• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

No, the estate tax is an asset tax, not an income tax. If it were equitable, then under my scenario everyone would simply pay a tax rate on X% of the value of their estate.
 
No, it's an asset tax over an exemption amount to account for the fact that higher asset value estates have more unrealized gains and less basis as a % of total. These are public policy goals of not taxing all estates at the same rate.
 
 
Republicans thrown on defensive after study shows tax hike

House Republicans are on the defensive after a new analysis shows some middle-income people would see tax increases under their plan to rewrite the tax code.

While most taxpayers — 61 percent — would see their taxes fall in the next two years, almost one-fifth would pay higher taxes by 2027, the Joint Committee on Taxation said Tuesday.

Story Continued Below

Forty-six percent that year would get a tax cut while more than one-third would see only minimal changes in their tax bills, totaling less than $100.

It promises to be an explosive issue, especially given President Donald Trump and other Republicans’ promises to make the middle class the focus of their tax plans.

That has some Republicans in the Senate pushing for significant changes, such as an even larger — and pricier — expansion of the child tax credit, a popular middle-income break, than the one House Republicans are contemplating.

It would require major revisions to the House plan, H.R. 1 (115). Some conservatives want to finance expanded middle class breaks at least in part by repealing the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to buy health insurance.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/gop-on-defensive-analysis-tax-hike-244642
 
PhDeac said:
Has anybody seen Republicans defend the corporate tax cuts and estate tax cuts with respect to the revelations of the Paradise Papers?
Click to expand...

The estate tax is a fairly new thing. It's gone back and forth over the last 100 years or so, but it isn't some Constitutionally supported initiative.

Is it an awesome way to pair down giant estates? Yes.

It still feels wrong to double or triple tax things though.

As to this specific tax plan, it baffles me that this particular change is where they are trying to make headway though. It just seems very contrary to Trump's original message, which makes me want to put it on the Houses of Congress. It really fits their shitty narrative right now.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Republicans thrown on defensive after study shows tax hike

House Republicans are on the defensive after a new analysis shows some middle-income people would see tax increases under their plan to rewrite the tax code.

While most taxpayers — 61 percent — would see their taxes fall in the next two years, almost one-fifth would pay higher taxes by 2027, the Joint Committee on Taxation said Tuesday.

Story Continued Below

Forty-six percent that year would get a tax cut while more than one-third would see only minimal changes in their tax bills, totaling less than $100.

It promises to be an explosive issue, especially given President Donald Trump and other Republicans’ promises to make the middle class the focus of their tax plans.

That has some Republicans in the Senate pushing for significant changes, such as an even larger — and pricier — expansion of the child tax credit, a popular middle-income break, than the one House Republicans are contemplating.

It would require major revisions to the House plan, H.R. 1 (115). Some conservatives want to finance expanded middle class breaks at least in part by repealing the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to buy health insurance.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/gop-on-defensive-analysis-tax-hike-244642
Click to expand...

Given how intentionally confusing the math is in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, I'm going to go ahead and call this #fakenews #politico'd.
 
PhDeac said:
[h=1]The Paradise Papers Make the Republican Tax Plan Look Insane[/h]






[h=2]The bill would give huge tax breaks to the superrich and reward corporations hoarding assets abroad, just like those implicated in the latest massive leak.[/h]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...pers-make-the-republican-tax-plan-look-insane
Click to expand...
That article is mostly bull. Nike and other major corporations are not investing in untraceable foreign accounts. As a matter of fact that is highly illegal. And there are provisions in this law that would apply a minimum tax (10%) on foreign entities which would curtail a lot of this tax haven activity. There are other Provisions tgat would actually tax outbound payments of us corporations to related parties under a lot of different circumstances. The left engages in propaganda on this subject just as much as the right
 
Grabs Turds Bare said:
The estate tax is a fairly new thing. It's gone back and forth over the last 100 years or so, but it isn't some Constitutionally supported initiative.

Is it an awesome way to pair down giant estates? Yes.

It still feels wrong to double or triple tax things though.

