Trump lies shamelessly about his tax-cut plan.

[jc456]

Most Left Wing Losers are very envious of successful people who pay the taxes that support the welfare system

Y'all need to get your stories straight:

• Party of the Rich: It is the Democrats
  
• The REAL Party of the Rich Guys: Top Dem Donors Have Outspent Top GOP Donors by $486
  
• 3 of the top 5 richest men in Congress are democrats.
  
• Who do rich liberals who made their riches from free market system condemn it?
  
• New England is rich – so why does it vote Democrat?
  
• Which Party Is the Party of the 1 Percent?

Just whom might liberals be envying? Themselves?

Yes. The dumb liberal crackpot Democrat Voters hate rich white people, but the Democratic Party is run by rich white people.
Left Wing Voters are ignorant psychos

D'OH!

 

[jc456]

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....******* DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't **** yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Interesting how those that think freeloaders should get welfare even if working refuse to admit that the person making a low wage is at fault for the low wage because of low skills AND they knew the pay BEFORE they took the job.

I've had people working for me that knew the pay BEFORE they took the job then said when I asked them to do their job to the level it should be done "but you're not paying me but so much". They knew what the job required and the pay before they took it. Since those types offer such low skill sets, they're easy to replace.

Worthless bottom feeders always stand together in their quest for more free shit. These are the same filthy lowlifes that champion the thirdworlders who come here, drop their five silver tooth anchors, take a job at McDonalds because thats all their jibber-jabber speaking asses can qualify to do then whine and ***** about how they need to be paid more. They need others to cover the expenses related to their own poor decision making. "Pay me to be here while I **** you over and ruin your society"
Makes perfect sense to those backward filthy ***** on the Left.

While I have no problem helping someone that truly can't help themselves or whose choices aren't what put them where they are, that group isn't considered when I post. The ones that are considered are those like you mention that caused their own problems and are where they are because they made bad choices in life. Poor choices on their part don't constitute an emergency on my part nor does it mean I should pay for them when they can't.

I don't have a problem watching someone that made bad choices in life and/or someone who refuses to do for themselves go without.

We are a caring society. We all understand that sometimes life isn't fair and one needs help. The problem or rather the difference between someone on the right and someone on the left is this; the left has no plan to actually help resolve the individuals problem. The left would rather subsidize their life and keep them dependents for now and until the end of that person's life. The right will look for opportunities and offer ways for the individual to recover, and rise above their issues and become a successful contributor to this great land rather than a burden.

One thing that chaps my ass the most, are those freeloaders fed by the left that are ungrateful for the assistance the majority has offered them. Scam the system. yep, have another kid or two or three.

 

[jc456]

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....******* DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't **** yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Interesting how those that think freeloaders should get welfare even if working refuse to admit that the person making a low wage is at fault for the low wage because of low skills AND they knew the pay BEFORE they took the job.

I've had people working for me that knew the pay BEFORE they took the job then said when I asked them to do their job to the level it should be done "but you're not paying me but so much". They knew what the job required and the pay before they took it. Since those types offer such low skill sets, they're easy to replace.

Worthless bottom feeders always stand together in their quest for more free shit. These are the same filthy lowlifes that champion the thirdworlders who come here, drop their five silver tooth anchors, take a job at McDonalds because thats all their jibber-jabber speaking asses can qualify to do then whine and ***** about how they need to be paid more. They need others to cover the expenses related to their own poor decision making. "Pay me to be here while I **** you over and ruin your society"
Makes perfect sense to those backward filthy ***** on the Left.

again, the freeloaders are ungrateful.

 

[Geaux4it]

But it benefits the majority of the middle class...

As long as I get mine, I could care less who else benefits

-Geaux

You do realise that giving tax cuts while driving up the national debt has consequences that aren't beneficial to you?
8. United States of America

• National Debt: $19.23 trillion (USD)
• Debt per Capita: $61,231 (USD)
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 106.1%
• Population: 324.35 million
• Currency: US Dollar

The United States is the world’s largest economy and it also has the highest level of national debt. While its national debt levels exceed the country’s GDP in 2017, in 2007, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was at just 62.5%. The U.S. government spends around 6% of its annual budget just repaying the interest payments on its debt, which significantly reduces the amount of money available to pay for other programs. In order to repay such a massive debt, the government could decrease spending, which could impede economic growth, or increase taxes to raise revenue.
So you might not care who benefits from tax cuts, but maybe you should. I personally don't think it a bad idea to tax people who can afford to pay the increase.

