affect in the 'attack Iran' goal. Bad analogy is bad analogy...

Your answer to the Iran hypothetical should be "but that would be really stupid and pointless." To which my answer would be: "Exactly." Apparently only liberals need to make useless dramatic gestures to support causes they believe in. Color me shocked at your double standard.

Sorry, I can't Nick to that level. Could you perhaps come up with an analogy that actually has some kind of parity?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, because progressives only want other people to pay them.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/daniel...n_did_not_pay_voluntary_higher_tax_rate_in_ma

No, liberals want everyone to pay them.

Of course Warren didn't pay voluntary higher tax rates. Again I will ask you to visit a public policy 101 class. There is a reason why taxes are compulsory.

 

[nehalem256]

Conservatives continually make the same absurd argument: If you advocate that a law be changed, you're a hypocrite if you don't hold yourself to the strictures of the proposed law before the law takes effect.

Not only is that interpretation of the word "hypocrite" clearly incorrect, but to follow this right-wing principle (which they only pretend to believe) would be in many cases self-destructive. For example, a chemical company that advocated that the EPA enforce new, ultra-stringent anti-pollution standards against chemical companies would be committing financial suicide if it held itself to those standards before the new regulations went into effect, as the playing field wouldn't be level.

Would conservatives think that a runner was a hypocrite if he advocated that some new high-tech, friction-reducing running suit be outlawed but continued to use the high-tech suit while it was still legal, rather than competing at a huge disadvantage?

How exactly will the Clinton's be at a disadvantage if they don't take advantage of every tax loophole available to them?

And in fact I think you will find that there are many businesses that do in fact try and act morally even though the law does not require it.

Maybe the problem is that liberals are unable to act in a moral fashion unless the government is putting a "metaphorical" gun to their head to compel more action?

 

[nehalem256]

No, liberals want everyone to pay them.

Of course Warren didn't pay voluntary higher tax rates. Again I will ask you to visit a public policy 101 class. There is a reason why taxes are compulsory.

Because liberals like spending OTHER people's money

 

[chucky2]

Would conservatives think that a runner was a hypocrite if he advocated that some new high-tech, friction-reducing running suit be outlawed but continued to use the high-tech suit while it was still legal, rather than competing at a huge disadvantage?

No, because he's competing against people who aren't going to follow what he feels should be the rule. How is paying what you feel you really think the Gov needs competing against someone? Are you in race with your neighbor to pay taxes? This is like another analogy that doesn't apply... :'(

 

[fskimospy]

Not quite. If they believe that the Gov needs more revenue, and that that extra revenue is going to come from increased taxation, and that they fall into the brackets/scheme which they believe needs to be enacted to get the Gov the extra money (via taxation), then absolutely, they should be making sure they meet what they feel their invidiual tax contribution should be.

Do they not feel that Gov needs that money? Do they not fall into the category they feel needs to pay more to get the Gov that extra money? I'm not sure why they need to wait for the Gov to mandate they pay that money...they feel the Gov needs it, they believe they should be providing it, and the Gov has a means for them to pay more than they legally need to pay. What is the problem here again?

That taxation is a collective action problem.

Well, that would hold true if somehow US citizens, sans the Military we already have, could write a check and say they attacked Iran. I mean, everything has a context, so I'm sorta having a hard time seeing how traveling halfway around the world to 'attack Iran' would actually contribute in any way to 'attacking Iran'. If one provides the Gov more than you legally needed to, absolutely the Gov gets more money. If enough people who believe in this do it, the Gov will have measurable tax receipt increase. Contrasting that to your 'attack Iran' analogy, if one tries to 'attack Iran' they will probably not make any dent in 'attacking Iran'. If one could somehow mass fly/ship all the people in favor of that over to Iran, which is basically the exact opposite of the ease of writing a check for the amount you feel you owe, I guess one could argue you could have some affect in the 'attack Iran' goal. Bad analogy is bad analogy...

And here come the contortions and the spinning! How is it at all complicated to understand how an individual attacking Iran contributes to attacking Iran? It is a simple truism, it literally must be true.

It's interesting to watch all the caveats start pouring out of you though.

Sorry, I can't Nick to that level. Could you perhaps come up with an analogy that actually has some kind of parity?

Ahhhhh, so now your contribution needs to rise to a certain level before you should start unilaterally enforcing preferred political positions on yourself. How amazingly and unsurprisingly convenient.

You're a hypocrite and you're desperately trying to get away from acknowledging the obvious implications of your own statements.