Time to get on the TRUMP train

[limitles]

The change in the estate tax is 100% correct and fair, though, and should have been done 15 years ago when Republicans tried to reform it, but arrogantly made the reform temporary because they believed they would never fall out of power (lol).

It is double taxation, and it's wrong. All other forms of double taxation (sales tax, property tax, etc) come from voluntary actions. Death is not a voluntary action. It is not fair that you have to pay a high tax rate on your income and then get taxed at an even higher rate on the remaining money when you die.

Furthermore, there are too many loopholes which allow avoidance of that tax anyway, so anyone who really wants to get around it can do so. The ones benefiting most from the estate tax are estate planning attorneys and insurance companies. These loopholes would also be difficult to close without breaking other things.

It also creates huge problems for family businesses (especially large ones), where you're absolutely fucked if you created a successful business and never bothered to turn it into a corporation. This is because inherited businesses are considered assets. Same with real estate and basically everything else.

People used to have to sell inherited family farms due to this obnoxious tax, until they wrote in an exception for that, but tons of other family businesses get fucked.

Whole tax is an unfair mess and needs to be dropped.

What about the government revenue lost? It's actually not all that much in the grand scheme of things, and if it's really a problem, that burden can be shifted in places where it's much more fair (such as closing some really bad tax loopholes which many of the rich are utilizing).

Socialist

[The_Lurker]

SMH, Thank you Fox news.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Why is the estate tax a good thing?

Just because it punishes rich people?

And not all rich people, but only those who didn't bother incorporating their businesses and didn't do estate planning?

well we can start with the "family's losing farms" bullshit and go on from there. My land in Montana has passed through 4 generations of my family and not one cent tax was ever owed or collected.

all of your opinions are "direct talking points" of Fox new and have almost zero basis in fact.

[blake]

Face it, you drank the koolaid. good luck with that. You are so concerned with your own situation, you are blind to the total net sum.

Relax, I'm just making fun. Actually, it's pertinent to what I'm about to say.

If the reality is that the bill will save some money for most of the poor and middle class, a shitload of money for the very wealthy, and totally fuck over a small number of vulnerable Americans, an overall net loss...

Then why don't you just say that? Why the intellectual dishonesty? Why the hyperbole and histrionics, confusing people like me and making us take extra steps to learn that you were full of shit?

Maybe I am willing to sacrifice some wealth for the greater good. You could have tried giving me that option instead of duping me.

I'm not singling you out, Lurker, but the bill's opposition in general.

not referring to lurker specifically either, but what you are alluding to is exactly what's wrong in politics on both sides.

everyone believes their side is morally correct, and that the ends justify the means. so if you have to lie or distort, it's all good as long as your side wins cause the other side is actually evil and must be destroyed.

it would be much better if both sides were actually honest.

this was my biggest complaint with obamacare. if obama came out and said, we're going to raise rates for some so that those with pre-existing conditions could get coverage, i would have fully supported it.

instead, obama promised that everyone's rates would drop, which he had no reason to believe was correct, and it ultimately passed.

the rub here, of course, is that obamacare would not have passed if he was honest about it. that means many people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to afford insurance now.

this leads to a legitimate philosophical question about whether it's better to be completely honest or not as it relates to politics.

i prefer honesty even though people are largely idiots, but i get why some people might think otherwise

[The_Lurker]

Relax, I'm just making fun. Actually, it's pertinent to what I'm about to say.

If the reality is that the bill will save some money for most of the poor and middle class, a shitload of money for the very wealthy, and totally fuck over a small number of vulnerable Americans, an overall net loss...

Then why don't you just say that? Why the intellectual dishonesty? Why the hyperbole and histrionics, confusing people like me and making us take extra steps to learn that you were full of shit?

Maybe I am willing to sacrifice some wealth for the greater good. You could have tried giving me that option instead of duping me.

I'm not singling you out, Lurker, but the bill's opposition in general.

not referring to lurker specifically either, but what you are alluding to is exactly what's wrong in politics on both sides.

everyone believes their side is morally correct, and that the ends justify the means. so if you have to lie or distort, it's all good as long as your side wins cause the other side is actually evil and must be destroyed.

it would be much better if both sides were actually honest.

this was my biggest complaint with obamacare. if obama came out and said, we're going to raise rates for some so that those with pre-existing conditions could get coverage, i would have fully supported it.

instead, obama promised that everyone's rates would drop, which he had no reason to believe was correct, and it ultimately passed.

the rub here, of course, is that obamacare would not have passed if he was honest about it. that means many people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to afford insurance now.

this leads to a legitimate philosophical question about whether it's better to be completely honest or not as it relates to politics.

i prefer honesty even though people are largely idiots, but i get why some people might think otherwise

Trust me, I don't have a side. I am all about FAIR, and our current situation is very unfair to Working family's with children. I believe there are sharks, leaches, and the rest of us. "The rest of us" are getting fucked by both the R's and the D's

[big dick]

not referring to lurker specifically either, but what you are alluding to is exactly what's wrong in politics on both sides.

everyone believes their side is morally correct, and that the ends justify the means. so if you have to lie or distort, it's all good as long as your side wins cause the other side is actually evil and must be destroyed.

it would be much better if both sides were actually honest.

this was my biggest complaint with obamacare. if obama came out and said, we're going to raise rates for some so that those with pre-existing conditions could get coverage, i would have fully supported it.

instead, obama promised that everyone's rates would drop, which he had no reason to believe was correct, and it ultimately passed.

the rub here, of course, is that obamacare would not have passed if he was honest about it. that means many people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to afford insurance now.

this leads to a legitimate philosophical question about whether it's better to be completely honest or not as it relates to politics.

i prefer honesty even though people are largely idiots, but i get why some people might think otherwise

Trust me, I don't have a side. I am all about FAIR, and our current situation is very unfair to Working family's with children. I believe there are sharks, leaches, and the rest of us. "The rest of us" are getting fucked by both the R's and the D's

[gimmick]

Bill isn't awful because what has been said about it, but because what hasn't been said about it. Namely, if it doesn't pay for it self, who gets hit with the brunt of the budget cuts?

The whole tax bill exists based on the assumption that somehow when wealthy people have more money it trickles down and it's generally a good idea to lower their tax burden because it's essentially free. If any of it was true, it likely would have happened on several occasions it had been tried.

What does happen when you lower "reasonable" taxes is that the middle class and the working poor simply get less than they did before with their tax dollars. They might gain a dollar from paying less taxes, but they lose 3 in the form of worse infrastructure, schooling etc.

It is of course possible that tax cuts would be paid by cuts to corporate handouts and other forms of socialism that benefit the wealthy, but this too has almost never happened. Most likely this is just another form of legal theft where wealth is redistributed to the wealthy.

Obv none of this matters, if you believe that no one will have to pay for tax cuts. I'm the type of silly goose that believes some one will have to pay.

[Dan Druff]

Relax, I'm just making fun. Actually, it's pertinent to what I'm about to say.

If the reality is that the bill will save some money for most of the poor and middle class, a shitload of money for the very wealthy, and totally fuck over a small number of vulnerable Americans, an overall net loss...

Then why don't you just say that? Why the intellectual dishonesty? Why the hyperbole and histrionics, confusing people like me and making us take extra steps to learn that you were full of shit?

Maybe I am willing to sacrifice some wealth for the greater good. You could have tried giving me that option instead of duping me.

I'm not singling you out, Lurker, but the bill's opposition in general.

not referring to lurker specifically either, but what you are alluding to is exactly what's wrong in politics on both sides.

everyone believes their side is morally correct, and that the ends justify the means. so if you have to lie or distort, it's all good as long as your side wins cause the other side is actually evil and must be destroyed.

it would be much better if both sides were actually honest.

this was my biggest complaint with obamacare. if obama came out and said, we're going to raise rates for some so that those with pre-existing conditions could get coverage, i would have fully supported it.

instead, obama promised that everyone's rates would drop, which he had no reason to believe was correct, and it ultimately passed.

the rub here, of course, is that obamacare would not have passed if he was honest about it. that means many people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to afford insurance now.

this leads to a legitimate philosophical question about whether it's better to be completely honest or not as it relates to politics.

i prefer honesty even though people are largely idiots, but i get why some people might think otherwise

I don't think Obama even understood his own healthcare reform. I am one of the few Republicans who believe that he didn't lie, but instead was just ignorant, and he trusted the incompetent people below him whom he appointed to get the job done.

The entire Obamacare bill screamed, "Good in theory, poor in practice."

Take the "Ten essential healthcare benefits" disaster.

This was good in theory. It was recognized that certain healthcare plans -- mostly aimed at the poor -- were complete garbage and barely covered anything. They sold "health care" to gullible people, collected what seemed like reasonably priced premiums, and then the people would get the bad news when almost nothing was covered.

To combat this, Obamacare required individual health care plans to cover ten benefits deemed essential.

Of course, the left had to nod to the feminists by requiring all plans had to include maternity care. This was ridiculous because many WOMEN didn't want to pay for maternity care as part of their health insurance, such as women who didn't want kids, or older women.

Anyway, this had the unintended consequence of invalidating a very large percentage of existing individual health care plans, including ones subscribed to by men. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was not at all true.

So you had Obama thinking he was doing something great by requiring all health care plans cover essential benefits, but in reality he destroyed almost everyone's existing individual plan because they lacked maternity care for men.

And who can forget the $560 million healthcare.gov website which didn't work?

Obama just didn't understand the intricacies of the marketplace, nor did those he appointed. And that's why we got such a shit bill which is still flawed to this day.

[MumblesBadly]

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Why is the estate tax a good thing?

Just because it punishes rich people?

And not all rich people, but only those who didn't bother incorporating their businesses and didn't do estate planning?

well we can start with the "family's losing farms" bullshit and go on from there. My land in Montana has passed through 4 generations of my family and not one cent tax was ever owed or collected.

all of your opinions are "direct talking points" of Fox new and have almost zero basis in fact.

Druff needs to expand his reading list on the subject beyond Fox News chyrons. Here's an example in that spirit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...te-tax/470403/

[Dan Druff]

Bill isn't awful because what has been said about it, but because what hasn't been said about it. Namely, if it doesn't pay for it self, who gets hit with the brunt of the budget cuts?

The whole tax bill exists based on the assumption that somehow when wealthy people have more money it trickles down and it's generally a good idea to lower their tax burden because it's essentially free. If any of it was true, it likely would have happened on several occasions it had been tried.

What does happen when you lower "reasonable" taxes is that the middle class and the working poor simply get less than they did before with their tax dollars. They might gain a dollar from paying less taxes, but they lose 3 in the form of worse infrastructure, schooling etc.

It is of course possible that tax cuts would be paid by cuts to corporate handouts and other forms of socialism that benefit the wealthy, but this too has almost never happened. Most likely this is just another form of legal theft where wealth is redistributed to the wealthy.

Obv none of this matters, if you believe that no one will have to pay for tax cuts. I'm the type of silly goose that believes some one will have to pay.

Depends the amount of tax revenue which is actually lost, and where the cuts actually occur.

The left loves to use the "infrastructure will fail and schools will suffer" scare tactic in order to guilt people into supporting higher taxes, but that's usually hyperbole.

For example, schools are funded primarily at the state level, and infrastructure is mostly funded at the state and local level.

Sometimes tax cuts can be absorbed by simply creating a more sensible budget.

[Dan Druff]

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Why is the estate tax a good thing?

Just because it punishes rich people?

And not all rich people, but only those who didn't bother incorporating their businesses and didn't do estate planning?

well we can start with the "family's losing farms" bullshit and go on from there. My land in Montana has passed through 4 generations of my family and not one cent tax was ever owed or collected.

all of your opinions are "direct talking points" of Fox new and have almost zero basis in fact.

So because you didn't personally lose your family farm, you don't think it was a problem?

Maybe your farm wasn't worth much.

Maybe your family had enough cash to be able to pay the tax without losing the farm.

The farm thing was real enough to where they actually wrote an exception into the law for it -- and this was supported by many Democrats because they were getting clobbered in debates about "What about families losing their farms?", and they really didn't have a viable response to it.

You claim to be a centrist but everything I see from you is a left wing complaint or talking point.

blake is a centrist.

SrslySirius is a centrist.

I see criticism of both sides from them, and I see that neither of them is married to any particular ideology, nor are they obsessed with trying to make one particular side look bad.

You are not a centrist. You like to call yourself a centrist because it makes you feel like an independent thinker.

You can lean to one side and still be an independent thinker. Time to admit that you are on the left, even if you are not on board with 100% of what they stand for.

[Dan Druff]

Mumbles is another one who likes to identify as a centrist, but is actually very much on the left.

In reality, Mumbles is a leftist who just happens to hate SJWs and third wave feminists.

[gimmick]

Bill isn't awful because what has been said about it, but because what hasn't been said about it. Namely, if it doesn't pay for it self, who gets hit with the brunt of the budget cuts?

The whole tax bill exists based on the assumption that somehow when wealthy people have more money it trickles down and it's generally a good idea to lower their tax burden because it's essentially free. If any of it was true, it likely would have happened on several occasions it had been tried.

What does happen when you lower "reasonable" taxes is that the middle class and the working poor simply get less than they did before with their tax dollars. They might gain a dollar from paying less taxes, but they lose 3 in the form of worse infrastructure, schooling etc.

It is of course possible that tax cuts would be paid by cuts to corporate handouts and other forms of socialism that benefit the wealthy, but this too has almost never happened. Most likely this is just another form of legal theft where wealth is redistributed to the wealthy.

Obv none of this matters, if you believe that no one will have to pay for tax cuts. I'm the type of silly goose that believes some one will have to pay.

Depends the amount of tax revenue which is actually lost, and where the cuts actually occur.

The left loves to use the "infrastructure will fail and schools will suffer" scare tactic in order to guilt people into supporting higher taxes, but that's usually hyperbole.

For example, schools are funded primarily at the state level, and infrastructure is mostly funded at the state and local level.

Sometimes tax cuts can be absorbed by simply creating a more sensible budget.

