michchamp said:

he's actually talking about people feeling cheated when the tax bill results in bigger tax cuts for some, and increases for others. nothing to do with envying wealth.

but even if poor people envy the wealthy... who gives a shit? it's completely immaterial to tax policy and inequality.

Typical Fox News kinda bullshit tactic to deflect attention.

Click to expand...

It's not a bullshit tactic and I'm not deflecting anything - the tweet is purely about envy. If you get something back but feel screwed because someone else who paid more, got more, that's call envy or as he calls it, human nature. You may claim you're not envious but do you really think anyone believes that when you start threads about someone nobody has ever heard of to gloat about his personal misfortune (as if the worst day in his life wasn't better than the best day in yours) and point out how the internet took him to task just because he's rich and you disapprove of his relatives' politics? You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that - oh wait...

And inequality is completely immaterial to tax policy not to mention standard of living and it's pretty far removed from the concept of what's fair.

Gulo Blue said:

Technically, that's not what he said. Getting a better deal isn't the same as having more.

Edit: how is MC's post from 5 minutes ago when it wasn't there 30 seconds ago when I posted?

Click to expand...

Gotta be quick. the internet is serious business

Gulo Blue said:

Technically, that's not what he said. Getting a better deal isn't the same as having more.

Edit: how is MC's post from 5 minutes ago when it wasn't there 30 seconds ago when I posted?

Click to expand...

they're not getting a better deal - they're getting the same deal but since they make more, they're saving more. They "feel" they're getting a worse deal and therefore being cheated and treated unfairly. That's all about envy, he doesn't have to specifically say it.

as for the post, maybe you hadn't refreshed?

Spartanmack said:

they're not getting a better deal - they're getting the same deal but since they make more, they're saving more. They "feel" they're getting a worse deal and therefore being cheated and treated unfairly. That's all about envy, he doesn't have to specifically say it.

as for the post, maybe you hadn't refreshed?

Click to expand...

That's your interpretation, but he literally said "got a better deal." so it's not the admission you are claiming.

Spartanmack said:

It's not a bullshit tactic and I'm not deflecting anything - the tweet is purely about envy. If you get something back but feel screwed because someone else who paid more, got more, that's call envy or as he calls it, human nature. You may claim you're not envious but do you really think anyone believes that when you start threads about someone nobody has ever heard of to gloat about his personal misfortune (as if the worst day in his life wasn't better than the best day in yours) and point out how the internet took him to task just because he's rich and you disapprove of his relatives' politics? You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that - oh wait...

And inequality is completely immaterial to tax policy not to mention standard of living and it's pretty far removed from the concept of what's fair.

Click to expand...

In Lieu's scenario, "Sally" feels she's treated unfairly because she's getting less of a tax cut, but "Joe's" situation is different - he's actually getting a tax increase.

Don't know how it will play out; but there are projections that the federal tax cut for certain Californians will not offset the new limitations in deductibility of state income tax, and new limitations in mortgage interest deductions, and when all is played out, some here in California - and I'm hearing in New York, too - will end paying more in federal taxes with these reforms.

It would follow that these people are relatively high earning individuals with assets, but regardless, someone like Joe isn't probably jealous - he makes good money and owns property; he's been doing okay - instead he's pissed off that his tax bill goes up when almost everybody else is getting a tax cut, whether it's Sally's $380 or others' $200,000 - Lieu didn't name any of them specifically by name, like he did with Sally and Joe.

Some of the global corporate capitalists apparently are putting their own fingerprints onto promoting the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, by announcing that they intend to give out one-time $1K bonuses to their rank and file labor next year, rather than wage and salary increases, and/or unsurprisingly "new" jobs.

RWers have taken this "non-fake" news, and are posting about it in online messageboads and forums, as if this tax-deductible, big business gesture of generosity is somehow proof of free-market principles benefitting labor, rather than the snow job that it really is.

Over the past 40-odd years, my income taxes have been redistributed to mostly red fed tax recipient states, while mine being a blue-purple donor state, got less in return. This was never widely publicized, and only since the advent of broadband internet, easily researchable.

But when conservatives complain about their taxes going to "socialist" government programs which assist the poor, disabled, and elderly, this fact is rarely if ever mentioned. Nor is the fact that although a higher percentage of most minority groups are on the public dole, there is a higher portion of whitefolk who have been, and still are, the former ironically and hypocritically including one of the most outspoken and visible against SS/SSD, Medicare-aid, wealth redistribution and welfare state slackers in SotH Paul Ryan.

