Political Roundtable Part XV

[stilldropin20]

SD, there's nothing wrong with setting up charitable foundations that reduce the estate tax. Helping charities is generally a good thing for the US. Without that particular loophole, charities lose millions in donations. There are loopholes in allowing discounted values for family partnerships, S Corps, and trusts that should be eliminated, but at least they have been attacked more by the IRS in recent years. Even with that loophole, the estate and gift tax raises about $20 billion in revenue per year...

I think the problem is it is difficult (if not impossible) to close the charitable deduction without leaving in place many other loopholes in place - stilldropin actually had a good point there. See the Clinton and Trump foundations for more on that. Having a large charity that you control - well, that is part of what we want to get rid of, right?

I think the charitable deduction should be removed but they need to keep the estate and gift taxes. So, we half agree

The problem with and why we can't get rid of the charitable deductions are higher ed and religious entities. They cover 2/3s of the population and would throw a hissy fit unlike any we have seen in a long time.

It sounds like you know this, dckings. But I believe we have posters that dont so im attempting to educate others.

private foundations and public 501c3 foundations share almost identical tax exempt status. public has a bit more scrutiny. private is virtually unknown. few real disclosures are necessary for a private foundation just like a private corporation.

Here's what is known among wealth managers and accountants. basically, you create a foundation to protect it from taxes, antitrust, personal and corporate law suits etc. It is virtually locked away forever so long as an adviser makes timely filings.

the annual payout a foundation must make is 5%. 10% on a public charity.
--- but "administrative costs count as part of the payout. and flying on ones own private plane and yachting around the globe can easily count as administrative costs so long as the charity keeps good books and is "smart" about it. Kinda like a meals and entertainment expense for a standard business.

So 5B private foundation can purchase real estate, invest in stock market, finance start ups etc.. then realizes profits both rental income(profits) and appreciation over time 4% annually, market dividends, etc. and pay not taxes on any opf these profits. They can even Borrow against all of that real estate appreciation at 80% (even 90-95% in some cases) loan to value. live in said real estate. and all they need to pay out is 5% thats is it!!!!!!! and they can pay it out to their own damn 501c3 so long as that is managed by a different family member. 5% !!!!!

and the entire foundation all 5B is estate tax exempt passing it down to a new "adviser."

I mean if you guys want to have some real outrage? here it is. this is where your focus should be.

almost no one. NO ONE is actually giving money away here. NO ONE!! not gates. not rockefellor. carnagie, .

Here. think about this. carnegie personally divested himself of his entire fortune in 1912. he put 135 Million (with and M) in a charitable foundation. That foundation is worth $4-5 Billion (with a B) today. come on folks, how much are they actually giving away (in these foundations)?? His successors can be named advisers of these private (yet "charitable") foundations and only have to pay out 5% annually.

no tax code has ever gone after these foundations. ever. cleaned them up a bit? yeah. a teeny weeny tiny bit. Thats where the lion's share of 1% of the wealth is hidden.

Not in a family that worked their asses off for their entire life to save 5 million. stop going after mom and pop down the street and do after the ruling class' wealth!!! we are fighting over the literal scraps.

educate yourselves. learn where this wealth really is and how easily it is brought offshore. Stable global markets and peacetime bring these dollars off shore where they dont even have to pay out the miserable 5%. get educated folks!

[DCZards]

and this aint no different that your voter fraud cry baby antic. get serious about true 100% voter reformation and give me a call. I'll be the first to agree. two forms of state issued ID's, 2 forms of proof of residency via utilty bill, and a thumb print to back it all up. Do that and I'm in.

Libs are so funny, swim around in their go nowhere sand traps they think are swimming pools. call me when you get radical.

Trump 2020!!! drain the swamp! America first! bring back jobs! and yada yada yada. he's going to win again. I bring the kleenex back in 2020. I'm out!

These are unreasonable requirements that would suppress and discourage voting at a time when we should be trying to increase voter turnout. One obvious problem is that many eligible voters, like my 19 year old daughter who lives with me, would not have a utility bill in their name. The same is true for people who rent and don’t pay utilities.

I don’t believe voter fraud is a significant problem. What’s wrong with simply requiring a single government-issued ID?

[stilldropin20]

and this aint no different that your voter fraud cry baby antic. get serious about true 100% voter reformation and give me a call. I'll be the first to agree. two forms of state issued ID's, 2 forms of proof of residency via utilty bill, and a thumb print to back it all up. Do that and I'm in.

Libs are so funny, swim around in their go nowhere sand traps they think are swimming pools. call me when you get radical.

Trump 2020!!! drain the swamp! America first! bring back jobs! and yada yada yada. he's going to win again. I bring the kleenex back in 2020. I'm out!

These are unreasonable requirements that would suppress and discourage voting at a time when we should be trying to increase voter turnout. One obvious problem is that many eligible voters, like my 19 year old daughter who lives with me, would not have a utility bill in their name. The same is true for people who rent and don’t pay utilities.

I don’t believe voter fraud is a significant problem. What’s wrong with simply requiring a single government-issued ID?

This was in response to the hacked election comments from waaaay back 2 weeks ago before PR and taking a knee.

if we are going to get serious about voter reform and protecting our elections we need to verify US citizens are doing the actuall voting first and foremost. then deal with catfish russians on FB. looks like FB and twitter are already cleaning that up tho. so now it comes down to voter IDs, verified US citizens. My guess is the left never give this up. meanwhile Russia!! Russia!! Russia!!!

But yeah, a single(current) govt issue id (that denotes US citizenship) works for me. In chicago, where I was registered as a democrat, I was never asked for an ID of any type.

[payitforward]

Here's the thing and take this as my personal opinion on this. The purpose of a protest isn't to make people comfortable it's to draw attention to a particular issue. And kneeling before or after the anthem actually cheapens the effect of the protest. It really does nothing for the conversation because it doesn't bring the same amount of attention to start a conversation. And athletes have been kneeling for the anthem decades before Kaepernick. At the end of the point of the protest isn't to make people comfortable but rather create awareness to get enough people on your side. People who are violently against taking a knee will be on the wrong side of history. You have to remember a vast majority of white Americans were against the way black people protested during civil rights.

Although kneeling before or after the anthem would be a good litmus test for the "I'm not against the protest just don't kneel during the anthem folks". I theorize they'll just move the goal posts to "keep politics out of sports". Thus proving that no matter how they do it, black people can't win.

Letting demonstratively self righteous "patriots" define proper behavior for patriotism and protest is surrender in itself. Kaepernick is more patriotic than Trump, who has no moral standing from which to dictate anything to Kaepernick, just a lot of hot air and a bully pulpit from which to once more promote the Trump brand.

Plus 1,000. Trump's a draft-dodging hypocrite spending his time and energy criticising people who take a knee, when he should be dealing with the terrible crisis in PR. Instead he's getting into multiple twitter wars - and one is with the Mayor of San Juan - who IS working day and night on the problem against all odds. And all he f'n cares about is how he looks and getting one up on her. Every time I think he can't go lower, he does. This is how he deals with his first crisis. He's not just a disgrace as a President; he's a disgrace as a human. And that's not being hysterical. Being hysterical was supporting that piece of garbage.

Yes. Here's a real leader:

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

SD, private foundations do make huge amounts of contributions. Their 990's are all public information that you can access on Guidestar. And they do get audited. Yes, like with everything - there are abuses by folks who... break the law... and yes, there can be laws to force them to pay out higher percentages. But believe me - there are tons of laws they have to comply with. That's why 501(c)(3)'s who do make every effort to follow the law, pay huge amounts in attorneys fees. There's nothing wrong with private foundations getting bigger - that means they have to contribute more to charities. They're built to continue contributing year after year after year - not just to fizzle out after a year or 2. And a lot of important charities that do good for the world depend on those contribs from foundations - year after year - otherwise they die out. Nobody's saying it's a perfect situation that shouldn't have changes, but every system has faults that people can exploit by doing bad things, and the system ain't nearly as broke as you're making it out to be. I'd bet that changes you'd make would break the system. Before you try to educate people, you need to think things through better and join a few board of directors - at least until you're kicked out by the rest of the Board.

[montestewart]

SD, there's nothing wrong with setting up charitable foundations that reduce the estate tax. Helping charities is generally a good thing for the US. Without that particular loophole, charities lose millions in donations. There are loopholes in allowing discounted values for family partnerships, S Corps, and trusts that should be eliminated, but at least they have been attacked more by the IRS in recent years. Even with that loophole, the estate and gift tax raises about $20 billion in revenue per year...

I think the problem is it is difficult (if not impossible) to close the charitable deduction without leaving in place many other loopholes in place - stilldropin actually had a good point there. See the Clinton and Trump foundations for more on that. Having a large charity that you control - well, that is part of what we want to get rid of, right?

I think the charitable deduction should be removed but they need to keep the estate and gift taxes. So, we half agree

The problem with and why we can't get rid of the charitable deductions are higher ed and religious entities. They cover 2/3s of the population and would throw a hissy fit unlike any we have seen in a long time.

It sounds like you know this, dckings. But I believe we have posters that dont so im attempting to educate others.

private foundations and public 501c3 foundations share almost identical tax exempt status. public has a bit more scrutiny. private is virtually unknown. few real disclosures are necessary for a private foundation just like a private corporation.

Here's what is known among wealth managers and accountants. basically, you create a foundation to protect it from taxes, antitrust, personal and corporate law suits etc. It is virtually locked away forever so long as an adviser makes timely filings.

the annual payout a foundation must make is 5%. 10% on a public charity.
--- but "administrative costs count as part of the payout. and flying on ones own private plane and yachting around the globe can easily count as administrative costs so long as the charity keeps good books and is "smart" about it. Kinda like a meals and entertainment expense for a standard business.

So 5B private foundation can purchase real estate, invest in stock market, finance start ups etc.. then realizes profits both rental income(profits) and appreciation over time 4% annually, market dividends, etc. and pay not taxes on any opf these profits. They can even Borrow against all of that real estate appreciation at 80% (even 90-95% in some cases) loan to value. live in said real estate. and all they need to pay out is 5% thats is it!!!!!!! and they can pay it out to their own damn 501c3 so long as that is managed by a different family member. 5% !!!!!

and the entire foundation all 5B is estate tax exempt passing it down to a new "adviser."

I mean if you guys want to have some real outrage? here it is. this is where your focus should be.

almost no one. NO ONE is actually giving money away here. NO ONE!! not gates. not rockefellor. carnagie, .

Here. think about this. carnegie personally divested himself of his entire fortune in 1912. he put 135 Million (with and M) in a charitable foundation. That foundation is worth $4-5 Billion (with a B) today. come on folks, how much are they actually giving away (in these foundations)?? His successors can be named advisers of these private (yet "charitable") foundations and only have to pay out 5% annually.

no tax code has ever gone after these foundations. ever. cleaned them up a bit? yeah. a teeny weeny tiny bit. Thats where the lion's share of 1% of the wealth is hidden.

Not in a family that worked their asses off for their entire life to save 5 million. stop going after mom and pop down the street and do after the ruling class' wealth!!! we are fighting over the literal scraps.

educate yourselves. learn where this wealth really is and how easily it is brought offshore. Stable global markets and peacetime bring these dollars off shore where they dont even have to pay out the miserable 5%. get educated folks!

The Wayne Foundation has done a lot for Gotham City. Get your facts straight.

[dckingsfan]

SD, there's nothing wrong with setting up charitable foundations that reduce the estate tax. Helping charities is generally a good thing for the US. Without that particular loophole, charities lose millions in donations. There are loopholes in allowing discounted values for family partnerships, S Corps, and trusts that should be eliminated, but at least they have been attacked more by the IRS in recent years. Even with that loophole, the estate and gift tax raises about $20 billion in revenue per year...

I think the problem is it is difficult (if not impossible) to close the charitable deduction without leaving in place many other loopholes in place - stilldropin actually had a good point there. See the Clinton and Trump foundations for more on that. Having a large charity that you control - well, that is part of what we want to get rid of, right?

I think the charitable deduction should be removed but they need to keep the estate and gift taxes. So, we half agree

The problem with and why we can't get rid of the charitable deductions are higher ed and religious entities. They cover 2/3s of the population and would throw a hissy fit unlike any we have seen in a long time.

It sounds like you know this, dckings. But I believe we have posters that dont so im attempting to educate others.

private foundations and public 501c3 foundations share almost identical tax exempt status. public has a bit more scrutiny. private is virtually unknown. few real disclosures are necessary for a private foundation just like a private corporation.

Here's what is known among wealth managers and accountants. basically, you create a foundation to protect it from taxes, antitrust, personal and corporate law suits etc. It is virtually locked away forever so long as an adviser makes timely filings.

the annual payout a foundation must make is 5%. 10% on a public charity.
--- but "administrative costs count as part of the payout. and flying on ones own private plane and yachting around the globe can easily count as administrative costs so long as the charity keeps good books and is "smart" about it. Kinda like a meals and entertainment expense for a standard business.

So 5B private foundation can purchase real estate, invest in stock market, finance start ups etc.. then realizes profits both rental income(profits) and appreciation over time 4% annually, market dividends, etc. and pay not taxes on any opf these profits. They can even Borrow against all of that real estate appreciation at 80% (even 90-95% in some cases) loan to value. live in said real estate. and all they need to pay out is 5% thats is it!!!!!!! and they can pay it out to their own damn 501c3 so long as that is managed by a different family member. 5% !!!!!

and the entire foundation all 5B is estate tax exempt passing it down to a new "adviser."

I mean if you guys want to have some real outrage? here it is. this is where your focus should be.

almost no one. NO ONE is actually giving money away here. NO ONE!! not gates. not rockefellor. carnagie, .

Here. think about this. carnegie personally divested himself of his entire fortune in 1912. he put 135 Million (with and M) in a charitable foundation. That foundation is worth $4-5 Billion (with a B) today. come on folks, how much are they actually giving away (in these foundations)?? His successors can be named advisers of these private (yet "charitable") foundations and only have to pay out 5% annually.

no tax code has ever gone after these foundations. ever. cleaned them up a bit? yeah. a teeny weeny tiny bit. Thats where the lion's share of 1% of the wealth is hidden.

Not in a family that worked their asses off for their entire life to save 5 million. stop going after mom and pop down the street and do after the ruling class' wealth!!! we are fighting over the literal scraps.

educate yourselves. learn where this wealth really is and how easily it is brought offshore. Stable global markets and peacetime bring these dollars off shore where they dont even have to pay out the miserable 5%. get educated folks!

Solid post - and yes - these are a few of the reasons that I would rather not have tax deductible carveouts for charities.

Another example: Higher Ed. Money is taken out of the hands of the public colleges. How much has Harvard expanded in the last 50 years vs. it's expanded its endowments? Where has that money gone? Into research and IP rights vs. expanding its mission on educating more kids.

[dckingsfan]

SD, private foundations do make huge amounts of contributions. Their 990's are all public information that you can access on Guidestar. And they do get audited. Yes, like with everything - there are abuses by folks who... break the law... and yes, there can be laws to force them to pay out higher percentages. But believe me - there are tons of laws they have to comply with. That's why 501(c)(3)'s who do make every effort to follow the law, pay huge amounts in attorneys fees. There's nothing wrong with private foundations getting bigger - that means they have to contribute more to charities. They're built to continue contributing year after year after year - not just to fizzle out after a year or 2. And a lot of important charities that do good for the world depend on those contribs from foundations - year after year - otherwise they die out. Nobody's saying it's a perfect situation that shouldn't have changes, but every system has faults that people can exploit by doing bad things, and the system ain't nearly as broke as you're making it out to be. I'd bet that changes you'd make would break the system. Before you try to educate people, you need to think things through better and join a few board of directors - at least until you're kicked out by the rest of the Board.

But individuals can still contribute to non-profits without the carveouts on taxes which do cause the issues that Stilldropin points out. If you took the tax carveout away, much of the non-sense with private foundations would go away.

So, no reason to obliterate the 501(c)(3)'s but there is a good reason to get rid of the carveout or limit the carveout.

If you don't - then the inheritance tax will be bypassed. Simply form a non-profit and make your heirs the board members and pay them large stipends.

[montestewart]

SD, private foundations do make huge amounts of contributions. Their 990's are all public information that you can access on Guidestar. And they do get audited. Yes, like with everything - there are abuses by folks who... break the law... and yes, there can be laws to force them to pay out higher percentages. But believe me - there are tons of laws they have to comply with. That's why 501(c)(3)'s who do make every effort to follow the law, pay huge amounts in attorneys fees. There's nothing wrong with private foundations getting bigger - that means they have to contribute more to charities. They're built to continue contributing year after year after year - not just to fizzle out after a year or 2. And a lot of important charities that do good for the world depend on those contribs from foundations - year after year - otherwise they die out. Nobody's saying it's a perfect situation that shouldn't have changes, but every system has faults that people can exploit by doing bad things, and the system ain't nearly as broke as you're making it out to be. I'd bet that changes you'd make would break the system. Before you try to educate people, you need to think things through better and join a few board of directors - at least until you're kicked out by the rest of the Board.

But individuals can still contribute to non-profits without the carveouts on taxes which do cause the issues that Stilldropin points out. If you took the tax carveout away, much of the non-sense with private foundations would go away.

So, no reason to obliterate the 501(c)(3)'s but there is a good reason to get rid of the carveout or limit the carveout.

If you don't - then the inheritance tax will be bypassed. Simply form a non-profit and make your heirs the board members and pay them large stipends.

It seems that the problem as described is the accumulation of wealth in large non-profit foundations, while the solution might just reduce charitable giving in general. Many charities 1) spend only a small fraction of their contributions on overhead, and 2) don't accumulate wealth, usually falling short of their immediate use goals for a given year. The charitable contribution deduction promotes giving. If I'm understanding the proposal correctly, the solution is too broad.

[dckingsfan]

SD, private foundations do make huge amounts of contributions. Their 990's are all public information that you can access on Guidestar. And they do get audited. Yes, like with everything - there are abuses by folks who... break the law... and yes, there can be laws to force them to pay out higher percentages. But believe me - there are tons of laws they have to comply with. That's why 501(c)(3)'s who do make every effort to follow the law, pay huge amounts in attorneys fees. There's nothing wrong with private foundations getting bigger - that means they have to contribute more to charities. They're built to continue contributing year after year after year - not just to fizzle out after a year or 2. And a lot of important charities that do good for the world depend on those contribs from foundations - year after year - otherwise they die out. Nobody's saying it's a perfect situation that shouldn't have changes, but every system has faults that people can exploit by doing bad things, and the system ain't nearly as broke as you're making it out to be. I'd bet that changes you'd make would break the system. Before you try to educate people, you need to think things through better and join a few board of directors - at least until you're kicked out by the rest of the Board.

But individuals can still contribute to non-profits without the carveouts on taxes which do cause the issues that Stilldropin points out. If you took the tax carveout away, much of the non-sense with private foundations would go away.

So, no reason to obliterate the 501(c)(3)'s but there is a good reason to get rid of the carveout or limit the carveout.

If you don't - then the inheritance tax will be bypassed. Simply form a non-profit and make your heirs the board members and pay them large stipends.

It seems that the problem as described is the accumulation of wealth in large non-profit foundations, while the solution might just reduce charitable giving in general. Many charities 1) spend only a small fraction of their contributions on overhead, and 2) don't accumulate wealth, usually falling short of their immediate use goals for a given year. The charitable contribution deduction promotes giving. If I'm understanding the proposal correctly, the solution is too broad.

Hey Monte, you are right - some charities spend only a fraction on overhead. Some don't accumulate wealth. Some do (Marsha Evans, CEO American Red Cross (30% overhead) salary was $650K plus expenses. Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way (33% overhead) $375,000 salary plus numbers benefits). Some go way over 50%.

But I am not advocating getting rid of non-profits or tackling a problem that should be tackled but won't be (everyone has their favorite charity). I am advocating removing the tax deduction. That is an amazing carveout for the rich to pass their wealth on to their heirs. I am also not in favor of removing the AMT without an alternative or removing the inheritance tax.

I hope you can see that I am being consistent in my approach.

[stilldropin20]

SD, private foundations do make huge amounts of contributions. Their 990's are all public information that you can access on Guidestar. And they do get audited. Yes, like with everything - there are abuses by folks who... break the law... and yes, there can be laws to force them to pay out higher percentages. But believe me - there are tons of laws they have to comply with. That's why 501(c)(3)'s who do make every effort to follow the law, pay huge amounts in attorneys fees. There's nothing wrong with private foundations getting bigger - that means they have to contribute more to charities. They're built to continue contributing year after year after year - not just to fizzle out after a year or 2. And a lot of important charities that do good for the world depend on those contribs from foundations - year after year - otherwise they die out. Nobody's saying it's a perfect situation that shouldn't have changes, but every system has faults that people can exploit by doing bad things, and the system ain't nearly as broke as you're making it out to be. I'd bet that changes you'd make would break the system. Before you try to educate people, you need to think things through better and join a few board of directors - at least until you're kicked out by the rest of the Board.

Ruz, across the board they pay out 6.5-7% That's it. this is well documented for decades.

the 501c3 (and some other 501's) have a bit more scrutiny. they pay out 10% but they also must receive at least 10% of their funding from the public. but they almost never exceed the 10% payout by much at all. So they are just redistributing the 10% public funds back to the public for their own "do good" personal mission. of which they can AND DO hire themselves and their own corporations to carry out the mission (administrative costs)!! I've seen some that pay out 13-14% rarely more but thats not the point. Gates foundation has hit as high as 36% in some years but again, the lion's share of that is in R&D. Buffet has hit as high as 26% but a ton of his just went to Gates (who is doing RnD). I Still dont get that one, even years later. Warren Could just be an actual "do-gooder." Or the elite ruling class has some dirt on him? Or the US governement and banking elite need a "good guy" to point to when ever these foundations get brought up or we have a banking crisis? "Look at warren!!" he's such a nice guy hoarding this wealth then giving it to gates. who is then performing R&D with it for future profits. "dont worry america, they will find a cure for cancer!! You're going to live to 77 on average instead of 74!!! So we gotta hoard dem billions and do this research for ya!" them last few years on chemo are going to be just swell!!"



Bottom line. just accept the 6.5-7% because thats what it comes to on the grand scale. please look this up. cof.org is a good place to start but really its every where in a few clicks. find a link you trust. they all have the same numbers. All foundations, by and large, are nothing more than rackets!!! Pure, legal, corruption. to. the. core. We have a morally bankrupt tax code that penalizes anyone trying to truly get ahead and out of the have nots. Once/if you get there they then go after you with other things like anti-trust (like MSFT in the late 90's). Bill's not an idiot though. but he did foundation up real quick before the trial. as have people like oprah. et al. the walmats, everyone.

You mentioned audits. these audits by and large are political. wrong doing is almost never discovered. Only bad optics which sink a candidate every now and then. and sometimes these foundations are funding terror. or drug cartels. they even have trouble taking those completely corrupt foundations down.

this is where you go after the .5% Their foundations. Their trusts. private and public. charitable or other. I would rewrite the entire tax code on these. and you may hate him. You may detest him. but the only guy getting a "base" together with the backbone and appetite for this fight is Bannon. and trump by extension. the left wants you to think the hoarding and hiding of the wealth in foundations and trusts is actually "good" for america cuz every blue moon they give out some scholarships or help a few families and spend millions on their PR letting you know about it. tax them instead! confiscate this wealth. get their money to the federal government and use it for grants to the american people via normal routes. instead of them feeling generous and getting a hard on for a certain cause and feeling better about themselves. "oh darling, look at the plebs we helped today. sprinkle some more crumbs over yonder for that group too. look honey, look at them gobble up those crumbs, how delightful!!!"

like i said 5 pages back. cap em at $100 million. tops! personally I dont think its healthy for anyone to have more than $50M at current value of US dollar. you end up with too much power in one place.

[montestewart]

I think I'm seeing a one-world government at the end of this rainbow.

[stilldropin20]

I think I'm seeing a one-world government at the end of this rainbow.

that is exactly what they want. more on this later. gotta go

[dckingsfan]

You mentioned audits. these audits by and large are political. wrong doing is almost never discovered. Only bad optics which sink a candidate every now and then. and sometimes these foundations are funding terror. or drug cartels. they even have trouble taking those completely corrupt foundations down.

Interesting - you made the jump from why foundations are created and how folks can protect their money to funding terror or drug cartels - without the .01% of foundations to go with it...

this is where you go after the .5% Their foundations. Their trusts. private and public. charitable or other. I would rewrite the entire tax code on these. and you may hate him. You may detest him. but the only guy getting a "base" together with the backbone and appetite for this fight is Bannon.

Whoops - Bannon basically didn't want to raise the tax rates - 39.9 and 40 are the same. And he never came out against foundations or the estate tax... so there is that.

and trump by extension.

Nope - not even close. Trump wants to lower rates, get rid of the AMT, get rid of the estate tax and keep charitable giving intact. The American people were duped by Trump in a very big way. GOAT lying POTUS.

This (the left wants you to think the hoarding and hiding of the wealth in foundations and trusts is actually "good" for america cuz every blue moon they give out some scholarships or help a few families and spend millions on their PR letting you know about it.) and This (tax them instead! confiscate this wealth. get their money to the federal government and use it for grants to the american people via normal routes. instead of them feeling generous and getting a hard on for a certain cause and feeling better about themselves. "oh darling, look at the plebs we helped today. sprinkle some more crumbs over yonder for that group too. look honey, look at them gobble up those crumbs, how delightful!!!") are separate "arguments" and don't support each other.

like i said 5 pages back. cap em at $100 million. tops! personally I dont think its healthy for anyone to have more than $50M at current value of US dollar. you end up with too much power in one place.

Like I said, 5 pages back - the unintended consequences are enormous. Look at other governments in the past that unilaterally seized assets of their people and tell me how that turned out.

[stilldropin20]

You mentioned audits. these audits by and large are political. wrong doing is almost never discovered. Only bad optics which sink a candidate every now and then. and sometimes these foundations are funding terror. or drug cartels. they even have trouble taking those completely corrupt foundations down.

Interesting - you made the jump from why foundations are created and how folks can protect their money to funding terror or drug cartels - without the .01% of foundations to go with it...

this is where you go after the .5% Their foundations. Their trusts. private and public. charitable or other. I would rewrite the entire tax code on these. and you may hate him. You may detest him. but the only guy getting a "base" together with the backbone and appetite for this fight is Bannon.

Whoops - Bannon basically didn't want to raise the tax rates - 39.9 and 40 are the same. And he never came out against foundations or the estate tax... so there is that.

and trump by extension.

Nope - not even close. Trump wants to lower rates, get rid of the AMT, get rid of the estate tax and keep charitable giving intact. The American people were duped by Trump in a very big way. GOAT lying POTUS.

This (the left wants you to think the hoarding and hiding of the wealth in foundations and trusts is actually "good" for america cuz every blue moon they give out some scholarships or help a few families and spend millions on their PR letting you know about it.) and This (tax them instead! confiscate this wealth. get their money to the federal government and use it for grants to the american people via normal routes. instead of them feeling generous and getting a hard on for a certain cause and feeling better about themselves. "oh darling, look at the plebs we helped today. sprinkle some more crumbs over yonder for that group too. look honey, look at them gobble up those crumbs, how delightful!!!") are separate "arguments" and don't support each other.

like i said 5 pages back. cap em at $100 million. tops! personally I dont think its healthy for anyone to have more than $50M at current value of US dollar. you end up with too much power in one place.

Like I said, 5 pages back - the unintended consequences are enormous. Look at other governments in the past that unilaterally seized assets of their people and tell me how that turned out.

I'm not saying bannon or Trump are the agents for change. I'm saying that they've rallied the base that has the appetite for this kind of change. There is a very very big difference between the two.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[stilldropin20]

DC Kings you are burying the lead stick with the lead

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[stilldropin20]

No developed country has ever invoked laws and tax codes to confiscate excessive wealth. Only rogue dictators. So we don't know what would happen if a well informed and educated public voted for officials won campaigned on and the saw these reforms through.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[Pointgod]

I think I'm seeing a one-world government at the end of this rainbow.

Bow to dear leader! He robbed the rich and gave pennies to the poor while making himself rich in the process! Socialism!

[Pointgod]

Guess Canadians aren't huge flag waivers except maybe Canada Day I see patriotism differently than most Americans in that I like what we do as a country for our citizens and our standing the the world community. Mind you in some countries I do wear something with a Canadian flag and always carry Canadian pins to give away to kids.

Exactly. The US version of patriotism has been wrapped up in jingoism and unquestioned support for the military. Canada is much more focused on ALL citizens.

[DCZards]

No developed country has ever invoked laws and tax codes to confiscate excessive wealth. Only rogue dictators. So we don't know what would happen if a well informed and educated public voted for officials won campaigned on and the saw these reforms through.

There's probably a reason why no developed country has ever invoked laws and tax codes to confiscate excessive wealth...because no well informed and educated public would ever vote for officials who campaigned on that type of reform.

I'm on board with less capitalism and more socialism in our our laws/policies. A more equitable distribution of wealth/resources is a moral imperative, imo. But I don't believe confiscating people's money (which would probably lead to a civil war) is the answer.