I believe the right is selling this bill with the premise that there will be no loss of tax revenue.

The specifics don't really matter that much regarding taxes. Only thing that matters is who loses. But the right isn't even having that discussion. They're selling this bill as something where no one loses. Everyone benefits because that's how the world works. That of course is a blatant lie and they know it.

The guesstimations of the cost are somewhere between 2-6 trillion in the next decade or something. If it's funded with debt, your total debt will surpass the size of your economy fairly soon. In case you're wondering that's not a good thing. Specifics don't matter almost at all. It's going to cost many money and you have less than many money.

As a completely random number i would say it's about 95% that after 10 years only the very wealthy will walk away from these cuts as overall winners. Everyone else will get shafted.

[thesidedish]

Mumbles is another one who likes to identify as a centrist, but is actually very much on the left.

In reality, Mumbles is a leftist who just happens to hate SJWs and third wave feminists.

do VEGAS1369

[The_Lurker]

well we can start with the "family's losing farms" bullshit and go on from there. My land in Montana has passed through 4 generations of my family and not one cent tax was ever owed or collected.

all of your opinions are "direct talking points" of Fox new and have almost zero basis in fact.

So because you didn't personally lose your family farm, you don't think it was a problem?

Maybe your farm wasn't worth much.

Maybe your family had enough cash to be able to pay the tax without losing the farm.

The farm thing was real enough to where they actually wrote an exception into the law for it -- and this was supported by many Democrats because they were getting clobbered in debates about "What about families losing their farms?", and they really didn't have a viable response to it.

You claim to be a centrist but everything I see from you is a left wing complaint or talking point.

blake is a centrist.

SrslySirius is a centrist.

I see criticism of both sides from them, and I see that neither of them is married to any particular ideology, nor are they obsessed with trying to make one particular side look bad.

You are not a centrist. You like to call yourself a centrist because it makes you feel like an independent thinker.

You can lean to one side and still be an independent thinker. Time to admit that you are on the left, even if you are not on board with 100% of what they stand for.

Overall I am considerably right of center, and spent a good portion of my life brainwashed just like you. You are defending raising the rake in the 20 40 game so they can lower the rake in the 400 800 game and you cant even see it.

[Sanlmar]

John Mellencamp should have written a song about Family Limited Partnerships (FLP) and trusts.

Woulda done farmers more good.

Estate lawyers can swindle the government outta nearly everything and mom will gain some piece of mind about her degenerate husband.

Only dumb rich guys like Scandinavian Bob are following this story.

If you pay taxes on the money you earned through ordinary income and on business profit why the fuck should it be taxed again ?

[sonatine]

everyone believes their side is morally correct, and that the ends justify the means.

and then i remind you that one side literally denies science is a thing while the planet is entering a period of man-made mass extinction and .. then what, whats your encore?

[JimmyG_415]

everyone believes their side is morally correct, and that the ends justify the means.

and then i remind you that one side literally denies science is a thing while the planet is entering a period of man-made mass extinction and .. then what, whats your encore?

They always try to equate BS.
Hillary might have lied abut the emails, if you parse words,
Trump can't complete a sentence w/out lying, so according to fox "news", "they both lie",

Both sides have a history of sexual harassment, only one side codons it.
If you want to bring up Clinton, I agree, so lets impeach Trump ,too.

[sonatine]

and then i remind you that one side literally denies science is a thing while the planet is entering a period of man-made mass extinction and .. then what, whats your encore?

They always try to equate BS.
Hillary might have lied abut the emails, if you parse words,
Trump can't complete a sentence w/out lying, so according to fox "news", "they both lie",

Both sides have a history of sexual harassment, only one side codons it.
If you want to bring up Clinton, I agree, so lets impeach Trump ,too.

Yyyyyyup.

I get that people want to build bridges and somehow ratchet down the absolute toxic hatred between 'left' and 'right' but honestly, that was some Nov 9 thinking, back when we were like "oh Im sure Trump will drop the brain damaged drug addict act and wield power responsibly".

[MumblesBadly]

John Mellencamp should have written a song about Family Limited Partnerships (FLP) and trusts.

Woulda done farmers more good.

Estate lawyers can swindle the government outta nearly everything and mom will gain some piece of mind about her degenerate husband.

Only dumb rich guys like Scandinavian Bob are following this story.

If you pay taxes on the money you earned through ordinary income and on business profit why the fuck should it be taxed again ?

Because the excessive accumulation of wealth by families undermines fairness in our political system.




Also, the *inheritors* are the ones who owe estate taxes, not the person who accumulated that wealth.

[Tellafriend]

If you pay taxes on the money you earned through ordinary income and on business profit why the fuck should it be taxed again ?

You can say that about most taxes. Along w similar vein, why should land owners be the ones responsible for paying for public education?