WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:38 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13927
eyégor wrote:
Then, the inevitable happens, dad dies. Now Spock is left with a Hobson's choice. Sell off a portion of his legacy to pay the taxman, possibly making the enterprise less viable and definitely going against what has always been assumed to be the nature of family farms, keeping them whole. Or, sell off the entire thing to some agribusiness conglomerate to pay the taxes, and if he is lucky, the corporation might hire him to run what was originally his.


Well, there's another possibility. You can buy a form of life insurance that's essentially estate tax insurance that's designed to pay the estate taxes. Of course, that costs money and by doing that you have to forego something else. But any form of insurance costs money.

I'm sure Spock would feel bad if he found his dad had stuck him with a big tax bill that could have been avoided. He'd also feel bad if the barn burned down and dad didn't have any insurance on that. And death is much more of a certainty that a barn fire.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13927
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
Why is the money left over in a person's estate at the time they die inherently more worthy of favorable government treatment than the money people spend during their lifetime?


The money DOES NOT belong to the government. If somebody wants to leave their estate to a 'bimbo', why is it any of your business?


The money does not belong to the government, but the deceased was the beneficiary of a heck of a lot of government services during his lifetime and he does have to pay for them. In that regard, the estate tax is less painful than an income or sales tax because the person who got the benefit of our police, army, court system, transportation network and everything else the government provides that allowed him to accumulate that money isn't actually paying the tax himself.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3054
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
Why is the money left over in a person's estate at the time they die inherently more worthy of favorable government treatment than the money people spend during their lifetime?


The money DOES NOT belong to the government. If somebody wants to leave their estate to a 'bimbo', why is it any of your business?


The money does not belong to the government, but the deceased was the beneficiary of a heck of a lot of government services during his lifetime and he does have to pay for them. In that regard, the estate tax is less painful than an income or sales tax because the person who got the benefit of our police, army, court system, transportation network and everything else the government provides that allowed him to accumulate that money isn't actually paying the tax himself.

The deceased paid taxes on his/her income and investments when they were alive for the privilege of whatever government services he/she took advantage of, as well paying for the same for those who didn't pay for those services. The deceased also paid for a lot of waste, fraud, abuse, salaries of worthless bureaucrats, bribes and payoffs and who knows what else when they were alive.


Quote:
government provides that allowed him to accumulate
Example of Democrat mindset.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9005
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
The money does not belong to the government, but the deceased was the beneficiary of a heck of a lot of government services during his lifetime and he does have to pay for them. In that regard, the estate tax is less painful than an income or sales tax because the person who got the benefit of our police, army, court system, transportation network and everything else the government provides that allowed him to accumulate that money isn't actually paying the tax himself.


If the "deceased" paid taxes his entire life he most certainly paid for those services; more so than most, most likely; income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, likely more than you'll ever pay.

I get it. You don't like winners. It irks you that your dad was too damn lazy or too dam stupid (or maybe had to damn many bimbos) to build enough wealth that you can't get yours. So anyone who's did should't get all that money, but you should get some of it. That is no different than typical coveting, then justifying stealing. No different.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13927
BackInTex wrote:
I get it. You don't like winners. It irks you that your dad was too damn lazy or too dam stupid (or maybe had to damn many bimbos) to build enough wealth that you can't get yours. So anyone who's did should't get all that money, but you should get some of it. That is no different than typical coveting, then justifying stealing. No different.


I'm not going to even comment about what my dad did or did not do other than to say that one reason he didn't build all that much wealth was because he got shot to pieces during World War II and didn't live long enough to build that much wealth.

But in the vast majority of cases, the heirs don't do anything to legally earn that money (because they don't have any legal claim to it if their parents decide to leave it elsewhere). But somehow you want to put inherited money on a pedestal above all other sorts of money one might receive and give it a favorable tax treatment simply because the recipient wishes and grantor wish it wouldn't be taxed. I'm sure WalMart wishes I didn't have to spend sales tax on purchases because then I would have more money to spend with them.

Rich people generally do pay more taxes. They also receive far more services from the government (see how often people have been the beneficiary of the court system for example). So the only question is how do we distribute the tax burden. The only thing you and Spock have said is that it's not fair for someone to work hard and save and then have to pay taxes on it. Leaving aside that a lot of people didn't "work hard" to get that money, only that they were the recipient of inheritances and other investment income, I could just as easily say it's not fair for me to work hard and get taxed on my income and then get taxed again on the things I need to buy to survive.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3054
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
I get it. You don't like winners. It irks you that your dad was too damn lazy or too dam stupid (or maybe had to damn many bimbos) to build enough wealth that you can't get yours. So anyone who's did should't get all that money, but you should get some of it. That is no different than typical coveting, then justifying stealing. No different.


I'm not going to even comment about what my dad did or did not do other than to say that one reason he didn't build all that much wealth was because he got shot to pieces during World War II and didn't live long enough to build that much wealth.

But in the vast majority of cases, the heirs don't do anything to legally earn that money (because they don't have any legal claim to it if their parents decide to leave it elsewhere). But somehow you want to put inherited money on a pedestal above all other sorts of money one might receive and give it a favorable tax treatment simply because the recipient wishes and grantor wish it wouldn't be taxed. I'm sure WalMart wishes I didn't have to spend sales tax on purchases because then I would have more money to spend with them.

Rich people generally do pay more taxes. They also receive far more services from the government (see how often people have been the beneficiary of the court system for example). So the only question is how do we distribute the tax burden. The only thing you and Spock have said is that it's not fair for someone to work hard and save and then have to pay taxes on it. Leaving aside that a lot of people didn't "work hard" to get that money, only that they were the recipient of inheritances and other investment income, I could just as easily say it's not fair for me to work hard and get taxed on my income and then get taxed again on the things I need to buy to survive.


Quote:
simply because the recipient wishes and grantor wish it wouldn't be taxed.


SSS, It's been said over and over. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.

Quote:
They also receive far more services from the government

And they pay for the services of others that don't pay taxes or that the bureaucrats want to redistribute their money to. And they pay the extra tax for the waste and abuse that is built into big government.

Quote:
Leaving aside that a lot of people didn't "work hard" to get that money, only that they were the recipient of inheritances and other investment income

Let's have another department to determine if the recipient is a scumbag or not. Pay for it by raising the inheritance tax even more. Another example of democrat mindset.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9005
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
But in the vast majority of cases, the heirs don't do anything to legally earn that money (because they don't have any legal claim to it if their parents decide to leave it elsewhere).


No one is saying the heirs "earned" the money. No one is saying its the heirs' money before the deceased's decision to leave it to them, or through probate when the court decides it's theirs.

silverscreenselect wrote:
But somehow you want to put inherited money on a pedestal above all other sorts of money one might receive and give it a favorable tax treatment simply because the recipient wishes and grantor wish it wouldn't be taxed.


I'm not proposing the wealth be given favorable status. I'm proposing it gets treated like all other post-tax earnings; it's post-tax.

silverscreenselect wrote:
The only thing you and Spock have said is that it's not fair for someone to work hard, be taxed and save and then have to pay taxes on it again just because they died.


Fixed it for you, and we're right.

silverscreenselect wrote:
Leaving aside that a lot of people didn't "work hard" to get that money, only that they were the recipient of inheritances and other investment income, I could just as easily say it's not fair for me to work hard and get taxed on my income and then get taxed again on the things I need to buy to survive.


If you're so concerned with the Sales Tax, then lets discuss that. Or move to Oregon. But quit using it as support for the Estate Tax. Two separate issues.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13927
BackInTex wrote:

If you're so concerned with the Sales Tax, then lets discuss that. Or move to Oregon. But quit using it as support for the Estate Tax. Two separate issues.


Your argument is that the money was taxed when it was earned (not always the case in estates), so it shouldn't be taxed again when it's passed on.

But in the vast majority of situations, money is taxed when it's passed on and no one says anything.

I pay taxes on the income I make and then pay taxes when I transfer that money to Walmart to buy products. Walmart pays taxes on the money it makes from that sale and then their employees pay taxes when Walmart pays them a salary or their shareholders get taxed when Walmart pays them a dividend. In any case, the money is taxed when it changes hands. Sometimes one party pays it; sometimes the other but it gets taxed on every single transaction, so why should the passing of money through an estate be any different?

And of course. The dead don't pay taxes. They can't. They are dead. An artificial legal entity called an estate pays the taxes. And the estate, which is separate from both the deceased and the beneficiaries, only pays taxes one time.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:00 pm 
Online
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15869
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
Why is the money left over in a person's estate at the time they die inherently more worthy of favorable government treatment than the money people spend during their lifetime?


The money DOES NOT belong to the government. If somebody wants to leave their estate to a 'bimbo', why is it any of your business?

Why should I not steal stuff in your house when you are not there?

And PS, with all the men having their careers and reputations ruined by accusations, why don't we start accusing 'bimbos' and ruin their reputations?
You (and BiT) could make this argument about any tax. The money doesn't belong to the government but taxes are nonetheless appropriate.

The bottom line is that at least some government is necessary, and someone has to pay for it. I'd prefer having the people who benefit from, say, the existence of a court system that enforces contracts to be the ones who pay more for it. Based on the $1 trillion dollar hole they're about to blow in the deficit, it looks like Congressional Republicans would prefer to have no one at all pay for that government. That won't work, as Kansas recently demonstrated. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9005
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
I pay taxes on the income I make and then pay taxes when I transfer that money to Walmart to buy products. Walmart pays taxes on the money it makes from that sale and then their employees pay taxes when Walmart pays them a salary or their shareholders get taxed when Walmart pays them a dividend. In any case, the money is taxed when it changes hands. Sometimes one party pays it; sometimes the other but it gets taxed on every single transaction, so why should the passing of money through an estate be any different?


First you need to present the facts in a logical and reasonable format.

(note to anal retentive types: I did all the below math in my head, once, as I was going down the page, and is not meant to be 100% accurate or even reflective of Walmart's ratios. Its just a strawman model.But if it bothers you, go ahead and correct/edit)

First - Your employer has deducted the income they paid you from their earnings so they did not pay taxes on that money they got from their customers, you did. So lets start with the $100+$5 sales tax you pay Walmart.

Walmart does not pay taxes on the $100.
They deduct the $8 they paid their employees to stock the item, check you out, and bring your cart back into the story. The employee will pay taxes that $8.
From the $92 left,
-Walmart pays $1 in employment taxes for match the employees' portion of some and provide them unemployment insurance.
-Walmart pays $3 in rent, utilities, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the building you shopped at.
-Walmart pays $5 in logistics to unload the product from the suppliers trucks, pay workers in the distribution center, pay for and maintain the distribution center, and transport the products to your store.
-Walmart pays $42 to the suppliers for the product itself
-Walmart pays $2 to suppliers, for logistics, rent, and store employees to purchase and stock items that get shoplifted (yep, you pay for that)
-Walmart pays $10 at the corporate level for management, corporate HQ, accountants, lawyers, and others because if they don't work at HQ they'll work at the store and that would suck.
-Walmart pays $8 to TV networks to advertise

Walmart will report $100 in revenue and $79 in expenses (this does not account for non-cash or pre-paid stuff, lets not complicate)
Walmart will pay taxes on $21 of what you gave them for your purchase. Somewhere up the chain, the buck (literally stops there) and someone else pays the income tax on their net earnings. The money is not taxed twice....yet.

Walmart then pays the government $7 in taxes and puts the remaining $14 in the bank.
They only need $10 of it, so they distribute $4 to their share holders of this after tax (corporate tax rated) money.
Now the shareholders report that $4 and pay tax on it (paying tax on already taxed money).

Then the shareholder dies and those dividends, if the shareholder hasn't spent it all going to the movies or flying around the country playing cards, gets Estate taxed. Taxed a 3rd time for no reason other than it didn't get spent.

Now, you seem to have a REAL problem with sales taxes, because you're paying taxes with money that's already been taxed, once. Seems a bit hypocritical to be for the Estate tax then.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13927
BackInTex wrote:
Now, you seem to have a REAL problem with sales taxes, because you're paying taxes with money that's already been taxed, once. Seems a bit hypocritical to be for the Estate tax then.