After 8 years of Obama, I'm immune to increases of the debt. In this case, its for a good cause.

-Geaux

I disagree that enriching the 1% while screwing over the working class is a "good cause".

That the right wants to do that and is even looking forward to digging deeper for the ultra-rich shows what we all know - the gop/Repubs/RWs are for tax and spend.

Example: has anyone said where the money will come from for pino trump's idiotic wall?

.

How exactly is this plan 'screwing over the working class' as you say?

-Geaux

I think it comes down to the point I was making. It raises the debt, which than is used by Republicans as a reasoning to cut welfare programs. Since having 12 aircraft carriers is vital and having a healthy populace is a luxury, right?

Well of course welfare programs need cut.

-Geaux

 

[jc456]

You do realise that giving tax cuts while driving up the national debt has consequences that aren't beneficial to you?
8. United States of America

• National Debt: $19.23 trillion (USD)
• Debt per Capita: $61,231 (USD)
• Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 106.1%
• Population: 324.35 million
• Currency: US Dollar

The United States is the world’s largest economy and it also has the highest level of national debt. While its national debt levels exceed the country’s GDP in 2017, in 2007, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was at just 62.5%. The U.S. government spends around 6% of its annual budget just repaying the interest payments on its debt, which significantly reduces the amount of money available to pay for other programs. In order to repay such a massive debt, the government could decrease spending, which could impede economic growth, or increase taxes to raise revenue.
So you might not care who benefits from tax cuts, but maybe you should. I personally don't think it a bad idea to tax people who can afford to pay the increase.

After 8 years of Obama, I'm immune to increases of the debt. In this case, its for a good cause.

-Geaux

I disagree that enriching the 1% while screwing over the working class is a "good cause".

That the right wants to do that and is even looking forward to digging deeper for the ultra-rich shows what we all know - the gop/Repubs/RWs are for tax and spend.

Example: has anyone said where the money will come from for pino trump's idiotic wall?

.

How exactly is this plan 'screwing over the working class' as you say?

-Geaux

I think it comes down to the point I was making. It raises the debt, which than is used by Republicans as a reasoning to cut welfare programs. Since having 12 aircraft carriers is vital and having a healthy populace is a luxury, right?

Well of course welfare programs need cut.

-Geaux

hugely

 

[Winston]

And I notice nobody has even attempted to touch the loss of the step-up. The Waltons get to pass their wealth on to the next generation without an estate tax while Joe Smith faces a six figure capital gain by simply inheriting his parents modest home. When the middle class has "friends" like Trump who needs enemies.

yep, why should they pay taxes on money already taxed? give us your explanation.

I have already explained that the majority of wealth subject to the estate tax is unrealized capital gains that have NEVER BEEN TAXED. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you might be able to reveal something besides your own stupidity.

Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax

 

[Winston]

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....******* DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't **** yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Wow, are you guys this damn stupid. You want more, ******* DO MORE, except in this case sometimes doing more means GETTING LESS, and at best, it means giving up eighty five cents of every dollar.

 

[jc456]

And I notice nobody has even attempted to touch the loss of the step-up. The Waltons get to pass their wealth on to the next generation without an estate tax while Joe Smith faces a six figure capital gain by simply inheriting his parents modest home. When the middle class has "friends" like Trump who needs enemies.

yep, why should they pay taxes on money already taxed? give us your explanation.

I have already explained that the majority of wealth subject to the estate tax is unrealized capital gains that have NEVER BEEN TAXED. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you might be able to reveal something besides your own stupidity.

Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax

whoa bubba, you can only have a capital gain if you cash out. why would they cash out? Capital gains is Capital gains, estate tax is retaxing taxed money.

