Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 11-18-2017, 07:54 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 32,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure. Just the other day, VP Pence said this:





And my senator, Orrin Hatch, said this:
And McConnell admitted he lied about the tax cuts.
Quote:
During a day of meetings about the Republican tax bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke to the media, November 9, 2017.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday acknowledged he "misspoke" when he said no middle-class Americans would see a tax hike under the Senate tax plan.

A Times analysis estimated that about a quarter of middle-class families would see taxes rise in 2018. Other independent analyses have projected tax hikes for a pocket of the population under the Senate plan and a similar proposal working its way through the House.
Orrin Hatch is the one responsible for the non-regulation of supplements. Guess what industry his son worked in?

Last edited by running coach; 11-18-2017 at 07:56 PM.
  #552  
Old 11-18-2017, 08:18 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
... In some sense they employ those people...
Well, you got one thing right.
  #553  
Old 11-18-2017, 08:19 PM
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 5,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
...
Orrin Hatch is the one responsible for the non-regulation of supplements. Guess what industry his son worked in?
Supplements?
  #554  
Old 11-18-2017, 08:28 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 32,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Supplements?
Haven't had my daily dose of herbal extracts. Supplements.
Though Hatch's twisting and dodging is impressive.
  #555  
Old 11-18-2017, 09:49 PM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,917
Something that is often overlooked is that, when payroll taxes (including the employer portion) is included, workers earning $70k - $127k generally pay tax at a higher rate than the rich do! The effect is even greater when health insurance premiums are included, as needed to compare apples-with-apples to Europe.

Warren Buffett pointed this out a few years ago — his secretary pays a higher tax rate than Buffett does — and GOP apologists pretended not to understand. But isn't it fair to include payroll taxes? Payroll benefits are certainly included when GOP wants to depict costs of government.

The bottom 75% of households (those making below about $75,000) earn about as much total as the top 1% (those making above $450,000), and pay almost as much in total tax. (Half of the money made by the top 1% is made by the top 0.1%: those earning $1.6 million plus. And remember that the earnings of the elite do not include unrealized gains and certain loopholes.)

That's right: low-wage earners, even with zero income tax, never pay less than 15% or so (payroll tax) or much more when health insurance, etc. is included. Contrariwise, the payroll tax and premiums for a rich man will be negligible in proportion; and much of his income will be taxed at 20% capital gains rate.)

TL;DR: The tax rate already is nearly "flat" when payroll taxes are included. Real tax reform would be to increase the taxes paid by the top 1% by 5% (and by 10% for the top 0.1%) and use the proceeds to reduce the SocSec burden on employers and employees. That would stimulate job growth!
  #556  
Old 11-18-2017, 10:30 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Supplements?
Are you going to respond to post #515?
  #557  
Old 11-18-2017, 10:43 PM
AI Proofreader AI Proofreader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
Big f-ing deal! The Koch's are a blight and a cancer on our society. And, the fact that they run the company doesn't mean that they employ those people. Those people are employed by the people who buy stuff. The owners and CEOs are often just overpriced caretakers who have the misconception that they are actually God's gift to the Universe.
Not to mention that 9 million people a year die due to pollution.

Granted, the Kochs aren't responsible for all of them, but they're certainly responsible for buying elections nationwide to repeal legislation on pollution, which ensures the death rate stays high, and we'd probably be better off without 100,000 Koch jobs.

Alive in unemployed beats dead any day.
  #558  
Old 11-19-2017, 12:15 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure. Just the other day, VP Pence said this:





And my senator, Orrin Hatch, said this:
Not seeing the word "rich" there. Maybe I missed it. Can you quote it?

As I said, my decoder ring isn't very good. I'd like to see where they talked about rich vs middle class.

Last edited by John Mace; 11-19-2017 at 12:17 AM.
  #559  
Old 11-19-2017, 10:08 AM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
TL;DR: The tax rate already is nearly "flat" when payroll taxes are included.
...And, that's not even mentioning state and local taxes, which are almost always regressive since they often tend to rely pretty heavily on sales tax.
  #560  
Old 11-23-2017, 10:44 AM
crucible crucible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Subpart F defers US taxation until it is repatriated. The last time they gave taxpayers this sort of break under GW Bush, it raised billions in revenue as companies took advantage of what was essentially a tax holiday to repatriate a shit ton of dollars to the US and then proceeded to sit on the cash.
Yes, but why would multi national companies want to bring back money to the states for taxation of any sort? Why not use it to invest in other opportunities around the world, especially where the opportunity is lucrative and the taxes lower? Why bring earnings back to the USA at all?
  #561  
Old 11-23-2017, 01:01 PM
AI Proofreader AI Proofreader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 322
Senate's Joint Committee on Taxation Shows Everyone Making $75k or Less Will Get a Tax Increase

