Death Tax that will not die
Dionysus
HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
SUB-HEAD: Obama's budget quietly resurrects it in 2010
Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, declared
recently that "Let's be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this
year. There are no, no tax increases next year." Oh yes, yes, there are. The
President's budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S.
history in 2010.
The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 1 on page 127 of
the President's budget. That note reads: "The estate tax is maintained at
its 2009 parameters." This means the death tax won't fall to zero next year
as scheduled under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to
45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple).
Better not plan on dying next year after all.
This controversy dates back to George W. Bush's first tax cut in 2001 that
phased down the estate tax from 55% to 45% this year and then to zero next
year. Although that 10-year tax law was to expire in 2011, meaning that the
death tax rate would go all the way back to 55%, the political expectation
was that once the estate tax was gone for even one year, it would never
return.
And that is no doubt why the Obama Administration wants to make sure it
never hits zero. It doesn't seem to matter that the vast majority of the
money in an estate was already taxed when the money was earned. Liberals
counter that the estate tax is "fair" because it is only paid by the richest
2% of American families. This ignores that much of the long-term saving and
small business investment in America is motivated by the ability to pass on
wealth to the next generation.
The importance of intergenerational wealth transfers was first measured in a
National Bureau of Economic Research study in 1980. That study looked at
wealth and savings over the first three-quarters of the 20th century and
found that "intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of
aggregate U.S. capital formation." The co-author of that study was . . .
Lawrence Summers.
Many economists had previously believed in "the life-cycle theory" of
savings, which postulates that workers are motivated to save with a goal of
spending it down to zero in retirement. Mr. Summers and coauthor Laurence
Kotlikoff showed that patterns of savings don't validate that model; they
found that between 41% and 66% of capital stock was transferred either by
bequests at death or through trusts and lifetime gifts. A major motivation
for saving and building businesses is to pass assets on so children and
grandchildren have a better life.
What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the lower the
incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former Congressional Budget
Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently used the Summers study as a
springboard to compare the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero
rate. He finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax would
be to increase small business capital investment by $1.6 trillion. This
additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs.
In other words, by raising the estate tax in the name of fairness, Mr. Obama
won't merely bring back from the dead one of the most despised of all
federal taxes, and not merely splinter many family-owned enterprises. He
will also forfeit half the jobs he hopes to gain from his $787 billion
stimulus bill. Maybe that's why the news of this unwise tax increase was
hidden in a footnote.
**************
Makes ya wonder what else B.O., The Fascist is hiding, unless of course
you're a bam-ster hamster. Then you just pull the covers up over your head
and hope the boogie man in your mind goes away.
What's another name for fearmongering, incompetent nincompoop? Why, "B.O.,
The Fascist," of course. He'll soon by listed as such in dictionaries and
thesauri everywhere.
Why would anyone support The Great Divider, B.O., The Fascist, that "boy in
a man's job"?
I predict "My God, what did we do" voter regret within six months of B.O.
The Fascist's taking office, the Republicans re-taking Congress in two
years, and B.O., T.F.'s bony ass being kicked out in four...if he survives.
It's gonna be fun watching the implosion.
Dionysus
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
> HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
Of course there is not and never has been a 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
term invented by the greedy.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
69 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
jane....@gmail.com
> In our last episode, <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_UnZ2dnUVZ_jiWn...@giganews.com>, the
I know, I know, it is not a tax on the dead individual, it is an
income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
If you believe in this so strongly, why not tax ALL gifts? Why not
put a tax on Christmas gifts? Why not tax the money a college student
receives from his parents for tuition?
When you have a stay at home wife, why not tax half of the husbands
"after tax" income; the portion of his income that he "gives" to his
wife?
You could claim that I am being absurd. You would be correct, but I
am being no more absurd than the death tax.
jane.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Are you as uninformed as the crap you post?
ALL inheritances are taxed. It's just that there are limits -- very
generous limits.
My mother died two years ago and, at that time, estates under $1
million were free from all taxes. As I understand it, that limit is
going up.
At the time a few years ago when the "death tax" was all the rage
among rightwingnutters and Republicons, they established a set of lies
that the "death tax" had forced family farms and family businesses out
of business just to pay the taxes. However, investigation after
investigation could not find a single instance of a family selling a
farm or a business to pay the inheritance taxes.
You see, under the IRS rules, it's very easy for any accountant or
estate law attorney with half a brain to protect every penny of an
estate from taxes.
Who i$ John Galt
> In article <38dc12ab-50dc-40e5...@e15g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I know, I know, it is not a tax on the dead individual, it is an
>> income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
>> people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
>
*FROM HELL HEART I STAB AT THEE; FOR HATE'S SAKE I SPIT MY LAST BREATH
AT THEE*
>>>>> Seems an awful waste of a last breath, don't you think?
>>>> Not really, I'm kinda looking forward to it. Like I said,
>>>> overdosing like a movie star/rock-star choking on my puke
>>>> might be a waste, but I'll be doing something I deem worthy,
>>>> and in the end isn't myself who I need to satisfy. Besides
>>>> what else would I be doing?
******************888
>>>>>> Answering the question, "who is John Galt" for all the
white-bread philosophers out there?
*********************8
It was expressed many years ago in similar form, maybe a bit more
succinct "Give me Liberty or give me death" and if nothing else My last
breath will be expended doing something of pure freedom, and at the same
time poking a stick in the eye of those that have attacked my freedom
for a lifetime.
To a Socialist it might be seen as Civil disobedience, but to others
it's simply exercising our freedom. Dropping MY wealth in the Abyss
rather than leaving it in the "system" for either what I feel is good,
or Government to steal is *Galt Like* ....Rather than supporting a
failed policy of growing government and Socialists theft of wealth and
individual rights, I choose *NOT* to participate.
Dropping MY wealth in the Abyss is MY version of a TEA PARTY, You
Liberals love to burn a flag as free speech, I may "burn through" some
commodities by giving them a heave-ho into the deepest water I can find.
Lars Eighner
<38dc12ab-50dc-40e5...@e15g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented jane....@gmail.com broadcast on alt.politics:
> On Mar 31, 9:21 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode, <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_UnZ2dnUVZ_jiWn...@giganews.com>, the
>> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>> > HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>>
>> Of course there is not and never has been a 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
>> term invented by the greedy.
> I know, I know, it is not a tax on the dead individual, it is an
> income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
> people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
Because the point, of course, is not to impoverish widows and orphans, but
to limit the concentration of vast unearned fortunes.
> If you believe in this so strongly, why not tax ALL gifts? Why not
> put a tax on Christmas gifts? Why not tax the money a college student
> receives from his parents for tuition?
Again, this would not have the effect of encouraging industry and
productivity.
> When you have a stay at home wife, why not tax half of the husbands
> "after tax" income; the portion of his income that he "gives" to his
> wife?
> You could claim that I am being absurd. You would be correct, but I
> am being no more absurd than the death tax.
Idle rich do no one any good. Concentrating wealth in the hands of those
who have never done anything productive has been tried. Aristocracy did not
work out too well.
sid9
"Red, White, and China Blue"
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-57285...@nntp.motzarella.org...
> In article
> <slrngt463e....@debranded.larseighner.com>,
> Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>> In our last episode,
>> <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_U...@giganews.com>,
>> the
>> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on
>> alt.politics:
>>
>> > HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>>
>> Of course there is not and never has been a
>> 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
>> term invented by the greedy.
>
> everyone, because practically everyone
> leaves behind over a million dollars of capital
> stock.
>
The estate tax has a long history in the USA.
Designed to redistribute wealth. But history shows
the it existed solely for revenue purposes until
the 1930s.
* The first estate tax -- enacted July 6,
1797, to help pay for naval rearmament -- required
only the purchase of federal stamps for wills and
estates, but was terminated four years later
because the need for the revenue passed.
* A direct tax on inheritances imposed in 1862
during the Civil War ranged from 0.75 percent to 5
percent.
* The top rate was raised to 6 percent in
1864; but the tax was then abolished July 14,
1870.
* In 1898, an estate tax with a top rate of 15
percent on estates over $1 million was imposed to
pay for the Spanish-American War -- then repealed
on April 12, 1902.
America's fourth estate tax, enacted in 1916, set
a top rate of 10 percent on estates over $5
million. It was raised to 25 percent in 1917, but
this rate applied only to estates over $10
million. Unlike its predecessors, it was not
repealed after the war, although the top rate was
dropped to 20 percent in 1926.
Mason C
Hey ! I'll be able to pay taxes after I'm dead ! Wheee !
And my rich kids won't have to pay ! Ain't that great?
Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --
Poetic Justice
> I always get a big laugh when I see "death tax"
>
> Hey ! I'll be able to pay taxes after I'm dead ! Wheee !
>
And they'll bury you face down so they can extract a bonus tax from you
after you're dead.
Poetic Justice
> I always get a big laugh when I see "death tax"
>
> Hey ! I'll be able to pay taxes after I'm dead ! Wheee !
>
And they'll bury you face down so they can extract a bonus tax from you
after you're dead.
Squeal like a pig...... Ohhhh baby...
jane....@gmail.com
Yes, I know about the exclusion. The exclusion was $1.5 million in
2004&2005. It went up to $2M for 2006-2008. It then goes up to $3.5
million in 2009, BUT then goes BACK DOWN to $1 million in 20011.
You stated that all inheritance is taxed. Because if the exclusion,
your statement is false.
You didn't answer my question. Why not be "fair" and tax ALL gifts?
Forget your "social engineering". Treat everyone the same, fairly.
You do like the word "fair", don't you?
You stated: "However, investigation after
investigation could not find a single instance of a family selling a
farm or a business to pay the inheritance taxes..
You did not provide a citation. There is a story of a mill,
http://www.anthonytimberlands.com/, that started business in 1907.
The family owned company had to go though 5 inheritances over the
ages. The mill did not get sold, as you put it, but each time, company
assets had to be sold to pay the tax and keep the mill. Each time,
the asset reduction was a cost to the business and a cost to the
community that it served. Today, John E Anthony is 70 and he does not
think the mill will survive the next level of death tax. Read his
story at:http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Perspective/252523/
Jane.
jane....@gmail.com
> lovely and talented jane.pla...@gmail.com broadcast on alt.politics:
You stated: "Because the point, of course, is not to impoverish widows
and orphans,..."
OK, but what about the middle class? I know families that gave a
"gift" of a car to their kids when they turned 16 or graduated. Why
not tax that gift???? You do believe in the word "fair" don't you?
You stated: "Again, this would not have the effect of encouraging
industry and productivity."
So, now you are concerned with industry and productivity. Each time a
sizeable family owned business goes through the inheritance process,
That business must sell assets to pay the death tax. Each
inheritance is detrimental to that business. So, make up your mind.
Are you in favor of industry or against it?
You expressed great wealth envy when you stated, "Idle rich do no one
any good."
Ya, that's right. Let's punish the evil bastards!
Take a look at http://www.anthonytimberlands.com/. The evil bastards
have built a business worth millions and they didn't even have to do
any work; the evil bastards. The business has had to suffer through 7
inheritances and each time it had to sell assets to pay the death
tax. John E Anthony doesn't think it will survive the next round of
estate taxes. How can a business survive when it has to sell 45% of
its assets to pay taxes?
Jane
Don't blame Bush. Blame the idiots who voted for Bush.
Despised by millionaires and billionaires. Poor Paris Hilton. Poor
Bush family. Poor Cheney family. Who cares? The rest of us won't be
affected by this.
The reason that the "death tax" was started was to prevent a
plutocracy from rising up in America.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
This is Hell is one of the best political talk shows on the air. The
host, Chuck Mertz, asks intelligent, probing questions and gives the
guests as much time as needed to answer. Past guests have included
Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Dean Baker, Greg Palast, and many more
luminaries of political thought.
http://www.thisishell.net/
sid9
"Who i$ John Galt" <"Men of the
Mind"@Talk-n-Dog..com> wrote in message
news:jDqAl.22644$i9.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
The Estate tax has been on American books since
the founding of the nation.
The wealthy never got poor from this tax.l
The Rockefellers and the Kennedys have not become
poor because of this tax.
jane....@gmail.com
Are you sure that you won't be effected? Who hires you? Do you work
for a poor person, or do you work for a rich person? Do you work for
a family own business? If so, how large is that business?
Will that business survive if it has to sell 45% of its assets to pay
the tax man? How many businesses can survive after selling 45% of the
assets? Take a look at Anthony Timberlands, Inc., a family owned
business. They operate several mills and own land with trees that
provide timber for their mills. Additionally they own land with
immature trees for the next generation of timber. They have been
stewards of the land, planting and replanting. The mills, the land,
and the trees all represent capital. Capital that must be sold when
John E Anthony dies simply to pay the tax man. It is doubtful that
the business can survive with a 45% reduction in capital. Maybe you
work for a company like this, maybe not. Your wealth envy will cost
jobs at Anthony Timberlands, Inc. http://www.anthonytimberlands.com/an_hist.html
Read John E. Anthony's letter to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Perspective/252523/
Jane.
Mason C
This is so much malarkey it doesn't deserve response.
jane....@gmail.com
> -- many excerpts you can see --
It is a real life scenario, not malarkey. You must not have read the
links. Move your little arrow thingy to the parts of my post that
begin with "www". Then press on that little button on the left side
of your mouse.
Can you explain how a company can survive if it has to sell 45% of its
assets?
Jane.
Harold Burton
<c3eac418-da0a-435a...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"Don't blame Bush. Blame the idiots who voted for Bush."
Just like you weren't affected by the Alternative Minimum
Tax.....initially.
Snicker.
maxw...@my-deja.com
>
> > In our last episode, <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_UnZ2dnUVZ_jiWn...@giganews.com>, the
> > lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> > > HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>
> > Of course there is not and never has been a 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
> > term invented by the greedy.
>
> > --
> > Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
> > 69 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
> > Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
>
> I know, I know, it is not a tax on the dead individual, it is an
> income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
> people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
Right just like any other capital gain or winning the lottery.
If all of it can be taxed why not tax all inheritance. Good point.
Or maybe make capital gain like inheritance where you only
pay tax over a certain amount.
jane....@gmail.com
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <0becb25f-490f-40a2-8cfa-2fb185e92...@n33g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Are you sure that you won't be effected? Who hires you? Do you work
> > for a poor person, or do you work for a rich person? Do you work for
> > a family own business? If so, how large is that business?
>
> > Will that business survive if it has to sell 45% of its assets to pay
> > the tax man? How many businesses can survive after selling 45% of the
>
> heirs, so no estate tax.
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. mmmm lemon yogurt
Read the story about Anthony Timberlands, Inc. again. The "Inc" at
the end of their name indicates that Anthony Timberlands Inc is
incorporated. It is a family owned corporation. Working for a
corporation isn't a safe haven.
Jane.
jane....@gmail.com
>
> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You stated: "Because the point, of course, is not to impoverish widows
> > and orphans,..."
> > OK, but what about the middle class? I know families that gave a
> > "gift" of a car to their kids when they turned 16 or graduated. Why
> > not tax that gift???? You do believe in the word "fair" don't you?
>
>
> > Take a look athttp://www.anthonytimberlands.com/. The evil bastards
>
> That's it? You got one sob story? What did their financial advisor suggest? Have
> they considered incorporating?
>
First, the "one sob story" is indicative of large family owned
businesses. Second, Read the story again. Anthony Timberland INC, is
incorporated. (that is what "INC" means) Most large family owned
businesses ARE incorporated. Their assets are tied up in capital
equipment, land, and trees. Unfortunately the government wants cash!
That means that the family will have to sell 45% of the assets. How
many businesses can survive a loss of 45% of their assets? How would
you like being one of 1,000 employees of that company? Maybe they
should look for a government job?
Jane.
Lars Eighner
<914c77fc-695f-43a3...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented jane....@gmail.com
broadcast on alt.politics:
> On Mar 31, 8:11 pm, "Red, White, and China Blue"
><chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <165bb86e-3cb9-4846-842d-61b1720d4...@l10g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > You stated: "Because the point, of course, is not to impoverish widows
>> > and orphans,..."
>> > OK, but what about the middle class? I know families that gave a
>> > "gift" of a car to their kids when they turned 16 or graduated. Why
>> > not tax that gift???? You do believe in the word "fair" don't you?
>>
>> Is the 16 year old filing their own income tax returns?
>>
>> > Take a look athttp://www.anthonytimberlands.com/. The evil bastards
>>
>> That's it? You got one sob story? What did their financial advisor suggest? Have
>> they considered incorporating?
>>
> First, the "one sob story" is indicative of large family owned
> businesses. Second, Read the story again. Anthony Timberland INC, is
> incorporated. (that is what "INC" means) Most large family owned
> businesses ARE incorporated.
Evidently you don't know what 'incorporated' means.
> Their assets are tied up in capital
> equipment, land, and trees. Unfortunately the government wants cash!
> That means that the family will have to sell 45% of the assets.
No, the company does not owe estate taxes. The individuals who inherit
shares may owe estate taxes. If the company is INC as you say, they cannot
pay those taxes by selling company assets. They may have to sell some of
their shares to pay the taxes.
> How many businesses can survive a loss of 45% of their assets?
The corporation does not lose any assets.
> How would you like being one of 1,000 employees of that company? Maybe
> they should look for a government job?
Nothing happens that affects the employees of the INC company. The company
loses no assets.
As usual, advocates of greed economics will tell any lie in the attempt to
patch up the culture of greed.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
70 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
jane....@gmail.com
> the lovely and talented jane.pla...@gmail.com
I'm sorry Lars, but you are the one who doesn't know what
"incorporated" means. The company name is Anthony Timberlands, Inc.
The letters "Inc." is an abreviation for "Incorporated". The Anthony
family owns 100% of the shares of the incorporated business. The
problem with our society is that we have ill informed, wealth envy
citizens, such as yourself, who vote on issues where you have no
knowledge.
The family stock represents assets. The family can not pay the death
tax with stock, the government only deals in cash. That means that
the family will have to sell part of the family business, something
that Kickin' Ass has claimed, "investigation after investigation could
not find a single instance of a family selling a farm or a business to
pay the inheritance taxes. "
As you stated, "They may have to sell some of their shares to pay the
taxes." Since the family owns 100% of the shares, that is called
selling the family business. There is another option. Presume the
family doesn't want to lose control of the business, a very
understandable position. The family can convert assets to cash within
the company. For example, selling timber land to a developer. That
cash can then be disperersed to the family as dividends (with a 15%
dividend tax rate) and then the family pays an additional 45%
inheritance tax and gives it to the government.
By the way, since the business will have reduced timberland, they will
have to fire employees.
Jane.
jane....@gmail.com
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <914c77fc-695f-43a3-ada3-3447f3a80...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 8:11 pm, "Red, White, and China Blue"
> > <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <165bb86e-3cb9-4846-842d-61b1720d4...@l10g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > You stated: "Because the point, of course, is not to impoverish widows
> > > > and orphans,..."
> > > > OK, but what about the middle class? I know families that gave a
> > > > "gift" of a car to their kids when they turned 16 or graduated. Why
> > > > not tax that gift???? You do believe in the word "fair" don't you?
>
> > > Is the 16 year old filing their own income tax returns?
>
> > > > Take a look athttp://www.anthonytimberlands.com/. The evil bastards
>
> > > That's it? You got one sob story? What did their financial advisor suggest?
> > > Have
> > > they considered incorporating?
>
> > First, the "one sob story" is indicative of large family owned
> > businesses. Second, Read the story again. Anthony Timberland INC, is
> > incorporated. (that is what "INC" means) Most large family owned
>
> tax would be on the inheritance of shares of the company. If the business is
> worth anything, shares can be sold to pay the taxes: that doesn't destroy the
> business, it allows more owners. If they would rather sell off corporate assets
> instead of corporate shares, well, that's the stockholders's decision.
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. mmmm lemon yogurt
Thanks for the very sensible reply. You and I are now getting down to
the heart of the issue. 100% of the shares of Anthony Timberlands,
Inc. is owned by the family. As you just described, the family has
two options. Option #1 is selling shares in the family owned
business. That is called selling the family business, something that
advocates of the estate tax claim doesn't happen. So, we actually,in
fact, have a tax code that forces families to sell their family
business.
The other option you mentioned is selling assets. If the family
doesn't want to lose control of the family owned busness, that is the
other option. Since the business has been in the family for over 100
years, I can understand the family not wanting to take in outside
ownership. The family sells assets such as land to a developer. This
new cash is actually tied up in the corporation. The only way to
disperse this money to the family is through dividends. The family
pays a 15% dividend tax and then pays a 45% estate tax. The family
business is reduced and employees get fired.
BTW: When you combine the 15% and 45% taxes, it is a 53.25% tax rate.
