Marco Rubio 2016 (1 Viewer)

[kutta]

I'm in. He's about the only non-nut job for the R's. He's gotta get that sweating under control though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Squizz, thanks for the link, I'm going to read it later. I'll let you know what I think after. Right now I'm going to get some brews. Have a good weekend.

 

[jamny]

15 Questions Marco Won't Be Asked at the Debate

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Rubio's best bet is probably to run a strong second in the primary and come back in four years. I'm guessing the GOP has a much better shot at making Hillary a one term President than they do at stopping her being President in the first place.

 

[shadrap]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

Always drives me nuts when ordinary people get revved up about the "death tax" because they have absolutely no idea what it really is.

Sure the ordinary person knows exactly what it is, its a tax on money that has already been taxed. Thats why most oppose it. It makes no sense.

Your right, it makes no sense at all, but that won't stop the blathering from some that it does. Whether it affects only two people in the entire U.S. is not the point. It is an unfair tax or double taxation. That is the fact of the matter & sorry if it doesn't fit your current mantra of ---whatever.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think he has no chance. Then again I could go down the entire list of GOP candidates and tell you why I think each one of them have no chance - but it's got to go to somebody. It will be interesting to see how he handles the new level of scrutiny now that he's moving up in the polls.

 

[jamny]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

Always drives me nuts when ordinary people get revved up about the "death tax" because they have absolutely no idea what it really is.

Sure the ordinary person knows exactly what it is, its a tax on money that has already been taxed. Thats why most oppose it. It makes no sense.

Your right, it makes no sense at all, but that won't stop the blathering from some that it does. Whether it affects only two people in the entire U.S. is not the point. It is an unfair tax or double taxation. That is the fact of the matter & sorry if it doesn't fit your current mantra of ---whatever.

Of course and we're all stupid and don't know what it really means. Sure, there are plenty of people that manage to skirt the tax the first time so it isn't really a double tax for them but there are people who are affected by it and have to sell or split up the family business to pay the tax. Much like Obamacare, where plenty are affected negatively but it doesn't matter since they think it does more good than harm. Screw those that are hurt by a government money grab. They know better what to do with that money as always.

 

[shadrap]

It used to be "We the people". Not anymore. It's "We the government" & we know what's best for you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes there is some question about his use of a GOP state credit card for personal expenses, which his campaign has said an explanation is forthcoming next week:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/11/rubio-release-credit-card-records

Rubio Will Release Records of GOP Credit Card He Used for Personal Expenses

One of the big question marks hanging over Marco Rubio's financial past may soon be answered. On Tuesday, the senator's presidential campaign agreed to release records detailing his use of a Florida Republican Party credit card from his time in the state House.

For years, Rubio's political career has been haunted by his misuse of a credit card issued by the state partyraising question about his finances and his ethics. When he ran for the US Senate in 2010, Florida reporters obtained his credit card records for 2007 and 2008, which showed that Rubio often used the party card to cover personal expenses, from a $7.09 charge at a Chick-fil-A to $10,000 for a family vacation in Georgia. Rubio has repeatedly contended that he paid the party back every month for any personal expenses he put on the party American Express card, but records show Rubio did not make monthly payments, including any repayments during a six-month stretch in 2007.

But two years of records, from 2005 and 2006, have remained secret. As he runs for president, questions about Rubio's credit card use have mounted. Marco Rubio has a disaster on his finances," rival Donald Trump charged on Tuesday, urging the press to take a closer look at Rubio's credit cards. "He has a disaster on his credit cards."

So after years of hiding his 2005 and 2006 records, Rubio has finally agreed to release them. In response to repeated requests for the records from the Tampa Bay Times, the campaign said this week that it would release the missing records soonpossibly in the coming months.

Candidates often have to weigh whether the information contained in their records is more harmful than the bad publicity that comes from speculation over what they are hiding. (Think Mitt Romney and his tax returns in 2012, or Hillary Clinton and her emails this year.) Rubio has apparently made the calculation that whatever his credit card records contain is less harmful than weathering continued attacks about his secrecy. We'll know soon enough.

After taking a break... I'm able to look at this now.

I think this issue is pretty straightforward and as I said I've seen and heard this plenty in LA. I'm glad he's releasing the records. To me I think this kind of stuff is outrageous and just represents politicians who think public money is their money, which it isn't.

