Jump to content

The Trump Presidency


silentbob1272
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Great American said:

I'm serious.  Apparently supporting the wisdom of our nations leaders was not the way to go.  I figured the boards libs knew more than those who were making decisions.  

You feel this way about a year ago?

 

 

Also....trusting the government is generally a bad idea and most especially when it comes to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, capologist said:

I can't stand the estate tax.  Why should money get taxed for being transferred from someone who died?  It's not "earned income".

Why shouldn't they? 

 

5. The Largest Estates Consist Mostly of “Unrealized” Capital Gains That Have Never Been Taxed

Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax.  In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916:  to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.[13]

These unrealized capital gains account for a significant proportion of the assets held by estates — ranging from 32 percent for estates worth between $5 million and $10 million to as much as about 55 percent of the value of estates worth more than $100 million.[14]  (See Figure 4.)

The estate tax also serves as a modest corrective to other tax rules that provide massive tax benefits to income from wealth, such as the fact that capital gains are taxed at lower rates than wages and salaries.  The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — those with incomes above $3.1 million — will receive 56 percent of the benefit of the preferential capital gains rates in 2017, worth more than $600,000 apiece.[15]  Other tax rules allow part of the income of the very wealthiest to go completely untaxed, even with the estate tax.[16]

Since the estate tax serves, in part, to tax capital gains that have not otherwise been taxed, some people have proposed taxing estates at the top capital gains rate, currently 23.8 percent.  This argument is flawed:  the capital gains tax rates typically apply to nearly all capital gains income, whereas the estate tax applies only to the part of an estate that exceeds the exemption level.  (The estate tax’s average effective rate of 17 percent in 2017 is below the capital gains rate.) 

7. Repeal Would Likely Leave Less Capital for Investment

Claims that eliminating the estate tax would encourage people to save and thereby make more capital available for investment do not take into account the impact on government borrowing.  A Congressional Research Service report found that the estate tax’s net impact on private saving is unclear — it causes some people to save more and others to save less — and that its overall impact on national (private plus public) saving, a critical determinant of the amount of capital available for private investment, is likely positive. “f the only objective [of eliminating the estate tax] were increased savings,” the report concluded, “it would probably be more effective to simply keep the estate and gift tax and use the proceeds to reduce the national debt.”[19]

The reason is simple: while repealing the estate tax might lead some people — especially heirs who would receive even bigger inheritances otherwise — to work and save more, it also would lead the government to borrow more to offset the lost revenue. Government borrowing “soaks up” capital that would otherwise be available for investment in the economy. In the case of estate-tax repeal, the added government borrowing would more than outweigh any added private saving, leaving the economy no better off and quite possibly worse off.[20]

 

10. The Estate Tax Is the Most Progressive Part of the U.S. Tax Code

Because it affects only those who are most able to pay, the estate tax is the most progressive component of a tax code that overall is only modestly progressive, particularly when regressive state and local taxes are taken into account.[25] It is also the nation’s most effective tax policy tool to mitigate the negative effects of inheritances, which account for about 40 percent of household wealth and are extremely concentrated at the top.  Because they are correlated with the parent’s economic outcomes and provide an alternative to earned income, inheritances likely limit intergenerational mobility.[26]

The money the estate tax raises helps to fund essential programs, from health care to education to national defense. If the tax were further weakened or repealed, other taxpayers would have to foot the bill for these programs, face cuts in the benefits and services provided, or bear the burden of a higher national debt.  Like other Americans, the very wealthy benefit from public investments in areas such as defense, education, health care, scientific research, environmental protection, and infrastructure.  And they rely even more than others on the government’s protection of individual property rights, since they have so much more to protect. Bill Gates, Sr., a prominent advocate of retaining a strong estate tax, has explained that wealthy individuals benefit from the government because it “protects their business activities, the traditions that enable them to rely on certain things happening, that’s what creates capital and enables net worth to increase.”[27]

It is appropriate that people who have prospered the most in this society help to preserve it for future generations through tax revenues that derive from their estates. As President Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1906, “the man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.”

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capologist said:

I can't stand the estate tax.  Why should money get taxed for being transferred from someone who died?  It's not "earned income".

It only really affects the most affluent and is a decent way of reducing wealth accumulation into a few families. All things considered, the estate tax should be increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

No, not really.  This was just an answer to "the libs on this board" know more than our elected officials :lol:

So for the record WFW are you officially on the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and played a part in 9/11 train? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Great American said:

What would you have proposed in response to 9/11?  The bin laden problem wasn't going away with diplomacy.

1. Not invade Afghanistan. Use special forces to take out al-Qaeda elements in the country instead.

2. Not invade Iraq. It had literally nothing to do with 9/11.

3. Not conduct bombing campaigns in a dozen+ countries.

4. Not curtail civil liberties by using fearmongering and fake patriotism to sell those measures.

But thankfully hotter heads prevailed and due to that we have wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in a failed attempt to defeat Wahhabist militant groups with direct military action, destabilized entire regions which has only promoted the growth of those Wahhabist militant groups, killed millions of people, are propping up failed states that will collapse the moment we leave (a la South Vietnam), and are ******* ourselves over domestically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

1. Not invade Afghanistan. Use special forces to take out al-Qaeda elements in the country instead.

2. Not invade Iraq. It had literally nothing to do with 9/11.

3. Not conduct bombing campaigns in a dozen+ countries.

4. Not curtail civil liberties by using fearmongering and fake patriotism to sell those measures.

But thankfully hotter heads prevailed and due to that we have wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in a failed attempt to defeat Wahhabist militant groups with direct military action, destabilized entire regions which has only promoted the growth of those Wahhabist militant groups, killed millions of people, are propping up failed states that will collapse the moment we leave (a la South Vietnam), and are ******* ourselves over domestically.

:tiphat: thank you ....because i couldn't bring myself to explain it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, AF89 said:

So for the record WFW are you officially on the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and played a part in 9/11 train? :huh:

Are you asking me if the intelligence community that gave info to congress (Hillary included) which said that Iraq had WMD's and they voted to go to war (which Trump was against) at the time, you think you and the Libs on here knew they didn't have them?  GtfuggO with that nonsense.  Btw, that's the same investigating Russian collusion. :lol:

1vvtum.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Are you asking me if the intelligence community that the info to congress (Hillary included) which said that Iraq had WMD's and they voted to go to war (which Trump was against) at the time, you think you and the Libs on here knew they didn't have them?  GtfuggO with that nonsense.  Btw, that's the same investigating Russian collusion. :lol:

1vvtum.jpg

I love how you try to make claim that it was only rational descion a person at the time could have come to while inversely trying to casually slip past that Trump was against the war (a claim that's vague at best cause like a lot of things he allowed himself multiple answers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AF89 said:

I love how you try to make claim that it was only rational descion a person at the time could have come to while inversely trying to casually slip past that Trump was against the war (a claim that's vague at best cause like a lot of things he allowed himself multiple answers)

I like how you or anyone else didn't think there was WMDs at that time.  I was working around the WH, DOD, and secret service at that time, everyone "in the know" I spoke with said they had them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

1. Not invade Afghanistan. Use special forces to take out al-Qaeda elements in the country instead.

2. Not invade Iraq. It had literally nothing to do with 9/11.

3. Not conduct bombing campaigns in a dozen+ countries.

4. Not curtail civil liberties by using fearmongering and fake patriotism to sell those measures.

But thankfully hotter heads prevailed and due to that we have wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in a failed attempt to defeat Wahhabist militant groups with direct military action, destabilized entire regions which has only promoted the growth of those Wahhabist militant groups, killed millions of people, are propping up failed states that will collapse the moment we leave (a la South Vietnam), and are ******* ourselves over domestically.

Matter of fact... With your #2, Iraq was no friend to the group the caused 9/11!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

I like how you or anyone else didn't think there was WMDs at that time.  I was working around the WH, DOD, and secret service at that time, everyone "in the know" I spoke with said they had them.  

I know it's a strange concept to you unless thier democrats but maybe holding the people actually in the know responsible for lying about their Intel to justify a war to get rich off defense privatization and fat contracts might catch them a little flack for some number of years after. Strange reaction as it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, AF89 said:

I know it's a strange concept to you unless thier democrats but maybe holding the people actually in the know responsible for lying about their Intel to justify a war to get rich off defense privatization and fat contracts might catch them a little flack for some number of years after. Strange reaction as it is

Okay, so you don't understand a lot.  That's fine.  We can take this up at a later date.  I will be traveling to my new home, I have settlement tomorrow, a ton of deliveries to attend to, so I will be busy for a while.  I'll be back in a few days and I can help you then.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...