Combined with the fact that The CBO Shows Tax Plan Will Put 13 Million People off Healthcare, and 80% of the cuts go to the top 1% of taxpayers, and it's hard to see this as anything but a massive giveaway to the super-rich at the expense of everyone else.
  #562  
Old 11-29-2017, 10:46 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 5,715
It looks like some mod went through re: undoing cuts if the claimed growth doesn't occur. I guess that's good? Bill still sucks though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wapo
Outside groups on the right are furiously mobilizing against an agreement that Republican leaders made with Bob Corker yesterday to get the tax bill through the Senate Budget Committee.

The Tennessee Republican negotiated a budget deal in September that the tax cuts cannot increase the national debt by more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Now he’s concerned about various gimmicks and overly rosy assumptions in the bill that would almost certainly mean the true impact on the debt is far greater than that. So the retiring senator has been pushing in recent days to include a “trigger” that would automatically increase taxes down the road if the bill fails to generate the level of economic growth that Republicans leaders keep publicly predicting.

It’s not clear what exactly GOP leaders promised Corker, who declined to share specifics with reporters. He said the amendment will be included in an updated version of the bill that is likely to be released publicly on Thursday.
Probably paywalled, sorry. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...b0469e883f8f1/
  #563  
Old 11-29-2017, 11:21 AM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 21,426
Quote:
So the retiring senator has been pushing in recent days to include a “trigger” that would automatically increase taxes down the road if the bill fails to generate the level of economic growth that Republicans leaders keep publicly predicting.
Which taxes will be raised by this automatic trigger, business or personal (and if personal, at what income levels)?
  #564  
Old 11-29-2017, 12:09 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
Which taxes will be raised by this automatic trigger, business or personal (and if personal, at what income levels)?
See "It's not clear what..."
  #565  
Old 11-29-2017, 02:27 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,178
My news feed is saying the Senate is close to passing a bill, and might do so this week. I'm hopefully pessimistic wrt the House and Senate reconciling before the end of the year, but I'm tax planning as if they will. Is there any chance that if passage of the bill slips past Jan 1 that the provisions will affect the 2018 tax year, or must they not kick in until 2019?

Last edited by John Mace; 11-29-2017 at 02:28 PM.
  #566  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:54 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
NYT: Senate Votes to Proceed to Debate as Tax Overhaul Gains Steam

Quote:
The Senate voted along party lines, 52-48, to begin debate on the tax plan.
  #567  
Old 11-29-2017, 07:45 PM
GreysonCarlisle GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 130
Let's push onward, say Republican legislators, despite fewer than 60% of Republicans approving of the tax bill:

Quote:
In the Nov. 23-27 poll, 59 percent of Republicans supported the tax bill, 26 percent said they did not know and 15 percent opposed it. Among Democrats, 82 percent opposed it, 11 percent said they did not know and 8 percent supported it.

Reuters
Approval of the proposed tax bill has only decreased in the past month, with 49% opposing it overall, compared to 41% in October.


And not many Americans are snowed:

Quote:
When asked “who stands to benefit most” from the plan, more than half of all American adults surveyed selected either the wealthy or large U.S. corporations. Fourteen percent chose “all Americans,” 6 percent picked the middle class and 2 percent chose lower-income Americans.

Last edited by GreysonCarlisle; 11-29-2017 at 07:46 PM.
  #568  
Old 11-29-2017, 08:58 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Not crazy about this whole "consumer economy" thing. Like to fix it. But without consumers, there is no economy to fix. I'd rather the people spend money at Wal Mart than have none to spend at all.
Maybe Republicans will accidentally abolish the value-form. Uphold Marxism-Ryanism!
  #569  
Old 12-01-2017, 10:31 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,793
What a weird 24 hours this bill has had. It looks pretty certain to me to go through, raising my taxes, knocking some of my students off their health insurance (I think, not sure), and benefiting the ultra-wealthy for ideological, not pragmatic, purposes.

Chuck Grassley was on NPR last night interviewed about the bill, and he came across as a smug zealot. My "favorite" part was when the interviewer asked him about the vanishingly small number of people who would benefit from the repeal of estate tax--the <100 families with estates over $11 million.

His meandering answer first talked about wanting to show appreciation for people who had planned for the long-term, instead of living day to day. His example was two families with a $100,000 income, one of whom scrimped and saved and invested frugally, the other of whom lived day to day.

Setting aside the fact that the median household income in his district is about half that amount, a family with an income of $100,000 who spent nothing per year, and who had a $0 tax burden, would have to scrimp and save and live frugally for 110 years before their estate was big enough to be taxed at all.

And that doesn't even get to the stupidity of the idea that someone with an $11 million estate needs to have a government recognition and appreciation for their "frugality." Motherfucker, if you have an $11 million estate, that wealth is quite literally its own reward.

It was a totally ridiculous answer. He explicitly didn't have any argument with the statistics raised to question the bill; it was all this sort of "I just like helping rich people out" blather.

Zealots.
  #570  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:31 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Setting aside the fact that the median household income in his district is about half that amount, a family with an income of $100,000 who spent nothing per year, and who had a $0 tax burden, would have to scrimp and save and live frugally for 110 years before their estate was big enough to be taxed at all.
Your calculation here would appear to ignore any growth due to investments.
  #571  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:36 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 9,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your calculation here would appear to ignore any growth due to investments.
That and the entire trickle down fallacy fails.

Money trickles down to a new boat for the boss and a new ring for et ux.
__________________
Remember, pillage before burning.
  #572  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:47 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your calculation here would appear to ignore any growth due to investments.
Technically, you are right, I left that out of the example. I also left out their mortgage, their groceries, their healthcare, and literally every other expense in their life.

Pray tell: what ROI does our couple need in order to achieve an $11 million estate? How much does this fantasy couple save of their income?
  #573  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:47 AM
AI Proofreader AI Proofreader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your calculation here would appear to ignore any growth due to investments.
I'm sure all the derivatives, stock-buybacks, and mortgage packages they're going to be buying with their unexpected windfalls will cause a lot of fast growth....

And that always ends well.
  #574  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:48 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,062
If the SALT deductions get impacted and you are in CA, prepaying your 2018 property tax installment typically due by April 10 could be a good idea to take advantage of the deduction in 2017. This is probably true for other states, but I don't know their deadlines or state tax rules.

Last edited by Bone; 12-01-2017 at 11:49 AM.
  #575  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:53 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If the SALT deductions get impacted and you are in CA, prepaying your 2018 property tax installment typically due by April 10 could be a good idea to take advantage of the deduction in 2017. This is probably true for other states, but I don't know their deadlines or state tax rules.
Yep, and I'm doing that this weekend. I don't trust them not to make it retroactive to 2018 even if the actual vote on the bill that both Houses agree to slips into next year. I also sold some stock that I expected I would sell sometime in the next couple years. CA does not treat long term capital gains any different from ordinary income, so you get whacked. This is stock that I bought about 15 years ago, and it's not like inflation has been 0 since then.

Last edited by John Mace; 12-01-2017 at 11:53 AM.
  #576  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:58 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,793
I was curious, so I did a tiny bit of number crunching. Maybe someone better at crunching numbers than I am can do this justice.

My initial calculation assumed saving $100K a year, but no investments. More realistically:
-The family may pay as little as $6,000 in federal taxes. I suspect it's more--but let's say their entire tax burden, from federal and state and any other source, is $10K.
-Let's say they manage to save more than half their remaining salary: they live off a paltry $40K a year, saving $50K.
-Let's say they earn 7% a year on average over 40 years; this is what I'm finding is a solid long-term ROI.
-Let's say inflation is at 0%, and they pay 0% additional taxes ever on this income.
-Let's say they manage to pull this trick off for 40 years.

with these assumptions, I'm seeing this family could end up with $5,811,037. That's almost 50% more than just saving every penny, but it involves almost equally unrealistic assumptions. It's also a little more than 50% of the threshhold for the estate tax.

Unless my calculations are super off, Grassley's example remains idiotic.
  #577  
Old 12-01-2017, 12:15 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 5,715
I didn't check your math but yes just straight up stock market investing isn't going to get you close. Other forms? Maybe. I know folks who bought farms in nearby Fairfax County back when it wasn't worth much. Their income has been solidly middle class but I wouldn't be surprised if net worth is tickling the current limit.

Last edited by Ruken; 12-01-2017 at 12:15 PM.
  #578  
Old 12-01-2017, 12:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I was curious, so I did a tiny bit of number crunching. Maybe someone better at crunching numbers than I am can do this justice.

My initial calculation assumed saving $100K a year, but no investments. More realistically:
-The family may pay as little as $6,000 in federal taxes. I suspect it's more--but let's say their entire tax burden, from federal and state and any other source, is $10K.
-Let's say they manage to save more than half their remaining salary: they live off a paltry $40K a year, saving $50K.
-Let's say they earn 7% a year on average over 40 years; this is what I'm finding is a solid long-term ROI.
-Let's say inflation is at 0%, and they pay 0% additional taxes ever on this income.
-Let's say they manage to pull this trick off for 40 years.

with these assumptions, I'm seeing this family could end up with $5,811,037. That's almost 50% more than just saving every penny, but it involves almost equally unrealistic assumptions. It's also a little more than 50% of the threshhold for the estate tax.

Unless my calculations are super off, Grassley's example remains idiotic.
I'm on my phone, so I can't easily do these calculations, but it sounds like a couple might have $5.8 million at retirement. But they don't pay tge estate tax at retirement, they pay it at death, maybe a decade or two later. Where would our couple be if they continued their modest lifestyle and 7% returns for another 10 or 20 years?
  #579  
Old 12-01-2017, 12:33 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm on my phone, so I can't easily do these calculations, but it sounds like a couple might have $5.8 million at retirement. But they don't pay tge estate tax at retirement, they pay it at death, maybe a decade or two later. Where would our couple be if they continued their modest lifestyle and 7% returns for another 10 or 20 years?
What drawdown should we assume? Or shall we assuming zero living expenses for the sake of the experiment?
  #580  
Old 12-01-2017, 01:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
What drawdown should we assume? Or shall we assuming zero living expenses for the sake of the experiment?
I said "if they continued their modest lifestyle". In the example given by LHoD, they'd lived off $40k/year for 40 years, I don't see a reason to think they couldn't continue that, at least for our example.
  #581  
Old 12-01-2017, 02:03 PM
wguy123 wguy123 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I said "if they continued their modest lifestyle". In the example given by LHoD, they'd lived off $40k/year for 40 years, I don't see a reason to think they couldn't continue that, at least for our example.
Make sure you also make the perfectly fine assumption that neither of the couple ever needs extensive medical help or to live in an assisted care facility. Make the perfectly fine assumption that they both live to the reasonable age of 100 and then both die on the same day.

I think if you make those reasonable assumptions, this smart, frugal, pulled up by their own bootstraps couple would die with somewhere around $1billion.

For all you freeloaders, can't you see how easy it is and why it's important to do away with the estate tax?
  #582  
Old 12-01-2017, 02:24 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,793
This would also be a great time to interrogate the actual real world of people who leave estates above $11 million, and ask how many of those per year earned $100k for their entire 40 year career, or indeed were anywhere in the neighborhood. Even if we stretch the example to the breaking point and find some way that it might theoretically be possible, I strongly suspect that the average decade sees zero people in such circumstances get their estates of $11 million or more taxed.
  #583  
Old 12-01-2017, 02:32 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
LHoD, I had a question for you about this part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
... My "favorite" part was when the interviewer asked him about the vanishingly small number of people who would benefit from the repeal of estate tax--the <100 families with estates over $11 million. ...
Are there really less than 100 families with estates over $11 million? That seems like too small a number. For starters, Forbes list of billionaires has more than 100 Americans on it. What's the source for "<100 families with estates over $11 million"?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-01-2017 at 02:33 PM.
  #584  
Old 12-01-2017, 03:52 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,059
Apparently the Senate GOP was sharing their list of amendments to be included in the Manager's Amendment with lobbyists in DC, but not with Dem Senators.

Yeah, #Draintheswamp. Suuuuuuure.
  #585  
Old 12-01-2017, 03:56 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
LHoD, I had a question for you about this part:



Are there really less than 100 families with estates over $11 million? That seems like too small a number. For starters, Forbes list of billionaires has more than 100 Americans on it. What's the source for "<100 families with estates over $11 million"?
As you point out, you only benefit if you die.
  #586  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:01 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
As you point out, you only benefit if you die.
I'm not sure I follow. Does that mean that "<100 families with estates over $11 million" refers to <100 people with that level of assets that die? Every year or something?
  #587  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:01 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,793
Okay, crap, I did write that poorly. I thought I mentioned the "each year" part, but I didn't. And I left out a key qualifier that the interviewer gave: this was the number of farms/businesses each year that would face the tax. My apologies.

This is probably the source:
Quote:
Only roughly 80 small business and small farm estates nationwide will face any estate tax in 2017, according to TPC. TPC’s analysis defined a small-business or small farm estate as one with more than half its value in a farm or business and with the farm or business assets valued at less than $5 million. Furthermore, TPC estimates those roughly 80 estates will owe less than 6 percent of their value in tax, on average.
  #588  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:04 PM
RickG RickG is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Boulder CO USA
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
LHoD, I had a question for you about this part:



Are there really less than 100 families with estates over $11 million? That seems like too small a number. For starters, Forbes list of billionaires has more than 100 Americans on it. What's the source for "<100 families with estates over $11 million"?
Not sure about that <100 number (I seem to remember hearing that the number of small family farms and business affected was around that number, but I can't find a cite). This Q&A from the Tax Policy Center has the number of estates owing tax in 2013 at around 4,700, which was <0.2% of the people who died that year.

