GOP passes massive tax break for millionaires, billionaires

The money isn't lost to the potential tax pool. It's just no available immediately. It will be taxed again and again over time. The other thing folks don't understand about the very wealthy is that their money isn't held in cash. It's invested and in the pockets of a lot of working people. If the government takes a huge chunk of those investments when a person dies, those investments would need to be sold to turn them into cash. Those whose income was created by such investments may be affected. Because the affect is spread out among many, it may seem insignificant but it takes many drops of rain do make up a few lakes and ponds. IMO, the first thing we need to address in government is it's thought that spending and/or printing more money is the solution to an income deficit.

$269 billion tax exemption. Guess who gets to make up the deficit?
Can't allocate money for infrastructure because it will increase the deficit but can give $269 billion to the uber rich by increasing the deficit.
I don't want to pay taxes on the money I earn during the year. Let the wealthy pay mine.

Do you know how government agencies figure out their annual budgets each year? They add about 10% automatically to what they got last year..........then each department within that agency is awarded specific amounts based on that extra increase. If that money isn't entirely spent by the end of the fiscal year, it isn't returned to the Treasury, and they aren't allowed to transfer any of it to another department or agency that may have run short. That's how you end up with huge million dollar parties and conferences and wasted money on more printers, office furniture, or even wine glasses for the WH. It ALL has to be spent or those who have a surplus get a cut the following year. I believe that is why even though the Pentagon keeps saying they don't need those Abrahm tanks they are being 'forced' into taking them anyhow.

I'm suspecting that local and state governments have learned from the Federal Government and are now practicing the same tactics.

Stop those practices (happening on BOTH sides of the aisle for far too long), do away with the automatic increases that politicians are REALLY talking about when they say they are 'cutting the deficit', allow for transfer between departments and agencies that really DO need extra, and we would probably have plenty of money for your infamous 'infrastructure' speeches.

Sequestration......which pretty much did away with those automatic increases at the 10% rate.

Have you looked into the budget amounts on a year-to-year basis? I also didn't say that every department or agency, especially during the Bush years, got that same increase. Money was allocated in different ways during those years, but BO threw everything into the toilet with the stimulus and the extra money he threw at other bailouts (Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, more auto bailout cash, more welfare and foodstamp benefits, and then Obamacare). He only reduced the deficit that HE had created, NOT what BUSH had at the end of his terms) and ONLY because of the sequestration.

That's when he went into full metal jacket mode with the EPA in order to garner more money, via fines and regulations. He has consistently since 2009 had the Treasury throw $850B a MONTH into 'stimulus' money that has never been accounted for or paid for, but rather borrowed from other countries and it hasn't let up. He also has many more taxes incorporated into Obamacare, all while taking millions out of Medicare to help fund that behemoth.

If you don't believe me about the automatic increases, it's available online if you choose to look....but here's where to start "Baseline Budgeting".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_%28budgeting%29

Exactly the same can be said about sales tax (or any excise): "I already paid the tax. Why do I have to pay again just because I buy something?". And it makes just as little sense.

Kees

Every sale should be taxed once (when you buy the product).

Every income should be taxed once (when you earn it) - not only income from work, but also income from properties (such as rent, interest or dividend), inheritances and gifts.

Even a tax on just having something (a house, a car) can be justified.

I don't want to exclude any basis for tax, as long as it's the same calculation for every comparable taxable thing (of course, the percentage can vary - flat tax or higher tax on luxury goods, flat tax or higher tax for higher incomes or higher capital).

The total amount of tax for the feds/state/community etc, and how exactly it's divided over the all possible bases in a given year, is clearly an issue of politics and believes. Some prefer a lower total amount, some accept a higher amount is necessary. Some think rich people should pay more, other think they shouldn't. Some think taxes are an instrument to influence behaviour: for example, tax cigarettes because it's unhealthy, tax 'green' energy less than CO2-emitting energy, tax gas and subsidise public transport.
The lower one kind of tax, the higher other kinds, given a budget.

Kees

they are clearly not implemented fairly. They discriminate against a very few people and I cannot find a logical reason why other than the government has a way of wanting to dip deepest into the larger ponds because it's easier to do so. If we're going to have a death tax, it should apply to all. If it's 5% if the total asset value of the departed one (after debts paid and funeral costs), it's 5% regardless of relative wealth. If 10% or more, the same applies. Personally, I cannot find a reason for death taxes at all. When a wealthy person dies and leaves a large amount of money in investments and property, those who inherit will pay taxes on any increase in value. Inherited IRAs are also taxed and heirs must begin withdrawals beginning the first year of the person's death regardless of their own age. Thus, those taxes become available to federal and state governments almost immediately and are paid again year after year until the IRA is depleted. Between capital appreciation and deferred taxes on a deceased's savings, I think that's enough to take from the dead.

