WATCH VIDEO: Day 5 of Iowa presidential candidate forum with Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
131
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

131 Views
Message 11 of 53

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The concern of Republican Billionaires is that something will be done to prevent them from expanding the hereditary Oligarchy that is on track to control ALL our wealth within the next 20 years.

 

We permit the wealthy to give their descendants and underage friends untaxed assets that will make them millionaires before they ever have a real job. Here's a bit of how that works:

UGMA accounts can be opened through a bank or brokerage institutions. Friends and family can make contributions to the accounts, which carry no contribution limits or income limits. These deposits are irrevocable, however—they become permanent transfers to the minor and her account.

 

Typically, UGMA assets are used to fund a child’s education, but the donor can make withdrawals for just about any expenses that benefit the minor. There are no withdrawal penalties. However, because UGMA assets are technically owned by the minor, they do count as assets if he applies for federal financial aid for college, possibly decreasing his eligibility.

 

Once they reach the age of majority in their state, minors are granted full access to their UGMA account. At that point, they may use the funds as they please.

 

UGMA Tax Implications

Contributions to UGMA accounts are made with after-tax dollars—the donor doesn't receive an income tax deduction for making them. However, up to $15,000 per individual ($30,000 for a married couple) can be contributed free of gift tax.

 

For federal tax purposes, the minor or beneficiary is considered the owner of all assets in a UGMA account and the income they generate. But these accounts' earnings can be taxed either to the child or the parent. Reporting requirements depend on the amount of income the account generates and the beneficiary’s age.

 

Under certain circumstances, parents can elect to report their children’s UGMA accounts on their own tax returns, thereby taking advantage of the “kiddie tax” or Tax on a Child's Investment and Other Unearned Income.

 

This means that if the child’s unearned income, including UGMA earnings, was less than $2,100 in 2019 and he or she was no older than 19 (or 24 if a full-time student) at the end of the corresponding tax year, parents can elect to report their child’s income on their own tax return. In this case, the first $1,050 of the child’s unearned income is tax-free. The next $1,050 is taxed at the child’s tax rate. Anything exceeding $2,100 is taxed at the parents’ tax rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/ugma.asp

 

Republicans have expanded this "Divine Right of Rich" so there are fewer than 2000 families with large enough estates to pay inheritance tax, and all those assets are 'unavalable" for YOUR kids to acquire, unless there's another American Revolution.

 

Getting the wealth redistributed is a function of how the Reagan Taxscam redistributes income. First, the taxes are so high on the bottom 90% that average savings rates are between 1 and 2%, compared to 10% pre-Reaganscam. Next, profits from the efforts of the 90% are redirected to the top 10% who get to divide those profits because the tax structure no longer makes it MORE profitable for the dividers to share the wealth and benefit from the resultant growth of the entire economy.

 

When the TMR was 70 to 94%, the GDP grew an average of 5% each year and every year the gap between rich and poor SHRANK.

 

When the TMR was between 26 and 50%, the GDP only grew an average of 3% and every year the gap between rich and poor GREW and we experienced the two most devastating economic collapses in History.

 

Ordinary people are beginning to realize all the above Truths concerning Republican tax policies, and with a little luck, they will act on this new knowledge and expurgate the GOPers from office in 2010. THAT is what terrifies the Rapacious Republican Rich.


You seem to be defining "ordinary people" as those who feel they are entitled to other people's property and want the government to get it for them.

 

No doubt there are such people but I do not consider them "ordinary" or even "normal".

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
131
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
145
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

145 Views
Message 12 of 53

A "gift" of $15,000/year can be given tax free to anyone you want. This means that a married couple could give $30,000 each year to the same person. This doesn't require it to be a gift to family or restricted to a type of account.

 

Rules:

https://smartasset.com/retirement/gift-tax-limits

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
145
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
141
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

141 Views
Message 13 of 53

The concern of Republican Billionaires is that something will be done to prevent them from expanding the hereditary Oligarchy that is on track to control ALL our wealth within the next 20 years.

