Trump to eliminate taxes on tips

[seafoam1 3,023]

Just now, wiffleball said:

You know he's a crap tipper - and rude. 

 

 

Then again, McDonalds...

I'm sure you would tip well if you could afford it. 

[seafoam1 3,023]

3 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

To me that's the most left wing tax of the ones we have.  The government wants another larger bite of money that's been taxed already.  I'm not sure why we feel we deserve a second tax run at someone else's money they leave to their kids.  The AMT is also especially abhorrent from the view of a CPA/financial analyst.  

It's especially odd because he states that the dead person "doesn't need it anymore". Isn't much of the need we have in life is to take care of those in our family and friends? Why should that go away when we die?

[Mark Davis 398]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

It's especially odd because he states that the dead person "doesn't need it anymore". Isn't much of the need we have in life is to take care of those in our family and friends? Why should that go away when we die?

From a tax fairness standpoint it has never made sense. It’s a second run at money that’s been already taxed. To make it worse, it’s taxed at a higher rate than the top ordinary income rate. It has never sat right with me that the government can basically decide you have too much even after you’ve paid your taxes, which is what the estate tax does.
 

I’ll save everyone from my diatribe on how it is especially punitive to those who inherit land. From the time of my early tax classes in college it was this one that always stuck out as the worst to me. As time went on, I grew especially hostile towards the AMT as well. Not to mention one of these taxes keeps attorneys in business and the other one keeps accountants billable hours up. If you can calculate the AMT without assistance, I can find hoards of people willing to hire you on the spot. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

9 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

From a tax fairness standpoint it has never made sense. It’s a second run at money that’s been already taxed. To make it worse, it’s taxed at a higher rate than the top ordinary income rate. It has never sat right with me that the government can basically decide you have too much even after you’ve paid your taxes, which is what the estate tax does.
 

I’ll save everyone from my diatribe on how it is especially punitive to those who inherit land. From the time of my early tax classes in college it was this one that always stuck out as the worst to me. As time went on, I grew especially hostile towards the AMT as well. Not to mention one of these taxes keeps attorneys in business and the other one keeps accountants billable hours up. If you can calculate the AMT without assistance, I can find hoards of people willing to hire you on the spot. 

It hasn’t been taxed as income to the beneficiary. I mean to use your analogy when I go spend some money at a store they shouldn’t be taxed for it because I already paid income taxes on it.

And it’s taxed higher because the beneficiary didn’t even earn it. Would much rather tax that an actual income from wage slave jobs.

But you guys want to protect inheritances because that’s good for the rich. The little guy — whom you purport to champion — isn’t passing on generational wealth

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Joe Biden is the reason that working class people can’t discharge their medical bills in bankruptcy. But his friends at the bank and corporations can still get their golden parachutes when their business does. Middle class Joe indeed.  

Tardcore falls for all the lies.  What a useful idiot.

[seafoam1 3,023]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It hasn’t been taxed as income to the beneficiary. I mean to use your analogy when I go spend some money at a store they shouldn’t be taxed for it because I already paid income taxes on it.

And it’s taxed higher because the beneficiary didn’t even earn it. Would much rather tax that an actual income from wage slave jobs.

But you guys want to protect inheritances because that’s good for the rich. The little guy — whom you purport to champion — isn’t passing on generational wealth

wow. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,430]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Tardcore falls for all the lies.  What a useful idiot.

Yeah. He just opposed it. But he is the reason that it is much harder to file for bankruptcy and that student loans can’t be discharged.  Because he’s working class Joe.

[TimHauck 2,873]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Funny, when I posted this I wasn't sure how I felt about the proposal (FWIW it's grow on me).  I was mostly interested in how … centrists … would find a way to disparage it.   

You rang?

I don’t hate this.  It mostly just seems odd that this would be the only type of employment income that I’m aware of that’s officially not taxed.

The main unintended consequence I can think of would be employers reducing wages and saying “well now you’re going to make more in tips”

[IGotWorms 4,058]

27 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

wow. 

Hush up — the adults are speaking 

[seafoam1 3,023]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Hush up — the adults are speaking 

Typical response from someone who doesn't know what the fock they are talking about. 

[Bert 1,128]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

It hasn’t been taxed as income to the beneficiary. I mean to use your analogy when I go spend some money at a store they shouldn’t be taxed for it because I already paid income taxes on it.

And it’s taxed higher because the beneficiary didn’t even earn it. Would much rather tax that an actual income from wage slave jobs.

But you guys want to protect inheritances because that’s good for the rich. The little guy — whom you purport to champion — isn’t passing on generational wealth

Oh yeah that blue collar guy that dies with $500,000 should have to give $375,000 to the government instead of his children.  That is really protecting the little guy. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

6 minutes ago, Bert said:

Oh yeah that blue collar guy that dies with $500,000 should have to give $375,000 to the government instead of his children.  That is really protecting the little guy. 

Ok, $500k exemption

[Bert 1,128]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Ok, two million exemption 

Now your wealth envy has limits?  

[Mark Davis 398]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

It hasn’t been taxed as income to the beneficiary. I mean to use your analogy when I go spend some money at a store they shouldn’t be taxed for it because I already paid income taxes on it.

And it’s taxed higher because the beneficiary didn’t even earn it. Would much rather tax that an actual income from wage slave jobs.

But you guys want to protect inheritances because that’s good for the rich. The little guy — whom you purport to champion — isn’t passing on generational wealth

That's not a valid analogy and is a bit telling.  You are comparing someone's child keeping the money versus an unrelated third party who is generating earned income.  The term "slave job" though tells me you don't really understand the laws and taxation as much as you have a feeling about wanting to punish someone for being a high earner, or more correctly, a saver.  I've found through my time that most estate tax fans tend to be envious of what someone else earned.  And honestly that's ok, I just see it through the lens of what I can learn as a businessman from them.  In some ways that makes me envious in that I want to learn from them and I think it makes everyone better.

I'm not championing anyone or anything beyond people keeping what they earned and paid their tax on.  If that makes me a fan of the rich, you can call it that.  I'm more a fan of capitalism and pretty unapologetic about it.  I'll ask you the same question though that I ask all big tax proponents, how much is enough?  Give me a percentage where the government shouldn't take another dime of your money.  

[Bert 1,128]

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I think it’s a great idea. Just need to raise taxes on the rich too and estate tax should be like 75% imo with no exemption. That should easily pay for this and much more

The top 1% earned 26% of total AGI and paid 45% of all federal income tax.  

The top 1% also pay the highest tax rate.

 

[Bert 1,128]

5 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

That's not a valid analogy and is a bit telling.  You are comparing someone's child keeping the money versus an unrelated third party who is getting earned income.  The term "slave job" though tells me you don't really understand the laws and taxation as much as you have a feeling about wanting to punish someone for being a high earner.  I've found through my time that most estate tax fans tend to be envious of what someone else earned.  And honestly that's ok, I just see it through the lens of what I can learn as a businessman from them.  

I'm not championing anyone or anything beyond people keeping what they earned and paid their tax on.  If that makes me a fan of the rich, you can call it that.  I'm more a fan of capitalism and pretty unapologetic about it.  I'll ask you the same question though that I ask all big tax proponents, how much is enough?  Give me a percentage where the government shouldn't take another dime of your money.  

[Mark Davis 398]

6 minutes ago, Bert said:

The top 1% earned 26% of total AGI and paid 45% of all federal income tax.  

The top 1% also pay the highest tax rate.

 

People fail to realize, we could tax "the rich", or 1% at 100% and it wouldn't fix our deficit.  People like Elizabeth Warren and her "tippy top" wealth tax, which failed throughout Europe, is an acknowledgement of that.   It's no surprise many estate tax fans favor that wealth tax as well.  It's the same principle of seizing assets that have already been taxed.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Trump to eliminate taxes on t!ts.

[Strike 5,542]

There's a great book I read in my younger years called "The Millionaire Next Door" written by a couple of economists who did a lot of research and focus groups with your average millionaire.  The book came out in 1996 and I read it around 1998 so been a while and a millionaire at that time probably meant a lot more than it does today.  I don't remember the book all that well as it's been a while but a couple of things I do remember:

- For their focus groups they'd invite a bunch of millionaires and have a food spread.  They'd often have things like caviar and other high end foods because, well, millionaires.  But they found most of the millionaires didn't want that.  They'd have been fine with chips and dip.

- The reason those people didn't want the caviar is that a large percentage of millionaires didn't get there from having some huge income.  They worked middle class jobs but didn't spend lavishly and wisely invested and over the course of a lifetime those meager/moderate savings grew and by the time of retirement it was a tidy sum of money.

And people like @IGotWorms would love to take their money when they die.  The book is a great read.  Highly recommended.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

11 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

That's not a valid analogy and is a bit telling.  You are comparing someone's child keeping the money versus an unrelated third party who is generating earned income.  The term "slave job" though tells me you don't really understand the laws and taxation as much as you have a feeling about wanting to punish someone for being a high earner, or more correctly, a saver.  I've found through my time that most estate tax fans tend to be envious of what someone else earned.  And honestly that's ok, I just see it through the lens of what I can learn as a businessman from them.  

I'm not championing anyone or anything beyond people keeping what they earned and paid their tax on.  If that makes me a fan of the rich, you can call it that.  I'm more a fan of capitalism and pretty unapologetic about it.  I'll ask you the same question though that I ask all big tax proponents, how much is enough?  Give me a percentage where the government shouldn't take another dime of your money.  

I’m not envious of people that save, hell I do a decent job of that myself. And it’s so that I can hopefully live well in retirement, and my spouse as well.

As for my kids, I’d like them to earn their own living. Sure it’d be great if I could give em a leg up on college and maybe a down payment on a starter home or something.

But generational wealth where they don’t work and my grandkids never work and so on? Why is that necessary or even desirable?

If you start from the premise that something has to be taxed, absolutely yeah you tax that sh-t much more than the guy who is actually earning his paycheck. If that means I’ve got “wealth envy” then so be it

[Mark Davis 398]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

There's a great book I read in my younger years called "The Millionaire Next Door" written by a couple of economists who did a lot of research and focus groups with your average millionaire.  The book came out in 1996 and I read it around 1998 so been a while and a millionaire at that time probably meant a lot more than it does today.  I don't remember the book all that well as it's been a while but a couple of things I do remember:

- For their focus groups they'd invite a bunch of millionaires and have a food spread.  They'd often have things like caviar and other high end foods because, well, millionaires.  But they found most of the millionaires didn't want that.  They'd have been fine with chips and dip.

- The reason those people didn't want the caviar is that a large percentage of millionaires didn't get there from having some huge income.  They worked middle class jobs but didn't spend lavishly and wisely invested and over the course of a lifetime those meager/moderate savings grew and by the time of retirement it was a tidy sum of money.

And these hard working people are a large part of the group that people like @IGotWorms would love to take their money when they die.  The book is a great read.  Highly recommended.

Well said.  Certainly given inflation over time, the status of millionaire means less than it once did.  But many millionaires are nothing more than people with good jobs who saved well.  They are far from CEO's or titans of industry.  The estate tax punishes these people versus the people who blew all their money on that latest gadget.

[thegeneral 3,214]

Trump will have this full proposal in two weeks. It will be the most beautiful plan you have ever seen. 

[Strike 5,542]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’m not envious of people that save, hell I do a decent job of that myself. And it’s so that I can hopefully live well in retirement, and my spouse as well.

As for my kids, I’d like them to earn their own living. Sure it’d be great if I could give em a leg up on college and maybe a down payment on a starter home or something.

But generational wealth where they don’t work and my grandkids never work and so on? Why is that necessary or even desirable?

If you start from the premise that something has to be taxed, absolutely yeah you tax that sh-t much more than the guy who is actually earning his paycheck. If that means I’ve got “wealth envy” then so be it

Who said anything about kids?  I don't have any.  But what I CHOOSE to happen with my money when I die should be MY decision.  Besides the FACT that it's MY money, that's been taxed and rightfully belongs to me, I think I can do a lot more good with it than the government.  I'd like to donate it to a charity of my choice that will use the money wisely and on things I'd like it spent on, not on the wasteful things the government would use it and potentially for purposes I would be ideologically opposed to.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 minute ago, Mark Davis said:

Well said.  Certainly given inflation over time, the status of millionaire means less than it once did.  But many millionaires are nothing more than people with good jobs who saved well.  They are far from CEO's or titans of industry.  The estate tax punishes these people versus the people who blew all their money on that latest gadget.

Ahh bullsh1t.

You’re talking about people that save maybe $2 million. Which can be done with a 401k if you start early enough, make decent money, and save at a decent rate.

The estate tax exemption is currently $13.61 million. That’s for truly rich people.

But at any rate, they’re all dead when an estate tax kicks in so I don’t see what the problem is. You save $2 million for a cush retirement and you should get that. Your spouse should as well. But after that, it ain’t noting earned by the beneficiary, so I’d much rather tax that then wages that actually earned.

[Mark Davis 398]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’m not envious of people that save, hell I do a decent job of that myself. And it’s so that I can hopefully live well in retirement, and my spouse as well.

As for my kids, I’d like them to earn their own living. Sure it’d be great if I could give em a leg up on college and maybe a down payment on a starter home or something.

But generational wealth where they don’t work and my grandkids never work and so on? Why is that necessary or even desirable?

If you start from the premise that something has to be taxed, absolutely yeah you tax that sh-t much more than the guy who is actually earning his paycheck. If that means I’ve got “wealth envy” then so be it

That is your prerogative for sure.  If you want to give some of your remaining assets at death to charity, that's a noble thing.  But to use the term generational wealth, again we have to be specific.  What is that number?  Because in the tax code, you have to enact these laws to kick in at certain levels.  It's easy to use those terms without putting a number to them, but when you have to put the number on it then it forces you to consider the people you draw the line at.

There's a huge difference between someone like Warren Buffett and a ranch family who has one surviving child that inherits farmland and little cash with it.  But to be clear, I make no doubt I'm defending all of the folks the estate tax hits.  They've been taxed on those funds, they should be able to spend them or leave them as they wish.  You aren't starting your argument there though as far as if something has to be taxed.  You HAVE taxed them, and at the highest marginal rates I'd assume.  Again, how much is enough in percentage terms?

[Bert 1,128]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Ahh bullsh1t.

You’re talking about people that save maybe $2 million. Which can be done with a 401k if you start early enough, make decent money, and save at a decent rate.

The estate tax exemption is currently $13.61 million. That’s for truly rich people.

But at any rate, they’re all dead when an estate tax kicks in so I don’t see what the problem is. You save $2 million for a cush retirement and you should get that. Your spouse should as well. But after that, it ain’t noting earned by the beneficiary, so I’d much rather tax that then wages that actually earned.

Why are you stepping back from the 75% tax and no exemptions?  

[seafoam1 3,023]

15 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Trump to eliminate taxes on t!ts.

biden to give tax breaks on the 6 year olds he touches daily.

[Mark Davis 398]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Ahh bullsh1t.

You’re talking about people that save maybe $2 million. Which can be done with a 401k if you start early enough, make decent money, and save at a decent rate.

The estate tax exemption is currently $13.61 million. That’s for truly rich people.

But at any rate, they’re all dead when an estate tax kicks in so I don’t see what the problem is. You save $2 million for a cush retirement and you should get that. Your spouse should as well. But after that, it ain’t noting earned by the beneficiary, so I’d much rather tax that then wages that actually earned.

Adjust your thinking to $5MM, that's where the estate tax exemption will sit as it sunsets in 2026.

[Bert 1,128]

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I think it’s a great idea. Just need to raise taxes on the rich too and estate tax should be like 75% imo with no exemption. That should easily pay for this and much more

Crazy

[BunnysBastatrds 2,441]

 Bars and restaurants I pay with my debit card and cash for the tips. Fawk the Irresponsible Rigging SS. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 hour ago, Mark Davis said:

Adjust your thinking to $5MM, that's where the estate tax exemption will sit as it sunsets in 2026.

It ain’t sunsetting if the Rs are in power 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

its strange that the people who oppose people who work for money would get to keep more, while they are all for people getting free money they don't work for to pay off loans they are irresponsible on

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

1 hour ago, seafoam1 said:

biden to give tax breaks on the 6 year olds he touches daily.

Show us on the doll where he touched you daily.

[Mark Davis 398]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

It ain’t sunsetting if the Rs are in power 

From your lips to God's ears.  But in reality it should be abolished.  However, like it's horrid kin the AMT, the IRS can't live without the revenue from it now.  I would love a way to measure the billable hours and revenue from financial attorneys/estate planners and accountants from those two.  The AMT is likely the more insidious of the two because it's not even hitting the taxpayers it was originally meant to target.

[seafoam1 3,023]

42 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Show us on the doll where he touched you daily.

He's more into your sex little girl. Sad you like it.

[torridjoe 48]

12 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

They need less in taxes if they put responsibility on dumb people taking out loans they can't pay off. 

Because they’re predatory loans. 

[torridjoe 48]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

its strange that the people who oppose people who work for money would get to keep more, while they are all for people getting free money they don't work for to pay off loans they are irresponsible on

 

Maybe because that’s a nonsense construct. 

[torridjoe 48]

2 hours ago, Mark Davis said:

That is your prerogative for sure.  If you want to give some of your remaining assets at death to charity, that's a noble thing.  But to use the term generational wealth, again we have to be specific.  What is that number?  Because in the tax code, you have to enact these laws to kick in at certain levels.  It's easy to use those terms without putting a number to them, but when you have to put the number on it then it forces you to consider the people you draw the line at.

There's a huge difference between someone like Warren Buffett and a ranch family who has one surviving child that inherits farmland and little cash with it.  But to be clear, I make no doubt I'm defending all of the folks the estate tax hits.  They've been taxed on those funds, they should be able to spend them or leave them as they wish.  You aren't starting your argument there though as far as if something has to be taxed.  You HAVE taxed them, and at the highest marginal rates I'd assume.  Again, how much is enough in percentage terms?

History explains very well the serious problem with free generational wealth. The people who have already been taxed in an estate are dead. The people benefitting from the estate have not. That’s why the tax. 

[torridjoe 48]

4 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Tardcore falls for all the lies.  What a useful idiot.

This is accurate tho. Biden was the banker’s best friend in the Senate. 

[seafoam1 3,023]

8 minutes ago, torridjoe said:

Because they’re predatory loans. 

So...stupid people. We already knew this. I do not want to pay for other people's stupidity.