13 comments

[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 35.8 ms ] thread
Seems to me like there could be unintended consequences to the changes for corporations and pass-through entities. Sounds like multi-nationals would be incentivized to move elsewhere so they are no longer seen as a US company and don't take the 10% tax hit, assuming they pay any tax at all even at present. Likewise for pass-through entities, if they want to be taxed at the lower rate, chances are they going to find a way to do that, regardless of the new formula.
The main part of this I object to is the repeal of estate taxes. I don't understand why they're doing it.
because... double taxation is unfair?
I don't understand why I should be taxed for dying... The state stealing any portion of my hard-earned and already-taxed wealth from my heirs is something I object to.
Estate taxes aren't really there for you and I, the common man. I think most estate taxes are marginal anyways (you pay lower taxes on the first X thousand dollars, etc.).

They exist to prevent the ultra rich and powerful from vacuuming up all the wealth. Daddy makes billions, gives it all to his children who go and buy more companies, make more billions, and after two or three generations, the entire country is owned by like 3 families. It exists to prevent Rothschild from ever happening again. You can't have a functional democracy when everything is run by a handful of people.

Billionaires can afford estate planners and trust lawyers, so wouldn't this disproportionately affect the poor?
If the poor were already handing down more than the 5.5 million the previous tax allowed for, I'm not sure they can be classified as poor.
Those guys all want a slice of the pie too, which means less gets passed down.

Hilarious that you think poor people give a flying fuck about estate taxes. Most poor people die in debt or with nothing to their name. I'm sure you could say the same for the middle class too.

Do you plan on passing 5.49 million at time of death?

Why not move that money around while still alive?

Because we don't want an aristocracy and it's better if your heirs, when they become worthless as they never have to work and look down on 'tradesmen' don't have the power to make decisions for everyone else in the country.
needs to have a fourth bracket where income over $10mil/yr is taxed at 91% with exemptions available for investing in R&D or providing seed capital that results in job creation. Why is this been described as the biggest overhaul in decades when it's clearly a mild reorganization of the rates and deductions?
This is no mild reorganization but a reorganization to the tune of trillions of dollars. And while I am all for redistribution of wealth, taxing rich people at 91% (or anything over the average rate in developed countries) is a great way to get people to leave for good and lose out on even the 39.5%.
I think your idea just creates capital flight and wouldn't work in practice... which is too bad because I wish it would work.

How lovely it'd be if we could say "make your capital productive or surrender it to someone who will".