Learn how to use Uber, Lyft and other ride-sharing services!  Register now for a free AARP webinar Nov. 18.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
81
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

81 Views
Message 1 of 14

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Key word is REASONABLE.

 

From 1936 until 1964 nobody stopped working because their taxes were too high, nobody went broke paying their taxes and the distribtuion of profits between Labor and Management caused the gap petween rich and poor to SHRINK because while the rich always got richer, the poor got richer faster.

 

When the TMR was cut from 91% to 77% in 1964 and to 70% in 1965, the "link" between worker productivity and worker compensation began to unravel. Then in 1985 when the TMR dropped to 28%, the link vansihed and since then WORKERS compensation has stagnated, increasing 7%, while MANAGEMENT comepnsation has grown by 400%.

 

It's not only the redistribution of income and wealth we need to stop, its the erosion of what America does for Americans.

 

Why are we willing to accept being 37th in education, 26th in health care, 18th in individual income and the ONLY Democracy that allows its citizens to lose EVERYTHING if they or their child gets sick?

 

REPEAL THE REAGAN TAXSCAM!


So your theory is in the early sixties taxes were outrageous and nobody acted like the leftist Antifa so it must be alright to tax the crap out of those lucky enough to make very good incomes? So much for your theory.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
81
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
93
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

93 Views
Message 2 of 14

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


Forget numbers about my lucky uncle and all the other jazz. I can give my stuff to my kids - can the other guy?


The "other guy" always could. The taxes didn't need to be changed, it worked just fine the way it was.

 


However, there seemed to be some resentment of "the other guy" being able to do the same thing as I could and the "fix" was to tax his money away rather than let him do the same as me.

You use the word "seem" again, and this time your "seem" isn't reality

 

Apparently both JFK and Reagan felt the economy needed a boost. Additionally, JFK understood that WWII and the resultant expenses had past. So, they lowered the taxes.

WWII being paid for had nothing to do with Reagan's tax cuts .............. sell that snake oil somewhere else.

Nope - that was the reasoning for JFk's (as I said above). Reagan was confronted with the screwed up economy handed him by Carter.

 

Now the rationale for increasing them seems to be concern that "the other guy has too much and I want it".

"seems" again.  A full flight from reality.

I say "seems" since I do not claim mind reading abilities. However, "the other guy has too much and I want it" does seem to be thinking of some.


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
93
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
99
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

99 Views
Message 3 of 14

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


Forget numbers about my lucky uncle and all the other jazz. I can give my stuff to my kids - can the other guy?


The "other guy" always could. The taxes didn't need to be changed, it worked just fine the way it was.

 


However, there seemed to be some resentment of "the other guy" being able to do the same thing as I could and the "fix" was to tax his money away rather than let him do the same as me.

You use the word "seem" again, and this time your "seem" isn't reality

 

Apparently both JFK and Reagan felt the economy needed a boost. Additionally, JFK understood that WWII and the resultant expenses had past. So, they lowered the taxes.

WWII being paid for had nothing to do with Reagan's tax cuts .............. sell that snake oil somewhere else.

 

Now the rationale for increasing them seems to be concern that "the other guy has too much and I want it".

"seems" again.  A full flight from reality.


 


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
99
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
104
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

104 Views
Message 4 of 14

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


Forget numbers about my lucky uncle and all the other jazz. I can give my stuff to my kids - can the other guy?


The "other guy" always could. The taxes didn't need to be changed, it worked just fine the way it was.

 


However, there seemed to be some resentment of "the other guy" being able to do the same thing as I could and the "fix" was to tax his money away rather than let him do the same as me.

 

Apparently both JFK and Reagan felt the economy needed a boost. Additionally, JFK understood that WWII and the resultant expenses had past. So, they lowered the taxes.

 

Now the rationale for increasing them seems to be concern that "the other guy has too much and I want it".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
104
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
119
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

119 Views
Message 5 of 14

@rk9152 wrote:


Forget numbers about my lucky uncle and all the other jazz. I can give my stuff to my kids - can the other guy?


The "other guy" always could. The taxes didn't need to be changed, it worked just fine the way it was.

 


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
119
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
121
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

121 Views
Message 6 of 14

Key word is REASONABLE.

 

From 1936 until 1964 nobody stopped working because their taxes were too high, nobody went broke paying their taxes and the distribtuion of profits between Labor and Management caused the gap petween rich and poor to SHRINK because while the rich always got richer, the poor got richer faster.

 

When the TMR was cut from 91% to 77% in 1964 and to 70% in 1965, the "link" between worker productivity and worker compensation began to unravel. Then in 1985 when the TMR dropped to 28%, the link vansihed and since then WORKERS compensation has stagnated, increasing 7%, while MANAGEMENT comepnsation has grown by 400%.

 

It's not only the redistribution of income and wealth we need to stop, its the erosion of what America does for Americans.

 

Why are we willing to accept being 37th in education, 26th in health care, 18th in individual income and the ONLY Democracy that allows its citizens to lose EVERYTHING if they or their child gets sick?

 

REPEAL THE REAGAN TAXSCAM!

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
121
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
142
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

142 Views
Message 7 of 14

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

EXCELLENT first baby step to bring equity into the Reagan taxscam.

 

Next get rid of the "uniform gift to minor's act" so Tripper and Bunny aren't tax-exempt millionaires before they turn 21 while the kids in the bottom 95% pay tax on their minimum wage jobs while trying to save for college.

 

Just to make sure how obscene this "carried interest" loophole is, in 2017 the top 25 fund managers paid themselves a total of $16.8 BILLION in 2017 ($672Million EACH in a single year) so it's obvious they really really need to pay the same rate someone earning over $38,700 pays.


If I kick the bucket with five grand in the bank, I can leave to to my kids. Why should someone with more not have the same rights I have?


Because REASON must be applied to arrive at REASONABLE solutions and such absolutism serves no purpose in a constructive discussion.

 

The Founding Fathers rejected monarchist devices of all kinds, and we need to prevent the establishment of a new monarchy based on inherited wealth.

 

Republicans seek to replace the Divine Right of Kings with a Divine Right of Wealthy. Terrible idea, that's why the anti-aristocracy tax on inherited wealth needs to be strengthened so winners of the "spawn lottery" are taxed just like winners of the State Lottery.


Many words - no response. If I can leave my money to my kids, why can't the other guy?


Question is not CAN the other guy - s/he CAN.

Question is for the living, not the dead, so what happens to the RECEPIENT?

As recently as the 1980's, the tax exemption for estates and life-time gifting was $161,000 with annual gifting $3,000. Adjusting for inflation would make the estate and giving "cap" a shade under $500,000, NOT $5,600,000 as it is.

 

This supports nothing but concentration of wealth among the new aristocracy and needs to end. Anything passed to a non-spousal heir above $500,000 should be taxed as INCOME to the recepient, just like lottery winnings. Now calculating the VALUE of the bequest would still allow for inflation, so if the asset is CURRENTLY assessed at $500,000, but was acquired back in 1980, the taxable amount would be only $161,000, with the current "step -up" limit of $1,300,000  serving as a maximum "inflation adjustment".

Example:  your rich uncle picked up some Intel Stock in 1985 for $30,000 and it's worth $60Million today when you inherit it, you can only "deflate" the taxable amount by a maximum of $1.3M and would owe tax on $58.7M. Oh yeah, and a "family Farm" would receive an exemption for the most valuable 2560 acres, PROVIDED it was used for primarily agricultural purposes for at least 5 years after it was inherited.

 

This would leave the entire estate of 90% of the population UNTAXED along with  most "family farms".


Forget numbers about my lucky uncle and all the other jazz. I can give my stuff to my kids - can the other guy?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
142
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
151
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

151 Views
Message 8 of 14

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

EXCELLENT first baby step to bring equity into the Reagan taxscam.

 

Next get rid of the "uniform gift to minor's act" so Tripper and Bunny aren't tax-exempt millionaires before they turn 21 while the kids in the bottom 95% pay tax on their minimum wage jobs while trying to save for college.

 

Just to make sure how obscene this "carried interest" loophole is, in 2017 the top 25 fund managers paid themselves a total of $16.8 BILLION in 2017 ($672Million EACH in a single year) so it's obvious they really really need to pay the same rate someone earning over $38,700 pays.


If I kick the bucket with five grand in the bank, I can leave to to my kids. Why should someone with more not have the same rights I have?


Because REASON must be applied to arrive at REASONABLE solutions and such absolutism serves no purpose in a constructive discussion.

 

The Founding Fathers rejected monarchist devices of all kinds, and we need to prevent the establishment of a new monarchy based on inherited wealth.

 

Republicans seek to replace the Divine Right of Kings with a Divine Right of Wealthy. Terrible idea, that's why the anti-aristocracy tax on inherited wealth needs to be strengthened so winners of the "spawn lottery" are taxed just like winners of the State Lottery.


Many words - no response. If I can leave my money to my kids, why can't the other guy?


Question is not CAN the other guy - s/he CAN.

Question is for the living, not the dead, so what happens to the RECEPIENT?

