Tax Reform

cincybearcat

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

cincybearcat

CM189191 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

This might help

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

"The credit was adopted because Congress believed that the personal exemptions for dependents ($2,550 in 1996) did not “reduce tax liability by enough to reflect a family’s reduced ability to pay taxes as family size increases” (Joint Committee on Taxation 1997, 6). "

Kids are expensive and make it difficult to pay taxes.  So if you have kids, you should get to pay less taxes simply because they're expensive?

Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.  

Cause you are actually contributing to the future of the human race and all.  Not just spending it on booze and vinyl.

I understand your position here, though I disagree.  These same arguments have been made about employees with kids vs those without in the workforce alot and the different benefits each seem to receive.

tbergs

More lies and deception. It's amazing how bad greed and corruption is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-report-trump-officials-dont-want-you-to-see/2017/10/02/f6c77a6c-a7ab-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.0da0106c4295

Go Beavers

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

We already don't pay our bills, why support everyone paying even less taxes then they do now?

cincybearcat

Go Beavers said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

We already don't pay our bills, why support everyone paying even less taxes then they do now?

That is a fair statement.  I was just speaking about the tax plan specifically by itself.  But you are correct, it is really apart of the overall budget.  And yes, I believe that the budget should actually be balanced.  So for me, tax cuts would come with spending cuts.  BUt that's not how either party does it once they have power.

Gern Blansten

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million

cincybearcat

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million

I'm still not sure why it's ok to take $ that someone has earned in their lifetime away because they died.  You've already taxed it in other ways, likely more than once.  If I had that $...when I died, I'd sure as shit want it to go to my family instead of the government.  

Gern Blansten

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million

I'm still not sure why it's ok to take $ that someone has earned in their lifetime away because they died.  You've already taxed it in other ways, likely more than once.  If I had that $...when I died, I'd sure as shit want it to go to my family instead of the government.  

Well...the first $5million would go tax free.  The estate tax is meant to encourage consumption or gifting in order to avoid the estate tax.

Give the money to family before death.  Give the money to charity before death or via will.  If you don't....you pay tax.

Remember that all property is stepped up to market value at date of death....that's another kicker

vaggar99

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

i consider myself rich.  i have everything i need and then some.  i'm okay with the estate tax.  i don't want my grandkids and great grand kids growing up entitled.

cincybearcat

vaggar99 said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

i consider myself rich.  i have everything i need and then some.  i'm okay with the estate tax.  i don't want my grandkids and great grand kids growing up entitled.

So - since you are ok with it, then it's ok for everyone?

CM189191

Senate approves budget kick-starting GOP tax reform effort

vaggar99

cincybearcat said:

vaggar99 said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

i consider myself rich.  i have everything i need and then some.  i'm okay with the estate tax.  i don't want my grandkids and great grand kids growing up entitled.

So - since you are ok with it, then it's ok for everyone?

that's my stance.  of course its not okay with everyone.  that's why we have this ongoing debate.  

I am a patriot

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million

I'm still not sure why it's ok to take $ that someone has earned in their lifetime away because they died.  You've already taxed it in other ways, likely more than once.  If I had that $...when I died, I'd sure as shit want it to go to my family instead of the government.  

Well...the first $5million would go tax free.  The estate tax is meant to encourage consumption or gifting in order to avoid the estate tax.

Give the money to family before death.  Give the money to charity before death or via will.  If you don't....you pay tax.

Remember that all property is stepped up to market value at date of death....that's another kicker

The estate tax ensures that at least some wealth that is accumulated during one's lifetime is taxed.

For example, if my grandfather purchased Coca Cola stock back when it was first offered ($1 a share for arguments sake) and then held onto it until he died when it was worth $100 (again, assumption for arguements sake), when I inherit the Coca Cola stock, I get it at $100, not $1. The $99 of appreciation is "lost".  

Remember, everything is income unless it is not, this includes the appreciation of capital assets.  

I understand that the estate tax doesn't apply to most folks, but that seems to be the focus. The fact of the matter is that there are successful, aggressive business owners/individuals who want to ensure that 35-40+% of their bottom line is not erroded.  

The Code became the monster it is because folks said "it didn't say I couldn't do this."  Look around you and see how many things have been made because of someone pushing the envelope.  Look at the warnings, signs, rules, specific language in manuals, etc. There will always be those people and no matter how "simple" the Code becomes it will once again become complicated because "loopholes" will always be found and exploited.

I am a patriot

Regardless of your viewpoint on how the Federal government should run, the government has to be funded in order to run. 
 
Who should fund the government and who should receive its services? The age old question.
 
A similar question comes into play at the local level regarding school taxes for homeowners without children who attend the local school.  A well-funded school helps the local area as a whole. Similarly, should the owner of an apartment complex pay the school taxes on the property if the owner does not use the services?
 
At the end of the day, this process should not be pushed through along party lines. The reform should be done through the normal (read "slow") process to hedge against abuse.
 
*full disclosure, I am a tax accountant. A simpler tax code is needed, even at the demise of my career.*

I am a patriot

I recommend any and everyone to check out:
 
taxfoundation.org
taxpolicycenter.org
 
There isn't a single consensus other than the Code should be simpler.  Everything should be on the table for true reform.

mickeyrat

op change the title to what this really is. TAX CUT.

mickeyrat

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

CM189191

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

I am a patriot

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

Again, the age old question - Who should fund the government and who should receive its services?  "I don't use schools, why should I pay for them."

Go Beavers

I am a patriot said:

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

Again, the age old question - Who should fund the government and who should receive its services?  "I don't use schools, why should I pay for them."

The question is only age old for people who buy heavily into the individuality side of our culture. We’re all interconnected all the time. The promotion that we aren’t is done to sell things. 

mickeyrat

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

explain to me how it is as a nonparent you are being punished by families getting a tax credit?

I am a patriot

I am not sure how capitalism and individuality come into play here. However, I agree that whether we realize it or not, in the words of the great George Costanza, "we're living in a society!"
 
The tax code has good provisions and bad ones.

Some would say that mortgage interest deductions stimulate homeownership. However, I challenge one to recall that in 1986 (the year of that true tax reform) mortgage interest was not at 2-5% as it is now. No, it was roughly 20%. That is a large item that did not stop individuals from investing in homeownership.

The idea that a national sales tax (VAT, value added tax, consumption tax) will fix our system I believe is flawed in that not enough revenue will be generated to sustain the government. Look at The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz.  To reach the revenue levels suggested by the plan, the federal government would have to pay the tax to themselves. That is simply putting money from the left pocket into the right. That's not revenue.  More items would need to become subject to the tax (the tax base would need to be larger). 

Whether you like it or not, businesses are good. They create jobs and sustain families. When a business has the opportunity to save Billions of dollars by shifting the source of income to another jurisdiction because of taxes, the system is broken. The US corporate rate is one of the highest in the world - fact. However, most small businesses are passthrough, meaning that income is not taxed at the entity level and is instead passed through to the individual level. LLCs, partnerships, and S-corporations are all relatively new in the grand scheme of US taxation. Because of the newness of them (LLCs are only 20 years old) these entities have had to be addressed on the fly. They are businesses though, and are not addressed through the rules for individuals.  See how it starts getting complicated and where the rules can be exploited.

To make matters worse, the Code is not just governed by the Code, which is determined by Congress (legislative branch). It is also explained by the regulations written by the Treasury Department (executive branch) and interpreted by the court system (judicial branch).  All three branches have their hand in this over the years.

This is an opportunity for our leaders to do some good now instead of kicking the can down the road which is what has been happening for decades now.

Halifax2TheMax

I am a patriot said:

I am not sure how capitalism and individuality come into play here. However, I agree that whether we realize it or not, in the words of the great George Costanza, "we're living in a society!"
 
The tax code has good provisions and bad ones.

Some would say that mortgage interest deductions stimulate homeownership. However, I challenge one to recall that in 1986 (the year of that true tax reform) mortgage interest was not at 2-5% as it is now. No, it was roughly 20%. That is a large item that did not stop individuals from investing in homeownership.

The idea that a national sales tax (VAT, value added tax, consumption tax) will fix our system I believe is flawed in that not enough revenue will be generated to sustain the government. Look at The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz.  To reach the revenue levels suggested by the plan, the federal government would have to pay the tax to themselves. That is simply putting money from the left pocket into the right. That's not revenue.  More items would need to become subject to the tax (the tax base would need to be larger). 

Whether you like it or not, businesses are good. They create jobs and sustain families. When a business has the opportunity to save Billions of dollars by shifting the source of income to another jurisdiction because of taxes, the system is broken. The US corporate rate is one of the highest in the world - fact. However, most small businesses are passthrough, meaning that income is not taxed at the entity level and is instead passed through to the individual level. LLCs, partnerships, and S-corporations are all relatively new in the grand scheme of US taxation. Because of the newness of them (LLCs are only 20 years old) these entities have had to be addressed on the fly. They are businesses though, and are not addressed through the rules for individuals.  See how it starts getting complicated and where the rules can be exploited.

To make matters worse, the Code is not just governed by the Code, which is determined by Congress (legislative branch). It is also explained by the regulations written by the Treasury Department (executive branch) and interpreted by the court system (judicial branch).  All three branches have their hand in this over the years.

This is an opportunity for our leaders to do some good now instead of kicking the can down the road which is what has been happening for decades now.

There are no “leaders” currently in government. Unless you consider Paul Ryan and McConnell leaders. If you do, I question your sanity.

