Death tax gasps
Steve Dufour
http://www.washingtontimes.com
Death tax gasps
By Raymond J. Keating
Published July 26, 2005
The death tax has become the Hamlet of public policy. The battle was
waged to get rid of the estate tax (or death tax), and was finally won
in 2001 -- or so some thought.
That year, a tax cut bill passed that included a phaseout of the
death tax, with the levy to be banished completely in 2010. But just
like the king in William Shakespeare's "Hamlet," the ghost of the death
tax lingers. In fact, under current law, the death tax is due to be
resurrected in 2011, with its pre-2001 destructiveness largely
restored.
To kill, or not to kill the death tax, that is the policy question.
Not surprisingly, the editorial page of the New York Times would
rather keep this tax around. Like others on the left wing of politics
and economics, the Times editorial page seemingly never met a tax it
didn't love.
On June 21, the paper's editorial page bemoaned the potential loss
of revenue to the federal government if the death tax disappeared. It
called repeal "another wildly unaffordable tax cut for the wealthiest
of the wealthy." The piece went on to criticize plans to keep the death
tax around with an exemption of $3.5 million and a tax rate of 15
percent. This would "starve the Treasury," and when you factor in the
exemptions, the average tax rate might dwindle to 5 percent or 6
percent, the Times claimed. It concluded: "That is less than what most
wage earners have withheld from their paychecks."
Finally, there is the kicker. As to businesses imperiled by the
death tax, the Times editorialized: "That's nonsense. Business owners
have a responsibility to plan for the estate tax bill that will come
due when they die, the same way a free-lance consultant must set aside
a chunk of his fees to avoid being caught flat-footed on April 15."
The Times simply ignores the economywide reach of the death tax's
detrimental effects. The Times worries about lost revenues to the
federal government. However, over the last couple of decades, federal
estate and gift taxes have ranged between 0.9 percent and 11/2 percent
of annual federal revenues -- not exactly a huge chunk. Factor in the
compliance costs and lost economic output related to the tax, and guess
what? The death tax provides little or no net revenues.
Of course, it goes without saying the Times failed to mention true
fiscal responsibility, that is, cutting or at least restraining the
growth in government.
What about the comparison to taxes withheld from wage earners?
Maybe these editorial writers are confused. Let's help them out. Money
withheld from paychecks is an income tax. U.S. personal income tax
rates, unfortunately, range as high as 35 percent, plus any state or
local income levies.
The death tax, though, is a tax on assets, not income, a big
difference. One pays a lifetime of income taxes, plus a host of other
levies, and then with a death tax, the government shows up again at the
end of life to grab a share of one's total assets. The Times thinks
that's fair, but most people, I think, do not. It
is merely a grim case of reaping multiple taxes.
Finally, the editorial's dismissive declaration that businesses
simply must plan to pay the death tax represents a gross example of the
media elites' absolute cluelessness about the real day-to-day struggle
to run a business. The Times preferred a $2 million exemption and a 45
percent top tax rate.
Estate planning wastes resources that otherwise could be used
productively in a business. It should be obvious to all but the most
ardent class warriors that a 45 percent tax on assets discourages
investment and devastates many businesses, farms and families.
Even more frustrating than the Times editorial, though, was a news
story in the June 22 Wall Street Journal ("Senators near deal to
eliminate estate tax for all but the richest"). After all, on tax
relief, one expects more from Republicans who have a majority in the
U.S. Senate, than from a bunch of liberal editorial writers. However,
the story tells of negotiations in the Senate to keep the death tax
around. The report highlights proposals offering exemptions ranging
from $3 million to $10 million per person, and tax rates of 15 percent
or more.
This is billed as affecting only the very rich. But again, that's
simply not so. The negative effect on investment incentives and the
draining of resources from businesses clearly affect the economy
broadly. And we must be reminded once more this is a tax on assets, not
income. There are many businesses with assets -- such as land,
buildings, vehicles, inventory, machinery, etc. -- that value into the
millions of dollars. It does not necessarily mean the owners are among
our nation's richest. But even if they are wealthy, so what? The death
tax is unfair and a clear negative for the economy.
Lastly, as history has shown time and again, a tax targeted at the
wealthy always winds up hitting most everyone else one way or another.
That's been the story with the income tax and the death tax over the
decades.
So it is critical not to let the death tax linger in any form. It
is always harder to reinstate an eliminated tax than it is to raise an
existing levy. This truly historic opportunity to kill the death tax
must be seized.
As Hamlet said: "To die, to sleep no more, and by a sleep to say we
end the heartache." Let's end the economic heartache and immediately --
and permanently -- kill the death tax.
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council.
sam fisher
inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans have, not
because someone died!
"Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122354309.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
VRWC4
>'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if you
>inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans have, not
>because someone died!
False. The death tax (euphemistically known as "Estate Tax") is a
direct attack on Property Rights. It is an arrogant means of
inhibiting the very family economic momentum that family patriarchs
worked so hard to achieve during their lifetime. There is only ONE
motive behind the death tax -- the politics of envy. It is a
Communist inspired idea that continues because those who impose it are
utterly out of control and have proven that they are unworthy of the
trust and power that our society has foolishly given them.
Paul A Thomas
"VRWC4" <nos...@none.com> wrote
> False. The death tax
Can't be found within the Tax Code. As has been pointed out, there are no
taxes due because of death.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
taxman at negia.net
uh Clem
"sam fisher" <s...@home.net> mumbled:
>'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if you
>inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans have, not
>because someone died!
Oh, only SOME Americans have to pay this tax. And it's only those evil
rich people. That's OK then. As long as it's not me.
Archmedes
>> 'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if
>> you inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans
>> have, not because someone died!
> False. The death tax (euphemistically known as "Estate Tax") is a
> direct attack on Property Rights. It is an arrogant means of
> inhibiting the very family economic momentum that family patriarchs
> worked so hard to achieve during their lifetime. There is only ONE
> motive behind the death tax -- the politics of envy. It is a
> Communist inspired idea that continues because those who impose it are
> utterly out of control and have proven that they are unworthy of the
> trust and power that our society has foolishly given them.
What an idiot!!
_________________
FactCheck.org
Estate Tax Malarkey
Misleading ads exaggerate what the tax costs farmers, small businesses and "your family."
June 6, 2005
Summary
In TV and radio ads two conservative groups greatly overstate the burden that the federal estate tax puts on heirs to a family farm or business.
One ad claims the federal estate tax "can bury your family in crippling tax bills," which is untrue for nearly all of those who will see the ad, including the large majority of farm and business owners. Both ads claim the estate tax is a "double tax," which is only partly true, and mostly false when it comes to very wealthy families.
We take no position on whether the estate tax should or should not be repealed permanently. The claims made in these one-sided ads, however, present a misleading picture of who is actually affected by the tax.
Analysis
The American Family Business Institute and Free Enterprise Fund launched a TV and radio ad campaign May 10 that targets potential swing votes in the Senate for full repeal of the estate tax. The group said it will run different versions of the 30-second and 60-second ads in Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Maine, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada and New York as part of a $15 million campaign leading up to a Senate vote expected before the August recess.
Contrary to ad's claim that "your family" might be crippled, the vast majority of families actually are not affected by the estate tax. In fact, less than 3 percent of deceased adults in 2002 had estates subject to the tax, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and figures from the IRS.
And though the ad focuses on family farms and businesses, the truth is that very few actually pay the estate tax. The Tax Policy Center projects that roughly 440 taxable estates were primarily made up of farm and business assets in 2004.
And even considering estates for which farming or business was a sideline, the Center found only 7,090 taxable estates for 2004 that included any farm or business income. That's still just 38 percent of all taxable estates. The fact is that repealing the estate tax entirely, as the ad advocates, would benefit mostly non-farmers and non-business-owners.
The ad would have been accurate had it said that "some families" are affected.
"Cost Them Everything?"
Far from imposing tax bills on farms and businesses that "cost them everything," the average estate tax paid by all farm and business estates in 2004 was just under 20 percent of the value of the estate, according to calculations by the Tax Policy Center.
The effective rate was far less for smaller estates. Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million.Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid at an average effective rate of just over 22 percent, a hefty tax bite but well short of "everything."
These effective rates are not to be confused with the top rate, which is currently 47 percent. But that marginal rate applies only to what is taxed, and currently the first $1.5 million of an estate is exempt. The Tax Policy Center's figures are an average effective rate on the entire estate, including any proceeds of life insurance. The taxable portion is often reduced further through charitable contributions or special provisions that allow most farms to reduce the taxable value of their real property by 40 to 70 percent of market value.
The following table shows how many taxable farm or business estates fell into various size categories, the average amount of tax and the effective tax rate they paid, according to the center's calculations:
Taxable Farm or Business Estates, 2004
Number of Returns
Average Tax (thousands)
Average Rate
Under $1 million 0 $0 0.0%
$1 - $2 million 190 $26 1.6%
$2 - $3.5 million 60 $190 7.5%
$3.5 - $5 million 40 $449 12.0%
$5 - $10 million 80 $1,322 19.3%
$10 - $20 million 50 $2,832 22.9%
More than $20 million 30 $23,442 22.2%
All 440 $2,238 19.9%
Source: Tax Policy Center, Table T04-0163
These 440 taxable estates are those for which farm or business assets made up at least half the total value of the estate. They represent only 2 percent of all 18,800 taxable estates in 2004.
Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses already receive special treatment under current law. Heirs who agree to keep the farm or business assets within the family for 10 years after death can reduce the taxable amount of the estate by 40 percent to 70 percent. And if the farm or business is at least 35 percent of the gross value of the estate, payments can be spread out over 14 years.
AFBI TV Ad "Generations"
Announcer: They freed the world from tyranny, then came home to build family businesses and farms. Heroes in war and peace. They paid taxes all their lives, but not the IRS hits this "Greatest Generation" with an unjust double tax, the death tax.
Don Malarkey (WWII Vet): In war and peace, my generation stood up for what's right. Join us now and help us end the unfair death tax.
Announcer: Tell Max Baucus to side with family business, not the IRS.
"Double Tax?"
Both the radio and TV ads call the estate tax a "double tax," which is only partly accurate. It is true that some portion of a taxable estate might be made up of cash that was taxed before, when it was earned as income. But many estates are made up of stocks, bonds, real estate or other holdings that have appreciated greatly in value over the lifetime of the person who owned them. The owner didn't pay taxes on that profit during his or her lifetime because they weren't sold and the profits weren't turned into cash, or "realized." Furthermore, heirs who inherit such appreciated assets won't have to pay tax on that unrealized profit either. The estate tax is the only tax that applies to such unrealized capital gains.
Furthermore, such unrealized, untaxed capital gains make up more than one-third of the average estate, according to a study by economists James Poterba of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and James Weisbenner, who was on the staff of the Federal Reserve Board when the study was published in 2000. Weisbenner is currently at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Their study estimated that unrealized capital gains made up 36.3 percent of the value of all estates in 1998. That would make the "double tax" claim 63.7 percent true, and just over one-third false.
For very large estates it is mostly false. The study also found that estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains.
The Poterba-Weisbenner study was first released as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization of mostly academic economists, and later published by the Brookings Institution. We have found no study disputing these findings. In fact, they may be understated. For one thing the authors couldn't find any way to estimate the unrealized capital gains on art work or other collectibles, which can make up a sizeable part of some estates. More importantly, the very richest Americans aren't covered by this study, because the Federal Reserve Board survey on which the study is based doesn't include them. It is quite likely the averages are even higher for billionaires, whose fortunes are often built on appreciated stock or real estate that would go untaxed at their death but for the estate tax.
Emotional Appeals
The ads make some emotional appeals worth noting. The TV ad feature World War II veterans from the popular HBO series "Band of Brothers," while an announcer tells viewers that these men "paid taxes all their lives" and are now being subjected to a "nightmare" tax. Actually, of course, WWII vets are no more likely than anyone else to be subject to the estate tax when they die. The estates of veterans and non-veterans alike owe tax only on amounts exceeding $1.5 million. That goes up to $2 million next year.
The radio ad also characterizes the tax as the "IRS death tax." Opponents of the estate tax have long used the term "death tax" even though it is wealth, and not death, that is being taxed. Adding "IRS" to the mix makes it sound as though the unpopular tax collectors were responsible for enacting it, and not elected members of Congress.
Sources
Leonard Burman, William Gale, and Jeffrey Rohaly, "Options to Reform the Estate Tax," Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Tax Policy Issues and Options No. 10, March 2005.
Tax Policy Center, Table T04-0164, "Current-Law Distribution of Gross Estate and Net Estate Tax By Size of Gross Estate, 2004: Returns With Any Farm or Business Assets."
Tax Policy Center, Table T04-0163 , "Current-Law Distribution of Gross Estate and Net Estate Tax By Size of Gross Estate, 2004: Farms and Businesses."
Leonard Burman and William Gale, "The Estate Tax is Down, But Not Out." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Tax Policy Issues and Options No. 2, December 2001.
Scott Weisbenner and James Poterba, "The Distributional Burden of Taxing Estates and Unrealized Capital Gains at Death," Rethinking Estate and Gift Taxation, eds. W.G. Gale, J.R. Hines, and J. Slemrod (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2001) 422-449.
forbi...@msn.com
paid income tax on?
Governments have to have money to conduct their business.
No matter what is taxes some will consider it unfair.
I'm in favor of allocated use taxes, that is thing like
toll roads with the fees going to maintain the roads
against which the toll is collected and the difference
between off peak and peak hour prices to go to flow
enhancement.
Also, I'd use market forces to handle redistribution
issues. For instance, urban planners could say
what the cost was of various ways of mitigating
aberrant behavior and those wanting particular
choices would be tasked with finding free market
funding or donations.
I'd also allow certain land covanents. This would
make it clear that by buying the land one was
entering into a contract that included certain
maintenance fees and non-payment meant one
was in default. (I believe they implicitly exist
but that's another matter.)
Estate taxes are just another income tax paid
on unearned income. As long as income is taxed
then none should be exempted, especially not
huge windfalls.
entropy
> Not surprisingly, the editorial page of the New York Times would
> rather keep this tax around. Like others on the left wing of politics
> and economics, the Times editorial page seemingly never met a tax it
> didn't love.
Neither did the Gates Foundation: http://www.responsiblewealth.org
--
Never tire of doing what is right.
entropy
> Why should I have to pay income tax on money others have already
> paid income tax on?
Because it wasn't YOUR income. Money isn't taxed. Income is.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
But one which will increase because of the many large fortunes built
up since the stock market broke out of bad times in the sixties. The
revenue loss is grossly underestimated by using the figures of the
last couple decades, given how the rich have gotten much richer in the
recent past.
Factor in the
>compliance costs and lost economic output related to the tax, and guess
>what? The death tax provides little or no net revenues.
Not when you use the exemptions proposed by the NY Times. Only when
you measure it against the old 600,000 exemption.
> Of course, it goes without saying the Times failed to mention true
>fiscal responsibility, that is, cutting or at least restraining the
>growth in government.
Why bother? We have Republicans in office, and, as usual, they are
going to hike spending a ton no matter what we say.
Yes - Republican presidents increase fed spending a lot more than Dem
presidents - ESPECIALLY nondefense spending.
Check it out by scrolling down a bit
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
Dick Cheney said to the Secretary of Treasury - "Deficits don't
matter."
And he believes it - spending has gone wild under current Repub
leaders.
If we could get Dems back in their - with their "Rubinomics" which is
ridiculed by the no-spending-left-behind Republicans - then we could
again have responsibility in govt finances.
> What about the comparison to taxes withheld from wage earners?
>Maybe these editorial writers are confused. Let's help them out. Money
>withheld from paychecks is an income tax. U.S. personal income tax
>rates, unfortunately, range as high as 35 percent, plus any state or
>local income levies.
Excellent point. If we had an estate tax, we could lower those high
rates.
> The death tax, though, is a tax on assets, not income, a big
>difference. One pays a lifetime of income taxes, plus a host of other
>levies, and then with a death tax, the government shows up again at the
>end of life to grab a share of one's total assets.
Most, in the estates above 3.5 million, consisting of never-ever taxed
appreciation on stocks and real estate.
Why not tax this income once - so that we don't have to hike rates on
income taxes?
The Times thinks
>that's fair, but most people, I think, do not. It
> is merely a grim case of reaping multiple taxes.
Not really. Most estate tax comes from tax on never-ever appreciation
on securities and commercial real estate.
Shouldn't we tax this income once - so we don't have to have higher
rates on other income?
> Finally, the editorial's dismissive declaration that businesses
>simply must plan to pay the death tax represents a gross example of the
>media elites' absolute cluelessness about the real day-to-day struggle
>to run a business. The Times preferred a $2 million exemption and a 45
>percent top tax rate.
> Estate planning wastes resources that otherwise could be used
>productively in a business. It should be obvious to all but the most
>ardent class warriors that a 45 percent tax on assets discourages
>investment and devastates many businesses, farms and families.
Except the real tax rate is incredibly lower than that. Even with only
a 600,000 dollar exemption, the effective rate of tax - tax divided by
gross estate - averaged only seventeen percent.
The author "forgot" all the exemptions lowering the top MARGINAL rates
to a much lower EFFECTIVE tax rate.
On some estates it might be twice that seventeen percent, really big
estate where heirs have gotten millions and millions after the tax -
and in those little wolud be other than never-ever taxed appreciation.
Shouldn't we tax that income once - so we don't have to raise taxes on
other sources?
> Even more frustrating than the Times editorial, though, was a news
>story in the June 22 Wall Street Journal ("Senators near deal to
>eliminate estate tax for all but the richest"). After all, on tax
>relief, one expects more from Republicans who have a majority in the
>U.S. Senate, than from a bunch of liberal editorial writers. However,
>the story tells of negotiations in the Senate to keep the death tax
>around. The report highlights proposals offering exemptions ranging
>from $3 million to $10 million per person, and tax rates of 15 percent
>or more.
> This is billed as affecting only the very rich. But again, that's
>simply not so. The negative effect on investment incentives and the
>draining of resources from businesses clearly affect the economy
>broadly.
as do any other taxes. That is the nature of tax. But we need a
government, and without one investment would do poorly.
We must tax something, and this mostly never-ever taxed appreciation
seems a good fair candidate.
The alternative is higher taxes on wages. Wouldn't that make work less
likely?
And we must be reminded once more this is a tax on assets, not
>income. There are many businesses with assets -- such as land,
>buildings, vehicles, inventory, machinery, etc. -- that value into the
>millions of dollars. It does not necessarily mean the owners are among
>our nation's richest.
If their NET worth is below the millions exempted - they owe zero tax.
It is the excess of assets minus liabilities on those assets which
determines the tax.
But even if they are wealthy, so what? The death
>tax is unfair and a clear negative for the economy.
It's very fair. A nephew getting ten million dollars did nothing to
earn it. Isn't it ok to tax him some, rather than raise the tax on the
hard-working plumber?
> Lastly, as history has shown time and again, a tax targeted at the
>wealthy always winds up hitting most everyone else one way or another.
All taxes percolate. So? We are running huge deficits. We need more
tax receipts.
>That's been the story with the income tax and the death tax over the
>decades.
> So it is critical not to let the death tax linger in any form.
So the middle class pays more of our tax burden, rather than
multi-millionaires who did absolutely nothing to earn their windfall
inheritance.
Yes, it is critical - to them - to get it that way.
It
>is always harder to reinstate an eliminated tax than it is to raise an
>existing levy. This truly historic opportunity to kill the death tax
>must be seized.
> As Hamlet said: "To die, to sleep no more, and by a sleep to say we
>end the heartache." Let's end the economic heartache and immediately --
>and permanently -- kill the death tax.
>
> Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business &
>Entrepreneurship Council.
The overwhelming number of small businesses would generate zero estate
tax with the huge exemptions - in the millions - before even a penny
of tax would be paid under the NY Times proposal.
In addition, those few owing tax already have special exemptions for
small businesses.
And the estate tax on family-run farms? We have yet to find even one
which had to sell the farm to pay estate tax. Not one. Literally. You
can not name the farmer whose family could not continue to operate the
farm despite estate taxes. Because big special exemptions have been
written in the estate tax laws for decades to prevent that.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
>>'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if you
>>inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans have, not
>>because someone died!
>
>Oh, only SOME Americans have to pay this tax. And it's only those evil
>rich people. That's OK then. As long as it's not me.
When someone inherits fifty million dollars - most of it in the form
of appreciated stocks and commercial real estate which has never ever
been taxed even once - and pays no tax
then the other taxes must be higher to pay our govt bills.
That exemption causes the rate of tax to rise on all the others.
why isn't it ok for a guy inheriting fifty million dollars, which he
did nothing to earn, to pay a little so that a hard-working plumber
does not have to pay so much?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>stevej...@yahoo.com wrote...
>
>> Not surprisingly, the editorial page of the New York Times would
>> rather keep this tax around. Like others on the left wing of politics
>> and economics, the Times editorial page seemingly never met a tax it
>> didn't love.
>
>Neither did the Gates Foundation: http://www.responsiblewealth.org
Is Warren Buffett left wing?
Peacenik
news:1122354309.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com
>
> Death tax gasps
>
> By Raymond J. Keating
> Published July 26, 2005
>
> The death tax has become the Hamlet of public policy. The battle was
> waged to get rid of the estate tax (or death tax), and was finally won
> in 2001 -- or so some thought.
The so-called "death tax" only affect the super-rich. Yes, the super-rich.
YOU will never have to worry about the inheritence tax, since there's no way
in hell YOU will ever be rich enough. So, why do you oppose it?
entropy
LOL. The two richest people on earth believe the inheritance tax is
justified. More information you'll never see on Fox News Channel.
entropy
Great cartoon by Nick Anderson, from the 22 Apr 2005 USA Today:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze3jmtr/death_tax.jpg
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
People have been mislead to think they will pay this tax, and that the
rate of tax is high.
They also have been mislead to think that this tax on the really rich
is a tax on stuff already taxed. When for those folks most of the tax
applies to appreciation on stocks and commercial real estate, and
there has never been a penny in tax paid on that appreciation.
They have also been lied to to think that family-owned enterprises
must sell out to pay the tax. Not a single farmer has yet been found
whose family could not continue to operate the family-farm. And the
small businesses? THere are a few which must be sold, but the heirs
get many millions of dollars after taxes, at a minimum. And they could
have borrowed to keep the firm going, using profits to pay off the
taxes and the mortgage.
After which it would be the mllions they got at the time of death -
the generous exemptions for small businesses comes to millions - plus
the business too.
And people forget that if this tax goes away, then the tax on others
must rise to pick up the slack.
The defenders of repealing the death tax, those with huge amounts of
stocks and commercial real estate, most never taxed even once, have
done a fabulous job of conning the public.
entropy
> The defenders of repealing the death tax, those with huge amounts of
> stocks and commercial real estate, most never taxed even once, have
> done a fabulous job of conning the public.
One principle benefit of owning the media is control over who gets
the argue with you.
The hamsters just hear "Death Tax! They tax you when you die!" and
accept it without a moment's thought.
m pautz
I have seen good arguments on both sides. As a result, I think it boils
down to a personal opinion. MY personal opinion is that it is wrong.
HOWEVER, if it is accepted, then in that case, I believe in equal
protection under the law. If you want a tax on the receipt of (earned or
unearned) money, then it should apply to everyone; including a tax on
the Christmas gifts that your children receive.
When you vote for a tax that applies to someone else and excludes
yourself, then that is theft.
Simply my own personal opinion.
The Trucker
news:1122354309.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com
>
> Death tax gasps
>
> By Raymond J. Keating
> Published July 26, 2005
>
> The death tax has become the Hamlet of public policy. The battle was
> waged to get rid of the estate tax (or death tax), and was finally won
> in 2001 -- or so some thought.
> That year, a tax cut bill passed that included a phaseout of the
> death tax, with the levy to be banished completely in 2010. But just
> like the king in William Shakespeare's "Hamlet," the ghost of the death
> tax lingers. In fact, under current law, the death tax is due to be
> resurrected in 2011, with its pre-2001 destructiveness largely
> restored.
This "destructiveness" is, at best, a matter of opinion.
> To kill, or not to kill the death tax, that is the policy question.
I say keep it so long as there are income taxes and
wage taxes as opposed to asset taxes.
> Not surprisingly, the editorial page of the New York Times would
> rather keep this tax around. Like others on the left wing of politics
> and economics, the Times editorial page seemingly never met a tax it
> didn't love.
Nope. I'd bet that the times does not think that
wage taxes are good. And, of course,
that would be quite correct.
> On June 21, the paper's editorial page bemoaned the potential loss
> of revenue to the federal government if the death tax disappeared. It
> called repeal "another wildly unaffordable tax cut for the wealthiest
> of the wealthy." The piece went on to criticize plans to keep the death
> tax around with an exemption of $3.5 million and a tax rate of 15
> percent. This would "starve the Treasury," and when you factor in the
> exemptions, the average tax rate might dwindle to 5 percent or 6
> percent, the Times claimed. It concluded: "That is less than what most
> wage earners have withheld from their paychecks."
The benefits derived from an inheritance tax is not
realized in direct proceeds from the tax. It comes
from pursuing the seeming loopholes that allow one
to escape from the tax. You don't just hand the
dough to the kids. You must do something that
is a bost to the economy while you pass the bucks.
And it is the tax on this otherwise non existent
economic activity that is the real revenue generator
and job creator. But these are the sort of things
that righties are unable to fathom. The inhertance
tax, for that very reason, should be quite high.
In 1979 there was an 80% income tax bracket
but a 28% capital gains tax. That encouraged
wealthy people to invest for capital gains as
opposed to just buying government debt. The
tax realized from the 80% bracket was very small,
but the tax reliazed from the economic activity
caused by investing for capital gains must have
been quite substantial.
> Finally, there is the kicker. As to businesses imperiled by the
> death tax, the Times editorialized: "That's nonsense. Business owners
> have a responsibility to plan for the estate tax bill that will come
> due when they die, the same way a free-lance consultant must set aside
> a chunk of his fees to avoid being caught flat-footed on April 15."
> The Times simply ignores the economywide reach of the death tax's
> detrimental effects.
Amplification of facts not in evidence is the
typical rightie tirade. Most instances of "estate tax"
are probably on somethng OTHER THAN a
business.
> The Times worries about lost revenues to the
> federal government. However, over the last couple of decades, federal
> estate and gift taxes have ranged between 0.9 percent and 11/2 percent
> of annual federal revenues -- not exactly a huge chunk.
As I said above: That just isn't the real picture.
> Factor in the
> compliance costs and lost economic output related to the tax, and guess
> what?
You have yet to show any "lost economic output". But
no need to do that when talking to brain dead righties.
> The death tax provides little or no net revenues.
Bullshit on a stick.
> Of course, it goes without saying the Times failed to mention true
> fiscal responsibility, that is, cutting or at least restraining the
> growth in government.
Any person who can observe the Pinocchio Bush tax
cuts and conclude that such cuts will "restrain the
growth in government" is most certainly a moron.
> What about the comparison to taxes withheld from wage earners?
You make a good point here, at last. There should be
NO wage taxes at all on wages less than 30K per
year. The tax should get very progressive from there.
> Maybe these editorial writers are confused. Let's help them out. Money
> withheld from paychecks is an income tax. U.S. personal income tax
> rates, unfortunately, range as high as 35 percent, plus any state or
> local income levies.
So money gained from inheritance should be taxed
at a MUCH higher rate than that.
> The death tax, though, is a tax on assets, not income, a big
> difference.
Horsecrap. The inheritance tax is an income tax. It is
paid by a survivor as he takes possession of the assets.
> One pays a lifetime of income taxes, plus a host of other
> levies, and then with a death tax, the government shows up again at the
> end of life to grab a share of one's total assets.
You gonna take em with you to the great beyond?
> The Times thinks
> that's fair, but most people, I think, do not.
Most _thinking_ people would think that the
assets can't go with you and that the people
who will inherit them can pay a very high
progressive income tax on the wad of
UNEARNED wealth.
>It
> is merely a grim case of reaping multiple taxes.
If I pay tax on my wages and use my wages
to pay for something then the person who
receives my money will also pay an income
tax. Each person who recieves income will
pay income tax on the money.
> Finally, the editorial's dismissive declaration that businesses
> simply must plan to pay the death tax represents a gross example of the
> media elites' absolute cluelessness about the real day-to-day struggle
> to run a business. The Times preferred a $2 million exemption and a 45
> percent top tax rate.
> Estate planning wastes resources that otherwise could be used
> productively in a business.
More self serving pompous manure. The assets may or
may not even _be_ a business, and passing ownership
in a business is not that tough a challenge. The number
of businesses that are started so as to pass the family
wealth is/was probably guite large.
> It should be obvious to all but the most
> ardent class warriors that a 45 percent tax on assets discourages
> investment and devastates many businesses, farms and families.
That is not "obvious" in the least because it isn't an
asset tax, and it can be managed in such a way as
to greatly diminish the tax bite. And the things
that are done are GOOD for the economy. Just
giving junior a pile of gold bricks is not going to
do much good for anyone but junior.
> Even more frustrating than the Times editorial, though, was a news
> story in the June 22 Wall Street Journal ("Senators near deal to
> eliminate estate tax for all but the richest"). After all, on tax
> relief, one expects more from Republicans who have a majority in the
> U.S. Senate, than from a bunch of liberal editorial writers. However,
> the story tells of negotiations in the Senate to keep the death tax
> around. The report highlights proposals offering exemptions ranging
> from $3 million to $10 million per person, and tax rates of 15 percent
> or more.
The tax should be more and the exemptions should be less.
> This is billed as affecting only the very rich. But again, that's
> simply not so.
I don't have $3m in assets. Do You?
> The negative effect on investment incentives
Non existant booger man.
> and the
> draining of resources from businesses
More prancing pig shit.
> clearly affect the economy
> broadly. And we must be reminded once more this is a tax on assets, not
> income.
And you must be reminded once more that it
is an income tax, not an asset tax.
Here is an asset tax for you:
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
> There are many businesses with assets -- such as land,
> buildings, vehicles, inventory, machinery, etc. -- that value into the
> millions of dollars. It does not necessarily mean the owners are among
> our nation's richest.
That is, of course, a blatent lie.
> But even if they are wealthy, so what?
That's better......
> The death
> tax is unfair and a clear negative for the economy.
Back to bluster and bullshit.
>
> Lastly, as history has shown time and again, a tax targeted at the
> wealthy always winds up hitting most everyone else one way or another.
> That's been the story with the income tax and the death tax over the
> decades.
True! The rich always find a way to push the
taxes onto the productive people in the society.
Or they make up lies that can be foisted on the
economically illiteratre so as to repeal the taxes
that might threaten their caste. They can always
find some neoconomists to parade a bunch of
economic desceptions past the uneducated.
> So it is critical not to let the death tax linger in any form. It
> is always harder to reinstate an eliminated tax than it is to raise an
> existing levy. This truly historic opportunity to kill the death tax
> must be seized.
Calling all protectors of the rich and the nobility:
Take up arms and defend your masters.
> As Hamlet said: "To die, to sleep no more, and by a sleep to say we
> end the heartache." Let's end the economic heartache and immediately --
> and permanently -- kill the death tax.
>
> Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business &
> Entrepreneurship Council.
What a load of lies and distortions.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Or how about on the value of sexual pleasure your wife gives you? If
you want to include all gifts.
I'm not sure your proposal is practical or cost-effective.
>
>When you vote for a tax that applies to someone else and excludes
>yourself, then that is theft.
The common meaning of the word of theft does not include tax. You may
have a different view of the meaning of theft, but that's just tough -
majority rules in determining the common meaning of a word.
But if you want to say tax is theft, or that economic imperialism is a
banana, you are free to do that.
Arthur Kamlet
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:
>
>The common meaning of the word of theft does not include tax. You may
>have a different view of the meaning of theft, but that's just tough -
>majority rules in determining the common meaning of a word.
>
>But if you want to say tax is theft, or that economic imperialism is a
>banana, you are free to do that.
A banana?
When Alfred E Kahn, the man credited with deregulation of the
airline industry,
http://www.bsad.uvm.edu/Features/AlfredKahn2005.htm
was Chairman of President Carter's Council of Economic Advisors,
the country was in a Recession and he was scheduled to meet
the press and was planniong to say so.
The presidents chief of staff however, ordered him not to use the
word "recession." Off limits.
So when the press asked him if he though we were in a recession,
he stated: I have been told I cannot use the R word. So I will not
use the R word.
But I can use the B word - banana.
So if you had asked me if I thought the county was now in a Banana
then yes, I think we are certainly in a banana.
--
__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH
forbi...@msn.com
I know, I know, the tax is collected from the estate
rather than the recipients of the estate. It's a difference
without a difference.
entropy
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Yes, it's one of my alltime favorites, and it was in tribute to Mr
Kahn that I used the word banana.
uh Clem
entropy <en...@py.invalid> mumbled:
<snip>
>http://www.responsiblewealth.org
So let me see if I understand. This is a group of wealthy busnessmen
who WANT gov't to take more of their earnings and redistribute it to
the lazy? Why don't they just bundle up some cash, get a big floorfan
or airboat, and toss the bills into the resulting wind thereby cutting
out the middleman?
entropy
Let me guess: You think "Atlas Shrugged" is a documentary.
But to your mis-characterization of Responsible Wealth: It's a group
of (very) wealthy businessmen who recognize the contribution of the
Commons to their success, and view taxation as a royalty of sorts.
forbi...@msn.com
those who earn income, lazy but those who get money by way
of the death of someone else not?
The taxes have to be collected from someone.
uh Clem
<snip>
Adolf...!
Come and get it....!
Your clamcakes are getting damp!
m pautz
Trust me, I pay, boy do I pay. There was a question in the form when I
donated blood, "have you ever paid for sex?" I asked her, "I'm married,
does that count?" :-)
Gifts between spouses aren't taxed.
> I'm not sure your proposal is practical or cost-effective.
>
>
Practical??? Why not? If we can specify a gift at inheritance, we can
specify gifts on the tax form. As a matter of fact, gifts ARE specified
on the tax form. The IRS wants to limit gifts to prevent people from
getting around the inheritance tax.
What does cost-effective have to do with it? I don't really know what
you are referencing here?
>
>>When you vote for a tax that applies to someone else and excludes
>>yourself, then that is theft.
>
>
> The common meaning of the word of theft does not include tax. You may
> have a different view of the meaning of theft, but that's just tough -
I agree with you that TAX is not included in the definition of theft.
However it is my "personal" opinion that if 10 people go out to lunch
and 9 of them force the 10th guy pay the bill, then that is theft. That
is a description of democracy. This is why our founding father's
abhorred a democracy. With the inheritance tax, we have the vast
majority excluding themselves and forcing an extremely small percentage
to pay the lunch bill.
I will be the first to admit that the word "fair" is the most useless
word in our language, BUT I think that the only "fair" thing is that, if
the masses want to tax inheritance, it should apply to ALL, not just the
10th guy at the lunch table.
m pautz
You present very good arguments. I have seen excellent arguments on
both sides. I have seen valid financial arguement like you presented
and I have also seen valid emotional arguments, like it is simply wrong
to prevent a family from passing family possessions from grandfather, to
father, to son, to grandchild. The same can be said of all taxation;
i.e. income vs consumption. My "personal" opinion is against that
inheritance tax, but, as I said, that is strickly my personal opinion.
However, If the inheritance tax is implemented, then it should be
implemented across the board; quality under the law. It should not be
passed by the masses and, at the same time, exclude the masses. If we
tax the wealthy, then we should also tax the family that has nothing to
pass on other than a rusty Camaro.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Coming oooohhh Mother
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
There are practical and equitable reasons to provide exemptions in the
tax code.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Those receiving millions of dollars in inheritance - still get
millions even with the tax. They have done nothing to get that money.
They did not build a bridge to get it, design a game to get it. They
were just born lucky.
Without the tax, then government must have higher rates of tax
elsewhere to compensate. Such as a tax on the labor of a plumber.
The plumber actually DOES work for his money.
So you have it exactly ass-backwards.
The estate tax REWARDS work and punishes leasure.
But look - the dumb kids, Paris and Nicky, STILL get HUGE sums, after
tax. The rate of tax is FAR LOWER than you think. I have figures for
when the exemption was only 600,000 dollars (completely free of tax)
The amount of estate tax for those few subject to it, divided by the
amount of the estate, averaged seventeen percent.
Is that really so bad?
Can't Paris chip in SOMETHING for our society?
>
VRWC5
>Why should I have to pay income tax on money others have already
>paid income tax on?
>
>Governments have to have money to conduct their business.
>No matter what is taxes some will consider it unfair.
>
>I'm in favor of allocated use taxes, that is thing like
>toll roads with the fees going to maintain the roads
>against which the toll is collected and the difference
>between off peak and peak hour prices to go to flow
>enhancement.
>
>Also, I'd use market forces to handle redistribution
>issues. For instance, urban planners could say
>what the cost was of various ways of mitigating
>aberrant behavior and those wanting particular
>choices would be tasked with finding free market
>funding or donations.
>
>I'd also allow certain land covanents. This would
>make it clear that by buying the land one was
>entering into a contract that included certain
>maintenance fees and non-payment meant one
>was in default. (I believe they implicitly exist
>but that's another matter.)
>
>Estate taxes are just another income tax paid
>on unearned income. As long as income is taxed
>then none should be exempted, especially not
>huge windfalls.
The cure for this problem is to eliminate ANY taxes based on income or
property. Government is not trustworthy enough to have any knowledge
whatsoever of who earns or owns what. Title to property need not
involve government to provide an orderly method of title transfer
and/or confirmation.
The REAL problem with death taxes (other than the fact that it's only
real motive is class envy politics) is that is constitutes a direct
attack on the Property Rights of the benefactor: Do you or do you not
have a Right to give ALL of your honestly acquired property to anyone
you wish? Do you or do you not have a Right to do any harmless thing
to ensure the continued prosperity of your genetic line after your
death? The answer in both cases is, absolutely.
cpt banjo
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>
> millions even with the tax. They have done nothing to get that money.
> They did not build a bridge to get it, design a game to get it. They
> were just born lucky.
True (but not always: many people make bequests to nonfamily members
who've worked for them), but look at it from the viewpoint of the donor
or the decedent. Suppose he has worked his tail off to amass his
wealth. Why shouldn't he be able to give it to whomever he wants
during life or at his death without the government taking a large bite?
> Without the tax, then government must have higher rates of tax
> elsewhere to compensate. Such as a tax on the labor of a plumber.
The estate tax raises less than 2% of the federal government's revenue,
so the impact of its repeal on other taxes is marginal.
>
> The estate tax REWARDS work and punishes leasure.
>
Not really. Consider the previous example in which one who works for
his wealth is denied the ability to give it away without a tax bite.
> But look - the dumb kids, Paris and Nicky, STILL get HUGE sums, after
> tax. The rate of tax is FAR LOWER than you think. I have figures for
> when the exemption was only 600,000 dollars (completely free of tax)
>
> The amount of estate tax for those few subject to it, divided by the
> amount of the estate, averaged seventeen percent.
>
> Is that really so bad?
Well, it depends on the size of the estate. Under current law, for
example, a $50 million estate of an unmarried decedent that passes to
noncharitable beneficiaries would pay an average estate tax rate of
about 46.5%.
> Can't Paris chip in SOMETHING for our society?
The best thing she could do for society is to leave and not come back.
cpt banjo
transmission of property at death. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41
(1901).
entropy
I got yer class envy politics right here:
http://www.responsiblewealth.org
Seems Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are among the many advocates of
the estate tax to be found. Why? Because they realize it's the only
fair way to distribute a portion of their earnings to the social
context that made those earnings possible.
Ford Prefect
"entropy" <en...@py.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d51a8e6e...@news.verizon.net...
Warren Buffet is also in favor of reducing by whatever means necessary,
two-thirds of the worlds population.
--
Never tire of pointing out the hypocrisy of the ultra-rich and the dumb.
m pautz
Agreed.
Now I don't know the percentage of people who have to pay estate tax,
but I believe it is less than one percent. So lets go on the presumption
that 99% are excluded. Correct me if I am wrong.
Although I agree with your statement, I believe that a tax that excludes
over 99% of the people goes beyond "practical and equitable reasons".
If we believe that an inheritance tax is NOT WRONG, then I see no reason
why 50% of the people can't pay it.
The only reason I see for taxing less than 1%, the Extremely rich, is
because of greed and envy that they were able to accumulate such a huge
mass.
m pautz
> "Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122354309.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The Washington Times
>>
>>http://www.washingtontimes.com
>>
>>Death tax gasps
>>
>>By Raymond J. Keating
>>Published July 26, 2005
>>
>>The death tax has become the Hamlet of public policy. The battle was
>>waged to get rid of the estate tax (or death tax), and was finally won
>>in 2001 -- or so some thought.
>
>
> The so-called "death tax" only affect the super-rich. Yes, the super-rich.
> YOU will never have to worry about the inheritence tax, since there's no way
> in hell YOU will ever be rich enough. So, why do you oppose it?
>
>
I don't oppose it as much as I think it is wrong. If you want to apply
the inheritance tax to the top 50% of the people, then I would accept it.
