WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:59 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13921
Charles Grassley on the estate tax:

Quote:
An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders.

"I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies."


I'm sure that there's probably zillions of working people in Iowa who could have socked enough money away so they might have to worry about the estate tax if only they weren't blowing it on booze and women and movies. Or, more likely, food, clothing and shelter.

And the estate tax doesn't penalize "savers." The people who saved the money are by definition dead and no longer capable of being penalized. It only means that people who do nothing to earn the money other than winning the who's your parents lottery, like say, Donald Trump, won't inherit quite as much as they otherwise would have. And while the Trumps and Waltons and others who inherit wealth will get to keep some more of their daddy's money as a result of Grassley and company's largesse, he completely ignores that those people "spending every darn penny" are paying sales taxes on most of the pennies that they do spend, so they're not getting a free ride by any means.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 906946001/

_________________
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 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 2294
SSS>>>" It only means that people who do nothing to earn the money other than winning the who's your parents lottery, like say, Donald Trump, won't inherit quite as much as they otherwise would have."""

Pardon my French-but Fuck You.

I am 51 years old, I have worked for and with my dad for 30 years full time and really since I was 10 or younger, and put up with endless shit from him. But in the typical Democrat mindset, I did nothing to grow and expand the business and when he dies, I should get nothing, because I am the equivalent of a democrat Trust Fund baby ie te Kennedys.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
Spock wrote:
SSS>>>" It only means that people who do nothing to earn the money other than winning the who's your parents lottery, like say, Donald Trump, won't inherit quite as much as they otherwise would have."""

Pardon my French-but Fuck You.

I am 51 years old, I have worked for and with my dad for 30 years full time and really since I was 10 or younger, and put up with endless shit from him. But in the typical Democrat mindset, I did nothing to grow and expand the business and when he dies, I should get nothing, because I am the equivalent of a democrat Trust Fund baby ie te Kennedys.


That's right. The wealth your dad accumulates should be shared with SSS's dad's kids, too. I don't know what SSS's dad did for a living, but he paid sales tax.

In all the years of the Bored, I don't think (I could be wrong though) I've ever actually written out that French word you used. But prior to your post, I wrote a post with that same full word. I was very close to hitting post. I'm glad you did.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15858
Location: By the phone
Spock wrote:
SSS>>>" It only means that people who do nothing to earn the money other than winning the who's your parents lottery, like say, Donald Trump, won't inherit quite as much as they otherwise would have."""

Pardon my French-but Fuck You.

I am 51 years old, I have worked for and with my dad for 30 years full time and really since I was 10 or younger, and put up with endless shit from him. But in the typical Democrat mindset, I did nothing to grow and expand the business and when he dies, I should get nothing, because I am the equivalent of a democrat Trust Fund baby ie te Kennedys.
The same could undoubtedly be said of pretty much any worker in any business who isn't already an owner. If your work has earned you a piece of the action, then a piece of the action should have been part of your pay (and you'd have paid income taxes on it).

But no one is saying that you should get nothing. Unless that business is worth one hell of a lot of money (mid-seven figures), estate tax is already a non-issue for you. And if the business is worth enough to trigger estate tax, then we're still not talking about confiscating the estate. Just paying a percentage on the part worth above mid-seven figures. --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 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
And if the business is worth enough to trigger estate tax, then we're still not talking about confiscating the estate. Just confiscating a large percentage on the part worth above mid-seven figures. --Bob


Fixed it for you.

But how is that a moral action? The profits have already been taxed and given to others. Why confiscate more where the owners chose not to spend what they've earned and already paid taxes on?

How can you morally put a ceiling on what someone should be able to save?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 5846
Location: Montana
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:


How can you morally put a ceiling on what someone should be able to save?


Blind, willful stupidity is the only explanation.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.

Rick Castle is dreamy.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3046
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
Spock wrote:
SSS>>>" It only means that people who do nothing to earn the money other than winning the who's your parents lottery, like say, Donald Trump, won't inherit quite as much as they otherwise would have."""

Pardon my French-but Fuck You.

I am 51 years old, I have worked for and with my dad for 30 years full time and really since I was 10 or younger, and put up with endless shit from him. But in the typical Democrat mindset, I did nothing to grow and expand the business and when he dies, I should get nothing, because I am the equivalent of a democrat Trust Fund baby ie te Kennedys.
The same could undoubtedly be said of pretty much any worker in any business who isn't already an owner. If your work has earned you a piece of the action, then a piece of the action should have been part of your pay (and you'd have paid income taxes on it).