As recently as the 1980's, the tax exemption for estates and life-time gifting was $161,000 with annual gifting $3,000. Adjusting for inflation would make the estate and giving "cap" a shade under $500,000, NOT $5,600,000 as it is.

 

This supports nothing but concentration of wealth among the new aristocracy and needs to end. Anything passed to a non-spousal heir above $500,000 should be taxed as INCOME to the recepient, just like lottery winnings. Now calculating the VALUE of the bequest would still allow for inflation, so if the asset is CURRENTLY assessed at $500,000, but was acquired back in 1980, the taxable amount would be only $161,000, with the current "step -up" limit of $1,300,000  serving as a maximum "inflation adjustment".

Example:  your rich uncle picked up some Intel Stock in 1985 for $30,000 and it's worth $60Million today when you inherit it, you can only "deflate" the taxable amount by a maximum of $1.3M and would owe tax on $58.7M. Oh yeah, and a "family Farm" would receive an exemption for the most valuable 2560 acres, PROVIDED it was used for primarily agricultural purposes for at least 5 years after it was inherited.

 

This would leave the entire estate of 90% of the population UNTAXED along with  most "family farms".

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
151
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
159
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

159 Views
Message 9 of 14

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

EXCELLENT first baby step to bring equity into the Reagan taxscam.

 

Next get rid of the "uniform gift to minor's act" so Tripper and Bunny aren't tax-exempt millionaires before they turn 21 while the kids in the bottom 95% pay tax on their minimum wage jobs while trying to save for college.

 

Just to make sure how obscene this "carried interest" loophole is, in 2017 the top 25 fund managers paid themselves a total of $16.8 BILLION in 2017 ($672Million EACH in a single year) so it's obvious they really really need to pay the same rate someone earning over $38,700 pays.


If I kick the bucket with five grand in the bank, I can leave to to my kids. Why should someone with more not have the same rights I have?


Because REASON must be applied to arrive at REASONABLE solutions and such absolutism serves no purpose in a constructive discussion.

 

The Founding Fathers rejected monarchist devices of all kinds, and we need to prevent the establishment of a new monarchy based on inherited wealth.

 

Republicans seek to replace the Divine Right of Kings with a Divine Right of Wealthy. Terrible idea, that's why the anti-aristocracy tax on inherited wealth needs to be strengthened so winners of the "spawn lottery" are taxed just like winners of the State Lottery.


Many words - no response. If I can leave my money to my kids, why can't the other guy?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
159
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
172
Views

Re: REASONABLE TAX REFORM

172 Views
Message 10 of 14

@Olderscout66 wrote:

 

Next get rid of the "uniform gift to minor's act" so Tripper and Bunny aren't tax-exempt millionaires before they turn 21 while the kids in the bottom 95% pay tax on their minimum wage jobs while trying to save for college.

 

Just to make sure how obscene this "carried interest" loophole is, in 2017 the top 25 fund managers paid themselves a total of $16.8 BILLION in 2017 ($672Million EACH in a single year) so it's obvious they really really need to pay the same rate someone earning over $38,700 pays.


It is also called the "Uniform Transfer to Minors Act" and it was used much more extensively BEFORE 529 plans came into being.  Both for tax planning and for consideration of applying for any financial aid during higher education; nowadays 529 plans are much better for education planning. 

 

I do not know what you are gripping about on the taxation of the UTMA funds - gift taxes are assessed if the estate is large enough, there is only a certain amount that can be given as a gift yearly, per minor, as specified by the IRS in any given year.  Once transferred, the taxation falls on the child but can be reported on the parent's income tax depending upon the amount - if more than just the minimum amount of earnings - the child will be taxed.  Once the child becomes an adult the earnings are taxed on them because it was given to them..

 

As a grandparent, I have through the years utilized both methods depending upon the goal of the gift - education or just a gift but like I said, for education, 529 plans are much better.

 

Considering "carried interest" or "carry" as ordinary income rather than capital gains for the general parner is fine as long as all the other rules are brought into line with the ordinary income guidelines. Their management fees, I believe, are already considered as ordinary income.  IOW, if the carried interest part of their compensation is to be also considered ordinary income, there should be no rule that dictates how long the amount has to be carried - now under the TCJA, I believe, it is (3) years.

 

Right now, before they are paid any carried interest, the investors or limited partners must have a profit paid to them based on the agreement - that is paid 1st.  If NO profit - NO carried interest payment.  If this is now to be ordinary income - don't you think they should be paid regardless of whether or not there is profit and earnings?

 

What could happen is instead of paying the general partner with a carried interest amount based on profitability, they would instead just be paid in some investment vehicle as many employees receive from their companies, which is not counted as ordinary income but as capital gains depending upon the hold time.

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
172
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors