HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Clinton Would Raise Tax...

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 06:54 AM

Clinton Would Raise Taxes On The Wealthy. Here's What You Need To Know

Source: npr



Clinton Would Raise Taxes On The Wealthy. Here's What You Need To Know

Updated January 13, 20166:42 PM ET Published January 13, 20165:09 PM ET

Danielle Kurtzleben




Hillary Clinton wants you to know she has a new tax proposal. She also wants you to know that Bernie Sanders does not.

Late Tuesday, Clinton released a plan aimed squarely at a specific subset of Americans: that is, the very rich. She also went on the attack against Sanders, who has yet to release his tax plan (and who has also spent his political career taking aim at the richest Americans).

The Sanders camp says its plan is coming before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, at which point there will be comparisons aplenty between the ideas of the self-styled Democratic Socialist senator and the former secretary of state with a reputation for methodical pragmatism. (Which plan is more populist? Who raises more revenue?)

Until then, here's what you need to know about Clinton's new plan.

What's in the plan?

Clinton's plan has four major parts to it:

.............................

Read more: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/13/462944798/hillary-clinton-s-new-tax-proposal-likely-wont-affect-you



Yet another proposal that Bernie is lacking before the voting date of Feb 1. What is he waiting for?
Thank you Hillary for getting this tax plan out before folks in Iowa will be voting.








Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign stop at the Electric Park Ballroom on Jan. 11 in Waterloo, Iowa.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

55 replies, 4045 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clinton Would Raise Taxes On The Wealthy. Here's What You Need To Know (Original post)
riversedge Jan 2016 OP
truthisfreedom Jan 2016 #1
A Simple Game Jan 2016 #2
SmittynMo Jan 2016 #3
Katashi_itto Jan 2016 #4
Hortensis Jan 2016 #23
Katashi_itto Jan 2016 #27
Hortensis Jan 2016 #31
Katashi_itto Jan 2016 #32
Hortensis Jan 2016 #35
Katashi_itto Jan 2016 #40
Hortensis Jan 2016 #43
passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #46
cascadiance Jan 2016 #55
JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #5
7962 Jan 2016 #11
Hortensis Jan 2016 #29
JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #37
7962 Jan 2016 #49
JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #50
7962 Jan 2016 #51
JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #53
4dsc Jan 2016 #44
JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #45
passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #47
JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #48
customerserviceguy Jan 2016 #6
elias49 Jan 2016 #7
riversedge Jan 2016 #12
elias49 Jan 2016 #13
riversedge Jan 2016 #15
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #34
Hissyspit Jan 2016 #8
sulphurdunn Jan 2016 #9
7962 Jan 2016 #10
riversedge Jan 2016 #14
7962 Jan 2016 #20
Javaman Jan 2016 #22
Geronimoe Jan 2016 #16
Javaman Jan 2016 #17
riversedge Jan 2016 #25
Javaman Jan 2016 #28
riversedge Jan 2016 #30
Javaman Jan 2016 #38
riversedge Jan 2016 #26
Javaman Jan 2016 #39
djean111 Jan 2016 #18
questionseverything Jan 2016 #54
PSPS Jan 2016 #19
shawn703 Jan 2016 #21
Uponthegears Jan 2016 #24
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #33
Angel Martin Jan 2016 #36
noamnety Jan 2016 #41
BlueMTexpat Jan 2016 #42
jeff47 Jan 2016 #52

Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 07:07 AM

1. That's nice.

I don't like infighting. Yeah yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 07:23 AM

2. Last week Bernie was going to raise taxes on the middle class, this week he doesn't have a plan.

Can't be last weeks message was working.

Can't wait to see how the "Bernie's going to take away your health insurance" meme works. What's that? We already know. It looks like it backfired, what a shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 07:39 AM

3. The oligarch has spoken

I'm sure with her millions of extra cash, she paid her lawyers overtime with a bonus to expedite this plan, just to beat Bernie to the punchline. It must be nice to be able to throw money around like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:04 AM

4. NPR... lol...sure

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:32 AM

23. NPR is the most honest radio info source in America.

Studies evaluating listener knowledge by what they listen to consistently put NPR listeners at the top, far, far above the levels of listening to propaganda stations.

For TV, public television viewers are far better informed than other TV and cable viewer groups.

Of course, the vast majority of information never makes its way onto radio or TV, they're just too time-limited.

Katashi, where are you getting your information from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:46 AM

27. By listening to thier broadcasts. The perpetual Pro TTP newscasts thats comes from them

 

-among other things, is hysterical. They could be renamed National Propaganda Radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 11:59 AM

31. Interesting. I'm dialed to an old favorite

Santa Monica NPR station and haven't noticed, but I'll start listening for propaganda specifically.

You know, rapacious, immoral business influences would have been all over the TTP anyway if it had formed without us, and we would have been powerless to affect its many decisions affecting us -- instead of having a leadership position inside as we do.

And we have already had some victories. Don't forget the U.S. Chamber of Commerce bragging that the TTP would allow it to sue nations for loss of revenue from anti-smoking laws or that international pharmaceutical corporations lost big in their attempt to use it to extend patent rights outrageously. They didn't lose everything they wanted, but they did lose most. I'm sure there's much more. Obama is not one of the bad guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 12:03 PM

32. Yeah here in New Orleans, it's pretty heavy, Pro Oil stories (go figure), pro TPP. very blatant.

 

Yep, I think Obama isn't one of the bad guys per se however his expending massive amounts of political capital to push TPP through makes me wonder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 12:40 PM

35. I'll program New Orleans in (WNNO?). It'll be a nice change

in music anyway, I imagine.

As for Obama, We always overestimate what the most powerful person in the most powerful nation on earth can accomplish.

We're only one power center in the TPP, even though the largest. Our president's power is derived from thousands of smaller power centers that give or withhold power, supporting his policies or his opponents depending on their response to his actions.

Then the president brings to that reality to the job of dealing with/controlling thousands (actually millions) of competing power centers affected by TPP decisions, ranging all the way from nations down to farm cooperatives and local chieftains, and drug cartels legal and illegal. All pursuing their own interests.

On average all presidents only get part of what they are trying to achieve, at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 02:17 PM

40. Cool Beans! They do have some really nice programming here. Cooking (Go figure) cultural stuff.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 02:41 PM

43. Of course, NO = cooking. I don't switch

for cooking shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 03:08 PM

46. They've swung too far right over the years

They used to be leaning liberal. Now they lean conservative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 05:56 PM

55. Yep, they are now infested by Koch tumors much like the DLC was when it was created...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:05 AM

5. The 4 Points

1. 4 percent surtax - "Fair Share Surcharge". Tax all income (that is, not just wage and salary income) over $5 million. That's what makes it a surcharge and not just the creation of a new income-tax bracket.

2. People earning more than $1 million annually would have to pay at least a 30 percent tax rate.

3. Tighten the Loopholes surrounding placing millions of dollars into IRA to avoid taxes and placing money in offshore insurance companies (directly targets Hedge Fund Managers).

4. Reduce the estate tax threshold from $5.5 million dollars to $3.5 million putting it back to the level it was in 2009. Then raise the rate from the current 40 percent to 45.


Not bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:55 AM

11. Sure, it sounds good. But thats it. it wont raise that much money.

 

Its just a show. Article says only 34K returns last year would be affected by this 4% surcharge. 50 billion a yr? That means in reality it will be less than that, because they always find a way to lessen the blow. The rest of us WILL pay higher taxes. She's just not going to tell us that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 11:05 AM

29. Isn't that kinda like the NRA's argument against

background checks or limiting guns sales to crazies? They won't stop killings in America?

This is not just a show, any more than Bernie's plan will be a show because it's not the wave of a magic wand. Inequality be GONE! Poof!

This is a very good next step after what Obama has been able to achieve, and progressive taxation can be advanced further over time -- as long as Democrats are office.

Let's not get sidetracked into remembering that all large national problems also have to be attacked from various sides. Taxation's big, but!

Progressive raises in the minimum wage. Restoration of important, progressive labor laws.

Free, or near-free education that enables low-income people to train themselves for higher-paying jobs.

Social programs that provide transportation for the disabled/elderly so that their kids are able to move away from areas of low/no pay to areas where incomes are good.

Identification and elimination of sociolegal practices that either deliberately or cluelessly channel whole groups into poverty. (No, Newt, we should NOT train poor kids to scrub school toilets and floors in return for a lunch. They can earn income to purchase lunch and other choices while working in IT up in the office.)

Etc. Many, many approaches that all add up to prosperity.

7962, the wheel of change to the left began turning years ago and is picking up speed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 01:06 PM

37. Hey - let's just keep everything the same!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 03:41 PM

49. How bout "lets keep everything honest"?

 

Since I never said leave it as it is. I simply said more people are going to be taxed. She wont admit it, but it WILL happen. Or the debt will grow from the 20 trillion it will be when Pres Obama leaves office to probably 30 trillion before Hillary's first term ends.
She just tossed this "super rich surcharge" out there because it sounds good. And thats what matters in a campaign.
But it doesnt really accomplish much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 05:48 PM

50. Then join me in supporting

O'Malley. Piece of cake, upside down, with a cherry and whipped cream bikini on top!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 05:51 PM

51. I do like him. And bikinis..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 05:54 PM

53. Ha!



How coud anyone not like either one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 02:43 PM

44. Another weak policy by Hillary

 

so where are the big guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 02:48 PM

45. I don't know - I'm supporting O'Malley

This is between you guys and HRC supporters.

However - what she has given thus far -I agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 03:16 PM

47. Better than nothing, but too late in the game

Weak tea. And it's still just a proposal...do you think she will fight for this if elected? Income inequality has not been her thing until recently (other than equal pay for women).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 03:18 PM

48. I'm supporting O'Malley

I was just here to outline the bullet points - as I was interested.

Thus far - it's good. It could be much better if she adopted Martin's plans which have been laid out in white paper form since forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:15 AM

6. As long as the Rethugs control at least one house of Congress

this ain't gonna happen, whether it's Hillary or Bernie in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:18 AM

7. She's only had 25 years to put her plans together!

 

She's on top of things for sure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias49 (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:58 AM

12. And Bernie has not posted his health care plan with details on his web page after 40 years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 09:00 AM

13. Oy. Wouldn't it be great to have a 40-year-old plan!

 


Hey. Go with what you love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias49 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 09:04 AM

15. I see you did not get on the thread to the poster about

Hillary having 25 yrs (the one I responded to). "Hey. Go with what you love".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias49 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 12:31 PM

34. Wouldn't it be great to have a 40-year old website? That would be a cool trick too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:29 AM

8. Well, I would hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:45 AM

9. "self-styled Democratic Socialst"

 

'That's where I stopped reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:50 AM

10. Window dressing.

 

There arent enough of these rich people to make a dent in the cost of what ELSE she wants to do. That means raising taxes on most of the rest of us, which she WONT admit to.
"RAISE 500 BILLION over ten yrs"; meaning only 50 billion a year. So our debt still goes UP. Fail. be honest about what you want to do and how you actually HAVE to pay for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 09:01 AM

14. You need to read her proposals-She has the details for th "what ELSE" (your words) she

wants to do--.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:14 AM

20. I read the article in the OP. Wont raise very much.

 

There were only 32K people who filed returns with incomes over 5M. Only 350k had more than 1M. And they always use the "over 10 yrs" stat to make it sound like its a bigger number. 50 billion a yr estimated means it WILL be less than that because rich folks always find a way to lessen the hit.
No other proposals were mentioned. There just arent enough rich people to pay for the programs she proposes. She WILL have to raise taxes on most of the rest of us. She just wont admit it. At least Sanders is honest enough to admit that he would, whether we like it or not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 09:20 AM

16. So big corrporations

 

like GE, Google, Pfizer, Stanley, Microsoft, and thousands of others can continue to pay little to no tax.

The plan sure is corporate friendly. Highly likely the $50 billion will go to subsidize corporations that don't pay a living wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Javaman (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:37 AM

25. SANDERS: We haven't come up with an exact number yet,

Nope, no plan yet.. still waiting.

Wealthiest will pay more but not as much as under Eisenhower
Q: Let's get specific. How high would you go on tax rates? You have said before you would go above 50%.

SANDERS: We haven't come up with an exact number yet, but it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90%. I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower. But we are going to end the absurdity, as Warren Buffet often reminds us, that billionaires pay an effective tax rate lower than nurses or truck drivers. That makes no sense at all. There has to be real tax reform, and the wealthiest and large corporations will pay when I'm president.

Gov. O'MALLEY: May I point out that under Ronald Reagan's first term, the highest marginal rate was 70%. And in talking to a lot of our neighbors who are in that super wealthy, millionaire and billionaire category, a great numbers of them love their country enough to do more again in order to create more opportunity for America's middle class.
Source: 2015 CBS Democratic primary debate in Iowa , Nov 14, 2015

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:49 AM

28. you asked for a proposal.

that's exactly what that is.

you were saying?

don't move the goal post. It's very unattractive.

just more of Hillary playing "yeah, me too!" well after Bernie has clearly stated his position and policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 11:11 AM

30. No need to get snippy. You linked to a Q & A with various dates wersite. That is not

a coherent tax proposal.


