Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-25-2017, 01:52 PM   #91
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

you're Native mockery is pretty pale faced.
fixed it
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 01:53 PM   #92
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,632
[QUOTE=spence;1132382]

certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree./QUOTE]



genius

Last edited by scottw; 11-25-2017 at 02:03 PM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 05:40 PM   #93
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
That's not what she said at all. Also, you're Native mockery is pretty pale.
But it doesn’t bother you one bit when Warren disrespects Native Americans. So your outrage at those who disrespect native Americans is quite selective. Which means, your outrage is fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 05:41 PM   #94
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
[QUOTE=scottw;1132395]
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree./QUOTE]



genius
I don’t get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 09:48 PM   #95
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Watch the video, don’t take my word for it. Naked contempt for the successful.

If I am making fun of someone who lied about being Native American for personal gain, I can make a compelling case that I care a lot more about native Americans than she does.

As for warrens idiotic remarks. Yes, we all drive on public roads and use public police. But only Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook, only bill gates invented Windows. The individual, therefore, has an awful lot to do with it, and should therefore be encouraged to take risks. Not demonized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Warren is right when she gives credit to the entrepreneur for creating a business. But she is wrong when she says that the business uses infrastructure, etc. that the REST OF US paid for. No, it is not just the rest of us, but ALL of us, including the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur also pays taxes that pay for infrastructure, etc. The business builder does not ride on the backs of those who build infrastructure. He rides along with them and is entitled every bit as much to use that infrastructure to build a business or not. He does not get a gift by the REST of society. He is part of society.

And that entrepreneur, while using his rightful share of the infrastructure, gives the gift of his hard work to create wealth and jobs for ALL of us, not just himself.

Warren does not give the business maker credit for contributing (probably even more so than the REST of us) to the economic well being of society, rather she warns him that, yeah, go ahead and keep some of the money he's earned, but he owes the rest of it to us for the groundwork that made it possible. As if the entrepreneur, by building a business, has not already given more to the economic well being of society than the REST of us.

She is wrong. The entrepreneur did create a business on his or her own. We all pay for the infrastructure. And we all use it in our own way. And when we use it to work or to play or to learn or to build, however we use it is entirely up to us. We are all entirely responsible for how we use the various public roads that we all helped to build.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 11:45 PM   #96
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
There is no explicit correlation between cutting taxes and growth. It is a myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Depends on which "study" you prefer to believe. Most studies don't find an "explicit" correlation between taxes and growth regardless if whether or not taxes are raised or lowered. So "explicit" correlation is not a useful metric.

You may argue that other factors contributed to, or were the reason for, growth when the taxes were also lowered. But those other reasons were not a result of "explicit" correlation because they, too, were also historically in play when growth did not occur or happened less robustly. But the four times there was a significant lowering of federal business taxes there was significant economic growth.

Various "studies" show that lowering corporate tax rates have a greater impact on creating growth than lowering income or consumption or property tax rates. Other studies disagree. Again, when it was tried at the federal level, it created growth, and "other" factors were not consistently present in each case. That may not be an "explicit" correlation, it may be and "implicit" correlation, or just a correlation. But a consistent one.

Also, when I refer to "conservative" economic theory (basically updated classical economics), I'm not referring to Republican policies. Many Republican tax proposals are a mix of some "conservative" (classical) and some, often a lot, of Progressive ideas. As we are witnessing now, the Republican tax plan has been morphing, along the way to finalization, from a more "conservative" plan to an equally or more Progressive one as the planners keep caving in to political pressure.

Here is an article by the Tax Foundation supporting the theory that lowering taxes, especially corporate taxes, promotes growth:

https://taxfoundation.org/what-evide...xes-and-growth

Also, the article that I previously posted, which gives a good foundation on which type of programs government should and must spend tax revenue, should be read if you didn't already do so:
https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-...growth-1146370

Other articles disagree--but by theoretical or conjectural, not "explicit," reasoning. One of the most empirical reasons for disagreement is not necessarily that lowering tax rates does or doesn't generate economic growth, but that it grows income inequality. But, again, there isn't necessarily an "explicit" correlation between income inequality and economic growth, because "other" factors can always be pointed to as causation.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 01:31 AM   #97
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I think you're making it complex and confusing,

You did that with your contradictions. And the Progressives do it by ramming their square peg spending into their tax funded revenue hole. They never shave the edges of their spending, they just artificially widen the revenue hole. So they have to keep trying to raise taxes on corporations and the rich to get revenue while making it appear that they are sparing or "helping" the so-called "middle class." But there isn't enough money in the pockets of business or rich folks to fund all their government expanding programs so they have to, quietly, "borrow" enough so they can at bare minimum, in order to hide the wealth they steal from us, to pay the monthly interest on the debt. But, like the spending addict or illegal gambling junky, never any payment on the debt capital.

So the debt keeps getting larger and keeps becoming a bigger drag on economic growth by pouring the nation's capital into the widening sewer hole of debt to the federal reserve or to China or to other foreign nations and to individual suckers who want to invest into the illusory "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government--all of whose collected interest payments from the government have lost value to government monetized inflation.

So, in reality, the middle class is "helped" to shrink or lose upward mobility, and the lower class is "helped" to expand and stay in place.

The process is obfuscatory, not transparent. It is obviously a slight of hand economic piece of magic meant to confuse us into believing that our life is made better. And it makes it more difficult, and progressively more impossible, for the private sector to bring back the middle class, and restore individual economic mobility as it is meant to do, and is capable, if let free, of doing.


just like this new GOP tax plan. Now you can set up 529s for the unborn? This is the simplification that was touted?

The original simplicity is being destroyed, as I pointed out before, by the cascade of cowardly concessions to political pressure.

A lot of private sector growth the past century has been led by government funding. That doesn't mean it all is, certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree.

That "lot of" is too vague to give us a clear picture (that unclear, confusing, obfuscatory lingo stuff). Is there also a lot of failure in the private sector led by government funding? Is the government preferable to private banks as a funder? Is it better to risk our tax dollars than those of the banks? Does the government take more risks than banks do? Is it economically and politically wise for the US government to be a bank, or to replace private banks? Does it distort, or erode, the relation of citizen to government in our constitutional system? Does it give the government more power to create winners and losers? Is it one of those ways of expanding the government's regulatory power over the marketplace? And a lot more relevant questions.

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. These often aren't see as the most profitable or if really disruptive totally absurd. It's hard to automate something you've never done before so there's a surge of energy required to bring it to life. That creates growth.

That requires more freedom and less taxes and regulations.

A lot of business today is totally stale though, they look to be more efficient and minimize risks until the point at which they are obsolete. They don't do this what for a lack of capital -- many are still very profitable -- they do it as a matter of culture and a really big problem their religious adherence to the virtue of shareholder value.

Sounds like the familiar, rather natural, pattern of birth, to maturity, to senescence, to death. Hard to shrug off. Very rare for any life form to escape. Probably good that it is so. Leaves space for the next generation, the truly new, the competitive battle, the free market.

But, this still remains the bulk of the corporate sector. If you want to spur growth just routing cash disproportionately to non-managerial shareholders doesn't seem like an effective place to put it. To do so at the expense of additional debt and inflation is even further counter productive.

Is there a lesson for government there about additional debt and inflation?

This is a money grab plain and simple.
That's a pejorative way of putting it. I resent how you characterize the fact that it will help me, at tax time, to grab back a good sum more of the money that the government took from me.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 04:35 AM   #98
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

This is a money grab plain and simple.
and there you have it...

raising taxes is not a "money grab".....celebrate!

lowering taxes is a "money grab"...and...deplorable

that's some pretty screwed up thinking...

oooh...here's more from Progressive Seattle

"They(city council) also claimed that the city has a right to tax people on the privilege of living in Seattle proper because city of residence is elective."

“Where you choose to live is a voluntary choice and you make that choice based on what the benefits are to that choice and also the detriment, whatever the tax consequences (constitutional or not) are to making that choice,” said Paul Lawrence, an attorney for the city, during the hearing. “If they don’t like the tax consequences that Seattle has chosen to do, an (unconstitutional)income tax, they can move to Bellevue.”

“We’re here to tax the rich,” proclaimed councilmember Kshama Sawant, the bill’s sponsor.

Then-mayor Ed Murray said that his “progressive city” had hit upon “a new formula for fairness.” (Murray resigned after the fifth allegation of child-sex abuse, was lodged against him).

Murray explained that he planned to use the revenue generated by the tax to lower other taxes.




great... more funding for these morons

Last edited by scottw; 11-26-2017 at 05:17 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 07:28 AM   #99
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
and there you have it...

raising taxes is not a "money grab".....celebrate!

lowering taxes is a "money grab"...and...deplorable

that's some pretty screwed up thinking...

oooh...here's more from Progressive Seattle

"They(city council) also claimed that the city has a right to tax people on the privilege of living in Seattle proper because city of residence is elective."

“Where you choose to live is a voluntary choice and you make that choice based on what the benefits are to that choice and also the detriment, whatever the tax consequences (constitutional or not) are to making that choice,” said Paul Lawrence, an attorney for the city, during the hearing. “If they don’t like the tax consequences that Seattle has chosen to do, an (unconstitutional)income tax, they can move to Bellevue.”

“We’re here to tax the rich,” proclaimed councilmember Kshama Sawant, the bill’s sponsor.