Now in orders of magnitude... it ain't much:

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=121856&page=1

If this is a campaign issue that could go on for quite a while tallying up what Rubio's opponent has had to account for..... or should.

- However I was really interested in the bit about his family leaving during the Batista years?

 

[squistion]

However I was really interested in the bit about his family leaving during the Batista years?

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/21/marco-rubio/sen-marco-rubio-said-his-parents-came-america-foll/

Sen. Marco Rubio said his parents 'came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover' of Cuba

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio sold his American success story as he stumped across Florida two years ago.

His parents left Havana in 1959, he told a Panhandle audience, in search of a better life.

He told a Tampa Bay TV station, a Fox Business host and Sean Hannity on Fox News that his parents came from Cuba at the end of the 1950s when dictator Fulgencio Batista fled Fidel Castro's revolution. "In 1959," he told Fox 13 and Fox Business. "In '58, '59," he told Fox News.

By Oct. 21, 2011, the biography on his U.S. Senate website still declared his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover."

But interviews, documents and news articles in September and October raised doubts.

PolitiFact Florida wanted to know: Did Rubio's parents come to America "following Fidel Castro's takeover"?

Doubt

An Oct. 19, 2011, story by the St. Petersburg Times said naturalization records showed Rubio's parents, Mario and Oriales, became U.S. residents in May 1956.

At that time, Castro lived in Mexico after a failed 1953 attack on army barracks in Santiago de Cuba. Cubans lived under the dictatorship of Batista, who had seized power as he ran for re-election in 1952. The nation, which enjoyed high literacy, a strong educational system even the world's fifth-highest number of TVs per capita found itself ruled by decree.

In May 1956, the Rubio family would fly to the United States. Castro returned to mount his revolution in December. More than two years would pass before Batista fled on Jan. 1, 1959.

In 2006, Rubio, the young soon-to-be speaker of the Florida House, would recount the takeover: "In January of 1959, a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba, and countless Cubans were forced to flee."

To many, he seemed to count his own family among them.

And in 2009 and 2010, he told reporters dates that made that possible. News stories called the lawmaker, himself born in the United States in 1971, the son of "exiles from Castro's Cuba." Some used a specific date: 1959.

Story shift

In September 2011, Rubio chatted with Miami Herald reporter Marc Caputo for a story about his upcoming autobiography. They talked about Rubio's parents' immigration from Cuba. Caputo, later recounting his notes, said Rubio "struggled to recall the year ... and said it was in ' '57 or '58 or '59.' "

"When asked pointedly: Was it before the revolution? Rubio said it was before the revolution," Caputo wrote in an Oct. 20 blog post.

Caputo included the detail in his September story, saying Rubio was, "the son of Cuban immigrants who left Cuba just before the 1959 revolution."

When we searched for news references to Rubio's parents, we found the new account differed from dozens of articles about Rubio's past, his own TV interviews, and his official campaign and Senate bios.

And Rubio's bio didn't change.

After the Times and the Washington Post wrote about the discrepancy, Rubio released a statement.

"The dates I have given regarding my familys history have always been based on my parents recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened," he wrote on Oct. 20. "I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently."

Asked about Rubio's official bio the next day, spokesman Alex Conant confirmed, "the dates were wrong."

"We just recently became aware of it, and it just hadn't been updated," he said. (The site updated the evening of Oct. 21, 2011 to say: "Marco was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban exiles who first arrived in the United States in 1956.")

Rubio learned the full story talking with his mom, Conant said, and looking at his parents' passports. (His father died in September 2010.)

Instead of fleeing Castro's Cuba, the Rubios came to the United States for "economic opportunity," Conant said.

Our ruling

Several times during his race for U.S. Senate, Rubio told reporters and voters his parents left Cuba in 1959, suggesting they had fled Castro's rule. In his campaign bio, and later in his official Senate biography, he said his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover."

Even after he stumbled over dates with a Miami Herald reporter and acknowledged his parents left before the revolution, his official Web bio stayed the same. After two news organizations reported his parents moved to the United States in 1956, his spokesman acknowledged that the bio was wrong. It was updated to say, "Marco was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban exiles who first arrived in the United States in 1956." That puts everyone in agreement: The original statement is False

 

[jamny]

RE: the death tax.

Why should the government have that money?

Is it targeted towards something?

 

[John Bender]

The only guy I'm supporting on the R side of things. Have actually donated a decent amount of money to the campaign and probably will look for volunteer opportunities as well.

I won't get into the politics stuff because I see most of the responses are from the big Bernie guys, but I'm in Camp Rubio at least as far as the R primary goes.

Still undecided as to whether or not I'd choose him over Hillary to be honest (hate to buzzkill the thread)

The fact that he's so far behind Trump and Carson in the polls is so discouraging right now but I really feel strongly he is the best the R side has to offer and I hope momentum continues its upswing here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

However I was really interested in the bit about his family leaving during the Batista years?

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/21/marco-rubio/sen-marco-rubio-said-his-parents-came-america-foll/

Sen. Marco Rubio said his parents 'came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover' of Cuba

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio sold his American success story as he stumped across Florida two years ago.

His parents left Havana in 1959, he told a Panhandle audience, in search of a better life.

He told a Tampa Bay TV station, a Fox Business host and Sean Hannity on Fox News that his parents came from Cuba at the end of the 1950s when dictator Fulgencio Batista fled Fidel Castro's revolution. "In 1959," he told Fox 13 and Fox Business. "In '58, '59," he told Fox News.

By Oct. 21, 2011, the biography on his U.S. Senate website still declared his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover."

But interviews, documents and news articles in September and October raised doubts.

PolitiFact Florida wanted to know: Did Rubio's parents come to America "following Fidel Castro's takeover"?

Doubt

An Oct. 19, 2011, story by the St. Petersburg Times said naturalization records showed Rubio's parents, Mario and Oriales, became U.S. residents in May 1956.

At that time, Castro lived in Mexico after a failed 1953 attack on army barracks in Santiago de Cuba. Cubans lived under the dictatorship of Batista, who had seized power as he ran for re-election in 1952. The nation, which enjoyed high literacy, a strong educational system even the world's fifth-highest number of TVs per capita found itself ruled by decree.

In May 1956, the Rubio family would fly to the United States. Castro returned to mount his revolution in December. More than two years would pass before Batista fled on Jan. 1, 1959.

In 2006, Rubio, the young soon-to-be speaker of the Florida House, would recount the takeover: "In January of 1959, a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba, and countless Cubans were forced to flee."

To many, he seemed to count his own family among them.

And in 2009 and 2010, he told reporters dates that made that possible. News stories called the lawmaker, himself born in the United States in 1971, the son of "exiles from Castro's Cuba." Some used a specific date: 1959.

Story shift

In September 2011, Rubio chatted with Miami Herald reporter Marc Caputo for a story about his upcoming autobiography. They talked about Rubio's parents' immigration from Cuba. Caputo, later recounting his notes, said Rubio "struggled to recall the year ... and said it was in ' '57 or '58 or '59.' "

"When asked pointedly: Was it before the revolution? Rubio said it was before the revolution," Caputo wrote in an Oct. 20 blog post.

Caputo included the detail in his September story, saying Rubio was, "the son of Cuban immigrants who left Cuba just before the 1959 revolution."

When we searched for news references to Rubio's parents, we found the new account differed from dozens of articles about Rubio's past, his own TV interviews, and his official campaign and Senate bios.

And Rubio's bio didn't change.

After the Times and the Washington Post wrote about the discrepancy, Rubio released a statement.

"The dates I have given regarding my familys history have always been based on my parents recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened," he wrote on Oct. 20. "I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently."

Asked about Rubio's official bio the next day, spokesman Alex Conant confirmed, "the dates were wrong."

"We just recently became aware of it, and it just hadn't been updated," he said. (The site updated the evening of Oct. 21, 2011 to say: "Marco was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban exiles who first arrived in the United States in 1956.")

Rubio learned the full story talking with his mom, Conant said, and looking at his parents' passports. (His father died in September 2010.)

Instead of fleeing Castro's Cuba, the Rubios came to the United States for "economic opportunity," Conant said.

Our ruling

Several times during his race for U.S. Senate, Rubio told reporters and voters his parents left Cuba in 1959, suggesting they had fled Castro's rule. In his campaign bio, and later in his official Senate biography, he said his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover."

Even after he stumbled over dates with a Miami Herald reporter and acknowledged his parents left before the revolution, his official Web bio stayed the same. After two news organizations reported his parents moved to the United States in 1956, his spokesman acknowledged that the bio was wrong. It was updated to say, "Marco was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban exiles who first arrived in the United States in 1956." That puts everyone in agreement: The original statement is False

Good post, thanks.

Fwiw this is the WaPo story it links to as a source. But good summary, thanks.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Some of that is a little more extreme than I thought he was. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the fact he says there should be no exceptions for abortions at all. The bar has been set so low by the republicans.

 

[jamny]

Some of that is a little more extreme than I thought he was. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the fact he says there should be no exceptions for abortions at all. The bar has been set so low by the republicans.

He personally believes there should be no exceptions but will follow the law as it is. I think abortion is way down the list of priorities for him.

 

[NCCommish]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

Always drives me nuts when ordinary people get revved up about the "death tax" because they have absolutely no idea what it really is.

Sure the ordinary person knows exactly what it is, its a tax on money that has already been taxed. Thats why most oppose it. It makes no sense.

Your right, it makes no sense at all, but that won't stop the blathering from some that it does. Whether it affects only two people in the entire U.S. is not the point. It is an unfair tax or double taxation. That is the fact of the matter & sorry if it doesn't fit your current mantra of ---whatever.

Of course and we're all stupid and don't know what it really means. Sure, there are plenty of people that manage to skirt the tax the first time so it isn't really a double tax for them but there are people who are affected by it and have to sell or split up the family business to pay the tax. Much like Obamacare, where plenty are affected negatively but it doesn't matter since they think it does more good than harm. Screw those that are hurt by a government money grab. They know better what to do with that money as always.

What a load. Roughly 20 small businesses or farms owed estate tax in 2013. The tax owed was equivalent to less than 5% of the value of the business or farms.

 

[bigbottom]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

Always drives me nuts when ordinary people get revved up about the "death tax" because they have absolutely no idea what it really is.

Sure the ordinary person knows exactly what it is, its a tax on money that has already been taxed. Thats why most oppose it. It makes no sense.

Your right, it makes no sense at all, but that won't stop the blathering from some that it does. Whether it affects only two people in the entire U.S. is not the point. It is an unfair tax or double taxation. That is the fact of the matter & sorry if it doesn't fit your current mantra of ---whatever.

If elimination of the estate tax resulted in the elimination of step up basis at death, would you still be in favor of getting rid of it?

 

[timschochet]

Hey Tony Montana claimed he was fleeing Castro too...

 

[jamny]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

Always drives me nuts when ordinary people get revved up about the "death tax" because they have absolutely no idea what it really is.

Sure the ordinary person knows exactly what it is, its a tax on money that has already been taxed. Thats why most oppose it. It makes no sense.

Your right, it makes no sense at all, but that won't stop the blathering from some that it does. Whether it affects only two people in the entire U.S. is not the point. It is an unfair tax or double taxation. That is the fact of the matter & sorry if it doesn't fit your current mantra of ---whatever.

Of course and we're all stupid and don't know what it really means. Sure, there are plenty of people that manage to skirt the tax the first time so it isn't really a double tax for them but there are people who are affected by it and have to sell or split up the family business to pay the tax. Much like Obamacare, where plenty are affected negatively but it doesn't matter since they think it does more good than harm. Screw those that are hurt by a government money grab. They know better what to do with that money as always.

What a load. Roughly 20 small businesses or farms owed estate tax in 2013. The tax owed was equivalent to less than 5% of the value of the business or farms.

So that money should go to the government, right! They know how to spend it!

 

[bud29]

Rubio is one of the more likable candidates on the R side - however, as far as policy goes, he hasn't done much to separate himself from the pack during debates IMO. I keep hearing that he's the one "non-crazy" GOP candidate, but I haven't really seen it. Seems to be throwing a lot of red meat to the far-right base, not unlike Trump, Cruz, etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Some of that is a little more extreme than I thought he was. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the fact he says there should be no exceptions for abortions at all. The bar has been set so low by the republicans.

