How will eliminating the Estate Tax benefit the Middle class?

[danielpalos]

Trump’s Tax Plan Cuts Rates for Individuals and Corporations and Eliminates Many Deductions

“My plan is for working people and my plan is for jobs,” Mr. Trump said. “I don’t benefit. Very, very strongly I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”

The Estate tax in 2017 only applies to estates of $5,490,000 or more. If Donald Trump died tomorrow Melania, as his spouse, would still not have to pay any estate taxes on Donald's supposed $10 billion dollars- because of the spousal exemption. If both of them died tomorrow- then yes- his kids would face estate taxes.

How does eliminating the estate tax benefit 'working people'? How does it generate jobs?

Provisions such as the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax, a tax on inherited wealth which Mr. Trump has derided over the years, would be gone under the Republican proposal.

How does it do anything but benefit the families of the wealthiest Americans?

Save me the arguments that the Estate tax is 'unfair'- Trump and the Republicans are claiming these tax cuts are all about generating jobs and benefiting the middle class- if you want to claim that the reason to eliminate the estate tax is because the tax is 'unfair'- then go ahead and admit that Trump and the Republicans are lying to Americans about what the tax cuts are for- and who they are supposed to benefit.

A better question would be, how is keeping the estate tax good for the Middle class?

It's not like they distribute money according to how much they take in. They just print trillion dollar deficits cuz they will spend the money anyway for what they want to spend it on.

It's all monopoly money so who the hell cares?

Why not tax the rich into Heaven simply for the sake of morals.

... and this means?????

You don't have any morals?

 

[danielpalos]

On some threads, you instantly know it was posted up by a mental case progressive!!

On threads like this, you can tell the mental case Contards who respond- Anything that benefits Trump or his family or the wealthy is good. Anything that doesn't- is bad.

On threads like this, you can tell the mental case POS Liberals who respond - they claim paying taxes is part of living in society yet come up with all sorts of excuses why certain groups living in society don't have to pay taxes.

Yes, we subscribe to Capitalism where ability to pay, means every Thing.

uhhhh .... that's not capitalism .... unless, of course,you mean that if you can't pay for it, you do without it

Yes, it is capitalism where you get what you pay for;socialism has the best things in life for free.

 

[danielpalos]

When the debt becomes untenable, and if history is any judge, it will, we get to reboot and you bet your ass we'll spend less.

No doubt
The federal government has an unpayable debt, robbing Peter to pay Paul just does not work… LOL

Tax the inheritances of the rich, until the we have massive surpluses again.

Why are you jealous of a rich person giving something to someone of his/her choice?

Because, dear; we have massive federal debt, a rich guy wants to cut taxes on the rich and cut social benefits on the poor, to help pay for it.

But ... who is the cause of the federal debt?

Are the consumers of the debt at fault, those upon whom it is spent?

Or, are the rich at fault for failing to provide more to be bought for those who don't pay their fair share?

Congress. Lowering taxes is not helping pay the Debts.

 

[danielpalos]

Itemized deductions have nothing to do with the estate tax- or the topic of this thread.

Wealth and income aren't the same.

Wow- you just figured that out?

Neither are sales, or property......

You contard Trump voters......

I've known it for years. You just figured it out when a man told you the difference.

You libtard n-lovers are all the same.

I am an e-lover; i really do love, economics.

Then, why is your "knowledge" of it so rudimentary, and clearly second hand?

it is the right wing that has, nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

 

[Spare_change]

Wealth and income aren't the same.

Wow- you just figured that out?

Neither are sales, or property......

You contard Trump voters......

I've known it for years. You just figured it out when a man told you the difference.

You libtard n-lovers are all the same.

I am an e-lover; i really do love, economics.

Then, why is your "knowledge" of it so rudimentary, and clearly second hand?

it is the right wing that has, nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Solutions?

You mean answers to the problems liberals have created?

 

[Synthaholic]

Generational farmers don't make a lot.

Did you miss the part about how the joint exemption for your parents wealth is $10.98 million?

The ones who are not "making a lot" aren't affected.

 

[Synthaholic]

Tax free up to 5 million seems like a pretty good tax break to me. I'd be happy to get the 5 million and then have to pay taxes on the rest of it.

The Dems have proposed confiscating everything over 5 million. How would you feel about that??

That's a lie.

 

[Spare_change]

Tax free up to 5 million seems like a pretty good tax break to me. I'd be happy to get the 5 million and then have to pay taxes on the rest of it.

The Dems have proposed confiscating everything over 5 million. How would you feel about that??

That's a lie.

Check out Bernie Sanders' proposal. Then, come back and apologize.

 

[Rustic]

No doubt
The federal government has an unpayable debt, robbing Peter to pay Paul just does not work… LOL

Tax the inheritances of the rich, until the we have massive surpluses again.

Why are you jealous of a rich person giving something to someone of his/her choice?

Because, dear; we have massive federal debt, a rich guy wants to cut taxes on the rich and cut social benefits on the poor, to help pay for it.

But ... who is the cause of the federal debt?

Are the consumers of the debt at fault, those upon whom it is spent?

Or, are the rich at fault for failing to provide more to be bought for those who don't pay their fair share?

Congress. Lowering taxes is not helping pay the Debts.

Raising taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul

 

[Rustic]

Generational farmers don't make a lot.

Did you miss the part about how the joint exemption for your parents wealth is $10.98 million?

The ones who are not "making a lot" aren't affected.

The federal government should have no right to any estate no matter how much it is or how little it is you stupid ass

 

[Rustic]

Generational farmers don't make a lot.

Did you miss the part about how the joint exemption for your parents wealth is $10.98 million?

The ones who are not "making a lot" aren't affected.

The death tax double taxation. Dolt

 

[danielpalos]

Tax the inheritances of the rich, until the we have massive surpluses again.

Why are you jealous of a rich person giving something to someone of his/her choice?

Because, dear; we have massive federal debt, a rich guy wants to cut taxes on the rich and cut social benefits on the poor, to help pay for it.

But ... who is the cause of the federal debt?

Are the consumers of the debt at fault, those upon whom it is spent?

Or, are the rich at fault for failing to provide more to be bought for those who don't pay their fair share?

Congress. Lowering taxes is not helping pay the Debts.

Raising taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul

No, it isn't. Only the right wing comes up with such lazy arguments. Raising taxes means more money to pay the Debts.

 

[Spare_change]

Why are you jealous of a rich person giving something to someone of his/her choice?

Because, dear; we have massive federal debt, a rich guy wants to cut taxes on the rich and cut social benefits on the poor, to help pay for it.

But ... who is the cause of the federal debt?

Are the consumers of the debt at fault, those upon whom it is spent?

Or, are the rich at fault for failing to provide more to be bought for those who don't pay their fair share?

Congress. Lowering taxes is not helping pay the Debts.

Raising taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul

No, it isn't. Only the right wing comes up with such lazy arguments. Raising taxes means more money to pay the Debts.

Now, THAT is a lazy argument! In fact, it's not an argument at all.

Ok ... let's get serious about this.

You claim taking money from one person to buy stuff to give to another person is good, right? It's not robbing Peter to pay Paul, right? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Then, you say "raising taxes means more money to pay the debts.", right? Why is it that you don't address the spending side of that equation? If we spent less, we'd have more money to pay the debts, right?

So, let's cut spending .... in fact, how about this?? Let's cut spending by 20% AND raise tax revenue by 20%. Sound like a deal? That work for you?

 

[Syriusly]

Tax free up to 5 million seems like a pretty good tax break to me. I'd be happy to get the 5 million and then have to pay taxes on the rest of it.

The Dems have proposed confiscating everything over 5 million. How would you feel about that??

That's a lie.

Check out Bernie Sanders' proposal. Then, come back and apologize.

Bernie Sander's proposal
Sanders calls for hike to the estate tax
He would also increase tax rates so anyone who inherits an estate or assets worth between $3.5 million and $10 million faces a 45 percent tax rate; anyone who inherits an estate worth between $10 million and $50 million faces a 50 percent tax rate, and anyone who inherits an estate worth more than $50 million faces a 55 percent tax rate.

So the claim that 'the Dem's have proposed confiscating everything over $5 million dollars- is indeed a lie.

You can apologize now.

 

[Syriusly]

Generational farmers don't make a lot.

Did you miss the part about how the joint exemption for your parents wealth is $10.98 million?

The ones who are not "making a lot" aren't affected.

The federal government should have no right to any estate no matter how much it is or how little it is you stupid ass

Waaaaaah taxing the wealthiest Americans is unfair!

 

[Spare_change]

Tax free up to 5 million seems like a pretty good tax break to me. I'd be happy to get the 5 million and then have to pay taxes on the rest of it.

The Dems have proposed confiscating everything over 5 million. How would you feel about that??

That's a lie.

Check out Bernie Sanders' proposal. Then, come back and apologize.

Bernie Sander's proposal
Sanders calls for hike to the estate tax
He would also increase tax rates so anyone who inherits an estate or assets worth between $3.5 million and $10 million faces a 45 percent tax rate; anyone who inherits an estate worth between $10 million and $50 million faces a 50 percent tax rate, and anyone who inherits an estate worth more than $50 million faces a 55 percent tax rate.

So the claim that 'the Dem's have proposed confiscating everything over $5 million dollars- is indeed a lie.

You can apologize now.

Sorry ---- that was his proposal back in 2015. Look at his most recent one.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[danielpalos]

Because, dear; we have massive federal debt, a rich guy wants to cut taxes on the rich and cut social benefits on the poor, to help pay for it.

But ... who is the cause of the federal debt?

Are the consumers of the debt at fault, those upon whom it is spent?

Or, are the rich at fault for failing to provide more to be bought for those who don't pay their fair share?

Congress. Lowering taxes is not helping pay the Debts.

Raising taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul

No, it isn't. Only the right wing comes up with such lazy arguments. Raising taxes means more money to pay the Debts.

Now, THAT is a lazy argument! In fact, it's not an argument at all.

Ok ... let's get serious about this.

You claim taking money from one person to buy stuff to give to another person is good, right? It's not robbing Peter to pay Paul, right? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Then, you say "raising taxes means more money to pay the debts.", right? Why is it that you don't address the spending side of that equation? If we spent less, we'd have more money to pay the debts, right?

So, let's cut spending .... in fact, how about this?? Let's cut spending by 20% AND raise tax revenue by 20%. Sound like a deal? That work for you?

It simply doesn't work that way. The social Power to Tax is delegated to Congress for the Union.

Why not end the drug war to pay for health care?

 

[Spare_change]

But ... who is the cause of the federal debt?

Are the consumers of the debt at fault, those upon whom it is spent?

Or, are the rich at fault for failing to provide more to be bought for those who don't pay their fair share?

Congress. Lowering taxes is not helping pay the Debts.

Raising taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul

No, it isn't. Only the right wing comes up with such lazy arguments. Raising taxes means more money to pay the Debts.

Now, THAT is a lazy argument! In fact, it's not an argument at all.

Ok ... let's get serious about this.

You claim taking money from one person to buy stuff to give to another person is good, right? It's not robbing Peter to pay Paul, right? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Then, you say "raising taxes means more money to pay the debts.", right? Why is it that you don't address the spending side of that equation? If we spent less, we'd have more money to pay the debts, right?

So, let's cut spending .... in fact, how about this?? Let's cut spending by 20% AND raise tax revenue by 20%. Sound like a deal? That work for you?

It simply doesn't work that way. The social Power to Tax is delegated to Congress for the Union.

Why not end the drug war to pay for health care?

Is that a serious proposal? Let's take it under consideration.

In 2010, the drug war cost the federal government $15 billion. Last year, healthcare cost the state and federal government $3.49 trillion. Clearly, your proposal doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

I'm aware how the power to tax works .... but thanks for the lesson.. Talk to your congressman - get him to cut 20% from spending, and I will talk to mine and get him to propose raising tax revenue by 20%.

Fair enough?

 

[danielpalos]

Congress. Lowering taxes is not helping pay the Debts.

Raising taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul

No, it isn't. Only the right wing comes up with such lazy arguments. Raising taxes means more money to pay the Debts.

Now, THAT is a lazy argument! In fact, it's not an argument at all.

Ok ... let's get serious about this.

You claim taking money from one person to buy stuff to give to another person is good, right? It's not robbing Peter to pay Paul, right? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Then, you say "raising taxes means more money to pay the debts.", right? Why is it that you don't address the spending side of that equation? If we spent less, we'd have more money to pay the debts, right?

So, let's cut spending .... in fact, how about this?? Let's cut spending by 20% AND raise tax revenue by 20%. Sound like a deal? That work for you?

It simply doesn't work that way. The social Power to Tax is delegated to Congress for the Union.

Why not end the drug war to pay for health care?

Is that a serious proposal? Let's take it under consideration.

In 2010, the drug war cost the federal government $15 billion. Last year, healthcare cost the state and federal government $3.49 trillion. Clearly, your proposal doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

I'm aware how the power to tax works .... but thanks for the lesson.. Talk to your congressman - get him to cut 20% from spending, and I will talk to mine and get him to propose raising tax revenue by 20%.

Fair enough?

That is how much we would be reducing in spending. We would be generating more revenue via more taxes from commercial pot.

Marijuana Sales Totaled $6.7 Billion In 2016

$1 Billion In Marijuana Taxes Is Addictive To State Governors

 

[Spare_change]

Huh?

You're talking nickels and dimes. When you get

Raising taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul

No, it isn't. Only the right wing comes up with such lazy arguments. Raising taxes means more money to pay the Debts.

Now, THAT is a lazy argument! In fact, it's not an argument at all.

Ok ... let's get serious about this.

You claim taking money from one person to buy stuff to give to another person is good, right? It's not robbing Peter to pay Paul, right? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Then, you say "raising taxes means more money to pay the debts.", right? Why is it that you don't address the spending side of that equation? If we spent less, we'd have more money to pay the debts, right?

So, let's cut spending .... in fact, how about this?? Let's cut spending by 20% AND raise tax revenue by 20%. Sound like a deal? That work for you?

It simply doesn't work that way. The social Power to Tax is delegated to Congress for the Union.

Why not end the drug war to pay for health care?

Is that a serious proposal? Let's take it under consideration.

In 2010, the drug war cost the federal government $15 billion. Last year, healthcare cost the state and federal government $3.49 trillion. Clearly, your proposal doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

I'm aware how the power to tax works .... but thanks for the lesson.. Talk to your congressman - get him to cut 20% from spending, and I will talk to mine and get him to propose raising tax revenue by 20%.

Fair enough?

That is how much we would be reducing in spending. We would be generating more revenue via more taxes from commercial pot.

Marijuana Sales Totaled $6.7 Billion In 2016

$1 Billion In Marijuana Taxes Is Addictive To State Governors

You're talking nickels and dimes. Taxes on $6 billion, at 20%, is $1.2 billion. (Of course, that's assuming that all $6 billion is pure profit, which we clearly know it isn't) Add that to the $15 billion we saved in spending, we're all the way up to $16.2 billion.

Keep working.

When you get to $3 trillion, let me know.