Fiscal Commission Release Eye-Popping Recommendations

[Granny]

The government does not take your home. The value of your financial assets at your death is what is taxed to the beneficiaries/heirs to your estate. Estate planning laws vary from state to state, but a good estate planing lawyer can recommend actions that can cut down on estate taxes, i.e., "gifts" of money or property can be given to each heir up to a $10,000 max per year. So, if a man has 4 children and 15 grandchildren, he could give out a total of $190,000 at $10,000 apiece. His wife can also do the same thing each year. Smart children don't spend this money - they invest it into interest bearing trust accounts for themselves and each of their children. Once the heir owns these "gifts" it is no longer a part of the giver's estate and not subject to estate taxation.

Likewise, if a person has a multimillion dollar home (maybe even a couple of homes), he can transfer to his heirs a certain % interest in any of those properties in a year (thus eventually making the heirs joint owners of the property and avoids estate taxation).

You don't need to be richer than Rockefeller to make these kinds of financial arrangements.

 

[Picaro]

A tax deferred 401k is a "subsidy?"

Considering Federal monetary and fiscal policy is spending trillions to keep those asset values inflated, yes, it very much is, and also the reason why nobody in their right minds is going to let 'The Market' privatize SS.

 

[Revere]

The government does not take your home. The value of your financial assets at your death is what is taxed to the beneficiaries/heirs to your estate. Estate planning laws vary from state to state, but a good estate planing lawyer can recommend actions that can cut down on estate taxes, i.e., "gifts" of money or property can be given to each heir up to a $10,000 max per year. So, if a man has 4 children and 15 grandchildren, he could give out a total of $190,000 at $10,000 apiece. His wife can also do the same thing each year. Smart children don't spend this money - they invest it into interest bearing trust accounts for themselves and each of their children. Once the heir owns these "gifts" it is no longer a part of the giver's estate and not subject to estate taxation.

Likewise, if a person has a multimillion dollar home (maybe even a couple of homes), he can transfer to his heirs a certain % interest in any of those properties in a year (thus eventually making the heirs joint owners of the property and avoids estate taxation).

You don't need to be richer than Rockefeller to make these kinds of financial arrangements.

You can be forced to liquidate assets to pay inheritance taxes.

 

[Trajan]

So you merely substitute your means test for the current ones.

Keep the house but cough up the means to handle its upkeep.

HUH? Nobody is really talking about keeping the house, just passing along a certain something to heirs.

Who keeps the house in inheritance? Almost nobody. They sell it almost always.

Forrest Gump kept the house, but he had no siblings.

do you think the gov. should be able to keep the SSI your spouse contributed just because he or she dies? And not give to to the survivor?

 

[uscitizen]

So government takes your home from your family if you die?

They have some claim on that?

Actually before you die if you go into a rest home on medicaid.
And they can go back 5 years if you gave it to a family member and get it from them.

I am not sure how that works if you have a reverse mortgage on it.

 

[Revere]

So government takes your home from your family if you die?

They have some claim on that?

Actually before you die if you go into a rest home on medicaid.

You can't go on Medicaid unless you have virtually no assets.

 

[Revere]

So you merely substitute your means test for the current ones.

Keep the house but cough up the means to handle its upkeep.

HUH? Nobody is really talking about keeping the house, just passing along a certain something to heirs.

Who keeps the house in inheritance? Almost nobody. They sell it almost always.

Forrest Gump kept the house, but he had no siblings.

do you think the gov. should be able to keep the SSI your spouse contributed just because he or she dies? And not give to to the survivor?

Thank you. These people are useful idiots for a government that can't manage what it already takes in.

 

[Granny]

So you merely substitute your means test for the current ones.

Keep the house but cough up the means to handle its upkeep.

HUH? Nobody is really talking about keeping the house, just passing along a certain something to heirs.

Who keeps the house in inheritance? Almost nobody. They sell it almost always.

Forrest Gump kept the house, but he had no siblings.

So you get kicked out of the house if the breadwinner dies.

Government, not you, decides you must leave, because government must give the proceeds to someone else.

Nice society.

Many people carry mortgage insurance that pays off the mortgage on the death of a spouse. A widowed person may still be financially able to pay all the other monthly costs of running a household. If not, they can put the house on the market, take the equity proceeds and reinvest into a smaller house that's easier to handle financially.

 

[Trajan]

HUH? Nobody is really talking about keeping the house, just passing along a certain something to heirs.

Who keeps the house in inheritance? Almost nobody. They sell it almost always.

Forrest Gump kept the house, but he had no siblings.

do you think the gov. should be able to keep the SSI your spouse contributed just because he or she dies? And not give to to the survivor?

Thank you. These people are useful idiots for a government that can't manage what it already takes in.

agreed. looking at the op bullet points, we are in for a world of hurt.

I was watching the news bowles said after he summed up the plans, almost unanimously everyone but Simpson burst out, were hey you can do that but don't do this, protecting their platforms and special interests....one nitwit made a hash of the 68 in 2050 upping of the SSI payout and 69 by 2075..I mean it takes a real jackass to take exception to that, really.

it never seems to occur to these genius that the more control gov. has exerted over the last 70 years the worse things got.

 

[Revere]

HUH? Nobody is really talking about keeping the house, just passing along a certain something to heirs.

Who keeps the house in inheritance? Almost nobody. They sell it almost always.

Forrest Gump kept the house, but he had no siblings.

So you get kicked out of the house if the breadwinner dies.

Government, not you, decides you must leave, because government must give the proceeds to someone else.

Nice society.

Many people carry mortgage insurance that pays off the mortgage on the death of a spouse. A widowed person may still be financially able to pay all the other monthly costs of running a household. If not, they can put the house on the market, take the equity proceeds and reinvest into a smaller house that's easier to handle financially.

But why should windfall taxes for the government be the ONLY reason you leave? If you live in a state like California, you may have owned your home for some time and pay very modest property taxes on it. If you are forced to leave, even a smaller house would kill you in taxes.

Why should government push you off a cliff and force you to do that?

 

[Trajan]

HUH? Nobody is really talking about keeping the house, just passing along a certain something to heirs.

Who keeps the house in inheritance? Almost nobody. They sell it almost always.

Forrest Gump kept the house, but he had no siblings.

So you get kicked out of the house if the breadwinner dies.

Government, not you, decides you must leave, because government must give the proceeds to someone else.

Nice society.

Many people carry mortgage insurance that pays off the mortgage on the death of a spouse. A widowed person may still be financially able to pay all the other monthly costs of running a household. If not, they can put the house on the market, take the equity proceeds and reinvest into a smaller house that's easier to handle financially.

thx for telling me how to live out my retirement if my wife dies, I appreciate your input.Its nice to know I'll move down while the gov. keeps funding losers like amtrak and the post office with that money, bravo....

 

[judyd]

So you get kicked out of the house if the breadwinner dies.

Government, not you, decides you must leave, because government must give the proceeds to someone else.

Nice society.

Many people carry mortgage insurance that pays off the mortgage on the death of a spouse. A widowed person may still be financially able to pay all the other monthly costs of running a household. If not, they can put the house on the market, take the equity proceeds and reinvest into a smaller house that's easier to handle financially.

But why should windfall taxes for the government be the ONLY reason you leave? If you live in a state like California, you may have owned your home for some time and pay very modest property taxes on it. If you are forced to leave, even a smaller house would kill you in taxes.

Why should government push you off a cliff and force you to do that?

Estate taxes are not a problem for most people. Also, more and more people are deeding their homes to a family trust, rather than keeping a home in an individual's name. This helps you to avoid tax problems later.

 

[loosecannon]

Thank you. These people are useful idiots for a government that can't manage what it already takes in.

Oh fuck you. YOU are a useful idiot serving the Koch billionaires. You can't think for yourself and can't speak for yourself, you simply do your master's bidding.

Now clean the pool, fool.

 

[william the wie]

This is going to get interesting when Pelosi and Reid try to push this through in a lameduck session.

 

[loosecannon]

This is going to get interesting when Pelosi and Reid try to push this through in a lameduck session.

Nobody is gonna sit still for this. Tea party, GOP, Dems will all go ape shit if any real effort is made to trim the deficit.

Pelosi and Reid esp don't have nearly the ball sacks to even try this.

The tea party supporters have been played, chumped BIG TIME!

 

[Paulie]

I actually kind of like the idea of 100% death tax with 0 income tax on the living, but my caveat would be that there's up to a certain dollar amount in assets that a citizen can leave to someone.

The same amount for EVERYONE.

If you feel as though you might be getting screwed out of leaving something important to someone, simply give it to them before you die.

I could, however, see how the wealthy could game that system and continually move assets around in perpetuity between people, never reaching the Treasury.

 

[loosecannon]

If you feel as though you might be getting screwed out of leaving something important to someone, simply give it to them before you die.

I could, however, see how the wealthy could game that system and continually move assets around in perpetuity between people, never reaching the Treasury.

absolutely, so structural disincentives would need to be installed.