New tax plan another white privilege? According to Newsweek it is.

[edjr 5,547]

I think he's kidding. I hope.

 

 

I consider beer a friend, a better friend than mobb (obviously)

 

he knew I was kidding

[Gladiators 1,903]

 

 

I consider beer a friend, a better friend than mobb (obviously)

 

he knew I was kidding

 

[Reality 2,710]

It's pretty sad that we have gotten to a point in society where a large amount of people think it is a bad idea for citizens to keep more of their own money.

 

Sickening really.

[Gladiators 1,903]

I don't want to know the % of people that would rather have everything go to the government so they can dictate who gets what...I bet the % was be scary.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I don't want to know the % of people that would rather have everything go to the government so they can dictate who gets what...I bet the % was be scary.

It's a huge percentage of those who don't think they can produce anything on their own - and that's a whole lot of people.

[MTSkiBum 1,593]

It's pretty sad that we have gotten to a point in society where a large amount of people think it is a bad idea for citizens to keep more of their own money.

 

Sickening really.

 

The alternative is to go further into debt. We need to keep taxes the way they are and cut spending across the board.

[IMMensaMind 459]

The alternative is to go further into debt. We need to keep taxes the way they are and cut spending across the board.

Would you love a better alternative?

[Reality 2,710]

 

The alternative is to go further into debt. We need to keep taxes the way they are and cut spending across the board.

 

The deficit was doubled under Obama's presidency, the money coming in wasn't the issue.

[MTSkiBum 1,593]

 

The deficit was doubled under Obama's presidency, the money coming in wasn't the issue.

I agree completely.

[parrot 789]

Oh also with my 401k I'm working my @ss off and maxing that out. Depending on rate of return with my paid off house and that... I COULD be over the 5.4 mil limit when I croak.

 

I want to give my kids houses.. my grandkids free college. Why the fock is it the gov's right to take that sh!t from my fam when I die? Tax my grandkids and kids with the money I worked forever for to be "income", when I've paid 25-28% taxes just earning it?

Your 401k is a tax-deferred savings account. You haven't paid 28% on it, you haven't paid 25% on it, you haven't paid anything on it, that's why it's "tax-deferred". Also, if you're married, your wife also gets a $5.4 million exclusion, so you're looking at more like an $11 million threshold, and estate tax is only amounts OVER that. This tax literally only affects a fraction of the top 1%.

[parrot 789]

It's focked to think lowering taxes on what has already been taxed is a bad idea.

 

 

Except a sizeable portion of estates of this size tend to consist of unrealized capital gains, which means they have never been taxed. And when property is inherited it gets a step-up in cost-basis to Fair Market Value. Which means they will never BE taxed.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I agree completely.

I guess you don't want a better alternative.

 

Like figuring out how economics works, and realizing that stimulating economic activity by allowing people to keep more of what they earn incentivizes that sort of productivity, enhancing vertical growth as well as creating horizontal growth.

 

Read: guys who get breaks to own jets own more jets, and hire more people to fly them. That means - suddenly - that someone who may not have had the opportunity to increase their station by becoming a full-time private pilot now can, and - suddenly - the Treasury receives additional revenue from this newly created producer.

 

Now multiply such examples of horizontal growth millions of times over across the country, and you then realize why - even though the percentage the Government collects from each person is down, two other things happen:

 

1. The amount they earn increases, so the Government's net take may in fact increase on this multiple alone;

 

2. The amount they spend/invest increases, leading to things like that pilot, and the Government collects from new sources.

 

This is inarguable.

 

If you know economics.

[mmmmm...beer 691]

Your 401k is a tax-deferred savings account. You haven't paid 28% on it, you haven't paid 25% on it, you haven't paid anything on it, that's why it's "tax-deferred". Also, if you're married, your wife also gets a $5.4 million exclusion, so you're looking at more like an $11 million threshold, and estate tax is only amounts OVER that. This tax literally only affects a fraction of the top 1%.

100% Roth my friend...

 

Hrrmm... 11 million huh.. so yeah.. fock those guys who make money!

[IMMensaMind 459]

Except a sizeable portion of estates of this size tend to consist of unrealized capital gains, which means they have never been taxed.

 

And when property is inherited it gets a step-up in cost-basis to Fair Market Value. Which means they will never BE taxed.

I'm assuming your speaking of the portion of estates which is comprised of actual real estate? Or tax-deferred investments like Roth IRAs?

 

If that is right, how does stepping up to contemporary fair market value matter? The point is preventing families from having to sell family property (like farms, a key representation of what you're saying).

 

Either way, the property is like any other property: taxed when sold. When the family decides it wants to sell.

 

Not when someone dies, and is forced to sell in order for the Government to collect its pound of undeserving indentured flesh.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

I don't care for the current crop of uber rich people. I think they are the worst overlords in history. At least the Robber Barons left something behind. So, purely on a distaste factor, dismissing any sense of fairness or sound economic theory, I saw tax their pampered, mostly useless spawn.

[MTSkiBum 1,593]

I guess you don't want a better alternative.

 

Like figuring out how economics works, and realizing that stimulating economic activity by allowing people to keep more of what they earn incentivizes that sort of productivity, enhancing vertical growth as well as creating horizontal growth.

 

Read: guys who get breaks to own jets own more jets, and hire more people to fly them. That means - suddenly - that someone who may not have had the opportunity to increase their station by becoming a full-time private pilot now can, and - suddenly - the Treasury receives additional revenue from this newly created producer.

 

Now multiply such examples of horizontal growth millions of times over across the country, and you then realize why - even though the percentage the Government collects from each person is down, two other things happen:

 

1. The amount they earn increases, so the Government's net take may in fact increase on this multiple alone;

 

2. The amount they spend/invest increases, leading to things like that pilot, and the Government collects from new sources.

 

This is inarguable.

 

If you know economics.

Obviously there is a floor. Take it to the extreme, if the tax rate was .1% then obviously the growth would not offset the lower rate. What in your opinion would be the lowest rate that the growth would offset the loss of revenue.

[parrot 789]

100% Roth my friend...

 

Hrrmm... 11 million huh.. so yeah.. fock those guys who make money!

 

Isn't the Roth contribution limit like $7 grand a year?

 

Again, estates of $11 plus million dollars tend to have a lot of unrealized capitals gains. So fine, let's do away with the estate tax, but let's also do away with stepped-up-basis since it's one of the more unfair provisions in all our tax code.

[Gladiators 1,903]

The Roth limit is the same as regular.

[parrot 789]

The Roth limit is the same as regular.

 

Right, I was thinking of a Roth IRA, not a Roth 401k.

 

But unless I'm mistaken, Roth inheritances are exempt from any estate tax.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Obviously there is a floor.

We're apparently making progress. Before, your statement was definitive, and included no 'floor' at all. You flat said 'no tax cuts until the deficit disappears'...meaning: you didn't accept the idea that tax cuts simulate economic activity and increase prosperity.

 

Are you acknowledging the truth that every major tax cut in our country's history (there were 3, and a 4th that was smaller IMO) has not harmed revenue collections?

 

Your last posts claimed that tax cuts were off the table "'cuz deficits". Is your position changing?

 

Take it to the extreme, if the tax rate was .1% then obviously the growth would not offset the lower rate.

No, there would be enormous growth. What wouldn't be offset would be is ensuring a steady amount of revenue. Then the question becomes: at what point should the Government be able to fulfill its purpose, and at which level?

 

There are local/state, and there are federal taxes. This country exploded in size and prosperity with no federal income tax for its first 100+ years.

 

What in your opinion would be the lowest rate that the growth would offset the loss of revenue.

Well - first - I have to tell you that I'm not at all interested in ensuring maximum revenue. I am primarily focused on ensuring that citizens build independence for themselves.

 

The real answer to your question requires literally a book. A large book - but such books exist. I am a proponent of Hayek; of Friedman; of (generally) the Austrian School of economics.

 

The problem - and the reason I say 'generally' - is that a pure application of the economic ideology described by those three is anathema to Keynesian/neo-Keynesian monetarism (which we have at the moment).

 

We are, as Keynesians, actually now violating the original tenets of John Maynard Keynes, and have been for some time:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-10/breaking-point-death-keynes

 

The prescient saw this coming immediately. Hayek did.

 

The answer to your question first requires that we decide what level of Federal Government we want. The second part would then to create a framework of taxation that supports that level, and then demands annual balanced budgets, and a reassessment of the prior year's level if they proved insufficient to draw the necessary revenue to support the minimum scaffolding of Federal Government (per the Constitution).