So, no matter how you slice it, estate taxes affect very few estates. And, I would argue, they affect zero people, since the people are dead. Heirs don't count--they are not the entities paying the tax.
__________________
Rick
  #589  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:06 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Thanks for both your clarifications.
  #590  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:07 PM
RickG RickG is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Boulder CO USA
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Okay, crap, I did write that poorly. I thought I mentioned the "each year" part, but I didn't. And I left out a key qualifier that the interviewer gave: this was the number of farms/businesses each year that would face the tax. My apologies.

This is probably the source:
Ninja'd. And with a more precise response.
__________________
Rick
  #591  
Old 12-01-2017, 04:45 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I said "if they continued their modest lifestyle". In the example given by LHoD, they'd lived off $40k/year for 40 years, I don't see a reason to think they couldn't continue that, at least for our example.
I missed that he's specified $40k. It works out a little differently now because their taxes will be different. But we're already oversimplifying with rather stilted conditions, so why not continue? If we compound annually, 10 years will get them to $10.8M and 20 years to $20.7M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Are there really less than 100 families with estates over $11 million? That seems like too small a number. For starters, Forbes list of billionaires has more than 100 Americans on it. What's the source for "<100 families with estates over $11 million"?
This was clarified already but in case anyone is interested IRS posts data on estate tax returns here: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-t...g-year-table-1

There were 5219 taxable estate tax returns in 2016. What I don't understand is that some of these are under $5M, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what they're presenting. Anyone able to help out here?

I'm counting 681 taxable returns with farm assets. But not necessarily a high proportion of farm assets.
  #592  
Old 12-01-2017, 05:10 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 27,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
There were 5219 taxable estate tax returns in 2016. What I don't understand is that some of these are under $5M, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what they're presenting. Anyone able to help out here?
One guess: IANAA but IIRC you can transfer assets early up to estate tax threshold to avoid paying gift taxes, but they count against your estate when you die, so it's possible that they had already given several million to their heirs and thus their estate of $4 mill was counted as one of $8 mill due to previous giveaways?

Last edited by Ludovic; 12-01-2017 at 05:11 PM.
  #593  
Old 12-01-2017, 06:10 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,089
For all of the talk of this tax plan helping out high income individuals, I'm looking at this thing and I'm gonna get royally screwed.
  #594  
Old 12-01-2017, 06:49 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
For all of the talk of this tax plan helping out high income individuals, I'm looking at this thing and I'm gonna get royally screwed.
Not to pry, but which income quintile are you in?
  #595  
Old 12-01-2017, 06:59 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Also, they're still droning on and on in the Senate: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._tax_bill.html. Not sure when they're finally going to vote on passage.
  #596  
Old 12-01-2017, 07:02 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Also, they're still droning on and on in the Senate: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._tax_bill.html. Not sure when they're finally going to vote on passage.
Maybe they should wait until they've got a typed-up copy of the bill, and give everyone a day or two to read through it? Because right now, it's apparently 479 pages that look like this.

Yeah, that's how they're doing a $1.5 trillion change to the tax code.

Throw out every last Republican who is okay with 'governing' this way.

I am embarrassed for my country.

ETA: My son is in fifth grade. He isn't allowed to turn in stuff that looks like that.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 12-01-2017 at 07:04 PM.
  #597  
Old 12-01-2017, 07:06 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Maybe they should wait until they've got a typed-up copy of the bill, and give everyone a day or two to read through it?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're not going to do that. I agree that they should.
  #598  
Old 12-01-2017, 07:18 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Maybe they should wait until they've got a typed-up copy of the bill, and give everyone a day or two to read through it?
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Sauce, goose, gander.
  #599  
Old 12-01-2017, 07:57 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not to pry, but which income quintile are you in?


Enough that I get hit with the AMT and will continue to under the new bill. And I live in a high tax state with high property values and will lose those deductions. I made a mistake in making my money in salary and not inheritance. My bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #600  
Old 12-01-2017, 08:04 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Enough that I get hit with the AMT and will continue to under the new bill. And I live in a high tax state with high property values and will lose those deductions. I made a mistake in making my money in salary and not inheritance. My bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't the new bill get rid of the AMT? Or is it just one of the bills. Still, it looks like there's a good chance it'll be gone, no?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017