Hillary has been just as extreme in the other direction. I don't think she puts any limitation when an abortion can take place. In politics it's rarely a rational discussion.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Yes there is some question about his use of a GOP state credit card for personal expenses, which his campaign has said an explanation is forthcoming next week:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/11/rubio-release-credit-card-records

Rubio Will Release Records of GOP Credit Card He Used for Personal Expenses

One of the big question marks hanging over Marco Rubio's financial past may soon be answered. On Tuesday, the senator's presidential campaign agreed to release records detailing his use of a Florida Republican Party credit card from his time in the state House.

For years, Rubio's political career has been haunted by his misuse of a credit card issued by the state partyraising question about his finances and his ethics. When he ran for the US Senate in 2010, Florida reporters obtained his credit card records for 2007 and 2008, which showed that Rubio often used the party card to cover personal expenses, from a $7.09 charge at a Chick-fil-A to $10,000 for a family vacation in Georgia. Rubio has repeatedly contended that he paid the party back every month for any personal expenses he put on the party American Express card, but records show Rubio did not make monthly payments, including any repayments during a six-month stretch in 2007.

But two years of records, from 2005 and 2006, have remained secret. As he runs for president, questions about Rubio's credit card use have mounted. Marco Rubio has a disaster on his finances," rival Donald Trump charged on Tuesday, urging the press to take a closer look at Rubio's credit cards. "He has a disaster on his credit cards."

So after years of hiding his 2005 and 2006 records, Rubio has finally agreed to release them. In response to repeated requests for the records from the Tampa Bay Times, the campaign said this week that it would release the missing records soonpossibly in the coming months.

Candidates often have to weigh whether the information contained in their records is more harmful than the bad publicity that comes from speculation over what they are hiding. (Think Mitt Romney and his tax returns in 2012, or Hillary Clinton and her emails this year.) Rubio has apparently made the calculation that whatever his credit card records contain is less harmful than weathering continued attacks about his secrecy. We'll know soon enough.

After taking a break... I'm able to look at this now.

I think this issue is pretty straightforward and as I said I've seen and heard this plenty in LA. I'm glad he's releasing the records. To me I think this kind of stuff is outrageous and just represents politicians who think public money is their money, which it isn't.

Now in orders of magnitude... it ain't much:

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=121856&page=1

If this is a campaign issue that could go on for quite a while tallying up what Rubio's opponent has had to account for..... or should.

- However I was really interested in the bit about his family leaving during the Batista years?

Except he hasnt and might not release those credit card records, he is just saying he will.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just read that through again and see that it's not a state card or a reimbursement request to the Fla House but a GOP credit card. Unusual situation. That sounds more like abuse of campaign funds provided by the party. That is technically different. How did reporters get hold of party credit card records? And if the party was paying the bills why don't they have the bills? Odd, interesting background there.

 

[shadrap]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

Always drives me nuts when ordinary people get revved up about the "death tax" because they have absolutely no idea what it really is.

Sure the ordinary person knows exactly what it is, its a tax on money that has already been taxed. Thats why most oppose it. It makes no sense.

Your right, it makes no sense at all, but that won't stop the blathering from some that it does. Whether it affects only two people in the entire U.S. is not the point. It is an unfair tax or double taxation. That is the fact of the matter & sorry if it doesn't fit your current mantra of ---whatever.

Of course and we're all stupid and don't know what it really means. Sure, there are plenty of people that manage to skirt the tax the first time so it isn't really a double tax for them but there are people who are affected by it and have to sell or split up the family business to pay the tax. Much like Obamacare, where plenty are affected negatively but it doesn't matter since they think it does more good than harm. Screw those that are hurt by a government money grab. They know better what to do with that money as always.

What a load. Roughly 20 small businesses or farms owed estate tax in 2013. The tax owed was equivalent to less than 5% of the value of the business or farms.

Gotta agree with you. What a load. You happen to have any links to your number? I doubt it, but will patiently wait....

 

[eoMMan]

The only guy I'm supporting on the R side of things. Have actually donated a decent amount of money to the campaign and probably will look for volunteer opportunities as well.

I won't get into the politics stuff because I see most of the responses are from the big Bernie guys, but I'm in Camp Rubio at least as far as the R primary goes.

Still undecided as to whether or not I'd choose him over Hillary to be honest (hate to buzzkill the thread)

The fact that he's so far behind Trump and Carson in the polls is so discouraging right now but I really feel strongly he is the best the R side has to offer and I hope momentum continues its upswing here.