 

But we do know this: Reagan dropped the top rate from 70% to 28%, and your concern never materialized.

 

What we can glean from that is that our tax rates were (and continue to be, considering the net effect of fewer deductions and shelters, as well as AMT) absolutely confiscatory, and did nothing other than explode the power of Government while suppressing the power of the People.

 

So - for starters - I believe that the top rate should be no more than where Reagan set it: 28%. But that's not really what I want.

 

My personal belief is that Federal Income Taxes should be entirely abolished, and the Federal Government should be supported by a combination of tariffs and State revenue.

 

We have been snookered, and enslaved.

[mmmmm...beer 691]

 

Right, I was thinking of a Roth IRA, not a Roth 401k.

 

But unless I'm mistaken, Roth inheritances are exempt from any estate tax.

Hrrmmm... you maybe right about that. They are exempt from mandatory disbursements @ 70.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I understand it just sounds like wealth envy. Playing devils advocate, why should you get a deduction for having a kid? Why should you get a deduction for saving for your kids college education? Make him earn that money if he/she wants to go to college.

Yeah, this annoys me too. I have to pay higher taxes than my brother, because I used a rubber and he didnt?

 

I dont like the mortgage interest deduction either.

 

Government shouldnt use tax policy to encourage certain behavior. Hell, at this point, if they were going to, you should get a tax reward for NOT having focking kids. I mean, you help pay for schools and sh!t for those who did. They gotta get a tax credit too?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I agree 18% of all income no capital gains rates, no deductions, no floors, no child credits, no mortgage credits or any of that other BS.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, though at some point one's income is so low that paying income tax makes it extremely difficult to live without government assistance.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Yeah, this annoys me too. I have to pay higher taxes than my brother, because I used a rubber and he didnt?

 

I dont like the mortgage interest deduction either.

 

Government shouldnt use tax policy to encourage certain behavior. Hell, at this point, if they were going to, you should get a tax reward for NOT having focking kids. I mean, you help pay for schools and sh!t for those who did. They gotta get a tax credit too?

Agree on both counts.

[NorthernVike 2,079]

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, though at some point one's income is so low that paying income tax makes it extremely difficult to live without government assistance.

Who's saying there would be no government assistance ? Just don't do it through the tax code.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Who's saying there would be no government assistance ? Just don't do it through the tax code.

No one. I was responding to Bert's simplified tax system, which includes "no floors". I assume this means no lower limit for income tax. At some point, you should just cut out the middle person if low earners are just going to pay tax and immediately receive it back in government benefits IMO.

[IMMensaMind 459]

No one. I was responding to Bert's simplified tax system, which includes "no floors". I assume this means no lower limit for income tax. At some point, you should just cut out the middle person if low earners are just going to pay tax and immediately receive it back in government benefits IMO.

 

Deductions are literally social engineering. Make them go away, but ONLY if taxes are low enough that no one needs to have deductions to keep their debt burden through taxation low.

 

This entire thing has become a manipulated game, and it has benefitted those whose mouths and pocketbooks are closest to Government.

[KSB2424 3,082]

Why does everything always have to be about race. Its out of hand. Sheesh.

 

Im a simplification guy. Have like four or five tax brackets. 5% 10%. 15% 20% and 25%.

 

No credits or deductions. That just creates loopholes.

 

And make that for all income. Income tax, estate tax, capital gains.

 

Keep it simple stupid.

[Gladiators 1,903]

Why does everything always have to be about race. Its out of hand. Sheesh.

 

Im a simplification guy. Have like four or five tax brackets. 5% 10%. 15% 20% and 25%.

 

No credits or deductions. That just creates loopholes.

 

And make that for all income. Income tax, estate tax, capital gains.

 

Keep it simple stupid.

This sounds great, but how do you handle meals and entertainment? Personal use of auto? Depreciation? Percentage of completion revenue recognition for contracts?

 

Im all for simplified tax. However, there will always be people trying to get around paying taxes and ways to defer paying them, unless the government audits every tax return to the degree required to ensure theres no fraud. That wont ever happen.

 

I get what your saying and completely agree. Tax code/compliance will never be close to perfect though.