But no one is saying that you should get nothing. Unless that business is worth one hell of a lot of money (mid-seven figures), estate tax is already a non-issue for you. And if the business is worth enough to trigger estate tax, then we're still not talking about confiscating the estate. Just paying a percentage on the part worth above mid-seven figures. --Bob


Because, as we all know, all money belongs to the Federal Government, they just lend it to us out of their big altruistic, compassionate heart. So quit complaining that they tax you twice when you die. They could tax you 3 times if they want. And they will, if they decide they need more revenue to waste.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15858
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
And if the business is worth enough to trigger estate tax, then we're still not talking about confiscating the estate. Just confiscating a large percentage on the part worth above mid-seven figures. --Bob


Fixed it for you.

But how is that a moral action? The profits have already been taxed and given to others. Why confiscate more where the owners chose not to spend what they've earned and already paid taxes on?

How can you morally put a ceiling on what someone should be able to save?
The profits haven't been taxed. Unrealized appreciation isn't taxed until and unless the ownership interest is actually sold. And under current law, if Spock inherits that ownership interest, he'll get a step-up in basis and it will never be taxed.

There's no ceiling on what anyone can save. Just a tax on the amount above several million dollars that they can pass on to their heirs without paying taxes. I'm okay with that, particularly since the alternative is a dynastic concentration of wealth that would be catastrophic for society. --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 9:46 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15858
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:


How can you morally put a ceiling on what someone should be able to save?


Blind, willful stupidity is the only explanation.
Blind willful stupidity is probably an appropriate explanation for people, particularly elected officials, who assume that those who disagree with them do so from ignorance rather than from their own independent evaluation of the evidence.

So where's your evidence that blowing a trillion-dollar hole in the deficit in order to fund tax cuts for the rich will make the country a better place for those who aren't already millionaires? Because Republicans consistently took the position that we couldn't afford substantially less than that to fund free community college for all students. --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 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3046
Location: Lacey, Washington
Quote:
I'm okay with that


I'm not ok with many things you're ok with.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3046
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:


Blind, willful stupidity is the only explanation.
Blind willful stupidity is probably an appropriate explanation for people, particularly elected officials, who assume that those who disagree with them do so from ignorance rather than from their own independent evaluation of the evidence.

So where's your evidence that blowing a trillion-dollar hole in the deficit in order to fund tax cuts for the rich will make the country a better place for those who aren't already millionaires? Because Republicans consistently took the position that we couldn't afford substantially less than that to fund free community college for all students. --Bob


Where's your evidence that a dollar in the hands of the Federal government rather than the person who earned it makes the country a better place?

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15858
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:

Blind, willful stupidity is the only explanation.
Blind willful stupidity is probably an appropriate explanation for people, particularly elected officials, who assume that those who disagree with them do so from ignorance rather than from their own independent evaluation of the evidence.

So where's your evidence that blowing a trillion-dollar hole in the deficit in order to fund tax cuts for the rich will make the country a better place for those who aren't already millionaires? Because Republicans consistently took the position that we couldn't afford substantially less than that to fund free community college for all students. --Bob


Where's your evidence that a dollar in the hands of the Federal government rather than the person who earned it makes the country a better place?
Medicare. Social security. A standing army. A court system. Just off the top of my head.

One other point, by the way. If memory serves (this is a vague memory from the Bush 43 years -- I'm not a tax attorney), family farms (which I presume is what Spock is talking about) already get estate tax treatment that is substantially more favorable than most people receive, precisely to recognize the likelihood that the heirs themselves put in substantial work that added value.

Here is a much more common situation. Ms. 63 and I bought our house in 1997. We happened to buy in West Los Angeles at the bottom of the market so, even looked at as a tear-down, our property is now worth a lot more than we paid for it. What did we do to earn that increase? Nothing. We were just lucky enough to buy in a location that appreciated in value, primarily because California's regulations on new construction are too strict, creating an artificial housing shortage.

Some decades ago, Ms. 63 bought some Apple shares for her retirement account. They're now worth a lot of money. How did her purchase add value to the company? It didn't. We're not talking about an IPO here. She bought on the public markets, so the money she used to buy the stock didn't go to Apple. It went to whoever owned the stock before her.

Despite all of this good fortune, we're still (by an order of magnitude or so) comfortably below the threshold where we'd even have to start thinking about estate tax, but if we weren't, I'd be fine with that. --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 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
Here is a much more common situation. Ms. 63 and I bought our house in 1997. We happened to buy in West Los Angeles at the bottom of the market so, even looked at as a tear-down, our property is now worth a lot more than we paid for it. What did we do to earn that increase? Nothing. We were just lucky enough to buy in a location that appreciated in value, primarily because California's regulations on new construction are too strict, creating an artificial housing shortage.



you want to tax the inflationary increase of long held assets? Really? That is not "earnings".

Quote:
Blind willful stupidity is probably an appropriate explanation for people, particularly elected officials, who assume that those who disagree with them do so from ignorance rather than from their own independent evaluation of the evidence.


See above for explanation.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:48 am
Posts: 2033
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
silverscreenselect wrote:
Charles Grassley on the estate tax:

Quote:
An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders.

"I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies."


Spending money on women... isn't that called "marriage"?

_________________
"... the baseless self-serving persecution foisted upon the Bored by Beast, Estonut, jarnon, Bob#s, and Weasel [in June]. Nonetheless, my life and this game go on as scheduled. Both my life and this game MUST go on, full speed, in direct defiance of the prejudice. Otherwise, the terrorists win."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
Pastor Fireball wrote:

Spending money on women... isn't that called "marriage"?


You're confusing "spending" with "relinquishing".

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15858
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Here is a much more common situation. Ms. 63 and I bought our house in 1997. We happened to buy in West Los Angeles at the bottom of the market so, even looked at as a tear-down, our property is now worth a lot more than we paid for it. What did we do to earn that increase? Nothing. We were just lucky enough to buy in a location that appreciated in value, primarily because California's regulations on new construction are too strict, creating an artificial housing shortage.



you want to tax the inflationary increase of long held assets? Really? That is not "earnings".

Quote:
Blind willful stupidity is probably an appropriate explanation for people, particularly elected officials, who assume that those who disagree with them do so from ignorance rather than from their own independent evaluation of the evidence.


See above for explanation.
You think the increase in my land value is merely inflationary? Not even close to correct. --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 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
You think the increase in my land value is merely inflationary? Not even close to correct. --Bob


Technically I'm spot on. Unless someone planted a money tree next door and every fall you rake up money from your backyard, yes, the increase in value is an inflationary increase.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13921
Spock wrote:
I am 51 years old, I have worked for and with my dad for 30 years full time and really since I was 10 or younger, and put up with endless shit from him. But in the typical Democrat mindset, I did nothing to grow and expand the business and when he dies, I should get nothing, because I am the equivalent of a democrat Trust Fund baby ie te Kennedys.


Here's a news flash for you. Your dad could take up with some bimbo and leave all his money to her and you would have nothing (and that's happened a lot of times to a lot of well to do families; does the name Anna Nicole Smith ring a bell). Unless you have a contract with your father regarding disposition of his property or an ownership interest, as Bob said, you've done what any employee of any business has done, build the business, and in most cases, none of them get anything for it beyond a weekly paycheck.

Why should someone who struggles to make ends meet have to pay a tax when they earn the money and a second tax when they spend it on necessities (not booze, women, and movies as Senator Grassley seems to thin), while some relatives, bimbos, and anyone who strikes a property owner's fancy get a free ride? I have no doubt you have worked hard for your father, but under the law, you have no right to his property, simply an expectation that could be thwarted by him at any time if he so desires. Then you would get nothing. Again, as Bob said, you would still inherit your share of the portion of your father's estate that's not subject to the estate tax.

The estate tax should be the least painful tax of all because no living person or continuing entity (like a corporation) pays the tax.

_________________
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 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
Spock wrote:
I am 51 years old, I have worked for and with my dad for 30 years full time and really since I was 10 or younger, and put up with endless shit from him. But in the typical Democrat mindset, I did nothing to grow and expand the business and when he dies, I should get nothing, because I am the equivalent of a democrat Trust Fund baby ie te Kennedys.


Here's a news flash for you. Your dad could take up with some bimbo and leave all his money to her and you would have nothing (and that's happened a lot of times to a lot of well to do families; does the name Anna Nicole Smith ring a bell). Unless you have a contract with your father regarding disposition of his property or an ownership interest, as Bob said, you've done what any employee of any business has done, build the business, and in most cases, none of them get anything for it beyond a weekly paycheck.

Why should someone who struggles to make ends meet have to pay a tax when they earn the money and a second tax when they spend it on necessities (not booze, women, and movies as Senator Grassley seems to thin), while some relatives, bimbos, and anyone who strikes a property owner's fancy get a free ride? I have no doubt you have worked hard for your father, but under the law, you have no right to his property, simply an expectation that could be thwarted by him at any time if he so desires. Then you would get nothing. Again, as Bob said, you would still inherit your share of the portion of your father's estate that's not subject to the estate tax.

The estate tax should be the least painful tax of all because no living person or continuing entity (like a corporation) pays the tax.


Spock said it wrong. He has worked hard for his father, sure, but that is not why he should get the benefit of his father's efforts. It is because, like most fathers, they work hard for their children. Why should your father's children benefit from the residual of Spock's father's hard work? The residual that he chose to save for them rather than spend on bimbos, or going to every fucking movie (there I said it) or flying cross the country to play cards? That is the question you need to ask.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3046
Location: Lacey, Washington
Quote:
Medicare. Social security. A standing army. A court system. Just off the top of my head.


Waste, fraud, abuse, supporting a gigantic, ever-growing bureaucratic monster, paying off sexual harassment lawsuits, just off the top of my head. Support your list without taxing people twice on money they have earned. How's that?

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13921
BackInTex wrote:
Why should your father's children benefit from the residual of Spock's father's hard work? The residual that he chose to save for them rather than spend on bimbos, or going to every fucking movie (there I said it) or flying cross the country to play cards? That is the question you need to ask.


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? If Ebenezear Scrooge pockets all his money his entire life rather than adequately providing for his family and employees during his lifetime and dies a wealthy man, should we reward some bimbo who wiggles her rear end in his face in his dying days and strikes his fancy, as opposed to poor Bob Cratchitt, who was forced to spend what little he made putting food on the table and providing a crutch for Tiny Tim.

The current estate tax exemption is approximately $5.5 million ($11 million for a married couple). How many average working people, no matter how hard they work or whether they give up movies and cards and booze altogether, are able to accumulate that amount of money unless they had a very healthy head start (especially if they live long enough to take a big chunk out of their retirement nest egg)? We are talking about the wealthy passing inherited nest eggs from one generation to the next, while those who are forced to spend the disproportionate share of their earnings on necessities for their families are taxed when they do.

_________________
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 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3046
Location: Lacey, Washington
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?

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Last edited by flockofseagulls104 on Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
The current estate tax exemption is approximately $5.5 million ($11 million for a married couple). How many average working people, no matter how hard they work or whether they give up movies and cards and booze altogether, are able to accumulate that amount of money unless they had a very healthy head start (especially if they live long enough to take a big chunk out of their retirement nest egg)?


What's the number that makes it O.K.? If it's only 1, then it's O.K. to take from that 1 the money? 10? 1,000? 100,000? So as long as it's not too many? Not that is right, just and morale, just that "it won't affect too many"? Hmmm..... can you apply that to other areas of life? The law? Let's stick to whether it is right or wrong, for 1 or for all.


silverscreenselect wrote:
We are talking about the wealthy passing inherited nest eggs from one generation to the next, while those who are forced to spend the disproportionate share of their earnings on necessities for their families are taxed when they do.


Is your entire argument for the Estate Tax based on your distaste for the Sales Tax? If so, we can move on. Doing something that is morally wrong to compensate for the unfairness of something else is moronic....at best.

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


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

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1111
Location: Trollsberg
Spock wrote:
SSS>>>" It only means that people who do nothing to earn the money other than winning the who's your parents lottery, like say, Donald Trump, won't inherit quite as much as they otherwise would have."""

Pardon my French-but Fuck You.

I am 51 years old, I have worked for and with my dad for 30 years full time and really since I was 10 or younger, and put up with endless shit from him. But in the typical Democrat mindset, I did nothing to grow and expand the business and when he dies, I should get nothing, because I am the equivalent of a democrat Trust Fund baby ie te Kennedys.


There is an important issue here that the usual yelling past each other isn't addressing. Given the way he phrased the above (in the 2nd paragraph) there is a strong likelihood that Spock already has a share in the family business. things are going swimmingly.

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. Or, try to borrow against the legacy, increasing the debt burden that is inevitable when expensive equipment is needed to keep the operation running, sharply cutting into the margins required to keep the operation viable.

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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8997
Location: In Texas of course!
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!

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


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

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: franktangredi, jarnon, SpacemanSpiff and 5 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.