What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official Tax Reform Thread*** If it is good for Trump, it is good for America! (1 Viewer)

Found this on Page 3.  Is tax reform already dead on arrival?

A fair amount of discussion in the media about how eliminating the ability to deduct state taxes disproportionally hits blue states.  Relatively little discussion on the proposed elimination of the estate tax, and what that could mean if step-up basis goes with it (I realize this is a topic I have harped on a lot here over the years).

 
Found this on Page 3.  Is tax reform already dead on arrival?

A fair amount of discussion in the media about how eliminating the ability to deduct state taxes disproportionally hits blue states.  Relatively little discussion on the proposed elimination of the estate tax, and what that could mean if step-up basis goes with it (I realize this is a topic I have harped on a lot here over the years).
are you for or against elimination of the estate tax?  or the step-up basis?

 
are you for or against elimination of the estate tax?  or the step-up basis?
I don't profess to be an expert on tax policy, nor do I have a full understanding of the intended and unintended consequences that would result from reforming the estate tax (through elimination or otherwise).  With that caveat, I would say I am firmly opposed to eliminating the estate tax if the step-up basis is eliminated along with it as the overall effect of such a change would be to raise taxes for millions of non-rich Americans to the benefit of a very tiny sliver of very rich Americans.  That said, I would like to see a solution that moderates the effect of the estate tax on heirs to farms and businesses that do not have the ability to pay the estate tax without selling/breaking up the farms/businesses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't profess to be an expert on tax policy, nor do I have a full understanding of the intended and unintended consequences that would result from reforming the estate tax (through elimination or otherwise).  With that caveat, I would say I am firmly opposed to eliminating the estate tax if the step-up basis is eliminated along with it as the overall effect of such a change would be to raise taxes for millions of non-rich Americans to the benefit of a very tiny sliver of very rich Americans.  That said, I would like to see a solution that moderates the effect of the estate tax on heirs to farms and businesses that do not have the ability to pay the estate tax without selling/breaking up the farms/businesses.
With the current exemptions, are there really a lot of family farms and small businesses paying the estate tax?

 
I don't profess to be an expert on tax policy, nor do I have a full understanding of the intended and unintended consequences that would result from reforming the estate tax (through elimination or otherwise).  With that caveat, I would say I am firmly opposed to eliminating the estate tax if the step-up basis is eliminated along with it as the overall effect of such a change would be to raise taxes for millions of non-rich Americans to the benefit of a very tiny sliver of very rich Americans.  That said, I would like to see a solution that moderates the effect of the estate tax on heirs to farms and businesses that do not have the ability to pay the estate tax without selling/breaking up the farms/businesses.
I've never been a fan of double taxation.  That said, the capital gains tax on basis/estate taxes/small business impacts are very complex.   Plus, many small farms got roped into c-corp conversions, and are either stuck with a 10 year s-corp conversion or just plain ### reaming when splitting the farm between heirs.

I don't like the idea of screwing millions of people over for the benefit of the ultra rich either.   Then again, Buffet is the biggest tax dodger out there, and he claims to want to benefit the little guy.

 
  Then again, Buffet is the biggest tax dodger out there, and he claims to want to benefit the little guy.
I don't question Buffet's altruism.  His strategy is that he could do the maximum amount of good by using his investment skills and the time value of money to amass as much as he could before giving it away.  

 
yea

I don't question Buffet's altruism.  His strategy is that he could do the maximum amount of good by using his investment skills and the time value of money to amass as much as he could before giving it away.  
I think that's awful nice of you.   His daughter, who runs her foundation (that he gave $600m of that money to), and makes a ####load of money, appreciates it as well.

 
yea

I think that's awful nice of you.   His daughter, who runs her foundation (that he gave $600m of that money to), and makes a ####load of money, appreciates it as well.
I don't understand.  Do you think there is something corrupt or unethical about his daughter's foundation?

 
not at all.  Just another way to make his daughter a ton of money by dodging taxes....you know, to help the little people.
I'm still trying to understand you.  Are you saying the Buffet family is using unethical tax strategies for their personal enrichment?  Do you not believe considerable effort is taken to make sure their current and future charitable givings are valuable?

 
That said, I would like to see a solution that moderates the effect of the estate tax on heirs to farms and businesses that do not have the ability to pay the estate tax without selling/breaking up the farms/businesses.
I am far from an expert on estate tax - do they offer a tax-deferral bond mechanism for estate tax liability?  For a taxpayer who renounces citizenship and is subject to expatriation tax, there's a mechanism whereby they can post an insured bond and pay off the tax over a period of time rather than having it come due immediately.  There's an interest charge associated with it, and the legal fees that come with the bond, but it allows a taxpayer to potentially defer tax in the same manner you'd be talking about here....ie if most of a taxpayer's worth is tied-up in illiquid assets like privately-held businesses, it allows them to pay their tax liability without needing to "sell the family farm", so to speak, to do so.

 
Juxtatarot said:
I'm still trying to understand you.  Are you saying the Buffet family is using unethical tax strategies for their personal enrichment?  Do you not believe considerable effort is taken to make sure their current and future charitable givings are valuable?
I can't make you see the forest for the trees.  It's easy to ACT generous when you have billions of dollars.  If you got there by making money for rich people and dodging taxes, why is he your (or anyone's hero)?

 
During one of the debates someone posted a link that indicated only 20 family farms paid estate taxes in 2013.  The whole family farm thing seems like a red herring, but I'm open to being proven wrong here.

Also figures I recall being thrown around is that less than 1% of wealth inherited is subject to any taxation whatsoever totaling less than 10 Billion a year in revenue.  Drop in bucket sort of level.

Seems to me that as a source of revenue it's pretty minor as it is. :shrug:

 
do yo

During one of the debates someone posted a link that indicated only 20 family farms paid estate taxes in 2013.  The whole family farm thing seems like a red herring, but I'm open to being proven wrong here.

Also figures I recall being thrown around is that less than 1% of wealth inherited is subject to any taxation whatsoever totaling less than 10 Billion a year in revenue.  Drop in bucket sort of level.

Seems to me that as a source of revenue it's pretty minor as it is. :shrug:
that debate stat is stupid.  In order to pay estate tax, it had to be a farm worth more than $10M, and both parents would have to die, or the sole remaining parent would have to die for it to happen.  That doesn't reduce the impact to the family.    It's not a red herring.

and the "less than 1% of wealth inherited" bit is bull#### too.  If the parents both die and worth $10M, it's taxed,   If one parent remains and it's worth more that $5M, it's taxed.  

It may be a source of revenue that's pretty minor to the US, but if that's the case, eliminate it.  It's a HUGE source of revenue to the heirs, and it's been taxed so many ####### ways from Sunday that it's pathetic.

 
I can't make you see the forest for the trees.  It's easy to ACT generous when you have billions of dollars.  If you got there by making money for rich people and dodging taxes, why is he your (or anyone's hero)?
He's a hero because:

1. He is/will be giving away billions of dollars to people and causes in need

2. Perhaps people can quibble a little with this, but he largely amassed his fortune in legal, ethical ways.  Berkshire Hathaway has an obligation to minimize its taxes as the law allows.

3. He has spoken out about the unfairness in tax policies and how they can favor the rich.

 
do yo

that debate stat is stupid.  In order to pay estate tax, it had to be a farm worth more than $10M, and both parents would have to die, or the sole remaining parent would have to die for it to happen.  That doesn't reduce the impact to the family.    It's not a red herring.
Seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Trying to scope the number of family farms impacted.  You haven't done anything to disprove that.  If the focus is farms, there is a number at which this becomes a red herring.  This might vary depending on your point of view.  20 to me seems minor and not worth worrying about.

and the "less than 1% of wealth inherited" bit is bull#### too.  If the parents both die and worth $10M, it's taxed,   If one parent remains and it's worth more that $5M, it's taxed.  
How is it bull####?  Do you have a better figure or link?  To me 1% seems high.  I would have thought it would have been more like 0.1% or at most 0.5%.  1% is a bit of a surprise.  That might be because so many people now don't get a dime.

It may be a source of revenue that's pretty minor to the US, but if that's the case, eliminate it.  It's a HUGE source of revenue to the heirs, and it's been taxed so many ####### ways from Sunday that it's pathetic.
Ok.  So your proposal is to just eliminate it.   I can't really figure out what you are going for here unless that.  Which is fine, but I don't see why the facts can't be discussed or disputed.

 
that debate stat is stupid.  In order to pay estate tax, it had to be a farm worth more than $10M, and both parents would have to die, or the sole remaining parent would have to die for it to happen.  That doesn't reduce the impact to the family.    It's not a red herring.
You seem to be making the argument that it is a red herring.

If the argument is that the estate tax hurts family farms, and the stat shows that very farmers have to pay this tax (because it would only be applicable to large, $10M farms; and only applicable to farms where both parents die/are dead), then the argument that the estate tax hurts family farms IS a red herring, since the estate tax doesn't actually hurt family farms.

If I'm mis-understanding your position, could you explain for me?  I'm not understanding how your argument supports the idea that it IS NOT a red herring.

 
do yo

that debate stat is stupid.  In order to pay estate tax, it had to be a farm worth more than $10M, and both parents would have to die, or the sole remaining parent would have to die for it to happen.  That doesn't reduce the impact to the family.    It's not a red herring.

and the "less than 1% of wealth inherited" bit is bull#### too.  If the parents both die and worth $10M, it's taxed,   If one parent remains and it's worth more that $5M, it's taxed.  

It may be a source of revenue that's pretty minor to the US, but if that's the case, eliminate it.  It's a HUGE source of revenue to the heirs, and it's been taxed so many ####### ways from Sunday that it's pathetic.
This is why we're 20 trillion in the hole in the first place.  Irresponsible tax and spending policy. 

 
Putting estate tax repeal in this tax reform bill is all the evidence you need to know that this isn't a plan intended to help the poor and struggling middle class.  It's a huge F U to all those folks in Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania who voted for Trump.  Only they're so gullible I doubt they even understand they're being lubed up.  

 
You seem to be making the argument that it is a red herring.

If the argument is that the estate tax hurts family farms, and the stat shows that very farmers have to pay this tax (because it would only be applicable to large, $10M farms; and only applicable to farms where both parents die/are dead), then the argument that the estate tax hurts family farms IS a red herring, since the estate tax doesn't actually hurt family farms.

If I'm mis-understanding your position, could you explain for me?  I'm not understanding how your argument supports the idea that it IS NOT a red herring.
If the exemption is made permanent, you have a case.  The removal, or threat of a removal has been steady. 

 
I lean right on financial issues. I have no major qualms about cutting entitlement programs (although not as aggressively as the current 2018 budget proposal), but everything coming out of DC is a ####### mess. 

This guy likes to discuss "the art of the deal?" Usually, when making a deal and negotiating, you need to be in the same stadium as those you're negotiating with, the proposals coming from this guy are insane, not even like a starting point.

If you want to give tax breaks, give them to those that need them the most. If someone worth $50MM dollars doesn't see a huge tax break, they'll be fine. I'm not a subscriber to the trickle down theory, I think it is inverse TBH. If you gave meaningful tax breaks to the middle and lower working classes, that money will go back into in the economy. 

Guy only gives a #### about billionaires, such a ####### donkey, #### him, and if you voted for him and aren't a billionaire, wtf are you thinking?

 
I lean right on financial issues. I have no major qualms about cutting entitlement programs (although not as aggressively as the current 2018 budget proposal), but everything coming out of DC is a ####### mess. 

This guy likes to discuss "the art of the deal?" Usually, when making a deal and negotiating, you need to be in the same stadium as those you're negotiating with, the proposals coming from this guy are insane, not even like a starting point.

If you want to give tax breaks, give them to those that need them the most. If someone worth $50MM dollars doesn't see a huge tax break, they'll be fine. I'm not a subscriber to the trickle down theory, I think it is inverse TBH. If you gave meaningful tax breaks to the middle and lower working classes, that money will go back into in the economy. 

Guy only gives a #### about billionaires, such a ####### donkey, #### him, and if you voted for him and aren't a billionaire, wtf are you thinking?
But he speaks his mind!

Well not really, but he speaks his mind about Mexicans at least!!!

 
I can't remember if I posted in here or in the Trump thread that the tax reform proposal that was being discussed would probably result in tax increases for a lot of people in the middle class due to taking away the state and local tax deduction (as it would not make up the rate cut).  The Tax Policy Center modeled it and confirms. 

Tax policy is all about trade-offs, and Republicans are about to see just how stark their choices are.

One version of the administration’s tax plan – lower rates and fewer deductions – would leave 19% of households with tax increases and still add $3.5 trillion to budget deficits over the next decade, according to a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center. Those potential tax increases are concentrated in the middle class and upper middle class.

The administration hasn’t offered a detailed enough plan for a full estimate, and officials’ ideas are changing as they negotiate with Congress. So the analysis released on Wednesday isn’t all that useful for ascribing specific numbers to a specific White House plan.

But what it does is show the big picture and some possible obstacles as lawmakers try to hit their target of a major tax-code overhaul by the end of the year.

The center started with the administration’s proposed tax cuts from April. Those include lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 15%, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, ending the estate tax and doubling the standard deduction. The analysis then included revenue-raising provisions that were part of that April outline, like the repeal of the deduction for state and local taxes as well as ideas that were part of the campaign but left vague in April, such as repealing the personal exemption.

The result: While most households would get tax cuts, 19% would see their taxes go up. That’s true in the middle 20% of the income distribution, where nearly one-quarter of households would get a tax increase. And it’s true among people between the 90th and 95th percentiles, where more than 30% would get a tax increase under this approximation of the plan.

“It’s the fact that you’ve given such a big tax cut that makes it hard to balance things out,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center. “What you have to do is not give as big tax cuts, because the tax increases, at least the ones they’ve talked about, just aren’t that big.”

Even though most households would benefit, it’s an axiom of tax policy that winners don’t always believe they’ll win and that losers will be loud. If that dynamic plays out this year, the politics could prove challenging for Republicans.

The groups on either end of the income spectrum look least likely to have a tax increase. Among the bottom 20% of households, just 6.8% of them would have a tax increase. And among the top 1% of households, 9.9% would see higher taxes.

And even after all that, this version of the plan would still add to budget deficits, which leading Republicans say they don’t want to do. That means more revenue-raising provisions – and more people who could see their tax burdens get heavier.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution; it is run by a former Obama administration official.
WSJ

Tax Policy Center study - see table 4

 
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/gop-tax-plan-still-has-lots-of-holes-and-a-surprising-twist--cowen-analyst.html

One way the plan proposes to raise money is by eliminating the state and local tax deductions, something that would disproportionately hit districts in California, New York, Minnesota, Michigan and New Jersey. "This is very easy to label the "blue state" tax, which means all Congressional Republicans will vote for the elimination," wrote Krueger, noting it's a "no-brainer" to dump in and raise $1.3 trillion.

But there's a potential problem in getting it approved. There are 52 Republicans in the House from those states and the GOP has a 24-seat majority. "The central canon of tax reform is the goring of the sacred cows," he wrote. "One of the problems with that is that the most expensive cows are holier than others."
:lol:

DOA IMO. None of those GOPers is going to vote for something that slaughters their area.

If I'm reading between the lines properly, he is looking to slash corporate rates at the expense of a bunch of individuals in Blue States. 

 
Plan only seems to benefit the very bottom and the very top.

I'm unsure about the very bottom because if credits go away, folks may not be able to use up the increased deduction and instead of getting a healthy refund, may just have 0 tax liability.

 
Plan only seems to benefit the very bottom and the very top.

I'm unsure about the very bottom because if credits go away, folks may not be able to use up the increased deduction and instead of getting a healthy refund, may just have 0 tax liability.
Upper Middle in the Tri-State and California get the shaft

 
Upper Middle in the Tri-State and California get the shaft
It'd mean my wife and I would never buy a place. (Long Island).
We're just about at the itemizing limit with just NY state tax. Adding a mortgage where interest is no longer deductible and property taxes = to state taxes and then having to just take the standard deduction...yuck.

I'd think that removing the deductions hammers the property market as well, so housing prices would likely go down. Which would tend to depress rents as well, but landlords would lose some deductions as well, providing a counter force to the declining house prices.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top