 

[jc456]

Feeble attempt bud....You're either desperately confused and self manipulated or you're just plain stupid.
You describe problems within our welfare system...this has little to do with tax code....but you're kinda right....Guadalupe and ShaQuita with four babies and three baby daddy's should not receive the amount of welfare benefits they do as there is no incentive for them to work more and earn more through employment. Can't wait for Donny T to get in there and start his welfare reform...it's gonna get good...grab your popcorn....haha

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....******* DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't **** yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Wow, are you guys this damn stupid. You want more, ******* DO MORE, except in this case sometimes doing more means GETTING LESS, and at best, it means giving up eighty five cents of every dollar.

who's giving up 85%? show us how you get that.

 

[Winston]

I do support social programs; you are simply echoing the Right Wing / Callous Conservative meme that they are not only not effective, but that they hurt those the policies were developed to aid.

That's one of the many BIG LIES echoed by the naive and the biddable.

I bet you believe the Republican tax "reform" bill aids the middle class and not the wealthiest Americans.

Americans should have no fear about Communism or Terrorists anymore than they do about stupid people like you voting for self serving pols like Ryan, Trump, McConnell and Tea Party / Freedom Party Caucus Members.

Trickle down never aided the many, and austerity never cured an economic crisis.

we don't. so what are you going to do when you don't have the power to do anything? think I should do what you like? hahahahaahaha you are truly silly.

Of course you believe I'm silly, from your level of intelligence I suspect you think a shark attack or a plane crash is silly.

You're the kind that thinks giving someone through social welfare something they didn't earn and at a level more than they could if they worked is an incentive for them to get a job.

You're the kind that thought Obama being black was a qualification.

You're the last one to talk about low intelligence.

A single mother that works at Walmart making twenty grand a year gets the EITC, a child care tax credit, and food stamps. She does not want to work additional hours, she does not want to advance and the reason has nothing to do with her GETTING THOSE BENEFITS. The problem, for every additional dollar she could make she pays taxes and she loses benefits. When the dust settles, well she gets to keep FIFTEEN FAWKING CENTS on the dollar. That's an 85% marginal tax rate.

So here is the deal, if you expect those single mothers to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" while facing an 85% marginal tax rate then you should have no problem whatsoever with a 45% tax rate for the wealthy.

Just more excuses for that leg spreader that should get the one she let stick it in her and help produce the children you think the rest of us are responsible for supporting help her.

She doesn't have an 85% marginal tax rate. Her income tax liability is zero. If you're going to make up things, at least try to make it realistic.

I expect people pull themselves up because it's the right thing to do. If she wants to be where those of you think should be forced to support her are, it involves wanting to advance and working additional hours. Anyone that doesn't want to do more to do better deserves to be where they are and do without.

The marginal tax rate represents the total increase in taxes and/or loss of government benefits for each additional dollar of earnings. For example, a marginal tax rate of 30 percent means that each additional dollar of income will cause a lossof 30 cents through higher taxes and/or lower benefits.

Policymakers Often Overstate Marginal Tax Rates for Lower-Income Workers and Gloss Over Tough Trade-Offs in Reducing Them

You are entitled to your own opinion, you are NOT entitled to your own FACTS. It is called the "phase down", and yes, many of the working poor face 85% marginal tax rates when the phase down is incorporated into the calculations.

 

[Winston]

And I notice nobody has even attempted to touch the loss of the step-up. The Waltons get to pass their wealth on to the next generation without an estate tax while Joe Smith faces a six figure capital gain by simply inheriting his parents modest home. When the middle class has "friends" like Trump who needs enemies.

yep, why should they pay taxes on money already taxed? give us your explanation.

I have already explained that the majority of wealth subject to the estate tax is unrealized capital gains that have NEVER BEEN TAXED. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you might be able to reveal something besides your own stupidity.

Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax

whoa bubba, you can only have a capital gain if you cash out. why would they cash out? Capital gains is Capital gains, estate tax is retaxing taxed money.

You buy a stock for one dollar. It increases in value to ten dollars. You die. Your heir now gets the stock. Then it increases to eleven dollars and he sells it. Under current law, what is his capital gain? And under current law when is the nine dollars in capital gains from the deceased taxed?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I want to try something here because I'm really curious. Who supports the Trump tax plan and why? It would be helpful if those answering provided some information about themselves:

Do you consider yourself poor, middle class, upper middle class, well off, or in the top 1 % ?

