I'm not sure what point you think you're making there, friend.
wwtMask screaming how the rich are assholes and need to pay their fair share then pointing out that there are ways to avoid paying taxes on these inheritances.
Investing or contributing to your family is hardly stupid. What IS stupid is to force a law that seeks to take assets that have been previously taxed because the owner of said assets decides to transfer those assets to another party.
This is a description of most taxes.
What you are arguing against here is having any taxation at all, aside from a wealth tax and a property tax.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making there, friend.
wwtMask screaming how the rich are assholes and need to pay their fair share then pointing out that there are ways to avoid paying taxes on these inheritances.
You suck at reading comprehension then, because at no point did I ever say that people should not take advantage of tax incentives and relief that exist within the system. When I say "pay your fair share" I mean pay what you legally owe. I'm not advocating and I never will advocate tax dodging.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making there, friend.
wwtMask screaming how the rich are assholes and need to pay their fair share then pointing out that there are ways to avoid paying taxes on these inheritances.
You suck at reading comprehension then, because at no point did I ever say that people should not take advantage of tax incentives and relief that exist within the system. When I say "pay your fair share" I mean pay what you legally owe. I'm not advocating and I never will advocate tax dodging.
I don't believe anyone on this thread would advocate tax dodging. Government needs funds to function, no issues there.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
Middle-income people didn't write the exceptions.
Does not mean they can't use the same tax reduction opportunities.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
It's only "highly selective" if you read my posts and then substitute what you want to argue against for what I've actually said. My beef is with rich people bitching about how terrible their tax burden is, despite how much they get in return for said taxes. The fact that there are plenty of ways for them to reduce their tax burden, and that many rich people pay most of their taxes in capital gains rather than income tax further underscores the shittiness of their complaints.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
Which is why exceptions in the estate tax are targeted at those middle income folks; cash up to whatever amount is tax free, family homes, farms and other small business, etc. Which is fine.
On the other hand we have people in this thread who apparently think that the entire idea of the estate tax is wrong.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
It's only "highly selective" if you read my posts and then substitute what you want to argue against for what I've actually said. My beef is with rich people bitching about how terrible their tax burden is, despite how much they get in return for said taxes. The fact that there are plenty of ways for them to reduce their tax burden, and that many rich people pay most of their taxes in capital gains rather than income tax further underscores the shittiness of their complaints.
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
Which is why exceptions in the estate tax are targeted at those middle income folks; cash up to whatever amount is tax free, family homes, farms and other small business, etc. Which is fine.
On the other hand we have people in this thread who apparently think that the entire idea of the estate tax is wrong.
I don't think it's wrong, I think it is the degree of the taxation that some are advocating is the concern.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
It's only "highly selective" if you read my posts and then substitute what you want to argue against for what I've actually said. My beef is with rich people bitching about how terrible their tax burden is, despite how much they get in return for said taxes. The fact that there are plenty of ways for them to reduce their tax burden, and that many rich people pay most of their taxes in capital gains rather than income tax further underscores the shittiness of their complaints.
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
Middle-income people didn't write the exceptions.
Does not mean they can't use the same tax reduction opportunities.
If you wanted a legal/financial stake in the home, there's ways to set that up
So, maintain a legal/financial stake in all family assets, across the board, so I won't have a huge tax taken out when I inherit them. And completely unrealistic.
Your response to the windfall tax question was basically "but what if I had all this money invested in something but have no way to track it or get a return on it." That's a silly objection.
edit: or what wwtmask says
While is may be legally naive to not have a paper trail for every penny within family transactions, it is the most typical way that families behave. Next time you lend a family member $100, make sure that you have them sign for it in triplicate.
Every penny?
Having a record saying that you helped buy a house is not tracking "every penny". Especially if that house somehow puts you over 3.5 million dollars.
1. Death tax is on assets held, similar to property taxes but at an much higher rate. 1% vs 47%
2. the tax is going to revert to 55% in 2011, higher the capital gains and higher the the top tax braket.
The Seattle Times is a family business and this tax directly affects their ability to stay that way.
It's called incorporation. I dunno, maybe they should look into it.
That doesn't make a difference. The shares in a corporation are subject to the estate tax upon the death of whoever holds the shares. IIRC, the estate tax is not triggered if the estate is inherited by a spouse, but that's just a delay of the tax.
The problem with the estate tax vis a vis family businesses is that it can cause a "fire sale" of the business if the business doesn't have cash on hand to pay the tax upon the death of the family patriarch.
It is easier to avoid the estate tax if your assets are held in "passive" investments like stocks, bonds and other types of paper. It's a lot tougher to do so if the assets are part of a business. So, if the estate tax is meant to prevent the creation of a class of the idle rich, it's hitting the wrong targets.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
A police force, military, and fire department that protects their assets. Infrastructure that allows them to make all of their money. Education that gives them a labor force that requires minimal training. Relatively clean food, air, drugs, and water that are provided to them and their employees. Legal protections that allow them to keep making all that money with minimal risk to their personal assets.
