The Estate Tax, Soon to Return in 2010

[skookerasbil]

While nobody except the k00ks care about Gerorge Bush anymore, the fact is, while his pay cuts greatly stimulated the economy, he was too much like his Dad and signed every peice of legislation on spending theat came to his desk for the gay.
Any dope however knows you dont raise taxes during a recession..........that is unless your long term goal is losing votes................lots of 'em!!!

 

[Oldandtired]

Let's face it, most people don't have accumulated wealth above a million, much less above this years amount of 3.5 million. People shouldn't be concerned about this, unless they have such a huge accumulation of wealth. Even then, there are all sorts of trusts, generation skipping trusts, and devices that the wealthy have to shield some of the money from taxation, even actually giving people money before you die, at less than ten grand a year.

Estate Tax Exemption Amount

I have a question, simply because I may not accumulate the wealth required to pay the tax, I should not be concerned about it? Is that why this tax passed in the first place, because everyone said, "it won't affect me so why should I care?"

I doubt I will acquire that kind of wealth for one reason, I am not a speculator and I don't like dealing in real estate, but it just goes against my nature to think that the kids of someone who has accumulated say $1.5 in property (say BBD) should have to sell their property in order to pay the tax.

I might understand if it were set up like a lien so that if the heirs made a profit of more than $1 million they were taxed on it, but not as the Estate Tax is currently set up.

Immie

One, to pay for a very expensive war. We've got two going on now, and truth is, we pay a fortune for potential wars, even when we manage to stay out of them for a few years. Also, this tax hits the very people who have tripled their wealth, and who benefit most from the wars in foreign land. If you supported the war, then don't complain about the taxes.

Also, the idea was that people should rise to success on their own shoulders, and that if one does well in life, they should pay back to society some of what they have amassed. And bear in mind, this is only amounts over total assets of 3.5 million in 2009.

And yes, I would think whether the taxes affect you, or ever will affect you, should bear some weight in any decision as to whether you like it, or not. More specifically, if they levy a tax on you, so these folks can get their break, I suspect that might weigh on you.

Like I've said, there are people who really deserve your empathy and pity, way more than people who have inherited, or accumulated this much in life. The truth is, it mostly affects people with hundreds of millions, or billions. And the government doesn't "swoop" anymore than they "swoop," when you pay sales taxes on a couple of hundred dollars worth of groceries, after they've already taken money out of your paycheck.

Also, payroll taxes are only collected on up to about a hundred grand. After that, the richest don't pay that tax either. And for all these years, they've been collecting too much, over the amount required to pay out SS benefits, and have been spending it on other stuff, like wars, and tax cuts for the rich.

Clearly, the jist of it is that they've been moving taxes off themselves, and putting it onto you, while using their media to convince you to give them breaks, but not exactly telling you that you are paying more.

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Tax cuts allows the investment of the money into growth.

As much as you want to address the very small percentage of the people that earn their money by being born into money...MOST earn their money by starting, developing, and growing their companies. MOST of those people look at a tax cut as an opportunity to invest more in their company...as such a mindset is why they have acheived success to begin with.

It is not and never was tax cuts to the rich so they can have mopre money in the bank. It was tax cuts to the business owners so they can invest MORE in their companies in an effort to increase GDP...which of course increases employment.

And as has been proven....such has always worked.

Your biggest problem is you fell for the rhetoric of "tax cuts to the rich".......it was rhetoric successfully used to win an election.

 

[skookerasbil]

I have a question, simply because I may not accumulate the wealth required to pay the tax, I should not be concerned about it? Is that why this tax passed in the first place, because everyone said, "it won't affect me so why should I care?"

I doubt I will acquire that kind of wealth for one reason, I am not a speculator and I don't like dealing in real estate, but it just goes against my nature to think that the kids of someone who has accumulated say $1.5 in property (say BBD) should have to sell their property in order to pay the tax.

I might understand if it were set up like a lien so that if the heirs made a profit of more than $1 million they were taxed on it, but not as the Estate Tax is currently set up.

Immie

One, to pay for a very expensive war. We've got two going on now, and truth is, we pay a fortune for potential wars, even when we manage to stay out of them for a few years. Also, this tax hits the very people who have tripled their wealth, and who benefit most from the wars in foreign land. If you supported the war, then don't complain about the taxes.

