(12-14-2017 10:48 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

You think California and New York want to take in LESS tax money, just so the feds get more?

My getting less of a federal deduction, the residents of these states face a defacto tax increase. The state legislatures will bear the brunt of that

(12-13-2017 08:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 08:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 07:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They caved a bit on the state and local tax deductions.

Instead of it being 10k limit for just property it will be 10k limit for property and state/local income tax.

I'm hoping its limited, with a sunset. But havent checked to see.

From what i read it was a compromise to win support of CA republicans

I completely misread what you wrote, and didnt realize they combined it with the property tax so that both combined would be maxed at $10K. Thats not too bad of a compromise. Pretty much anyone who lives in a typical house making under $100K per year in Cali will be able to deduct all of their state taxes, but anyone above that will take the hit. A person making $200K in Cali could pay $18K in state employment taxes alone, and another $4K in property taxes. SO $12K of that amount will now be taxed at the federal level, whereas it previously was not.

(12-14-2017 10:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 08:25 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 08:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 07:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They caved a bit on the state and local tax deductions.

Instead of it being 10k limit for just property it will be 10k limit for property and state/local income tax.

I'm hoping its limited, with a sunset. But havent checked to see.

From what i read it was a compromise to win support of CA republicans

I completely misread what you wrote, and didnt realize they combined it with the property tax so that both combined would be maxed at $10K. Thats not too bad of a compromise. Pretty much anyone who lives in a typical house making under $100K per year in Cali will be able to deduct all of their state taxes, but anyone above that will take the hit. A person making $200K in Cali could pay $18K in state employment taxes alone, and another $4K in property taxes. SO $12K of that amount will now be taxed at the federal level, whereas it previously was not.

exactly. it lessens the short term blow for the lower/middle class which I think is a good thing

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

Not necessarily. My family's farm is bordered by a few miles of navigable waters less than 2 miles from the intracoastal waterway. I live in a 60 year old farmhouse, and 500 yards away across the creek there is waterfront subdivision selling 1/2 acre waterfront lots for over $300k

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

(12-14-2017 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

and have children.

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

and have children.

The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

(12-14-2017 02:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

and have children.

The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

Regardless of economic class, why is it morally right for the government to tax money that has already been earned and taxed when someone dies?

(12-14-2017 02:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

and have children.

The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

Thats going to be almost exclusively small business owners or someone in Kaplony's situation. It is almost certainly not the uber rich paying it, because they divest much of their wealth prior to dying.

In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Source?

Quote:We asked Hurt’s press secretary, Abigail Sigler, for the sources of the congressman’s claim. She pointed to three reports published over the years by the Joint Economic Committee. The latest report, issued in 2012 by Republicans on the panel, said "the estate tax remains a burden to family business," but offered no data about the number and farms and businesses that were sold because of the levy.

Rep. Hurt amiss in blaming estate tax for sales of family farms and businesses

(12-14-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Source?

Quote:We asked Hurt’s press secretary, Abigail Sigler, for the sources of the congressman’s claim. She pointed to three reports published over the years by the Joint Economic Committee. The latest report, issued in 2012 by Republicans on the panel, said "the estate tax remains a burden to family business," but offered no data about the number and farms and businesses that were sold because of the levy.

Rep. Hurt amiss in blaming estate tax for sales of family farms and businesses

Myself. I personally went through this.

(12-14-2017 03:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Source?

Quote:We asked Hurt’s press secretary, Abigail Sigler, for the sources of the congressman’s claim. She pointed to three reports published over the years by the Joint Economic Committee. The latest report, issued in 2012 by Republicans on the panel, said "the estate tax remains a burden to family business," but offered no data about the number and farms and businesses that were sold because of the levy.

Rep. Hurt amiss in blaming estate tax for sales of family farms and businesses

Myself. I personally went through this.

Not what you said though, you said "most companies" and Rep. Hurt said "many cases."

Do you have any evidence of this? Keeping in mind that the estate tax only effects roughly 2 tenths of 1 percent.

(12-14-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Source?

Quote:We asked Hurt’s press secretary, Abigail Sigler, for the sources of the congressman’s claim. She pointed to three reports published over the years by the Joint Economic Committee. The latest report, issued in 2012 by Republicans on the panel, said "the estate tax remains a burden to family business," but offered no data about the number and farms and businesses that were sold because of the levy.

Rep. Hurt amiss in blaming estate tax for sales of family farms and businesses

Myself. I personally went through this.

Not what you said though, you said "most companies" and Rep. Hurt said "many cases."

Do you have any evidence of this? Keeping in mind that the estate tax only effects roughly 2 tenths of 1 percent.

No it affects a lot more than that. Every employee of every company that has to go through this is affected, and affected needlessly.

(12-14-2017 03:58 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Source?

Quote:We asked Hurt’s press secretary, Abigail Sigler, for the sources of the congressman’s claim. She pointed to three reports published over the years by the Joint Economic Committee. The latest report, issued in 2012 by Republicans on the panel, said "the estate tax remains a burden to family business," but offered no data about the number and farms and businesses that were sold because of the levy.

Rep. Hurt amiss in blaming estate tax for sales of family farms and businesses

Myself. I personally went through this.

Not what you said though, you said "most companies" and Rep. Hurt said "many cases."

Do you have any evidence of this? Keeping in mind that the estate tax only effects roughly 2 tenths of 1 percent.

No it affects a lot more than that. Every employee of every company that has to go through this is affected, and affected needlessly.

Sure, if EVERY company was 'forced' to sell. But that is just not the norm. If it is, I'm sure you can cite some evidence of that, right?

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

and have children.

The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

Thats going to be almost exclusively small business owners or someone in Kaplony's situation. It is almost certainly not the uber rich paying it, because they divest much of their wealth prior to dying.

In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Family farms face this as well. There is a lot tied up in land and equipment.

I wish they would have stripped the EV tax credit.

(12-14-2017 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:58 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Source?

Rep. Hurt amiss in blaming estate tax for sales of family farms and businesses

Myself. I personally went through this.

Not what you said though, you said "most companies" and Rep. Hurt said "many cases."

Do you have any evidence of this? Keeping in mind that the estate tax only effects roughly 2 tenths of 1 percent.

No it affects a lot more than that. Every employee of every company that has to go through this is affected, and affected needlessly.

Sure, if EVERY company was 'forced' to sell. But that is just not the norm. If it is, I'm sure you can cite some evidence of that, right?

Plenty. And if you are really a tax accountant, you should know this. With you lack of understanding of insurance deductibles and being obtuse on tax laws such as what we are discussing, I am seriously questioning that.

(12-15-2017 10:32 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:58 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Myself. I personally went through this.

Not what you said though, you said "most companies" and Rep. Hurt said "many cases."

Do you have any evidence of this? Keeping in mind that the estate tax only effects roughly 2 tenths of 1 percent.

No it affects a lot more than that. Every employee of every company that has to go through this is affected, and affected needlessly.

Sure, if EVERY company was 'forced' to sell. But that is just not the norm. If it is, I'm sure you can cite some evidence of that, right?

Plenty. And if you are really a tax accountant, you should know this. With you lack of understanding of insurance deductibles and being obtuse on tax laws such as what we are discussing, I am seriously questioning that.

You can insult me all you want, but I'm still waiting for your evidence. If Rep. Hurt could not provide it, I'm not holding my breath that you will be able to.

Again, of course some businesses will be hurt. No one is denying that. But there is simply no evidence that his effects most or many businesses.

And while I have an accounting degree and have worked on taxes most of my career, there are many specialties in the area. I'm not an expert of Estate taxes at all and have never claimed I was.

(12-15-2017 11:07 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 10:32 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:58 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not what you said though, you said "most companies" and Rep. Hurt said "many cases."

Do you have any evidence of this? Keeping in mind that the estate tax only effects roughly 2 tenths of 1 percent.

No it affects a lot more than that. Every employee of every company that has to go through this is affected, and affected needlessly.

Sure, if EVERY company was 'forced' to sell. But that is just not the norm. If it is, I'm sure you can cite some evidence of that, right?

Plenty. And if you are really a tax accountant, you should know this. With you lack of understanding of insurance deductibles and being obtuse on tax laws such as what we are discussing, I am seriously questioning that.

You can insult me all you want, but I'm still waiting for your evidence. If Rep. Hurt could not provide it, I'm not holding my breath that you will be able to.

Again, of course some businesses will be hurt. No one is denying that. But there is simply no evidence that his effects most or many businesses.

And while I have an accounting degree and have worked on taxes most of my career, there are many specialties in the area. I'm not an expert of Estate taxes at all and have never claimed I was.

Then you need to start listening to the people who have gone through it instead of relying on your fake libturd talking points.

Noone is saying MOST businesses have this problem. What we are saying is that the estate tax does not affect the ultra rich, but instead hits small businesses that fall under this umbrella. And its stupid. And it needs to be fixed.

(12-14-2017 02:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

A million ain't what it used to be, especially if you live in a large city with the high housing prices.

and have children.

The statics do not bear it out that this affects anything near the middle class. For example in 2013 out of the 2.6 million people that died there were 4700 who had to pay anything in estate taxes, a grand total of .2% of those that died.

Thats going to be almost exclusively small business owners or someone in Kaplony's situation. It is almost certainly not the uber rich paying it, because they divest much of their wealth prior to dying.

In the case of small businesses where the owner ( or one of the owners) dies, the government comes in, values the company at multiples of what it earns in a year, and demands the taxes to be paid on that amount with a set number of months. The company typically doesnt have anything remotely close to this amount, and so most companies are forced to sell, where the employees end up losing their jobs or being forced to relocate. Its basically an atom bomb for a successful small business who employees dozens of well paid people.

Ummm...dude, YOU said most companies!

There is simply no evidence of this. None.