Welcome to Thunderdome

I am not in favor of the death tax. I think it's utter bullshit that the government thinks it's entitled to 40% of your worth upon your death.

That being said, Chuck Grassley is an asshat.

I'm in favor of inheritance taxes + high marginal tax rates. How else to prevent the eventual revolution by the poors?

Ha! Let's be honest, most of that inherited money will be squandered or lost in bad investments. Just because Mom or Dad was good with money doesn't mean the kids and grandkids will be...

IMHO, that means the money goes directly to the economy and not into the government's coffers to be wasted on something dumb.

If they wanted to drop it to 25%, I think I'd be fine with that. Being at or near half is bullshit.

Does the tax come due immediately? I'd also be in favor of delaying payment until money was liquidated.

So let's say I owned a business that was making $50 million annually and employed 150 people. I'm worth $100 million, but $80 million is the company. I leave everything to my oldest daughter in my will, but she's not independently rich. What part does she owe in taxes? Just from the $20 million not tied to the company or the whole $100 million? If it's the whole $100 million, doesn't that put the company at risk if those taxes have to paid immediately? That's a huge chunk of change for the company to make up. What about annual bonuses? Surely the company couldn't pay them that year, and thus, the inheritance tax hurts 150 innocent people.

I have to assume a payment plan would be ideal for all parties. The government gets its cash, and the person inheriting the money can get financial advisers to help them manage the loss of the cash.

I honestly never looked into the law, I just know I don't like the idea of half your cash going to the government when you die (if you have over $5.5M).

Leisher wrote: So let's say I owned a business that was making $50 million annually and employed 150 people. I'm worth $100 million, but $80 million is the company. I leave everything to my oldest daughter in my will, but she's not independently rich. What part does she owe in taxes? Just from the $20 million not tied to the company or the whole $100 million? If it's the whole $100 million, doesn't that put the company at risk if those taxes have to paid immediately? That's a huge chunk of change for the company to make up. What about annual bonuses? Surely the company couldn't pay them that year, and thus, the inheritance tax hurts 150 innocent people.

If the business is that large, the person can incorporate into a C-corp, use stocks for inheritance purposes, and trusts to shield many effects. C-Corps exist to live beyond their owners.

Leisher wrote: I don't like the idea of half your cash going to the government when you die (if you have over $5.5M).

Only half of what's above $5.5M (per person)... and not already protected by trusts or other devices.

The inheritance tax only hurts the people who have a little to leave. The big family dynasties with hundreds of millions here and there, the ones we always think of when we say "that much money shouldn't be tied up by one group of people for ever and ever," are the ones who know how to get around the tax.

I have been told trusts are armor against the death tax. However, I'm always curious why it keeps getting brought up if that's true.

Do Dems not know about the "outs" or are they playing both sides by pretending to tax the rich, while knowing it isn't doing shit?

Leisher wrote: I have been told trusts are armor against the death tax. However, I'm always curious why it keeps getting brought up if that's true.

Do Dems not know about the "outs" or are they playing both sides by pretending to tax the rich, while knowing it isn't doing shit?

Trusts are expensive. That, and people like to keep some of their assets available. So if you have $100M, you put $80M in a trust, and live on the remainder. If you die, half of that remaining amount gets taxed. Dems know the outs. The rich are certainly being taxed. I'm much more concerned, though, by the other tax rate changes that will continue to let our wealth distribution get so skewed. I don't think that's good for society in any way.

Fewer people identify as Republican since Trump elected.

TheCatt wrote: I'm much more concerned, though, by the other tax rate changes that will continue to let our wealth distribution get so skewed. I don't think that's good for society in any way.

Ditto.

"Tax cuts for the rich!"
"Handouts for the poor!"
"Fuck the middle class!

TheCatt wrote: Fewer people identify as Republican since Trump elected.

I think that's been steadily declining prior to Trump. However, I think the numbers lie. I just think between Trump and the Dems' smear campaign that's been going on for years to shame Republicans that most people who might be aren't willing to admit it to people. You know how gays are coming out? Republicans are going in.

Leisher wrote: You know how gays are coming out? Republicans are going in

Phrasing?

But true.

TheCatt wrote: Pence might be worse than Trump

I think Pence has some serious character flaws as well. Lack of a spine being chief among them. I prefer someone that's an asshole (Trump) to my face rather than a weasel.

Roy Moore doubles down with racism.

In response to a question from one of the only African Americans in the audience — who asked when Moore thought America was last "great" -- Moore acknowledged the nation's history of racial divisions, but said: "I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another.... Our families were strong, our country had a direction."

Ok, while you could make the argument the "country had a direction, this is not what you expect a candidate seeking public office to think is ok to say. But he gets worse...

At the same event, Moore referred to Native Americans and Asian Americans as "reds and yellows," and earlier this year he suggested the September 11 terrorist attacks were divine punishment.

I mean, COME ON, right?

Roy Moore lost, the news is saying. That should be a big fat sign to the Republican Party that something is wrong.

But I doubt it will be.

TheCatt wrote: Roy Moore lost, the news is saying. That should be a big fat sign to the Republican Party that something is wrong.

But I doubt it will be.

The Dems rigged the primaries for Hillary who then went on to lose to a reality TV star who might be the most offensive human being ever. They seem to think the problem isn't them, but us.

So no, I have zero faith the Republicans, whose candidate was an accused pedophile, will figure anything out. This is the party who sat back and watched Trump win primary after primary, but never took him seriously until it was too late.

Tax plan looks like it will pass and save me thousands of $. Fuck the poors, I guess.

TheCatt wrote: Tax plan looks like it will pass and save me thousands of $. Fuck the poors, I guess.

I'm really not sure how fucked they are. I heard a stat the other day that only 3% of the bottom 40% of income earners pay any income tax today. I don't think there's anything in this bill that will change that until the something like 2024. Let's be real, no one is going to be willing to let that happen. That was an accounting trick because they have to keep it revenue neutral since no one passes budgets anymore.

Vince wrote: That was an accounting trick because they have to keep it revenue neutral since no one passes budgets anymore.

All of the tax cuts for normal people expire in 2025. The bill will add $1.5 trillion to the debt, and for a while (unsure about final form) lowest incomes lost tax credits due to lack of refundability (thus not increasing their taxes, per se, but decreasing the amount they get back).

Also, those bottom 40% could still pay FICA taxes, despite no federal income tax.