Hillary Clinton Twists the Knife in Donald Trump’s Tax Proposals - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50905768]I get your point, but this is Whig history at it's finest. History isn't always necessarily an inevitable fight towards liberalism, that's just the way it's portrayed - as a story.[/QUOTE] I see your point, I agree on a couple aspects, but you can't deny that the US, at the very least, had many of its most defining eras as fights for social and political progression and betterment. Like I said, there were exceptions, but for the most part, progressive ideals have defined the US as a country. Although, like I said, I do see your point. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Monkah;50905810]I use the word 'strawman' because you're making strawmen arguments by literally word for word, accusing all who disagree with you as, in your own words, people who "know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values." Me using the word 'strawman' doesn't make your argument any less of just that. It's not a buzzword, it's me attempting to communicate to you that you're painting roughly 50% of the US population as ignorant, brainwashed people who are scared of change and don't know anything about politics, rather than people who simply disagree with you for perfectly legitimate reasons. And no, conservatism is not 'highly publicized' here on Facepunch. Most conservatives I know that are on Facepunch generally tend to stay far away from these threads simply due to the vitriol people like you inflict upon them. I rest my case.[/QUOTE] I stated that YOUR conservative way of thinking has been highly publicized on the forum, which it has been. And if you followed your own ideas of what a debate is, you'd actually be countering my points with intelligent, well thought out beliefs that you supposedly hold, instead of giving vague non-arguments and calling my points "strawman", and doing what you're accusing me of doing. So what's your big counter to my beliefs that supposedly offend you? Why do YOU think your way of thinking is smarter and more well-intentioned than mine?

[QUOTE=Ridge;50905641]"Best interests" is taking money from people, running it through the bureaucracy (losing a considerable percentage) and then giving that money to someone else, with the promise that you'll get the same from the next poor sap.[/QUOTE] Best Interests is diminishing returns for wealth to provide a security net that prevents lower-classes from becoming trapped in a black-hole of impoverishing debt in times of crisis.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905828] I stated that YOUR conservative way of thinking has been highly publicized on the forum, which it has been.[/QUOTE]Really? Please, do tell me, what exactly do you think is 'my way of thinking'? [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905828] And if you followed your own ideas of what a debate is, you'd actually be countering my points with intelligent, well thought out beliefs that you supposedly hold, instead of giving vague non-arguments and calling my points "strawman", and doing what you're accusing me of doing.[/QUOTE] [B]1.[/B] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1531236&p=50905479&viewfull=1#post50905479"]I've yet to get a single response to my defense of the removal of the aforementioned form of taxation.[/URL] [B]2.[/B] I'm not doing what you're doing. I'm not claiming that all liberals are hopeless, uneducated college students who are blinded by promises of free stuff, just like you referred to all conservatives as people who "know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values". I'm perfectly willing to claim there are well-educated and reasonable liberal-minded people who hold entirely valid and even mildly agreeable viewpoints. [B]3.[/B] What points of yours do you want me to 'counter'? The claim that all conservatives are working against their own self-interest? The claim that liberalism is undeniably good no matter the circumstances? [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905828] So what's your big counter to my beliefs that supposedly offend you? Why do YOU think your way of thinking is smarter and more well-intentioned than mine?[/QUOTE]Here's my 'big counter'. [B]1.[/B] People, regardless of political beliefs, can be intelligent/dumb, kind/despicable, reasonable/irrational, and can all have entirely logical and valid points of view without agreeing with one another. [B]2.[/B] People like yourself, who have admitted that your mentality going into this is that "the other side is wrong", are inherently irrational and, if unwilling to receive the ideas of others, aren't 'debating' as much as they are spewing vitriol at those that disagree with them. Especially when they've yet to even comment on the thread topic, and have simply just spewed ad-hominem at those who disagree with the political candidate that they plan on voting for. [B]3[/B]. Within an argument or debate, as said above, both sides should be willing to hear out the opinions of their opponents. Otherwise, there's literally no point to the discussion-- there's not going to be any progress made: no opinions changed, no persons swayed, nothing but tension, really. Any healthy argument/debate will have people who are genuinely willing to sway their opinions when presented with facts, statistics, and alternative viewpoints. [B]4.[/B] And just to drill in the above points made, I'll repeat it one last time: nobody here is Hitler. Everyone, given that you're willing to listen to them present their case and arguments, will likely have a legitimate and fairly morally-sound argument. If you're willing to listen to their point of view, rather than immediately dismiss them as people you're so confidently more intelligent than, then you will leave the discussion with a more broadened understanding of the issue, as well as be a more effective debater and be able to debate people based on their viewpoints and logic, rather than by calling them names. That's all I've got. Anyone wanna go back to discussing Estate Tax?