 

We permit the wealthy to give their descendants and underage friends untaxed assets that will make them millionaires before they ever have a real job. Here's a bit of how that works:

UGMA accounts can be opened through a bank or brokerage institutions. Friends and family can make contributions to the accounts, which carry no contribution limits or income limits. These deposits are irrevocable, however—they become permanent transfers to the minor and her account.

 

Typically, UGMA assets are used to fund a child’s education, but the donor can make withdrawals for just about any expenses that benefit the minor. There are no withdrawal penalties. However, because UGMA assets are technically owned by the minor, they do count as assets if he applies for federal financial aid for college, possibly decreasing his eligibility.

 

Once they reach the age of majority in their state, minors are granted full access to their UGMA account. At that point, they may use the funds as they please.

 

UGMA Tax Implications

Contributions to UGMA accounts are made with after-tax dollars—the donor doesn't receive an income tax deduction for making them. However, up to $15,000 per individual ($30,000 for a married couple) can be contributed free of gift tax.

 

For federal tax purposes, the minor or beneficiary is considered the owner of all assets in a UGMA account and the income they generate. But these accounts' earnings can be taxed either to the child or the parent. Reporting requirements depend on the amount of income the account generates and the beneficiary’s age.

 

Under certain circumstances, parents can elect to report their children’s UGMA accounts on their own tax returns, thereby taking advantage of the “kiddie tax” or Tax on a Child's Investment and Other Unearned Income.

 

This means that if the child’s unearned income, including UGMA earnings, was less than $2,100 in 2019 and he or she was no older than 19 (or 24 if a full-time student) at the end of the corresponding tax year, parents can elect to report their child’s income on their own tax return. In this case, the first $1,050 of the child’s unearned income is tax-free. The next $1,050 is taxed at the child’s tax rate. Anything exceeding $2,100 is taxed at the parents’ tax rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/ugma.asp

 

Republicans have expanded this "Divine Right of Rich" so there are fewer than 2000 families with large enough estates to pay inheritance tax, and all those assets are 'unavalable" for YOUR kids to acquire, unless there's another American Revolution.

 

Getting the wealth redistributed is a function of how the Reagan Taxscam redistributes income. First, the taxes are so high on the bottom 90% that average savings rates are between 1 and 2%, compared to 10% pre-Reaganscam. Next, profits from the efforts of the 90% are redirected to the top 10% who get to divide those profits because the tax structure no longer makes it MORE profitable for the dividers to share the wealth and benefit from the resultant growth of the entire economy.

 

When the TMR was 70 to 94%, the GDP grew an average of 5% each year and every year the gap between rich and poor SHRANK.

 

When the TMR was between 26 and 50%, the GDP only grew an average of 3% and every year the gap between rich and poor GREW and we experienced the two most devastating economic collapses in History.

 

Ordinary people are beginning to realize all the above Truths concerning Republican tax policies, and with a little luck, they will act on this new knowledge and expurgate the GOPers from office in 2010. THAT is what terrifies the Rapacious Republican Rich.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
141
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
137
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

137 Views
Message 14 of 53

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Very true - taxes are intended to pay the bills of the government, not for wealth redistribution.

The government’s “bills” are wealth distribution. The roads you drive on, for example. The military to keep you safe. Your household guns won’t keep you safe from enemy drone strikes. You benefit. In a thousand ways every day. It’s disingenuous to discount the wealth distribution you receive. Again, government is a way we organize ourselves to meet the needs of our society. 

 

The government's bills are not wealth redistribution until "means tested" gets into the picture. You mention drone strike - the protections we receive are universal, not based on our individual success or failure.

 

Also, the 47% get to use the same roads as the 10% - but only one pays for them. And yet some want the 10% to pay even more.

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
137
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
136
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

136 Views
Message 15 of 53

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Government provides things individuals cannot provide for themselves - education of our children, police and fire protection, courts to adjudicate our differences and enforce our laws, roads, bridges, sea and air ports, scientific research, and protection from foreign powers.

 

For those services, Government charges the ones receiving them and charges more for those who take the greatest advantage. It's called "progressive taxation" and has been a feature supporting Civilization for thousands of years.

 

The money collected from taxes is no more "other people's" than the proceeds any business receives for providing whatever goods and services they provide to their customers is "other people's".

 

Republicans want us to think taxes are bad because the fair taxes we had until 1980 promoted the just distribution of profits by preventing the ones dividing those profits for keeping it all for themselves. The problem of turning America into a feudal State ruled by a Corporate Oligarchy is NOT Capitalism. It is Republicans who use their political power to rob the bottom 90% to enrich the top 10%, with most going to the top 1%.

 

If for 45 years, a worker's increased productivity entitled him/her to 96 cents of every dollar that increased productivity brought to the company  why did it become less worthy of recognition and compensation when Reagan was elected?


You constantly overlook two key elements (intentionally?) - the leveling off of income began before dreaded "Reagan Tax Scam". Secondly. with the changes in manufacturing worldwide, the increases in production were not the result of increased ability or effort on the part of the worker but rather by improved tools paid for by the company.

 

I think you are aware of those two facts but your obsession with Reagan prevents your incorporating them into your thinking.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
136
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
134
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

134 Views
Message 16 of 53

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

All the class-envy posts overlook the fact that when considering charitable giving, the right does more than the left. It seems like the right takes personal action where the left wants to redistribute other peoples' money.


No. Liberals want to actually solve problems. And higher taxes and support for social services, education, etc. does that more effectively than charity ever has.

 

“Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly. 

 

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.html

 


Yes, the liberals want the government to solve the problem using other people's money. Conservatives personally make the effort using their own money.

 

Your source is only saying that philanthropy can't replace government programs. My point has to do with the individual willingness (or lack thereof) to put their own money into charities.


It’s not other people’s money. It’s our American money helping fellow Americans. 

 


We have a poster who operates on the theory that the government owns all money and it decides who gets how much. I had thought that he was alone out there in far left field. Now it appears he has company.

 

Your theory is along the line of "we the people" and the government as the "doer" for us.


Uh, no. The government is us. Didn’t you work for government? Aren’t you American?  

 

Government is one of many human-made systems where we organize ourselves to meet societal needs. 


Uh, yes - the government is us until it gets so powerful that it owns and distributes all the money. Then it owns us and we have no freedom.


We’ve been down this road before, and how the Constitution enables taxes to keep us a safe and autonomous  country. You’ve benefited too much to be able to get a free ride. We all have. 


Very true - taxes are intended to pay the bills of the government, not for wealth redistribution.


The government’s “bills” are wealth distribution. The roads you drive on, for example. The military to keep you safe. Your household guns won’t keep you safe from enemy drone strikes. You benefit. In a thousand ways every day. It’s disingenuous to discount the wealth distribution you receive. Again, government is a way we organize ourselves to meet the needs of our society. 


Government bills are NOT for wealth redistribution. They are for things that individuals share with one another that are required for what is considered a normal life - armies, police protection, roads, schools, bridges, and not because someone has less wealth than others. Insane people want to have a guaranteed income regardless if you want to work or not.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
134
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
126
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

126 Views
Message 17 of 53

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

All the class-envy posts overlook the fact that when considering charitable giving, the right does more than the left. It seems like the right takes personal action where the left wants to redistribute other peoples' money.


No. Liberals want to actually solve problems. And higher taxes and support for social services, education, etc. does that more effectively than charity ever has.

 

“Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly. 

 

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.html

 


Yes, the liberals want the government to solve the problem using other people's money. Conservatives personally make the effort using their own money.

 

Your source is only saying that philanthropy can't replace government programs. My point has to do with the individual willingness (or lack thereof) to put their own money into charities.


It’s not other people’s money. It’s our American money helping fellow Americans. 

 


We have a poster who operates on the theory that the government owns all money and it decides who gets how much. I had thought that he was alone out there in far left field. Now it appears he has company.

 

Your theory is along the line of "we the people" and the government as the "doer" for us.


Uh, no. The government is us. Didn’t you work for government? Aren’t you American?  

 

Government is one of many human-made systems where we organize ourselves to meet societal needs. 


Uh, yes - the government is us until it gets so powerful that it owns and distributes all the money. Then it owns us and we have no freedom.


We’ve been down this road before, and how the Constitution enables taxes to keep us a safe and autonomous  country. You’ve benefited too much to be able to get a free ride. We all have. 


