Trump the Emperor!!!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Actually they've paid a lot more than just twice..
The Company paid on it when THEY earned it (as well as then paid out in payroll taxes when they paid their employees).
The Employee paid on it as income.
THEN He paid taxes on the interest it earned.
So why should His kids have to pay taxes YET AGAIN when they inherit it??

You stupid SOB....

There is a over 10 million dollar exemption for folks of whom you speak , the Estate tax is for people such as these below... You fucking Monkeys need to do some research. This tax cut is about the wealthy. Oh it makes some assumptions that the middle class will get a tax cut but it gives the wealthy tax cuts from jump street. The middle class tax cuts are supposed to trickle down!

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...ral-estate-tax


Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.
Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.[13]These unrealized capital gains account for a significant proportion of the assets held by estates — ranging from 32 percent for estates worth between $5 million and $10 million to as much as about 55 percent of the value of estates worth more than $100 million.[14] (See Figure 4.)
The estate tax also serves as a modest corrective to other tax rules that provide massive tax benefits to income from wealth, such as the fact that capital gains are taxed at lower rates than wages and salaries. The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — those with incomes above $3.1 million — will receive 56 percent of the benefit of the preferential capital gains rates in 2017, worth more than $600,000 apiece.[15] Other tax rules allow part of the income of the very wealthiest to go completely untaxed, even with the estate tax.[16]
Since the estate tax serves, in part, to tax capital gains that have not otherwise been taxed, some people have proposed taxing estates at the top capital gains rate, currently 23.8 percent. This argument is flawed: the capital gains tax rates typically apply to nearly all capital gains income, whereas the estate tax applies only to the part of an estate that exceeds the exemption level. (The estate tax’s average effective rate of 17 percent in 2017 is below the capital gains rate.)

[lustylad]

Wow, lookee at that... snitchfuck does his "research" at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Who woulda thunk it? Did Paul Krugman steer you to his favorite "think tank"?

If I buy an asset, whether stock or real estate or gold or art, I pay for it out of income that has already been taxed. So it's not true to say without an estate tax my wealth would otherwise go entirely untaxed upon my death, since I initially purchased my assets with after-tax dollars. And if I borrowed to buy some of the assets, I paid interest and took more risk.

You also ignore the fact that most states impose an estate tax starting at $0 - the first $10 million is only exempt from Federal levies.

The last paragraph in your quote is bullshit - there is no reason we couldn't tax estates at (the lower) capital gain rates instead of whacking them for 40% of every dollar over $10 million. Keep the first $10 million exempt and everyone would pay less. The CBPP only calls the idea "flawed" because it wants to punish the rich as much as possible.

And you don't even mention how disruptive estate taxes can be for family farms and small businesses, which often have to be sold (instead of kept in the family) or hocked in order to pay the taxes.

Now... what were you warning us about again? Something about "fucking Monkeys"?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Trey

The countries go the extra mile to keep the fool entertained while they fuck him in the ass. He is a easy man to read. Just being played by all the other leaders. But like him trumpers think thats great. While China and Russia just keep telling you what hand to look at.

You'd be the jackass that backed jackasses, jackass.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You also ignore the fact that most states impose an estate tax starting at $0 - the first $10 million is only exempt from Federal levies.

Correction - 20 states have an estate tax, the other 30 have none.

https://taxfoundation.org/does-your-...heritance-tax/

Also, snitchy forget to mention the federal estate tax exemption (currently $10.9 million) applies only to married couples - for single losers like him, it's only half of that amount ($5.45 million).

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wow, lookee at that... snitchfuck does his "research" at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Who woulda thunk it? Did Paul Krugman steer you to his favorite "think tank"?

I notice you did not dispute the numbers, just the source. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

If I buy an asset, whether stock or real estate or gold or art, I pay for it out of income that has already been taxed. So it's not true to say without an estate tax my wealth would otherwise go entirely untaxed upon my death, since I initially purchased my assets with after-tax dollars. And if I borrowed to buy some of the assets, I paid interest and took more risk.

Nobody said that your wealth (I doubt your wealth would be able to feed a park full of pigeons longer than a month) would go untaxed.

So you are now just flat out lying.

You also ignore the fact that most states impose an estate tax starting at $0 - the first $10 million is only exempt from Federal levies.

Well you do realize that that is what the GOP wants to ignore in their new tax revamp? Right? High tax states will not longer get to use that against their Fed Taxes.

So now you are worried about those taxes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm You do realize that people can move from those so called high tax states.

The last paragraph in your quote is bullshit - there is no reason we couldn't tax estates at (the lower) capital gain rates instead of whacking them for 40% of every dollar over $10 million. Keep the first $10 million exempt and everyone would pay less. The CBPP only calls the idea "flawed" because it wants to punish the rich as much as possible.

That is another lie. Everything over 10 million is not taxed at 40% there are a shit load of loop holes.
We have a huge debt....not taxing massive estates that have taken advantage of the best tax preparers in the land is not socking the rich. It is an attempt a fairness.


And you don't even mention how disruptive estate taxes can be for family farms and small businesses, which often have to be sold (instead of kept in the family) or hocked in order to pay the taxes.

That is another fucking lie....did you not read the link? Very rarely happens.

Now... what were you warning us about again? Something about "fucking Monkeys"?

Bestiality ain't my thing dicklips, lying dicklips actually.... but if you want to go swap bananas with your favorite Monkey don't let me get in your way.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Correction - 20 states have an estate tax, the other 30 have none.

https://taxfoundation.org/does-your-...heritance-tax/

Also, snitchy forget to mention the federal estate tax exemption (currently $10.9 million) applies only to married couples - for single losers like him, it's only half of that amount ($5.45 million).

That's right. At least now you are doing some research instead of talking out your Monkey Ass...

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Bestiality ain't my thing dicklips, lying dicklips actually.... but if you want to go swap bananas with your favorite Monkey don't let me get in your way.

Shall we start calling you Tomasky from now on?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...d-immoral/amp/

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Also, snitchy forget to mention... for single losers like him...

Originally Posted by WTF

That's right I am a fucking loser!

Glad we can agree!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bambino

Shall we start calling you Tomasky from now on?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...d-immoral/amp/

+1

Very well written. Reposted below. Snitchy never made it to the 10th Commandment. Once he heard the 9th Commandment, he was too distracted with coveting thy neighbor's wife.


"Michael Tomasky wrote a severely misguided column for The Daily Beast this week in which he not only argued in favor of wealth and estate taxes, but even declared such taxes moral. He advanced four arguments to support this position: that heirs don’t deserve great wealth, that society helped make such achievements possible and therefore deserves a share of the wealthy’s riches, that wealth taxes do not reduce incentives to entrepreneurship, and that the estate tax only applies to a tiny number of people. Let me rebut each of these arguments in turn.

It is easy to say that heirs don’t deserve great wealth, but in order to turn such a sentiment into a law one must make an arbitrary judgment on what denotes “great” or excessive wealth. Mr. Tomasky makes clear that he means for the limit to inheritances to be above $1 million, but after that he remains vague.

Yet, if some inheritance is morally acceptable than society has no way to draw a line on where acceptable ends and immorally inherited wealth begins. The fact that declaring any inheritance above some limit to be immoral involves such an arbitrary line is a hint that drawing such a line is the faulty part of the process. Who among us is entitled to choose how much is okay to inherit?

After all, if it is my property to dispose of as I see fit while I am alive, how does the property become society’s at the moment of my death? Clearly, there is a very small step from believing that estate taxes are moral to believing the same about all wealth taxes. Why wait for rich people to die? Let’s take their money from them now. After all, our lives would all be improved if we could divide up Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett’s billions.

We don’t do this because we each have a right to our property and there is no limit beyond which society can suddenly decide we have lost that right.

This brings us to Mr. Tomasky’s related point that society helped the rich acquire their wealth, so society deserves a (large) share of it back upon their death. Even if we stipulate to his highly questionable assumption that the wealthy were helped by and therefore owe a payment to society, wouldn’t all the income taxes they paid while earning their riches count as the repayment? With the highest earners in America paying total tax rates approaching or even exceeding 50 percent of their income and with the top 1 percent of income earners paying nearly 40 percent of all income taxes, I think we can make a better case for the rich having paid any obligation back than we can for them still owing society anything.

Moving on to his argument about incentives, Mr. Tomasky here fell into a common fallacy. He correctly points out that we have a current system of progressive income taxes and had a highly punitive estate tax until recently, yet people still invented, innovated, and got rich with those taxes in place. He jumps from this observation to the conclusion that such taxes must not destroy the incentive to entrepreneurship. His mistake is that while it is true that some people still took the risks and succeeded, we have no way of knowing how many other people were discouraged from doing the same and are therefore not observed.

High income and wealth taxes surely discouraged some people from taking actions to earn more money and accumulate more wealth. The extent of this lost innovation and creativity cannot be measured because it never happened. We can attempt to measure the negative impact of such taxes, but cannot extrapolate the impacts beyond the range of our data (meaning the lowest tax rates observed).

Finally, the absolutely worst part of his argument is that the newly modified estate tax with a roughly $10 million exemption per family means we are only seizing wealth from a tiny number of people. I cannot imagine any religion or system of ethics that says harmful actions become moral if you only do them to a few people. It is not okay to murder people in small numbers and it is not okay to seize wealth from rich people if you only do it to a few of them.

Ethics and morality are not changeable based on situation or scale. It is not wrong to discriminate against a large group of people but okay if you only discriminate against a few. The same logic applies here. The number of people being mistreated is irrelevant when you are talking morality.

Michael Tomasky is free to favor higher estate taxes with lower exemptions or even to argue in favor of seizing all property from the wealthy. After all, communism is seizing all property from everyone. However, where he goes wrong is in trying to cloak his political argument in morality. The tenth commandment is thou shall not covet, which should be a hint that arguments in favor of seizing the property of others cannot be made on the basis of morality."

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well you do realize that that is what the GOP wants to ignore in their new tax revamp? Right? High tax states will not (sic) longer get to use that against their Fed Taxes.

So now you are worried about those taxes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm You do realize that people can move from those so called high tax states.

Now you're talking about state income taxes, not state inheritance taxes. The GOP doesn't want to "ignore" them, it just wants to stop subsidizing high-tax states like New York and Cali! Once libtards in those states figure out they can't deduct those levies on their federal returns anymore, they may actually start screaming at their libtard pols to stop raising those taxes all the time!

And yes, I'm completely in favor of people moving from high-tax states to low-tax ones! It's called voting with your feet! The more they move to Texas, the more new hovels you can build!

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

+1

Very well written. Reposted below. Snitchy never made it to the 10th Commandment. Once he heard the 9th Commandment, he was too distracted with coveting thy neighbor's wife.


"Michael Tomasky wrote a severely misguided column for The Daily Beast this week in which he not only argued in favor of wealth and estate taxes, but even declared such taxes moral. He advanced four arguments to support this position: that heirs don’t deserve great wealth, that society helped make such achievements possible and therefore deserves a share of the wealthy’s riches, that wealth taxes do not reduce incentives to entrepreneurship, and that the estate tax only applies to a tiny number of people. Let me rebut each of these arguments in turn.

It is easy to say that heirs don’t deserve great wealth, but in order to turn such a sentiment into a law one must make an arbitrary judgment on what denotes “great” or excessive wealth. Mr. Tomasky makes clear that he means for the limit to inheritances to be above $1 million, but after that he remains vague.

Yet, if some inheritance is morally acceptable than society has no way to draw a line on where acceptable ends and immorally inherited wealth begins. The fact that declaring any inheritance above some limit to be immoral involves such an arbitrary line is a hint that drawing such a line is the faulty part of the process. Who among us is entitled to choose how much is okay to inherit?

After all, if it is my property to dispose of as I see fit while I am alive, how does the property become society’s at the moment of my death? Clearly, there is a very small step from believing that estate taxes are moral to believing the same about all wealth taxes. Why wait for rich people to die? Let’s take their money from them now. After all, our lives would all be improved if we could divide up Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett’s billions.

We don’t do this because we each have a right to our property and there is no limit beyond which society can suddenly decide we have lost that right.

This brings us to Mr. Tomasky’s related point that society helped the rich acquire their wealth, so society deserves a (large) share of it back upon their death. Even if we stipulate to his highly questionable assumption that the wealthy were helped by and therefore owe a payment to society, wouldn’t all the income taxes they paid while earning their riches count as the repayment? With the highest earners in America paying total tax rates approaching or even exceeding 50 percent of their income and with the top 1 percent of income earners paying nearly 40 percent of all income taxes, I think we can make a better case for the rich having paid any obligation back than we can for them still owing society anything.

Moving on to his argument about incentives, Mr. Tomasky here fell into a common fallacy. He correctly points out that we have a current system of progressive income taxes and had a highly punitive estate tax until recently, yet people still invented, innovated, and got rich with those taxes in place. He jumps from this observation to the conclusion that such taxes must not destroy the incentive to entrepreneurship. His mistake is that while it is true that some people still took the risks and succeeded, we have no way of knowing how many other people were discouraged from doing the same and are therefore not observed.

High income and wealth taxes surely discouraged some people from taking actions to earn more money and accumulate more wealth. The extent of this lost innovation and creativity cannot be measured because it never happened. We can attempt to measure the negative impact of such taxes, but cannot extrapolate the impacts beyond the range of our data (meaning the lowest tax rates observed).

Finally, the absolutely worst part of his argument is that the newly modified estate tax with a roughly $10 million exemption per family means we are only seizing wealth from a tiny number of people. I cannot imagine any religion or system of ethics that says harmful actions become moral if you only do them to a few people. It is not okay to murder people in small numbers and it is not okay to seize wealth from rich people if you only do it to a few of them.

Ethics and morality are not changeable based on situation or scale. It is not wrong to discriminate against a large group of people but okay if you only discriminate against a few. The same logic applies here. The number of people being mistreated is irrelevant when you are talking morality.

Michael Tomasky is free to favor higher estate taxes with lower exemptions or even to argue in favor of seizing all property from the wealthy. After all, communism is seizing all property from everyone. However, where he goes wrong is in trying to cloak his political argument in morality. The tenth commandment is thou shall not covet, which should be a hint that arguments in favor of seizing the property of others cannot be made on the basis of morality."

I think Snitchy was coveting his neighbor’s husband!!!

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I beg to differ: It's "We, the People"!

What "We the people"?? Do you mean all the 'gimmie' crowd on the left?

Originally Posted by lustylad

If I buy an asset, whether stock or real estate or gold or art, I pay for it out of income that has already been taxed. So it's not true to say without an estate tax my wealth would otherwise go entirely untaxed upon my death, since I initially purchased my assets with after-tax dollars. And if I borrowed to buy some of the assets, I paid interest and took more risk.

Just like say someone who creates a company does.. He pays taxes on everything his company did. His employees paid taxes on wht they earned..

Originally Posted by lustylad

You also ignore the fact that most states impose an estate tax starting at $0 - the first $10 million is only exempt from Federal levies.

And its those state taxes that can be killers imo.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

+1

Very well written. Reposted below. Snitchy never made it to the 10th Commandment. Once he heard the 9th Commandment, he was too distracted with coveting thy neighbor's wife.


"Michael Tomasky wrote a severely misguided column for The Daily Beast this week in which he not only argued in favor of wealth and estate taxes, but even declared such taxes moral. He advanced four arguments to support this position: that heirs don’t deserve great wealth, that society helped make such achievements possible and therefore deserves a share of the wealthy’s riches, that wealth taxes do not reduce incentives to entrepreneurship, and that the estate tax only applies to a tiny number of people. Let me rebut each of these arguments in turn.

It is easy to say that heirs don’t deserve great wealth, but in order to turn such a sentiment into a law one must make an arbitrary judgment on what denotes “great” or excessive wealth. Mr. Tomasky makes clear that he means for the limit to inheritances to be above $1 million, but after that he remains vague.

Yet, if some inheritance is morally acceptable than society has no way to draw a line on where acceptable ends and immorally inherited wealth begins. The fact that declaring any inheritance above some limit to be immoral involves such an arbitrary line is a hint that drawing such a line is the faulty part of the process. Who among us is entitled to choose how much is okay to inherit?

Who among us does not understand we pick lines concerning taxes all the time. In fact we have regressive taxes. This is a progressive tax. The above argument has no legs. Either tax all or none? If that was the case then close all loopholes that help the rich. Jesus.


After all, if it is my property to dispose of as I see fit while I am alive, how does the property become society’s at the moment of my death? Clearly, there is a very small step from believing that estate taxes are moral to believing the same about all wealth taxes. Why wait for rich people to die? Let’s take their money from them now. After all, our lives would all be improved if we could divide up Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett’s billions.

We don’t do this because we each have a right to our property and there is no limit beyond which society can suddenly decide we have lost that right.

The point is Death. You no longer have a right to your property at Death. I mean you are fucking dead. If you give away your estate before death....you are subject to the Gift Tax.
Fucking Henry the VIII would still own property if you assholes had your way. '


This brings us to Mr. Tomasky’s related point that society helped the rich acquire their wealth, so society deserves a (large) share of it back upon their death. Even if we stipulate to his highly questionable assumption that the wealthy were helped by and therefore owe a payment to society, wouldn’t all the income taxes they paid while earning their riches count as the repayment? With the highest earners in America paying total tax rates approaching or even exceeding 50 percent of their income and with the top 1 percent of income earners paying nearly 40 percent of all income taxes, I think we can make a better case for the rich having paid any obligation back than we can for them still owing society anything.

That wholly discounts the regressive taxes and btw, the wealthy have much more political access than the average worker. If the country has piled up massive debt because of policies that have benefitted the wealthy , then at DEATH let us at least make and attempt tp have our kids start close together and not saddled with massive debt the generation before piled up via massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

Moving on to his argument about incentives, Mr. Tomasky here fell into a common fallacy. He correctly points out that we have a current system of progressive income taxes and had a highly punitive estate tax until recently, yet people still invented, innovated, and got rich with those taxes in place. He jumps from this observation to the conclusion that such taxes must not destroy the incentive to entrepreneurship. His mistake is that while it is true that some people still took the risks and succeeded, we have no way of knowing how many other people were discouraged from doing the same and are therefore not observed.

What would be observed is more millionaires and less billionaires. Now your dumbass might think that a bad thing but tell that to all the Mom n Pop businesses run out by the box cutter conglomerates who dominate the tax debate as seen now. They are the ones writing the new tax Bill !







Michael Tomasky is free to favor higher estate taxes with lower exemptions or even to argue in trying to cloak his political argument in morality. The tenth commandment is thou shall not covet, which should be a hint that arguments in favor of seizing the property of others cannot be made on the basis of morality."

Paying down our National Debt is now a bad thing? You do realize that taxes is how we wind up with roads and airports with which to move commerce to sale. If the present generation did not tax properly in their lifetime....maybe they should do so in their Death.

Maybe Congress instead to trying to figure out how the wealthy can keep more money , they'd figure out a way to spend less and reduce out National Debt.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Paying down our National Debt is now a bad thing? You do realize that taxes is how we wind up with roads and airports with which to move commerce to sale. If the present generation did not tax properly in their lifetime....maybe they should do so in their Death.

Maybe Congress instead to trying to figure out how the wealthy can keep more money , they'd figure out a way to spend less and reduce out National Debt.

The “wealthy” pay most of the taxes in this country.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by bambino

The “wealthy” pay most of the taxes in this country.

Yup. I forgot what % it is, but iirc the top 10% of the earners, pay somewhere around 65% of the overall TAXES taken in by the fed. AND THE BOTTOM 51% of earners, PAY NOTHING In income taxes, after all the deductions/tax credits they get.