Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

GOP passes massive tax break for millionaires, billionaires

Apr 18, 2015 11:03AM PDT
GOP passes massive tax break for millionaires, billionaires

When describing Republican tax proposals, it's not uncommon to talk about policies that disproportionately benefit the very wealthy. GOP proponents will say a bill benefits all taxpayers, but they'll brush past the fact that the rich benefit most. This, however, is altogether different - today's bill, called the "Death Tax Repeal Act," quite literally benefits multi-millionaires and billionaires exclusively.

Even by contemporary GOP standards, today's vote is pretty obscene. At a time of rising economic inequality, House Republicans have prioritized a bill to make economic inequality worse on purpose. At a time in which much of Congress wants to make the deficit smaller, House Republicans have prioritized a bill to make the deficit much larger.

At a time when prosperity is concentrated too heavily at the very top, House Republicans have prioritized a bill to deliver enormous benefits to multi-millionaires and billionaires - and no one else.

Asked to defend this, Republican leaders - the same leaders who balk at all requests for public investment, saying the nation is too "broke" to fund domestic priorities - say it's only "fair" to approve a $269 billion giveaway to the hyper-wealthy.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
That's for atonement.
Apr 19, 2015 8:15PM PDT

That's money for God (or for the priest, anywary), comparable to a fine or compensaton if I read it well. If, for example, traffic fines aren't dependent on your income, that's fully according to that rule.

Now about the ax policy in the Jewish settlements in OT times, please. In those times I assume farmers (or land-owners) did pay something to the worldly king for protection against enemies. Maybe even those with less property paid less than the rich ones, either absolutely (an equal part of their harvest) or relatively (a smaller part of their harvest).
You shouldn't confuse payments to the church to payments to the government. Different laws and rules apply.

Kees

- Collapse -
RE: I guess all are equal in God's sight.
Apr 19, 2015 8:55PM PDT

Unless they are gay.........Too bad some have a problem accepting that.

- Collapse -
JP...re: gays
Apr 19, 2015 9:01PM PDT

Gays are equal when it comes to paying their inheritance taxes et al.....you can bet on the fact that in that regard Dems/liberals don't discriminate since all money they get spends the same.

- Collapse -
gay has nothing to do with it
Apr 20, 2015 2:42AM PDT

just another "red herring" JPBill tosses out. Not worth a penny for the thought.

- Collapse -
RE: gay has nothing to do with it
Apr 20, 2015 2:48AM PDT

I was pointing out "hypocrisy" or "selective interpretation" by James

- Collapse -
Kees, just pointing out...
Apr 20, 2015 3:35AM PDT

....the principle of equality in God's kingdom. Rich or poor are the same, and don't confuse that with "wicked" rich who have gained theirs by improper means. Drug lords may be rich, but their riches are from corruption and will rot their souls and they go to the grave for torments. Many of the patriarchs in the OT were rich, but they were good, so God blessed them even more. His promise to King David concerning the throne of Israel was a blessing upon David's family, his heirs, but if they did wrong, they were removed and another heir became king. This is God's way, to bless those who are good, not based on economics, but moral purity.

Look to this passage if the atonement one isn't enough to show that to you. This one deals with inheritances, who gains, who loses and is punished. Notice not a single person is punished or treated less for being rich.

Revelation 21: 7

...7 "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

another;

Galations 5
...19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God....

again, concerning inheritance;

1 Timothy chapter 5
8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.


2 Corinthians chapter 12
14 Here for this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you; for I do not seek what is yours, but you; for children are not responsible to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.

I Corinthians chapter 6, don't see rich mentioned here either.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


However, what is the attitude toward those in power, who take what belongs to others?

Jeremiah chapter 22 Here he's speaking to a king and those in power with him.

17 "But your eyes and your heart Are intent only upon your own dishonest gain, And on shedding innocent blood And on practicing oppression and extortion."

Read that entire chapter because it covers the king, the filthy rich who cheated and oppressed their way to the economic top, using the power of govt to do so, taking the inheritances of others (not their own) and holding back wages (also cheating with low wage illegal immigrant laborers?) . Sounds sort of like Democrats when in power doesn't it?

Back to the OT, to see how God felt about inheritance, especially concerning land.

Numbers 33:54
You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families; to the larger you shall give more inheritance, and to the smaller you shall give less inheritance. Wherever the lot falls to anyone, that shall be his. You shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers.

Numbers chapter 35
7 "Thus no inheritance of the sons of Israel shall be transferred from tribe to tribe, for the sons of Israel shall each hold to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. "Every daughter who comes into possession of an inheritance of any tribe of the sons of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers....

Jesus Parable of Inheritance
Matthew chapter 21

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.


Remember the story of King Ahab who wanted a man's land, an family inheritance, but the man refused, so the Queen Jezebaal had him killed and then took the land for her husband? Both of them came to destruction under a curse from God for doing that. Not even a king is supposed to take another person's inheritance. I would say that applies to any property!!! That is in 1 Kings, chapter 21.

Any Death Tax or Estate Tax which steals the inheritance, makes the greedy and envious wicked a stench in the nose of God and an affront to Him!

- Collapse -
JP
Apr 20, 2015 3:38AM PDT
"I was pointing out "hypocrisy" or "selective interpretation" by James"

You calling God a hypocrite because he judges morally and not economically?
- Collapse -
RE: You calling God a hypocrite
Apr 20, 2015 6:31AM PDT

AND the rest of the quote is

"I was pointing out "hypocrisy" or "selective interpretation" by James"

NOW you consider yourself "God"?

- Collapse -
I Peter chapter 4
Apr 20, 2015 4:17PM PDT

JP bill;
""I was pointing out "hypocrisy" or "selective interpretation" by James"
NOW you consider yourself "God"?




...10 " Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God;"


Just telling you what He wants.

- Collapse -
RE: Just telling you what He wants.
Apr 20, 2015 8:10PM PDT

It doesn't mean you're "doing what he wants"...YOU may THINK you are, others may think differently....has he/she given you any "signs"?

- Collapse -
Re: Kees. pointing out
Apr 20, 2015 8:37PM PDT

What the inhabitants of an small agricultural society (12 tribes united in a new kingdom by King David) in the Middle East found the best practices for the inheritance of - especially - land 3000 years ago, might not be an economically optimal solution for rules about inheritances in the nowadays global post-industrial information age.

Moreover this thread was about money, thus about economy. It's kind of mystery what "immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealouy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these" have to do with it. I think your religious enthousiasm (not to call it fanaticism)
went somewhat wild here.

Kees

- Collapse -
Kees, the theme was "inheritance"
Apr 21, 2015 4:33AM PDT

The part you were bothered by about the immoral was just part of the explanation of how God views inheritances and who will excluded from His. It's the principle I'm pointing at, that those who are family deserve it, not those who aren't. In God's kingdom of course, he can assign whomever He wishes to inherit and refuse those He objects to, or we could say "write them out of the will". It was also to demonstrate that inheritances, such as land, should be respected as such and NOT a theft target for those in governmental power.

- Collapse -
RE: build it into a good 'business' over time
Apr 19, 2015 6:13AM PDT

and they didn't get "tax breaks" (write off these expenses) while doing this "building"?

- Collapse -
You mean like all those...
Apr 19, 2015 12:37PM PDT

in the lower economic scale who gets a "tax break" from the Progressive Tax Scale, not to mention the extras like "Earned Income Credit" and "Child Care Deduction"? I don't mind them having a tax break, but I guess you hate all such tax breaks.

- Collapse -
Farmers et al tax breaks
Apr 19, 2015 8:28PM PDT

Example: You buy a $250,000 piece of equipment....government 'allows' you to take a deduction each year for a certain number of years according to the value of the equipment as a necessary expense to run the farm. Each year, the LOCAL government charges you a certain percentage of its wealth because it is now 'personal property'. Then you die, and as part of the entire estate, the FEDERAL government adds its value back into the mix and gets 40% of the entire estate, including that piece of equipment that you already paid LOCAL taxes on (not to mention the initial STATE/LOCAL SALES tax on it when you bought it new) year after year.

How much do you think is too much, JP.....and for how long should the same piece of equipment be taxed by ALL governments involved?

- Collapse -
RE: You buy a $250,000 piece of equipment
Apr 19, 2015 9:06PM PDT
Depreciation begins when a taxpayer places property in service for use in a trade or business or for the production of income. The property ceases to be depreciable when the taxpayer has fully recovered the property's cost or other basis or when the taxpayer retires it from service, whichever happens first.

Each year you use the equiptment it depreciates in value, IF you croak AFTER its cost has been written off...the person inherits "nothing" for all intentional purposes. 40% of nothing is nothing.
- Collapse -
Like a car
Apr 19, 2015 10:47PM PDT

it depreciates in value......however, as long as that piece of equipment is still usable, it doesn't depreciate the same as a car, and it continues to be taxed locally as personal property. Once you die, ALL working equipment is included in the entire estate, raising the estate's value.

YOU may believe it isn't worth anything....the GOVERNMENTS involved don't see it that way. A piece of farm equipment is a valuable asset no matter its age.....I had a forty year old tractor here that I bought for $600, but sold it two years later for $3000 because it was still working and functional. Most pieces of farm equipment are valued highly, no matter the age. Small businesses have equipment that most don't even consider, such as delivery trucks, tow motors, fork lifts, washer tanks, overhead cranes, etc. that are all part of its estate, along with inventories such as auto shops would acquire. And ALL of it is part of an estate......including their actual homes, rental real estate they may have purchased, the building they do business in, etc.

There are many households that have estates valued much higher than most people would think.....There are a number of people who have more than one property; there are quite a few 'collectors' that have large inventories, including cars, figurines, comic books, etc. in addition to the 'normal' things people acquire, such as tools, riding mowers, ATV's, etc., even longheld stocks and bonds. When a government decides that something has value to an estate, it doesn't take much to 'up the ante' by said government.

And it doesn't take long for an estate to build in dollars to the levels of 'millionaires and billionaires'....

- Collapse -
RE: I had a forty year old tractor here that I bought for
Apr 20, 2015 2:47AM PDT
I had a forty year old tractor here that I bought for $600, but sold it two years later for $3000 because it was still working and functional.

And then you bought another tractor?

I'm guessing the buyer was an antique collector and not a farmer.

And you're complaining the government is taking YOUR money?

I hope you paid taxes on your "profit", or did you tell the government?
- Collapse -
RE: if you make a profit, you claim it.
Apr 20, 2015 6:48AM PDT

The government thanks you for doing your bit to help them collect MORE taxes from a fellow farmer.

Some would have written a receipt for $600 claimed $600 as income....saving both parties money/taxes.

But, what do I know. I love government, I love taxes.

You're pretty nosy for somebody who believes in 'government bigger is government better'......just like a true liberal.

You're pretty stupid for someone that hates paying taxes.

- Collapse -
RE: You're pretty stupid
Apr 20, 2015 6:56AM PDT

SORRY...meant to say "not to sharp"

- Collapse -
Looks like Virginia has the highest TTP
Apr 20, 2015 3:28AM PDT
- Collapse -
Nearly all of the over $100M
Apr 21, 2015 3:55AM PDT

that the Clintons have is held in trust accounts for their daughter so they can avoid the estate tax completely.........

It's not just a 'right wing' issue, Diana, no matter how many ways the left tries to spin it. Dems/liberals always make sure they take care of their own before any new tax hits come in their direction....and there are plenty of Dem millionaires/billionaires floating around.

What does the HuffPost say the Reps are going to spend the $270B on? Or are they implying/inferring that the $270B saved by eliminating the death tax would be spent by the GOP rather than go to those inheritors? Completely the opposite would happen if the Dems got their hands on that $270B....it would be spent on another 'freebie' for people who don't deserve money they didn't have anything to do with in order to guarantee a Dem vote.

- Collapse -
It would be going to reduce the deficit.
Apr 21, 2015 5:56AM PDT

I mean passing it is going to increase the deficit.

- Collapse -
It doesn't have to increase a deficit, Diana
Apr 21, 2015 6:17AM PDT

because it can be offset by decreasing spending in other areas that Dems have been very reluctant to cut...........The only reason the deficit has actually come down from being in the trillion dollar mark thanks to BO is because of the sequestration cutting into every agency and department of the Federal government, not for any other reason.

- Collapse -
RE: .The only reason the deficit has actually come down from
Apr 21, 2015 6:30AM PDT

.The only reason the deficit has actually come down from being in the trillion dollar mark thanks to BO is because of the sequestration

SEQUESTRATION?....So some good DID come of sequestration....

AND Obama helped reduce the deficit?

The times they are a changing.

- Collapse -
Bo wound up with egg on his face
Apr 21, 2015 6:52AM PDT

when Reps agreed to the sequestration and actually forced into place....he didn't expect that to happen by his own admission....although today he is taking credit for the deficit reduction, which everyone expected he would do anyhow.

I always said that sequestration was a good thing...the only thing I didn't like was that departments that actually needed the money couldn't get it from the departments/agencies that didn't need it. No transfer of funds was allowed.

- Collapse -
RE: I always said that sequestration was a good thing
Apr 21, 2015 12:04PM PDT

THIS is the FIRST/ONLY time I've ever heard you use Segregation AND good in the same sentence.

The cuts coming from sequestration will result now in Federal funds paying up the gazoo with attorneys chomping at the bit over Warn Act lawsuits coming.

instead of getting the cuts that show up next week, will actually go into debt for the lawsuits that will result.

so whatever is 'saved' by the sequestration cuts will now be spent on paying off lawsuits instead.


In your previous life, Sequestration was only associated with "lawsuits", AND it was not "good".

- Collapse -
BO broke the law
Apr 21, 2015 8:38PM PDT

by telling companies (especially Federal contractors) to not send out pink slips when the law specifically says they were required to.....

Because those lawsuits didn't happen due to his breaking the law to avoid them, sequestration worked. The lawsuits I predicted would come was the ONLY thing I was unhappy about because Federal funds would have been used to fight them, just as Federal funds are being wasted on the lawsuits currently being fought by this administration. In my opinion, because I haven't actually checked on the numbers, I believe this administration has spent more taxpayer money defending itself over their policies and breaking the current 'on the books' laws than any other administration....and that money COULD have been used for much better areas, such as the infamous 'infrastructure'.

- Collapse -
RE: The lawsuits I predicted would come was the ONLY thing
Apr 21, 2015 9:05PM PDT
The lawsuits I predicted would come was the ONLY thing I was unhappy about

Well NOW you're unhappy because

the only thing I didn't like was that departments that actually needed the money couldn't get it from the departments/agencies that didn't need it. No transfer of funds was allowed.

2 things you aren't/weren't happy about in "good Sequestration".

The man is a brilliant tactician.