5532

The rule goes into effect Oct. 18th. “Possible plan” is a very generous interpretation.

5533

Sure, but there’s a difference between “The administration is doing X now” and “This may happen soon.”

You can read the actual revised rule here. Note that we inconsistently, and some would argue ineffectively, live up to the current rules which include tracking suspected individuals and their contacts (including family) for terrorist and criminal activity to include communications. The revised and current rules apply to the following categories of people:

o Are under investigation by DHS for possible national security threats or threats to the public safety,

o were investigated by DHS in the past,

○ are suspected of violating immigration-related criminal or immigration-related civil provisions of treaties, statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and Presidential Proclamations administered by DHS, or

○ are witnesses and informants having knowledge of such violations

One of my big beefs with this article and the accompanying tweet is that this portion of the rule gets no coverage. Which is pretty important. Reading the article and the tweet gives the impression that a) this is a completely new thing, and b) will be done to all immigrants. The only things new is extending the coverage currently in place to online activities.

Now, if you’re worried in general about Big Brother tracking everyone through the internet, then by all means be worried, but you should’ve been worried about that long ago.

5534

The third bullet point basically applies to every immigrant though, as far as the President and his cronies are concerned.

5535

Again, it’s not a new thing. The Obama administration interpreted it pretty broadly as well.

5536

I think you are misreading the rule. The rule applies to all naturalized citizens and all permanent residents. In addition, it applies to other people subject to the INA who meet the categories you described.

And collection of online information is indeed new. So I think the summary in the tweet is actually pretty accurate.

I don’t see how it gives that impression. Maybe if you didn’t know that information is already being collected from immigrants, you would be even more alarmed. But why should the author assume that you are ignorant of the status quo?

I mean, you are surely aware that the government maintains a file on all Americans who have a passport. But if social media handles are added to the file, I bet many people would be quite concerned.

5537

If so, then I stand corrected. Thanks!

I still don’t like the tweet. It’s inaccurate. There is a difference between “NOW” and a date in the future. There is a difference between something being a completely new OMG-we-never-tracked-this-before and expanding the scope of something that already took place. I know this is a bugbear of mine, but the way everything on twitter gets constantly pumped to 11 to attract eyeballs drives me nuts.

5538

The tax framework would:

  • roughly double the standard deduction to $24,000 for married families and $12,000 for individuals
  • collapse the seven individual income-tax brackets to three, with rates of 12, 25, and 35 percent
  • raises possibility of a higher tax rate for the wealthy, though this remains an open debate
  • allow more people to qualify for the child tax credit
  • creates a non-refundable credit of $500 for non-child dependents
  • preserves mortgage and charitable deductions, but promises to gut many others
  • proposes simplifying tax benefits for retirement, work, and higher education
  • eliminate the estate tax and alternative-minimum tax
  • cut corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent
  • allow high-income businesses that pay through individual income tax code to pay 25 percent rate
  • allow companies to expense investments in equipment and other capital for at least five years
  • create new limits on interest expenses
  • eliminate a domestic production deduction Republicans feel will no longer be necessary
  • preserve research-and-development tax benefits
  • the document does not mention eliminating carried interest tax benefits used by hedge fund managers
  • allows multinational companies to exempt all dividends from foreign subsidiaries
  • incentivizes companies to bring overseas assets back to the United States, though it doesn’t say what tax rate it will impose on this shift.
5539

I assume they’ll just print more money to pay for everything. No problem!

5540

I notice that list doesn’t specifically mention “state and local tax deduction.” Presumably that will fall under “promises to gut many others.”

5541

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Twitter here. All of the usual privacy advocates have raised the same concerns on traditional media.

If you don’t care then you don’t care, but lots of people understand exactly what is going on and don’t like it.

5542

I have yet to see any compelling argument for repealing the estate tax at this point. It’s just a handout to the ultra-rich.

5543

I’ve wondered at length about this one. There seems to be a fixation on the life of a dollar; a person makes an income and goes through whatever taxation is applicable, so when they pass it on you get the “But it’s already been taxed!” argument. I can appreciate that perspective, but mine is that it’s based on the person and not the dollar. We pay taxes to support the system through which we obtained our money. This (hopefully) keeps society prosperous for as many as possible, including the taxpayer. The more money that’s obtained, regardless of source, the more that individual can both afford to provide support for the system AND the more benefits that person can reap from it, so they pay more.

IANAAccountant nor particularly well-versed in economic theory beyond what I learned in college, but this has been the viewpoint I’ve formed over my many moons on this planet.

5544

Neither have I. All I really hear is a very hand-waivey statement of how it’s somehow not fair. Will no one think of the disenfranchised Paris Hiltons of the world?

5545

I’m an accountant! But anyone can see that eliminating it is just a ploy to keep money in the hands of the rich.

5546

I guess on some level, as long as that estate is taxed normally as income to the kid receiving it, that’s ok? Does that happen on top of the estate tax currently?

5547

Isn’t eliminating the estate tax just an attempt to take money away from the rich?

And how is letting someone (a family) keep their money a hand out?

5548

No, it’s separate. Inheritance isn’t subject to income tax, just estate tax.

5549

C’mon folks. It’s a death tax. You wouldn’t want a death tax, would you? That sounds horrible!

5550

Then any removal of an estate tax would really need to be paired with taxing that stuff as income… because otherwise it makes no sense.

If I give you a bunch of money, you still have to declare it as income (aside from some cases of a one-time gift). It’s not like you can say, “Hey, that guy already paid taxes on this money!”

5551

You are taxing the dead. They don’t need the money. The tax doesn’t kick in until after $5M/per kid and doesn’t affect money going to a spouse at all, in any amount. Not an accountant, so please correct me if I misunderstand.

This only affects massive estates,but it represents a LOT of money that will need to be replaced by poorer people.