Very true - taxes are intended to pay the bills of the government, not for wealth redistribution.


The government’s “bills” are wealth distribution. The roads you drive on, for example. The military to keep you safe. Your household guns won’t keep you safe from enemy drone strikes. You benefit. In a thousand ways every day. It’s disingenuous to discount the wealth distribution you receive. Again, government is a way we organize ourselves to meet the needs of our society. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
126
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
134
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

134 Views
Message 18 of 53

Government provides things individuals cannot provide for themselves - education of our children, police and fire protection, courts to adjudicate our differences and enforce our laws, roads, bridges, sea and air ports, scientific research, and protection from foreign powers.

 

For those services, Government charges the ones receiving them and charges more for those who take the greatest advantage. It's called "progressive taxation" and has been a feature supporting Civilization for thousands of years.

 

The money collected from taxes is no more "other people's" than the proceeds any business receives for providing whatever goods and services they provide to their customers is "other people's".

 

Republicans want us to think taxes are bad because the fair taxes we had until 1980 promoted the just distribution of profits by preventing the ones dividing those profits for keeping it all for themselves. The problem of turning America into a feudal State ruled by a Corporate Oligarchy is NOT Capitalism. It is Republicans who use their political power to rob the bottom 90% to enrich the top 10%, with most going to the top 1%.

 

If for 45 years, a worker's increased productivity entitled him/her to 96 cents of every dollar that increased productivity brought to the company  why did it become less worthy of recognition and compensation when Reagan was elected?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
134
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
133
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

133 Views
Message 19 of 53

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

All the class-envy posts overlook the fact that when considering charitable giving, the right does more than the left. It seems like the right takes personal action where the left wants to redistribute other peoples' money.


No. Liberals want to actually solve problems. And higher taxes and support for social services, education, etc. does that more effectively than charity ever has.

 

“Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly. 

 

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.html

 


Yes, the liberals want the government to solve the problem using other people's money. Conservatives personally make the effort using their own money.

 

Your source is only saying that philanthropy can't replace government programs. My point has to do with the individual willingness (or lack thereof) to put their own money into charities.


It’s not other people’s money. It’s our American money helping fellow Americans. 

 


We have a poster who operates on the theory that the government owns all money and it decides who gets how much. I had thought that he was alone out there in far left field. Now it appears he has company.

 

Your theory is along the line of "we the people" and the government as the "doer" for us.


Uh, no. The government is us. Didn’t you work for government? Aren’t you American?  

 

Government is one of many human-made systems where we organize ourselves to meet societal needs. 


Uh, yes - the government is us until it gets so powerful that it owns and distributes all the money. Then it owns us and we have no freedom.


We’ve been down this road before, and how the Constitution enables taxes to keep us a safe and autonomous  country. You’ve benefited too much to be able to get a free ride. We all have. 


Very true - taxes are intended to pay the bills of the government, not for wealth redistribution.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
133
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
128
Views

Re: U.S. Billionaires worry about the future of Capitalism

128 Views
Message 20 of 53

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@williamb39198 wrote:

We will have no freedoms and will be owned, if we let the wanna be dictator trump gets his way without any resistance. Especially from senate repubs who seem to have lost their souls, morals, and their way. 

Freedoms and free will are lost under dictatorships. 

 

trump is a coward and incompetent!


Now we're back to that "dictator" and "coward" trash talk.

 

What a shame that some are so hate filled, they are unable to discuss something like economic theory without nonsense like the above.


Trump is more of a snowflake than anything else. His pampered life gave him no reference for people who were not pampered so he assumes "let them eat cake" is a great response when he finds the majority of Americans have little incentive to protect the America version of capitalism. 

 

In America, anyone can go to Harvard. As long as their parents can pony up a $2MM donation to the school. 


Class or wealth-envy is not a good way to assess a President - Kennedy was rich, Nixon wasn't. I'm sure that didn't effect your view of either.

 

While you think he adopts a "let them eat cake" attitude, his actions point in a different direction than your bias sends you. The reduced unemployment certainly assists those not well off. His efforts to give American companies a level playing field in international commerce is of help to the average "working Joe".

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
128
Views