How do you make sure that the rich stay rich?

[wetech]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech
I think the topic here is a bit misleading. You're not talking about making sure the rich stay rich... they're dead. We're talking about being able to pass on to your kids / spouse etc. your life savings.

Personally, I think the estate tax is a load of BS. Just because some people are able to save more doesn't mean they should lose the right to pass it on to their decendants. The government has already taken their share of what you've made while you were living. The estate tax is just the government's way of saying, "give us more." Seriously, because you die, the government gets to take 45% of what you own (it's recently down from 55%)??? It's double taxation of income.

Shouldn't their descendants have to make it on their own? Should we allow them to just be leeches?

You're right. It's much better to give your money to the government then to your kids. Uncle Sam deserves it much more then the whiney brats that dared to outlive you.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: wetech
I think the topic here is a bit misleading. You're not talking about making sure the rich stay rich... they're dead. We're talking about being able to pass on to your kids / spouse etc. your life savings.

Personally, I think the estate tax is a load of BS. Just because some people are able to save more doesn't mean they should lose the right to pass it on to their decendants. The government has already taken their share of what you've made while you were living. The estate tax is just the government's way of saying, "give us more." Seriously, because you die, the government gets to take 45% of what you own (it's recently down from 55%)??? It's double taxation of income.

noone gets taxed at 55%

since you are clearly unaware, the estate tax was created for 2 purposes. 1) to collect capital gains that had not been paid in the deceased indivudual lifetime. 2) to prevent large fortunes for being passed on a creating a permanent upper class.

Here's your tax rate schedule. I said the rate was recently reduced from 55% to 45%
First two columns are taxable income range. Third column is the amount payable on income up to the amount in the first column. Fourth is the rate on any additional income.

0 $10,000 0 18
$10,000 20,000 $1,800 20
20,000 40,000 3,800 22
40,000 60,000 8,200 24
60,000 80,000 13,000 26
80,000 100,000 18,200 28
100,000 150,000 23,800 30
150,000 250,000 38,800 32
250,000 500,000 70,800 34
500,000 750,000 155,800 37
750,000 1,000,000 248,300 39
1,000,000 1,250,000 345,800 41
1,250,000 1,500,000 448,300 43
1,500,000 2,000,000 555,800 45
2,000,000 - - - - - - - - 780,800 47



1) Set the cost basis for the heirs to the original purchase price of the equity. When it's sold, the government will get their capital gains. Besides, with capital gains rates where they are, why should they be subject to a possible higher rate?

2) Again, what's wrong with giving your children the money you accumulated during your lifetime?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: wetech
2) Again, what's wrong with giving your children the money you accumulated during your lifetime?

Everything if you have none to leave or none to receive.....this is an issue of jealousy and plain old class envy. "If I can't do it why should they?"

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech
I think the topic here is a bit misleading. You're not talking about making sure the rich stay rich... they're dead. We're talking about being able to pass on to your kids / spouse etc. your life savings.

Personally, I think the estate tax is a load of BS. Just because some people are able to save more doesn't mean they should lose the right to pass it on to their decendants. The government has already taken their share of what you've made while you were living. The estate tax is just the government's way of saying, "give us more." Seriously, because you die, the government gets to take 45% of what you own (it's recently down from 55%)??? It's double taxation of income.

Shouldn't their descendants have to make it on their own? Should we allow them to just be leeches?

You're right. It's much better to give your money to the government then to your kids. Uncle Sam deserves it much more then the whiney brats that dared to outlive you.

I believe you can give it away to a charity tax-free if you don't want the government to take it.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech
I think the topic here is a bit misleading. You're not talking about making sure the rich stay rich... they're dead. We're talking about being able to pass on to your kids / spouse etc. your life savings.

Personally, I think the estate tax is a load of BS. Just because some people are able to save more doesn't mean they should lose the right to pass it on to their decendants. The government has already taken their share of what you've made while you were living. The estate tax is just the government's way of saying, "give us more." Seriously, because you die, the government gets to take 45% of what you own (it's recently down from 55%)??? It's double taxation of income.

Shouldn't their descendants have to make it on their own? Should we allow them to just be leeches?

You're right. It's much better to give your money to the government then to your kids. Uncle Sam deserves it much more then the whiney brats that dared to outlive you.

I believe you can give it away to a charity tax-free if you don't want the government to take it.

Why should you need to? Why is giving it away to a charity any better then giving it to your kids? To force people to donate? Many of the people who the estate tax would affect are some of the biggest philanthropists in the world. They've probably given more then their fare share while they were alive, why force them to give most of it away when they die? It's their money, let them do with it what they want.

 

[dahunan]

Did past rich people also get to pass on their negro slaves when they died so their little white children would stay rich off the crimes of their forefathers

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech
I think the topic here is a bit misleading. You're not talking about making sure the rich stay rich... they're dead. We're talking about being able to pass on to your kids / spouse etc. your life savings.

Personally, I think the estate tax is a load of BS. Just because some people are able to save more doesn't mean they should lose the right to pass it on to their decendants. The government has already taken their share of what you've made while you were living. The estate tax is just the government's way of saying, "give us more." Seriously, because you die, the government gets to take 45% of what you own (it's recently down from 55%)??? It's double taxation of income.

Shouldn't their descendants have to make it on their own? Should we allow them to just be leeches?

You're right. It's much better to give your money to the government then to your kids. Uncle Sam deserves it much more then the whiney brats that dared to outlive you.

I believe you can give it away to a charity tax-free if you don't want the government to take it.

Why should you need to? Why is giving it away to a charity any better then giving it to your kids? To force people to donate? Many of the people who the estate tax would affect are some of the biggest philanthropists in the world. They've probably given more then their fare share while they were alive, why force them to give most of it away when they die? It's their money, let them do with it what they want.

Why should they be able to give it to their greedy mooch-like children? I'd prefer the money actually was put to use rather than give it to Paris Hilton-type children. Shouldn't their family be able to make it on their own rather than get a nice big hand-out and turn into a drain on the economy?

I've never really liked hand-outs and this is no different.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Why should they be able to give it to their greedy mooch-like children? I'd prefer the money actually was put to use rather than give it to Paris Hilton-type children. Shouldn't their family be able to make it on their own rather than get a nice big hand-out and turn into a drain on the economy?

I've never really liked hand-outs and this is no different.

So it's all about distribution of wealth. Punish people for being successful, right? Obviously they don't know what's best to do with their cash, so let the government decide for them.

And yes, their families should be able to make it on their own IF that's what the person wants. If I want to leave my kids a big fat check when I die, it should be my right to do so. I shouldn't lose that right because people like you feel like you could put MY money to "better use."

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Did past rich people also get to pass on their negro slaves when they died so their little white children would stay rich off the crimes of their forefathers

Way to go completely off topic and throw the race card in there.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: wetech
2) Again, what's wrong with giving your children the money you accumulated during your lifetime?

Everything if you have none to leave or none to receive.....this is an issue of jealousy and plain old class envy. "If I can't do it why should they?"

Yeah, cause all those folks in congress are so broke, they won't have anything to leave, and none of them will have their estates taxed.

There's great arguments for getting rid of the estate tax, you just happen not to have picked one of them.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Why should they be able to give it to their greedy mooch-like children? I'd prefer the money actually was put to use rather than give it to Paris Hilton-type children. Shouldn't their family be able to make it on their own rather than get a nice big hand-out and turn into a drain on the economy?

I've never really liked hand-outs and this is no different.

So it's all about distribution of wealth. Punish people for being successful, right? Obviously they don't know what's best to do with their cash, so let the government decide for them.

And yes, their families should be able to make it on their own IF that's what the person wants. If I want to leave my kids a big fat check when I die, it should be my right to do so. I shouldn't lose that right because people like you feel like you could put MY money to "better use."

The kid isn't successful. And yes redistibution of wealth is important. Maybe you want 7 people to own all of the US but most people don't

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: wetech
I think the topic here is a bit misleading. You're not talking about making sure the rich stay rich... they're dead. We're talking about being able to pass on to your kids / spouse etc. your life savings.

Personally, I think the estate tax is a load of BS. Just because some people are able to save more doesn't mean they should lose the right to pass it on to their decendants. The government has already taken their share of what you've made while you were living. The estate tax is just the government's way of saying, "give us more." Seriously, because you die, the government gets to take 45% of what you own (it's recently down from 55%)??? It's double taxation of income.

Shouldn't their descendants have to make it on their own? Should we allow them to just be leeches?

You're right. It's much better to give your money to the government then to your kids. Uncle Sam deserves it much more then the whiney brats that dared to outlive you.

I believe you can give it away to a charity tax-free if you don't want the government to take it.

Why should you need to? Why is giving it away to a charity any better then giving it to your kids? To force people to donate? Many of the people who the estate tax would affect are some of the biggest philanthropists in the world. They've probably given more then their fare share while they were alive, why force them to give most of it away when they die? It's their money, let them do with it what they want.

Why should they be able to give it to their greedy mooch-like children? I'd prefer the money actually was put to use rather than give it to Paris Hilton-type children. Shouldn't their family be able to make it on their own rather than get a nice big hand-out and turn into a drain on the economy?

I've never really liked hand-outs and this is no different.

We have this theory in the United States called private ownership of wealth. Passing on the wealth created\earned in a lifetime is a right the person who died has.

What right do you have to take what somebody else created\earned?

By your tone, it sounds like jealousy is a driving factor.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Why should they be able to give it to their greedy mooch-like children? I'd prefer the money actually was put to use rather than give it to Paris Hilton-type children. Shouldn't their family be able to make it on their own rather than get a nice big hand-out and turn into a drain on the economy?

I've never really liked hand-outs and this is no different.

So it's all about distribution of wealth. Punish people for being successful, right? Obviously they don't know what's best to do with their cash, so let the government decide for them.

And yes, their families should be able to make it on their own IF that's what the person wants. If I want to leave my kids a big fat check when I die, it should be my right to do so. I shouldn't lose that right because people like you feel like you could put MY money to "better use."

The kid isn't successful. And yes redistibution of wealth is important. Maybe you want 7 people to own all of the US but most people don't

Redistribution of wealth is one of the biggest lies of modern govt. The left has been busy pushing through legislation to redistribute wealth in this country for the past 80 or so years and really ramped it up in the 1960s. What has been happening? The gap between rich and poor continues to grow. The gap between rich and the middle class has been growing even faster as the oppressive taxation to fund these programs crush the middle class.

 

[daniel49]

don't worry the next democratic administration will probably hire them all back.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Why should they be able to give it to their greedy mooch-like children? I'd prefer the money actually was put to use rather than give it to Paris Hilton-type children. Shouldn't their family be able to make it on their own rather than get a nice big hand-out and turn into a drain on the economy?

I've never really liked hand-outs and this is no different.

So it's all about distribution of wealth. Punish people for being successful, right? Obviously they don't know what's best to do with their cash, so let the government decide for them.

And yes, their families should be able to make it on their own IF that's what the person wants. If I want to leave my kids a big fat check when I die, it should be my right to do so. I shouldn't lose that right because people like you feel like you could put MY money to "better use."

The kid isn't successful. And yes redistibution of wealth is important. Maybe you want 7 people to own all of the US but most people don't

If you're so against handouts, why do you want to give the money to the government. Aren't most social programs just government handouts?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have this theory in the United States called private ownership of wealth. Passing on the wealth created\earned in a lifetime is a right the person who died has.

What right do you have to take what somebody else created\earned?

By your tone, it sounds like jealousy is a driving factor.

If that is the case, what is so different about giving one wealth while alive from giving one's wealth after death?

Last I checked, you can only give something like 24K/year tax free to someone. After that it is considered income.

Estate/Death tax, should not be considered that, it should be considered as an income tax on the recipient. It is also crazy that one could give 2 million to one person and not be taxed, but have 3 million to distribute to two people (1.5 million each) which would need to be taxed before distribution

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have this theory in the United States called private ownership of wealth. Passing on the wealth created\earned in a lifetime is a right the person who died has.

What right do you have to take what somebody else created\earned?

By your tone, it sounds like jealousy is a driving factor.

If that is the case, what is so different about giving one wealth while alive from giving one's wealth after death?

Last I checked, you can only give something like 24K/year tax free to someone. After that it is considered income.

Estate/Death tax, should not be considered that, it should be considered as an income tax on the recipient. It is also crazy that one could give 2 million to one person and not be taxed, but have 3 million to distribute to two people (1.5 million each) which would need to be taxed before distribution

The common misconception among the jealous is after the death of a loved one, the people recieving the estate show up in a room with a lawyer and are handed big fat check they can go cash at the local bank.

The simple fact is most of the estate is tied up in assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate ect. Something you can't simply go down to the IRS and pay them with it.

I wouldnt have a problem with the people recieving the assets to pay the capital gains on the assets profit. After all, if it did appreciate and we do have a tax system that accounts for that. Simply saying you need to pay a % based on the assets recieved puts some people into situations they shouldnt be put in this country imo.

Just because I recieve 3 million in assets from my deceased parents doesnt mean I have 700,000 laying around to pay the IRS with when they want the estate tax paid.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel49
don't worry the next democratic administration will probably hire them all back.

Can Laws from a previous administration be repealed?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have this theory in the United States called private ownership of wealth. Passing on the wealth created\earned in a lifetime is a right the person who died has.

What right do you have to take what somebody else created\earned?

By your tone, it sounds like jealousy is a driving factor.

If that is the case, what is so different about giving one wealth while alive from giving one's wealth after death?

Last I checked, you can only give something like 24K/year tax free to someone. After that it is considered income.

Estate/Death tax, should not be considered that, it should be considered as an income tax on the recipient. It is also crazy that one could give 2 million to one person and not be taxed, but have 3 million to distribute to two people (1.5 million each) which would need to be taxed before distribution

The common misconception among the jealous is after the death of a loved one, the people recieving the estate show up in a room with a lawyer and are handed big fat check they can go cash at the local bank.

The simple fact is most of the estate is tied up in assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate ect. Something you can't simply go down to the IRS and pay them with it.

I wouldnt have a problem with the people recieving the assets to pay the capital gains on the assets profit. After all, if it did appreciate and we do have a tax system that accounts for that. Simply saying you need to pay a % based on the assets recieved puts some people into situations they shouldnt be put in this country imo.

Just because I recieve 3 million in assets from my deceased parents doesnt mean I have 700,000 laying around to pay the IRS with when they want the estate tax paid.

First of all, if I gave you a company worth 5 million, would you complain about the taxes? I doubt it, I think you are a resourceful person and would find a way to come up with the money or, in the worst case, sell the company to come up with a market value and a chunk of cash.

Secondly, if these victims of envy can't be given the company tax free while the original owner is alive, why should the be allowed to recieve it tax-free wehn the owner is dead.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have this theory in the United States called private ownership of wealth. Passing on the wealth created\earned in a lifetime is a right the person who died has.

What right do you have to take what somebody else created\earned?

By your tone, it sounds like jealousy is a driving factor.

If that is the case, what is so different about giving one wealth while alive from giving one's wealth after death?

Last I checked, you can only give something like 24K/year tax free to someone. After that it is considered income.

Estate/Death tax, should not be considered that, it should be considered as an income tax on the recipient. It is also crazy that one could give 2 million to one person and not be taxed, but have 3 million to distribute to two people (1.5 million each) which would need to be taxed before distribution

The common misconception among the jealous is after the death of a loved one, the people recieving the estate show up in a room with a lawyer and are handed big fat check they can go cash at the local bank.

The simple fact is most of the estate is tied up in assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate ect. Something you can't simply go down to the IRS and pay them with it.

I wouldnt have a problem with the people recieving the assets to pay the capital gains on the assets profit. After all, if it did appreciate and we do have a tax system that accounts for that. Simply saying you need to pay a % based on the assets recieved puts some people into situations they shouldnt be put in this country imo.

Just because I recieve 3 million in assets from my deceased parents doesnt mean I have 700,000 laying around to pay the IRS with when they want the estate tax paid.

First of all, if I gave you a company worth 5 million, would you complain about the taxes? I doubt it, I think you are a resourceful person and would find a way to come up with the money or, in the worst case, sell the company to come up with a market value and a chunk of cash.

Yes, if I couldnt make the payment and the IRS came after me. You may think I am resourceful and I may be, but to expect a company worth 5 million to come up with 1.68 million dollars to pay the IRS in the given tax year is asking a bit much.

Nobody should be forced to sell assets their parents built to pay a tax. If the govt wants its taxes they can surely wait until the company is sold and collect.

Secondly, if these victims of envy can't be given the company tax free while the original owner is alive, why should the be allowed to recieve it tax-free wehn the owner is dead.

They can, over the course of time tax free.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: dahunan
Did past rich people also get to pass on their negro slaves when they died so their little white children would stay rich off the crimes of their forefathers

Way to go completely off topic and throw the race card in there.

How is it off-topic?

I wonder how much wealth was obtained during the slavery years and has now been passed on through generations? Don't you think that number will be quite large?

 

[ParStyles]

And why are these estates getting taxed? Aren't they already taxed to begin with? So why should it be double taxed?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have this theory in the United States called private ownership of wealth. Passing on the wealth created\earned in a lifetime is a right the person who died has.

What right do you have to take what somebody else created\earned?

By your tone, it sounds like jealousy is a driving factor.

If that is the case, what is so different about giving one wealth while alive from giving one's wealth after death?

Last I checked, you can only give something like 24K/year tax free to someone. After that it is considered income.

Estate/Death tax, should not be considered that, it should be considered as an income tax on the recipient. It is also crazy that one could give 2 million to one person and not be taxed, but have 3 million to distribute to two people (1.5 million each) which would need to be taxed before distribution

It's not income. Where the heck did you read that? It's taxable to the DONOR, NOT the DONEE. And the gift tax is part of the broader Estate and Gift Tax and uses the same exclusions and limitations. geesh.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have this theory in the United States called private ownership of wealth. Passing on the wealth created\earned in a lifetime is a right the person who died has.

What right do you have to take what somebody else created\earned?

By your tone, it sounds like jealousy is a driving factor.

If that is the case, what is so different about giving one wealth while alive from giving one's wealth after death?

Last I checked, you can only give something like 24K/year tax free to someone. After that it is considered income.

Estate/Death tax, should not be considered that, it should be considered as an income tax on the recipient. It is also crazy that one could give 2 million to one person and not be taxed, but have 3 million to distribute to two people (1.5 million each) which would need to be taxed before distribution

It's not income. Where the heck did you read that? It's taxable to the DONOR, NOT the DONEE. And the gift tax is part of the broader Estate and Gift Tax and uses the same exclusions and limitations. geesh.

geesh yourself. I said should be considered income. I think that it is ridiculous to tax the estate and even agree with others that doing so apears to be taxing the same accumulation twice. What someone recieves from the doner is essentially income, so why not just treat is as such for tax purposes.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Secondly, if these victims of envy can't be given the company tax free while the original owner is alive, why should the be allowed to recieve it tax-free wehn the owner is dead.

They can, over the course of time tax free.

$2,000,000/$24,000/year = 83.3 years

If they had over 80 years to do it (less if they were giving it to a lot of people), they could do as good as the current estate tax.