If the death occures in 2011, the estate tax goes up to 55%, giving
you a combined rate of 61.175%. What business can survive if the
government takes 61.175% of the assets?
Jane
jane....@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <65dbff2d-35b2-4ce9-a310-46a9741e0...@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > BTW: When you combine the 15% and 45% taxes, it is a 53.25% tax rate.
> > If the death occures in 2011, the estate tax goes up to 55%, giving
> > you a combined rate of 61.175%. What business can survive if the
> > government takes 61.175% of the assets?
>
> It's not the evil government destroying their business, it's the corporation
> doing it to themselves. Also capital gains is against an increase in asset
> value: it's the difference currentprice - purchaseprice that is taxed.
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. mmmm lemon yogurt
I think you missed my point. Because of the GOVERNMENT, their only
two choices are #1 sell the family business or, #2 sell assets, reduce
the business and fire employees. Neither option is a good choice.
The two choices are forced upon them because of the government.
Thanks for reminding me about capital gains tax, I forgot to add that.
When Anthony Timberland, Inc sells a piece of land to a developer, the
corporation pays a 35% tax on the profits of the sale... THEN when the
after-tax-cash is dispersed as a dividend, the family pays 15%
dividend tax, THEN a 45% or 55% estate tax.
I understand why John E. Anthony wrote the article. It gets worser
and and worser the closer you look.
Jane.
jane....@gmail.com
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ecda2897-c459-4b28-ab7e-7539fccf7...@l10g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I think you missed my point. Because of the GOVERNMENT, their only
> > two choices are #1 sell the family business or, #2 sell assets, reduce
>
> you're facing, and then being actually expected to pay them. That's rough.
>
Your sarcasm is oozing. Seeing and knowing the expected tax
consequences future doesn't make the tax an acceptable tax.
A tax that forces a family into two very unacceptable options is not a
just or moral tax.
> > Thanks for reminding me about capital gains tax, I forgot to add that.
>
> That's the management deciding to destroy its business, not the government. Do
> you have something against people taking responsibility for their decisions?
>
They are being forced into taking responsibility due to an unjust tax
law. I also hold our congressmen irresponsible laws that force a
family into two unacceptable choices.
Out of curiosity, if you were in their shoes, which choice would you
take? I personally would sell assets and keep what remains within
family control. However, that is just my personal opinion, what is
yours?
Jane.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> On Apr 1, 11:10 am, "Red, White, and China Blue"
>
> <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <ecda2897-c459-4b28-ab7e-7539fccf7...@l10g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I think you missed my point. Because of the GOVERNMENT, their only
> > > two choices are #1 sell the family business or, #2 sell assets, reduce
>
> > My heart bleeds for them. Truly. Imagine knowing for years what kind of taxes
> > you're facing, and then being actually expected to pay them. That's rough.
>
> Your sarcasm is oozing. Seeing and knowing the expected tax
> consequences future doesn't make the tax an acceptable tax.
>
> A tax that forces a family into two very unacceptable options is not a
> just or moral tax.
Inheritance doesn't necessarily have to be among family members.
I think it is a lot more just that the capital gains tax. There is no
threshold for capital gains.
>
> > > Thanks for reminding me about capital gains tax, I forgot to add that.
>
> > That's the management deciding to destroy its business, not the government. Do
> > you have something against people taking responsibility for their decisions?
>
> They are being forced into taking responsibility due to an unjust tax
> law. I also hold our congressmen irresponsible laws that force a
> family into two unacceptable choices.
I don't understand. If you have 3 people owning a company, they
each own a third. If one person dies and leaves their assets to
the other 2 then they each now own 50%. That is a gain.
Why do you think they should not have to pay taxes?
>
> Out of curiosity, if you were in their shoes, which choice would you
> take? I personally would sell assets and keep what remains within
> family control. However, that is just my personal opinion, what is
> yours?
Absolutely. If I inherited a company in which I had partial or
no interest, I think I could live with paying the taxes.
No different than if I won a lottery.
>
> Jane.
solon fox
<manofathousandna...@live.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:08 am, jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 9:21 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
> > > In our last episode, <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_UnZ2dnUVZ_jiWn...@giganews.com>, the
> > > lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> > > > HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>
> > > Of course there is not and never has been a 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
> > > term invented by the greedy.
>
> > > Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
>
> > income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
> > people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
>
> > put a tax on Christmas gifts? Why not tax the money a college student
> > receives from his parents for tuition?
>
> > When you have a stay at home wife, why not tax half of the husbands
> > "after tax" income; the portion of his income that he "gives" to his
> > wife?
>
> > You could claim that I am being absurd. You would be correct, but I
> > am being no more absurd than the death tax.
>
> > jane.
>
>
> ALL inheritances are taxed. It's just that there are limits -- very
> generous limits.
>
> My mother died two years ago and, at that time, estates under $1
> million were free from all taxes. As I understand it, that limit is
> going up.
>
> At the time a few years ago when the "death tax" was all the rage
> among rightwingnutters and Republicons, they established a set of lies
> that the "death tax" had forced family farms and family businesses out
> investigation could not find a single instance of a family selling a
> farm or a business to pay the inheritance taxes.
>
> estate law attorney with half a brain to protect every penny of an
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are correct about the mythology surrounding the death tax. It is
true that a lot of people would like us to believe that it affects
more people than it actually does. Others, insist that it is less.
I don't care whether it affects 2% or 1% or whatever. I am against it
on principle, because what it says is that the government has the
right to take our property (and, I have to admit that they do). What
is abhorrent is that we work hard to take care of our families and the
idea that we cannot pass on to them what we have earned unfettered by
the government. We worked, we paid income taxes,we paid property taxes
(and property taxes will be continued to be paid as ownership is
passed to heirs). The death tax is a double tax and I am against it on
this principle alone. I am against it whether it affects my heirs,
yours, Bill Gates' heirs or anyone.
The business about accountants and estate attorneys being able to
avoid estate taxes is another distraction that has nothing to do with
the principle of the matter. If anything, it is another argument
against estate taxes.
Our politicians trust that the public will only evaluate taxes from a
purely selfish perspective and that is why we have the tyranny of tax
code today. Does the estate tax affect me? No, then tax 'em. Do
cigarette taxes affect me? No, then tax 'em. This is exactly the wrong
attitude and leads to government tyranny.
-solon fox
solon fox
> On Mar 31, 10:47 am, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
> 2004&2005. It went up to $2M for 2006-2008. It then goes up to $3.5
> million in 2009, BUT then goes BACK DOWN to $1 million in 20011.
>
> You stated that all inheritance is taxed. Because if the exclusion,
> your statement is false.
>
> You didn't answer my question. Why not be "fair" and tax ALL gifts?
> Forget your "social engineering". Treat everyone the same, fairly.
> You do like the word "fair", don't you?
>
> You stated: "However, investigation after
> investigation could not find a single instance of a family selling a
>
> You did not provide a citation. There is a story of a mill,http://www.anthonytimberlands.com/, that started business in 1907.