Whoopi Goldberg whom I quoted is not known as any kind of "conservative". She is, however, well off so I cannot think that dissatisfaction with death taxes is limited to people of specific politics or ideology.

Remember Zorba the Greek on Crete and the death of the "wealthy" Widow? How upon her death the people immediately raided her house for everything, even to the curtains? That's the mentality behind "death taxes".

is that family owned farms, purchased when land was far less expensive but in days when most people were poor, whose land has increased over time in price per acre, and who are 'land rich but cash poor', will be able to continue being handed down from one generation to the next without having to sell off the land just to pay what the Dems/liberals believes should belong to the government coffers to spend as they wish....and remember also that all farming equipment is included. They are already having to pay huge amounts to local government in real estate taxes, in addition to personal property taxes on every piece of equipment owned.

Small businesses are in the same position because of inventories and buildings and equipment owned, such as restaurants and service industries.

to circumvent "Death Tax"?

And anything over that can be taxed. If the govt thinks you gave over the limits already, they can come looking for more in taxes. The best method is give in a form they can't find, that is intrinsic, and can be slowly leaked into one's income stream through a lifetime. Gold is the current best "hide it away for another day" method.

Gold is the current best "hide it away for another day" method.

That's what the poor folks do also.

Personally I have all my money tied up/invested in shoelaces.

that what you risk and earn over your lifetime should be given over first to the government to steal from before your kids can have any of it? Do you believe the same way BO and liberals/Dems do that "you don't need anymore so we'll determine what you get to keep"?

Do you believe that Dems/liberals haven't also set up trusts or don't you include them in the 'rich' side of the tally board?

Do you believe farmers or small business owners are 'rich' and should sacrifice 40% of their land/property worth to the government before their kids can inherit it, forcing them to either go into debt to pay off the government or be forced to sell to pay that bill?

Do you believe that someone that has $5 million is "poor"?

Today, 99.8 percent of estates owe no estate tax at all, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.[3] Only the estates of the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans — roughly 2 out of every 1,000 people who die — owe any estate tax. (See Figure 1.) This is because of the tax's high exemption amount, which has jumped from $650,000 per person in 2001 to $5.43 million per person in 2015.

and 'not much of a tax', then why would the federal government even need it to the point of having such a huge 40% rate?

What does the government consider to be 'small' estates? Many 'small' farms are worth well over $5M in land alone, not the '20' they are claiming to be for the entire country. There is a local one family farm about a mile from my house that has well over 4000 acres and with all of the land, farm equipment, silos, cattle, sheep, etc. on that land has been valued at nearly $10M. This is land that was handed down generation after generation since Thomas Jefferson issued the 'land grab' deal......because it was free two hundred or more years ago, doesn't mean those families didn't improve and build it into a good 'business' over time doesn't mean the government now owns 40% of it. One piece of farm equipment alone costs $250,000 or more.

Do you believe that 'you didn't build it' theory? How much do you think the government gave them over the years to build it? (Hint....they didn't get subsidies to NOT grow a corn field like the huge conglomerates get....the corn they do grow, like other farmers here, goes into the silos to feed their cattle, sheep, and pigs)

...then why is Diane upset and why would the govt spend more money in collecting it than it provides?

Why decide you can steal from one economic group and not another? Isn't that what in past we called "SLAVERY!" ???

Stealing is a crime, and that means our govt engages in morally criminal behaviour when they do it. It's treating some of our citizen's goods like they were "spoils of war".

It's repugnant. So, on one side we have the Republicans, and now on the other the former Democrats which can now be called the Repugnatons.

You're the only one mentioning "crime".

It's repugnant. So, on one side we have the Republicans, and now on the other the former Democrats which can now be called the Repugnatons.

And then we have you...who thinks nobody should pay for anything.

everyone should pay their fair share. Did you know it was a "sin" to require more from the rich than the poor in the Old Testament?


Exodus chapter 30

The Atonement Money

...14"Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD. "The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves. "You shall take the atonement money from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the sons of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves."

I guess all are equal in God's sight. Too bad some have a problem accepting that.