Why cut taxes?

[Jeff Lebowski]

And you sound like a French rebel...

If you say so, Marie.

[Bo Diddley]

Won't you be out of a job when the libertarians take over? Being most of my clients are public transit agencies, I guess I will too.

Actually, I'd think that under Libertarian rule, the National Guard's role would be expanded. Even so, I would gladly move on to something else if it meant improving the country as a whole.

I'm actually excited about simplifying the tax code, even if it means that I have to pay a little more. I think it's a step in the right direction.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I may be in that one sliver that gets hit then. My tax bracket stays the same according to your graphic. Naturally this proposal will probably be changed by the time it comes to a vote, and who knows if the Senate and House will ever come to an agreement with how dysfunctional the process currently is.

I took my 2016 return and recalculated it based on the new proposal. My federal tax will go up $5800.00 to $9300.00, depending what actually happens with charitable donations(what is counted and what isn't).

Yeah, I am a big fan

[Topper]

Totally not condescending as I'll admit that this is a more macroeconomic argument and I'm not really qualified to give an informed opinion on it. I'm just not a big fan of trust fund babies, which is why I'd like the tax expanded in some way to hit them. Not as punishment, but to equalize the playing field a bit. We do differ on this and I respect that.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with wealth redistribution as an intent and purpose. Tax policy should not be about redistributing the wealth, it should be about raising revenue for necessary government expenses. There will be times when as a secondary effect, wealth will be redistributed because no collection of tax revenue ever takes from each socio-economic group equally. But designing to do more than raise revenue feeds into class warfare. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be mindful of certain segments seeking to escape from participating, such as generational wealth escaping capital gains or any taxation through certain planning devices. Those are legitimate concerns.

However, if large groups have no skin in the game in paying taxes that also creates many inefficiencies that ultimately make the system unfair.

[Topper]

If you say so, Marie.

I thought Marie was Austrian.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The selection of a $500K cap on deductible mortgage loans is interesting but I wonder about the logic. In the UT troll tradition, I'd go with $250,000, which is tied to the current median cost of a house in the U.S. ($320K), times 80%, since we want to discourage overleveraging on home purchases.

Tax discussions remind of the occasional votes we have in the Bay Area to raises bridge tolls. When the bridges were first built, the $0.25 charge was intended to last only as long as it took to pay off the bridge bonds. Then it was extended to pay for maintenance. Now, with tolls at $6, or more, most of the money collected is used for general road maintenance and other bridge-unrelated costs. I don't think a vote to raise bridge tolls has ever lost, because only 9% or so of the area's commuters use bridges, so why not?

People are usually willing to increase taxes they won't pay or eliminate deductions they don't take. Keen insight on my part, I know.

[Topper]

The selection of a $500K cap on deductible mortgage loans is interesting but I wonder about the logic. In the UT troll tradition, I'd go with $250,000, which is tied to the current median cost of a house in the U.S. ($320K), times 80%, since we want to discourage overleveraging on home purchases.

Tax discussions remind of the occasional votes we have in the Bay Area to raises bridge tolls. When the bridges were first built, the $0.25 charge was intended to last only as long as it took to pay off the bridge bonds. Then it was extended to pay for maintenance. Now, with tolls at $6, or more, most of the money collected is used for general road maintenance and other bridge-unrelated costs. I don't think a vote to raise bridge tolls has ever lost, because only 9% or so of the area's commuters use bridges, so why not?

People are usually willing to increase taxes they won't pay or eliminate deductions they don't take. Keen insight on my part, I know.

Many years I ago I attended a fundraiser where Gingrich was the keynote speaker, he had the same keen insight as you, and highlighted it as follows:

"Everybody here would vote to raise taxes on the Germans."

[PaloAltoCougar]

Many years I ago I attended a fundraiser where Gingrich was the keynote speaker, he had the same keen insight as you, and highlighted it as follows:

"Everybody here would vote to raise taxes on the Germans."

Likening me to Gingrich is the unkindest thing you've ever done to me.

[wuapinmon]

If you're rich and not savvy enough to protect your assets well enough so that you lose anything to the estate tax, you deserve to lose it. Trusts are almost immune to estate taxes. Lawyers became politicians ages ago and solved the problem of how to protect their graft from taxes.

[old_gregg]

who cares about all this policy stuff as long as gps are getting their carry taxed at cg rates

[Topper]

If you're rich and not savvy enough to protect your assets well enough so that you lose anything to the estate tax, you deserve to lose it. Trusts are almost immune to estate taxes. Lawyers became politicians ages ago and solved the problem of how to protect their graft from taxes.

wuap, you know a lot about your area, but this is a very naive statement.

There are many types of trusts, from revocable to irrevocable, and grantor, IDGT, self-settled, GRATS but none of them eliminate the tax if you have a lot of wealth. You can plan to minimize or through foundation planning but elimination is rare. I rarely work with people in the stratosphere of which you speak, but sometimes I participate in a team. The initial planning stage can cost upwards of $100,000 with much more devoted to the implementation of the plan. Even those circumstances, estate tax is not eliminated just greatly reduced or deferred where possible.

[Topper]

Likening me to Gingrich is the unkindest thing you've ever done to me.

Other than the gift of gab, there is no resemblance, to be certain.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I took my 2016 return and recalculated it based on the new proposal. My federal tax will go up $5800.00 to $9300.00, depending what actually happens with charitable donations(what is counted and what isn't).

Yeah, I am a big fan

According to a calculator I just ran, my taxes go up $10K. Thanks for nothing.

[Moliere]

If you say so, Marie.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solon]

And you sound like a French rebel...

Obviously.
Lebowski wouldn't be caught dead wearing culottes.

This is Marie at the end.
http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/hi...nthepubliceye/