That doesn't make a difference. The shares in a corporation are subject to the estate tax upon the death of whoever holds the shares. IIRC, the estate tax is not triggered if the estate is inherited by a spouse, but that's just a delay of the tax.
The problem with the estate tax vis a vis family businesses is that it can cause a "fire sale" of the business if the business doesn't have cash on hand to pay the tax upon the death of the family patriarch.
It is easier to avoid the estate tax if your assets are held in "passive" investments like stocks, bonds and other types of paper. It's a lot tougher to do so if the assets are part of a business. So, if the estate tax is meant to prevent the creation of a class of the idle rich, it's hitting the wrong targets.
It's hitting a wrong target. The impact of the estate tax on family businesses is so minimal as to be pretty much entirely insignificant.
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
A police force, military, and fire department that protects their assets. Infrastructure that allows them to make all of their money. Education that gives them a labor force that requires minimal training. Relatively clean food, air, drugs, and water that are provided to them and their employees. Legal protections that allow them to keep making all that money with minimal risk to their personal assets.
Oh, so the same benefits that every citizen gets. Gotcha. You could start an LLC for $100 and make money that is separate (legal protection) from your personal assets.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
It's only "highly selective" if you read my posts and then substitute what you want to argue against for what I've actually said. My beef is with rich people bitching about how terrible their tax burden is, despite how much they get in return for said taxes. The fact that there are plenty of ways for them to reduce their tax burden, and that many rich people pay most of their taxes in capital gains rather than income tax further underscores the shittiness of their complaints.
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
Legal protection of their assets.
What kind of answer is that? What are they getting beyond what any other citizen is getting in basic terms out of their government for putting more money in.
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
A police force, military, and fire department that protects their assets. Infrastructure that allows them to make all of their money. Education that gives them a labor force that requires minimal training. Relatively clean food, air, drugs, and water that are provided to them and their employees. Legal protections that allow them to keep making all that money with minimal risk to their personal assets.
Oh, so the same benefits that every citizen gets. Gotcha.
The government has to put a fuck ton more effort in to protecting a 500k estate than a 50k estate.
Of course, it's kind of irrelevant to this thread since neither of those estates wouldn't be taxed by the estate tax.
That doesn't make a difference. The shares in a corporation are subject to the estate tax upon the death of whoever holds the shares. IIRC, the estate tax is not triggered if the estate is inherited by a spouse, but that's just a delay of the tax.
The problem with the estate tax vis a vis family businesses is that it can cause a "fire sale" of the business if the business doesn't have cash on hand to pay the tax upon the death of the family patriarch.
It is easier to avoid the estate tax if your assets are held in "passive" investments like stocks, bonds and other types of paper. It's a lot tougher to do so if the assets are part of a business. So, if the estate tax is meant to prevent the creation of a class of the idle rich, it's hitting the wrong targets.
It's hitting a wrong target. The impact of the estate tax on family businesses is so minimal as to be pretty much entirely insignificant.
What?
Your dad owns a family business that has assets over a million dollars. Assets are not money, it can be land, trucks, planes, buildings, tools, IFQs, permits, etc.
He dies. If you want to keep the business you need to fork over 430,000 dollars, soon to be 550,000 dollars.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
It's only "highly selective" if you read my posts and then substitute what you want to argue against for what I've actually said. My beef is with rich people bitching about how terrible their tax burden is, despite how much they get in return for said taxes. The fact that there are plenty of ways for them to reduce their tax burden, and that many rich people pay most of their taxes in capital gains rather than income tax further underscores the shittiness of their complaints.
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
Legal protection of their assets.
What kind of answer is that? What are they getting beyond what any other citizen is getting in basic terms out of their government for putting more money in.
Protection of a lot more assets.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
A police force, military, and fire department that protects their assets. Infrastructure that allows them to make all of their money. Education that gives them a labor force that requires minimal training. Relatively clean food, air, drugs, and water that are provided to them and their employees. Legal protections that allow them to keep making all that money with minimal risk to their personal assets.
Oh, so the same benefits that every citizen gets. Gotcha.
Patent and copyright laws seldom benefit the indigent.
Also, depending on how you went about making said wealth, you could be getting huge subsidies from the government, or have access to government contracts, neither of which the average citizen receives.
Edit: And to chime in on another topic, anyone who refers to the estate tax as "the death tax" should be considered to be, at best, spectacularly fucking biased when it comes to discussing said tax.
Oh, so the same benefits that every citizen gets. Gotcha.
And every citizen is subject to the to same rules.
Exactly.
These people don't have to be getting taxed so much. It's easily avoided. Hell, give the money to me. I'll deal with the horrible oppression of being taxed 55% on everything over 3.5 million dollars.
Posts
wwtMask screaming how the rich are assholes and need to pay their fair share then pointing out that there are ways to avoid paying taxes on these inheritances.
What you are arguing against here is having any taxation at all, aside from a wealth tax and a property tax.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You mean a way for everyone to decrease their tax burden? Not that I'm against ending some of those mechanisms, but they're legal now and I can't begrudge people taking advantage of the opportunities. I suppose you'll call me a hypocrite for saying that rich people can reduce their tax burden by contributing to charity. There are many ways that people can reduce their tax burden, and rich people certainly take advantage of them. Your failure to do so, which constitutes poor financial decision-making, is an argument for getting yourself a financial adviser, not against the estate tax.
You suck at reading comprehension then, because at no point did I ever say that people should not take advantage of tax incentives and relief that exist within the system. When I say "pay your fair share" I mean pay what you legally owe. I'm not advocating and I never will advocate tax dodging.
For the purposes of the strawmen used, it's almost always an amount that would require at least a one off use of a tax advisor.
Plenty of middle income do as well. While I would not call you a hypocrite, per se, but the level of disgust you have with regard to people taking advantage of those opportunities seems to be highly selective.
The editorial makes some good points:
1. Death tax is on assets held, similar to property taxes but at an much higher rate. 1% vs 47%
2. the tax is going to revert to 55% in 2011, higher the capital gains and higher the the top tax braket.
The Seattle Times is a family business and this tax directly affects their ability to stay that way.
I don't believe anyone on this thread would advocate tax dodging. Government needs funds to function, no issues there.
Does not mean they can't use the same tax reduction opportunities.
It's only "highly selective" if you read my posts and then substitute what you want to argue against for what I've actually said. My beef is with rich people bitching about how terrible their tax burden is, despite how much they get in return for said taxes. The fact that there are plenty of ways for them to reduce their tax burden, and that many rich people pay most of their taxes in capital gains rather than income tax further underscores the shittiness of their complaints.
Which is why exceptions in the estate tax are targeted at those middle income folks; cash up to whatever amount is tax free, family homes, farms and other small business, etc. Which is fine.
On the other hand we have people in this thread who apparently think that the entire idea of the estate tax is wrong.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
How are they incorporated?
It's called incorporation. I dunno, maybe they should look into it.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Some forms are better than others.
I wonder, how many in this thread actually make a significant amount of money? $70K-$100K, $100K- $175K, $200K+?
As for the statement of what they get in return for said taxes, I really want to understand what you feel they are getting for the return in said taxes. Are you referring to their lifestyle? Disposable income? Not having to work as hard? etc. Please, what great advantage are they getting in return for said taxes?
I don't think it's wrong, I think it is the degree of the taxation that some are advocating is the concern.
The first million dollars is free of taxes.
Legal protection of their assets.
Every penny?
Having a record saying that you helped buy a house is not tracking "every penny". Especially if that house somehow puts you over 3.5 million dollars.
Incorporation does not solve the problem, since it is still owned by a family.
Care to address the other points, like why is the tax so disproportionally high compared to other taxes?
Which is why the Seattle Times is an unbelievably biased source of information on the estate tax.
The problem with the estate tax vis a vis family businesses is that it can cause a "fire sale" of the business if the business doesn't have cash on hand to pay the tax upon the death of the family patriarch.
It is easier to avoid the estate tax if your assets are held in "passive" investments like stocks, bonds and other types of paper. It's a lot tougher to do so if the assets are part of a business. So, if the estate tax is meant to prevent the creation of a class of the idle rich, it's hitting the wrong targets.
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh, so the same benefits that every citizen gets. Gotcha. You could start an LLC for $100 and make money that is separate (legal protection) from your personal assets.
Does that instantly invalidates their points?
There are forms of incorporation that still retain family ownership while minimizing the estate tax. Tough choices have to be made but that's life.
What kind of answer is that? What are they getting beyond what any other citizen is getting in basic terms out of their government for putting more money in.
The government has to put a fuck ton more effort in to protecting a 500k estate than a 50k estate.
Of course, it's kind of irrelevant to this thread since neither of those estates wouldn't be taxed by the estate tax.
And every citizen is subject to the to same rules.
What?
Your dad owns a family business that has assets over a million dollars. Assets are not money, it can be land, trucks, planes, buildings, tools, IFQs, permits, etc.
He dies. If you want to keep the business you need to fork over 430,000 dollars, soon to be 550,000 dollars.
Protection of a lot more assets.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Patent and copyright laws seldom benefit the indigent.
Also, depending on how you went about making said wealth, you could be getting huge subsidies from the government, or have access to government contracts, neither of which the average citizen receives.
Edit: And to chime in on another topic, anyone who refers to the estate tax as "the death tax" should be considered to be, at best, spectacularly fucking biased when it comes to discussing said tax.
Exactly.
These people don't have to be getting taxed so much. It's easily avoided. Hell, give the money to me. I'll deal with the horrible oppression of being taxed 55% on everything over 3.5 million dollars.