Please justify holding hostage $13 billion of UE benefits VS $700 billion tax break for wealthy

steve22222 wrote:

You are also saying ONE side is greedy, or are you saying both sides are? Of course greedy is a loaded term. I think you mean the rich for not wanting to pay even more towards the huge benefit system. I think maybe those that don't pay any taxes and want many, many benefits may be as greedy.

As for the rich, they aren't the problem, I do not like the uneven income distribution, but think the issue is much more nuanced than could be handled here.

.

I never understood those who think that the people with everything -- the rich -- are getting screwed while the people with nothing -- the poor and jobless -- are being coddled.

The propagnada machine of the rich and powerful has really done a number on you.

I never understood where the ones who pay more taxes, both in dollars and percentage of income are not paying their fair share, and then we have those that pay no income tax, and they are getting screwed. Backwards sounding to me.

The federal budget is a big pot of money that we all love dipping our hands in, we think it should be someone else to fill it up though. We all need to contribute. I think the pot should be smaller and we should go to it less often. We need to put some in to pay for basic services like military. We should provide for the needy, but we seemed to have defined the needy as middle class.

Just seize 100% of the assets of any "wealthy" Democratic individuals, institutions, trust funds, or interest groups. They admit that money doesn't belong to them, it should be going to the government to help the working class, so let's take them at their word.

OK, I get what you mean now and actually didn't before. It still goes to the rich pay more, so when you reduce taxes in general the rich will benefit. Still the rich pay more though. Focusing on just the rich when there is a tax cut when the poor and middle class also benefit is spin.

The rich also lose out on many deductions. They get phased out, some starting at 60K but many more in the 120K range. Some of the tax incentives are to promote investment, and these such as cap gains directly benefit the rich. However raising cap gains rates could actually hurt lower income, because our country seem to benefit from these investments. There is risk involved and higher rates would reduce investments. The dividend rate is lower, but also corporations have already paid tax on the income.(Que the amount of people who will point out Exxon didn't any, but the dividend is based on taxable income, so the income for that dividend was taxed at 35%)

What has been ignored is my main point, that the damn 4%(and all other discussed reforms) doesn't matter much compared to our real issues. It is a needless distraction. I keep on saying that, but you go on being distracted.

While all of you squabble about the income tax rate, and how it affects the "rich" I really am a rich person, and I do not care about the income tax rate, it doesn't affect me. I have my assets within a C Corp, which gains nearly all of its revenue from real estate holdings. Despite the fact that I make a profit on the property, I deduct depreciation and I show a business loss.

I paid no taxes last year. None. I won't be paying any this year. Go ahead and raise the income tax rate as high as you want. Until you close the depreciation loop hole I use, which no one is proposing, neither myself, nor anyone else who uses this method, will be affected.

Once again....

People do realize that the rich (250k plus) pay about the same amount in taxes as a percentage of salary once state and local taxes are added in.

Stop saying the rich pay more when they don't. They might pay more in federal income tax as a percentage of salary but they do not pay more in total taxes.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Once again....

People do realize that the rich (250k plus) pay about the same amount in taxes as a percentage of salary once state and local taxes are added in.

Stop saying the rich pay more when they don't. They might pay more in federal income tax as a percentage of salary but they do not pay more in total taxes.

If you think that some who is rich is a person who relies on earned income, you are mistaken. 250k is barely affluent, let alone rich. You are only talking about taxing high income earners, not the rich.

Those of us who are rich do not technically work for our money. Our money works for us, and many of us, don't show any earned income and pay no taxes.

If you have kids and they inherit your business, they will be paying 45% of the so-called death tax if your C-Corp is worth over $1M, no? Poof, your business is dissolved.

[quote]Revolution Now wrote:

Just seize 100% of the assets of any "wealthy" Democratic individuals, institutions, trust funds, or interest groups. They admit that money doesn't belong to them, it should be going to the government to help the working class, so let's take them at their word.[/quote

Don't forget the unions, they are among the biggest democratic backers.

True statements:

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

Merry Christmas everyone!

Death Taxes suck wrote:

If you have kids and they inherit your business, they will be paying 45% of the so-called death tax if your C-Corp is worth over $1M, no? Poof, your business is dissolved.

how about this one: if you have kids and they inherit your business, they will be paying 0% of so-called "death tax" if your C-Corp is worth less than $10 million.

i can make up numbers too. actually, mine are far more accurate than your fantasy numbers. mine reflect a mainstream, possible future estate tax; yours bear no resemblance to either current law or any proposal seriously on the table for future law.

p.s. the original post about sheltering real estate income with depreciation within a C corp may be real, but it is no where near as problematically abusive as is suggested. things like depreciation recapture, taxation of dividends and taxation of capital gain (both at the corporate level and at the shareholder level), will eventually require taxes be paid on the income and growth of such a business. i don't mean to suggest that deferral of taxation has no value - clearly it does have value. i merely am pointing out that the strategy mentioned doesn't prevent taxation; it merely changes the timing of it.

If a "rich" person dies this year, his kids pay 0%; however if he dies in 2011, his kids will pay 55%.

I think the OP was trying to point out the following political disconnect: $700B > $17B, yet there are congressmen that think the first outlay needs no explanation and that the second is wasteful, even though both options will require deficit spending and interest payments.

Regardless of whether you feel that maxed-out unemployed benefits should be renewed, any extension of those benefits will be added directly to the deficit.

Regardless of whether you feel tax cuts should be renewed for the middle class, the rich, or all the above - any extension of those cuts will be added directly to the deficit.

I have paid into life insurance for 20 years and haven't collected a cent. Auto insurance I paid into for 25 years and haven't gotten a cent either, Both most also be scams right? Most insurance is a lot better if you never have to use it.They might call it a vacation but they are taking home significantly less income than if they were working full time.Tax cuts right now are a scam. It is billing other people (tax payers in 20 + years) for things that current tax payers want. Once we cut nonSS/medicare (they are funded by payroll taxes for the next 8 years or so. Feel free to suggest cutting payroll taxes if you want) by about 50% we will have a small surplus. Half of it can go to debt reduction and the other half to tax cuts. Of course the economic impact of this would be huge ( you would be laying off a couple hundred thousand government workers, probably 2x that in private sector contractors and so on) and would probably crater our economy.

towhee wrote:

Answer is simple. Unemployment insurance is a scam; it always has been. I've paid into it all my life and never had occasion to use it; I'm in my 50's(BTW I assume you understand the 'employer pays' line is a fiction, as any reputable financial analyst can confirm).

I have known construction workers who know the eligibility rules inside out and always collect the max UI they can. They refer to it as 'vacation.'

If you really can't find a job at a McDonald's after 99 weeks, maybe it's time to move to Nebraska, South Dakota, or North Dakota, where unemployment is still around 5%, which is virtually full employment.

Tax cuts, even 'for the rich,' on the other hand is no scam. It's just letting people keep money they have earned. No scam there.

Death Taxes suck wrote:

If a "rich" person dies this year, his kids pay 0%; however if he dies in 2011, his kids will pay 55%.

repeating something that is false does not make it true. sorry.

even if we assume that the estate tax will revert to its pre-2001 form (which isn't going to happen), and even if we further assume that this "rich" person engages in absolutely no estate tax planning (also an absurd assumption), what you are saying is still untrue.

under the old law, the first $1 million of an estate is completely tax free. on top of that, the recipients of the C-corp stock in this example would get a "stepped up basis" at death, to the then fair market value, which would eliminate any capital gains tax on the built in gain of that C-corp stock.

if the estate exceeds $1 million? the stepped up basis benefit remains, and the following tax rates apply - only to the portions that exceed $1 million:

$1,000,000 to $1,125,000 - 41% rate

$1,125,000 to $1,500,000 - 43% rate

$1,500,000 to $2,000,000 - 45% rate

so again, with absurd assumptions, a $2 million estate will face a tax bill of $437,500 ($51,250 + $161,250 + $225,000). this means an effective tax rate of 21.875%.

if we assume that most of the estate consists of untaxed capital gain, which may well be the case for a wholly owned C corp that owns real estate, like the one suggested, then the "stepped up basis" provision allows for avoidance of tax at the long term capital gains rate. going forward it is likely that that rate will be around 20-22%.

what does that mean? it means that the estate tax paid simply equals the stepped up basis at death benefit. and this is with absurd assumptions. with rudimentary tax planning and with a more realistic view of the likely estate tax going forward, the estate tax owed would be much lower (and the corresponding stepped up basis at death benefit may also be reduced).

I HAVE ADDED my own views of how Democrats differ from Republicans.

Death Taxes suck wrote:

If you have kids and they inherit your business, they will be paying 45% of the so-called death tax if your C-Corp is worth over $1M, no? Poof, your business is dissolved.

kaitainen already gave you a detailed explanation of where you are wrong. I will simply add that the absolute lowest figure I've heard Dems bandy about seriously concerning the estate tax is $ 7 million for family (this year's level). That's a looooong way from the one million figure you are using. And please don't tell me that such a level will "hurt small businesses" (a favorite republican lie/myth). Under that proposed $7 mil figure, "99.76 percent of estates would incur no tax whatsoever".

How many small business owners are in that .24% of the population who will be leaving more than $7 million to their kids? Not too many, as in hardly any at all.

If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is homosexual he works to appear as an upstanding "family values" legislator while secretly going into bathroom stalls in airports and tapping his foot to get some action. Or he is starting his own megachurch, decrying homosexuals as deserving of God's wrath all while he feeds coke or meth to male prostitutes to service him.