Also, the idea was that people should rise to success on their own shoulders, and that if one does well in life, they should pay back to society some of what they have amassed. And bear in mind, this is only amounts over total assets of 3.5 million in 2009.

And yes, I would think whether the taxes affect you, or ever will affect you, should bear some weight in any decision as to whether you like it, or not. More specifically, if they levy a tax on you, so these folks can get their break, I suspect that might weigh on you.

Like I've said, there are people who really deserve your empathy and pity, way more than people who have inherited, or accumulated this much in life. The truth is, it mostly affects people with hundreds of millions, or billions. And the government doesn't "swoop" anymore than they "swoop," when you pay sales taxes on a couple of hundred dollars worth of groceries, after they've already taken money out of your paycheck.

Also, payroll taxes are only collected on up to about a hundred grand. After that, the richest don't pay that tax either. And for all these years, they've been collecting too much, over the amount required to pay out SS benefits, and have been spending it on other stuff, like wars, and tax cuts for the rich.

Clearly, the jist of it is that they've been moving taxes off themselves, and putting it onto you, while using their media to convince you to give them breaks, but not exactly telling you that you are paying more.

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Tax cuts allows the investment of the money into growth.

As much as you want to address the very small percentage of the people that earn their money by being born into money...MOST earn their money by starting, developing, and growing their companies. MOST of those people look at a tax cut as an opportunity to invest more in their company...as such a mindset is why they have acheived success to begin with.

It is not and never was tax cuts to the rich so they can have mopre money in the bank. It was tax cuts to the business owners so they can invest MORE in their companies in an effort to increase GDP...which of course increases employment.

And as has been proven....such has always worked.

Your biggest problem is you fell for the rhetoric of "tax cuts to the rich".......it was rhetoric successfully used to win an election.

post of the month award right here ^^^


Its also called common sense. Only a dummy thinks its a good idea to raise taxes when the economy is in recession!!

 

[skookerasbil]

............and keep raising those taxes on small business and the rich!!!

 

[Oldandtired]

One, to pay for a very expensive war. We've got two going on now, and truth is, we pay a fortune for potential wars, even when we manage to stay out of them for a few years. Also, this tax hits the very people who have tripled their wealth, and who benefit most from the wars in foreign land. If you supported the war, then don't complain about the taxes.

Also, the idea was that people should rise to success on their own shoulders, and that if one does well in life, they should pay back to society some of what they have amassed. And bear in mind, this is only amounts over total assets of 3.5 million in 2009.

And yes, I would think whether the taxes affect you, or ever will affect you, should bear some weight in any decision as to whether you like it, or not. More specifically, if they levy a tax on you, so these folks can get their break, I suspect that might weigh on you.

Like I've said, there are people who really deserve your empathy and pity, way more than people who have inherited, or accumulated this much in life. The truth is, it mostly affects people with hundreds of millions, or billions. And the government doesn't "swoop" anymore than they "swoop," when you pay sales taxes on a couple of hundred dollars worth of groceries, after they've already taken money out of your paycheck.

Also, payroll taxes are only collected on up to about a hundred grand. After that, the richest don't pay that tax either. And for all these years, they've been collecting too much, over the amount required to pay out SS benefits, and have been spending it on other stuff, like wars, and tax cuts for the rich.

Clearly, the jist of it is that they've been moving taxes off themselves, and putting it onto you, while using their media to convince you to give them breaks, but not exactly telling you that you are paying more.

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Tax cuts allows the investment of the money into growth.

As much as you want to address the very small percentage of the people that earn their money by being born into money...MOST earn their money by starting, developing, and growing their companies. MOST of those people look at a tax cut as an opportunity to invest more in their company...as such a mindset is why they have acheived success to begin with.

It is not and never was tax cuts to the rich so they can have mopre money in the bank. It was tax cuts to the business owners so they can invest MORE in their companies in an effort to increase GDP...which of course increases employment.

And as has been proven....such has always worked.

Your biggest problem is you fell for the rhetoric of "tax cuts to the rich".......it was rhetoric successfully used to win an election.

post of the month award right here ^^^


Its also called common sense. Only a dummy thinks its a good idea to raise taxes when the economy is in recession!!

Gee...thanks.

Truth is, I am an example of it. Started with np money...took a chance...dealt with the anxiety....started in my apartment...made some money...opened an office...hired a person to help....made more money....hired more people...made more money...hired more people...made more money....gave employees healthcare....made more money....opened a second office.

Now my taxes are going up. No major concern as they will only go up 3%...BUT....I am a realist. Sales tax will go up locally....estate tax will come into play...cap and trade is on the table....state taxes are going to go up...payroll taxes will go up....FICA cap will go up....

SO whereas I had no plans to hire in a recession...I would be foolish to consider ANY hiring until I see what is left after all of these new proposed taxes.

Certainly not a smart move if they want me to hire.

Meanwhile..if they promised me no new taxes...I would be more likely to hire without concern of not being able to support my family and my company.

And I am just one small business owner.....

 

[Polk]

I beg to differ with your statement "Many myths surround it. like farmers being affected. There was one, in all of America. And it was a huge farm, where the person who died had all sorts of assets, a huge corporate farm, being only one of them." This is complete bull shit.

It's a complete and utter myth. During the floor debate at the time the bill was passed, the Republicans were unable to provide even a single example of a family farm being lost to the estate tax. Furthermore, if the goal was to save family farms, why did the Republicans oppose a permanent increase in the exemption to one hundred million?

 

[Polk]

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Sure it does. Cutting revenue by x amount adds just as much to the deficit as raising spending by x amount.

Tax cuts allows the investment of the money into growth.

As much as you want to address the very small percentage of the people that earn their money by being born into money...MOST earn their money by starting, developing, and growing their companies. MOST of those people look at a tax cut as an opportunity to invest more in their company...as such a mindset is why they have acheived success to begin with.

It is not and never was tax cuts to the rich so they can have mopre money in the bank. It was tax cuts to the business owners so they can invest MORE in their companies in an effort to increase GDP...which of course increases employment.

And as has been proven....such has always worked.

Your biggest problem is you fell for the rhetoric of "tax cuts to the rich".......it was rhetoric successfully used to win an election.

Except, of course, back here in the real world, these people aren't small business owners. The wealth is held in various forms of assets. They're not taking that money to expand a business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Except, of course, back here in the real world, these people aren't small business owners. The wealth is held in various forms of assets. They're not taking that money to expand a business.

You mean assets like stocks that allow other people to use an investors money to expand or start a business?

You mean assets like bonds that allow people to borrow to expand or start a business?

You mean assets like cash accounts that banks use to leverage 10 to one to loan out to people to buy houses and cars or for SBA loans to start businesses?

Those kind of assets?

 

[auditor0007]

it should never have been ended

Agreed!

this year, 3.5 million is exempted. So if all of your assets, your houses, cars, accounts, and everything are less than 3.5 million, you don't pay it. Amounts of wealth above that, you pay 45 percent.

In 2010, you can die, and keep all your money. So, 2010 is the year for lucky dying, regaring this tax.

In 2011, it comes back, at taxing over a million, at the rate of 55 percent taxation on all amounts above this one million dollar asset limit.

Let's face it, most people don't have accumulated wealth above a million, much less above this years amount of 3.5 million. People shouldn't be concerned about this, unless they have such a huge accumulation of wealth. Even then, there are all sorts of trusts, generation skipping trusts, and devices that the wealthy have to shield some of the money from taxation, even actually giving people money before you die, at less than ten grand a year.

Estate Tax Exemption Amount

I favor an estate tax, but not 55%. All taxes should be the same, one flat rate across the board for all income and estates. If everything was taxed in this manner, the rate would be somewhere around 20%. I'm not sure too many would complain about that.

 

[Oldandtired]

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Sure it does. Cutting revenue by x amount adds just as much to the deficit as raising spending by x amount.

Tax cuts allows the investment of the money into growth.

As much as you want to address the very small percentage of the people that earn their money by being born into money...MOST earn their money by starting, developing, and growing their companies. MOST of those people look at a tax cut as an opportunity to invest more in their company...as such a mindset is why they have acheived success to begin with.

It is not and never was tax cuts to the rich so they can have mopre money in the bank. It was tax cuts to the business owners so they can invest MORE in their companies in an effort to increase GDP...which of course increases employment.

And as has been proven....such has always worked.

Your biggest problem is you fell for the rhetoric of "tax cuts to the rich".......it was rhetoric successfully used to win an election.

Except, of course, back here in the real world, these people aren't small business owners. The wealth is held in various forms of assets. They're not taking that money to expand a business.

So then please tell me....you are 100% certain that extrea money in the pockets of a business owner does not go back into the business...then what is used to grow a business?

 

[Oldandtired]

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Sure it does. Cutting revenue by x amount adds just as much to the deficit as raising spending by x amount.

[.

The deficit is caused by spending mopre than tax revenue.

Furst comes tax revenue then comes spending.

Cut taxes and you must spend less.

Sorry...poor logic on your part. Cutting taxes does not cause a deficit.....cutting taxes but NOT cutting spending is what causes a deficit.

Unless, of course, you believe in spending first and then trying to come up with the money later.

 

[ba1614]

$1m is to low of a threshold and 55% is way to high of a tax-rate, if you gotta have this tax.

It's ridiculous that $1m in total assets is considered "rich". People in this category certainly aren't hiding monies in some distant land. Most of the people in this group have worked their nuts off, and already paid tax on that acquired wealth. If whoever inherits it sells it, the government will get their share again, and that should be enough.

You'd be an idiot if they tell you they are going to take over half of what you worked for, and you did nothing to protect that investment in your kids future.
My kids and grand kids are much more important to me than a whole class of career welfare recipients "gettin' theirs". After a lifetime of paying for them already, there's no fuckin' way I'm paying for 'em when I'm dead.
It'll be nicer to see my kids life a little better when I'm alive anyway.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

HOORAY FOR SOCIALISM!!! I think i'm gonna puke. My God lets hope it's only three more years of this inept Socialist madness. Btw,you should check out what Winston Churchill had to say about Socialism. Churchill really was the man.

The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.
Winston Churchill, 1944

 

[Polk]

Except, of course, back here in the real world, these people aren't small business owners. The wealth is held in various forms of assets. They're not taking that money to expand a business.

You mean assets like stocks that allow other people to use an investors money to expand or start a business?

You mean assets like bonds that allow people to borrow to expand or start a business?

You mean assets like cash accounts that banks use to leverage 10 to one to loan out to people to buy houses and cars or for SBA loans to start businesses?

Those kind of assets?

Except for IPOs, stock don't expand or start businesses. It's the transfer of a proportion of controlling interest in the firm.

 

[Polk]

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Sure it does. Cutting revenue by x amount adds just as much to the deficit as raising spending by x amount.

Tax cuts allows the investment of the money into growth.

As much as you want to address the very small percentage of the people that earn their money by being born into money...MOST earn their money by starting, developing, and growing their companies. MOST of those people look at a tax cut as an opportunity to invest more in their company...as such a mindset is why they have acheived success to begin with.

It is not and never was tax cuts to the rich so they can have mopre money in the bank. It was tax cuts to the business owners so they can invest MORE in their companies in an effort to increase GDP...which of course increases employment.

And as has been proven....such has always worked.

Your biggest problem is you fell for the rhetoric of "tax cuts to the rich".......it was rhetoric successfully used to win an election.

Except, of course, back here in the real world, these people aren't small business owners. The wealth is held in various forms of assets. They're not taking that money to expand a business.

So then please tell me....you are 100% certain that extrea money in the pockets of a business owner does not go back into the business...then what is used to grow a business?

The entire point is that. by and large, these people aren't business owners.

 

[Polk]

$1m is to low of a threshold and 55% is way to high of a tax-rate, if you gotta have this tax.

It's ridiculous that $1m in total assets is considered "rich". People in this category certainly aren't hiding monies in some distant land. Most of the people in this group have worked their nuts off, and already paid tax on that acquired wealth. If whoever inherits it sells it, the government will get their share again, and that should be enough.

You'd be an idiot if they tell you they are going to take over half of what you worked for, and you did nothing to protect that investment in your kids future.
My kids and grand kids are much more important to me than a whole class of career welfare recipients "gettin' theirs". After a lifetime of paying for them already, there's no fuckin' way I'm paying for 'em when I'm dead.
It'll be nicer to see my kids life a little better when I'm alive anyway.

On the concept level, I'd have no power with increasing the deduction by a significant amount. Of course, the opponents of the estate tax don't want that.

 

[DiamondDave]

HOORAY FOR SOCIALISM!!! I think i'm gonna puke. My God lets hope it's only three more years of this inept Socialist madness. Btw,you should check out what Winston Churchill had to say about Socialism. Churchill really was the man.

The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.
Winston Churchill, 1944

Equal opportunity to obtain is not the same as having it given to you at the expense of another...

Most all conservatives will readily say that all should have the ability to have access to the same types of treatments... nobody should be told they cannot seek out whatever treatment they want or need.. but that does not mean that the expense of that treatment, nor the insurance to cover that treatment, is the responsibility of anyone other than you for your care

 

[theDoctorisIn]

HOORAY FOR SOCIALISM!!! I think i'm gonna puke. My God lets hope it's only three more years of this inept Socialist madness. Btw,you should check out what Winston Churchill had to say about Socialism. Churchill really was the man.

The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.
Winston Churchill, 1944

Equal opportunity to obtain is not the same as having it given to you at the expense of another...

Most all conservatives will readily say that all should have the ability to have access to the same types of treatments... nobody should be told they cannot seek out whatever treatment they want or need.. but that does not mean that the expense of that treatment, nor the insurance to cover that treatment, is the responsibility of anyone other than you for your care

Do you realize that the quote was Churchill endorsing NHS, Britain's so-called "Socialized Medicine"?

 

[pal_of_poor]

Let's face it, most people don't have accumulated wealth above a million, much less above this years amount of 3.5 million. People shouldn't be concerned about this, unless they have such a huge accumulation of wealth. Even then, there are all sorts of trusts, generation skipping trusts, and devices that the wealthy have to shield some of the money from taxation, even actually giving people money before you die, at less than ten grand a year.

Estate Tax Exemption Amount

I have a question, simply because I may not accumulate the wealth required to pay the tax, I should not be concerned about it? Is that why this tax passed in the first place, because everyone said, "it won't affect me so why should I care?"

I doubt I will acquire that kind of wealth for one reason, I am not a speculator and I don't like dealing in real estate, but it just goes against my nature to think that the kids of someone who has accumulated say $1.5 in property (say BBD) should have to sell their property in order to pay the tax.

I might understand if it were set up like a lien so that if the heirs made a profit of more than $1 million they were taxed on it, but not as the Estate Tax is currently set up.

Immie

The situation where a farm, or a person would "ONLY" have real-estate, would be rare indeed.

I'm not going to type the whole chart, but the average of people who pay estate taxes is about 1.9 million in assets (pre-2000, as now if you make less than 3.5 million a year, you don't pay any), and the percentage of farm assets, is 3, and they tend to own 8 percent in real-estate.

What most people fail to realize is, people with assets of this size, have myriad investments.

You can be against the tax if you like, but this situation is not one for which you have to worry. The average stock and cash of average estates this size, is 44 percent. So, no worries there, and find someone deserving of your sympathies. These kids will be fine, financially anyway, outside of the suffering and grief that afflict anyone who loses a loved one. Poor folks won't have the cash for comfort.

 

[pal_of_poor]

HOORAY FOR SOCIALISM!!! I think i'm gonna puke. My God lets hope it's only three more years of this inept Socialist madness. Btw,you should check out what Winston Churchill had to say about Socialism. Churchill really was the man.

Oooohhh, you really hate that word.

Truth is, we only have about 2 percent socialization, though I'd suspect if you added the military, an entirely socialistic endeavor, you'd have a bit higher percentage.

So, no worries mate, we're still 98 percent capitalist.

And seriously, don't you realize Socialism isn't a place, like Buffalo, or Cincinnatti. It's a spectrum, a continuum, and shifting it a little left, so we can all do better, won't hurt a bit.