Have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 01:54 PM

38. LOL so what do you consider a "coherent" proposal?

hillary's isn't anymore "coherent" than Bernies.

but like everything Hillary does, she usually parrots Bernie, then calls it hers because she knows that he doesn't get the coverage that she does. Well that was true until this week anyway. LOL

And I will get "snippy" all I want. When you choose not to be "snippy", so will I.

Yes, Thank you, I will have a good day because frankly, I'm having a great day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:39 AM

26. SANDERS: We haven't come up with an exact number yet,

Nope--not good enough. still waiting.


Q: Let's get specific. How high would you go on tax rates? You have said before you would go above 50%.

SANDERS: We haven't come up with an exact number yet, but it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90%. I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower. But we are going to end the absurdity, as Warren Buffet often reminds us, that billionaires pay an effective tax rate lower than nurses or truck drivers. That makes no sense at all. There has to be real tax reform, and the wealthiest and large corporations will pay when I'm president.

Gov. O'MALLEY: May I point out that under Ronald Reagan's first term, the highest marginal rate was 70%. And in talking to a lot of our neighbors who are in that super wealthy, millionaire and billionaire category, a great numbers of them love their country enough to do more again in order to create more opportunity for America's middle class.
Source: 2015 CBS Democratic primary debate in Iowa , Nov 14, 2015

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 01:57 PM

39. had to answer twice because once wasn't enough LOL

perhaps, rather than me doing your foot work, you could mosey. over to Bernies website for yourself, but alas, that would require, you know, research.

I love being this "snippy" that you accuse me of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 09:47 AM

18. At this point, and I have been at this point for quite a while, I do not believe her campaign

 

blather one little bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 05:55 PM

54. exactly

it makes no difference what she says

it changes with the wind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:14 AM

19. This belongs on GD-P. I wish DU had moderators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:21 AM

21. Too little, too late

She's making herself look ridiculous with all this flailing about. I think Bernie should stand aside, let her continue to self-destruct, and start focusing on the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 10:32 AM

24. Congratulations

 

Hillary . . . you won another battle on an empty battlefield.

"My plan is better than . . . oh, that's right, Bernie isn't releasing his until next week. Oh well, I guess that means I'm the winner until then. Yay me!"

Well Hillary, celebrate while you can.

Oh, one other thing for the Bernie haters . . . did you read the last paragraph in the story you posted? Yep, that's right, Hillary's plan has ZERO chance of getting through Congress. Now I know y'all will come back with "Well Bernie's plan won't get through either!" but here's something Democratic primary voters need to thinks about.

If NEITHER Bernie, nor Hillary can get their tax plans through Congress, THEN both of their plans are really just statements of the principles that will guide their decision-making if they are elected president. So tell us, Hillary supporters, what PRINCIPLE is reflected in Hillary's newcomer's plan that is superior in any way to the PRINCIPLES Bernie has been pushing all of his political career?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 12:27 PM

33. And people actually believe she'll try to execute on this plan?

 

I don't. That would require me trusting what she says. Based on her truth-telling record, it would be foolish of me to trust her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Original post)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 12:54 PM

36. I have a problem with the estate tax

"Right now, the tax applies to estates worth more than roughly $5.5 million. She would take that threshold down to $3.5 million,"

because of real estate craziness in cities like San Francisco, there are houses over 4 mil which are nice but not exactly mansions:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/643-Greenwich-St_San-Francisco_CA_94133_M17062-48772

if the parents die and a child wants to continue to live in the house, they have to come up with $375,000 cash just to pay the estate taxes.

If you inherit $4.25 million in Treasury bills, you can just write a cheque. But if you inherit a house or a family business, you may be forced to sell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 02:26 PM

41. I don't have a problem with it.

 

It's a way to reduce unearned privilege in our society, and evening things out after a legacy of generational racism & poverty. Maybe paying 10% of the cost of a 4 million dollar house that you get free because "yay, born to rich parents" isn't all that unreasonable.

Being "forced" to sell a 4 million dollar asset you didn't earn and netting 3.5 million from it is a uniquely first world problem that reeks of privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noamnety (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 02:33 PM

42. I'm with you on that. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angel Martin (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 14, 2016, 05:51 PM

52. Reaaaaaly not that hard to set up a trust for the house.

The trust dissolves on your death, giving the assets to the remaining trustees....the kids.

Guess what? Legally, they didn't inherit anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread