Sentences with phrase «wealth tax because»

Lib Dems are bullish about their chances of securing some form of wealth tax because they will link this to the welfare cuts.

Not exact matches

«If you anticipate the kind of huge appreciation in your personal wealth that could come from an IPO or a company sale, the best thing you can do is transfer stock to your heirs before the sale, because it will be worth much less then, and that minimizes the tax liability,» explains Allan Landau, a partner with Boston law firm Sherburne, Powers & Needham.

Any wealth accumulated over the estate tax level will be aggressively given away because the government is inefficient.

Second of all, the reason that the government set an income cut - off to Roth IRA eligibility and also set a low annual contribution limit is because the Roth IRA is intended to help regular people build wealth, rather than allow high - income people to stash away tons of money and avoid taxes.

The repeal of estate and gift taxes is especially problematic because it would provide a window for the very rich to use gift and trust structures to ensure that their wealth passes without tax not just to their children but to their grandchildren and great grandchildren, regardless of subsequent legislation.

He noted that the firm operated with a higher tax rate than some peers — it had got more US - centric over time rather than less, largely because of its presence in wealth management, which he reckoned was now about 98 % US - focused after the firm sold its European business in 2013.

An answer to both question could go like this: It is sometimes fair to tax one group higher than another because we have created an economy where there is an incredible potential for group A to accumulate drastically more amounts of economic wealth than group B, even though the labor of group B is more intrinsically valuable than group A. Given this inefficiency, it is just to redistribute asymmetrically because the initial distribution was flawed.

Appaently Christians need to be constantly reminded that we live in a secular nation and Americans are not obliged to share their wealth internationally anymore than our secular tax dollars already do, simply because HE is a Christian.

Regulate and tax them because they and all religions are really nothing special, just the SOS of men seeking power and wealth.

He said that he did not think that Obama's plan would work because it costs too much and that paying for it through higher taxes on Americans making $ 280,000 + per year is just part of Obama's plan for massive wealth distribution.

Power is the necessary evil of civilization because things like tax codes and wealth distribution have no distinct claim to a self evident «rightness» like moral claims do «tho shall not kill».

IOW, taxing income is bad because it incentivizes not creating wealth / producing (which is how income is earned), whereas one can argue taxing inheritance doesn't incentivize that.

One reason that we don't tax gifts and inheritances at a 100 % rate is because the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation gives the people who are currently earning that wealth an incentive to create more wealth and because these very wealthy people would be less economically productive if they couldn't do so.

There are strong social justice arguments for taxing inherited wealth and gains associated with owning land and property because both are largely unrelated to the effort of the wealth owner.

Blumenthal calls the bills a bait and switch, saying they transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich,» because they make promises of tax cuts that will terminate for the middle class in the Senate bill, and they amount to crumbs compared to the massive amounts that would go to the wealthiest.»

«Meanwhile, politicians talk of taxing «wealth» more because of what that would «say» about their party, not whether it is the right or wrong thing to do.»

Because we understand that it is the wealth creators whose taxes fuel our public services.

Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the elites who are determined to hijack Brexit to pay even less tax and take even more of the wealth we all create.

Just because Tories in Downing Street and in Parliament don't want to introduce a tax on properties, does not mean they start shaking in fear at the thought of wealth taxes.

Politicians give lip service to tax reform because we talk about it, but they will not produce any substantial reform because it works for them, it is doing just what they want it to do - redistributing wealth from the silent mass in the middle to the publicly noisy poor and the privately powerful rich.

A wealth dependent income tax would raise the tax compliance costs even more because it requires regular appraisal of wealth.

If I were having to pay a «wealth tax» of 50 % I'd have to sell my house in order to pay that tax, and so would almost every other home owner in the country, causing the housing market to collapse because nobody would be buying.

Though, an alternate approach to the above which had the wealth - income tax only kick in for people of a certain income or above could easily avoid this problem, because it won't discourage those who are likely to be in dangerous situations from saving.

Clegg will at one level regard the fuss as absurd because he was stating the obvious: Liberals have for decades believed in focusing tax on wealth.

This will be focused on taxing wealth, rather than income, because the new 45p rate will not be raised again to 50p.

Clegg indicated that the new tax would fall on wealth, rather than income, because there were no plans to change the new 45p top rate of income tax.

Unfortunately, for all of the noise Prof. Greene makes about proper academic standards, he simply stoops to waving the red flag of anti-communism when he concludes by suggesting that our assertion, «the only reason the superrich have these massive billions, and hence a major voice in policy, is because of unfair tax laws that allow them to keep the vast wealth their employees have created,» reveals us as, uh oh, Marxists!

Because property taxes play such an important role in school funding, affluent communities have an incentive to establish school district borders around their neighborhoods in order to ensure that the benefit of their wealth is reserved for their children alone.

For example, they dismiss the legitimacy of billionaire - backed reforms because «the only reason the superrich have these massive billions, and hence a major voice in policy, is because of unfair tax laws that allow them to keep the vast wealth their employees have created.»

These schools exist in part because to actually address through fairer taxation and wealth redistribution the largely socio - economic factors underlying educational inequality would be to admit that the neoliberal agenda of the last four decades, eg the tax cuts, the deregulation, has not in fact worked for the Many and wealth and social mobility have gone backwards.

But the tax caps put IPS in a precarious position because the district has low property wealth to begin with and property tax caps have siphoned off money from its transportation funds.

At the same time, because local school funding is so dependent on local property taxes, disparities in property wealth lead to disparities in opportunities for children.

Because of the disparities in real estate wealth, however, the revenue that the poorest counties could generate — even at their higher tax rates — was substantially lower than what the wealthier counties could generate.

Because the vast majority of local resources for education are raised through property taxes, though, equal opportunity often focuses on whether spending is primarily a function of a school district's wealth, thereby violating the principle of equal opportunity.

RRSPs are a tax - optimized wealth - creating machine: because interest, dividends and capital gains are not taxed while securities are held there your RRSP should grow like topsy, reinvesting the income without the taxman biting into your investment growth.

They clearly made good incomes in order to attain the wealth that they have, and because they didn't get aggressive with tax planning, every year they would have been paying a good percentage of their income in taxes.

If your client is looking to grow her wealth over the long - term and is not concerned with generating immediate income, funds that focus on growth stocks and use a buy - and - hold strategy are best because they generally incur lower expenses and have a lower tax impact than other types of funds.

The payoff comes from having a lot more wealth in retirement because distributions from this account will be tax - free.

Strategic Tip: In general, deferred annuity contracts will be looked at with more scrutiny when marketed to seniors because they are typically used for tax deferred wealth accumulation as opposed to short term retirement planning.

Then eliminate all deductions, conservative and liberal ones, and you have a tax code that can operate at a low rate because the entire increase of wealth in the economy is being taxed, without exceptions.

So, even on your home, which Kiyosaki defines as NOT an asset because it doesn't produce cash flow, you get a tax reduction that contributes to wealth creation because those tax savings may be invested elsewhere.

Tax - efficiency, for example, is critical (see The Wealth Effect list to the right), because great performance is useless if the taxman takes most of it away.

Projecting future wealth and known future income streams can be a good starting point for estimating a future marginal tax rate (e.g., what will tax rates be for the retiree who already has Social Security benefits, portfolio interest and dividends, real estate or other passive income sources, and / or Required Minimum Distributions [RMDs]-RRB-, but clearly some uncertainty remains, not the least because Congress could just outright change the tax laws between now and then (although even higher tax rates in the future is not a guarantee that Roth conversions are a good idea today!).

And Jim Larsen @ 521 — to that I would just add, it shouldn't tend to be inhumane to tax regardless of wealth because if CO2 emission were proportional to wealth generation, then the poor will be taxed less; otherwise, the price signal is encouraging wealth generation with less CO2 emission (which shapes investment so that it becomes easier to do so with less).

I can create more wealth, more jobs, and better conditions for all of my employees if I pay less tax, because I'll have more to re-invest in my business».

Because the death benefit of the life insurance policy will pass directly to your beneficiaries outside of your taxable estate, the money will essentially replace the wealth that will be lost to estate taxes.

Because the life insurance policies are not counted as part of a person's estate, allocating a portion of your wealth to a whole life insurance plan can be an effective way to reduce your estate's size by reducing available cash on hand while increasing your heirs» inheritance through legally avoided estate taxes, probate fees, and the payment of a large death benefit.

Because permanent life insurance reduces your estate's value and pays a tax free death benefit to your heirs, it can be used to transfer wealth while sheltering inheritances from taxing agencies.

In situations where permanent insurance is no longer needed — whether because the individual accumulated enough wealth than the death benefit protection is simply no longer necessary, or perhaps because the insurance was intended to provide liquidity for estate tax exposure that is simply no longer relevant at the newly permanent and portable inflation - adjusting $ 5.25 M estate tax exemption — the default decision is often to cancel the coverage.

BSLI Vision Life Secure Plan — We must inculcate this habit of saving very early in our lives because in the long run not only good amount of wealth is accumulated but also tax benefit is available from a lot of them.