We should have another thread about political donations.

Honestly, I don't get it. In my opinion, it's almost like you are throwing money away. I can see the reasoning if you a major corporation and the who gets into office a major impact on your business, but to a regular joe schmoe, I don't get it.

 

[the moops]

Gotta agree with you. What a load. You happen to have any links to your number? I doubt it, but will patiently wait....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/14/the-facts-about-the-estate-tax-and-farmers/

 

[the moops]

4. Only a Handful of Small, Family-Owned Farms and Businesses Owe Any Estate TaxOnly roughly 20 small business and small farm estates nationwide owed any estate tax in 2013, according to TPC.[10] 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 20 estates owed just 4.9 percent of their value in tax, on average.[11]

 

[bigbottom]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

Always drives me nuts when ordinary people get revved up about the "death tax" because they have absolutely no idea what it really is.

Sure the ordinary person knows exactly what it is, its a tax on money that has already been taxed. Thats why most oppose it. It makes no sense.

Your right, it makes no sense at all, but that won't stop the blathering from some that it does. Whether it affects only two people in the entire U.S. is not the point. It is an unfair tax or double taxation. That is the fact of the matter & sorry if it doesn't fit your current mantra of ---whatever.

If elimination of the estate tax resulted in the elimination of step up basis at death, would you still be in favor of getting rid of it?

Bump. Here's an explanation of the ramifications of eliminating the estate tax and step up basis back in 2010 when the estate tax expired.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-tax-elimination-could-cost-heirs-1.aspx

So would you still favor repealing the estate tax if it ended up increasing tax burdens for exponentially more households than are impacted by the estate tax?

 

[shadrap]

Thanks for the link. Apparently 4600 estate tax returns were filed in 2013. From your link the number IS small for farmers. Regardless, it is double taxation & unfair. IMO

 

[Gatorman]

I am down here in Florida and Rubio is the textbook example of a career politician with no skills to do anything else. He has never been able to balance his own checkbook, which has led to some questionable spending habits both with his gov't issue credit card and some of the deals he has had with political donors. He has not stood up for any issue, and the one that he did try to champion (immigration reform) almost blew up in his face and he had to backtrack severely from.

This is not a guy with principles. This is a politician that not only can be bought, he has been bought many times already, and still seems to not know how to keep manage the money he has gotten up until now.

He also gets flummoxed in the debates when he gets away from his prepackaged sound bites or anything that is off the cuff...

 

[Chadstroma]

Bump.

Here's an explanation of the ramifications of eliminating the estate tax and step up basis back in 2010 when the estate tax expired.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-tax-elimination-could-cost-heirs-1.aspx

So would you still favor repealing the estate tax if it ended up increasing tax burdens for exponentially more households than are impacted by the estate tax?

The Estate tax is not a tax on the wealthy. It is a tax on the wealthy and stupid/lazy. The only people that really gain out of it are the lawyers, tax advisors, financial planners and financial institutions offering products who are hired by wealthy individuals to make sure that their money does not go to the government when they die. If you are of means and have not hired someone to protect your assets then you are dumb and or lazy.

The entire tax system is inefficient and ineffective. This is just another example of that. So much money is wasted on hiring specialized individuals to avoid paying taxes. The people who want to keep the broken tax system are the politicians (taxes = control and power) and those who benefit from advising those with money how to protect their money from taxes.

 

[bigbottom]

Bump.

Here's an explanation of the ramifications of eliminating the estate tax and step up basis back in 2010 when the estate tax expired.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-tax-elimination-could-cost-heirs-1.aspx

So would you still favor repealing the estate tax if it ended up increasing tax burdens for exponentially more households than are impacted by the estate tax?

The Estate tax is not a tax on the wealthy. It is a tax on the wealthy and stupid/lazy. The only people that really gain out of it are the lawyers, tax advisors, financial planners and financial institutions offering products who are hired by wealthy individuals to make sure that their money does not go to the government when they die. If you are of means and have not hired someone to protect your assets then you are dumb and or lazy.

The entire tax system is inefficient and ineffective. This is just another example of that. So much money is wasted on hiring specialized individuals to avoid paying taxes. The people who want to keep the broken tax system are the politicians (taxes = control and power) and those who benefit from advising those with money how to protect their money from taxes.

Excellent point.

 

[Abraham]

It's going to be one of the guys from Florida. The last three standing will be Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich and I have a feeling the governor of Ohio is going to trade his supporters for the VP nod.

 

[Trey]

It's going to be one of the guys from Florida. The last three standing will be Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich and I have a feeling the governor of Ohio is going to trade his supporters for the VP nod.

Can't envision a final 3 that doesn't involve Ted Cruz at this point.

 

[msommer]

Thanks for the link. Apparently 4600 estate tax returns were filed in 2013. From your link the number IS small for farmers. Regardless, it is double taxation & unfair. IMO

Do you pay sales tax?

 

[Chadstroma]

It's going to be one of the guys from Florida. The last three standing will be Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich and I have a feeling the governor of Ohio is going to trade his supporters for the VP nod.

How in the world does Kasich survive to the last three? He hasn't broken 5% yet in polls has about the least amount of name recognition and press from pretty much anyone in the field. If Christie drops out he might be able to pick up his votes but who else? How much money has he been raising- is he flush with cash? I am just not seeing how he survives in the finals. Though, I think with most anyone he makes the automatic short list of VP possibilities.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It's going to be one of the guys from Florida. The last three standing will be Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich and I have a feeling the governor of Ohio is going to trade his supporters for the VP nod.

This seems completely wrong to me.

 

[Chadstroma]

It's going to be one of the guys from Florida. The last three standing will be Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich and I have a feeling the governor of Ohio is going to trade his supporters for the VP nod.

How in the world does Kasich survive to the last three? He hasn't broken 5% yet in polls has about the least amount of name recognition and press from pretty much anyone in the field. If Christie drops out he might be able to pick up his votes but who else? How much money has he been raising- is he flush with cash? I am just not seeing how he survives in the finals. Though, I think with most anyone he makes the automatic short list of VP possibilities.

I will revise- Kasich is polling 4th right now in NH behing Trump, Carson and Rubio. If Trump and Carson take a dive like I expect that will as we get closer to voting and Kasich is able to pull a 1 or 2 showing in NH that will give him life to continue and make a run. Anything less and he is done. He is near the bottom in both Iowa and SC. So, NH is his entire hope.

 

[Ilov80s]

I feel the same way about Rubio as I did Obama. Great person, has all the makings of a quality leader, but it's too early. I wish Rubio would gain more experience before making his run.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

What about the rest of his tax plan? Surely it will impact more FBGs.

"Rubio's tax reform proposal calls for a simplified tax code which would include just two tax rates: 15% for those earning less than $75,000 annually and 35% for those earning more than that. It would eliminate capital gains taxes and add a new $2,500 per child tax credit for families. The corporate tax rate would be reduced to 25%, and businesses would be able to fully deduct the cost of investments in the year made."

 

[saintfool]

GOP establishment is fighting tooth and nail to keep psychos like Trump and Carson out of the GOP lead.

 

[bigbottom]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

What about the rest of his tax plan? Surely it will impact more FBGs."Rubio's tax reform proposal calls for a simplified tax code which would include just two tax rates: 15% for those earning less than $75,000 annually and 35% for those earning more than that. It would eliminate capital gains taxes and add a new $2,500 per child tax credit for families. The corporate tax rate would be reduced to 25%, and businesses would be able to fully deduct the cost of investments in the year made."

Is this really his tax plan? Seems like a huge tax increase for middle class wage earning households.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I feel the same way about Rubio as I did Obama. Great person, has all the makings of a quality leader, but it's too early. I wish Rubio would gain more experience before making his run.

I agree, he hasn't even finished his first Senate term yet. Having been Speaker of the Florida House is impressive, but I think we need a president to have some higher office experience.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

GOP establishment is fighting tooth and nail to keep psychos like Trump and Carson out of the GOP lead.

They are, they should. I'm sure some are enjoying this Hindenburg experience but I don't think it's a good development for the country.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

He doesn't already have a thread?

If I had put a bet down on who the nominee would be a few months ago, it would have been Rubio. I would put double the money down now.

Rubio will get the GOP nomination if he really wants it.

What kind of odds could I have gotten 3 years ago?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

What about the rest of his tax plan? Surely it will impact more FBGs."Rubio's tax reform proposal calls for a simplified tax code which would include just two tax rates: 15% for those earning less than $75,000 annually and 35% for those earning more than that. It would eliminate capital gains taxes and add a new $2,500 per child tax credit for families. The corporate tax rate would be reduced to 25%, and businesses would be able to fully deduct the cost of investments in the year made."

Is this really his tax plan? Seems like a huge tax increase for middle class wage earning households.

Yes. The whole plan is on his web site. http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942#page19

Pages 17 and 18 compare the current law with his proposals. Most FBGs' tax rates will go down but some households may end up paying more.

His plan gets criticism for benefiting the rich. Today 80% of the capital gains tax is paid by the top 1%, and only 5% of it is taken from income of the bottom 90%.

Trump says he is in the pockets of a bunch of billionnaire donors.

 

[Johnnymac]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

What about the rest of his tax plan? Surely it will impact more FBGs.

"Rubio's tax reform proposal calls for a simplified tax code which would include just two tax rates: 15% for those earning less than $75,000 annually and 35% for those earning more than that. It would eliminate capital gains taxes and add a new $2,500 per child tax credit for families. The corporate tax rate would be reduced to 25%, and businesses would be able to fully deduct the cost of investments in the year made."

Gee that sounds like it favors the average american taxpayer....

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

What about the rest of his tax plan? Surely it will impact more FBGs.

"Rubio's tax reform proposal calls for a simplified tax code which would include just two tax rates: 15% for those earning less than $75,000 annually and 35% for those earning more than that. It would eliminate capital gains taxes and add a new $2,500 per child tax credit for families. The corporate tax rate would be reduced to 25%, and businesses would be able to fully deduct the cost of investments in the year made."

Gee that sounds like it favors the average american taxpayer....

Rubio has a law degree so you have to read the fine prints. When he tells people to check out his web site instead of giving the details during the debate, you know it may not be good for everyone.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Besides policies, some of you may be interested in the candidates' vision for the future and their managerial styles.

Marco Rubio is what you may call a "delegator".

"Rubio began his tenure as speaker with a dramatic — some would say flashy — public-outreach effort. He was officially designated the speaker in September 2005, and at the ceremony in the House chamber, every member had a book printed with the cover, “100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future.” Rubio asked the members to pick up the book and look inside. The pages were blank, and Rubio told them that he expected the lawmakers to fill them with ideas from constituents by the beginning of the next session. “Together we will write a book which will detail and outline our vision for the future,” he said."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/416889/when-rubio-was-man-floridas-house-jim-geraghty

 

[bigbottom]

Just to pick one thing.

Currently for an individual to pay any estate tax the value must exceed 5 million or 10 million per couple. Only .2% of all estates pay any taxes. Of those taxed 55% are taxed on unrealized capital gains which means they have never been taxed at all. Repealing it would cost us about 250 billion over the next ten years. Not good policy and is only helpful for one group of people, a group to which you likely don't belong.

What about the rest of his tax plan? Surely it will impact more FBGs."Rubio's tax reform proposal calls for a simplified tax code which would include just two tax rates: 15% for those earning less than $75,000 annually and 35% for those earning more than that. It would eliminate capital gains taxes and add a new $2,500 per child tax credit for families. The corporate tax rate would be reduced to 25%, and businesses would be able to fully deduct the cost of investments in the year made."

Is this really his tax plan? Seems like a huge tax increase for middle class wage earning households.

Yes. The whole plan is on his web site. http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942#page19

Pages 17 and 18 compare the current law with his proposals. Most FBGs' tax rates will go down but some households may end up paying more.

His plan gets criticism for benefiting the rich. Today 80% of the capital gains tax is paid by the top 1%, and only 5% of it is taken from income of the bottom 90%.

Trump says he is in the pockets of a bunch of billionnaire donors.

I'm having trouble loading your link, but the plan I found on his presidential site has an interim rate of 25% for $75,001 to $150,000 before going up to 35%. Also, that's for single filers. The rates for joint filers are 15% for $0-150,000; 25% for $150,001 to $300,000; and 35% for above $300,000.

https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/rubio-tax-plan/

That makes more sense. The question is how people are hit by his plan to eliminate most itemized deductions.