Reply With Quote
prevents an aristocracy? Oh wait...too late.
Besides the thought that "only evil white republicans" get an Inheritance. Name one reason Estate tax is something other than the government suger coating communism...
prevents an aristocracy? Oh wait...too late.
Why not look up the proposed schedule before you pop your mouth off. They want to tax everybody.
I have said many times that this is the dumbest, most ed up rule that our government has ever come up with.
If for some reason I can somehow manage to outlive my parents and they leave behind enough money that the government can take 50% of it.......that will be close to the end of my life because I will go down in a blaze of glory (young guns style) fighting them off my property.
There is absolutely no good ing reason the gov't should be allowed to tax this money twice........and the argument that it's not taxed twice because the earner will have passed away is the dumbest ing thing I've ever heard.
the government.
I know. It doesn't serve any good purpose.
It certainly doesn't serve a "good" purpose, but it does serve a purpose in general and that is to overtax for worthless gov't spending.
NICE!!I want to kill a few mother ers before I go down as well.
you don't hate the US government only, you hate america as a whole.
hey, if you want big govt to save us from terrorists, poverty, starvation, epidemics, global temp increas...got to pay the piper...
That makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks brah!
Dont forget obesity, cancer, aids, and jews
It is complete and utter bull . People spend their entire lives working and want to pass along what they were able to acquire along the way to THEIR kids, and these gentlemen want to steal it. Why don't you dig up the grave and steal the suit while you are at it.
Last edited by BlairForceDejuan; 12-10-2010 at 01:58 AM.
People with the kind of money who would be in the bracket to pay estate tax ($4M) know how to structure their assets so that they do not fall within estate tax.
False.
You do what you can, but you still have to play by the rules. Sometimes it creates some crazy situations (generation skipping and giving to 2 year old kids when the parents only get a relatively small amount, etc.) But you can't avoid it all.
What it really does is cause the business or farm owner to pay life insurance premiums all his life so that when he dies, that money will be available to pay the estate tax so the family doesn't have to sell the farm or business upon his death.
It’s a huge boon to insurance companies.
You can bet you bottom dollar old Teddy (the swimmer)
Kennedy had things rigged where his estate didn't pay
anything. The don't create foundations and other nice
sounding dodges for nothing. Like Buffett and Gates.
I believe the Estate Tax was zero was Kennedy died - so it didn't affect his heirs.
would the life insurance proceeds be part of the taxable estate?
They aren't. LI proceeds are tax free. What you have to do is estimate the estate value and then carry a life insurance policy for half. The problem is you have to buy/commoit to those policies when they are relatively young and the premiums are astronomical.
I always thought that LI proceeds were not taxable to the beneficiaries, but were taxable to Estates. But I'm no expert.
Also, besides the Fed estate tax, states have their own Estate tax returns.
Not really.
Fox revives ancient myth that the estate tax kills "a lot of" farms
Further, the Irs website has this bit:... even before Bush implemented a gradual phase-out of the estate tax by steadily increasing the minimum amount of the estate required for the tax to kick in and decreasing the tax rate until it eliminated out in 2010, not many family farms were adversely affected by the tax.
In 2000, before Bush's cuts, only estates over $1 million were subject to the tax, and as the Citizens for Tax Justice noted, farm estates were able to claim an extra $300,000 exemption on top of that. The amount of the estate over $1,300,000 was taxed at rates of up to 55 percent. Additionally, farms were valued at their "current use," rather than the value the land would get if sold for development. Because of this, and because farm estates are generally smaller than other estates, only 1,659 farm estates owed any taxes at all. Furthermore, the CBO found that only about 8 percent of those estates subject to the tax owed more in taxes than they inherited in "liquid assets."
And that was before the Bush cuts took effect. By 2009, estates owed no taxes at all on the first $3.5 million inherited and paid rates up to 45 percent. The Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimated that due to those changes, only about 80 family farms would owe any estate taxes at all, and half of those would have liability below $1 million.
And the deal President Obama proposed on December 6 promised to be even more generous, allowing for $5 million to be inherited without any tax, and any amount over that minimum would be taxed at 35 percent. So it's fair to assume that even fewer family farms would owe any estate tax at all, let alone need to be sold to pay the tax owed, as Fox & Friends suggested.
In short, even if the Democrats push to increase the tax rate to 45 percent, as Steve Doocy suggested, the myth of the mass selloff of family farms gets even more far-fetched with each passing year.
1) Family farms are valued on a favorable basis "as is" rather than on market rates.Generally, the fair market value of such interests owned by the decedent are includible in the gross estate at date of death. However, for certain farms operated as a family farm, reductions to these amounts may be available.
In the case of a qualifying Family Farm, IRC 2032A allows a reduction from value of up to $1,000,000.
2) They are given larger tax-exemptions
3) They get to reduce even the value they have to report by a further $1,000,000
In short, the Fox "news" talking point is pure bull , and provably so.
If you can provide some data to show that this tax really does force "family farms" under, or to be divided up, I would love to see it, because it didn't take much research to find data that contradicts that.
RG:Some years back a family owned quite a large ranchIf you can provide some data to show that this tax really does force "family farms" under, or to be divided up, I would love to see it, because it didn't take much research to find data that contradicts that.
near Del Rio, Texas. Many in the family were getting
up in years. And as they family died off it put the
remainder of the heirs in some really tight money
situations. And yes, they thought they were going to
have to come up with quite a wad of cash to keep
the ranch. But they were concerned about the very
thing you talk about. Having to sell it off to pay the
death taxes. I can't, and wouldn't, furnish any
information about the ranch of family. But the story
is true.
I’ve finished reading The Snowball, and one of the things that struck me was how Buffett thought about individual destiny, meritocracy, and wealth. For one thing, he is a wealthy person who supports an estate tax for those with very large estates (currently for those greater than $3.5 million). Here’s a glimpse of why:
I also connected strongly with a related concept Buffett termed the “Ovarian Lottery”.
He also made a comment that if born several hundred years earlier, he and Gates probably would have been some other animal’s lunch because they did not see well and could not climb trees well. I’ve had the exact same thought, as my eyesight is really horrible. If was born in the 1700s, I’d probably be considered a cripple.
This led me to a post by a Kiva Fellow working in Uganda. Kiva is the site where you can lend as little as $25 to low-income entrepreneurs.
Kiva, to me, is simply a way for those of us who drew the best tickets in the ovarian lottery to help those who drew less fortunate ones.
Something to spread a little humility. You or I may have worked hard, but that’s doesn’t mean we didn’t get a huge head start from winning the Ovarian Lottery. Would you be where you are if you grew up in a country where nobody would even teach you how to read?
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/buffett-w...n-lottery.html
"quite a large ranch" is not a family farm.
I also pointed out that the exceptions have gotten more generous, and one of the proposals of Mr. Obama makes it even more so. "some years back" is not today, and certainly not an argument to shield the ONLY segment of society that has actually seen their income go up in the last 30 years from paying their fair share.
But hey, he's a socialist, so everything he proposes must be wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