There of course is such a thing as "corporate welfare", but since they are the job creators, there is very little mentioned about it, this despite it having no stiff regulatory barriers to prevent it from being used directly or indirectly to create, offshore, and outsource jobs elsewhere. But oft-times when this welfare stays "in-house" it is the result of pitting one state vs another, and can even cause the net loss of jobs within the relocating business.

tinselwolverine said:

In Lieu's scenario, "Sally" feels she's treated unfairly because she's getting less of a tax cut, but "Joe's" situation is different - he's actually getting a tax increase.

Don't know how it will play out; but there are projections that the federal tax cut for certain Californians will not offset the new limitations in deductibility of state income tax, and new limitations in mortgage interest deductions, and when all is played out, some here in California - and I'm hearing in New York, too - will end paying more in federal taxes with these reforms.

It would follow that these people are relatively high earning individuals with assets, but regardless, someone like Joe isn't probably jealous - he makes good money and owns property; he's been doing okay - instead he's pissed off that his tax bill goes up when almost everybody else is getting a tax cut, whether it's Sally's $380 or others' $200,000 - Lieu didn't name any of them specifically by name, like he did with Sally and Joe.

Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as Joe living in a high property and income tax state. You dont have to be uber rich to get hit by this. This just reveals the lie about the red states getting welfare from the blue states. The fact is, California, New York and New Jersey have been getting a free ride on the state and local deduction while red states with lower income and real estate taxes have been paying in at higher rates. The funny thing is that people around here are more angry about this tax bill than they are about their $28k tax tab for a four bedroom house on a half acre of land and the 8% income tax tab.

turok said:

Some of the global corporate capitalists apparently are putting their own fingerprints onto promoting the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, by announcing that they intend to give out one-time $1K bonuses to their rank and file labor next year, rather than wage and salary increases, and/or unsurprisingly "new" jobs.

RWers have taken this "non-fake" news, and are posting about it in online messageboads and forums, as if this tax-deductible, big business gesture of generosity is somehow proof of free-market principles benefitting labor, rather than the snow job that it really is.

Over the past 40-odd years, my income taxes have been redistributed to mostly red fed tax recipient states, while mine being a blue-purple donor state, got less in return. This was never widely publicized, and only since the advent of broadband internet, easily researchable.

But when conservatives complain about their taxes going to "socialist" government programs which assist the poor, disabled, and elderly, this fact is rarely if ever mentioned. Nor is the fact that although a higher percentage of most minority groups are on the public dole, there is a higher portion of whitefolk who have been, and still are, the former ironically and hypocritically including one of the most outspoken and visible against SS/SSD, Medicare-aid, wealth redistribution and welfare state slackers in SotH Paul Ryan.

There of course is such a thing as "corporate welfare", but since they are the job creators, there is very little mentioned about it, this despite it having no stiff regulatory barriers to prevent it from being used directly or indirectly to create, offshore, and outsource jobs elsewhere.

Click to expand...

There have been companies announcing wage increases and hiring decisions don't happen overnight. Good fake news rant piece though.

Gulo Blue said:

That's your interpretation, but he literally said "got a better deal." so it's not the admission you are claiming.

Click to expand...

It's clearly about envy.

If the wealthy s/b able to inherit @ low tax rate, then there s/b a higher FICA maximum income than currently $127K, and instead make it equal to the amount when federal inheritance taxes kick in, currently ~$5.5M.

I don't "envy" the wealthy who earned it on their own, but again, to claim that everyone who is rich, has earned it and/or deserves it is a fallacy. Tax-exempt and esp wealthy religious groups who blatantly preach politics from their pulpits and public podiums are not being, but should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted by the IRS for doing so. I believe that federal inheritance taxes should be 75% above $1B, 50% above $1M, and 25% below the latter. (That 25% would also affect me, since I am going to fully inherit a relatively modest amount a year from now.) But any state inheritance taxes should be subtracted from the total taxed by the IRS.

Being wealthy here in Murka most often means being admired and further rewarded just for being so...for example the talent-challenged Kim Kardashian and her brazillion Twitter followers. But to be poor is the direct opposite, in being the subject of public ridicule and private penalties, esp. credit-wise. Some "xtian nation" that this allegedly is.

Spartanmack said:

I'm in the same boat as Joe living in a high property and income tax state. You dont have to be uber rich to get hit by this. This just reveals the lie about the red states getting welfare from the blue states. The fact is, California, New York and New Jersey have been getting a free ride on the state and local deduction while red states with lower income and real estate taxes have been paying in at higher rates. The funny thing is that people around here are more angry about this tax bill than they are about their $28k tax tab for a four bedroom house on a half acre of land and the 8% income tax tab.

Click to expand...

State and local income taxes have jackshit to do with the redistribution of federal income taxes, and which have been the case for decades now. Posting about 3 in particular instead of all in general, including FL & TX, who have no state income taxes.

Spartanmack said:

There have been companies announcing wage increases and hiring decisions don't happen overnight. Good fake news rant piece though.

Click to expand...

Part of my post mentioned that some large companies apparently intend to give their employees a one-time bonus in lieu of raises or the addition of new jobs, no matter how small of an amount, since even 100 would not require years to implement for those with 10,000s.

But you still had to "Conway" my post nevertheless with alt-facts i.e. that some others were announcing wage and salary increases.

tinselwolverine said:

I don't know who says they are - in my day to day life, I have no dealings with non-liquid assets left by a deceased benefactor that are valued at above $5.49 M.

Who does these valuations, and how are they arrived at, resulting in an immediately taxable value in the eyes of the IRS?

I would have thought that common sense would dictate that a functioning business operation with primarily illiquid assets, that the beneficiaries would choose to continue to operate rather than liquidate in order to pay taxes on some - really not negotiated at all - valuation, would be allowed to continue as the beneficiaries chose.

Now - if I'm wrong, and common sense wouldn't prevail in this situation - I would agree with you 100% that absolutely IS unfair and outrageous.

EDIT: Oh, and if a person inherits liquid assets such as stocks in a company where that person is a key part of the management of and the operations of - just as if it were liked the illiquid assets of a small business or family farm like discussed above - absolutely, that person shouldn't be required to liquidate those stocks to pay estate taxes on.

Click to expand...

it is incorrect to think common sense would prevail bit it's even worse than you think. the deceased's estate is valued as of the date of death and there is no earn out or payment plan. what's more, if adverse events affect the value of the estate, too bad, taxes are based on the value at time of death. if your ich aunt left you $20mm of stock when she died and by the time you were able to sell it and pay the taxes it was only worth $10mm, the IRS collects txes from he estate based on the $20mm. I believe the same is true for physical assets of a business.

turok said:

State and local income taxes have jackshit to do with the redistribution of federal income taxes, and which have been the case for decades now. Posting about 3 in particular instead of all in general, including FL & TX, who have no state income taxes.

Click to expand...

are you out of your mind? it has everything to do with who pays into the treasury. people in high tax states have been getting massive deductions that people in low tax states haven't gotten. therefore people in high tax states pay less federal taxes than they would if they lived in a low tax state - they're being subsidized by the low tax, mostly red States. so when they bitch about other states living off their "welfare" it's a bull shit complaint.

the math is pretty simple. let's say you have two $1mm income earners, one in Texas and the other in New Jersey. Now assume that between income and higher property taxes, the NJ person's state and local tax rate is 10% higher than the Texas resident. ignoring personal exemptions and other deductions and assuming a an average tax rate of 30%, the NJ residents federal tax bill is $270k while the Texas resident pays $300k.

So these high tax states are passing the buck to low tax states and when they bitch about subsidizing the red States, I'm not buying it.

Only 2 of 1000 estate taxes will face Estate taxes. There are so many loopholes already.

Like the great Teddy Rosevelt said in 1906 " The man of great wealth owes particular obligation to the state because he dervise special advantages from the mere existence of government."

Ten facts you should know about the estate tax.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

there's only one fact you need to know about the estate tax - it's double taxation, and therefore unconstitutional. if you need 2 facts, it's private property and you don't have a claim to it, no matter how many politicians you elect to vote to take it.

turok said:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-state-local-tax-subsidy-20171029-story.html

Click to expand...

utter nonsense. California's high state and local taxes are reducing their federal taxes - something people in low tax states don't get, so they pay more of their income to the federal government.

if you can refute my example and show me that you pay more in federal taxes if you make a certain amount of $ and live in CA than someone making that same income in Texas, please do. otherwise you're just buying into the smoke and mirrors nonsense you find in the leftist LA Times - and spreading malware.

"malware" lol.

You're so far to the right, that you're hanging over the edge with Mark Levin.

Don't worry though, cuz this forum is waay too tiny to infect even the more plentiful bots, spiders, and spam member lurkers. No one special is looking over anyone's shoulder here, in breathless anticipation of what they are gonna post next.

turok said:

"malware" lol.

You're so far to the right, that you're hanging over the edge with Mark Levin.

Don't worry though, cuz this forum is waay too tiny to infect even the more plentiful bots, spiders, and spam member lurkers. No one special is looking over anyone's shoulder here, in breathless anticipation of what they are gonna post next.

Click to expand...

Another unsurprisingly dodge of the facts. Talk to me when you can provide something that disproves the math.