Ask Me Help Desk - Obamacare 2.0

The policy would include a $3.5 million exemption ($7 million for married couples), leaving 99.75% of all estates fully exempt. The taxable portion of estates beyond these exemptions would be subject to a progressive series of marginal tax rates as follows: a 45% rate up to $10 million; a 50% rate up to $50 million; a 55% rate up to $500 million; and a 65% rate on the portion of estates worth over $500 million.34

http://wiki.fool.com/The_Use_of_Hedge_Funds_in_401(k

Quote:

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs.

??

Quote:

The added tax is going to hit the middle class and poor the most as does driving up the cost of anything.

As does a flat tax on wages. And the SS rules have been the rules for a long time I fail to see the relevance. In addition the scoring that was done was based on he CBO scoring of the Obama budget,and this is the link that's was used to fully explain it.

http://epi.3cdn.net/55d8ba5873e5bd097e_avm6b8rb1.pdf

And I see nothing in this bill that affects anyone's 401k, so please point it out.

That looks like a heafty estate tax, you could call it confiscation because it would cause forced realisation of assets to pay the tax. Such taxes are regressive resulting in tax evasion behaviour. I can see now why the rich give so much away and establish trusts to hold their assets

That link went bad. It explained how 401K and hedge funds were related. It actually explained it pretty well. How 401k money can be used in hedge funds and how the related tax your speaking of can affect it.

The SSI rules won't change but what they are asking for is more money to pay for the system.

The fair tax is much better then the flat tax.

The numbers your quoting create a deficit and you don't conceive they will want to adjust that if it were to pass? And is there a real reason to punish the rich with a 65% tax penalty ?

I still wonder why you want to punish success ?

Because it take all of us to get us out of this malaise, and the ones who have benefited the most would seem the ones who would want it the most. That's not punishment, its joint effort.

Remember what I said about adjustments, and flexibility to overcome obstacles? Well this is that flexibility. Balancing a budget and expansion of growth, and all our children will be left with something to build on.

You want tax cuts back? Then help work to put us on a path you can afford it. Then rich guys wouldn't have to lie and call themselves "job creators".

I agree dad you should not penalise success, but the tax burden has to fall equitably, those who accumulate benefit from public provided inferstructure, stability from government programs, etc and therefore should contribute more, but taxation should not be punitive of confiscation, these are outmoded ideas

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Because it take all of us to get us out of this malaise, and the ones who have benefited the most would seem the ones who would want it the most. Thats not punishment, its joint effort.

Remember what I said about adjustments, and flexibility to overcome obstacles? Well this is that flexibility. Balancing a budget and expansion of growth, and all our children will be left with something to build on.

You want tax cuts back? Then help work to put us on a path you can afford it. Then rich guys wouldn't have to lie and call themselves "job creators".

What I want doesn't make a difference. I believe in the fair tax. But because it is fair its not on the politicians radar. It removes the power they have. It would crate jobs and bring this economy back booming.

I also believe an estate tax of 65% is punitive. If a person came up with an idea and saw it come to fruition and made 1 billion dollars. Then why is the government entitled to 650 million of it? Most people with money like that don't hoarde the money. They spend wisely and they also give to charities. It doesn't matter the political lean they give back in their own way.

Look at the evolution of Microsoft. Is there a reason for Bill Gates to be punished for living out the American dream ?

If you teach your children to succeed do you really want to tell them just don't succeed too much because it is bad for you.

Quote:

Most people with money like that don't hoarde the money. They spend wisely and they also give to charities. It doesn't matter the political lean they give back in their own way.

Look at the evolution of Microsoft. Is there a reason for Bill Gates to be punished for living out the American dream ?

If you teach your children to succeed do you really want to tell them just don't succeed too much because it is bad for you

It is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

I may be wrong but Bill Gates and others like him have many options in the tax code to mitigate their tax burden, and correct me if I am wrong but hasn't he put half his wealth into charitable foundations to direct his wealth

Financials - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Quote:

In October of 2006, our trustees created a two-entity structure: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (foundation) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (trust). Both entities are tax-exempt private foundations that are structured as a charitable trust. Each entity has a distinct purpose, as explained below.

So lets drop this punishment notion, as we saw the last rich guy running for president NOT take all his deductions for charity at the time to keep his taxes on paper at least high enough to be respectable(?), and he still can take the deduction in the next 3 years.

That's some punishment, and pales in light of cuts to senior and children who cannot afford heat, shelter, and food. Now if these foundations and charities were addressing those needs, you would have a stronger case, but sorry right now you do not.

So maybe we need to better define what fair is because because 10% from a poor guy and 10% percent froma rich guy is in no way equal, or fair.

Quote:

it is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

Nice spin, but no matter where it goes it lowers tax burdens on extremely wealthy people.

Hello dad:

Quote:

I also believe an estate tax of 65% is punitive. If a person came up with an idea and saw it come to fruition and made 1 billion dollars. Then why is the government entitled to 650 million of it?

From a businessman's perspective, because there's STILL $350 million left over for me. And, if I have to give the government $650 million in order to make $350 million for my family, I'm going to DO it. Look.. I don't like taxes.. But, they've NEVER stopped me from pursing the American Dream..

Plus, I'm an American.. I'm HERE because I LOVE my country - not because I make money here... If the government took MORE, I STILL wouldn't leave...

Excon

Tal you don't get it, if you have tax at punative levels then your wealthy people will protect themselves. A 65% estsate tax is regressive, not progressive. I don't believe in estate taxes at all unless you are going to abolish income tax. The government should only get one opportunity to collect tax, they either get it coming or they get it going. Obviously waiting for the population to die isn't effective as a revenue measure so estate taxes should be abolished in favour of higher income taxes

You say why punish success, I say why punish misfortune?

What happened to no deductions and lower rates ? You can't give me a good argument against that... except your notions about punishing success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello dad:

From a businessman's perspective, because there's STILL $350 million left over for me. And, if I have to give the government $650 million in order to make $350 million for my family, I'm gonna DO it. Look.. I don't like taxes.. But, they've NEVER stopped me from pursing the American Dream..

Plus, I'm an American.. I'm HERE because I LOVE my country - not because I make money here... If the government took MORE, I STILL wouldn't leave...

excon

Ex you miss the point in order to give the government their money assets are going to have to be liquidated and that usually isn't effective and can lead to big losses. You could wind up eliminating the entire portfolio ans still not have enough to meet the tax so then you have given them everything but you don't care you are dead

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tal you don't get it, if you have tax at punative levels then your wealthy people will protect themselves. A 65% estsate tax is regressive, not progressive. I don't believe in estate taxes at all unless you are going to abolish income tax. The government should only get one opportunity to collect tax, they either get it coming or they get it going. Obviously waiting for the population to die isn't effective as a revenue measure so estate taxes should be abolished in favour of higher income taxes

What part of being able to mitigate your tax burden is it you do not understand? NOBODY will pay a 65% rate, not even close.

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

What part of being able to mitigate your tax burden is it you do not understand? NOBODY will pay a 65% rate, not even close.

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

How do keep plying the myth that the right hates poor people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

it is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

That would be why they don't give a rip about redefining church ministries and I'm guessing why IRS audits of charities have gone up 79% under Obama.

P.S. And they whine about us hating poor people?

Quote:

That would be why they don't give a rip about redefining church ministries and I'm guessing why IRS audits of charities have gone up 79% under Obama.

Because fraud is bad no matter who does it. If they have done nothing wrong then a clear audit will result.

Quote:

How do keep plying the myth that the right hates poor people?

Because the right talks about them like undeserving dogs, and want them to give more of what they don't have, while taking away what they need just to get by. That's why.

Maybe not you personally, but you voted for those that have said so, and done so in writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Because fraud is bad no matter who does it. If they have done nothing wrong then a clear audit will result.

And every dollar they have to spend trying to prove their innocence is a dollar that doesn't go to that person in need. A 79% increase is a witch hunt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Because the right talks about them like undeserving dogs, and want them to give more of what they don't have, while taking away what they need just to get by. Thats why.

That's just another damn lie.

Is it a fact you supported the rich guy who hides his money and the voucher guy who wants to shift the money from the government helping old people, and children to old people, and children?

Did you vote for the rich guy who said 47% of the people are takers and knew he would never get their vote?

It is a fact that the right believes people should help each other whenever possible, not just pass it off on the kind of heartless, inefficient, INCOMPETENT, LYING bureaucrats such as those that had the DUTY to help my daughter. You're goading the wrong person on this, Tal. I KNOW how it works, at least if you're a disabled, single white woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

Here is how. If your MR/Mrs big business and I give you a tax break for every new hire you take in that is coming off the welfare roles. To you that is looked at as coporate welfare. It brings positive results and breeds a sense of self worth. Something you don't get from the social welfare system.

Welfare for people isn't evil unless and until a line is crossed. That line being those that either;

A: Game the system to defraud it. Or

B: Are an able body person that wants to stay on welfare for generations.

To me that is not what welfare is about. It is about a hand up not a hand out. It is NOT an entitlement program it IS a safety net. When it crosses the line from being a safety net then it is wrong.

LOL, a tax break for hiring is very much a GREAT idea, as long as its here in America, but not all poor people game the system. Some are trapped and even more have lost touch with reality, and some just need the right instruction.

And sadly some need a lot more help than a welfare check. Its more complex than people care to believe since its easier to just dismiss them as lazy failures and criminals. Some are, but far more are not.

Hmm, seems he made that proper distinction between welfare being a good thing and crossing the line.

Speaking of crossing the line, Debbie Downer, the DNC Chairwoman, trotted out a Democratic official as her symbolic "Medicare recipient from Florida" to do a little fear mongering about Marco Rubio.

Democratic House chairwoman Wasserman Schultz caught in deception with reporters

Reminds me of Obama using that Ohio woman in his push for Obamacare that was going to lose her home and all but really wasn't, or that chick that said her contraception cost her $3000, or making them more widely available (and free) in a country where use is already "almost universal."

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

making them more widely available (and free) in a country where use is already "almost universal."

As long as you don't make it mandatory

Tonight we will hear the worse job creator in the county say that he wants to increase the nation's debts to continue his failed job creating policies.

Tom, don't be cynical, just because the man doesn't have the same political views as you do, I think we would all like to see he has proposal to reduce national debt, but the question is ; are you ready for the pain? The only way you will reduce the debt is to devalue the currency

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

tonight we will hear the worse job creator in the county say that he wants to increase the nation's debts to continue his failed job creating policies.

... and take away all the guns and total amnesty for all illegals.

Sure an it would be a fine day if he could please everyone

The best part is listening to the two republican TParty rebuttals. Rubio is rehashing the last election that was rejected by the electorate, and I may pop in a Netflix movie for Paul.

Nohing to see here, move along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

The best part is listening to the two republican TParty rebuttals. Rubio is rehashing the last election that was rejected by the electorate, and I may pop in a Netflix movie for Paul.

Nohing to see here, move along.

I'm wondering if Rubio was watching and listening to the same speech I was.

Do these rebuttal guys get an advance copy of the speech or just write from the seat of their pants?

Rand Paul will not be televised, but its online so hope you have a movie ready to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Rand Paul will not be televised, but its online so hope you have a movie ready to go.

I decided to read about the Big Bear Lake situation.

Yes good that that one is over and another nail in the coffin of gun control

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

tonight we will hear the worse job creator in the county say that he wants to increase the nation's debts to continue his failed job creating policies.

But it sounded good, and won't increase the deficit by a dime.

To holler beyach and whine is an unnacceptable solution. To shift the deficit to just the poor, elderly and children is unnacceptable, and that notion was voted down already, whether you face the fact or NOT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

To holler beyach and whine is an unnacceptable solution. To shift the deficit to just the poor, elderly and children is unnacceptable, and that notion was voted down already, whether you face the fact or NOT.

Dude, it's simple math. You can't just keep spending money you don't have, and if you believe his ideas won't increase the deficit a dime I'd like to make you a deal on some beach front property here in the panhandle.

The same old raise the minimum wage crap just makes it worse for the people it's supposed to help. Employers aren't going to pay more money than someone is worth, they will go with experience and fewer workers rather than pay $9.00 and hour to someone who only gives them $7.00 in production.Add the heavier government footprint from liberal policies raising the cost of living what have you accomplished? Nothing but expanding government dependency which takes more government resources away from those who TRULY need that safety net.

I will always 'beyach' about policies that punish success, encourage dependency, drag down the economy and steer resources AWAY from those who need it most. I KNOW firsthand, remember?

I also know first hand how a Walmart's makes billions off cheap labor and sweat shops. It's the same profits over people crap that the right has been spouting for years pandering to what a business needs to survive. As long as the right fails to recognize that the business model is broken, then we will continue to have deficits and poor people, and that has nothing to do with government, but more to do with the right trying to destroy government so the job creators can make money without creating jobs.

Your premise that just because a worker makes 7 dollars an hour that's all they are worth is a false one. Employers know full well that they can make their workers seek government assistance to subsidize their employees, and pad their bottom lines even more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I also know first hand how a Walmarts makes billions off cheap labor and sweat shops. It's the same profits over people crap that the right has been spouting for years pandering to what a business needs to survive. As long as the right fails to recognize that the business model is broken, then we will continue to have deficits and poor people, and that has nothing to do with government, but more to do with the right trying to destroy government so the job creators can make money without creating jobs.

Your premise that just because a worker makes 7 dollars an hour that's all they are woth is a false one. Employeers know full well that they can make their workers seek government assistance to subsidize their employees, and pad their bottom lines even more.

Dude, your president and Democrats in congress are no less beholden to corporate interests than anyone else. The only difference is your guys keep trying to engineer change by picking winners and losers in the market instead of letting businesses compete. How many Solyndras do we need? How many $100k Tesla cars or Chevy Volts that no one wants do we need? How many billions does Al Gore need? And what do we get from this guy, more of the same old crap.He didn't fool Kirsten Powers, and he doesn't fool me...

Quote:

The edict on climate change was despotic, not liberal. I believe climate change is a problem and humans contribute to it. However, 'either do what I say or I will just start issuing executive orders' that make green energy companies rich is not the kind of governing we should be lauding, regardless of party or ideological bent.

You're happy with platitudes and applause lines that boost your self-esteem, I want results.