I don't care for estate taxes. The government has no business dipping its finger into wealth passed between generations. I understand the mentality behind it, but I think there are better ways to control runaway wealth than to confiscate a dead person's money.
Today's debate echoes that of the nation's founders in another, more profound way. Does allowing a small number of families to accumulate great wealth -- increasing from generation to generation -- harm democracy? The United States Constitution's ban on inherited titles met with unanimous approval because of the perceived threat posed by lords and earls to a democratic republic. Similarly, Americans have always understood that establishing a small group of families with seemingly unlimited wealth, social privilege, and political power undermines a fundamental American principle: that all citizens are legally and politically equal. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/134453#sthash.APHKPkmB.dpuf
Does it actually tax the money rich people make or is it simply another feel good tax that rich people can or already do avoid?
Except inherited wealth has already been taxed while productivity hasn't. So you are double taxing it.But they'll have less money to buy politicians.
Edit: To be perfectly serious, I'd rather see higher estate taxes and lower income taxes than the reverse; taxing inherited wealth before taxing productivity.
Except inherited wealth has already been taxed while productivity hasn't. So you are double taxing it.
Did you even read the thread? A specific example was given where this is not the case.
Works for me.Except inherited wealth has already been taxed while productivity hasn't. So you are double taxing it.
I think he's saying that it originally had to be taxed as income even if it was invested and created a capital gain since.
Simply the frickin tax code and get rid of loopholes. Done.
Capital gains tax automatically kicks in from the sale of certain valuable properties, such as shares, and acts as a deterrent on investors cashing them in. Obviously, though, a number of rich people are interested in avoiding this and have found legal loopholes to allow them to do so.
One cunning way of dodging capital gains tax is by borrowing from an investment bank with the shares as collateral after purchasing options, which set their price at a fixed rate.
This sneaky option allows the borrower to avoid triggering the capital gains tax that would come with actually having the money at hand, while giving them the free cash and allowing them to repay the loan either from the profits of using the money or by handing over the shares themselves. Talk about making your money work for you.
Facebook reported $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits in 2012, but paid zero federal and state taxes while receiving a federal tax refund of around $429 million.
The reason is that the company took a multi-billion dollar tax deduction for the cost of executive stock options and share awards following their IPO.
A line in the tax code allows a depreciation schedule of five years for private jets instead of seven, the standard for the rest of the airline industry.
Depreciation is an income tax deduction that allows taxpayers to recover the cost of buying the jet. This means that private jet owners can write off their expenses faster (in five years) and make back the money for the jet in less time.
The tax code permits yacht owners to claim a boat as a second home, provided it has sleeping quarters, a kitchen, a bathroom, and that the owner sleeps on the vessel at least twice a year.
This means that just as homeowners do yacht owners may deduct the interest on their yacht's mortgage from their taxes.
Accelerated depreciation accounted for $76 billion in revenue loss in 2011, the most of any corporate tax break, according to the Government Accountability Office.
When companies invest in state and municipal bonds, they are exempt from taxes on the interest they earn from those bonds. This is one corporate tax break that individuals can take advantage of as well, though it largely benefits the wealthy. As a result of the loophole, the government has lost $58 billion over the past five years, according to the Fiscal Times.
This trick is based on the fairly simple idea that if taxes are high in one location, you can gain an advantage by registering your location as being somewhere else instead.
Its been a significant asset to corporations, but a number of celebrities have also taken advantage of global travel and relocation to avoid paying income tax. U2, David Bowie and The Rolling Stones are just a few of the names that have dodged the taxman by spending time abroad. It isnt even a big disadvantage; in practice, residents can usually return to their country at a later date, or on visits.
A shell company is a type of company that only exists on paper, allowing the person who uses it to funnel money through it and avoid paying taxes. Typically, this type of corporation has a legal existence but provides few or no actual products or services.
One classic way of using these companies is buying and selling through them, which means that the owner does not need to report international operations conducted through the shell company and will be able to avoid any taxes on the profits.
An equity swap is another shady method of tax evasion. Basically, its an official agreement that allows two parties (say, two rich individuals or companies with in interest in reducing their taxes) to exchange the gain and loss of a set of assets without actually transferring ownership.
One of these swaps is generally pegged to a fixed rate, like LIBOR, which means that the participants can expect a fixed return, either in one payment or at several predetermined points.
This exchange of value allows the parties to avoid transaction costs and, in some cases, local taxes pegged to certain locations.
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?
I'd rather a dead rich man's money be burned than taxed and given to the poor. Recipients of redistribution are far more undeserving than any Paris Hilton type heir.
Simply the frickin tax code and get rid of loopholes. Done.
The corporations bought the politicians to complicate it. They aren't going to change it.
You think that because someone mislead you into thinking the poor spend it on booze and drugs. Until you fix that fallacy, you'll be laughed at here (and elsewhere).
The estate tax affects about 1 out of 700 estates and even then averages only about 14% tax. It isn't the big of a deal that you are making out to be. Paris Hilton will still be fabulously wealthy if her relatives want her to be, estate tax or not. But at least we can afford to pay for the military.
He's also using the straw man that proceeds would be redistributed to the poor when, in fact, the majority of discretionary spending goes to the military.
I often wonder Democrats don't call Republicans out on this particular bullshit of theirs more often. Mandatory spending items like Social Security and Medicare are funded by a flat payroll tax. The income, corporate, and estate taxes go towards discretionary spending, where welfare and food stamps are relative peanuts compared to what we're spending on defense.
Democrats, in general, aren't good at playing politics. You can see this happening right now with the democrat presidential candidates, especially hillary and her attempt at going after Bernie. She's horrible at it.
My guess is it's because democrats aren't as emotional as the right and are therefore not good at playing emotional politics (compare dems emotional appeal regarding gun control to that of republicans and their appeal to voter ID laws).
I'm sure moonie could chime in
He's also using the straw man that the proceeds would be redistributed to the poor when, in fact, the majority of discretionary spending goes to the military.
I often wonder why Democrats don't call Republicans out on this particular bullshit of theirs more often. Mandatory spending items like Social Security and Medicare are funded by a flat payroll tax. The income, corporate, and estate taxes go towards discretionary spending, where welfare and food stamps are relative peanuts compared to what we're spending on defense.
Ohh please, if they were half as incompetent as you are implying, they wouldn't even be able to dress themselves in the morning.Democrats, in general, aren't good at playing politics. You can see this happening right now with the democrat presidential candidates, especially hillary and her attempt at going after Bernie. She's horrible at it.
My guess is it's because democrats aren't as emotional as the right and are therefore not good at playing emotional politics (compare dems emotional appeal regarding gun control to that of republicans and their appeal to voter ID laws).
I'm sure moonie could chime in
Because they're on the same team..... It's not that hard to understand!
Ohh please, if they were half as incompetent as you are implying, they wouldn't even be able to dress themselves in the morning.
How many decades have you been saying "well shucks, they just aint nogood at politicking!"?
IMO it has to do with the fact that the big defense contractors maintain a major employment center in virtually every Congressional district. It makes it difficult for politicians to call for defense cuts when that might mean layoffs among their constituency. Even Bernie is reluctant to speak out on this. Otherwise, there'd be less speculation on how the US would be able to afford his "free stuff."Because they're on the same team..... It's not that hard to understand!
Bill Clinton was a legendary bullshitter. Heck, if anything he started the large shift of the democrats to the right.
Obama, now he ran his whole first campaign on emotion! He lied, and convinced everyone he was a progressive that was all about hope and change. He had people so convinced he got the peace prize for nothing, and then bombed brown people for profit anyways. Hell, he still gives those same progressive speeches while he signs shit like the TPP.
Bill Clinton was a legendary bullshitter. Heck, if anything he started the large shift of the democrats to the right.
Obama, now he ran his whole first campaign on emotion! He lied, and convinced everyone he was a progressive that was all about hope and change. He had people so convinced he got the peace prize for nothing, and then bombed brown people for profit anyways. Hell, he still gives those same progressive speeches while he signs shit like the TPP.
It's easy to dismiss someone or something by calling the responsible parties stupid or incompetent, but you also dismiss the plethora of other possible solutions.
Yeah? Then why hasn't there been any meaningful Gun control laws despite an overwhelming number of Americans supporting it? Why has minimum wage only been raised once during Obamas presidency despite the past three presidents being able to get it done twice each and despite overwhelming public support for it?