Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Hillary Clinton and Death Taxes

  1. #1

    Hillary Clinton and Death Taxes

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/w...y-death-taxes/
    COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong, my family was always farmers. When the death tax was imposed by Democrats, little by little with each generation we had to sell something to pay the taxes. Hillary in Detroit said Trump should not have $4 billion and the state should have got it all. This is money already taxed numerous times and the politicians line their own pockets. I feel Trump will lose and we will lose the farm listening to Hillary.

    ANSWER: I agree. People do not look at this estate tax or death tax and its goal is very communistic insofar as parents should not be allowed to save for their children and whatever you own really belongs to the state. In other words, government is treating the people the very same way that sent so many people from England fleeing to America to begin with. [...]

    People fled to America so they could actually own their own property and pass it down to their children as do the rich landholding families in Britain. This was the origin of the term “freehold” meaning you could actually own the land. America was the land of opportunity because it was all freehold and people could for the first time rise from the poor rank to that of the rich by hard work, saving, and being able to create wealth for the family unit. This was the American Dream. It is ironic that the Clintons encouraged the bankers to lend money recklessly to create more homeowners which resulted in the 2007 real estate bubble. So on the one hand they champion private ownership, and then want death taxes so you cannot leave things to your children so easily. What they encourage with one hand then take back with the other. Home-ownership has now collapsed to a 52 year historic low thanks to the Clintons.

    The Democrats are very Marxist and Hillary’s speech in Detroit shows exactly the type of person she is. She singles out Trump to justify the death tax that then applies to everyone.

    “If you believe that he’s as wealthy as he says,” she said, “(killing the tax) would save the Trump family $4 billion. …

    “Just think about what we could do with those $4 billion.”
    The core of the Democrats is to take other people’s money. They believe in central planning as did the Communists. They have always advocated taking the money from the “rich” and putting in their own pockets as has Hillary. It is amazing how they get away with pretending to hate the rich and then amass wealth from the rich. Hillary was worth far more than any of the 17 Republicans Trump defeated in the Primaries. How can someone so rich hate the rich? By placing all this money in a “foundation” it is tax free and at her disposal. At least Trump had to pay taxes on what he has left.

    When I say if Hillary is elected I may just leave the United States, I am not being partisan, but practical. I have to look at the long-term direction she would take the country and the bankers will rule economics in this country. If they got their way, they would pass laws preventing people from withdrawing funds or even collecting interest outside of CDs. They want to trade with other people’s money and hand the losses to the government while keeping the winning trades. I fear that we will turn south in a very hard way. Obama has produced the lowest economic growth of any president since the Great Depression. The “recovery” from the 2007-2009 crash has lined the pockets of bankers and politicians exclusively. Trading volume has collapsed. This is the worst possible economic picture in modern times.


    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Money is especially vulgar when in the possession of others.
    Thou shallt not covet.

  4. #3
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Just imagine what we could do with that 4 billion. I perish the thought.

  5. #4
    Just think about what we could do with $31.3 million.
    They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support.

  6. #5
    The death tax only affects estates with a gross value above $5,450,000. You won't find much sympathy for the super rich, more wealth than 99.9% of the rest of the world population.
    I just want objectivity on this forum and will point out flawed sources or points of view at my leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 01/15/24
    Trump will win every single state primary by double digits.
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 04/20/16
    There won't be a contested convention
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 05/30/17
    The shooting of Gabrielle Gifford was blamed on putting a crosshair on a political map. I wonder what event we'll see justified with pictures like this.

  7. #6
    I think the lawyers have figured out a way for the very rich not to pay any taxes like trusts, etc.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  8. #7
    Clinton’s 65% Killer Death Tax
    The Democrat heads further toward Bernie Sanders Nirvana.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons...tax-1474586639
    The left claims only the super-wealthy will pay high rates, but the Sanders plan that Mrs. Clinton is copying did not index exemption levels for inflation. One reason a bipartisan movement emerged to reform the death tax in the 1990s was because the then 55% rate engulfed ever more taxpayers over time. Mrs. Clinton would also end the “step-up in basis” on stock valuations for many filers, triggering big capital gains taxes for a much broader population.

    She also knows most of her rich friends will set up foundations, as she and Bill Clinton have, to shelter most of their riches from the estate tax. As Americans have learned, these supposed charities can be terrific vehicles for employing political operatives while they wait for Chelsea to run for the Senate.

    Mrs. Clinton must realize her plan has no chance of passing as long as Republicans hold the House or Senate, so it’s odd she would propose it now. Perhaps she can feel the national surge of non-enthusiasm for her candidacy and wants to mobilize the Bernie brigades with some more fervent class warfare. Or perhaps she’s so confident of victory she figures she and Speaker Nancy Pelosi could pull this off, or maybe she’s laying out a confiscatory rate as an opening negotiating bid with Republican Speaker Paul Ryan.

    In any case, Mrs. Clinton is now promising total tax hikes of $1.5 trillion over a decade if elected President. Keep in mind this is part of her fiscal plan to grow the economy.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/22/boom-...ommentary.html

    Such a massive estate-tax hike would wreak havoc among many small and medium-sized business owners who don't have the means or don't qualify for the many loopholes available to the richest Americans. But Clinton is clearly not interested in their votes. This is all about trying to win over the Sanders/Warren voters.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ll-businesses/
    the small-business sector and the farming sector are fierce opponents of estate taxes, partly because large tax bills can force families to sell their farms, businesses and restaurants.

    House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), for instance, recently said it is “morally wrong” to force families who just lost a loved one to face instantly losing their businesses as well. “That’s not supposed to be something people have to deal with when they’re grieving for the loss of a loved one,” he said according to The Hill newspaper.

    Clinton released her plan to extract massive 65 percent of people’s hard-earned wealth under the headline “Investing in America by Restoring Basic Fairness to Our Tax Code.” That 65 percent levy would be combined with any local or state taxes and fees.

    Forbes Magazine blasted Clinton’s plan.
    Ms. Clinton previously called for whittling the $5.45 million figure down to $3.5 million, and upping the 40% tax rate to 45%. But those were modest hikes, and that was then. Now, with populist flair, she wants a 50%, 55%, and 65% rate. The 50% rate applies to estates worth over $10 million per person, 55% for estates over $50 million, and 65% for estates exceeding $500 million. The new proposed estate tax plan makes her prior 40% to 45% hike seem inconsequential.
    The financial magazine went on to warn that Hillary’s new idea could “force sales of family companies, and sales of family farms and ranches” if it ever became law. Meaning a person who worked his whole life to build a business or toiled to create a farm won’t be able to leave it to his family without them having to sell it off to pay Hillary’s steep taxes.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post


    1%, 65%...it's all confiscation!

    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •