Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 09, 2019

The consumer advocate says she will hold the financial industry accountable for its misdeeds.

To the Editor:

Re "As Warren Gains in Popularity, Her Anti-Greed Message Has Wall Street Rattled" (front page, Nov. 4):

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren's conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with "other people's money" and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash -- steeped in greed and conflicts of interest -- the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Ralph Nader is a national treasure.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-09 08:58 AM | Reply

That's not what worries them. It's the stifling tax rates she is proposing.

#2 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-09 09:38 AM | Reply

That's not what worries them. It's the stifling tax rates she is proposing.

#2 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower maintained a 90% tax rate during his 8 years in office.

So when you say "stifling tax rates" you're just spewing BS.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-09 09:54 AM | Reply

maintained a 90% tax rate during his 8 years in office.

It was a progressive income tax, not a wealth tax as Warren is proposing.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-09 10:47 AM | Reply

"It was a progressive income tax, not a wealth tax as Warren is proposing."

Okay, then let's do a more progressive income tax instead.

As it currently stands, a trust fund baby can open $50K in dividends from Wax-Mart and owe ZERO in federal taxes of any kind. Meanwhile, a janitor profiting $50K from sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10K in federal taxes.

Call me crazy, but that's unfair. Just like when a retired married couple donates $20,000 to a charity, and it doesn't change their bottom line by a penny.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-09 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

^Wal-Mart

Although "Wax-Mart" sounds intriguing....

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-09 10:54 AM | Reply

#5 I agree, but the solution is to treat every form of income the same. Inheritance, wages/tips, dividends, sales profits, everything. Doing that alone will virtually eliminate loopholes (thus, it will never happen).

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-09 04:08 PM | Reply

Okay, then let's do a more progressive income tax instead.

I have not been opposed to it, but currently "middle class" incomes in the BayArea are being taxed by State/Fed/Local at about a 40%/50% rate (all taxes)

The Federal government regardless of tax rates, has only really ever managed 17-22% of GDP. We avoid the problem which you don't want to address is spending, not revenue generation.

As it currently stands, a trust fund baby can open $50K in dividends from Wax-Mart and owe ZERO in federal taxes of any kind.

Your description is lacking details, and a bit askew. What does "open" mean? What does "trust fund baby" mean. Who doesn't "OWE" federal taxes?

See this is where you use words for effect, but don't describe the whole situation.

In the case of simple trust, the beneficiary pays an "income tax" on the distributed amount rather than the trust. If the income is part of a change in the principal or part of the estate's distributable income, then income tax is paid by the trust and not passed on to the beneficiary.

You see everything is taxed, and if one just lived off the income of a trust, the government is still collecting taxes. The question is whether the "trust fund baby" receives $100K and pays taxes on it, or $75,000 and pays no taxes.

So in the case of what I think you are attempting to describe, the "trust fund baby" would pay taxes on any income derived from the income of the $50K. If the principle is distributed to the "trust fund baby" the trust pays the tax.

In the end the government gets its pound of flesh for every dollar given to the benficiary, its only who is paying the taxes.


Meanwhile, a janitor profiting $50K from sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10K in federal taxes.

Well the beneficiary does pay taxes .... sorry he's not working as hard .... see the above....

I agree, but the solution is to treat every form of income the same.

It won't change Danforths situation, the beneficiary still pays income taxes on it. I know this because this is my situation.

Given Danforths explanation, and lack of taxation of a trust, its clear he doesn't understand the point of the Trust.

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-09 04:55 PM | Reply

Although "Wax-Mart" sounds intriguing....
#6 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

It would be an interesting to be a greeter there for sure. :)

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-09 04:55 PM | Reply

If she is pissing off Wall Street and the america hating (R)tards, then she is doing something right.

#10 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-10 05:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If she is pissing off Wall Street and the america hating (R)tards, then she is doing something right.

#10 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON

Yes, exactly -- it's about time you say something worthwhile.

#11 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-10 09:01 AM | Reply

"Your description is lacking details, and a bit askew. What does "open" mean?"

Open the envelope delivering the dividend check.

"What does "trust fund baby" mean."

Someone who's parents gave them the means to their current income.

"Who doesn't "OWE" federal taxes?"

The person opening $50,000 in dividends from Johnson & Johnson.

"See this is where you use words for effect, but don't describe the whole situation."

See this is where your ignorance doesn't serve you well.

"In the case of simple trust, the beneficiary pays an "income tax" on the distributed amount rather than the trust."

True.

"If the income is part of a change in the principal or part of the estate's distributable income, then income tax is paid by the trust and not passed on to the beneficiary."

I'm not referring to actual Trusts. Money distributed by trusts can be either ROI, or taxable income.

"You see everything is taxed, and if one just lived off the income of a trust, the government is still collecting taxes.

Not the federal government; and not on income, on spending.

"The question is whether the "trust fund baby" receives $100K and pays taxes on it, or $75,000 and pays no taxes."

The kid getting $50,000 in dividends from Abbott Labs pays NO federal taxes of any kind. Income taxes BEGIN above that.

"So in the case of what I think you are attempting to describe, the "trust fund baby" would pay taxes on any income derived from the income of the $50K."

No, he wouldn't. If you don't understand how the tax code works, you probably shouldn't opine.

"In the end the government gets its pound of flesh for every dollar given to the benficiary"

False on many levels. You're ignoring gift limits, the standard deduction, GRATs, and inheriting on a stepped-up basis.

"Well the beneficiary does pay taxes "

Not to the feds, unless it's on spending, like a federal gas tax.

"the solution is to treat every form of income the same."

The folks you vote for are 110% against that.

"the beneficiary still pays income taxes on it. I know this because this is my situation."

Then you have other income over and above the $50,000 in dividends.

"Given Danforths explanation, and lack of taxation of a trust, its clear he doesn't understand the point of the Trust."

Oh, FFS, shut up if you don't actually know what you're talking about. The stupid, it burns.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-10 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

you're just spewing BS.
#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf

No, it's R talking points that are being spewed.

#13 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-11-11 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort