Politics Trumps stands to save Billions if estate tax repealed

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by XuXu, Sep 25, 2016.

  1. XuXu

    XuXu Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    809,699
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    21,067
    Likes Received:
    16,291
    https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders

    [​IMG]


    by Andrew M. Schocket on Dec 9, 2010

    The proposed tax deal between President Obama and Congressional Republican leaders includes a revision of the federal estate (inheritance) tax. At stake are issues as old as the nation: individual property rights versus the democratic ethos, and the need for savings versus the need for resources for the common good. For many of today's issues — such as Internet neutrality or nuclear disarmament — appealing to the founders seems clearly inappropriate. But in the case of the estate tax, the founders struggled with the same issues that we struggle with today. And many of them — though not all — believed that taxing and reducing large estates was a good idea, for it benefited society as a whole.

    Today Republicans would like to repeal the estate tax completely, while Democrats want to retain it. The proposed tax package would exempt the first $5 million of estates and levy a 35 percent tax on anything above that. Should the deal not go through, the inheritance tax is scheduled on Jan. 1 to revert to 2001 levels, exempting the first $1 million with a rate of 55 percent on the value exceeding that amount.

    For years, Republicans have loudly proclaimed their desire to abolish the "death tax," their name for the inheritance tax. And they and their Tea Party allies have called for a general reduction in taxes in accord with their view of the American Revolution as an anti-tax revolt. Furthermore, because the first modern estate tax was enacted in 1916, they have argued that it is merely a Progressive-era idea, foreign to the founders, who wanted to defend property at all costs. But the actual history is more complex and more instructive.

    Just as we do today, the American Revolutionary generation wrestled with the question of how much property the dead should be allowed to pass on to their children. For us, it is partly a fiscal concern: requiring the wealthy to pay taxes on estates is a way to lower federal deficits with minimal social cost. The idea of using an inheritance tax to raise revenue occurred to the nation's first politicians, too. In 1797, the Congress voted and President John Adams signed into law an estate tax to fund the building of a federal navy.

    Today's debate echoes that of the nation's founders in another, more profound way. Does allowing a small number of families to accumulate great wealth — increasing from generation to generation — harm democracy? The United States Constitution's ban on inherited titles met with unanimous approval because of the perceived threat posed by lords and earls to a democratic republic. Similarly, Americans have always understood that establishing a small group of families with seemingly unlimited wealth, social privilege, and political power undermines a fundamental American principle: that all citizens are legally and politically equal.

    Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth "a danger to the happiness of mankind."

    At the other end of the spectrum, the Constitutional Convention decided to forbid the English practice of allowing the government to seize the entire estate of a person convicted of treason. They reasoned that the property even of citizens who had committed the highest crimes against the nation should not be wholly confiscated.

    But, again like today, most people held views in between. By the 1770s, because of the practices of primogeniture (requiring all property to go to the deceased's first son) and entail (allowing families to will property that could never be divided or sold), along with rich families' penchant for land speculation, about three-quarters of Virginia's good land was owned by only a few hundred families, out of a population of around 400,000. Pressed by the small farmers and landless men on whom it depended for military service, Virginia banned primogeniture and entail in 1777. Virginia reached a compromise: Rich families didn't lose their land, but large estates got broken up over time, thereby loosening the richest families' grip over Virginia's economy and politics.

    So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
     
    Dorb and Jake Dog like this.
  2. Slow

    Slow All The Pieces Matter DawgShed News

    Reputations:
    336,667
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    11,883
    Likes Received:
    47,834
  3. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    71,579
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    14,186
    Shut up with your bullshit.

    https://americaswatchtower.com/2016...tered-from-her-proposed-estate-tax-increases/


    Hillary Clinton has proposed raising the estate tax from 40% to 65% on the wealthiest Americans, hereis more on the former Secretary of State’s proposal:

    Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Thursday proposed raising taxes on inherited property to 65% for the largest estates as she bolstered plans for tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans.

    Known by conservative opponents as the “death tax,” the estate tax, levied on property such as cash, real estate, stock or other assets transferred from deceased persons to heirs, currently is imposed only on inherited assets worth $5.45 million or more for an individual.

    Clinton’s plan, posted on her campaign’s website, would raise the estate tax from the current 40% to 45%, the rate that existed in 2009. But the biggest estates would face rates of up to 65% for property valued at more than $500 million for a single person or $1 billion per couple, under her proposal, an update of an earlier plan.

    “Hillary Clinton has made a commitment throughout this campaign to make sure there is a plan to pay for the progressive policies we have laid out,” said Mike Shapiro, an economic adviser to Clinton.

    So, Hillary Clinton has made a commitment to ensure there is a plan to pay for her policies, but according to this article that plan does not include her family sacrificing for the greater good because the Clinton’s have taken measures to shield themselves from her own proposed tax increases. Here is more:


    Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have created a number of tax shelters in recent years to dramatically limit their payment of the very same tax. As Bloomberg reported back in 2014: “To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth.”

    In 2010 the Clinton created “residential trusts” and the following year moved their Chappaqua estate into the trust, according to their financial records. As David Scott Sloan, a partner at the firm Holland Knight explained the Clinton trust to CBS News, “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”

    The move will save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, according to accountants quoted by Bloomberg.

    Even more substantial, the Clintons created a life insurance trust in 2010, which will shelter life insurance payments from estate taxes. This is their second such trust. The first was created in 1996, according to financial disclosures.

    [​IMG] It can be reasonably assumed that if Hillary Clinton knows how to thwart the system that everyone else who this plan would affect would also know how to avoid the taxes, meaning this is a useless feel-good piece of legislation which will accomplish nothing other than deceiving the American people into believing that Hillary Clinton and her elitist ilk are being forced to pay their fair share while in reality nothing has changed.

    This, in my opinion, makes Hillary Clinton more of a hypocrite than the others because while we know the other elitists are in it for themselves the former Secretary of State is claiming she understands ordinary Americans and is in the game for us yet she has protected herself from a policy she claims will help ordinary Americans.

    A good leader leads by example and Hillary Clinton is not setting a good example because she believes she is above it all.​
     
  4. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    71,579
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    14,186
    http://theweek.com/speedreads/617761/clintons-are-using-5-shell-companies-save-taxes-delaware


    The Clintons and their family foundation have at least five shell companies registered to the address 1209 North Orange Street in Wilmington, Delaware — which is also home to some 280,000 other companies who use the location to take advantage of the state's low taxes, limited disclosure requirements, and other business incentives.

    Two of the five are tied to Bill and Hillary Clinton specifically. One, WJC, LLC, is used by the former president to collect his consulting fees. The other, ZFS Holdings, LLC, was used by the former secretary of state to process her $5.5 million book advance from Simon & Schuster. Three additional shell companies belong to the Clinton Foundation.

    There is nothing illegal about the Clintons' decision to take advantage of Delaware's tax laws. However, on the campaign trail last week, Hillary Clinton criticized the "super-rich" who use "outrageous tax havens and loopholes" to pay fewer taxes. She pledged that, as president, she would "shut down the so-called private tax system for the mega-wealthy," including legal tax avoidance activities, in order to "make sure that everyone pays their fair share here in America." Bonnie Kristian
     
  5. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    71,579
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    14,186
    Everything you post that you hate about Trump, Clintons have done too so shut the fuck up.
     
  6. crazypreacher

    crazypreacher reDragon Gold

    Reputations:
    225,888
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    47,332
    Likes Received:
    42,990
  7. Irish Joe

    Irish Joe Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    1,936
    Basically, the estate tax only really hits people who have family businesses and can't afford to hide their assets in shell companies because its all tied to property.
     
    CrucifiedAGT and Coke Can Baby like this.
  8. No. 2 Pencil

    No. 2 Pencil "Shit Mult" VIP

    Reputations:
    34,784
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,209
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    :nooo:
     
    Turtle Man likes this.
  9. Tipsey Russell

    Tipsey Russell VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    125,066
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    11,036
    Likes Received:
    26,022
    i'm ok with a big hefty estate tax

    why?

    because i'll never inherit much
     
    kinneyjames and Jake Dog like this.
  10. Head Censor

    Head Censor Turgid Member VIP

    Reputations:
    394,788
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,428
    Likes Received:
    27,134
    They tax you when you earn it, they tax you when you spend it, they tax you when you save it and they tax you when you invest it.

    They can fuck right off if you just want to give it to your kids.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2016
  11. Ingens

    Ingens VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    28,305
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    6,973
    Forbid property be allowed to be inherited!
     
    Head Censor and TeeDonkey like this.
  12. Bro

    Bro Oligarchical Corporatocracy VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    209,160
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    85,636
    Likes Received:
    16,746
    It's funny to think that anyone on this board will be subject to the estate tax.
     
  13. XuXu

    XuXu Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    809,699
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    21,067
    Likes Received:
    16,291
    That's what they keep saying, and you guys keep eating it up.
     
  14. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    71,579
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    14,186
    Its funny to know you have zero net worth.

    I'm like Hillary, my money is sheltered well.
     
  15. TeeDonkey

    TeeDonkey Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    76,945
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    65% estate tax is bullshit! As @Head Censor said they taxed you enough before it is passed onto someone.
    Even if your middle class and you inherited your parents home your are gonna get screwed.
    Yeah it will effect the rich the most, but even the little the middle class can inherit will get hit.... Fuck her! That should be enough for anyone to vote Trump
     
  16. R.P. McMurphy

    R.P. McMurphy Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    199,092
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    41,581
    Likes Received:
    40,972
    ...a trust fund would protect property just like it protects bank accounts. i cant imagine a person with money not having a trust fund its a pretty slick way to protect assets.
     
    No. 2 Pencil likes this.
  17. XuXu

    XuXu Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    809,699
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    21,067
    Likes Received:
    16,291
    They wouldn't, but they, like most Americans believe they can be rich one day out of sheer effort and they don't wanna have to give up any of their imaginary money. :jj:
     
    Bro and bea miller like this.
  18. the G-man

    the G-man Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    43,997
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,399
    Likes Received:
    10,668
    Yep. And family farms.

    from the Washington Post


    • The death tax hits hardest at heirs of small-business owners and family farmers. In many cases, the heirs cannot afford to pay the tax and are forced to downsize, lay off employees or even sell their business or farm.

      There can be no doubt that closely held family businesses that are growing and beginning to compete with the big guys are often devastated by the tax.

      This tax hurts the growth of minority-owned businesses. As the first generation of African American millionaires begins to die, many of the companies they founded will have to be sold to pay the estate taxes. For example, the tax almost forced the oldest African American-owned newspaper -- the Chicago Daily Defender -- out of business.

      ...the death tax also costs the American economy 170,000 to 250,000 potential jobs each year. These jobs are never created because the investments that would have financed them are not made, as these resources are diverted to pay for complex trusts and insurance policies to avoid the tax.

      The death tax is double taxation. Most of the assets taxed at death have already been taxed throughout an individual's lifetime.

      The death tax accounts for a small portion of federal government revenue, an expected $28 billion in 2006, or only 1.2 percent of federal receipts.

      Many argue that repealing the death tax would decrease charitable giving, as this tax allows individuals to deduct gifts to charitable organizations. Yet, even though the phasing out of the death tax began in 2001, charitable contributions in the United States reached a record high in 2004.

      The death tax even has a negative effect on the environment, as heirs are often forced to develop environmentally sensitive land to pay the tax. According to a study by researchers from Mississippi State University and the U.S. Forest Service, about 2.5 million acres of forest land were harvested and 1.3 million acres were sold each year from 1987 through 1997 to pay the estate tax.
     
    Campy and babybear like this.
  19. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    71,579
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    14,186
    The Clintons sure as shit dont want to give up a dime to the tax man, never have.

    The Clintons donated used underwear to charity, wrote it off on taxes
    Posted on May 4, 2015 by theconservatarian in Uncategorized // 3 Comments

    [​IMG]
    This tidbit is from the Arkansas years. While serving as Governor and First Lady of Arkansas, the Clintons donated used underwear to charity. Even worse, they claimed the donation as a deduction on their taxes. They must have really been “dead broke”….

    Here is the report from The New York Times:

    In previous returns, when Mr. Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and his wife was a partner in a Little Rock law firm, the Clintons had gone so far as to deduct $2 for underwear donated to charities. The deduction was ridiculed by comedians and pundits, and the White House did not itemize the Clintons’ $17,000 in charitable contributions on the 1993 return.
     
    The Snork and No. 2 Pencil like this.
  20. yaddc

    yaddc Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    104,097
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    23,211
    Likes Received:
    20,777
    Whos his dentist ?