Reply With Quote
Oh, you're really reaching now.
Really? You hypocritical little .
you
No, just showing you don't understand what you are quoting.
meh.
As I said, I try not to, but am only human. The worst thing I said to you was that your logic was flawed as usual.
Your response was:
The bigger hypocrite is rather plain to anybody who reads the exchange.
...and you can still shove your question up your ass until you can ask it politely.
If you had asked without the profanity, I might have answered it.
As it is, I see no point in giving you the respect you will not afford me.
It ought to be Paris Hilton's parents money to do with as they please - including passing it along to their heirs. That is a MAJOR incentive for building wealth (can't take it with you, after all).
I remember in High School, learning about the estate tax; thought my teacher was funnin us.
man, this thread is degenerating quickly...There is not a tax when you sell these assets as capital gains. You acquire the post tax value as your basis, to my understanding.
Can you please show me where you have to pay a capital gains tax on the full value of items you sell in an inheritance?
Yes, when a beneficiary inherits assets, his cost basis is the FMV at the time of death of whoever he inherited from. There is a schedule of assets in the Estate tax return showing FMV at date of death, I think. Therefore, he could receive a big "built-in gain" tax free.
IOW, if the dad bought some land for $20,000 40 years ago, but now it is worth $150,000, then the son inherits it, the son's "cost" of the land would be $150,000. $130,000 gain just goes up in smoke.
If the son then sells it for 152,000, it's only a $2,000 taxable gain...
Do not shift the burden of proof to me. I did not make the claim.
Just to be sure we are having the same conversation:Not that this money is taxed, arguable twice already, what is there still a tax when you sell these newly acquired assets as capital gains?
Inheirit $1,000,000
tax $500,000
Remaining assets:
$500,000
Sell assets immediately for $500,000, no tax.
That is my understanding.
My understanding of what you are saying:
Inheirit $1,000,000
Tax $500,000
Remaining assets:
$500,000
Sell assets immediately for $500,000, pay capital gains tax on $500,000
Is that what you are saying?
It's funny to me that you pull the condescending passive-aggressive bull on a daily basis around here but when someone uses plain old aggression you get butt hurt that your feelers are hurt.
It's been a while since I took individual tax, but that seems to jibe with what I remember.man, this thread is degenerating quickly...
Yes, when a beneficiary inherits assets, his cost basis is the FMV at the time of death of whoever he inherited from. There is a schedule of assets in the Estate tax return showing FMV at date of death, I think. Therefore, he could receive a big "built-in gain" tax free.
IOW, if the dad bought some land for $20,000 40 years ago, but now it is worth $150,000, then the son inherits it, the son's "cost" of the land would be $150,000. $130,000 gain just goes up in smoke.
If the son then sells it for 152,000, it's only a $2,000 taxable gain...
FWIW, I hate calculating taxes. It is mind numbing. Our tax system is far, far too complex.
I got an "A" in that class, but would gladly sufferhaving a nail driven through my hand rather than take it again.
That actually isn't "passive agressive". Saying someone's logic is usually flawed is straighforwardly aggressive.
Get at least that much right.
You're right, saying that it's funny to me that you use "passive agressive" behavior on here on a daily basis clearly implies I was only talking about that one quote.That actually isn't "passive agressive". Saying someone's logic is usually flawed is straighforwardly aggressive.
Get at least that much right.
Get at least that much right.
Oh, and I don't really care to read your answer to my question since it will be the same as all your other answers, always skewed to the 'left', always condescending, and always an MSNBC talking point.
Peace.
LOL, climate change.
My answer is that you did about as much to "earn" that money as Paris Hilton did to earn hers.
and you about "en lements".
Furthermore,
If your father has that much money socked away, and is the COO of a major construction company, then he can damned well afford to buy some decent accounting advice, do some decent estate planning and mitigate the taxes paid.
More than likely he would end up hiring a "professional student" like myself.
Galling isn't it? People like you on education, then when it comes time to get down to the nuts and bolts, you are happy to fork over hundreds of dollars per hour for that expertise.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-10-2010 at 04:08 PM.
estate taxes is a load of horse
why not just allow them to pay the stamp duty from one name to another....
stamp duty?
Probably a reference to the stamp tax imposed by the British as part of their taxation of the American colonies.
Sorry, I don't buy that either.
"Waaaah, I only get $6,000,000 instead of $11,000,000".
Boo- ing-hoo, life sucks, get a helmet. (snorts)
You're right, I didn't earn that money, he did, and it's all his until he gives it to whomever he chooses, which happens to be his children. And since he already earned it, and it's his money since he already payed what the gov't asked him to, then why should they get more?My answer is that you did about as much to "earn" that money as Paris Hilton did to earn hers.
Uh oh, more assumptions made by you........link please.and you about "en lements".
Already being done, but that doesn't really have to do with what I was asking does it?Furthermore,
If your father has that much money socked away, and is the COO of a major construction company, then he can damned well afford to buy some decent accounting advice, do some decent estate planning and mitigate the taxes paid.
Nah, he doesn't like ass holes either.More than likely he would end up hiring a "professional student" like myself.
I on students who think they are professionals. I have a masters degree and this is the first I've ever mentioned it on this website. I also have a decade of "actual" experience in the workforce and from everything I've seen, it trumps all education.Galling isn't it? People like you on education, then when it comes time to get down to the nuts and bolts, you are happy to fork over hundreds of dollars per hour for that expertise.
Later
1) Your father is a badass
2) Who the do these s in dc think they are by claiming half of what he has earned. Last I check we arent ing commies.
3) The government wants every person to be a slave. We will never catch a break because we are not suppose too.
4) The dollar is molding more and more from something that the people own, into what the government uses to own the people.