> The family owned company had to go though 5 inheritances over the
> ages. The mill did not get sold, as you put it, but each time, company
> assets had to be sold to pay the tax and keep the mill. Each time,
> the asset reduction was a cost to the business and a cost to the
> community that it served. Today, John E Anthony is 70 and he does not
> think the mill will survive the next level of death tax. Read his
> story at:http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Perspective/252523/
>
> Jane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kudos for standing on principle.
Taxes aren't about fairness, are they? But, they should be. We should
stand against every unfair tax, even if it hurts.
What good are your principles if you don't live by them?
-solon fox
jane....@gmail.com
> On Apr 1, 11:25 am, jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 11:10 am, "Red, White, and China Blue"
>
> > <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <ecda2897-c459-4b28-ab7e-7539fccf7...@l10g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > I think you missed my point. Because of the GOVERNMENT, their only
> > > > two choices are #1 sell the family business or, #2 sell assets, reduce
>
> > > My heart bleeds for them. Truly. Imagine knowing for years what kind of taxes
> > > you're facing, and then being actually expected to pay them. That's rough.
>
> > Your sarcasm is oozing. Seeing and knowing the expected tax
> > consequences future doesn't make the tax an acceptable tax.
>
> > A tax that forces a family into two very unacceptable options is not a
> > just or moral tax.
>
> Inheritance doesn't necessarily have to be among family members.
> I think it is a lot more just that the capital gains tax. There is no
> threshold for capital gains.
>
>
I agree that it isn't just between family members. When my mother
died, a portion of her small estate went to people who were not family
members.
In our example, we are talking about a family owned business. It is
more poignant because a family will be forced into selling a portion
of the family owned business that has been in the family for 102
years.
I am sure that the patriarch has gifted stock over the years, but once
the gift limitation has been reached, the family members must pay
income tax on that gift.
>
> > > > Thanks for reminding me about capital gains tax, I forgot to add that.
>
> > > That's the management deciding to destroy its business, not the government. Do
> > > you have something against people taking responsibility for their decisions?
>
> > They are being forced into taking responsibility due to an unjust tax
> > law. I also hold our congressmen irresponsible laws that force a
> > family into two unacceptable choices.
>
> I don't understand. If you have 3 people owning a company, they
> each own a third. If one person dies and leaves their assets to
> the other 2 then they each now own 50%. That is a gain.
> Why do you think they should not have to pay taxes?
>
>
We are at the level of discussing personal ideology. I, personally,
think a person has the right to gift his possessions to whomever he
wants, especially if it is within family members. We have always
taken a special view of business and family. For example, a family
owned business can legally use the children without regard to wage
laws.
There are many who disagree with me, but my "personal" opinion is that
taking something from a family just to "prevent intergenerational
accumulation of wealth" (as Red,white and blue put it) is theft.
>
> > Out of curiosity, if you were in their shoes, which choice would you
> > take? I personally would sell assets and keep what remains within
> > family control. However, that is just my personal opinion, what is
> > yours?
>
> Absolutely. If I inherited a company in which I had partial or
> no interest, I think I could live with paying the taxes.
> No different than if I won a lottery.
>
>
Let me express my opinion with an allegory:
Presume that 4 married couples are ship wrecked on an island. The
island is quite large and they decide to divide the island into 4
quadrants that each couple own. Over the years, all have children.
Three families live as hunter gathers, live under trees and live a
rather sedentary life in the tropics. The fourth family builds a
corral, and raise and breed some of the captured animals. They
collect and cultivate grain, vegetables and fruit. They build a house
with several rooms and a thatched roof that keeps them dry and
protected. They now have plenty of meat, grain, vegetables and fruit
to eat without having to hunt or gather.
The second generation have grown to adulthood and, one day, the father
of the industrious family dies. The Three other families come knocking
on the door of the fourth family and state: "we have all taken a vote
and have decided that it isn't fair for you guys to have so much
wealth. We have voted that the assets of the entire island including
your crops, fields, livestock and house, have to be reevaluated and
redistributed amongst the four family clans equally.
That is what our inheritance tax does, and I, personally, think it is
immoral.
Jane
Poetic Justice
> On Apr 1, 11:10 am, "Red, White, and China Blue"
> <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I think you missed my point. Because of the GOVERNMENT, their only
>>> two choices are #1 sell the family business or, #2 sell assets, reduce
>> My heart bleeds for them. Truly. Imagine *knowing for years* what kind of taxes
>> you're facing, and then being actually *expected to pay* them. That's rough..
>>
You mean like Geitner the TAX CHEAT?
Poetic Justice
> In article <ecda2897-c459-4b28...@l10g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I think you missed my point. Because of the GOVERNMENT, their only
>> two choices are #1 sell the family business or, #2 sell assets, reduce
>
My first plan would be to FIRE EMPLOYEES and explain that my hands are
tied and I need to downsize so I can pay the tax. But I have yet to
inherit the business. When I do my plan is to spread the misery around
as well as submitting to governments spreading the wealth around.
For every action there is a reaction.
> My heart bleeds for them. Truly. Imagine knowing for years what kind of taxes
> you're facing, and then being actually expected to pay them. That's rough.
>
>> Thanks for reminding me about capital gains tax, I forgot to add that.
>
maxw...@my-deja.com
I understand your point, but it could be made for anyone
that is industrious. In fact the argument against paying
taxes could be stronger for someone that uses innovation
perspiration to increase their wealth as opposed to just
collecting it from someone that has died.
solon fox
> lovely and talented jane.pla...@gmail.com broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> > On Mar 31, 9:21 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >> In our last episode, <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_UnZ2dnUVZ_jiWn...@giganews.com>, the
> >> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> >> > HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>
> >> Of course there is not and never has been a 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
> >> term invented by the greedy.
> > income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
> > people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
>
> to limit the concentration of vast unearned fortunes.
Of course, they were earned - but, never mind that quibble. Why? Why
is it important to prevent the passing on of wealth? How does this
harm the general public? Why are inheritances bad?
I know that I would be glad to receive an inheritance, but I won't.
Yet, I have a burning desire to pass as much security and comfort on
to my family as I possibly can. Why is this bad? Why must I be
prevented from taking care of my family after I die? What makes that
so important? And, what makes you think that you or anyone else should
have any say in what becomes of my property?
>
> > If you believe in this so strongly, why not tax ALL gifts? Why not
> > put a tax on Christmas gifts? Why not tax the money a college student
> > receives from his parents for tuition?
>
> Again, this would not have the effect of encouraging industry and
> productivity.
Of course, you realize that gifts are taxed. Gifts over $13,000 per
person in a single year are taxed (a married couple can gift up to
$26,000 before incurring the tax). There is a lifetime gift exclusion
of $1,000,000. Wouldn't you like me to give you a million dollars?
Sorry, Uncle Sam says I can't.
If it is my money (or my property) legally obtained, then I should be
able to give it to whom ever I please.
Why is this "bad?"
> > When you have a stay at home wife, why not tax half of the husbands
> > "after tax" income; the portion of his income that he "gives" to his
> > wife?