Are you young middle aged or older?

What is your political affiliation?

Anything else that you care to share. I'll start...

I am older and comfortably retire although not wealthy. I've always considered my family to be middle class although as a child we were "working class" and sometimes struggled. I am a registered Democrat and a Bernie Sanders Socialist.

I think that Trumps proposal thus far suck. It is clearly a give away to the wealthy at the expense of just about everyone else, and the national debt.

Before answering, you should review this:

GOP tax plan favors the richest, analysis shows

The new GOP tax framework would spread tax cuts across all income groups, with the richest Americans seeing the biggest windfall.

• And, if enacted, the package would blow a $2.4 trillion hole in the federal budget.

• That's the finding of an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, which crunched the numbers to come up with a preliminary estimate of the plan's costs and beneficiaries.

 

[Winston]

The lack of incentive has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of the benefits and everything to do about the PUNISHMENT of losing those benefits if they would take on additional work. Hell, the 85% rate was conservative. In some cases, it can exceed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Honestly, it takes a totally hypocritical DIPSHIT to advocate cutting taxes on the wealthy because it will spur them to invest and ignore the absurdly high marginal tax rates faced by the poor.

Americans' 90% tax rate - CNN

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....******* DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't **** yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Wow, are you guys this damn stupid. You want more, ******* DO MORE, except in this case sometimes doing more means GETTING LESS, and at best, it means giving up eighty five cents of every dollar.

who's giving up 85%? show us how you get that.

Is English not your primary language? Again,

The marginal tax rate represents the total increase in taxes and/or loss of government benefits for each additional dollar of earnings. For example, a marginal tax rate of 30 percent means that each additional dollar of income will cause a lossof 30 cents through higher taxes and/or lower benefits

 

[jc456]

d

And I notice nobody has even attempted to touch the loss of the step-up. The Waltons get to pass their wealth on to the next generation without an estate tax while Joe Smith faces a six figure capital gain by simply inheriting his parents modest home. When the middle class has "friends" like Trump who needs enemies.

yep, why should they pay taxes on money already taxed? give us your explanation.

I have already explained that the majority of wealth subject to the estate tax is unrealized capital gains that have NEVER BEEN TAXED. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you might be able to reveal something besides your own stupidity.

Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax

whoa bubba, you can only have a capital gain if you cash out. why would they cash out? Capital gains is Capital gains, estate tax is retaxing taxed money.

You buy a stock for one dollar. It increases in value to ten dollars. You die. Your heir now gets the stock. Then it increases to eleven dollars and he sells it. Under current law, what is his capital gain? And under current law when is the nine dollars in capital gains from the deceased taxed?

that's a capital gain. yep. he pays on the increase. that isn't estate tax though. that's a capital gains tax. If I have property and will it to my kids, they tax the transfer of the property. No new money!

 

[Winston]

d

And I notice nobody has even attempted to touch the loss of the step-up. The Waltons get to pass their wealth on to the next generation without an estate tax while Joe Smith faces a six figure capital gain by simply inheriting his parents modest home. When the middle class has "friends" like Trump who needs enemies.

yep, why should they pay taxes on money already taxed? give us your explanation.

I have already explained that the majority of wealth subject to the estate tax is unrealized capital gains that have NEVER BEEN TAXED. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you might be able to reveal something besides your own stupidity.

Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax

whoa bubba, you can only have a capital gain if you cash out. why would they cash out? Capital gains is Capital gains, estate tax is retaxing taxed money.

You buy a stock for one dollar. It increases in value to ten dollars. You die. Your heir now gets the stock. Then it increases to eleven dollars and he sells it. Under current law, what is his capital gain? And under current law when is the nine dollars in capital gains from the deceased taxed?

that's a capital gain. yep. he pays on the increase. that isn't estate tax though. that's a capital gains tax. If I have property and will it to my kids, they tax the transfer of the property. No new money!

He pays on the increase from the time of inheritance to the time of sale. My question to you is when is the gain from the time of purchase to the time of death taxed since you claim the estate tax is double taxation. So, when was it taxed?