Then-mayor Ed Murray said that his “progressive city” had hit upon “a new formula for fairness.” (Murray resigned after the fifth allegation of child-sex abuse, was lodged against him).

Murray explained that he planned to use the revenue generated by the tax to lower other taxes.




great... more funding for these morons
You can't make this stuff up.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 08:43 AM   #100
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,587
If the current tax set up is so horrible for companies why are they making record profits ? History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted .. whether it's labor laws of workers safety or the environment, so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably just like the administration thinking a 1000.00 tax break is going to change he lives of The middle class
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 12:48 PM   #101
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
If the current tax set up is so horrible for companies why are they making record profits ? History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted .. whether it's labor laws of workers safety or the environment, so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably just like the administration thinking a 1000.00 tax break is going to change he lives of The middle class
Everything you've said here is false, or a gross exaggeration, or a political spin.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 12:57 PM   #102
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
If the current tax set up is so horrible for companies why are they making record profits ? History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted .. whether it's labor laws of workers safety or the environment, so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably just like the administration thinking a 1000.00 tax break is going to change he lives of The middle class
Who said the current system is 'horrible'? But it can be better.

"History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted"

I have worked for huge companies - Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford. All good places to work, providing tens of thousands of good jobs. And all did good work in their communities. You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Of course some businesses are owned by awful people. But we have all kinds of laws that limit what they can and cannot do.

"so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably"

So tell us, mister business expert, where will the money go? Is any of it going to go to the shareholders, many of whom are not rich?

Even if all of the extra profits go to the CEO, what do you think he does with that money? Unless he buries it in his backyard, he uses it in a way that helps the economy.

What about the thousands and thousands of small businesses? Nebe has said it would help him if he got to keep more of his income...Is he an evil plutocrat?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 01:13 PM   #103
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

Nebe has said it would help him if he got to keep more of his income...Is he an evil plutocrat?
he's definitely an evil something or other...

what Wayne is saying is he trusts Trump and the Republican Senate and Congress to spend the money more wisely than America's evil, corrupt business Crooketeers.....I think in Seattle they were planning to also use the extra tax money to fund gender fluidity programs/seminars for the City's kindergartens(ok, I made that up...but it's entirely believable)

Last edited by scottw; 11-26-2017 at 01:24 PM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 02:05 PM   #104
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
he's definitely an evil something or other...

what Wayne is saying is he trusts Trump and the Republican Senate and Congress to spend the money more wisely than America's evil, corrupt business Crooketeers.....I think in Seattle they were planning to also use the extra tax money to fund gender fluidity programs/seminars for the City's kindergartens(ok, I made that up...but it's entirely believable)
What I am saying if the car just needs tires why is the GOP looking at buying a new car and telling Americans were just getting new tires ?
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 02:41 PM   #105
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
What I am saying if the car just needs tires why is the GOP looking at buying a new car and telling Americans were just getting new tires ?
If the car needs tires, why not get better tires for less money?

I like that. Comparing taxes to tires. Good one.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 05:27 PM   #106
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
If the car needs tires, why not get better tires for less money?

I like that. Comparing taxes to tires. Good one.
Like a tax return on a post card
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 05:45 PM   #107
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Like a tax return on a post card
OK . . . now comparing tires to postcards . . . falling a little bit off the edge here.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 05:10 AM   #108
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,587
"In 2019, those making less than $25,000 would get an average $50 tax reduction, or 0.3 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850, while people making at least $746,000 would get average cuts of $34,000, or 2.2 percent of income.
The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 09:51 AM   #109
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
"In 2019, those making less than $25,000 would get an average $50 tax reduction, or 0.3 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850, while people making at least $746,000 would get average cuts of $34,000, or 2.2 percent of income.
The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."
"Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850"

Is that not a good thing?

"The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

And some other think tank said that Obamacare would save the average family $2,500 a year. Who believes these people?

But we need to cut wasteful spending to pay for this, no doubt.

Unemployment is down to a very low number. That has to have a positive impact, it cannot fail to do so.

The rich have more money invested in places to take advantage of things like this. When the stock market goes up, that will always help the rich more than it helps everyone else. It's not exactly "fair" or equitable, but it's not a bad thing, either.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 12:49 PM   #110
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,901
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ward-investors

So there appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy, the independent congressional analysis says it's going to add to the deficit, the Treasury department may have lied about it's analysis and CEO's plan to use the windfall to benefit shareholders.

What a victory for the Republicans.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2017, 02:03 PM   #111
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ward-investors

So there appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy, the independent congressional analysis says it's going to add to the deficit, the Treasury department may have lied about it's analysis and CEO's plan to use the windfall to benefit shareholders.

What a victory for the Republicans.
"appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

when you poll Marxists only, that's probably true. I wonder what those same economists said about the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts.

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

Finally, returning some income to the owners of the company as dividends, doesn't help the economy? Unless they bury that money in their yards or burn it, they will use it in ways that cannot fail to help the economy.

"few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

Finally, there is this...just the talk about the possibility of tax cuts, has helped push the stock market up. That hasn't helped the economy? Really?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 04:41 AM   #112
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

What a victory for the Republicans.
December 2, 2017 1:54 AM

The Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act just passed, 51 to 49, on a party line vote.
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 05:16 AM   #113
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy" ( find the 1 guy guy who agrees with you out the thousands who dont just like climate change and use them to suport your factless argument
change )


when you poll Marxists only, that's probably true. (shows your bias against facts ) I wonder what those same economists said about the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts. ( you love for living in the past )

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

Finally, returning some income to the owners of the company as dividends, doesn't help the economy? Unless they bury that money in their yards or burn it, they will use it in ways that cannot fail to help the economy.(these companys are all ready flush with cash your guess is just that a guess not based in any evidence that they do that now or will do so in the future

"few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

Finally, there is this...just the talk about the possibility of tax cuts, has helped push the stock market up. That hasn't helped the economy? Really?

Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 07:18 AM   #114
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact
"shows your bias against facts "

What 'facts'? The GOP has studies saying the poor will pay less, the Democrats have studies showing that everyone making less than $500,000 will be tortured to death. As usual. We'll see how it plays out, and if (like with Obamacare) it turns out that the supporting party was wrong about everything they promised, they will (and should) pay a political price.

"these companys are all ready flush with cash"

Some large companies are flush with cash, true. Many, many smaller companies are not.

Here on this forum, Nebe said that a reduction in corporate taxes would help his business and therefore him personally. Is he some heartless, right-wing plutocrat?

I'm a lot of things, not all of them good. I'm not a hypocrite, and I don't ignore facts that I don't find convenient.

"the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans"

The wealthy have more of their money invested in things that take advantage of things like this. That's just how math works. It may not be fair or "equitable", but I'm not sure it's bad. They wealthy will use that money in ways that cannot fail to help the economy. Not even Spence can make that wrong, he doesn't even try.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 07:51 AM   #115
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Wdmso, here are some actual facts. The threshold below which no one pays any tax is almost doubled to 24,000. The standard deduction is doubled. The 15% tax bracket is reduced to a rate of 12%. And the corporate rate is reduced from 35 to 20. Despite what liberals like to claim, most businesses are not owned by the Waltons or the Koch brothers, and most who own businesses are not in the top 1%. I asked Nebe what this would mean to him. You won’t like his answer one bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 07:53 AM   #116
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact
you just stated the obvious then pounded the desk and yelled "that's a fact!"

we're constantly told that typical households have little or no savings and I was reading recently that credit card debt has soared again...sooo...typical households will probably welcome a little cash in the monthly budget

I'm not an expert but I believe the wealthiest Americans have the most money and probably the largest estates sooooo.....

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor are going to pay more...
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 08:00 AM   #117
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
you just stated the obvious then pounded the desk and yelled "that's a fact!"

we're constantly told that typical households have little or no savings and I was reading recently that credit card debt has soared again...sooo...typical households will probably welcome a little cash in the monthly budget

I'm not an expert but I believe the wealthiest Americans have the most money and probably the largest estates sooooo.....

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor are going to pay more...
It’s going to pass. If it hurts the middle class, the gop will fairly pay a price. If it helps the middle class, the democrats will pay a price.

I read this morning that the claims that the middle class will see a tax hike, are based on the assumption that these cuts will expire in ten years, so at that point the middle class would see a tax hike. A deranged assumption. Even if the cuts were temporary, temporary cuts are better than no cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 08:05 AM   #118
Fishpart
Keep The Change
iTrader: (0)
 
Fishpart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Road to Serfdom
Posts: 3,234
Small businsses and family farms get the most from the estate tax repeal. It dosen't take much for a building, some land and cattle and some equipment to go over $6 million. How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes? I won't even get into the number of times the resources were taxed already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Fishpart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 08:42 AM   #119
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishpart View Post
Small businsses and family farms get the most from the estate tax repeal. It dosen't take much for a building, some land and cattle and some equipment to go over $6 million. How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes? I won't even get into the number of times the resources were taxed already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Actually a professor from Iowa State studied this issue and couldn't find a single instance of a family losing their farm because of the estate tax in the past 40 years. It's just an urban myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 09:02 AM   #120
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Actually a professor from Iowa State studied this issue and couldn't find a single instance of a family losing their farm because of the estate tax in the past 40 years. It's just an urban myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
that's not what he wrote "How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes?"
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com