> > You could claim that I am being absurd. You would be correct, but I
> > am being no more absurd than the death tax.
>
> Idle rich do no one any good. Concentrating wealth in the hands of those
> who have never done anything productive has been tried. Aristocracy did not
> work out too well.
Not all the rich are idle. Is your principle to punish all based on
the actions of a few?
Of course, you are using "aristocracy" in a modern political meaning.
We do not live in an aristocracy and we do not have aristocrats. We
have a constitution and a representative form of democracy.
The term, aristocracy can be used metaphorically to describe our super
rich who influence the corrupt politicians, but it still isn't the
same as having an actual aristocracy.
Besides which, we have laws with which we can punish the law
breakers.
>
> --
> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
> 69 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
> Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
-solon fox
jane....@gmail.com
wrote:
> Red, White, and China Blue wrote:
>
> > jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> I think you missed my point. Because of the GOVERNMENT, their only
> >> two choices are #1 sell the family business or, #2 sell assets, reduce
>
> My first plan would be to FIRE EMPLOYEES and explain that my hands are
> tied and I need to downsize so I can pay the tax. But I have yet to
> inherit the business. When I do my plan is to spread the misery around
> as well as submitting to governments spreading the wealth around.
>
> For every action there is a reaction.
>
> > My heart bleeds for them. Truly. Imagine knowing for years what kind of taxes
> > you're facing, and then being actually expected to pay them. That's rough.
>
> >> Thanks for reminding me about capital gains tax, I forgot to add that.
>
> > That's the management deciding to destroy its business, not the government. Do
> > you have something against people taking responsibility for their decisions?
Your method would truly be poetic justice, but in most family
business, the employees are known personally by the family. I am sure
it would be very painful to the Anthony's when they lay off employees
to pay the tax. I have had to lay off employees. One time, it was a
pleasure getting rid of a bad employee, but the other times it is not
pleasant.
As I have expressed in another post, I think inheritance tax,
especially between family members, is immoral. It is just my own
personal opinion.
Jane.
jane....@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <4349e8b7-cc1b-4a4f-bac2-d18135086...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jane.pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I am sure that the patriarch has gifted stock over the years, but once
> > the gift limitation has been reached, the family members must pay
> > income tax on that gift.
>
>
> > We are at the level of discussing personal ideology. I, personally,
> > think a person has the right to gift his possessions to whomever he
>
> pursue that legislation.
>
> > There are many who disagree with me, but my "personal" opinion is that
> > taking something from a family just to "prevent intergenerational
> > accumulation of wealth" (as Red,white and blue put it) is theft.
>
> pursue that legislation.
>
> > Let me express my opinion with an allegory:
> > and have decided that it isn't fair for you guys to have so much
> > wealth. We have voted that the assets of the entire island including
>
> state should be allowed to block its citizens from paying taxes to support said
> war?
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. mmmm lemon yogurt
RE: "Tough shit."
Then why not make it fair? Why not eliminate all exclusions and tax
all gifts including Christmas gifts? You only want laws that don't
affect you.
RE: " that state should be allowed to block its citizens from paying
taxes..."
I didn't say that. I think the Anthony's should pay their immoral
taxes, it is the law.
Jane.
solon fox
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ad85f572-a63e-4aa8-8840-bc0090a4c...@l1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> solon fox <solon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, they were earned - but, never mind that quibble. Why? Why
> > is it important to prevent the passing on of wealth? How does this
> > harm the general public? Why are inheritances bad?
>
> populi vox deo.
That is a fact, but it is not an answer to the question. Why have you
chosen not to answer the question? Is it perhaps because you do not
have an answer?
> > I know that I would be glad to receive an inheritance, but I won't.
>
> I would rather they were still alive. However, I wouldn't have complained that
> it been taxed if the only work I had done to earn it was being born.
It is a sad thing to think that the only thing one has done for their
family is to be born.
It isn't about what you want as the receiver of an inheritance, it is
about property rights and what I or any other wills with our estate.
> > to my family as I possibly can. Why is this bad? Why must I be
> > prevented from taking care of my family after I die? What makes that
>
> Why not take care of them before you die?
Again, you cannot answer the question. You have no idea what I do or
do not do for my family, nor is it any of your business. This is the
point, it is my property and my choice. Why do you think that is
wrong?
>
> > Of course, you realize that gifts are taxed. Gifts over $13,000 per
> > person in a single year are taxed (a married couple can gift up to
> > $26,000 before incurring the tax). There is a lifetime gift exclusion
> > of $1,000,000. Wouldn't you like me to give you a million dollars?
> > Sorry, Uncle Sam says I can't.
>
> Nonsense. You can receive as much in gifts as you want. You just have to pay the
> taxes on them. Since the taxes will be less than totality, it means you still
> get more after taxes than you would've gotten with no gift at all.
Again, you divert the point because you cannot justify the violating
the principle. The recipient of the gift pays no tax. The donor pays
the taxes on the gift. The taxation reduces the sum of the estate of
the donor.
> > If it is my money (or my property) legally obtained, then I should be
> > able to give it to whom ever I please.
>
> You can, doofus.
Why the insults? Is it because you lack a coherent argument?
> > Not all the rich are idle. Is your principle to punish all based on
> > the actions of a few?
>
> Portfolio income requires no labor.
Again, avoiding the question. Portfolio income, of course, is from
capital that creates jobs. I'm not sure what you mean by "portfolio
income", but portfolio income comes from investments, dividends,
interest, proceeds from sales, royalties and capital gains. And, if
you think it requires no labor, then you don't have any.
Why is this bad? Why is it bad to have investment income, or to pass
it on as I please? What is the rationale that tells you that it wasn't
merited? Why is it rational to tax income as it is earned, tax
interest and capital gains and then tax it again upon death?
Those who receive any inheritance are not immune from paying taxes on
the resulting earnings.
-solon fox
Lars Eighner
<4349e8b7-cc1b-4a4f...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented jane....@gmail.com broadcast on alt.politics:
> I agree that it isn't just between family members. When my mother
> died, a portion of her small estate went to people who were not family
> members.
There are no estate taxes on small estates.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
71 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Lars Eighner
<ad85f572-a63e-4aa8...@l1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented solon fox broadcast on alt.politics:
> On Mar 31, 10:36 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <38dc12ab-50dc-40e5-8767-3ad73fb38...@e15g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, the
>> lovely and talented jane.pla...@gmail.com broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>> > On Mar 31, 9:21 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> >> In our last episode, <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_UnZ2dnUVZ_jiWn...@giganews.com>, the
>> >> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>> >> > HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>>
>> >> Of course there is not and never has been a 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
>> >> term invented by the greedy.
>> > I know, I know, it is not a tax on the dead individual, it is an
>> > income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
>> > people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
>>
>> Because the point, of course, is not to impoverish widows and orphans, but
>> to limit the concentration of vast unearned fortunes.
> Of course, they were earned -
Of course they were earned --- by workers, not the exploiters who
accumulated the estate.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
71 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Poetic Justice
> On Mar 31, 10:36 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <38dc12ab-50dc-40e5-8767-3ad73fb38...@e15g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, the
>> lovely and talented jane.pla...@gmail.com broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>>> On Mar 31, 9:21 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>>> In our last episode, <a82dnerCAP9Wjk_UnZ2dnUVZ_jiWn...@giganews.com>, the
>>>> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>>>>> HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>>>> Of course there is not and never has been a 'Death Tax.' It is a propaganda
>>>> term invented by the greedy.
>>> I know, I know, it is not a tax on the dead individual, it is an
>>> income tax on the "gift" received by the heir. Why limit it to rich
>>> people? Why not tax ALL inheritance?
>> Because the point, of course, is not to impoverish widows and orphans, but
>> to limit the concentration of vast unearned fortunes.
>
> Of course, they were earned - but, never mind that quibble. Why? Why
> is it important to prevent the passing on of wealth? How does this
> harm the general public? Why are inheritances bad?
>
It make no sense does it, somehow the original person having the money
is OK but for their kids to have the "same" money is evil beyond belief.
This crazy tax from people that try to vote the same Family like Kennedy
or Clinton into office generation after generation.
> I know that I would be glad to receive an inheritance, but I won't.
> Yet, I have a burning desire to pass as much security and comfort on
> to my family as I possibly can. Why is this bad? Why must I be
I worked to help my kids... when the government stands between me and my
kids it's wrong.
******** FROM A PREVIOUS POST ***********************8
>>>> "from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last
>>>> breath at thee."
>>>>
>> Seems an awful waste of a last breath, don't you think?
>> Not really, I'm kinda looking forward to it. Like I said,
>> overdosing like a movie star/rock-star choking on my puke
>> might be a waste, but I'll be doing something I deem worthy,
>> and in the end isn't myself who I need to satisfy. Besides
>> what else would I be doing?
It was expressed many years ago in similar form, maybe a bit more
succinct "Give me Liberty or give me death" and if nothing else My last
breath will be expended doing something of pure freedom, and at the same
time poking a stick in the eye of those that have attacked my freedom
for a lifetime.
To a Socialist it might be seen as Civil disobedience, but to others
it's simply exercising our freedom. Dropping MY wealth in the Abyss
rather than leaving it in the "system" for either what I feel is good,
or Government to steal is *Galt Like* ....Rather than supporting a
failed policy of growing government and Socialists theft of wealth and
individual rights, I choose to *NOT* to participate.
Dropping MY wealth in the Abyss is MY version of a TEA PARTY, You
Liberals love to burn a flag as free speech, I may burn through some
commodities by giving them a heave-ho into the deepest water I can find.
********************************************
>> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner..com
Poetic Justice
> jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Your method would truly be poetic justice, but in most family
>> business, the employees are known personally by the family. I am sure
>> it would be very painful to the Anthony's when they lay off employees
>
>
and less painful than closing the company or borrowing and adding risk
that may in a down cycle put all of them and you out of work.
Business is the art of making painful choices and getting it right often
enough to stay in business.
--
I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
Socialists. - Poetic Justice -
After 40 years of *Liberals* mired down in a war on poverty, with no end
in site and no *exit strategy* or plan for *redeployment* ....here we
are. - Talk-n-Dog -
Poetic Justice
>>>> I know that I would be glad to receive an inheritance, but I won't.
>>> I would rather they were still alive. However, I wouldn't have complained
>>> that
>>> it been taxed if the only work I had done to earn it was being born.
>> It is a sad thing to think that the only thing one has done for their
>> family is to be born.
>
> inheritance, unless they're dealing with some turkey who keeps threatening to
> change his will to control his family.
>
>> It isn't about what you want as the receiver of an inheritance, it is
>> about property rights and what I or any other wills with our estate.
>
> services?
Let them earn it.
>
>>>> to my family as I possibly can. Why is this bad? Why must I be
>>>> prevented from taking care of my family after I die? What makes that
>>> Why not take care of them before you die?
>> Again, you cannot answer the question. You have no idea what I do or
>> do not do for my family, nor is it any of your business. This is the
>> point, it is my property and my choice. Why do you think that is
>> wrong?
>
> You don't want to accept the consequences of your decisions; instead you come
> whining to me about hard your life. Tough shit.
>
>>> Nonsense. You can receive as much in gifts as you want. You just have to
>>> pay the
>>> taxes on them. Since the taxes will be less than totality, it means you
>>> still
>>> get more after taxes than you would've gotten with no gift at all.
>> Again, you divert the point because you cannot justify the violating
>
> Actually you're whining because your hyperbole has been exposed.
>
>>>> If it is my money (or my property) legally obtained, then I should be
>>>> able to give it to whom ever I please.
>>> You can, doofus.
>> Why the insults? Is it because you lack a coherent argument?
>
> Because you keep repeating the same bullshit. I'm not interested in your
> perceptions of fairness. Stop whining. Grow up.
>
>>>> Not all the rich are idle. Is your principle to punish all based on
>>>> the actions of a few?
>>> Portfolio income requires no labor.
>> Again, avoiding the question. Portfolio income, of course, is from
>> capital that creates jobs. I'm not sure what you mean by "portfolio
>> income", but portfolio income comes from investments, dividends,
>> interest, proceeds from sales, royalties and capital gains. And, if
>> you think it requires no labor, then you don't have any.
>
> I have portfolio income. I know from personal expense how much labor it requires.
>
>> Why is this bad? Why is it bad to have investment income, or to pass
>
> Why is it good to tax people who are actually doing labor, trading their lives
> for paychecks, at a higher rate just to let some rich asshole keep more money he
> can never spend?
>
solon fox
wrote:
> > > > I know that I would be glad to receive an inheritance, but I won't.
>
> > > I would rather they were still alive. However, I wouldn't have complained
> > > that
> > > it been taxed if the only work I had done to earn it was being born.
>
> > It is a sad thing to think that the only thing one has done for their
> > family is to be born.
>
> inheritance, unless they're dealing with some turkey who keeps threatening to
> change his will to control his family.
My condolences for your loss. Did that person die intestate?
Indeed, the very purpose of a will is to allow a person to specify
inheritance beyond birth. A person may wish that a portion of their
estate be given to a charity, to support a cause, or even to be given
to someone they did not sire.
The intestate succession considers only the birthright and recognizes
no other. That is why we have wills in the first place.
None would be able to control me using a will as an instrument of
compliance. Any person that would try to control another in such a way
is a fool.
>
> > It isn't about what you want as the receiver of an inheritance, it is
> > about property rights and what I or any other wills with our estate.
>
> That's an argument against all taxes. So how do you want a government to pay for
> services?
No, it is about wills, estates and the death tax. It is about double
taxation.
How I would want government to pay for services is an entirely
different topic.
You have yet to supply a single argument supporting your position. I
am inclined to think that you cannot and will not.
>
> > > > to my family as I possibly can. Why is this bad? Why must I be
> > > > prevented from taking care of my family after I die? What makes that
>
> > > Why not take care of them before you die?
>
> > Again, you cannot answer the question. You have no idea what I do or
> > do not do for my family, nor is it any of your business. This is the
> > point, it is my property and my choice. Why do you think that is
> > wrong?
>
> You don't want to accept the consequences of your decisions; instead you come
> whining to me about hard your life. Tough shit.
Au contraire, my life is very good - and very little of that has
anything to do with money. I have made other complaint than asking you
to provide the rationale of your position, which seems ever weaker in
view of your complete inability to justify the death tax.
Saying that it is the law, is a reason to pay the tax, not a reason to
support it.
>
> > > Nonsense. You can receive as much in gifts as you want. You just have to
> > > pay the
> > > taxes on them. Since the taxes will be less than totality, it means you
> > > still
> > > get more after taxes than you would've gotten with no gift at all.
>
> > Again, you divert the point because you cannot justify the violating
>
> Actually you're whining because your hyperbole has been exposed.
I wonder if you know what hyperbole means? I have intentionally
avoided any exaggerations.
>
> > > > If it is my money (or my property) legally obtained, then I should be
> > > > able to give it to whom ever I please.
>
> > > You can, doofus.
>
> > Why the insults? Is it because you lack a coherent argument?
>
> Because you keep repeating the same bullshit. I'm not interested in your
> perceptions of fairness. Stop whining. Grow up.
Hmm... now, you're just being funny. I mean seriously, you don't have
any reason at all for your belief that passing accumulated wealth on
is a bad thing?
Well, I suppose that you don't have to have a reason, but you won't
persuade anyone when the most you can bluster are puerile responses.
>
> > > > Not all the rich are idle. Is your principle to punish all based on
> > > > the actions of a few?
>
> > > Portfolio income requires no labor.
>
> > Again, avoiding the question. Portfolio income, of course, is from
> > capital that creates jobs. I'm not sure what you mean by "portfolio
> > income", but portfolio income comes from investments, dividends,
> > interest, proceeds from sales, royalties and capital gains. And, if
> > you think it requires no labor, then you don't have any.
>
> I have portfolio income. I know from personal expense how much labor it requires.
>
> > Why is this bad? Why is it bad to have investment income, or to pass
>
> Why is it good to tax people who are actually doing labor, trading their lives
> for paychecks, at a higher rate just to let some rich asshole keep more money he
> can never spend?
I never said anything about income taxes and whether they are the best
way or not for the government to obtain revenue.
Why do you hold such prejudice against the "rich?" Being rich is not a
prerequisite for being a jackass. In fact, I think you would find
there is very little correlation between wealth and economic status.
Maybe you would like to just tax the jackasses? How about a swearing
jar?
There isn't a limited amount of wealth in the world for distribution.
Wealth is created. You don't need to take pie away from somebody else
when you can make your own.
solon fox
My apologies for the careless wording above. That should read,
there is very little correlation between being a jackass and economic
status.
>
> There isn't a limited amount of wealth in the world for distribution.
> Wealth is created. You don't need to take pie away from somebody else
> when you can make your own.
>
> -solon fox
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
> > Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
> > Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> > Damn the living - It's a lovely life. mmmm lemon yogurt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jerry Okamura
"Don't blame Bush. Blame the idiots who voted for Bush."
<goof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3eac418-da0a-435a...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 31, 5:59 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
> FROM WSJ
>
> HEAD: Night of the Living Death Tax
>
>
> Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, declared
> recently that "Let's be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this
> year. There are no, no tax increases next year." Oh yes, yes, there are.
> The
> President's budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S.
> history in 2010.
>
> The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 1 on page 127
> of
> the President's budget. That note reads: "The estate tax is maintained at
> its 2009 parameters." This means the death tax won't fall to zero next
> year
> as scheduled under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to
> 45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple).
> Better not plan on dying next year after all.
>
> This controversy dates back to George W. Bush's first tax cut in 2001 that
> phased down the estate tax from 55% to 45% this year and then to zero next
> year. Although that 10-year tax law was to expire in 2011, meaning that
> the
> death tax rate would go all the way back to 55%, the political expectation
> was that once the estate tax was gone for even one year, it would never
> return.
>
> And that is no doubt why the Obama Administration wants to make sure it
> never hits zero. It doesn't seem to matter that the vast majority of the
> money in an estate was already taxed when the money was earned. Liberals
> counter that the estate tax is "fair" because it is only paid by the
> richest
> 2% of American families. This ignores that much of the long-term saving
> and
> small business investment in America is motivated by the ability to pass
> on
> wealth to the next generation.
>
> The importance of intergenerational wealth transfers was first measured in
> a
> National Bureau of Economic Research study in 1980. That study looked at
> wealth and savings over the first three-quarters of the 20th century and
> found that "intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of
> aggregate U.S. capital formation." The co-author of that study was . . .
> Lawrence Summers.
>
> Many economists had previously believed in "the life-cycle theory" of
> savings, which postulates that workers are motivated to save with a goal
> of
> spending it down to zero in retirement. Mr. Summers and coauthor Laurence
> Kotlikoff showed that patterns of savings don't validate that model; they
> found that between 41% and 66% of capital stock was transferred either by
> bequests at death or through trusts and lifetime gifts. A major motivation
> for saving and building businesses is to pass assets on so children and
> grandchildren have a better life.
>
> What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the lower the
> incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former Congressional Budget
> Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently used the Summers study as a
> springboard to compare the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero
> rate. He finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax
> would
> be to increase small business capital investment by $1.6 trillion. This
> additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs.
>
> In other words, by raising the estate tax in the name of fairness, Mr.
> Obama
> won't merely bring back from the dead one of the most despised of all
> federal taxes, .........
Despised by millionaires and billionaires. Poor Paris Hilton. Poor
Bush family. Poor Cheney family. Who cares? The rest of us won't be
affected by this.
The reason that the "death tax" was started was to prevent a
plutocracy from rising up in America.
In order to even have a chance at becoming a plutocracy don't you have to
have a continuation of the family line?
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice <@Poetic-Justice.talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> and less painful than closing the company or borrowing and adding risk
>> that may in a down cycle put all of them and you out of work.
>
> the bank get the business, and the business continues under new ownership.
Not if I'm doing it.... I'll make sure that the business goes down if I
do...... Like hell the Tax man will get his, and the people voting to
take it from me will get theirs and I get screwed, I'll screw the whole
package and flush it all first.
You workers will all have to go on welfare and the tax man will be
scratching in the dirt where a business once stood. Me I didn't own it
to start with so what did I lose?
No wonder these companies are getting hosed so bad.... the government
is pushing people into a corner.
I once thought I would spend it all before I die, since that won't be
likely.... I'll take it with me, there will be ZERO heirs, it will all
vanish from the economy. The government will have nothing to tax.
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice <@Poetic-Justice.talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's an argument against all taxes. So how do you want a government to
>>> pay for
>>> services?
>> Let them earn it.
>
> plunder. Is that what you mean? We can send the Navy and Air Force to sink any
> cargo ship on the high seas that refuses to pay our toll.
>
not what I had in mind but if that's all you've got run with it.