CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Pudfark

CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by Pudfark »

Hillary Clinton wants to increase the estate tax to 65 percent on the wealthiest Americans, according to her latest tax plan.
The Clinton campaign estimates that the increase would raise an addition $75 billion in revenue over the next decade. The current rate maxes out at 40 percent.

But Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have created a number of tax shelters in recent years to dramatically limit their payment of the very same tax. As Bloomberg reported back in 2014: “To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth.”

In 2010 the Clinton created “residential trusts” and the following year moved their Chappaqua estate into the trust, according to their financial records. As David Scott Sloan, a partner at the firm Holland Knight explained the Clinton trust to CBS News, “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”

The move will save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, according to accountants quoted by Bloomberg.

Even more substantial, the Clintons created a life insurance trust in 2010, which will shelter life insurance payments from estate taxes. This is their second such trust. The first was created in 1996, according to financial disclosures.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
callmeslick
Posts: 16473
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by callmeslick »

long overdue, there should be a sliding scale(which is what she is proposing) and maintain some exemptions to allow small businesses to stay intact. Most estates would be subject to a 30% tax over the minumum(presumably the same 5.2 million currently in place), and 65% wouldn't kick in until the total goes over 1 billion, and only for inheritance exceeding that amount. It's not only perfectly reasonable, but a fair way to help pay for the government nearly everyone demands without hosing the workers, as is presently the case, with hidden fees, excise taxation and massive exemptions and writeoffs available only to investment income earners. Why don't you want to see a fairer tax code, Pud?
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am I live in Texas....you live in America.
User avatar
callmeslick
Posts: 16473
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by callmeslick »

and, unless they rewrite the rules for POD investment accounts, the matter is moot. Thus far, I've heard no details on that. Most larger estates have securities, CDs, bonds, etc, owned in a POD status, with assets payable on death to the named beneficiary, who pays NOTHING in tax for the wealth transfer. You can literally transfer hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investments in that fashion, completely avoiding the estate tax as, legally speaking under present law, those assets listed as COD are not included in the definition of The Estate. Trust me, I'm finishing up a solid year of this sort of legalese and paperwork, benefitted from the arrangement, and frankly was shocked at the legality of it all.
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am I live in Texas....you live in America.
User avatar
callmeslick
Posts: 16473
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by callmeslick »

meanwhile, continuing to screw the poor:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

cracks me up that those whining the loudest about the estate tax are never going to have a prayer of that tax applying to them. Pud, any $5.2 million dollar inheritance coming your way? Planning on leaving $5.2 million in unsheltered assets to anyone?
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am I live in Texas....you live in America.
HappyHappy

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by HappyHappy »

Hitlery lying and cheating?

Only when her lips move?

More like all the time.
User avatar
callmeslick
Posts: 16473
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by callmeslick »

HappyHappy wrote:Hitlery lying and cheating?

Only when her lips move?

More like all the time.
and this is all that can be regurgitated by the human pond scum.
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am I live in Texas....you live in America.
HappyHappy

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by HappyHappy »

and this is all that can be regurgitated by the human pond scum.
User avatar
callmeslick
Posts: 16473
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by callmeslick »

here's another piece of literary foresight that will sail over a lot of heads:
“Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”
― Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am I live in Texas....you live in America.
User avatar
Reservoir_Dog
Posts: 8858
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:46 pm
Location: Kicking and a' gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer.

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by Reservoir_Dog »

honour thief wrote:Hillary Clinton wants to increase the estate tax to 65 percent on the wealthiest Americans, according to her latest tax plan.
The Clinton campaign estimates that the increase would raise an addition $75 billion in revenue over the next decade. The current rate maxes out at 40 percent.

But Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have created a number of tax shelters in recent years to dramatically limit their payment of the very same tax. As Bloomberg reported back in 2014: “To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth.”

In 2010 the Clinton created “residential trusts” and the following year moved their Chappaqua estate into the trust, according to their financial records. As David Scott Sloan, a partner at the firm Holland Knight explained the Clinton trust to CBS News, “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”

The move will save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, according to accountants quoted by Bloomberg.

Even more substantial, the Clintons created a life insurance trust in 2010, which will shelter life insurance payments from estate taxes. This is their second such trust. The first was created in 1996, according to financial disclosures.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's funny when you copy and paste and then try to pass it off like you typed it and they're your words. :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... er-family/
HappyHappy

Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)

Post by HappyHappy »

and this is all that can be regurgitated by the sub human pond scum.
Post Reply