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.
Uh, no. I don't see any benefit from an educated labor force; if anything, that's harmful to me, because I'm educated, and it de-vaulues my education. I also don't see the benefit of having the police respond every time a squirrel sets off the security system in section B-14 of my estate. Nor do I really care about fire protection, since the most I'm going to lose is about $4,000 worth of stuff; not a big deal, almost certainly not worth what I pay for it. I don't really benefit from the security provided by a stock exchange, or the legal protections that help my employers retain their personal assets.
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.
Nope.
First million is free.
Incenjucar on
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?
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.
They have a greater share of assets in need of protection, and more resources are used solely for that protection.
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.
$3.5 million dollars, actually. And if my dad was married, it'd be $7 million, which is realistically the number we're talking about, here. And I'm not really talking about "if," I'm talking about "is." And the reality is that practically no family businesses get hit with the estate tax. And even if it is an $8 million business, you're only paying the taxes on the last $1 million. Which is $550,000, or right around 7%. Which seems extraordinarily reasonable.
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.
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.
Show me. Prove it.
It doesn't matter. It costs more to insure $500k worth of assets than it does to insure $50k worth of assets. I don't see why the source of the insurance being the government rather than the private sector should make a difference.
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.
Nope.
First million is free.
Correct.
Change my example to a 2 million estate. And you would have to come up with the amounts i gave. Other wise assets would need to be sold to cover the tax.
fodderboy on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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.
No you actually fork over $0 on a million dollar estate.
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.
But, as this entirely silly thread is heavily populated by an amazing sense of entitlement and bitching at the evil rich, I am not surprised by your stupid answer.
When was their money taxed before hand?
Are you referring to income tax? Because the estate tax only applies to assets worth more than $3.5 million per person. Do you think that people with $3.5 million in assets made that money flipping burgers or digging ditches?
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.
Nope.
First million is free.
Correct.
Change my example to a 2 million estate. And you would have to come up with the amounts i gave. Other wise assets would need to be sold to cover the tax.
Again, you're entirely wrong.
Thanatos on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
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.
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?
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.
My question is then: if the tax can be avoided that easily, what is the purpose of it?
Oh, and can you site any examples of a corporation that is fully family owned and independent that can avoid the death tax?
It can't be easily avoided because every form of incorporation has pros and cons. S Corporations are great for a lot of things but family businesses where you wish to transfer the business is not one of them. And there is not a corporate entity that can fully avoid the estate tax, nor should there be.
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.
Uh, no. I don't see any benefit from an educated labor force; if anything, that's harmful to me, because I'm educated, and it de-vaulues my education. I also don't see the benefit of having the police respond every time a squirrel sets off the security system in section B-14 of my estate. Nor do I really care about fire protection, since the most I'm going to lose is about $4,000 worth of stuff; not a big deal, almost certainly not worth what I pay for it. I don't really benefit from the security provided by a stock exchange, or the legal protections that help my employers retain their personal assets.
- You are educated because there is a system in place that was able to educate you. And you now can compete.
- In case you were not aware, people have to pay extra fees for that response through private service (alarm companies, contracts, etc.). And your general example with that is nonsense and you know it.
- You not caring about fire protection because of how you value your personal worth is not a reasonable argument either. Plenty of struggling people would care if they lost their $4000 worth of belongings.
- Again plenty of average citizens get teh same protections on their stock exchanges as the rich guys do. Just because you don't purchase stock does not invalidate those mechanisms.
- The same legal protections that help your employers retain their personal assets are the same rights that you can exercise as well.
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.
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?
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.
My question is then: if the tax can be avoided that easily, what is the purpose of it?
Oh, and can you site any examples of a corporation that is fully family owned and independent that can avoid the death tax?
It is "easily" avoided if the estate meets some specific criteria.
Once again, can you site an example and answer the question: If it is easily avoidable (death tax) what is the purpose of it?
Because it is not the "small businesses whose owners die" tax. It is easier for estates meeting that specific condition (among others) to avoid the estate tax because they are not the people whose wealth the state is trying to target. That does not mean the estate tax is always easily avoidable.
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.