I am a patriot

Halifax2TheMax said:

There are no “leaders” currently in government. Unless you consider Paul Ryan and McConnell leaders. If you do, I question your sanity.

Ha! While there are many reasons to question my sanity (tax accountant?), that is not one of them.

I am a patriot

Does the Code need four different ways to try to deduct education expenses?

Should employer provided health insurance become taxable?

Why can't the minimum tax be the only tax brackets? Why do we have two sets of brackets?

If the computation of federal tax is changed, will the states change as well?

Should there be limitations on contributions to personal retirement accounts?

Should tax exempt entities be subject to tax?

Should all income (wages, interest, capital gains, etc) be taxed the same?

What is a capital asset that would be subject to a preferential rate if disposed?

Why are capital losses capped at $3,000?

The reform needed is much more than rates.

Gern Blansten

I am a patriot said:

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - with the estate tax thing...I know it only applies to very few people.  And they are super rich.  But still...I don;t think it's the right thing to tax.  I honestly don't see how it's an ok thing to do.  So - even though it only helps a very small %, I'm for that being abolished.  It will never help me, but doesn;t mean I cant think it's still the right thing to do.

I still have to get into this deeper.  On the surface, I'm not a huge fan of the plan.  I personally am against a tax plan which doesn't lower the % paid for by everyone really and this plan has some staying the same or actually going up some.  Which is nuts since it's not the top of the bunch.  

I'd really just like a flat tax on income...with a strict level where non is charged (low income) and then increase consumption taxes.

The estate tax theory is to keep personal wealth under control.  By taxing estates you keep power in check.

The exemption used to be $600K....now it's over $5Million

I'm still not sure why it's ok to take $ that someone has earned in their lifetime away because they died.  You've already taxed it in other ways, likely more than once.  If I had that $...when I died, I'd sure as shit want it to go to my family instead of the government.  

Well...the first $5million would go tax free.  The estate tax is meant to encourage consumption or gifting in order to avoid the estate tax.

Give the money to family before death.  Give the money to charity before death or via will.  If you don't....you pay tax.

Remember that all property is stepped up to market value at date of death....that's another kicker

The estate tax ensures that at least some wealth that is accumulated during one's lifetime is taxed.

For example, if my grandfather purchased Coca Cola stock back when it was first offered ($1 a share for arguments sake) and then held onto it until he died when it was worth $100 (again, assumption for arguements sake), when I inherit the Coca Cola stock, I get it at $100, not $1. The $99 of appreciation is "lost".  

Remember, everything is income unless it is not, this includes the appreciation of capital assets.  

I understand that the estate tax doesn't apply to most folks, but that seems to be the focus. The fact of the matter is that there are successful, aggressive business owners/individuals who want to ensure that 35-40+% of their bottom line is not erroded.  

The Code became the monster it is because folks said "it didn't say I couldn't do this."  Look around you and see how many things have been made because of someone pushing the envelope.  Look at the warnings, signs, rules, specific language in manuals, etc. There will always be those people and no matter how "simple" the Code becomes it will once again become complicated because "loopholes" will always be found and exploited.

This is correct....but without the estate tax you would not receive the stock at its value of $100....YOU would then pay the capital gains tax on it.

CM189191

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

explain to me how it is as a nonparent you are being punished by families getting a tax credit?

Why shouldn't I receive the same credit?  I would like to pay less taxes.  Why should it matter if I have children or not?

Gern Blansten

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

explain to me how it is as a nonparent you are being punished by families getting a tax credit?

Why shouldn't I receive the same credit?  I would like to pay less taxes.  Why should it matter if I have children or not?

You don't have the cost of raising the child....you don't pay sales tax on clothing, etc. for a child.  

benjs

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

explain to me how it is as a nonparent you are being punished by families getting a tax credit?

Why shouldn't I receive the same credit?  I would like to pay less taxes.  Why should it matter if I have children or not?

I think the government's MO is pretty clear: identify the barriers to opportunity in the lives of the populace (those barriers are typically 'burdens' such as student loans, mortgages, or dependents), and attempt to introduce tax credit such that the burden-to-opportunity ratio is approximately equitable across all persons. This is a ratio, and is not measured in dollars. Your taxes, and the taxes of a parent of two, are designed to leave you and the parent of two with a similar burden-to-opportunity ratio. 

CM189191

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

stated differently, why is a parent punished financially for having children?

They're not, how so? A family of 4 uses more public resources than a single person. Shouldn't that family also pay more taxes to pay for those services? 

explain to me how it is as a nonparent you are being punished by families getting a tax credit?

Why shouldn't I receive the same credit?  I would like to pay less taxes.  Why should it matter if I have children or not?

You don't have the cost of raising the child....you don't pay sales tax on clothing, etc. for a child.  

nobody pays sales tax for food or clothing in MN