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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: seentoomuch




It's a bogus increase and wouldn't affect the 1% at all.

correct, but it should appeal to the disgruntled bernie supporters.
sanders tried to paint himself as socialist-lite, so screwing the rich for every penny possible should be high on his agenda.
trump needs to push her on how she would enact it, i doubt she could keep a straight face about any plans to strip the riches from the richest.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MiloTheMarauder
Sounds good to me, they should tax actors and athletes that make over a million at least 50%.


Due to loopholes the super wealthy won't pay a dime in death tax. They pay an attorney to set up off shore companies, trusts, foundations that pay their kids a wage for life that won't be part of the death tax. It's called Estate Planning, albeit a higher level of Estate Planning but all the super rich do it.

All this talk about the super wealthy paying death tax is bogus. They can afford the attorneys to set all this up. What she should say is that she is going to end all the IRS loopholes for hiding income to family members through trusts, foundations, etc. But then that would effect her own family foundation, right?

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



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
correct, but it should appeal to the disgruntled bernie supporters. sanders tried to paint himself as socialist-lite, so screwing the rich for every penny possible should be high on his agenda.

trump needs to push her on how she would enact it, i doubt she could keep a straight face about any plans to strip the riches from the richest.


^^^THIS^^^

But, knowing that it would probably be a transition process I'd start with closing the loopholes that allows family members to receive any income from a charitable foundation formed by their family.

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



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Advantage? Why?

Oh, right... Those evil 1%'ers.

Death taxes are legalized theft.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Just seems like government pilfering to me, not at all for the people. What are we supposed to believe will be done with all that cash / production control? They are going to give it to the homeless?? Bahahaha



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darkmadness
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.


Billionaires invest offshore not in this country.

I agree with Hilary!
I enthusiastically agree with Hilary

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



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: WilburnRoach

Why should they invest here when, after they die, over half of it is taken from their children? What incentive is there for them to invest?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Profusion

Advantage? Why?

Oh, right... Those evil 1%'ers.

Death taxes are legalized theft.


So are all the loopholes and other methods they use to avoid paying taxes that everyone else is stuck having to pay. So who gives a damn. That money at least goes back into our economy then where it does some good.

Unless of course they just funnel it through loopholes somewhere else in which case it still doesn't do any good to our economy anyway. At least there is a chance by taxing them that it goes back into the economy again.

It's time that we stop allowing the super wealthy to simply strong arm government and the economy to favor them while they cheat on taxes and screw everyone over generation after generation.

They still get to pass on a Billion Dollar Estate. You want people to feel sorry for the person who gets a billion dollar head start in life??? Get real.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

...and?

Change the damned laws then, or is that too much work? Easier just to steal it, right?

Legalized theft isn't the answer. ...and who do you think is going to get that money, anyway? Certainly won't be me.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: seentoomuch




But, knowing that it would probably be a transition process I'd start with closing the loopholes that allows family members to receive any income from a charitable foundation formed by my family.

strip politicians of private wealth, stick 'em on minimum wage, with no outside incomes allowed.
those politicians would sharp get sick of hearing of bankers bonuses in the millions, off shore tax free accounts propping up companies, former politicians able to run a charity while living the life of riley.
those loopholes would close pretty quickly if politicians actually lived in the real world.

rich people telling the middle class to blame the poor can't go on



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: WilburnRoach

Why should they invest here when, after they die, over half of it is taken from their children? What incentive is there for them to invest?


Maybe to pay back something to the nation and people that allowed them the opportunity to achieve their success. WTF has any other nation done for them to help them achieve their success??? Nothing. Other than possibly help them drain their own homeland of it's wealth only to put it somewhere else.

You seem to think it's fine for them to take whatever they want from here but get offended by those here taking from them when their dead. Sorry but that's just BS. Why should anyone give a damn about a dead guy who doesn't give a damn about anyone else??? Where's the logic??



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: mOjOm

...and?

Change the damned laws then, or is that too much work? Easier just to steal it, right?

Legalized theft isn't the answer. ...and who do you think is going to get that money, anyway? Certainly won't be me.


That's fine too. I don't care how you end up doing it as long as the end result is to strengthen the same economy from which they prospered from.

Hell, the best option would be for them to voluntarily inject that money back in the economy themselves and they wouldn't even need to be taxed at death. But since they'd rather be a stingy prick even after their dead at a certain point adjustments have to be made or you end up with a monarchy again.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Pay back the nation that takes half of their estate in death taxes, and now has a major party candidate saying she wants to take over half of it if she's elected. ...and many of my fellow citizens agreeing with her.

Right. Not sure I see a good reason for doing that. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I, too, think they ought to invest here, but at the cost of losing half, or more, of it when the kids time to inherit comes along, as it inevitably will?

This isn't the way to convince them, IMHO.

Closing loopholes in tax shelters. I've got no issue with that. Past time, in fact, to do just that. Won't be an easy sell, as many of those Congress-critters take advantage of those loopholes, themselves. Wanna bet Clinton does, too? We won't even discuss Trump.

Lessen, not increase, death taxes. It's totally unreasonable at any level of income. Rich or not so rich. It's theft, pure and simple.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: mOjOm

...and?

Change the damned laws then, or is that too much work? Easier just to steal it, right?

Legalized theft isn't the answer. ...and who do you think is going to get that money, anyway? Certainly won't be me.


...and that's exactly the problem. Not everything is about you.

What you call theft I call forcing people to pay back into the system that allows them to live in such opulence. I will say however, 65% is too high. Start with looking for ways to close tax loopholes. That's a reasonable place to start without heavy handed tax increases. In my opinion shutting down those loopholes would be fair. Make them pay the actual amount that most Americans believe they're paying when actually they're not.

Change the laws? Yeah right. Half of the legislative branch is working off of a policy of obstruction. The Republicans have no intention of doing anything, especially if it's cutting into the cash flows of their donors.

Besides, it's all moot anyway. HRC has no intention of doing any such thing. It's all rhetoric with no substance. Her campaign will say whatever they believe their base wants to hear. They know those who support a platform similar to Sanders feel betrayed and the poll numbers bear that out. This is a way to attempt to appease those who feel disenfranchised within the rank and file. She''ll milk it for what she can and drop it when she's squeezed everything she can out of it. Typical politician.... Typical Hillary Clinton... Her donors know she has no intention of doing any such thing, therefor, they're fine with her using the rhetoric.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: mOjOm

Pay back the nation that takes half of their estate in death taxes


Care to back that assertion up?

EDIT TO ADD:

Let's start here.


Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other easily valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly held property) do not require the filing of an estate tax return. A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013, $5,340,000 in 2014, $5,430,000 in 2015, and $5,450,000 in 2016.

Beginning January 1, 2011, estates of decedents survived by a spouse may elect to pass any of the decedent’s unused exemption to the surviving spouse. This election is made on a timely filed estate tax return for the decedent with a surviving spouse. Note that simplified valuation provisions apply for those estates without a filing requirement absent the portability election.

IRS.GOV
edit on 23-9-2016 by GD21D because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join