Welcome to PatsFans.com

Rich Cling to Life to Beat Tax Man

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Dec 31, 2009.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,789
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +417 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    I thought this was an interesting article in the WSJ. Wealthy people are being kept alive so they can avoid the estate tax which expires for one year on Jan. 1, 2010.

    To Avoid Estate Taxes, Rich Cling to Life - WSJ.com

    "Nothing's certain except death and taxes -- but a temporary lapse in the estate tax is causing a few wealthy Americans to try to bend those rules.

    Starting Jan. 1, the estate tax -- which can erase nearly half of a wealthy person's estate -- goes away for a year. For families facing end-of-life decisions in the immediate future, the change is making one of life's most trying episodes only more complex."
     
  2. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    I think it is funny that our government takes almost half of a persons money upon death. I mean I know their spoiled children are going to squander it on drugs and ill fated schemes. But, half for the government in todays day and age. That is forced forced charity.....
     
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,984
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +430 / 12 / -26

    You do understand it is only in excess of the first 3.5 millions of dollars, how many people does this really effect??? For a married couple it is 7 millions are excluded... this is not a commoner thing.
     
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    :) Welcome to the funhouse that is American tax policy debate.

    Vote this down a straight self-interest line, and of COURSE individuals making >3.5M in a lifetime are vastly outnumbered by those from whom they've extracted that sum. The article says 5500 people out of 300,000,000 per year WERE affected by this tax... before, of course, like all other taxes, it was "disappeared" by the previous regime.

    And the current regime is too stupid to fix it in time, evidently.

    And what will happen when it's time to reinstate it? We'll hear all about this horrible ghoulish "DEATH TAX" but we won't hear that it's a very common measure across societies and that we have had it for a very long time. We will hear that the evil DEMOCRATS are reinstating this horrible unfair tax on the very rich.

    It will be very important that we all weep and gnash our teeth that, after amassing $3.5M, dollar number $3,500,001 may be taxed more heavily than they would like (which of course, would be 0 dollars up to a cetain limit, and then 0 percent thereafter, as at present).

    Fight the good fight for your corporate masters! FIGHT for Bernie Madoff's family! LMAO!!! GET IN THE STREETS and FIGHT for the investment banker's rights, the auto executive's rights, the corporate vp's rights, the rights of the rich, the only rights that matter!

    Only a matter of time before they manufacture another perversion of Reinhold Neihbur's poem...

    "First, they came for the super-rich megafrauds, but I was not a super-rich megafraud, so I said nothing..."

    :rolleyes:

    Eh well. Might I recommend that those of the rich who are currently clinging to life to beat the tax man, simply think ahead and off themselves when they're only worth 3.4 M in the future, if this tax is reinstated? That would certainly make their point just as well. Perhaps that's why they were all working so feverishly to destroy the world economy on wall street up to Fall 08... they just didn't want to have the dollars subject to taxation so they were tanking their own portfolios (and taking ours with them... collateral damage.)

    Enlighten yourselves, gentlemen. You have no stake in how the rich dispose of their riches.

    You may except yourself from this description if your net worth is > $3.5M.

    Thank you for your time,

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
  5. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I'm reminded of the people who complain about taxes after hitting huge amounts in the lottery. 3.5 million free and clear, plus a million other loopholes, plus 55% of what someone else altogether earned? and there's complaints?

    At least the righties aren't gnashing their teeth over family farms being gobbled up. That was as much a red herring as the stupid woman with the large rat for a pet thinking it was a Chiwawa.
     
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,789
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +417 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Just to play devils advocate....why should the gov't get ANYTHING when someone dies? They already paid taxes on this money, so why pay it AGAIN?

    No matter how much $$ one amasses, does any gov't have the right to take more than half? Why?

    Quick sidetrack: With all the troubles we're having with pension funds and social security, I think it would be a GREAT idea if we repeal all taxes on 401K withdrawls with a possible stipulation when one amasses anything over a certain amount.
     
  7. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,204
    Likes Received:
    525
    Ratings:
    +1,398 / 10 / -11

    #75 Jersey

    Perhaps, we should work on eliminating the corporate entertainment/dining tax deduction first.

    The world of corporate tents and luxury boxes at sporting events filled with shrimp, champagne and lovely ice sculptures would be a very sad thing to lose, indeed.

    If a company has a good product, it doesn't need to bribe it's way to sales.

    Reason #49 why our children will need to learn Mandarin and Hindi to survive economically in the coming decades.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,984
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +430 / 12 / -26

    That to whom much is given, much is expected....

    This is a lame tax argument...it only occurs after 7 million for a married couple... the gov't does not take more than half..

    This is not a big deal for most folks..

    TaxVox: the Tax Policy Center blog :: Estate Tax Update

     
  9. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,204
    Likes Received:
    525
    Ratings:
    +1,398 / 10 / -11

    #75 Jersey


    Otherwise known as the "Paris Hilton Tax Break".
     
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,984
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +430 / 12 / -26

    "Paris Hilton et al tax break"... it will continue, cannot envision some of the numbers that are being played with... and those few people have that much K St. influence... common sense would say.
     
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Who they've "extracted" that sum from? :rolleyes:
     
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    Per the actual figures below your quoted post, and above this reply, the government never takes half of an estate. There are a range of proposed exempted amounts, after which the government takes half.

    So if you're worth $5M and one dollar, under one proposal you pay fifty cents in tax. Under another proposal it's fifty cents if you're worth $1M and one dollar, and under another one it's $3.5M and one dollar. Wait, on one of those proposals it's 35 cents. I forget which. You get the idea. It's another marginal rate.

    Now of course, that would be close to 50% (or 35%,) if you're trying to leave $100M when you die.

    Okay, those facts now presented and I hope digested -the answer to your question is another question:

    Why should we have social security? Medicare? The military? That's 3/4 of our spending, with everything else being a 25% slice of the pie. Take out soc. security and medicare, of course, and you're spending about half of every dollar on military spending. That's something we've accepted as Americans, that nobody else in the world considers sane. But that's another discussion, innit? I mean, especially since we're in 2 wars, going on 3...

    Okay, let's see... no limits or taxes on 401K withdrawls... so therefore a big hit to the tax base, that's a given. What else? It may in fact stimulate the economy, as retirees take out chunks of cash to "live a little" tax-free. You may make up some of the difference in the tax receipts on wages on new jobs... assuming enough of those jobs are American jobs. That would have to be a lot of American-made goods and services consumed, however. To the extent that money is spent on imports, the labor component would never be taxed, and the sales tax is at the local and state level. Well, it certainly would do some good for our embattled states, which are tanking as well.

    On the flip side, the tax on 401K withdrawls, besides being a fair assessment of that withdrawl as income, also discourages you from spending down your retirement so quickly you become a burden on the state. That's going to be increasingly the case, not decreasingly the case, as the largest batch of retirees ever to come along hits the national books. So you'd have to balance whatever quick-fix economic pick-me-up you get against the eventual "invisible" deficit you're creating.

    Just playing devil's advocate regarding your proposal. Since you're concerned w/tax policy, obviously you've got to also be pondering all the uses to which we put taxes, and if you spend 10 seconds doing that, you've got to understand that "da gubmit" isn't a for-profit venture. That is to say, after the relatively minor amounts used to buy ball point pens and keep the lights on (yes, in addition to computers/other IT, mailings, publications, missiles, forms, blah blah blah,) you pay most money to the gubmit so the gubmit can give it back to you in one form or another. Whether it's the social security check you are counting on in retirement, or the government health insurance given to just about every senior citizen, or for that matter the safety from foreign enemies the Pentagon advertises, tax money does NOT go into some black hole. It's not a matter of "why the government should get the money," it's a matter of "why should we plan as a nation for national contingencies, using tax money?"

    The answer, as phrased by one American source, is "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

    Yeah you're supposed to consider your kids and grandchildren too... EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY!

    So that's why we have taxes, PR.

    Now it's a matter of which ones and who pays them, innit?

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    I think a lot of people in here are jelous of what some others stand to inherit.
     
  14. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    1) 'They' didn't pay any taxes on this money, 'they' just got it as a gift.

    2) Its not more than half. Its 3.5 million free and clear and then 45%, or it was. now its zero.
     
  15. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    and I happen to think a lot of people in here a way too willing to kiss the azzes of their corporate masters.

    Here's an idea, just tax felons and illegal aliens:rolleyes:

    Nobody else should have to pay anything.
     
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    :rolleyes: Yeah, "Real World," who they've extracted that sum from. Unless of course you believe that all players in an economic system have equal bargaining power from birth based on their common humanity, a flight of fancy I have not yet heard of even from the most strident market purist. In fact the entire notion of passing on an estate is to bestow a greater advantage to one's own progeny vis a vis the remainder of society.

    Adults understand this.

    PFnV
     
  17. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah! Sure it is a gross injustice and abuse of government but it only affects a small minority of people so who cares? Screw 'em!
     
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,984
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +430 / 12 / -26

    The Republicans have a similar plan, are you aware of that?? This is not an exclusive left wing idea... you are, of course, aware that there are currently 4 proposals out there and the one they have fallen back on is more restrictive??

    Once again,


     
  19. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Unlike you, I don't fall along party lines like a mind numbed robot. I am critical of the punitive inheritance taxes we have seen in the past (and are likely scheduled to see again in the future). I don't care if it is a Democrat proposal, Republican proposal or Independant proposal.

    One thing this thread has proven is that whenever someone tries to defend these oppressive inheritance taxes, the very first thing they mention is how few people are going to be affected by it. Libs cannot defend it on logical grounds, so they just fall back to the same old divide-and-conquer strategy they know so well.
     
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Illegals and felons don't pay taxes. Aside from that, nice retarded strawman. Where did ANYONE say that "nobody else should pay anything"? It's ok though, when you have no where to go, and your jelousy of those who have more than you is exposed, just make up **** as you go along. Of course, if your mom, or dad, suffered all their life to leave you and your brothers and sisters what they worked hard for, you'd be more than happy to give Uncle Sam 40, 50, 60, etc %, out of the kindness of your heart. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>