I don't have a problem with sales taxes. I have a problem with those who choose to ignore the tax that hits lower income people the hardest when they make grand pronouncements on who is and is not paying taxes.

Every dollar that is in circulation in this country is ultimately taxed many times as it changes hands. You have illustrated the point quite well. Walmart takes the money it receives from me and distributes it to many different people, each of whom pays a tax on it.

So please tell me why, out of all those various transfers of money, the only one that should be exempt from taxation is the one that passes by means of an artificial entity (an estate) to those who did nothing legally to earn it?

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:26 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 8320
Location: Location.Location.Location
So, just wanna know. To avoid estate tax on our remaining goodies, do you recommend we just turning it back to the gummint in the will?

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3054
Location: Lacey, Washington
Quote:
Based on the $1 trillion dollar hole they're about to blow in the deficit, it looks like Congressional Republicans would prefer to have no one at all pay for that government


Since when do you and Krugman give a SH*T about the debt or the deficit?

Don't use the old crap that conservatives don't want any taxes. Why do you always go back to stupid, moronic arguments? We want limited government, and one that doesn't raise their debt limit to pay for votes and for the jobs of worthless and redundant government programs. Otherwise known as the swamp.

If we can maintain a 3+% level growth rate, we will come a long way to solving a lot of our debt problems. I believe that. And even if I didn't, I think it's about time to try something different, because what we have been doing has been the reason we've gotten where we are (20+ trillion in debt).

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:43 pm 
Online
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15869
Location: By the phone
Beebs52 wrote:
So, just wanna know. To avoid estate tax on our remaining goodies, do you recommend we just turning it back to the gummint in the will?
When your estate reaches the $11 million necessary before estate taxes become an issue, we can have that conversation.

At my usual and customary hourly rates. If you have that much money, you'll be able to afford me. And I'll pay my income taxes (assuming I still owe any by the time Congress is done). --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9005
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
So please tell me why, out of all those various transfers of money, the only one that should be exempt from taxation is the one that passes by means of an artificial entity (an estate) to those who did nothing legally to earn it?


There is no economic output. It is a one way transfer of value, a unilateral transaction. And most are not cash, but property (which exacerbates the problem), much who's value is in being kept whole.

It is a gift, if you will. I have the same issue with the gift tax.

Really, you could tax anything. Smiles. Winks. Steps. Why not?

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:58 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 8320
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So, just wanna know. To avoid estate tax on our remaining goodies, do you recommend we just turning it back to the gummint in the will?
When your estate reaches the $11 million necessary before estate taxes become an issue, we can have that conversation.

At my usual and customary hourly rates. If you have that much money, you'll be able to afford me. And I'll pay my income taxes (assuming I still owe any by the time Congress is done). --Bob

Ah. So my less than 11 million is more righteous. I see.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9005
Location: In Texas of course!
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So, just wanna know. To avoid estate tax on our remaining goodies, do you recommend we just turning it back to the gummint in the will?
When your estate reaches the $11 million necessary before estate taxes become an issue, we can have that conversation.

At my usual and customary hourly rates. If you have that much money, you'll be able to afford me. And I'll pay my income taxes (assuming I still owe any by the time Congress is done). --Bob

Ah. So my less than 11 million is more righteous. I see.


Only if you both die at the same time, or you give all his away when he dies.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13927
BackInTex wrote:
Only if you both die at the same time, or you give all his away when he dies.


No, because the exemption is now portable and there is no estate tax on money passed directly to a spouse.

Suppose Mrs. SSS has $8 million in assets and I have $3 million in assets. I die first and give $1 million to my good friend Flock and the rest to Mrs. SSS.

The $1 million to Flock reduces my exemption to $4.5 million, but the remaining $2 million that goes to Mrs. SSS is not taxed because of the marital deduction. She also gets the remainder of my exemption, or $4.5 million.

Now Mrs. SSS has $10 million in assets and a $10 million exemption, so if she dies, she passes it all on without estate tax.

Under this scenario, if Mrs. SSS dies first instead and leaves more than $5.5 million to someone besides me, that excess would be subject to the estate tax. But if she leaves it all to me, I also get her exemption and I would have $11 million in assets and an $11 million exemption.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3054
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Only if you both die at the same time, or you give all his away when he dies.


No, because the exemption is now portable and there is no estate tax on money passed directly to a spouse.

Suppose Mrs. SSS has $8 million in assets and I have $3 million in assets. I die first and give $1 million to my good friend Flock and the rest to Mrs. SSS.

The $1 million to Flock reduces my exemption to $4.5 million, but the remaining $2 million that goes to Mrs. SSS is not taxed because of the marital deduction. She also gets the remainder of my exemption, or $4.5 million.

Now Mrs. SSS has $10 million in assets and a $10 million exemption, so if she dies, she passes it all on without estate tax.

Under this scenario, if Mrs. SSS dies first instead and leaves more than $5.5 million to someone besides me, that excess would be subject to the estate tax. But if she leaves it all to me, I also get her exemption and I would have $11 million in assets and an $11 million exemption.

Except every other Wednesday of even numbered months.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:49 am 
Online
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15869
Location: By the phone
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So, just wanna know. To avoid estate tax on our remaining goodies, do you recommend we just turning it back to the gummint in the will?
When your estate reaches the $11 million necessary before estate taxes become an issue, we can have that conversation.

At my usual and customary hourly rates. If you have that much money, you'll be able to afford me. And I'll pay my income taxes (assuming I still owe any by the time Congress is done). --Bob

Ah. So my less than 11 million is more righteous. I see.
It seems to me a reasonable level at which to start taxing people with the good fortune (pun intended) to win the parental lottery. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3520
Location: Merion, Pa.
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If we can maintain a 3+% level growth rate, we will come a long way to solving a lot of our debt problems. I believe that. And even if I didn't, I think it's about time to try something different, because what we have been doing has been the reason we've gotten where we are (20+ trillion in debt).
"Something different" means not repeating the budget-breakers that got us into this hole:
  • Pres. Bush's massive tax cut for all income levels
  • Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
  • Medicare Part D without negotiated prices
  • Bailouts to big banks and car makers
  • Obamacare, including expansion of Medicare Part D (drug companies contribute to both parties)
All these were passed without regard to the deficit, while Congress quibbles about a few bucks for the arts or NASA. Something different would be fiscal responsibility.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:38 am 
Offline
Dumbass
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Posts: 29167
Location: Between the Suavitel and Fabuloso
I am all for taxing the hell out of the dead while giving a break to the living. How in the hell has this not become someone's campaign promise yet....?

lb13

_________________
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13927
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Only if you both die at the same time, or you give all his away when he dies.


No, because the exemption is now portable and there is no estate tax on money passed directly to a spouse.

Suppose Mrs. SSS has $8 million in assets and I have $3 million in assets. I die first and give $1 million to my good friend Flock and the rest to Mrs. SSS.

The $1 million to Flock reduces my exemption to $4.5 million, but the remaining $2 million that goes to Mrs. SSS is not taxed because of the marital deduction. She also gets the remainder of my exemption, or $4.5 million.

Now Mrs. SSS has $10 million in assets and a $10 million exemption, so if she dies, she passes it all on without estate tax.

Under this scenario, if Mrs. SSS dies first instead and leaves more than $5.5 million to someone besides me, that excess would be subject to the estate tax. But if she leaves it all to me, I also get her exemption and I would have $11 million in assets and an $11 million exemption.

Except every other Wednesday of even numbered months.


Keep quiet or I'll cut you out of my will.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline
???????
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1111
Location: Trollsberg
BackInTex wrote:
eyégor wrote:
Sure, the estate tax may be aimed at the "trust fund" babies, but wasn't designed with today's realities in agriculture. Given how everybody has been arguing over the inheritance tax, it probably can't be reworked. It is is pretty short beer in the tax world anyway, so let it die. good riddance.


One of probably very few things we agree on politically, so let me buy your next round. Cheers!


It might surprise you. what we agree upon. I'm what they used to call a maverick. I have also been a Rockefeller Republican and a Jackson Democrat. Now I am called a flip-flopper and have been indicted for Mail Fraud and Treason.

Bet I am the only one on the bored who can say that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bob78164 and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.