It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Clinton proposes 65 percent tax on U.S. billionaire estates

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Clinton's plan, posted on her campaign's website, would raise the estate tax from the current 40 percent to 45 percent, the rate that existed in 2009. But bigger estates would face rates of up to 65 percent for property valued at more than $1 billion per couple, under her proposal, an update of an earlier plan.

Jason Miller, a spokesman for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, issued a statement criticizing Clinton for a "dramatic hike in the death tax."
Source


My opinion is that Clinton is releasing this plan just ahead of the debates to distance herself from Trump. This makes her look like she's taking it to the rich just before she debates a supposed billionaire.

I don't know what this proposal really means. It couldn't get through Congress now. If Clinton is POTUS long enough, there could be a day it could get through Congress.

Either way, Trump will never advocate increasing the death tax, so this is an advantageous thing for Clinton to get behind.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

"Death" taxes, estate taxes are stupid.

Just another way for government to take money from someone.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

It's a bogus increase and wouldn't affect the 1% at all. They all have their money in off shore companies and in foundations. Their family will always be given a wage from these, their homes and cars and expenses will be paid for by these, they are not included in the death tax. Btw she and Bill have a hefty foundation that is supposed to be charitable but only actually used 5 or 6% for charitable purposes the rest was for overhead as in wages. Chelsea has done alright by it.

This was all for show. Until the loopholes are closed this will continue. But it sure sounds good in a sound bite to people that aren't aware of it's effect.

STM

ETA: Closing the loopholes would be as difficult as passing Term Limits, most of Congress has utilized every loop hole there is, they don't want them to go and to actually have to pay their share. Those are the changes I'm for, Term Limits, the closing of loopholes in the IRS code and a cap on total campaign contributions with most of the campaigning done through youtube, live stream or similar. Our tech can handle it now. It would take all the "fun money" out of politics imho.
edit on 22-9-2016 by seentoomuch because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

That's exactly what we need!

Let's enact aggressive wealth destroying policies and billionaires will love investing all their capital in this country.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Another desperate attempt to gather votes from angry people.

The people in poverty will not benefit from this.

Most likely, the extra money will be spent on billionaire corporations for meaningless projects and what not.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Clinton is a textbook politician and will lie and pander to get elected. She is the problem with this country and our political system. Does anyone actually believe she'll do half the things she's promised?

How can anyone think the government taking 65% of an individuals wealth is a good idea? I assume the entire country is going to be employed by the government once she's elected?

Income inequality is a real thing but a bigger problem is money in politics and corrupt politicians who've been in the game for decades like Hillary.


edit on 22-9-2016 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

No, but you can sure as hell bet that she will raise taxes on the middle class using this "platform".



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Profusion

"Death" taxes, estate taxes are stupid.

Just another way for government to take money from someone.


I disagree. I'm in a position in life that assuming I live long enough, I'll get a pretty big inheritance (I'm poor, but I have a very wealthy family)... large enough that the death tax will get it's share (maybe, I had a long talk a few months back about this). If I wanted to, I could get around a large chunk of it right now through buying assets cheaply. But I don't, because I happen to believe in the estate tax. I see it as a way to maintain fairness from one generation to the next. Each should be brought up by their own merits, abilities, knowledge, and work ethic. It shouldn't rely on institutions of the past to dictate where capital flows in the future.

The bottom line is, if you trust your kids, you should have no problem with them being able to make it without being handed a money making machine. And for the >99% of people it will never effect... why worry about it?

Now, to be fair... there are very real issues with the estate tax. For example farms are valued highly but put out rather small yields. This means if a family farm is passed on, it can bankrupt the farm just in buying out the other shares. I think we could do better in these types of situations but I'm very much a fan of the tax. It ensures that like people, political/financial/business dynasties die too.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Profusion

"Death" taxes, estate taxes are stupid.

Just another way for government to take money from someone.


I disagree. I'm in a position in life that assuming I live long enough, I'll get a pretty big inheritance (I'm poor, but I have a very wealthy family)... large enough that the death tax will get it's share (maybe, I had a long talk a few months back about this). If I wanted to, I could get around a large chunk of it right now through buying assets cheaply. But I don't, because I happen to believe in the estate tax. I see it as a way to maintain fairness from one generation to the next. Each should be brought up by their own merits, abilities, knowledge, and work ethic. It shouldn't rely on institutions of the past to dictate where capital flows in the future.

The bottom line is, if you trust your kids, you should have no problem with them being able to make it without being handed a money making machine. And for the >99% of people it will never effect... why worry about it?

Now, to be fair... there are very real issues with the estate tax. For example farms are valued highly but put out rather small yields. This means if a family farm is passed on, it can bankrupt the farm just in buying out the other shares. I think we could do better in these types of situations but I'm very much a fan of the tax. It ensures that like people, political/financial/business dynasties die too.


What right does the government have to any family's money? Regardless if you think family fortunes are unfair, I don't see why government should be confiscating wealth at death. If it was about fairness then the money should be donated but not confiscated into government coffers to be pissed away.

Multi-millionaires paying a death tax will have zero effect on the lives of the poor. However, progessive politicians can use the politics of envy to get the poors' votes.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: JDmOKI

No, but you can sure as hell bet that she will raise taxes on the middle class using this "platform".


She will tell you no.

But she will HAVE TO raise taxes on the Middle Class in order to prevent future millionaires and billionaires.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Money, property that has already been taxed, is going to be taxed again at 45% or 65%.

So you're ok with double taxation?

Then why stop at 65%?

Just take it all!



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Profusion

"Death" taxes, estate taxes are stupid.

Just another way for government to take money from someone.


Agreed. I see it as the government double dipping. As one accumulates wealth, they pay taxes. So if they die, the government is allowed to tax again? Straight up robbery.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You know, once I pay triple what my house is worth on a 30 year mortgage, I sure as hell want to pass it to my children without them having to pay for it a forth time.

Ridiculous.

As mentioned before, the so called 1% have Trusts, Foundations, and Corporate loopholes. This will ONLY impact the working class.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Owning a church is an amazing investment for someone truly trying to pass on their wealth.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Why shouldn't the government take it all?

You're dead, so you can't spend it and the government is dictating how much your children should have anyway.

This really pisses me off.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

Money, property that has already been taxed, is going to be taxed again at 45% or 65%.

So you're ok with double taxation?

Then why stop at 65%?

Just take it all!



And wipe out the blood line while she's at it.

Like in the good old days.

So where will she go after all the rich are wiped out?

To what end is this even considered a solution to anything?








posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

What's the difference between one person having a billion dollars and 100,000 people having a billion dollars total among them?

Answer: petty jealousy.

Solution: make sure the day job is secure.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

The government will tax you 100% and just give you an allowance.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Sounds good to me, they should tax actors and athletes that make over a million at least 50%.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Government is already determining how much money we should have.

If you make 100,000 and are taxed at 40%, then you have 60,000 left.

What's the difference between that and the government taxing you 100% and just paying you 60,000?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join