As to this specific tax plan, it baffles me that this particular change is where they are trying to make headway though. It just seems very contrary to Trump's original message, which makes me want to put it on the Houses of Congress. It really fits their shitty narrative right now.
Click to expand...

If the goal is to lower the tax burden on our citizens, taxing dead people makes more sense than taxing living people.
 
ChrisL68 said:
No, it's an asset tax over an exemption amount to account for the fact that higher asset value estates have more unrealized gains and less basis as a % of total. These are public policy goals of not taxing all estates at the same rate.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the goal. If the goal were to tax unrealized gains on death then there would simply be an income tax on unrealized gains at death on the final income tax return (or income tax on the disposition by the heir with carryover basis). Instead, it is a completely separate tax on assets (some of which have zero unrealized gain) as opposed to income. The public policy goal is that the government needs more money and knows it is easier to tax rich families than most other people. That's it.
 
ChrisL68 said:
That article is mostly bull. Nike and other major corporations are not investing in untraceable foreign accounts. As a matter of fact that is highly illegal. And there are provisions in this law that would apply a minimum tax (10%) on foreign entities which would curtail a lot of this tax haven activity. There are other Provisions tgat would actually tax outbound payments of us corporations to related parties under a lot of different circumstances. The left engages in propaganda on this subject just as much as the right
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/06/nike-tax-paradise-papers
 
 
House Republicans say their tax bill will stimulate the economy by increasing the take-home pay of workers across income levels. So many graduate students were stunned to learn that instead of increasing their already meager stipend checks, the bill seeks to tax their waived tuition as income. The results of such a change, many graduate students and higher education experts say, would be devastating not only to graduate students’ day-to-day finances but to research and teaching across academe.
“Never once did I think our tuition waivers would be at risk,” said Mary Grace Hébert, a Ph.D. candidate in communications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “I knew there would be changes in terms of corporate taxes and individual taxes, but I did not realize they’d be pulling from graduate employees to fund those cuts, and I’m disappointed they chose to do that.”
Hébert, a Louisiana native whose husband is also an out-of-state graduate student at Illinois, said she ran some numbers and found that she’d lose about 25 to 30 percent of her $17,000 stipend under the plan. She never sees the tuition dollars that are waived, of course, so she’d have to pay taxes on them with the stipend checks she receives for her nine-month appointment as a teaching assistant.
She likened it to “taxing a coupon.”



https://www.insidehighered.com/news...axing-graduate-students-tuition-waivers-would
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/06/nike-tax-paradise-papers
Click to expand...

International tax planning. None of this is a secret to US tax authorities.

There is an entire OECD movement currently underway to address this on an international basis. BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting). Multinationals are going to have significantly expanded country by country reporting which is going to be shared with tax jurisdictions around the world.

There are several parts of this bill intended to curtail this parking of no-tax income in tax havens like this through base erosion measures.
 
Last edited:
avalon said:
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
House Republicans say their tax bill will stimulate the economy by increasing the take-home pay of workers across income levels. So many graduate students were stunned to learn that instead of increasing their already meager stipend checks, the bill seeks to tax their waived tuition as income. The results of such a change, many graduate students and higher education experts say, would be devastating not only to graduate students’ day-to-day finances but to research and teaching across academe.
“Never once did I think our tuition waivers would be at risk,” said Mary Grace Hébert, a Ph.D. candidate in communications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “I knew there would be changes in terms of corporate taxes and individual taxes, but I did not realize they’d be pulling from graduate employees to fund those cuts, and I’m disappointed they chose to do that.”
Hébert, a Louisiana native whose husband is also an out-of-state graduate student at Illinois, said she ran some numbers and found that she’d lose about 25 to 30 percent of her $17,000 stipend under the plan. She never sees the tuition dollars that are waived, of course, so she’d have to pay taxes on them with the stipend checks she receives for her nine-month appointment as a teaching assistant.
She likened it to “taxing a coupon.”



https://www.insidehighered.com/news...axing-graduate-students-tuition-waivers-would
Click to expand...

If this is what it takes to Make America Great Again....
 
Countdown until some congressman or Fox News guy suggests giving it back but only for STEM students. Can't have the Real American Taxpayer subsidizing those damn "Liberal Arts".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top