The government wants us to spend every dime we make and take everything we dont.
I am still waiting for someone to state a good reason for this tax other than to us royally(no pun intended)
Last edited by The_Worlds_finest; 12-10-2010 at 07:23 PM.
The balls some of these mother ers have. RG, go yourself thinking it's ok to have an estate tax. Serioulsy, YOU!
I think the rich wing of the Republican party has bull ted the stupid wing of the Republican party to go along with opposing something that affects a vanishingly small percentage of people.
"There are two kinds of Republicans, millionaires and suckers".
The whole "family farms" schtick is an obvious ruse to play on people's emotions at the expense of the truth.
The truth is that the estate tax effects almost no one, but the very richest.
Seriously?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Ta...se-250-billion
Sorry, but I have little sympathy for the children of billionaires.The compromise tax bill worked out by President Obama and congressional Republicans would reinstate the tax for 2011 and 2012 with a $5 million exemption and a 35 percent tax rate. Though obviously a tax increase compared to what estates pay this year (i.e., nothing), that would be much less onerous for the wealthy than the $1 million exemption and 55 percent top tax rate that will take effect in January if Congress makes no changes. Absent congressional action, about 2 percent of estates would pay the estate tax (see red point on graph); under the compromise agreement, less than a tenth as many would owe anything (blue dot). That 0.2 percent would be the smallest percentage of estates owing tax since at least 1934 (other than 2010, when the one-year hiatus exempted every estate).
Those relatively few estates—just 3,600 by TPC estimate—would pay much less tax: an average of just over 14 percent of the estate’s value compared with about 19 percent if the law isn’t changed.
By the by, Paris probably got very little of her family's money. Seems grandpa left 97% of his fortune (2 or 3 billion) to his own father's charity, and not the 23 grandkids.
This may have been touched upon by others, but I figured I'd start a new dialogue with you RG, if I may.
Taxes, in my mind, should be as voluntary as possible, and should serve a specific purpose. The estate tax, to me, is deplorable. If you earn a certain amount in a lifetime, you are taxed on that. Cool beans. Then you decide to hand that off to your offspring, and your offspring is taxed again on that money.
But if it was taxed originally as a source of income, where does the justification for taxing the recipient again? He did not make that income, it was gifted to him. If I gift something to my wife for Christmas, the gov't doesn't make me give 8% of the gift when I hand it over. If I give my child a toy, I don't hand over an extra 8% when I give it to him. (etc etc)
Stepping in and demanding a "fair share" of what a person wishes to give to his parents also strikes me as cold. The passing of a loved one is obviously an intimate affair, and the gov't claiming a percentage of money saved for loved ones leaves me with a bad feeling. (I know this is based on an "ewww" feeling and thereby isn't the strongest argument, but felt I needed to air my biases.)
Why is money earned through your own hard work acceptable, but money passed down from parents who used hard work unacceptable?I agree, on all counts.
I also think that the only thing she did to deserve that claim is be lucky enough to have rich parents.
As such, that income should be differentiated from income earned at a job, and taxed accordingly.
Considering she's making about 10 million a year just to party (in appearance money) she's still doing OK...I think the rich wing of the Republican party has bull ted the stupid wing of the Republican party to go along with opposing something that affects a vanishingly small percentage of people.
"There are two kinds of Republicans, millionaires and suckers".
The whole "family farms" schtick is an obvious ruse to play on people's emotions at the expense of the truth.
The truth is that the estate tax effects almost no one, but the very richest.
Seriously?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Ta...se-250-billion
Sorry, but I have little sympathy for the children of billionaires.
By the by, Paris probably got very little of her family's money. Seems grandpa left 97% of his fortune (2 or 3 billion) to his own father's charity, and not the 23 grandkids.
As well, note that parents deliberately deny the utility of that money in order to pass it down to heirs. In effect, this seems to create a strange condition, whereby it would make more fiscal sense for the dying person to go on a shopping spree for their heirs before they died, instead of just passing along money. The person who buys stuff is penalized less than the one who passes down cash, yet both have the same end in mind (benefiting their heirs).
IIRC the law allows an individual to gift $13,000 per year per person without anyone paying any gift tax. If you have 10 heirs- kids, grandkids...- you can give away $130,000 per year or $1.3 M over 10 years without any tax at all.
You can also pay tuition for them without any gift tax on top of all of this.
All of this is simple without even creating trusts, which is what the wealthy do.
The problem is how most people handle the death of the first spouse. Often, the half of the estate that belonged to that spouse goes to the surviving spouse. The issue then arises when that person dies and the entire estate is in one name to be passed down at one time. If you have that much money, let the assets of the first spouse go instead into trust or to heirs other than the spouse. Then, when the second spouse dies, his or her estate is only half and may fall below the taxable limit, whereas the combined estate might not have.
Last edited by ploto; 12-16-2010 at 03:41 AM.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US tax system, but my thoughts are:
1) Isnt it easy to skirt around these regulations? For example, my wife's father passed away recently, he was quite wealthy for local standards (15M USD). he had 6 kids and his wife was alive. before dying, he basically bought houses, businesses, mutual funds, pensions for everyone and thus avoided inheritance taxes. Ok, if he had died unexpectedly there would have been taxes to pay, as it was IIRC the family payed about $800 of inheritance tax.
2) As life expectancy rises, and given that wealthy people have better access to medicine, as well as better access to lawyers and accountants, what happens when those really wealthy people live for 150, 180 years, and have no incentive to pass the wealth on to the next 3-4-5 generations under them? it seems to me the inheritance tax is to encourage old people to spend their money, on themselves or others, rather than sit on it. That doesnt seem like a bad thing to me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