 

[jc456]

Again...you're in the wrong thread. You have an issue with the welfare system...not tax code...you're trying your best to get lost in the arithmetic by tying the two together...that's what LefTards do, they love confusion.
Using your flawed theory:
Guadalupe enjoys a negative effective tax rate on the first 20k she earns...on the next 5k she earns she may pay as much as an 85% effective rate due to the effect the extra income has on her overall welfare benefits. This is a welfare issue. You see, she's overly subsidized by taxpayers to begin with...that's all. Simple shit...allow to be.

Q. Is she subsidized or are Wal-Mart and the Walton Children?

Well, if I had my head in my ass I would say the Waltons are subsidized. Since I do not I'd say Guadalupe applied for and accepted a job knowing it would not pay enough to pay for HER poor decision making. Simple shit for the sane to wrap their head around...you want more....******* DO MORE!
Get educated and get your shit right....don't **** yourself and American taxpayers and have four babies with three worthless baby daddy's. Follow this simple principle and prevent yourself from becoming a human pet to taxpayers....TA-DA!
What else can I teach you?

Wow, are you guys this damn stupid. You want more, ******* DO MORE, except in this case sometimes doing more means GETTING LESS, and at best, it means giving up eighty five cents of every dollar.

who's giving up 85%? show us how you get that.

Is English not your primary language? Again,

The marginal tax rate represents the total increase in taxes and/or loss of government benefits for each additional dollar of earnings. For example, a marginal tax rate of 30 percent means that each additional dollar of income will cause a lossof 30 cents through higher taxes and/or lower benefits

still looking for your 85%. where? that shows them keeping 70% of their money on each additional dollar. that's pretty good. Cause it isn't their's anyway.

 

[jc456]

d

yep, why should they pay taxes on money already taxed? give us your explanation.

I have already explained that the majority of wealth subject to the estate tax is unrealized capital gains that have NEVER BEEN TAXED. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass you might be able to reveal something besides your own stupidity.

Much of the money that wealthy heirs inherit would never face any taxation were it not for the estate tax. In fact, that’s one reason why policymakers created the estate tax in 1916: to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing the income of wealthy taxpayers that would otherwise go completely untaxed.

Under the current tax system, capital gains tax is due on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate, stock, or an art collection, only when the owner “realizes” the gain (usually by selling the asset). Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the owner holds on to the asset until death.

Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax

whoa bubba, you can only have a capital gain if you cash out. why would they cash out? Capital gains is Capital gains, estate tax is retaxing taxed money.

You buy a stock for one dollar. It increases in value to ten dollars. You die. Your heir now gets the stock. Then it increases to eleven dollars and he sells it. Under current law, what is his capital gain? And under current law when is the nine dollars in capital gains from the deceased taxed?

that's a capital gain. yep. he pays on the increase. that isn't estate tax though. that's a capital gains tax. If I have property and will it to my kids, they tax the transfer of the property. No new money!

He pays on the increase from the time of inheritance to the time of sale. My question to you is when is the gain from the time of purchase to the time of death taxed since you claim the estate tax is double taxation. So, when was it taxed?

well see one would have to sell the land. and that isn't happening. so the sibling is paying taxes on money not earned. And when he/she sells it, if there is a gain, then they also pay the capital gains. that's pure horseshit.

 

[eddiew37]

I read it & it helps the richest, and gives very little to the middle class, & helps working class people not at all. and that's before they play with it a little more. when its done my guess is it will be worse.

And he keeps repeating how great it is Guess he knows his sheep will believe anything he says

 

[jc456]

I read it & it helps the richest, and gives very little to the middle class, & helps working class people not at all. and that's before they play with it a little more. when its done my guess is it will be worse.

And he keeps repeating how great it is Guess he knows his sheep will believe anything he says

I wish you knew something. post a link to the document you are discussing.

 

[eddiew37]

I read it & it helps the richest, and gives very little to the middle class, & helps working class people not at all. and that's before they play with it a little more. when its done my guess is it will be worse.

And he keeps repeating how great it is Guess he knows his sheep will believe anything he says

I wish you knew something.

I know what the estate tax is Go back to school jc and not the reform school you must have been in