Although it will never effect me, I could not vote for, or accept,
something that I think is so wrong. Change it to include the top 50%
and I would still vote against it, but I could accept it.
Ford Prefect
"entropy" <en...@py.invalid> wrote in message
> ford.p...@oldschoolmotherfucker.com wrote...
> > two-thirds of the worlds population.
>
Are you denying he said this?
entropy
> two-thirds of the worlds population.
_Sure_ he is.
cpt banjo
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2005 11:23:30 -0700, "cpt banjo" <cptb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >> Those receiving millions of dollars in inheritance - still get
> >> millions even with the tax. They have done nothing to get that money.
> >> They did not build a bridge to get it, design a game to get it. They
> >> were just born lucky.
> >
> >
> >True (but not always: many people make bequests to nonfamily members
> >who've worked for them), but look at it from the viewpoint of the donor
> >or the decedent. Suppose he has worked his tail off to amass his
> >wealth. Why shouldn't he be able to give it to whomever he wants
> >during life or at his death without the government taking a large bite?
>
> Because he amassed it with the help of society through market
> regulations, copyright protection, communication and transportation
> infrastructure. Taxing after death leaves him more in his life time.
And didn't he help pay for such things during his lifetime through
income, property, and other taxes? You bet he did. (Btw, who are you
referring to in connection with copyright protection -- Bill Gates? I
wasn't positing anyone in particular.)
> And besides which the first $1.5 million is untaxed all together. Most
> folks smart enough to make that sort of money also have financial
> planners who tell them how to get insurance policies to pay off the
> entire tax at very little comparative cost.
True, but really beside the point, which was to view this issue from
the viewpoint of the donor, which is all too often overlooked when the
discussion keeps raising the specter of the Paris Hiltons of the world.
> Estate taxes encourage meritocracy . Repealing them leads to a new
> aristocracy based on wealth and family. It creates a de facto
> aristocracy.
>
> Our founding fathers were very much in favor of high estate taxes. De
> Toqueville wrote that it was one of America's smarter moves for
> democracy.
True, the states had so-called death duties, but every single federal
estate tax in the country's history was originally enacted to help pay
for a war we'd been involved in, not to promote egalitarianism.
m pautz
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:59:01 -0400, uh Clem
> <SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
>
>
>>>'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if you
>>>inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans have, not
>>>because someone died!
>>
>>Oh, only SOME Americans have to pay this tax. And it's only those evil
>>rich people. That's OK then. As long as it's not me.
>
>
> When someone inherits fifty million dollars - most of it in the form
> of appreciated stocks and commercial real estate which has never ever
> been taxed even once - and pays no tax
>
Actually, the cost basis is passed on to the heirs. When the security is
sold by the heir, it IS taxed. The tax is not avoided or evaded.
This makes the most sense to me. For example, I think the heirs of
George Washington should be allowed to inherit and keep George's home.
It SHOULD be passed from heir to heir and kept in the family. It should
not have to be mortgaged each generation to pay the inheritance tax.
When an heir finally decides to sell it, then it will be taxed (minus
the original cost basis).
> then the other taxes must be higher to pay our govt bills.
>
> That exemption causes the rate of tax to rise on all the others.
>
You are ignoring the fact that the security is taxed when the heir sells
the security.
> why isn't it ok for a guy inheriting fifty million dollars, which he
> did nothing to earn, to pay a little so that a hard-working plumber
> does not have to pay so much?
>
>
>
>
entropy
I'm denying he said anything nearly so sinister as you're making it
sound. "By whatever means necessary" was a bounded expression, which
you'd like to spin as meaning Buffett supports genocide.
entropy
> True, but really beside the point, which was to view this issue from
> the viewpoint of the donor, which is all too often overlooked when the
> discussion keeps raising the specter of the Paris Hiltons of the world.
The donor is dead when the issue becomes relevant to them. How the
hell are you going to look at it from the standpoint of the donor?
m pautz
>
>
>>"Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1122354309.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>The Washington Times
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com
>>>
>>>Death tax gasps
>>>
>>>By Raymond J. Keating
>>>Published July 26, 2005
>>>
>>>The death tax has become the Hamlet of public policy. The battle was
>>>waged to get rid of the estate tax (or death tax), and was finally won
>>>in 2001 -- or so some thought.
>>
>>The so-called "death tax" only affect the super-rich. Yes, the super-rich.
>>YOU will never have to worry about the inheritence tax, since there's no way
>>in hell YOU will ever be rich enough. So, why do you oppose it?
>>
>
> rate of tax is high.
>
> They also have been mislead to think that this tax on the really rich
> is a tax on stuff already taxed. When for those folks most of the tax
> applies to appreciation on stocks and commercial real estate, and
> there has never been a penny in tax paid on that appreciation.
>
The tax on the appreciation is taxed when the heir sells the security.
The cost basis is passed from the dececed to the heir.
> They have also been lied to to think that family-owned enterprises
> must sell out to pay the tax. Not a single farmer has yet been found
> whose family could not continue to operate the family-farm.
That is because there is a $2Million exclusion on the farm.
And the
> small businesses? THere are a few which must be sold, but the heirs
> get many millions of dollars after taxes, at a minimum.
OK, so it is acceptable to FORCE someone to sell the family business as
long as the son gets to keep some amount that you deem to be acceptable.
This is the problem I have with it. If you want to impose the tax on at
least the top 50%, then I would be able to accept it. But when 99% of
the voters impose their FORCE on the other 1%, then it is a lynch mob.
Shame on you.
>
> The defenders of repealing the death tax, those with huge amounts of
> stocks and commercial real estate, most never taxed even once, have
> done a fabulous job of conning the public.
>
>
You are the one doing the con job. Those assets are taxed when the heir
sells them.
>
>
ccr
"accumulate" a damn thing. They inherit it. They are getting a windfall for
nothing. The people who actually accumulated the wealth are DEAD--it won't
do them any good any more.
There is every ethical reason in a society that wants to be based on merit
and effort to tax unearned income, especially inheritance. There is also a
good case to be made to exempt small inheritances from taxation, since they
won't have much effect in promoting a leisure class based on inherited
wealth.
--
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy." - Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British
intelligence (from memo describing meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair on
July 23, 2002)
"m pautz" <mpautz...@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:F62dnWJC0LZ...@comcast.com...
VRWC5
>"VRWC4" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> 'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if
>>> you inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans
>>> have, not because someone died!
>
>> False. The death tax (euphemistically known as "Estate Tax") is a
>> direct attack on Property Rights. It is an arrogant means of
>> inhibiting the very family economic momentum that family patriarchs
>> worked so hard to achieve during their lifetime. There is only ONE
>> motive behind the death tax -- the politics of envy. It is a
>> Communist inspired idea that continues because those who impose it are
>> utterly out of control and have proven that they are unworthy of the
>> trust and power that our society has foolishly given them.
>
>What an idiot!!
>_________________
>
>FactCheck.org
>Estate Tax Malarkey
>Misleading ads exaggerate what the tax costs farmers, small businesses and "your family."
>June 6, 2005
>
>
>Summary
>
>In TV and radio ads two conservative groups greatly overstate the burden that the federal estate tax puts on heirs to a family farm or business.
This acknowledges that the burden exists. If it exists for ANYONE,
it's too many.
>One ad claims the federal estate tax "can bury your family in crippling tax bills," which is untrue for nearly all of those who will see
The key word in this incompetently posted article sentence above is
"nearly". Even if that were true (it's not), that means that SOMEONE
is not being treated equally under the law.
>the ad, including the large majority of farm and business owners. Both ads claim the estate tax is a "double tax," which is only partly true, and mostly false when it comes to very wealthy families.
LOL! At least these looters admit that the problem exists with snide
little code words like "partly true" and "mostly false".
>We take no position on whether the estate tax should or should not be repealed permanently.
How incredibly noble of them. Must be nice to go through life being
neutral on all the moral issues that have a minute to minute affect on
human happiness and prosperity. Their courage is underwhelming.
>The claims made in these one-sided ads, however, present a misleading picture of who is actually affected by the tax.
I PERSONALLY know eleven families in California who experienced family
wrecking trauma over the death tax crisis with their
multi-generational family farms in just the last 20 years. 7 of the
11 lost their farms -- a total of almost 3000 acres, as a direct
result of being unable to pay the death tax on their deliberately and
preposterously over assessed property. The other four were able to
get their land properly structured so the death of the owner did not
trigger the death tax. They should NOT have been forced to do that.
But then, what else is new in the People's "Republic" of California?
>Analysis
(IOW -- unsubstantiated opinion)
>
>The American Family Business Institute and Free Enterprise Fund launched a TV and radio ad campaign May 10 that targets potential swing votes in the Senate for full repeal of the estate tax. The group said it will run different versions of the 30-second and 60-second ads in Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Maine, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada and New York as part of a $15 million campaign leading up to a Senate vote expected before the August recess.
>
>Contrary to ad's claim that "your family" might be crippled, the vast majority of families actually are not affected by the estate tax. In fact, less than 3 percent of deceased adults in 2002 had estates subject to the tax, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and figures from the IRS.
So, at least they admit that there ARE some hapless souls out there
who are NOT being treated "equally under the law" for no other reason
than the fact that they had the unmitigated audacity to own and build
a substantial family estate. It's a national disgrace. People who
support it are looters. Eventually, the looters will need to be dealt
with in the streets.
>And though the ad focuses on family farms and businesses, the truth is that very few actually pay the estate tax. The Tax Policy Center projects that roughly 440 taxable estates were primarily made up of farm and business assets in 2004.
>
>And even considering estates for which farming or business was a sideline, the Center found only 7,090 taxable estates for 2004 that included any farm or business income. That's still just 38 percent of all taxable estates. The fact is that repealing the estate tax entirely, as the ad advocates, would benefit mostly non-farmers and non-business-owners.
So what? Who has a RIGHT (or even a duty) to give a shit who gets to
keep what they earn?
So, looter -- tell us: What portion of what YOU earn and own belongs
to me and why?
[Remaining propaganda graciously ignored]
>The ad would have been accurate had it said that "some families" are affected.
>
>"Cost Them Everything?"
>
>Far from imposing tax bills on farms and businesses that "cost them everything," the average estate tax paid by all farm and business estates in 2004 was just under 20 percent of the value of the estate, according to calculations by the Tax Policy Center.
>
>The effective rate was far less for smaller estates. Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million.Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid at an average effective rate of just over 22 percent, a hefty tax bite but well short of "everything."
>
>These effective rates are not to be confused with the top rate, which is currently 47 percent. But that marginal rate applies only to what is taxed, and currently the first $1.5 million of an estate is exempt. The Tax Policy Center's figures are an average effective rate on the entire estate, including any proceeds of life insurance. The taxable portion is often reduced further through charitable contributions or special provisions that allow most farms to reduce the taxable value of their real property by 40 to 70 percent of market value.
>
>The following table shows how many taxable farm or business estates fell into various size categories, the average amount of tax and the effective tax rate they paid, according to the center's calculations:
>
>Taxable Farm or Business Estates, 2004
>
>Number of Returns
>Average Tax (thousands)
>Average Rate
>
>
>Under $1 million 0 $0 0.0%
>$1 - $2 million 190 $26 1.6%
>$2 - $3.5 million 60 $190 7.5%
>$3.5 - $5 million 40 $449 12.0%
>$5 - $10 million 80 $1,322 19.3%
>$10 - $20 million 50 $2,832 22.9%
>More than $20 million 30 $23,442 22.2%
>All 440 $2,238 19.9%
>
>Source: Tax Policy Center, Table T04-0163
>
>These 440 taxable estates are those for which farm or business assets made up at least half the total value of the estate. They represent only 2 percent of all 18,800 taxable estates in 2004.
>
>Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses already receive special treatment under current law. Heirs who agree to keep the farm or business assets within the family for 10 years after death can reduce the taxable amount of the estate by 40 percent to 70 percent. And if the farm or business is at least 35 percent of the gross value of the estate, payments can be spread out over 14 years.
>
> AFBI TV Ad "Generations"
>
> Announcer: They freed the world from tyranny, then came home to build family businesses and farms. Heroes in war and peace. They paid taxes all their lives, but not the IRS hits this "Greatest Generation" with an unjust double tax, the death tax.
>
> Don Malarkey (WWII Vet): In war and peace, my generation stood up for what's right. Join us now and help us end the unfair death tax.
>
> Announcer: Tell Max Baucus to side with family business, not the IRS.
>
>"Double Tax?"
>
>Both the radio and TV ads call the estate tax a "double tax," which is only partly accurate. It is true that some portion of a taxable estate might be made up of cash that was taxed before, when it was earned as income. But many estates are made up of stocks, bonds, real estate or other holdings that have appreciated greatly in value over the lifetime of the person who owned them. The owner didn't pay taxes on that profit during his or her lifetime because they weren't sold and the profits weren't turned into cash, or "realized." Furthermore, heirs who inherit such appreciated assets won't have to pay tax on that unrealized profit either. The estate tax is the only tax that applies to such unrealized capital gains.
>
>Furthermore, such unrealized, untaxed capital gains make up more than one-third of the average estate, according to a study by economists James Poterba of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and James Weisbenner, who was on the staff of the Federal Reserve Board when the study was published in 2000. Weisbenner is currently at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
>
>Their study estimated that unrealized capital gains made up 36.3 percent of the value of all estates in 1998. That would make the "double tax" claim 63.7 percent true, and just over one-third false.
>
>For very large estates it is mostly false. The study also found that estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains.
>
>The Poterba-Weisbenner study was first released as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization of mostly academic economists, and later published by the Brookings Institution. We have found no study disputing these findings. In fact, they may be understated. For one thing the authors couldn't find any way to estimate the unrealized capital gains on art work or other collectibles, which can make up a sizeable part of some estates. More importantly, the very richest Americans aren't covered by this study, because the Federal Reserve Board survey on which the study is based doesn't include them. It is quite likely the averages are even higher for billionaires, whose fortunes are often built on appreciated stock or real estate that would go untaxed at their death but for the estate tax.
>
>Emotional Appeals
>
>The ads make some emotional appeals worth noting. The TV ad feature World War II veterans from the popular HBO series "Band of Brothers," while an announcer tells viewers that these men "paid taxes all their lives" and are now being subjected to a "nightmare" tax. Actually, of course, WWII vets are no more likely than anyone else to be subject to the estate tax when they die. The estates of veterans and non-veterans alike owe tax only on amounts exceeding $1.5 million. That goes up to $2 million next year.
>
>The radio ad also characterizes the tax as the "IRS death tax." Opponents of the estate tax have long used the term "death tax" even though it is wealth, and not death, that is being taxed. Adding "IRS" to the mix makes it sound as though the unpopular tax collectors were responsible for enacting it, and not elected members of Congress.
>
>Sources
>
>Leonard Burman, William Gale, and Jeffrey Rohaly, "Options to Reform the Estate Tax," Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Tax Policy Issues and Options No. 10, March 2005.
>
>Tax Policy Center, Table T04-0164, "Current-Law Distribution of Gross Estate and Net Estate Tax By Size of Gross Estate, 2004: Returns With Any Farm or Business Assets."
>
>Tax Policy Center, Table T04-0163 , "Current-Law Distribution of Gross Estate and Net Estate Tax By Size of Gross Estate, 2004: Farms and Businesses."
>
>Leonard Burman and William Gale, "The Estate Tax is Down, But Not Out." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Tax Policy Issues and Options No. 2, December 2001.
>
>Scott Weisbenner and James Poterba, "The Distributional Burden of Taxing Estates and Unrealized Capital Gains at Death," Rethinking Estate and Gift Taxation, eds. W.G. Gale, J.R. Hines, and J. Slemrod (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2001) 422-449.
VRWC5
They're wrong. The ONLY source of their authority is the guns that
enforce their unsubstantiated opinion. They WILL pay the price. Even
as you read this, there is a massive effort under way nation wide to
identify all property owned by ALL federal judges so their property
can be seized by developers under the very "ruling" they just so
arrogantly spewed. It's called "poetic justice".
VRWC5
Yes. When you live your financial life on a GLOBAL stage, this kind
of political posturing and image management is required just to help
keep the looters at bay.
VRWC5
The ultra rich have no monopoly on lack of moral virtue or clarity.
entropy
"Looters"?
Cripes. Another flake who thinks "Atlas Shrugged" is a documentary.
entropy
> >two-thirds of the worlds population.
>
> The ultra rich have no monopoly on lack of moral virtue or clarity.
Know this first-hand, I suppose?
Frank Clarke
<SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
<lt1fe1l5jtcj704e3...@4ax.com>
>>http://www.responsiblewealth.org
>
>So let me see if I understand. This is a group of wealthy busnessmen
>who WANT gov't to take more of their earnings and redistribute it to
>the lazy? Why don't they just bundle up some cash, get a big floorfan
>or airboat, and toss the bills into the resulting wind thereby cutting
>out the middleman?
You're missing an important point. These wealthy businessmen behind
responsiblewealth.org have platoons of tax lawyers protecting their money.
They're not going to be paying those taxes. The ones who will pay those taxes
are people who CAN'T hire platoons of tax attorneys.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
m pautz
> More stupidity from the Putz! People who INHERIT a big estate didn't
> "accumulate" a damn thing.They inherit it. They are getting a windfall for
> nothing. The people who actually accumulated the wealth are DEAD--it won't
> do them any good any more.
>
> There is every ethical reason in a society that wants to be based on merit
> and effort to tax unearned income, especially inheritance. There is also a
> good case to be made to exempt small inheritances from taxation, since they
> won't have much effect in promoting a leisure class based on inherited
> wealth.
>
If you read my post, I was not posting against an inheritance tax. I
WAS stating that if you want an inheritance tax, then it should be an
all inclusive. At least 50% of the people should pay the inheritance
tax, just as over 50% of the people pay the income tax.
HOWEVER, assholes like you aren't presenting an inheritance tax that is
fair. You only want a tax that excludes you. A tax where 99% of the
people EXCLUDE themselves and FORCE the other 1% to pay is about as
close to a lynching as it gets.
SO, are you for an inheritance tax that includes yourself? If not, you
are a fucking hypocrite.
(excuse the extreme rudeness, but I tend to let the tone of the previous
poster set the stage)
cpt banjo
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2005 12:40:09 -0700, "cpt banjo" <cptb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On 27 Jul 2005 11:23:30 -0700, "cpt banjo" <cptb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Those receiving millions of dollars in inheritance - still get
> >> >> millions even with the tax. They have done nothing to get that money.
> >> >> They did not build a bridge to get it, design a game to get it. They
> >> >> were just born lucky.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >True (but not always: many people make bequests to nonfamily members
> >> >who've worked for them), but look at it from the viewpoint of the donor
> >> >or the decedent. Suppose he has worked his tail off to amass his
> >> >wealth. Why shouldn't he be able to give it to whomever he wants
> >> >during life or at his death without the government taking a large bite?
> >>
> >> Because he amassed it with the help of society through market
> >> regulations, copyright protection, communication and transportation
> >> infrastructure. Taxing after death leaves him more in his life time.
> >
> >And didn't he help pay for such things during his lifetime through
> >income, property, and other taxes? You bet he did. (Btw, who are you
> >referring to in connection with copyright protection -- Bill Gates? I
> >wasn't positing anyone in particular.)
>
> He can payer higher taxes during his lifetime to pay for those things
> or pay after his death, which do you think he would prefer?
Clearly the former, since the repeal of the estate and gift taxes would
only marginally affect the amount of other taxes he'd otherwise pay.
Btw, the gift tax isn't scheduled to be repealed.
> >> And besides which the first $1.5 million is untaxed all together. Most
> >> folks smart enough to make that sort of money also have financial
> >> planners who tell them how to get insurance policies to pay off the
> >> entire tax at very little comparative cost.
> >
> >True, but really beside the point,
>
> No its not.
>
> >which was to view this issue from the viewpoint of the donor, which is all
> >too often overlooked when the discussion keeps raising the specter of the
> >Paris Hiltons of the world.
>
> You have a point here?
>
Yes, which obviously escaped you. Instead of constantly focusing on
the recipients of inheritances and gifts and how they allegedly don't
deserve their good fortune, it might be a good idea to spend a little
time in thinking about the owner of the property who wants to transfer
it during lifetime or on death and who would prefer to be able be the
one making the decision about who's worthy enough to receive his
property, thank you very much.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
>The cure for this problem is to eliminate ANY taxes based on income or
>property.
Then how would the government be able to afford all its black
helicopters?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
>The REAL problem with death taxes (other than the fact that it's only
>real motive is class envy politics) is that is constitutes a direct
>attack on the Property Rights of the benefactor: Do you or do you not
>have a Right to give ALL of your honestly acquired property to anyone
>you wish?
Obviously, you do not.
Remember - property ownership is theft.
The first person to find property confiscated it for his own use, and
thereby stole it from the rest of us.
And as you know a thief can not transfer title to property.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<mpautz...@interserv.com> wrote:
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:59:01 -0400, uh Clem
>> <SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if you
>>>>inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans have, not
>>>>because someone died!
>>>
>>>Oh, only SOME Americans have to pay this tax. And it's only those evil
>>>rich people. That's OK then. As long as it's not me.
>>
>>
>> When someone inherits fifty million dollars - most of it in the form
>> of appreciated stocks and commercial real estate which has never ever
>> been taxed even once - and pays no tax
>>
>
>Actually, the cost basis is passed on to the heirs. When the security is
>sold by the heir, it IS taxed. The tax is not avoided or evaded.
Well, no. The basis of inherited property is its value at the time of
death. You are thinking of the rules which apply to gifts, not
inheritances.
Thus if Bill Gates were to die after the estate tax was repealed his
children could sell all the Microsoft shares and pay a tax of exactly
zero.
>
>This makes the most sense to me. For example, I think the heirs of
>George Washington should be allowed to inherit and keep George's home.
>It SHOULD be passed from heir to heir and kept in the family. It should
>not have to be mortgaged each generation to pay the inheritance tax.
>When an heir finally decides to sell it, then it will be taxed (minus
>the original cost basis).
Well, that's nice.
But of course that isn't the way it works under current law.
But it's a logical middle ground.
>
>
>
>> then the other taxes must be higher to pay our govt bills.
>>
>> That exemption causes the rate of tax to rise on all the others.
>>
>
>You are ignoring the fact that the security is taxed when the heir sells
>the security.
Actually, no.
You are mistaken.
I'm a nerd. I know these things.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<mpautz...@interserv.com> wrote:
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:45:25 -0700, m pautz
>> <mpautz...@interserv.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The common meaning of the word of theft does not include tax. You may
>>>
>>>>have a different view of the meaning of theft, but that's just tough -
>>>
>>>I agree with you that TAX is not included in the definition of theft.
>>>
>>>However it is my "personal" opinion that if 10 people go out to lunch
>>>and 9 of them force the 10th guy pay the bill, then that is theft. That
>>>is a description of democracy. This is why our founding father's
>>>abhorred a democracy. With the inheritance tax, we have the vast
>>>majority excluding themselves and forcing an extremely small percentage
>>>to pay the lunch bill.
>>>
>>>
>>>I will be the first to admit that the word "fair" is the most useless
>>>word in our language, BUT I think that the only "fair" thing is that, if
>>>the masses want to tax inheritance, it should apply to ALL, not just the
>>>10th guy at the lunch table.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are practical and equitable reasons to provide exemptions in the
>> tax code.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>Now I don't know the percentage of people who have to pay estate tax,
>but I believe it is less than one percent. So lets go on the presumption
>that 99% are excluded. Correct me if I am wrong.
>
>Although I agree with your statement, I believe that a tax that excludes
> over 99% of the people goes beyond "practical and equitable reasons".
>
>If we believe that an inheritance tax is NOT WRONG, then I see no reason
>why 50% of the people can't pay it.
Bill Gates has as much wealth as forty percent of Americans combined.
You really aren't going to get much adding to the range of people
taxed.
And it would cost way more than it's worth.
It's a cost-benefit thing.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
You are confusing the rule for "gifts" in which there is a carry-over
basis, with the rule for inherited property, where the tax basis
becomes the value at the time of death (with some rare exceptions to
use the alternative valuation date falling within nine months of
death)
>
>
>> They have also been lied to to think that family-owned enterprises
>> must sell out to pay the tax. Not a single farmer has yet been found
>> whose family could not continue to operate the family-farm.
>
>That is because there is a $2Million exclusion on the farm.
>
A family can pass on much more than that with no tax on family owned
farms. THANK YOU JESUS
Arthur Kamlet
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:56:26 -0700, m pautz
><mpautz...@interserv.com> wrote:
>
>>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:59:01 -0400, uh Clem
>>> <SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if you
>>>>>inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of americans have, not
>>>>>because someone died!
>>>>
>>>>Oh, only SOME Americans have to pay this tax. And it's only those evil
>>>>rich people. That's OK then. As long as it's not me.
>>>
>>>
>>> When someone inherits fifty million dollars - most of it in the form
>>> of appreciated stocks and commercial real estate which has never ever
>>> been taxed even once - and pays no tax
>>>
>>
>>Actually, the cost basis is passed on to the heirs. When the security is
>>sold by the heir, it IS taxed. The tax is not avoided or evaded.
>
>Well, no. The basis of inherited property is its value at the time of
>death. You are thinking of the rules which apply to gifts, not
>inheritances.
>
>Thus if Bill Gates were to die after the estate tax was repealed his
>children could sell all the Microsoft shares and pay a tax of exactly
>zero.
Ah, not as written. Though things might change before 2010.
After that, the law would remove the estate tax and would also
allow step up in basis only for the first (I think, $1 million) but not
for the rest.
--
__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
>> Because he amassed it with the help of society through market
>> regulations, copyright protection, communication and transportation
>> infrastructure. Taxing after death leaves him more in his life time.
>
>And didn't he help pay for such things during his lifetime through
>income, property, and other taxes? You bet he did. (Btw, who are you
>referring to in connection with copyright protection -- Bill Gates? I
>wasn't positing anyone in particular.)
Last time I looked, a couple years ago, Microsoft had never paid any
federal corporate income tax.
Tax credit for increasing research expenses - fifty percent credit -
means no tax for them.
So Gates has fifty billion in stock - passes it on - not a penny of
tax on the fifty billion income.
It just doesn't seem fair when plumbers pay 40.3 percent - income plus
self-employment tax.
Why not tax Gates a bit to lower the plumber a bit?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Those receiving millions of dollars in inheritance - still get
>> millions even with the tax. They have done nothing to get that money.
>> They did not build a bridge to get it, design a game to get it. They
>> were just born lucky.
>
>
>True (but not always: many people make bequests to nonfamily members
>who've worked for them), but look at it from the viewpoint of the donor
>or the decedent. Suppose he has worked his tail off to amass his
>wealth. Why shouldn't he be able to give it to whomever he wants
>during life or at his death without the government taking a large bite?
>
>> Without the tax, then government must have higher rates of tax
>> elsewhere to compensate. Such as a tax on the labor of a plumber.
>
>The estate tax raises less than 2% of the federal government's revenue,
>so the impact of its repeal on other taxes is marginal.
>>
>> The estate tax REWARDS work and punishes leasure.
>>
>Not really. Consider the previous example in which one who works for
>his wealth is denied the ability to give it away without a tax bite.
>
>> But look - the dumb kids, Paris and Nicky, STILL get HUGE sums, after
>> tax. The rate of tax is FAR LOWER than you think. I have figures for
>> when the exemption was only 600,000 dollars (completely free of tax)
>>
>> The amount of estate tax for those few subject to it, divided by the
>> amount of the estate, averaged seventeen percent.
>>
>> Is that really so bad?
>
>Well, it depends on the size of the estate. Under current law, for
>example, a $50 million estate of an unmarried decedent that passes to
>noncharitable beneficiaries would pay an average estate tax rate of
>about 46.5%.
Nominal rate. It's pretty old, but a guy named Cooper wrote a book on
estate tax showing that the Dupont family had paid on average six
percent per generation. Exemptions and OTHER DEVICES, such as
partnerships transferring the appreciation slice of assets before
death, mean the rate of tax divided by actual wealth tranferred - is
not so high.
And the share of our tax take from the thing would be bigger in the
next couple generations because of the huge mountains of wealth built
up in the modern - rich really get richer world.
>
>> Can't Paris chip in SOMETHING for our society?
>
>The best thing she could do for society is to leave and not come back.
Have her chip in some, and then party hardy.
cpt banjo
No, it's the average rate for the entire estate. The top marginal rate
now is 48%.
> It's pretty old, but a guy named Cooper wrote a book on
> estate tax showing that the Dupont family had paid on average six
> percent per generation. Exemptions and OTHER DEVICES, such as
> partnerships transferring the appreciation slice of assets before
> death, mean the rate of tax divided by actual wealth tranferred - is
> not so high.
That was before the advent of the generation-skipping tax and the
Chapter 14 anti-estate-freeze rules.
*us*
>... The ones who will pay those taxes
>are people who CAN'T hire platoons of tax attorneys.
Why would anyone believe that?
VRWC5
LOL! Is this your attempt at being clever by diverting attention
from the message with an alternate, irrelevant one? Words mean
things clown. You are either a looter or you are NOT a looter
regardless of who calls you a looter..
VRWC5
Does this juvenile bait question mean that you actually don't know?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Thanks for the tip. Under current law, in the one year 2010, there wll
be no estate tax and heirs can get only a 1.3 million extra basis,
spouses get that plus three million, as I quickly googled.
So the Gates folk would have to pay tax at a low rate on their shares
sold.
Fifteen percent I guess.
I wonder if that will be retained as the law for that year 2010, or
for other years.
Hard to know.
Thank you very much
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
many are the ways of the wicked
Richard Macdonald
message news:9e8ge19ooju08t1m1...@4ax.com...
>
> Last time I looked, a couple years ago, Microsoft had never paid any
> federal corporate income tax.
>
> Tax credit for increasing research expenses - fifty percent credit -
> means no tax for them.
>
> So Gates has fifty billion in stock - passes it on - not a penny of
> tax on the fifty billion income.
>
> It just doesn't seem fair when plumbers pay 40.3 percent - income plus
> self-employment tax.
>
> Why not tax Gates a bit to lower the plumber a bit?
Because Bill Gates has not recognized any income on his Microsoft
Stock's appreciation since he cannot sell it easily due to restrictions on
insider trading. Also if he tried to sell large amounts of it the price
would
collapse on rumors of problems, and if the government forced a
divestiture similar to what they did to Howard Hughes with TWA, they
would turn loose a 6,000 lb Gorilla on the market with Billions in CASH.
uh Clem
Frank Clarke <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> mumbled:
So explain to me why it is that this org even exists.
Surely GovCo doesn't need cheerleaders urging them to tax us all more.
What's the use of this org?
entropy
And your message is that Gates, Buffett, and the other members of
http://www.ResponsibleWealth.org are just insincerely pretending to
be humanitarians in order to steer the barbarian hordes someplace
else? Kind of like how the Korean store owners in Watts would write
"Soul Brother" on their shop windows during the riots?
That's all they're doing?
Your lack of depth is stunning.
> Words mean
> things clown. You are either a looter or you are NOT a looter
> regardless of who calls you a looter..
In the same way that you're either an Infidel or you are NOT an
Infidel, regardless of which Islamic extremist calls you an Infidel?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."
--
CNN, FNC, MSNBC: Disney Channel for grownups.
entropy
It is literally inconceivable to him that the very wealthiest people
in the world don't look at taxation the way he does.
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/index.html
--
CNN, FNC, and MSNBC: Disney Channel for grownups.
m pautz
spouses do not get a tax free cash transfer as American spouses get.
I don't know much about it, I just heard it on the news back then.
I guess the Government wants to make sure they get their cash before the
foreign spouse moves back home.
m pautz
>>>>>>m pautz writes:
>
>
> m> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:59:01 -0400, uh Clem
> >> <SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> 'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if
> >>>> you inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of
> >>>> americans have, not because someone died!
> >>>
> >>> Oh, only SOME Americans have to pay this tax. And it's only those evil
> >>> rich people. That's OK then. As long as it's not me.
> >> When someone inherits fifty million dollars - most of it in the form
> >> of appreciated stocks and commercial real estate which has never ever
> >> been taxed even once - and pays no tax
> >>
>
> m> Actually, the cost basis is passed on to the heirs. When the security
>
> This is incorrect, the basis is reset to the estimated
> value of the assets at time of death.
>
> m> is sold by the heir, it IS taxed. The tax is not avoided or evaded.
>
> But with the adjusted basis.
>
> I think we should eliminate the estate tax, but have
> the heirs inherit the basis as well. Bush's bill, in
> 2001, did not stop the resetting of the basis.
>
> m> This makes the most sense to me. For example, I think the heirs of
> m> George Washington should be allowed to inherit and keep George's
> m> home. It SHOULD be passed from heir to heir and kept in the family.
> m> It should not have to be mortgaged each generation to pay the
> m> inheritance tax. When an heir finally decides to sell it, then it will
> m> be taxed (minus the original cost basis).
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
Thanks to both you and George. I stand corrected on the cost basis. I
was thinking about the gift prior to death.
I do think a better compromise is a passing of both the estate AND the
cost basis.
I am quite proud of the things that my grandfather and father had built.
A simple example is a tool chest built by my grandfather. Since
neither my grandfather nor my father were rich, inheritance tax was not
paid on it. I would have felt offended if some "citizen" felt that
they had a claim to some percentage of it and I had to pay them in order
to keep it.
If I felt that way about my grandfather's tool chest, then I would have
to admit that I should feel the same about an immigrant who came to this
country and built a $5 Million dollar business (minus one shirt and pair
of pants that he came here with)
The dollar figure of the tool chest vs the business is irrelevant, both
items were built by a grandfather.
That is why I am opposed to the inheritance tax. If the inheritance is
voted into our tax code, then I feel it should be a tax accross the
board, not with an exclusion of 99% of the poeple. Two reasons, it
seems only fair, and if it encludes all, then maybe it wouldn't pass.
We need some protection against 99% mobbing the other 1%.
It has been pointed out that taxing the masses would cost more than it
produces. I really wouldn't care, there needs to be a protection
against 99% of the people mobbing the other 1%.
Ford Prefect
"entropy" <en...@py.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d52a23a2...@news.verizon.net...
You're an idiot. Why do you think the government went after Gates to begin
with? Look at history, moron.
Just because he recently loosened his pursestrings, is no reason to toot his
horn. Next you'll be telling us all what great givers back to the community
the Walton family are.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Correct. Absent a tax on income or property, I really don't know how
the govt woud get adequate resources.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>>>>> m pautz writes:
>
> m> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:59:01 -0400, uh Clem
> >> <SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> 'DEATH TAX' - are you people insane, or just dumb? You pay tax if
> >>>> you inherited an estate of a certain size that only .1% of
> >>>> americans have, not because someone died!
> >>>
> >>> Oh, only SOME Americans have to pay this tax. And it's only those evil
> >>> rich people. That's OK then. As long as it's not me.
> >> When someone inherits fifty million dollars - most of it in the form
> >> of appreciated stocks and commercial real estate which has never ever
> >> been taxed even once - and pays no tax
> >>
>
> m> Actually, the cost basis is passed on to the heirs. When the security
>
>This is incorrect, the basis is reset to the estimated
>value of the assets at time of death.
Current law, but as someone corrected me the law providing for the
repeal of the estate tax, in the one year 2010, provides a step up in
basis only to FMV of 1.3 million per heir on top of decedent's basis,
plus another three million for the spouse.
Thus under the repeal passed for the single year 2010, which
presumably might become permanent, the heirs of Bill Gates would not
get stock with basis equal to FMV.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Except we were both wrong and you were right, as someone corrected me,
at least with respect to the current weirdo law which repeals estate
tax in the year 2010 - only. In that year you can raised your basis
only by 1.3 million above that of the decedent, spouse gets another
three million. Something like that. So that might be the rule were
estate taxes repealed permanently - step up to basis for most people
but for the really rich, carryover basis for all but a few paltry
millions.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
I referred to tax when he died.
entropy
> with?
Because Senators from Nevada and California lobbied on behalf of
their campaign contributors (Novell and Sun Microsystems, mainly)
whined about getting their butts kicked in the marketplace.
> Look at history, moron.
> Just because he recently loosened his pursestrings, is no reason to toot his
> horn. Next you'll be telling us all what great givers back to the community
> the Walton family are.
Listen to the little dog bark. It's trying to talk! Isn't that
cute? But it sounds so aggressive!
How many hundreds of millions of dollars have the Waltons given
towards health problems in Africa, I wonder?
--
CNN, FNC, and MSNBC: Disney Channel for grownups.
cpt banjo
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>
> Remember - property ownership is theft.
Typical Marxist illogic. Theft presupposes ownership.
> The first person to find property confiscated it for his own use, and
> thereby stole it from the rest of us.
And where is it written that "we" owned it in the first place?
uh Clem
entropy <en...@py.invalid> mumbled:
<snip>
>> >>>http://www.responsiblewealth.org
>> >>
>> >>So let me see if I understand. This is a group of wealthy busnessmen
>> >>who WANT gov't to take more of their earnings and redistribute it to
>> >>the lazy? Why don't they just bundle up some cash, get a big floorfan
>> >>or airboat, and toss the bills into the resulting wind thereby cutting
>> >>out the middleman?
>> >
>> >You're missing an important point. These wealthy businessmen behind
>> >responsiblewealth.org have platoons of tax lawyers protecting their money.
>> >
>> >They're not going to be paying those taxes. The ones who will pay those taxes
>> >are people who CAN'T hire platoons of tax attorneys.
>>
>> So explain to me why it is that this org even exists.
>> Surely GovCo doesn't need cheerleaders urging them to tax us all more.
>> What's the use of this org?
>
>It is literally inconceivable to him that the very wealthiest people
>in the world don't look at taxation the way he does.
Are you speaking to a crowd of people and assuming I cannot "hear"
you?
I'm RIGHT HERE!
Are you able to address me?
Do tell oh sage one, how DO the wealthiest people in the world look at
taxation? (As if you'd know.)
>
>http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/index.html
entropy
> With foot jammed firmly in mouth on Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:13:00 GMT,
> entropy <en...@py.invalid> mumbled:
>
> <snip>
> >> >>>http://www.responsiblewealth.org
> >> >>
> >> >>So let me see if I understand. This is a group of wealthy busnessmen
> >> >>who WANT gov't to take more of their earnings and redistribute it to
> >> >>the lazy? Why don't they just bundle up some cash, get a big floorfan
> >> >>or airboat, and toss the bills into the resulting wind thereby cutting
> >> >>out the middleman?
> >> >
> >> >You're missing an important point. These wealthy businessmen behind
> >> >responsiblewealth.org have platoons of tax lawyers protecting their money.
> >> >
> >> >They're not going to be paying those taxes. The ones who will pay those taxes
> >> >are people who CAN'T hire platoons of tax attorneys.
> >>
> >> So explain to me why it is that this org even exists.
> >> Surely GovCo doesn't need cheerleaders urging them to tax us all more.
> >> What's the use of this org?
> >
> >It is literally inconceivable to him that the very wealthiest people
> >in the world don't look at taxation the way he does.
>
> Are you speaking to a crowd of people and assuming I cannot "hear"
> you?
> I'm RIGHT HERE!
> Are you able to address me?
It isn't a question of ability. It's a question of desire.
> Do tell oh sage one, how DO the wealthiest people in the world look at
> taxation? (As if you'd know.)
I know more than you think. I work on Wall Street, and I don't mean
that I keep the streets swept.
There's a normal distribution of attitudes about taxation there, just
as there is among those without wealth. Even among the most sanguine
about the subject don't want to be screwed, or pay more than they
have to. But the idea that their philanthropy and broad sense of
humanity is as you've described says lots more about you than it does
about, say, Bill Gates.
You're a creep. He is not.
VRWC5
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:13:29 -0400, uh Clem
><SANITARY_PEDE...@yahoo.com_CHEESE_LOG> wrote:
><lt1fe1l5jtcj704e3...@4ax.com>
>
>>>http://www.responsiblewealth.org
>>
>>So let me see if I understand. This is a group of wealthy busnessmen
>>who WANT gov't to take more of their earnings and redistribute it to
>>the lazy? Why don't they just bundle up some cash, get a big floorfan
>>or airboat, and toss the bills into the resulting wind thereby cutting
>>out the middleman?
>
>You're missing an important point. These wealthy businessmen behind
>responsiblewealth.org have platoons of tax lawyers protecting their money.
>
>They're not going to be paying those taxes. The ones who will pay those taxes
>are people who CAN'T hire platoons of tax attorneys.
Good. It's about time the poor started paying their fair share!
VRWC5
>>>>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, writes:
>
> George> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:49:34 -0500, VRWC5 <nos...@none.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:42:26 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> >>> tyre...@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:12:09 -0500, VRWC5 <nos...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The cure for this problem is to eliminate ANY taxes based on income or
> >>>> property.
> >>>
> >>> Then how would the government be able to afford all its black
> >>> helicopters?
> >>
> >> Does this juvenile bait question mean that you actually don't know?
>
> George> Correct. Absent a tax on income or property, I really don't know how
> George> the govt woud get adequate resources.
>
>Consumption taxes, tariffs...
>
>Stop spending..
Presto! A tiny ray of reason in a cess pool of self-immolation.