Uh, no. I don't see any benefit from an educated labor force; if anything, that's harmful to me, because I'm educated, and it de-vaulues my education. I also don't see the benefit of having the police respond every time a squirrel sets off the security system in section B-14 of my estate. Nor do I really care about fire protection, since the most I'm going to lose is about $4,000 worth of stuff; not a big deal, almost certainly not worth what I pay for it. I don't really benefit from the security provided by a stock exchange, or the legal protections that help my employers retain their personal assets.
- You are educated because there is a system in place that was able to educate you. And you now can compete.
- In case you were not aware, people have to pay extra fees for that response through private service (alarm companies). And your general example with that is nonsense and you know it.
- You not caring about fire protection because of how you value your personal worth is not a reasonable argument either. Plenty of struggling people would care if they lost their $4000 worth of belongings.
- Again plenty of average citizens get teh same protections on their stock exchanges as the rich guys do. Just because you don't purchase stock does not invalidate those mechanisms.
- The same legal protections that help your employers retain their personal assets are the same rights that you can exercise as well.
Yes, in theory, I could benefit as much as a rich person from any of those things. In reality, though, I'm not. I don't get charged extra on my insurance because in theory, my 1990 Honda Civic could be a 2009 Mercedes.
Thanatos on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
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.
Show me. Prove it.
Court Systems, Enforcable Arbitration Clauses, SEC, IRS, EPA, FDIC etc etc. Somoene with no assets doesn't benefit from the SEC directly, doesn't benefit from Courts or Arbitration, the IRS, etc etc. Not to mention that someone who doens't own land property can't use the power of the courts to protect the value of their land property from externalities.
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
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.
Nope.
First million is free.
Correct.
Change my example to a 2 million estate. And you would have to come up with the amounts i gave. Other wise assets would need to be sold to cover the tax.
But despite the populist rhetoric and oft-repeated horror stories about families being forced to sell their farms in order to pay estate taxes, the battle is over a very large amount of money held by a very small number of families. A report last month by the Congressional Budget Office found that in 2000 only 2 percent of all estates - about 52,000 - were subject to any estate tax. At that point, taxes were imposed only on estates worth $675,000 or more. The limit rose to $1.5 million in 2004, and if that limit had been in effect in 2000, only 13,771 estates - fewer than 1 percent - would have been subject to the tax. All but 740 of them would have had enough in liquid assets to cover estate tax liabilities, the office estimated.
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.
Show me. Prove it.
It doesn't matter. It costs more to insure $500k worth of assets than it does to insure $50k worth of assets. I don't see why the source of the insurance being the government rather than the private sector should make a difference.
Because it is the private sector (for profit companies), not the government that insures these assets. Want the insurance? Pay for it. As for the government, the FDIC, for example, does not care if you have $5M or $500K in the bank. They insure up to $250K (until 2014). Period. Bank goes under? Everyone is treated the same.
Futurist on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
You're thinking strictly in terms of direct expenditure on bodily protection rather than legal protection of 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.
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.
$3.5 million dollars, actually. And if my dad was married, it'd be $7 million, which is realistically the number we're talking about, here. And I'm not really talking about "if," I'm talking about "is." And the reality is that practically no family businesses get hit with the estate tax. And even if it is an $8 million business, you're only paying the taxes on the last $1 million. Which is $550,000, or right around 7%. Which seems extraordinarily reasonable.
It is only 7 million if the for both people, if one is surviving, it is only 3.5. Which is usually the case since both parents don't normally die simultaneously.
Yet i sited an example of a business that would be affected by it.
Oh and it reverts back to 1 million by 2011 with a 55% rate.
fodderboy on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
It should be pointed out that pre 1968, poverty was a much greater problem and resulted in a much lower quality of life.
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.
Nope.
First million is free.
Correct.
Change my example to a 2 million estate. And you would have to come up with the amounts i gave. Other wise assets would need to be sold to cover the tax.
But despite the populist rhetoric and oft-repeated horror stories about families being forced to sell their farms in order to pay estate taxes, the battle is over a very large amount of money held by a very small number of families. A report last month by the Congressional Budget Office found that in 2000 only 2 percent of all estates - about 52,000 - were subject to any estate tax. At that point, taxes were imposed only on estates worth $675,000 or more. The limit rose to $1.5 million in 2004, and if that limit had been in effect in 2000, only 13,771 estates - fewer than 1 percent - would have been subject to the tax. All but 740 of them would have had enough in liquid assets to cover estate tax liabilities, the office estimated.
Look at what the tax code will be in 2011.
What is the purpose of having the tax so high compared to income and capital gains tax?
What is the purpose of having the tax so high compared to income and capital gains tax?
A guess pulled out of my ass is that a dead person needs no income, and has limited funeral expenses, and no longer needs to pay for their retirement or medical costs.
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.
Show me. Prove it.
Court Systems, Enforcable Arbitration Clauses, SEC, IRS, EPA, FDIC etc etc. Somoene with no assets doesn't benefit from the SEC directly, doesn't benefit from Courts or Arbitration, the IRS, etc etc. Not to mention that someone who doens't own land property can't use the power of the courts to protect the value of their land property from externalities.
And you are assuming that a 50K estate could not utilize these same agencies? And since when was the IRS favorable towards any class of person? Sorry, your argument isn't one.
The minimum amount will be higher in 2011. Inflation isn't that insane. Less than 50,000 estates will probably be affected. So all of five small farmers or business owners that are retarded for not incorporating will be affected.
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
Way to completely ignore the fact that without all of those things the poor use, the rich would have no way of making any of that money.
Take the CEO of ups. I'm sure that he, as a person, doesn't consume that much more of "normal" services than a much poorer person. However he makes his money off the fact that he has good quaility, safe roads to transport across, health, educated people to drive his trucks and a government that protect his entire operation from being attacked
in what way is he not using a hugely disproportionate amount of resources compared to a poor person
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.
Show me. Prove it.
It doesn't matter. It costs more to insure $500k worth of assets than it does to insure $50k worth of assets. I don't see why the source of the insurance being the government rather than the private sector should make a difference.
The cost of private insurance is irrelevant. If your house burns down, government isn't going to compensate you for the loss. At most, the fire department will save you from burning to death, but it doesn't cost ten times as much to save someone in a $1 million house as in a $100K house. Furthermore, the poor person who loses their house is going to need a lot more in the way of government assistance after the fact than the rich person, who probably has insurance to begin with and has money in the bank to pay for a hotel or whatever.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
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.
Show me. Prove it.
Court Systems, Enforcable Arbitration Clauses, SEC, IRS, EPA, FDIC etc etc. Somoene with no assets doesn't benefit from the SEC directly, doesn't benefit from Courts or Arbitration, the IRS, etc etc. Not to mention that someone who doens't own land property can't use the power of the courts to protect the value of their land property from externalities.
And you are assuming that a 50K estate could not utilize these same agencies? And since when was the IRS favorable towards any class of person? Sorry, your argument isn't one.
Are different forms of business protected by the IRS for the purposes of taxes the businesses pay? Corporations are specifically treated like persons, and as a class of persons they get some mighty nice benefits. Someone with a 50k estate likely doesn't A. have a business entity that can receive tax benefits from the IRS B. doesn't have the in the form of something liquid or the financial means to pursue legal protection of the value.
mrt144 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
Way to completely ignore the fact that without all of those things the poor use, the rich would have no way of making any of that money.
Take the CEO of ups. I'm sure that he, as a person, doesn't consume that much more of "normal" services than a much poorer person. However he makes his money off the fact that he has good quaility, safe roads to transport across, health, educated people to drive his trucks and a government that protect his entire operation from being attacked
in what way is he not using a hugely disproportionate amount of resources compared to a poor person
Not to mention that in cases of labor negotiation, he could potentially get the government to aid him in breaking a strike.
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
You're thinking strictly in terms of direct expenditure on bodily protection rather than legal protection of assets.
Legal protection of assets, is not paid for by the government. You do know that the SEC is mainly used for prosecution, not protection, right? Owners have to pay for legal recourse (accountants, lawyers, etc.). last time I checked, the government was not sending me a check for $4000 to cover the expense of drafting a will for my family.
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.
Show me. Prove it.
It doesn't matter. It costs more to insure $500k worth of assets than it does to insure $50k worth of assets. I don't see why the source of the insurance being the government rather than the private sector should make a difference.
The cost of private insurance is irrelevant. If your house burns down, government isn't going to compensate you for the loss. At most, the fire department will save you from burning to death, but it doesn't cost ten times as much to save someone in a $1 million house as in a $100K house. Furthermore, the poor person who loses their house is going to need a lot more in the way of government assistance after the fact than the rich person, who probably has insurance to begin with and has money in the bank to pay for a hotel or whatever.
Are we seriously going back to this?
The government has created an environment in which these people can make and maintain large sums of wealth, along with tremendous standards of living. The government charges a price for this; said price is referred to as "taxes." The people who benefit most from the existance and continuance of the government should have to pay the most for it. I don't see why this is difficult to understand, or at all unreasonable.
If they don't want to pay taxes, then they don't have to: they just have to sell their property, and stop making money. It's that simple. Cash out, and they're done.
Thanatos on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
You're thinking strictly in terms of direct expenditure on bodily protection rather than legal protection of assets.
Legal protection of assets, is not paid for by the government. You do know that the SEC is mainly used for prosecution, not protection, right? Owners have to pay for legal recourse (accountants, lawyers, etc.). last time I checked, the government was not sending me a check for $4000 to cover the expense of drafting a will for my family.
Who pays the judges that mediate arbitration when a will is in dispute?
And the SEC does provide protection in the form of prosecution. Investors are protected from fraud, etc when fraud is discouraged through discovery and prosecution.
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
You're thinking strictly in terms of direct expenditure on bodily protection rather than legal protection of assets.
Legal protection of assets, is not paid for by the government. You do know that the SEC is mainly used for prosecution, not protection, right? Owners have to pay for legal recourse (accountants, lawyers, etc.). last time I checked, the government was not sending me a check for $4000 to cover the expense of drafting a will for my family.
Last I checked, the shareholders in failed companies weren't losing their homes in order to cover the debts of said companies.
Does it cost the government more to protect the assets of a rich person than a poor person? If anything, the rich person tends to cost the government less because he lives in a lower crime neighborhood, tends to be healthier and pays for his own health care and the like.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
You're thinking strictly in terms of direct expenditure on bodily protection rather than legal protection of assets.
Legal protection of assets, is not paid for by the government. You do know that the SEC is mainly used for prosecution, not protection, right? Owners have to pay for legal recourse (accountants, lawyers, etc.). last time I checked, the government was not sending me a check for $4000 to cover the expense of drafting a will for my family.
Last I checked, the shareholders in failed companies weren't losing their homes in order to cover the debts of said companies.
And of course this will fly over the head of some people because they won't admit that legal protection of a business entity that limits liability to partners or employees is solely the creation of government.
Posts
My question is then: if the tax can be avoided that easily, what is the purpose of it?
Oh, and can you site any examples of a corporation that is fully family owned and independent that can avoid the death tax?
Nope.
First million is free.
They have a greater share of assets in need of protection, and more resources are used solely for that protection.
Show me. Prove it.
It is "easily" avoided if the estate meets some specific criteria.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It's on everything afterthe first million
Correct.
Change my example to a 2 million estate. And you would have to come up with the amounts i gave. Other wise assets would need to be sold to cover the tax.
No you actually fork over $0 on a million dollar estate.
When was their money taxed before hand?
Are you referring to income tax? Because the estate tax only applies to assets worth more than $3.5 million per person. Do you think that people with $3.5 million in assets made that money flipping burgers or digging ditches?
It can't be easily avoided because every form of incorporation has pros and cons. S Corporations are great for a lot of things but family businesses where you wish to transfer the business is not one of them. And there is not a corporate entity that can fully avoid the estate tax, nor should there be.
- You are educated because there is a system in place that was able to educate you. And you now can compete.
- In case you were not aware, people have to pay extra fees for that response through private service (alarm companies, contracts, etc.). And your general example with that is nonsense and you know it.
- You not caring about fire protection because of how you value your personal worth is not a reasonable argument either. Plenty of struggling people would care if they lost their $4000 worth of belongings.
- Again plenty of average citizens get teh same protections on their stock exchanges as the rich guys do. Just because you don't purchase stock does not invalidate those mechanisms.
- The same legal protections that help your employers retain their personal assets are the same rights that you can exercise as well.
Once again, can you site an example and answer the question: If it is easily avoidable (death tax) what is the purpose of it?
Because it is not the "small businesses whose owners die" tax. It is easier for estates meeting that specific condition (among others) to avoid the estate tax because they are not the people whose wealth the state is trying to target. That does not mean the estate tax is always easily avoidable.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Court Systems, Enforcable Arbitration Clauses, SEC, IRS, EPA, FDIC etc etc. Somoene with no assets doesn't benefit from the SEC directly, doesn't benefit from Courts or Arbitration, the IRS, etc etc. Not to mention that someone who doens't own land property can't use the power of the courts to protect the value of their land property from externalities.
Poorer people tend to be more expensive, per capita, than rich people- they consume more welfare, taxpayer paid health care, police resources and other services.
The argument that the rich get more from government because they don't have to worry about barbarians burning down their villas is nonsense. If that's all government did, it would cost a lot less than it does. The defense budget is about a fifth of the entire Federal budget, and police budgets make up even less of State budgets in the US. Much of government spending is transfer payments of one form or another to poorer people using tax dollars of the more well off. So, the wealthy are not getting a good return on their tax dollars when compared to the poor.
It should be pointed out that welfare payments and the like to the poor is a very recent phenomenon in the US. For much of US history, there was almost no safety net, yet you didn't have mobs of the disenfranchised looting and pillaging. So the idea that we need high taxes to prevent anarchy is fiction.
Rigorous Scholarship
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/business/yourmoney/14view.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Because it is the private sector (for profit companies), not the government that insures these assets. Want the insurance? Pay for it. As for the government, the FDIC, for example, does not care if you have $5M or $500K in the bank. They insure up to $250K (until 2014). Period. Bank goes under? Everyone is treated the same.
You're thinking strictly in terms of direct expenditure on bodily protection rather than legal protection of assets.
It is only 7 million if the for both people, if one is surviving, it is only 3.5. Which is usually the case since both parents don't normally die simultaneously.
Yet i sited an example of a business that would be affected by it.
Oh and it reverts back to 1 million by 2011 with a 55% rate.
It should be pointed out that pre 1968, poverty was a much greater problem and resulted in a much lower quality of life.
Look at what the tax code will be in 2011.
What is the purpose of having the tax so high compared to income and capital gains tax?
A guess pulled out of my ass is that a dead person needs no income, and has limited funeral expenses, and no longer needs to pay for their retirement or medical costs.
And you are assuming that a 50K estate could not utilize these same agencies? And since when was the IRS favorable towards any class of person? Sorry, your argument isn't one.
Way to completely ignore the fact that without all of those things the poor use, the rich would have no way of making any of that money.
Take the CEO of ups. I'm sure that he, as a person, doesn't consume that much more of "normal" services than a much poorer person. However he makes his money off the fact that he has good quaility, safe roads to transport across, health, educated people to drive his trucks and a government that protect his entire operation from being attacked
in what way is he not using a hugely disproportionate amount of resources compared to a poor person
Rigorous Scholarship
Are different forms of business protected by the IRS for the purposes of taxes the businesses pay? Corporations are specifically treated like persons, and as a class of persons they get some mighty nice benefits. Someone with a 50k estate likely doesn't A. have a business entity that can receive tax benefits from the IRS B. doesn't have the in the form of something liquid or the financial means to pursue legal protection of the value.
Not to mention that in cases of labor negotiation, he could potentially get the government to aid him in breaking a strike.
Legal protection of assets, is not paid for by the government. You do know that the SEC is mainly used for prosecution, not protection, right? Owners have to pay for legal recourse (accountants, lawyers, etc.). last time I checked, the government was not sending me a check for $4000 to cover the expense of drafting a will for my family.
The government has created an environment in which these people can make and maintain large sums of wealth, along with tremendous standards of living. The government charges a price for this; said price is referred to as "taxes." The people who benefit most from the existance and continuance of the government should have to pay the most for it. I don't see why this is difficult to understand, or at all unreasonable.
If they don't want to pay taxes, then they don't have to: they just have to sell their property, and stop making money. It's that simple. Cash out, and they're done.
Who pays the judges that mediate arbitration when a will is in dispute?
And the SEC does provide protection in the form of prosecution. Investors are protected from fraud, etc when fraud is discouraged through discovery and prosecution.
And of course this will fly over the head of some people because they won't admit that legal protection of a business entity that limits liability to partners or employees is solely the creation of government.