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905643]Wow, LTJGPliskin, you're so smart! Up until now, I didn't realize that my reasons for having opinions different than yours are entirely invalid! If only I had known that my economic and social beliefs were secretly all brainwashed into me by my [I]patriotism[/I], and that a true [I]free-thinker [/I]should really just be voting for the candidate that'll give them a slightly more money, regardless of the economic consequences! Thanks, LTJGPliskin! You know, back in my basic high-school level history classes, they taught me that there were [I]plenty[/I] of "liberal" social movements (you know, really just about any communist nation ever) that ended awfully, but I guess my teachers, the writers of my history books, and history itself were all blinded by the alt-right agenda's patriotism! I would've never guessed![/QUOTE] So in your mind liberalism is equivalent to communism. Why don't you go back to 1954 when that kind of fucked up line of thinking was being preached by Joe McCarthy?

Taxes are fucking complicated and all i gotta say is, I don't trust anyone who has possibly committed tax fraud to decide on everyones taxes

Whatever, I don't feel like being here all night anyways. Yes, let's get back on topic.

99.9% of estates do not pay Estate Tax, so removing it benefits only the rich, at the detriment of the beneficiaries of that tax money.

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50906064]99.9% of estates do not pay Estate Tax, so removing it benefits only the rich, at the detriment of the beneficiaries of that tax money.[/QUOTE] The rich already have ways of avoiding Estate Tax, and a very good majority of them do, simply because the Estate Tax, which, when combined with Income Tax, is absurdly high to the point where it may as well be theft. How about rather than keeping and/or raising Estate Tax, we either remove it or stop the double-taxation of people's finances/goods upon their death?

[QUOTE=Monkah;50906120]The rich already have ways of avoiding Estate Tax, and a very good majority of them do, simply because the Estate Tax, which, when combined with Income Tax, is absurdly high to the point where it may as well be theft. How about rather than keeping and/or raising Estate Tax, we either remove it or stop the double-taxation of people's finances/goods upon their death?[/QUOTE] How exactly are they avoiding the Estate Tax, and how is it double-taxation? If they're tax-dodging they should be stopped.

Trump's tax proposals are basically unanimously agreed among essentially every qualified economic thinktank to be horrendous for income inequality. Not to mention, when combined with the rest of his plans, his tax plans leave [i]trillions[/i] of dollars totally unaccounted for. He's pledging to increase funding for things (like the military) while cutting taxes. It's barely a "plan," because it's 5+5=1000. His tax plan is horrendous - Hillary's, while not perfect, is [I]way[/I] better for income inequality. The only way Trump could make a worse tax plan is if he proposed a flat tax.

Surely if someone has £400,000 (just over the IHT cap in the UK) then during their lifetime they'll have paid tax on it, notwithstanding dodgy accounting. I don't see why their descendants should be forced to pay another lump of tax on top of it when they inherit. Could someone explain that to me?

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50906137]How exactly are they avoiding the Estate Tax, and how is it double-taxation? If they're tax-dodging they should be stopped.[/QUOTE] [B]1. [/B]Estate Tax is generally 'loopholed' by a fairly good majority of people who the law applies to, to the point that it's essentially commonplace. The way this is done (to put things rather simply), is that the person in question establishes an irrevocable trust, which in short, means that a good majority of the financial assets in question aren't legally owned by the aforementioned person. Thus, when that person dies, he wouldn't technically be the owner of the assets, and thus the Estate Tax wouldn't apply to them. There are other small tips and tricks for transferring goods while loopholing the Estate Tax laws, but I know the trust is the biggest one. [B]2.[/B] Say your family owns a decently successful family business, or a farm, or something along those lines. Upon their death, the Estate Tax immediately comes into play-- which requires the heirs to pay up roughly 40% of the value of the business to the government, because the previous owner had died and it's being passed down. [B]Then,[/B] afterwards, since the heirs are coming into possession of the business, they're taxed again, for up to [B]another[/B] 40%, since the receiving of the business technically counts as income. [B]Thus, they have to pay (up to) eighty percent of the business's value in order to keep it.[/B] Many heirs to businesses and/or farms, when not loopholing the law, oftentimes actually have to sell the business in question, simply because the government asks for such an absurdly high amount of money that the heirs oftentimes simply don't have. Before we remove the loophole, we need to kill Estate Tax. Taxing the recipients of the business for up to 80% of its value is absurd and may as well be theft.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50906172]Surely if someone has £400,000 (just over the IHT cap in the UK) then during their lifetime they'll have paid tax on it, notwithstanding dodgy accounting. I don't see why their descendants should be forced to pay another lump of tax on top of it when they inherit. Could someone explain that to me?[/QUOTE] Ideally, they shouldn't. But in the US it's a $5.4 million cap. So few people are affected, and it's easy to get around, so it isn't a major thing here. The better solution is to get rid of the inheritance tax and just add higher tax brackets to make up for it.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905479]Estate tax is bullshit, and I'm not someone who makes enough to lose anything from it anyway. There's no sane reason to tax a single money/item transfer twice. Taxing it as both income and as estate tax is brutally unfair to the recipient of the money, even if you're jealous that he's getting a decent sum. Remember that [B]estate taxes can be up to 40%[/B], and[B] income taxes can be up to another 40%.[/B] So, say you worked hard all your life, and you've made a pretty good living for yourself-- and you're trying to leave your son your house. Imagine being [B]taxed for what could be up to 80% of its value[/B], simply because the owner died and wanted to pass it to you. It's bullshit, and the only reason you guys don't hear about that more often is because there are ways of getting around that taxation, which is what most wealthy people do.[/QUOTE] This is something that confuses me so much about people who love capitalism so much, is how the fuck they can rationalize lowering an inheritance tax. The very idea, the very core of capitalism is that the merit of people determines the amount of money they make, not where they come from. Eliminated a tax such as that just completely fucks everything up because it means some people start off on a better foot simply because their parents were the ones that actually did everything.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50906239]This is something that confuses me so much about people who love capitalism so much, is how the fuck they can rationalize lowering an inheritance tax. The very idea, the very core of capitalism is that the merit of people determines the amount of money they make, not where they come from. Eliminated a tax such as that just completely fucks everything up because it means some people start off on a better foot simply because their parents were the ones that actually did everything.[/QUOTE] Who said life has to be fair? A lot of people work very hard through out their lives to provide not only for their children, but for their children after they've passed. That's why life insurance policies are in the 6 digits. Of course people want their kids to have a leg up in life, so that they don't have to work as hard as they did. It isn't fair sure, but then again neither is life. So you can try and do something about it, maybe be successful with it or maybe fail. That's life.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905479]Estate tax is bullshit, and I'm not someone who makes enough to lose anything from it anyway. There's no sane reason to tax a single money/item transfer twice. Taxing it as both income and as estate tax is brutally unfair to the recipient of the money, even if you're jealous that he's getting a decent sum. Remember that [B]estate taxes can be up to 40%[/B], and[B] income taxes can be up to another 40%.[/B] So, say you worked hard all your life, and you've made a pretty good living for yourself-- and you're trying to leave your son your house. Imagine being [B]taxed for what could be up to 80% of its value[/B], simply because the owner died and wanted to pass it to you. It's bullshit, and the only reason you guys don't hear about that more often is because there are ways of getting around that taxation, which is what most wealthy people do. No, I'm actually well-knowledged that voting Democrat would benefit me more personally. That being said, voting simply for who promises me more money is a cheap and unethical way of voting in the first place. Thanks for insulting my intelligence with those awful strawmen, though-- they actually make me feel a lot more confident about my political beliefs, seeing how strawmen are seemingly all you've got.[/QUOTE] Estate tax isn't bullshit- it's a way to make sure that the rich are paying their fair share. To be honest i looked it up on wikipedia to be sure, and that 5 million$ is exempt, after that, it will be 18% tax rate up to 40% on estate tax. You also neglect to realize that the estate tax is a way of getting money from people who dodge other taxes. say donald trump dies and his estate is left to his son. if he paid 0% payroll tax and on taxable income, a large amount of those PERSONAL, NON-CORPORATE assets would be divided and taxed. that 40% is a way of retaining some of the money that he spent tax free by balancing loans and debt to pay off his real estate empire. he still pays a tax rate less than you and his estate is usually paid for. besides that there are exemptions as well. [QUOTE]Once the value of the "gross estate" is determined, the law provides for various "deductions" (in Part IV of Subchapter A of Chapter 11 of Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code) in arriving at the value of the "taxable estate." Deductions include but are not limited to: Funeral expenses, administration expenses, and claims against the estate;[20] Certain charitable contributions;[21] Certain items of property left to the surviving spouse.[22] Beginning in 2005, inheritance or estate taxes paid to states or the District of Columbia.[23] Of these deductions, the most important is the deduction for property passing to (or in certain kinds of trust, for) the surviving spouse, because it can eliminate any federal estate tax for a married decedent. However, this unlimited deduction does not apply if the surviving spouse (not the decedent) is not a U.S. citizen.[24] A special trust called a Qualified Domestic Trust or QDOT must be used to obtain an unlimited marital deduction for otherwise disqualified spouses.[25][/QUOTE] which means that in fact, he or his family can both pay nothing in regards to his estate tax from simply donating, which is already lopsided in regards to the ultra rich. this hurts nobody and your 80% tax claim is pretty much BS except for the top .2% of all american households. If anything you're using the straw-man and misrepresenting the argument to put the person who is reading this into the position of thinking "If i die will i really lose 40% of my household?!" when in fact the average person who pays the estate tax actually doesn't even make close to anything less than $ 5 million and steps up after that. Back under eisenhower the rich paid both a 90% tax and a 40% tax rate on estate taxes. they have it easy these days considering people making billions, like trump, pay 0%. besides this [QUOTE]So, say you worked hard all your life, and you've made a pretty good living for yourself-- and you're trying to leave your son your house. Imagine being taxed for what could be up to 80% of its value, simply because the owner died and wanted to pass it to you. It's bullshit, and the only reason you guys don't hear about that more often is because there are ways of getting around that taxation, which is what most wealthy people do.[/QUOTE] This is bullshit and a fallacy as well. The rich are either born rich, and owe the state their inheritance anyways, or they're made rich and owe the same. they're benefiting off of others, especially at tax brackets like trump, there's no other way to say it. by saying it's bullshit is saying that you don't understand the reasoning or your logic is faulty. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50906172]Surely if someone has £400,000 (just over the IHT cap in the UK) then during their lifetime they'll have paid tax on it, notwithstanding dodgy accounting. I don't see why their descendants should be forced to pay another lump of tax on top of it when they inherit. Could someone explain that to me?[/QUOTE] So say you have 500,000 pounds saved up. you pay an effective 3% rate on that, when you're really supposed to be paying 40% on that, but thanks to loopholes you don't. when you die, they tax that entire 500,000 pounds for 37% or whatever the estate tax is, to even out their losses.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50906280]^^[/Quote] I don't think that even the richest of the rich should be paying 80% of their wealth upon death. For example, If you want to tax people who've been loopholing the law to exempt themselves from taxes, why not just close those loopholes, rather than punish everyone with an insane (up to) 80% tax of all assets? The rest of your argument pretty much just follows that line of logic-- as if there's some amount of money that you can possess that suddenly makes it ethically fine to take 80% of it from you. Yes, I'm, referring to the very rich-- Estate Tax as a whole only refers to wealthy people. My point is that, even for the people who wipe their ass with franklins, an 80% tax, or anything near it, is essentially theft, and you really can't be surprised that the wealthy are trying to dance around that. Even if you're not at the very top brackets, you're still paying incredibly generous amounts to the government, just to be able to gift your children the property that you rightfully own. My personal philosophy is this-- sure, kill the loopholes. Get rid of each and every single one of them. After doing that, lower the everloving hell out of the tax rates, because people aren't going to keep their businesses, property, or wealth in the United States if it's ludicrously expensive to do so. [QUOTE=TornadoAP;50906239]This is something that confuses me so much about people who love capitalism so much, is how the fuck they can rationalize lowering an inheritance tax. The very idea, the very core of capitalism is that the merit of people determines the amount of money they make, not where they come from. Eliminated a tax such as that just completely fucks everything up because it means some people start off on a better foot simply because their parents were the ones that actually did everything.[/QUOTE] At the same time, it's not the government's property to take possession of. The parents are the people who own the assets, and are thus the ones who should have control over them-- whether it's their purchase/sale, their use, or who they go to upon death. Under United States law, all who receive an income can be taxed to up to 40% of that income. This is fine, nobody is arguing against that-- but having an additional 40% plopped on top of that may as well be the government taking possession of businesses after the owner dies, and essentially forces the rightful heir to literally buy back the business from the government. To downscale this slightly more, assuming you're living with your parents still-- imagine your dad dies in a car crash one day, and suddenly the government comes knocking, asking for 80% of the house's value. You, your mother, and your siblings are forced to sell the house because of this, and might not even be able to sell the house for the value which the government is taxing you. Sure, Estate Tax only targets wealthier persons, but that doesn't mean most people have that kind of money laying around, nor does it mean that it's ethically justifiable to force the recipient to buy back what was most likely their source of income, assuming they worked in the business.

[QUOTE][B]2.[/B] Say your family owns a decently successful family business, or a farm, or something along those lines. Upon their death, the Estate Tax immediately comes into play-- which requires the heirs to pay up roughly 40% of the value of the business to the government, because the previous owner had died and it's being passed down. [B]Then,[/B] afterwards, since the heirs are coming into possession of the business, they're taxed again, for up to [B]another[/B] 40%, since the receiving of the business technically counts as income. [B]Thus, they have to pay (up to) eighty percent of the business's value in order to keep it.[/B][/QUOTE] So essentially you're saying that they're taxed on that because it's in the hands of new owners. if the person before didn't pay any taxes on that property, the property is essentially only being taxed once. besides that, the money transferred hands. it went from one person to another, and is in essentially a business transaction from the father to the son. it should be taxed like one. We should remove the loophole and revise the tax code so that nobody gets exemptions unless they're under a 1,000,000$ bracket. that way the superwealthy can pay their fair share without the estate tax in place. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Monkah;50906308]@destroyer: not ignoring you, just was working on this reply during the time that you posted. uno seconde At the same time, it's not the government's property to take possession of. The parents are the people who own the assets, and are thus the ones who should have control over them-- whether it's their purchase/sale, their use, or who they go to upon death. Under United States law, all who receive an income can be taxed to up to 40% of that income. This is fine, nobody is arguing against that-- but having an additional 40% plopped on top of that may as well be the government taking possession of businesses after the owner dies, and essentially forces the rightful heir to literally buy back the business from the government. To downscale this slightly more, assuming you're living with your parents still-- imagine your dad dies in a car crash one day, and suddenly the government comes knocking, asking for 80% of the house's value. You, your mother, and your siblings are forced to sell the house because of this, and might not even be able to sell the house for the value which the government is taxing you. Sure, Estate Tax only targets wealthier persons, but that doesn't mean most people have that kind of money laying around, nor does it mean that it's ethically justifiable to force the recipient to buy back what was most likely their source of income, assuming they worked in the business.[/QUOTE] You're still ignoring the fact that the estate tax doesn't hold people who have an estate that possesses less than $5million in it. It's used to exact taxes from everyone who dodges them.

Alright everyone, threads been derailed enough with your conversation on the taxes. You can go ahead and mash the bullshit button all you want, but not here. Go make a thread in GD about it. Offtopic (the topic is the news article, not your stance on taxes) posts are bannble here on out.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50906308] To downscale this slightly more, assuming you're living with your parents still-- imagine your dad dies in a car crash one day, and suddenly the government comes knocking, asking for 80% of the house's value. You, your mother, and your siblings are forced to sell the house because of this, and might not even be able to sell the house for the value which the government is taxing you. Sure, Estate Tax only targets wealthier persons, but that doesn't mean most people have that kind of money laying around, nor does it mean that it's ethically justifiable to force the recipient to buy back what was most likely their source of income, assuming they worked in the business.[/QUOTE] So the tax jumps from 40% to 80%? as far as i know the tax is only recovered once, and if tax is already paid on it, it can't be taxed again. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50906333]Alright everyone, threads been derailed enough with your conversation on the taxes. You can go ahead and mash the bullshit button all you want, but not here. Go make a thread in GD about it. Offtopic on hand (the news article, not your stance on taxes) posts are bannble here on out.[/QUOTE] I was in the process of writing an automerge reply when you wrote this. will shut up about it now.

it isn't surprising at all that Trumps tax policies would benefit him and his family the most

[QUOTE=J!NX;50906024]Taxes are fucking complicated and all i gotta say is, I don't trust anyone who has possibly committed tax fraud to decide on everyones taxes[/QUOTE] To be honest, I sort of trust someone who has committed fraud [I]more[/I] to do a good job on it. Because they clearly know the system very well, and know how to work it to make the most of it. That skill probably counts for both sides. Still, fuck Trump with a rusty rake. But just sayin'. Tax fraud seems like a great qualification to work with in that line.

[QUOTE=Riller;50906597]To be honest, I sort of trust someone who has committed fraud [I]more[/I] to do a good job on it. Because they clearly know the system very well, and know how to work it to make the most of it. That skill probably counts for both sides. Still, fuck Trump with a rusty rake. But just sayin'. Tax fraud seems like a great qualification to work with in that line.[/QUOTE] its a very YOLO as hell decision to make. On one hand they could break the system for themselves and others open on the other if they were even slightly a decent human being they could fuck literally every tax fraudster over, but risk fucking themselves over completely as well

[QUOTE=J!NX;50906602]its a very YOLO as hell decision to make. On one hand they could break the system for themselves and others open on the other if they were even slightly a decent human being they could fuck literally every tax fraudster over, but risk fucking themselves over completely as well[/QUOTE] The IRS should hire tax evaders :v:

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905479]Estate tax is bullshit, and I'm not someone who makes enough to lose anything from it anyway. There's no sane reason to tax a single money/item transfer twice. Taxing it as both income and as estate tax is brutally unfair to the recipient of the money, even if you're jealous that he's getting a decent sum. Remember that [B]estate taxes can be up to 40%[/B], and[B] income taxes can be up to another 40%.[/B] So, say you worked hard all your life, and you've made a pretty good living for yourself-- and you're trying to leave your son your house. Imagine being [B]taxed for what could be up to 80% of its value[/B], simply because the owner died and wanted to pass it to you. It's bullshit, and the only reason you guys don't hear about that more often is because there are ways of getting around that taxation, which is what most wealthy people do. No, I'm actually well-knowledged that voting Democrat would benefit me more personally. That being said, voting simply for who promises me more money is a cheap and unethical way of voting in the first place. Thanks for insulting my intelligence with those awful strawmen, though-- they actually make me feel a lot more confident about my political beliefs, seeing how strawmen are seemingly all you've got.[/QUOTE] Important question: are income and estate taxes applied at the same time, or consecutively? If I got $100,000 would it be 80% of $100,000 is $80,000 leaving me with $20,000? Or would it be 40% of $100,000 is $40,000 leaving me with %60,000, and then 40% of $60,000 is $24,000, leaving me with $36,000? This would make a huge difference re: Hillary's tax plan and her criticism of Trump's to me.