• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Already found the tax loopholes...

holbritter said:
But the people they inherited it from did :doh
Click to expand...

So what? That is the way of the world. I get money and pay tax on it and then I get take that money and it goes to somebody else and they pay tax on it since it is now theirs and so on down the line. Same money - taxed again and again and again and again. People who inherit are not special in this regard and its time we stopped treating them differently than other folks who pay tax on the money they acquire. .
 
holbritter said:
why should that be taxed twice? If the money I already paid tax on is left to my family, why should they be taxed again? **** that.
Click to expand...

They were not taxed on the money they inherited so it is not taxing them twice. It is new income for them regardless of any previous taxation.
 

No the truth is that cutting taxes on those that don't need it is the cause of most of our deficits. When the top 5% can quintuple their net worth to over $40 TRILLION in 30 years mostly due to low tax rates while we run up $20 trillion in deficits you know Republicans are responsible. Progressive tax rates are what keep capitalism functioning to benefit all classes and we have lost that control because of Republicans who care only about their wealthy contributors. It is a recipe for disaster.
 
iguanaman said:
They were not taxed on the money they inherited so it is not taxing them twice. It is new income for them regardless of any previous taxation.
Click to expand...

The definition of income is money earned through work or investment.

However, according to the IRS, they define it differently, so I will have to concede on the point that to the IRS it is considered new income.

So all that money people get as wedding presents should be declared on their income tax.
 

I agree. 39% is rediculous.
 

We ran up 20 Trillion in debt because we spent more money than we had coming in. Its that simple.
 
PirateMk1 said:
We ran up 20 Trillion in debt because we spent more money than we had coming in. Its that simple.
Click to expand...

That is what I said. We spent like we had the money of the wealthiest nation in the world and taxed the wealthy at record low rates resulting in the debt.
 
holbritter said:
Not for the same thing. The money you earn is taxed for income. When you spend it, there's sales tax, then there are other taxes, but they are not double taxed as income.
Click to expand...

The money you earn was earned by someone else prior, and taxed.
 

Sorry, but that post is just utter nonsense. $10 trillion of that $20 trillion deficit you complain about were rung up by Obama and we still have progressive tax rates. So, you just don't know what you are talking about.
 
Fletch said:
Sorry, but that post is just utter nonsense. $10 trillion of that $20 trillion deficit you complain about were rung up by Obama and we still have progressive tax rates. So, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Obama's deficit were "baked in the cake" before he even took office. Obama grew the budget far less than any Republican and left office with a deficit less than half what he was handed by Bush. No Republican Pres. has EVER left office with the deficit lower than when he came in. Starving the beast is their aim and they don't
care who suffers because of it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#21f6dbeb25cf
 

If only Obama had acted like he felt a little guilty about the generational warfare we are conducting, perhaps that would have helped.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
If only Obama had acted like he felt a little guilty about the generational warfare we are conducting, perhaps that would have helped.
Click to expand...

You do know you are speaking in memes now. Is that all the brain power you have left? The only internal warfare I have seen in the last 40 years is the one on the middle class. It is relentless. As long as we keep letting the robber barons keep most of their ill gotten gains we will never recover what we lost.


Why America’s middle class is lost | The Washington Post
 
Last edited:

The problem for you is that I am one of the primary promoters on DP of the idea that America is and has long been ripped off by the thieves who corrupted Washington and who dont at the end of the day care about what is best for America.

So when you call me stupid what are you saying?
 

So you agree that the first step to a recovery of the middle class is to raise taxes on the top brackets until they realize they cannot keep all the profits for themselves and start sharing the wealth with their employees? That's how we made it work so well in the postwar period. A CEO was a dunce back then for taking huge wages because nearly all of it was taxed away. They are still short sighted dunces but now we call them the "job creators" and they get to keep more and more of the profits their workers produce..so that is exactly what they do.
 
Last edited:

No, the first step is to understand how broken and corrupt Washington is.

The second step is to decide to do something about it.

The third step is to fix Washington.

The forth step is for these new better people who are working in a reformed system to triage the patient, to decide the order of priority.

The fifth step is for these new better leaders who are working together for America to bring their ideas and plans to the people for ratification.

The SIXTH step MIGHT be what you say.
 
Last edited:
holbritter said:
why should that be taxed twice? If the money I already paid tax on is left to my family, why should they be taxed again? **** that.
Click to expand...

Because they are different people than you. You already paid taxes on that money once. They did not. ALL money is taxed more than once, each time it's paid to someone as income. Why should inheritance be special?
 
molten_dragon said:
Because they are different people than you. You already paid taxes on that money once. They did not. ALL money is taxed more than once, each time it's paid to someone as income. Why should inheritance be special?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't meet the definition of income. The IRS added it to their list of taxable income to suit their purpose. All money may be taxed more than once, but not for the same type of tax.
 
holbritter said:
Because it doesn't meet the definition of income. The IRS added it to their list of taxable income to suit their purpose. All money may be taxed more than once, but not for the same type of tax.
Click to expand...

I am wrong. States that have income tax will become double taxation if the new tax plan goes through disallowing itemizing that tax.
 
holbritter said:
Because it doesn't meet the definition of income. The IRS added it to their list of taxable income to suit their purpose. All money may be taxed more than once, but not for the same type of tax.
Click to expand...

Thats half the problem. We need to STOP discriminating based on the source of the income and simply treat all monies going into a persons pocket or account according to the same tax schedules.
 
HowardBThiname said:
You really think you're entitled to take more than a quarter of a person's bonus?

Fascinating.

What do you have to offer in return?
Click to expand...

If that's the principle, then put the top tax rate at 25% for everyone, take the revenue hit, then deal with the projected deficits somehow, either by telling us where they're going to find the big spending cuts or what the new annual deficits are going to look like.

But they don't want to do that so they wrote a bill anyone could see would be abused. That's deceptive and dishonest and I'm not sure why you'd want to defend that approach.
 

their net worth increase is not due to tax cuts.
 
holbritter said:
why should that be taxed twice? If the money I already paid tax on is left to my family, why should they be taxed again? **** that.
Click to expand...

Because it's income. If you paid that already-taxed money to someone painting your house, they'd include it in income. As a matter of principle, money paid to heirs is no different. It's an accession to wealth and the tax code doesn't normally care why someone was made wealthier, just that any accession to wealth is taxable as income, "from whatever source derived."

We've made a policy choice to exclude income going to heirs of an estate, but only for the non-wealthy. But that's all it is - a decision to exempt that "income" from tax. Now the policy choice is to exclude nearly ALL transfers through an estate from any tax.

And the thing is, to me at least, it might be defensible if it was part of a bigger 'reform' of the IRC. So, for example, if your employer transferred you from NY to CA, they'd often pay your moving expenses for that long move and you could exclude that from "income" because you weren't made better off - your employer forced you to move and reimbursed that expense. Well, the rules now will subject that to income tax, and so broadened the definition of income, for regular people. If they did that throughout the code, that might make sense - it would allow for lower rates!

But instead of doing that in a principled way, they narrowed the definition of income, carved out HUGE new exceptions to the rules, but only for the wealthiest 0.2% with the estate tax provisions. Wonder why........?
 

Yeah.. that makes no sense what so ever. You are as bad as the "conservatives" that think that lowering my taxes will cause me to expand my business and pay my workers more.

Raising my taxes is not going to make me pay my workers more..

but you please explain it to me.. why when my taxes go up.. I am going to pay my workers more (which by the way increases my overall taxes EVEN MORE).. regardless of competition, demand, etc.
 
holbritter said:
Not for the same thing. The money you earn is taxed for income. When you spend it, there's sales tax, then there are other taxes, but they are not double taxed as income.
Click to expand...

When I pay Joe The Plumber with my after-tax dollar, it gets taxed again. For the same reason, because it is income (i.e. a "transaction")

The gov't taxes transactions. A transaction occurs when money transfers from one person's ownership to another's.

"Income" and "inheritance" are just two different names for transactions. They should both be taxed.
 

The problem is that when you tax those transactions.. it makes it harder for the poor and the middle class to gain wealth. It decreases upward mobility.

the reason that we tax inheritances etc for the rich.. is really to help stabilized the economy.. It encourages the rich to do estate planning and to divest themselves of their business assets etc earlier.. and that makes less blips in the economy. Its much better for a business to have it pass from father to son.. or to some other entity well before the owner dies. It affords a smooth transition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…